What's new
By:

Enter Sanman

Sloanfeld said:
When Archie asked if you were a Mormon you didn't answer him.
Click to expand...

You don't follow the camaraderie around here, remember? Man up. In fact, take some lessons in manliness from Fat Trainer (Giovanni Velluti) and my new friend Sporus. Ask again when you have been fully versed.

You're starting to sound like sarisim. Seriously. Or, do you prefer סריס?
 
Millsapa said:
Christine and Carl Paladino both ran as Republicans...not 3rd party candidates.
Click to expand...

Do I really have to spell everything out for you? In both cases the Tea Party hijacked the Republican Party and they ended up presenting a candidate that was less likely to win the general election. Whether it happens on the Republican ticket or happens as a third party candidate is of minor consequence.

To my original point, Lazio still probably would have lost the general election for NY Governor but The Tea Party flat cost the Republicans a seat in the Senate when they trotted out that wack bag in Delaware.
 
candrew said:
Do I really have to spell everything out for you? In both cases the Tea Party hijacked the Republican Party and they ended up presenting a candidate that was less likely to win the general election. Whether it happens on the Republican ticket or happens as a third party candidate is of minor consequence.

To my original point, Lazio still probably would have lost the general election for NY Governor but The Tea Party flat cost the Republicans a seat in the Senate when they trotted out that wack bag in Delaware.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party is in touch with America; Washington is not. This so-called hijacking was rode like a wave by the Republican establishment and now they are ticked off that Tea Party candidates actually turned out to be who they said they were going to be. Hijacked my behind.

The Tea Party is the only element of sanity in Washington and is saving all of us from the debt binge disaster created and fully supported by both parties. You obviously don't like it, but you will thank us later. It is for your own good.
 
Millsapa said:
I'd like to hear more about your thinking on the Anti-Christ.
Click to expand...

You're gonna have to trust me on this one. Although Santorum is far too evil to be the actual Anti-Christ, because the Anti-Christ is supposed to be a "deceptive Christlike figure" and nobody is going to confuse Santorum with Jesus Christ... nobody.
 
franklin said:
I realize you are just stirring the pot and all, but this is as warn out as they come. If you're trying to be funny then you need at least a small element of cleverness. This contains less than zero cleverness. In fact, these words are a leach virus sucking cleverness from the universe. You have become the Jockalysp cleverness event horizon. Congratulations on rehearsing the 29th oldest joke in the book. funny ha ha. Seriously, J.E.H., nobody really gives a damn about polygs. Not Mormons, not non-mormons, not anti-mormons, not we-don't-want-gay-marriage-because-it-leads-to-polygamy-and-beastiality-and-stuff-anti-gay-Mormons, not anyone... except the Big Love money machine. So don't bother my huge brain with such tiresome inquiries. Save those for the simpletons who you find around campfires laughing at fart jokes.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Dude, I was being dead serious! I really don't understand why it isn't allowed. Especially from those who support gay marriage. I think anybody who is a consenting adult human should be able to marry whomever they want! If you choose to marry 6 people fine. If you choose to marry someone married to 5 other people, fine.

Seriously, why is it such a big deal?

I'm sorry to ruffle your (or anyone else's) feathers. That sincerely was NOT my intention.

You can still come to my birthday party, and I hope I will be welcome at yours.
 
JSL said:
I really don't understand why it isn't allowed. Especially from those who support gay marriage.
Click to expand...

We already have the legal apparatus in most states to deal with gay marriges/unions (divorce law, inheritance law, next-of0kin determinaitons, etc.). Much of that will become much, much trickier under plural marriages.

If you are in a mutual marriage with three otherr people, are you in one marital contract or three? Can you divorce one of the spouses but no the other two? Who is the default next-of-kin for legal purposes? Could you be owed alimony by one spouse while needing to pay it to another, and if you are not paid, do you still owe?

I have no principle against adults entering into plural marriages, but it may not be practical.
 
One Brow said:
We already have the legal apparatus in most states to deal with gay marriges/unions (divorce law, inheritance law, next-of0kin determinaitons, etc.). Much of that will become much, much trickier under plural marriages.

