Gun rights linked to pro-gay message on posters in Seattle. The left loses it.

[matefrio]

Oh, there's no way I would recommend it. One is too many.

Some men in the olden day Mormon communities had a summer house and a winter house keeping the infighting down.

 

[Younggun]

If legal, I don't think it would make a big difference. I don't know to many women that would go for it.

There are some gold diggers and some rich guys that would surround themselves with them but that's pretty much already going on anyways.

Worst case is all the women lookin for a street thug baby daddy hook up on one deadbeat to load up on the entitlement train. Course they are probably already living on our dollar so why difference would it make.

 

[matefrio]

Supply and demand are already whacked, and people who are rich enough already get as many women as they want. I really don't see how things would change.

yes, but now that's with infidelity. I think that young men who had yet to create their own wealth would have a more difficult time and that'd lead to problems.

 

[macshooter]

Some men in the olden day Mormon communities had a summer house and a winter house keeping the infighting down.

I'm not Mormon but my family goes back to the days when they pushed hand carts into the valley. Back then those folks were cut off from everything and had to make do with what they had or die. Had to have as many kids as possible cause many of them would die before they were old enough to help around the farm.

Anyways screw two houses, if'n they get too lippy jus get after'em with a switch.

 

[inceptor]

Anyways screw two houses, if'n they get too lippy jus get after'em with a switch.

Not me, my wife knows the combo to my gun safe. I prefer staying alive.

 

[macshooter]

Not me, my wife knows the combo to my gun safe. I prefer staying alive.

Ya gotta bring'em up like that from the time they're young for it to work. I hear you though. Mine don't even need to get into the safe, on account of the USP on her nightstand.

 

[AngeliaH]

And then ther are those who would look at the switch and go find ya a bigger one to use. Don't forget the wives would outnumber ya and eventually start plottin against you and your switch. (If they didn't kill each other first.)

Sent from ..........squirrel!!

 

[macshooter]

And then ther are those who would look at the switch and go find ya a bigger one to use. Don't forget the wives would outnumber ya and eventually start plottin against you and your switch. (If they didn't kill each other first.)

Sent from ..........squirrel!!

Yes'm, I reckon you're probly right. It's a funny world we're livin in to be sure.

 

[inceptor]

But the Bible says:

Isaiah 4:1 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace! NIV

So ya just never know.

 

[macshooter]

But the Bible says:

Isaiah 4:1 In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, “We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace! NIV

So ya just never know.

Hmmm....

Ah,

In that day so few men will be left that seven women will fight for each man, saying, "Let us all marry you! We will provide our own food and clothing. Only let us take your name so we won't be mocked as old maids."

Good Lord!

 

[stdreb27]

No, really. Why not polygamy? Serious question.

If it worked for gays it aught to work for polygamists....

 

[ZeR0BuG]

Haha

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Here is a point to ponder:

For the record I am one man, one woman in marriage. That said gay marriage, polygamy or maybe you want to marry your Trans Am 455 HO, or perhaps your bass boat? Do I care? Is it ANY of my business? The answer to both is NO. Then WHY are we allowing the FED Govt to manage and control marriages or any govt in fact?

Looking a bit deeper into this abyss we find that LBGT and now I am seeing and reading this with "Q" being added. What the Q stands for is Queer and this is meant to be an all encompassing category that includes 'OTHERS' of differing values. I read this in one of the trendy magazines in the dentist office last week.

What role does govt play in a marriage? Far as I am concerned...NONE! Perhaps our Bill of Rights should have included the right of all to chose a life mate and loved one as they see fit.

​

 

[breakingcontact]

Straight pride! This is just more incrementalism from the socialists to break down and control our society. There will be a "next group" pushed forward and demanding rights. It might be the pedos. Notice the story in Florida of the 18 year old girl and the 14 year old girl...about the least offensive form of "underage sex assault" or whatever the crime is right? Then there will be the next incremental march...then eventually you will be able to marry your trans am which is now post-op with a electric drive train because it had power plant identity issues.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I think some confuse society with government. The government has no place issuing licenses for religious and contractual obligations, both of which a marriage are. If government has the authority to regulate who can get married then tomorrow it also has the authority to tell you your marriage was invalid because it was performed in a church instead of at a JP.

