Lushbo - funny and completely predictable

[Luddly Neddite]

No you don't. Because when someone does, you ignore it.

Pardon me if I missed your response.

Did you agree that a man should be able to have 116,326 wives if he damn well pleases, then?

Sure, as long as all those women are of sound mind and can freely consent. I don't care how many wives someone has, it doesn't impact me. Good luck to him though as one is tough enough.

Consenting adults - that's what pubs are trying so hard to destroy. Some, like sniper, want government to have total control, as though we are ll children of the all-powerful state.

 

[Avatar4321]

Rush is wrong. obama's war isn't on marriage, it's on Christianity.

I can't believe I am asking this... (would you all believe my account is being hacked?)... but seriously, what has he done to prosecute a war on Christianity? Come out in favor of telling the American people to keep their noses out of other people's private lives?

There are a lot of Christians, myself included who believe that God loves homosexual sinners just as he loves me, the chief of sinners.

I truly don't see this war on Christianity by President Obama. Maybe that can be said about certain atheists, but Obama isn't participating.

Immie

Thank you...one who understands the depths of God's love.

You do realize that merely agreeing with you isnt any indication that one understand the depths of God's love. Immie does, of course. But there are many who disagree with your viewpoint who do as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

No you don't. Because when someone does, you ignore it.

Pardon me if I missed your response.

Did you agree that a man should be able to have 116,326 wives if he damn well pleases, then?

Sure, as long as all those women are of sound mind and can freely consent. I don't care how many wives someone has, it doesn't impact me. Good luck to him though as one is tough enough.

The question isnt whether he should be able to or not. The question is whether the government should regulate those relationships.

 

[Immanuel]

Give us a compelling reason that government can discriminate based on number of wives and husbands.

That compelling reason is that we have a definition of marriage, which is between one man and one woman.

Evolution, you know.

Now answer the question this time instead of ducking.

If we are to redefine it marriage, why should we use YOUR re-definition and not that of the sheepherder?

Although I agree that marriage is only between one man and one woman, I am not sure that you can legitimately make such a claim as "we have a definition of marriage". Such would assume that everyone agrees with that definition and I don't think you can say that.

Immie

Well, you can always find exceptions to what people agree with. We are talking about the vast proponderence of what culture and society has given us over evolution of same.

Okay, I can give you that point. However, I still don't think "we" (meaning all Americans living today) have agreed on the definition of marriage.

For the record, as you probably already know, I support civil unions for all because the government should not be playing favorites nor am I in favor of the government interfering in the rites of the church. I also believe that if a particular denomination should choose to marry homosexual couples that is the right of that particular denomination.

Immie

 

[RDD_1210]

Pardon me if I missed your response.

Did you agree that a man should be able to have 116,326 wives if he damn well pleases, then?

Sure, as long as all those women are of sound mind and can freely consent.

Thank You!!! I appreciate your candor.

Would you agree that your position on multiple wives is the only valid position which one who seeks to redefine the definition of marriage can possibly have if one is serious about keeping 'government out of the bedroom'?

I feel that if someone is going to make a case that homosexuals marrying each other has no impact on others than the same rule should be applied to polygamy. Unless there is some valid reason why polygamy shouldn't be allowed, I don't see it as any different.

Now will you discuss why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry each other? What reason is there for denying that ability?

 

[SniperFire]

Pardon me if I missed your response.

Did you agree that a man should be able to have 116,326 wives if he damn well pleases, then?

Sure, as long as all those women are of sound mind and can freely consent. I don't care how many wives someone has, it doesn't impact me. Good luck to him though as one is tough enough.

Consenting adults - that's what pubs are trying so hard to destroy. Some, like sniper, want government to have total control, as though we are ll children of the all-powerful state.

Ah. You agree that a man having 32,123 wives is just fine, then.

I pursued this, of course, because anyone such as yourself who seeks to redefine marriage must do so to be inclusive of others who may feel their 'rights' are restricted as well - namely, the polygamists.

