Best
305 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    Here we go. Next a guy will be able to marry his refrigerator and a woman will be able to marry her cat. Families will never be regular in the future since they have been given over to liberal influences and unclean spirits. So doggone sad...
  • #5
    !
    Marraige is a union between two consenting party's
    (both male, female or male and female)
    Now about polygamy
    With them all being consenting adults..
    Why not?
  • #8
    !
    Come on now. Although marrying a refrigerator might be a "cool" thing to do, it can't sign the paperwork. And besides who wants to love with someone so frigid?
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    !
    I don't know. They would probably just "sit" there. Of course, in some cases there might be a little extra cushion for the pushin'.

    Baum Chicka bow bow.
  • R Load more replies

  • #286
    !
    Devalues us all? You realize this country was founded on personal Freedoms and Equality. This is the land of the Free and the home of the Brave. The US Constitution was founded on Separation of Church and State and Equal Rights and Due Process for all Americans. As American's we value Equal Rights under the Law. You speak of something other than American values, you speak of hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
  • #31
    !
    Gays rely heavily on indoctrination since they can't naturally procreate. They need government programs and legislation to make it seem acceptable or convince those who otherwise reject the life choice. And libs know and history shows socialism prospers when the family unit shatters.
  • #68
    !
    17% of heterosexual can't naturally procreate, so what is your point? Sexual Orientation is not a choice, it's an immutable characteristic. You may have chose to be straight, but I did not choose to be Gay. I've known since I was 8 years old. So grow up and be open minded or you will die on the wrong side of history. 58% of American's and 82% of adults under 30 support Same-sex Marriage. Peace
  • #224
    !
    @ThomasAlex Ah, the wrong side of history argument. Actually it's not an argument, it's a bullying tactic used by the pro homosexual crowd. I've got an idea. Let's put homosexual marriage up for a vote in each and every state. Let's see if your polls are correct.
  • #288
    !
    @RollinPapers So you must also think supporting slavery and being against interracial marriage is not on the wrong side of history? In 20 years, 95% of American's will support same-sex marriage. Which means anyone who use to not support it, was in fact on the wrong side of history. Looking back, you will be remembered as a bigot and anti-American. Lets put abortion, women's rights, interracial marriage, etc etc on the ballot in each state and see how they vote. The rights of the minority are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. This past election, 3 states legalized same-sex marriage at the ballot box and 1-Minnesota voted down a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. The 31 states that have bans on same-sex marriage, voted to do so in 1996. That's 17 years ago, so of course a lot has changed. Half of those states today, could not have passed them. Same-sex marriage support grows at 2.3% a year now. 61% of Californians now support same-sex marriage, when in 2008 only 48% did. Public opinion is changing at an alarming rate, the Courts and Politicians are just trying to catch up. Even Republican support is increasing, before the US Supreme Court heard two high profile same-sex marriage cases in March. 200 current and previous Republican Senators signed a brief urging the Court to find DOMA as unconstitutional.
  • #22
    !
    Gay marriage is being legalized in some states. And no, neither it nor polygamy should be legal. When gays figure out how to naturally have children, then we can talk about gay marriage being equal to marriage. pretty sure that would be a one sided debate.
  • #44
    !
    Marriage equals natural reproduction? Well I guess we better tell all the couples who've used in-vitro fertilization, those unable to reproduce for medical reasons, those old people who want to get married, those couples who don't want kids, and those couples who only adopt children that they can't be married or their marriage is less than yours. You have fun with that.
  • #95
    !
    @BostonRob What's that have to do with a perversion of natural order being sold as some kind of happy equivalent to the established norm?
    That is what the gay marriage debate is all about isn't it? Trying to force moral validation down the throats of the moral majority. Even the promised land of Cali. voted against gay marriage, didn't it?
  • #124
    !
    You are assuming that everyone that gets married has kids.

    Not all married couples have kids. So are the married couples that can't or decides not to have kids gay?
  • #157
    !
    17% of Heterosexual couples can't naturally procreate, yet you allow them to marry. The elderly can't procreate, yet you allow them to marry. 40% of couples choose not to have children, yet you allow them to marry. Procreation has never ever been a requirement for marriage.
  • R Load more replies

  • #38
    !
    There is nothing at all wrong with polygamy. As long as they're paying their own way I'm fine with it. There needs to be limits to public assistance paid to polygmist families so they're not just doing it to scam the system. Otherwise, fine by me.
    This just upsets uglier dudes and dudes without much money. They're afraid guys like George Clooney are going to go out and get 20 supermodels and cut them out from scoring with women they never had a chance with anyway.(don't worry, he's smart enough to stay single)
  • #91
    !
    @Firestorm I thought the original reason for marriage was to see what you could trade your daughter for. That way you pawn her off on someone before she gets knocked up out of wedlock and nobody wants her while you're stuck raising her bastard children. Instead you can trade her off and come to an arrangement with another family on sharing land or livestock. By doing this with the families of other relatives, wealthy families were able to keep that wealth in the family.
  • #98
    !
    @frigginhell That was the biggest reason. However, I was reading a lot of material on this subject. Some of the earliest records of marriage demonstrate that there was also a need to take the woman "off the market" so to speak. As she became the possession if one man, it may have reduced tribal fighting over individual females. It seems like it was sort of, Sold! Let no one else try to claim this woman.
  • R Load more replies