My marriage is a holy sacrament and a promise before God. Having to go get a marriage license kind of irked me.

That being said, I'm not sure why gay people are so bent on getting a license from the government. You can accomplish all the same legal needs through a lawyer, and that will definitely cost less than a wedding. I don't get the desire to get the paper.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Straight pride! This is just more incrementalism from the socialists to break down and control our society. There will be a "next group" pushed forward and demanding rights. It might be the pedos. Notice the story in Florida of the 18 year old girl and the 14 year old girl...about the least offensive form of "underage sex assault" or whatever the crime is right? Then there will be the next incremental march...then eventually you will be able to marry your trans am which is now post-op with a electric drive train because it had power plant identity issues.

breaking you nailed it.

FACT: all societies for all time have had deviants (gays, lesbians, trannys etc). But its always been below the radar in most cases. But when the govt steps in and manages and controls and now authorized it then you have a society being broken down by purpose and plan.

The "Q" that has now been added to LGBT is IMO the wedge that has been inserted by NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc) For years they were kept hidden and for many years their website was being constantly moved so only members could find it. They are well funded and very active in politics. In short their goal is to have man boy homosexual contact at ANY AGE. They want the age and consent barriers torn down.

When I talk to my lawyer friends they see no REASON why this is not going to happen in the future. As one put it: 'You cannot approve of one deviation, homosexuality, and not sooner or later approve of all others, its just a question of time and a Supreme Court Case...

​

 

[macshooter]

I think some confuse society with government. The government has no place issuing licenses for religious and contractual obligations, both of which a marriage are. If government has the authority to regulate who can get married then tomorrow it also has the authority to tell you your marriage was invalid because it was performed in a church instead of at a JP.

My marriage is a holy sacrament and a promise before God. Having to go get a marriage license kind of irked me.

That being said, I'm not sure why gay people are so bent on getting a license from the government. You can accomplish all the same legal needs through a lawyer, and that will definitely cost less than a wedding. I don't get the desire to get the paper.

Some are well aware of that, but their purpose is to destroy the institution of marriage. If they redefine it in such a way that it can mean anything, then it means nothing.

Marriage is the building block of the family. With strong families people can rely on each other for help, and don't need to depend on the govt. Outside the family people can rely on charity of religious/other organizations. Those things need to be destroyed before the only other option is for people to rely on the govt. Once people are dependent on the govt, the govt has the power to control behavior.

Some gay folks are happy to destroy the institution of marriage to get back at society. Some are happy to embrace socialism just to get revenge for being outcasts.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I agree marriage is a key building block of society. I disagree that its defined by a license. Its defined as a sacrament, by God. I don't understand why many that are very religious so often want to use the law, when we know that a true understanding of family comes from faith and is in our hearts.

If we want to really protect marriage we should abolish tax laws based on marriage (e.g. Income Tax) and get rid of its licensing all together. Then government can never "sanction" gay marriage.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

I agree marriage is a key building block of society. I disagree that its defined by a license. Its defined as a sacrament, by God. I don't understand why many that are very religious so often want to use the law, when we know that a true understanding of family comes from faith and is in our hearts.

If we want to really protect marriage we should abolish tax laws based on marriage (e.g. Income Tax) and get rid of its licensing all together. Then government can never "sanction" gay marriage.

RIGHT ON! We now have Govt controlled and managed marriage, nothing but wrong!!

​

 

[macshooter]

Used to be that the govt saw marriage as the basic building block of a strong society and wanted to encourage it. Hence the tax breaks for being married and having kids.

Personally I think it's a bad deal for guys. Woman gets tired of you and splits with half your money/shit which she is legally entitled to. I can see the utility of it for raising kids, but the seriousness of the commitment has to come from the couple. No laws will keep a family together if the two that start it aren't serious about staying together. That all comes from societal values that have worked (more or less) for centuries, but now we have decided those ideas are backward and stupid and we need to move "forward" with new ideas, like socialism.

I keep seeing this new american airlines commercial that says you can't move forward if you keep clinging to the past or some crap like that. I want to say "Yeah, **** the past. **** math. Who the hell needs that medieval shit? And **** the laws of aerodynamics too. That shit is 100 years old already. Time to move "forward."

People are so fucking stupid...[/rant]