So here is the question.

Is it right for Obama to advocate gay 'marriage' and yet not advocate polygamy?

Or, by advocating gay 'marriage' laws, is he necessarily advocating a reinstatement of polygamy across the Nation?

 

[Ed Spacer]

I'm tired of peoples fucked up personal sexual preferences trying to set a precendent to ruin traditional and natural balances.

 

[SniperFire]

Sure, as long as all those women are of sound mind and can freely consent.

Thank You!!! I appreciate your candor.

Would you agree that your position on multiple wives is the only valid position which one who seeks to redefine the definition of marriage can possibly have if one is serious about keeping 'government out of the bedroom'?

I feel that if someone is going to make a case that homosexuals marrying each other has no impact on others than the same rule should be applied to polygamy.

Excellent. Should Obama be advocating polygamy if he is going to advocate gay 'marriage'?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sez President Obama has declared war on marriage. Meanwhile, Ann Romney appeared on one of the morning talk shows wearing a $190 t-shirt. And how about those cute scooters they got so they can zip around the new 57 room mansion? Can't expect them to hike all the way to the car elevators.

Obviously, the romneys are just like the rest of us and have a perfect understanding of the day to day problems and issues we face.

Comforting, ain't it.

I don't think that the President has declared war on marriage.

I believe that his dopey Veep just forced him to announce what he was going to say, anyway, just sooner than had been planned.

I also don't give a crap about the issue.

But it is amusing to me that the muddly.dullwit thread headline has almost nothing to do with his post and that his post has almost nothing to do with Rush or the topic of gay marriage.

So, the thread evolved in a different direction than my op.

So what?

And if you really don't care, why so many troll posts?

Don't like the op or the posts? Golly gee, it's not like you're being forced to read or write.

 

[bodecea]

Sure, as long as all those women are of sound mind and can freely consent. I don't care how many wives someone has, it doesn't impact me. Good luck to him though as one is tough enough.

Consenting adults - that's what pubs are trying so hard to destroy. Some, like sniper, want government to have total control, as though we are ll children of the all-powerful state.

Ah. You agree that a man having 32,123 wives is just fine, then.

I pursued this, of course, because anyone such as yourself who seeks to redefine marriage must do so to be inclusive of others who may feel their 'rights' are restricted as well - namely, the polygamists.

So here is the question.

Is it right for Obama to advocate gay 'marriage' and yet not advocate polygamy?

Or, by advocating gay 'marriage' laws, is he necessarily advocating a reinstatement of polygamy across the Nation?

You want our government to allow polygamy, go through the steps that have been gone throught to allow gay marriage. I could care less. I won't stop it....but I'm not going out to push for it either. I am indifferent.

 

[Steelplate]

I can't believe I am asking this... (would you all believe my account is being hacked?)... but seriously, what has he done to prosecute a war on Christianity? Come out in favor of telling the American people to keep their noses out of other people's private lives?

There are a lot of Christians, myself included who believe that God loves homosexual sinners just as he loves me, the chief of sinners.

I truly don't see this war on Christianity by President Obama. Maybe that can be said about certain atheists, but Obama isn't participating.

Immie

Thank you...one who understands the depths of God's love.

You do realize that merely agreeing with you isnt any indication that one understand the depths of God's love. Immie does, of course. But there are many who disagree with your viewpoint who do as well.

Not if they are filled with venom and anger.

 

[Ed Spacer]

Complete bullshit.its the fabric of socialism being used to destroy the core of our society by upsetting balances and traditions.
Example one of the reasons the Roman empire fell was because of homosexuality.
this is part of the core destruction of our values

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm tired of peoples fucked up personal sexual preferences trying to set a precendent to ruin traditional and natural balances.

I'm sick of the pubs voting for bigger and bigger govt, more control of citizens and fewer civil rights.

 

[RDD_1210]

Thank You!!! I appreciate your candor.