If you are in a mutual marriage with three otherr people, are you in one marital contract or three? Can you divorce one of the spouses but no the other two? Who is the default next-of-kin for legal purposes? Could you be owed alimony by one spouse while needing to pay it to another, and if you are not paid, do you still owe?

I have no principle against adults entering into plural marriages, but it may not be practical.
Click to expand...

A lot of things we do aren't practical. Plenty of money is spent to try to figure out how to make it work. Often an arbitrary line is needed after some careful consideration. It probably won't make everyone happy, but why deny everyone who would choose to enter into that type of relationship?

For example, instead of no one can drink alcohol, no one under 21 can. It's fairly arbitrary, not everyone agrees with it, and we spend lots of money enforcing it, but for the most part, it works for people.
 
JSL said:
For example, instead of no one can drink alcohol, no one under 21 can. It's fairly arbitrary, not everyone agrees with it, and we spend lots of money enforcing it, but for the most part, it works for people.
Click to expand...

Do you think a complelling case for preventing drinking by younger people can be made? How about a compelling case for legalizing benefits among plural marriages?
 
One Brow said:
Do you think a complelling case for preventing drinking by younger people can be made?
Click to expand...

Sure. But its fairly arbitrary when deciding what is too young. Many countries have much more lax drinking restrictions and it works out just fine.

How about a compelling case for legalizing benefits among plural marriages?
Click to expand...

If I'm a company paying for health insurance for my employees sure. But should we limit the number of kids a person can have on the same principle?
 
JSL said:
Sure. But its fairly arbitrary when deciding what is too young. Many countries have much more lax drinking restrictions and it works out just fine.
Click to expand...

No argument there.

JSL said:
If I'm a company paying for health insurance for my employees sure. But should we limit the number of kids a person can have on the same principle?
Click to expand...

You may have misread me. Do youhave a complelling case *in favor of* legaling plural marri marriages?
 
franklin said:
Save those for the simpletons who you find around campfires laughing at fart jokes.
Click to expand...

Hey, some of my fondest memories growing up and camping involve a good fart fest. Do not equate a lame Mormon polyg joke with farts. It does a good fart grave disservice.
 
JSL said:
Yes. The same reason gays should be allowed to marry. Let any consenting adult marry whoever they choose.
Click to expand...

Why should there be more than one allowed, given the legal hurdles that need to be addressed?
 
Because if others get to marry who they want, so should those who choose multiple spouses/a spouse with other spouses.

I think the better question is why not? If there's no compelling reason to restrict freedom, why do it?

Legal hurdles needed to be addressed with "regular" marriage at some point too.
 
JSL said:
Because if others get to marry who they want, so should those who choose multiple spouses/a spouse with other spouses.
Click to expand...

They can still marry any individual they want.

JSL said:
I think the better question is why not? If there's no compelling reason to restrict freedom, why do it?
Click to expand...

The issue then becomes how compeling teh complications involved in plural marriages, legally, are.

JSL said:
Legal hurdles needed to be addressed with "regular" marriage at some point too.
Click to expand...

They already have been.
 
The-Joker said:
You're gonna have to trust me on this one. Although Santorum is far too evil to be the actual Anti-Christ, because the Anti-Christ is supposed to be a "deceptive Christlike figure" and nobody is going to confuse Santorum with Jesus Christ... nobody.
Click to expand...

You description of the anti-Christ sound like B. Hussein Obama, especially since Jesus was half black.

How can you be "too evil" to be the anti-Christ?

Is the anti-Christ supposed to be a political figure?
 
One Brow said:
They can still marry any individual they want.
Click to expand...

Thats like saying a gay man can get married cause he can marry a woman. The fact is they can't marry whoever they want once they already have one spouse. They can't have another even if they both want to. Why?

The issue then becomes how compeling teh complications involved in plural marriages, legally, are.

They already have been.
Click to expand...

So why not do that for everyone instead of discriminating against those who choose something different?
 
I don't think there should be any restrictions on marriage at all except age. No marrying 14-year-olds, crap like that, but otherwise anything goes. Want to marry your girlfriend and her 4 sisters? Go for it! Want to marry a goat? Go for it! Want to be the 5th husband of some rich hottie (male or female)? Go for it! Care to marry a lawnmower? Go for it! Although in that case you would be marrying an illegal immigrant most likely and that is a touchy legal issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top