  • #117
    !
    What consenting adult wish to do is between the consenting adults and NO ONE ELSE. I'm not black, female, gay, a polygamist, pot smoker, smoker, drinker or a mexican but all of those people deserve equal rights under the law and protection from the small minded idiots that want to impose their religion on them.
  • #63
    !
    If any man is stupid enough to want more than one wife -let him do so .Besides,if I remember polygamy is biblical -so it ,alongside with stoning your disobedient child to death,must be a Godly practise .
  • #50
    !
    and see, this is where this path leads us,,,,,,,"its okay for them, why not us?"! so, to end all the nonsense we should NOT allow gay marriage for it is a sin and leads to bad behavior!
  • #19
    !
    If a man wants to support 5 wives and 25 kids, more power to him; but these things could get out of control if he suddenly takes off and leaves a bunch a women and kids behind to go on welfare.
  • #33
    !
    Wake up! The welfare line has been growing ten fold for over 50 years.
    Even Mr. Obama is a bastard child.(according to his "Birth certificate")
  • #181
    !
    Of the several I know of here in Missouri they all have some sort of public assistance- ais to dependent children, wic, unwed mothers support etc. The polygamist are playing the welfare system like a violin.
  • #258
    !
    @Bobolinsky nice argument going there. I forgot it was possible on Politix to engage in intelligent civil debate. rare apparently but possible. Again, almost makes me miss Goebel.
  • #156
    !
    This is not about polygamy at all. This is about the anti gay marriage folks artificially creating a slippery slope to get gay marriage stopped. These people will stop at nothing to spread their views and deny equal rights to gays and lesbians.
  • #149
    !
    First, I am not against polygamy. However comparing polygamy to gay marriage is apples to oranges. Legalizing gay marriage simply.removes gender from current marriage laws/requirements/benifits. Legalizing polygamy would require major changes to those laws/requirements/benifits. Just some examples include next of kin, inheritance, child custody, tax status and a lot more. Basically its a false equivalency.
  • #83
    !
    I thought with gay marriage there was supposed to be no "slippery slope"? And you mean there is? Who could have seen this coming. Marrying your Fridge..maybe.. people ask how because it can't consent? Just because it can't say yes also means it didn;t say no.
  • #84
    !
    How exactly if someone is somehow able to marry their fridge (which your capitalization of the word makes me think you are thinking about marrying it addressing it as a proper noun) would that harm you or effect you?
  • #143
    !
    @Libertyiskey Well how does my Fridge vote for president, how does it voice its opinion on foreign affairs, taxes, abortion. What does it stand for or against. It would harm me if its pro SSM.. Marriage is a public good. If you change the definition of marriage, you don’t just change it for the gay married couple down the street, you change it for everyone. If gay marriage is allowed, “then the state is essentially saying that my views on marriage, and the majority of Americans’ views on marriage, are equivalent to discrimination…It profoundly affects me if my children are taught in the schools that my views on marriage are bigoted. It profoundly affects me if the church that I’m part of is treated in the law as bigoted. And, ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true.”
  • #49
    !
    Can someone help me understand how King Solomon, the wisest man in the Bible had 500 wives and 600 concubines? Were the laws changed at some point to 1 man, 1 woman? Not trying to upset anyone, just looking for some information.
  • #48
    !
    They haven't even gotten gay marriage passed before they started wanting more. THIS is why it's been so hard to get gay marriage passed. Polygamy isn't like Big Love.
  • #58
    !
    I had reluctantly accepted gay marriage as inevitable but this just put me firmly against changing anything. Now I'm going to stick wit marriage being between one man and one woman.
  • #62
    !
    @AceLuby no it just made me realize this is why marriage shouldn't be changed. Once you do this is what happens. The gays should be furious with these people they just ruined it for them.
  • #69
    !
    @GvtMule Gay marriage doesn't change marriage as a contract. Polygamy would be an entirely new contract. Not at all the same thing. Also, 'these people' is a single author writing from a libertarian point of view and it would not surprise me to find out this person was using this argument to try an weaken the gay marriage argument for those that don't truly understand what the gay marriage argument is.
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    Don't bite your tongue, marriage is between one man and one woman, PERIOD. No matter how many liberals on this site get made and wish negative things upon me, I will not retreat nor apologize for defending the institution of marriage!
  • #72
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix Wrong, marriage is between consenting adults. You really should read your history. Same-sex marriage dates back over 3,000 years. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, and many American Indian Tribes all performed on condoned same-sex marriage. So Traditional, same-sex marriage is traditional Marriage. Now, if you get your definition from the Bible, God also said incest and polygamy were ok, but Interracial Marriage was not. Although, I might add the Bible does not mention Homosexuality or same-sex relationships/marriage. If you think Malakoi means homosexual, you're ignorant. Jesus used Malakoi to describe soft clothing, never was Malakoi used to describe Homosexuality. It wasn't until the Amplified Bible of 1958, that man grossly translated Malakoi to mean Homosexuality.. Peace
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #105
    !
    @ThomasAlex

    That Is not true. Jesus said the following.

    He answered and said to them,“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’“and said,‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’”(Matt. 19:4.)
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...
Post