Would you agree that your position on multiple wives is the only valid position which one who seeks to redefine the definition of marriage can possibly have if one is serious about keeping 'government out of the bedroom'?

I feel that if someone is going to make a case that homosexuals marrying each other has no impact on others than the same rule should be applied to polygamy.

Excellent. Should Obama be advocating polygamy if he is going to advocate gay 'marriage'?

If it was an actual issue, then yes he should be consistent. Why did you delete my question and ignore what I asked you....again? I've answered all of your questions and like I said earlier, you have decided to ignore me. Lame.

 

[SniperFire]

Consenting adults - that's what pubs are trying so hard to destroy. Some, like sniper, want government to have total control, as though we are ll children of the all-powerful state.

Ah. You agree that a man having 32,123 wives is just fine, then.

I pursued this, of course, because anyone such as yourself who seeks to redefine marriage must do so to be inclusive of others who may feel their 'rights' are restricted as well - namely, the polygamists.

So here is the question.

Is it right for Obama to advocate gay 'marriage' and yet not advocate polygamy?

Or, by advocating gay 'marriage' laws, is he necessarily advocating a reinstatement of polygamy across the Nation?

You want our government to allow polygamy, go through the steps that have been gone throught to allow gay marriage. I could care less. I won't stop it....but I'm not going out to push for it either. I am indifferent.

Excellent. Thanks for admitting that you could care less about it. More Americans need to understand that Leftist freaks are really talking about destroying the institution of marriage alltogether.

 

[RDD_1210]

Complete bullshit.its the fabric of socialism being used to destroy the core of our society by upsetting balances and traditions.
Example one of the reasons the Roman empire fell was because of homosexuality.
this is part of the core destruction of our values

Actually the Roman empire fell because of Aliens...and I do mean the Mexican variety. True story.

 

[Liability]

I'm tired of peoples fucked up personal sexual preferences trying to set a precendent to ruin traditional and natural balances.

I'm sick of the pubs voting for bigger and bigger govt, more control of citizens and fewer civil rights.

muddly.dullwit MUCH prefers having the Dims vote for bigger and bigger government and more and more control over citizens and the elimination of actual rights.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thank You!!! I appreciate your candor.

Would you agree that your position on multiple wives is the only valid position which one who seeks to redefine the definition of marriage can possibly have if one is serious about keeping 'government out of the bedroom'?

I feel that if someone is going to make a case that homosexuals marrying each other has no impact on others than the same rule should be applied to polygamy.

Excellent. Should Obama be advocating polygamy if he is going to advocate gay 'marriage'?

More muddying the real subject with non-issues.

 

[SniperFire]

I feel that if someone is going to make a case that homosexuals marrying each other has no impact on others than the same rule should be applied to polygamy.

Excellent. Should Obama be advocating polygamy if he is going to advocate gay 'marriage'?

If it was an actual issue, then yes he should be consistent.

You are saying there are not people out there right now who would like to have multiple wives?

Should Obama let all of the polygamists out of jail right now?

 

[bodecea]

Ah. You agree that a man having 32,123 wives is just fine, then.

I pursued this, of course, because anyone such as yourself who seeks to redefine marriage must do so to be inclusive of others who may feel their 'rights' are restricted as well - namely, the polygamists.

So here is the question.

Is it right for Obama to advocate gay 'marriage' and yet not advocate polygamy?

Or, by advocating gay 'marriage' laws, is he necessarily advocating a reinstatement of polygamy across the Nation?

You want our government to allow polygamy, go through the steps that have been gone throught to allow gay marriage. I could care less. I won't stop it....but I'm not going out to push for it either. I am indifferent.

Excellent. Thanks for admitting that you could care less about it. More Americans need to understand that Leftist freaks are really talking about destroying the institution of marriage alltogether.

I love how you equate "I could care less because I don't believe in sticking my nose in other people's business" with "destroying the institution of Marriage". Goes to show your desire to CONTROL others.