It's Time to Talk About Polygamy, the Woman's Vote & Political Strategy

[Silhouette]

Exactly what defines a person as a member of the "LGBT cult"? Is it anyone who does not actively demean homosexuality?

You ask the easiest quesitons to answer. The answer is "anyone who actively promotes the homosexual culture or lifestyle."

Actively demeaning something that deserves to be demeaned is not a bad thing. Aberrent behavior that harms the people themselves [HIV/AIDS from using the anus as an artificial vagina] or others [see my thread on inappropriate exposure of sexual acts in front of minors: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html should be demeaned, proudly and with vigor!

 

[Silhouette]

0% seems about right

I have yet to see a female Democratic voter get her panties in a wad over a nonexistant threat of polygamy sweeping the nation

You have to look at TeaTard women to do that

Very clever righty. You changed my question and hoped nobody would notice. Then you answered the strawman you created instead.

I'll ask it again: IF AFTER IT WAS ADVERTISED IN THE MEDIA THAT LEADING US LAWYERS WERE READY TO FILE APPEALS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO ALLOW POLYGAMY-MARRIAGE UPON THE INSTANT THE INK DRIES ON GAY MARRIAGE what percentage of women in the middle bloc would still support a party that supports legalizing gay marriage at the federal level?

0-100%? In other words, if all the citizens of the United States were appraised fully and completely that polygamy-marriage was a slam-dunk the instant if gay marriage gets federal mandating across the 50 states, how many middle-bloc women would support the party that supports gay marriage?

 

[WinterBorn]

Exactly what defines a person as a member of the "LGBT cult"? Is it anyone who does not actively demean homosexuality?

You ask the easiest quesitons to answer. The answer is "anyone who actively promotes the homosexual culture or lifestyle."

Actively demeaning something that deserves to be demeaned is not a bad thing. Aberrent behavior that harms the people themselves [HIV/AIDS from using the anus as an artificial vagina] or others [see my thread on inappropriate exposure of sexual acts in front of minors: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-forced-to-adopt-orphans-to-these-people.html should be demeaned, proudly and with vigor!

So your accusations should be against LGBTASEAS.

The LGBT And Straights Enjoying Anal Ssex cult.

Yes, I have seen your diatribes against gays. I find it laughable that you contend that someone who disapproves of condemnation of gays is somehow part of a "LGBT cult".

 

[rightwinger]

0% seems about right

I have yet to see a female Democratic voter get her panties in a wad over a nonexistant threat of polygamy sweeping the nation

You have to look at TeaTard women to do that

Very clever righty. You changed my question and hoped nobody would notice. Then you answered the strawman you created instead.

I'll ask it again: IF AFTER IT WAS ADVERTISED IN THE MEDIA THAT LEADING US LAWYERS WERE READY TO FILE APPEALS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO ALLOW POLYGAMY-MARRIAGE UPON THE INSTANT THE INK DRIES ON GAY MARRIAGE what percentage of women in the middle bloc would still support a party that supports legalizing gay marriage at the federal level?

0-100%? In other words, if all the citizens of the United States were appraised fully and completely that polygamy-marriage was a slam-dunk the instant if gay marriage gets federal mandating across the 50 states, how many middle-bloc women would support the party that supports gay marriage?

What part of 0% don't you understand?

There is no polygamous marriage in our near future. If there was, it would come through the courts not through any elective process.

Your biggest problem is thinking poygamy is somehow linked to gay marriage. Polygamy is a heterosexual relationship. NOBODY pushing gay marriage is pushing polygamy. That is a different group, mostly religious that wants it. Most polygamists oppose gay marriage

So....Your answer is ZERO percent of Democratic women would change their vote because of polygamy. 0%, ZERO, nothing, nada...got it?

 

[Silhouette]

So your accusations should be against LGBTASEAS.

The LGBT And Straights Enjoying Anal Ssex cult.

Yes, I have seen your diatribes against gays. I find it laughable that you contend that someone who disapproves of condemnation of gays is somehow part of a "LGBT cult".

*notices that Winterborn still hasn't addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy-marriage*

At least righty and Ash tar a had the guts to directly answer the question.

 

[WinterBorn]

So your accusations should be against LGBTASEAS.

The LGBT And Straights Enjoying Anal Ssex cult.

Yes, I have seen your diatribes against gays. I find it laughable that you contend that someone who disapproves of condemnation of gays is somehow part of a "LGBT cult".

*notices that Winterborn still hasn't addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy-marriage*

At least righty and Ash tar a had the guts to directly answer the question.

LOL! Do you think lying helps your cause?

 

[Silhouette]

So your accusations should be against LGBTASEAS.

The LGBT And Straights Enjoying Anal Ssex cult.

Yes, I have seen your diatribes against gays. I find it laughable that you contend that someone who disapproves of condemnation of gays is somehow part of a "LGBT cult".

*notices that Winterborn still hasn't addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy-marriage*

At least righty and Ash tar a had the guts to directly answer the question.

LOL! Do you think lying helps your cause?

Be specific when you accuse someone of lying. Lying about what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ok, let's pretend that this is actually a thing that might happen. Polygamists will jump out of the closet and demand to be married to their partners.

And?? What possible bearing does that have on you? How does the fact that 3 people or 4 people get married have to do with you?

The question of this thread is what bearing does it have on the middle bloc of women voters, not me. If you want to start a thread about what bearing it has on me, feel free. But before you get a warning, I suggest addressing the topic of the thread.

And please do stop dancing around offering up what percentage you're guessing of middle bloc women voters will shy away from a platform that will include polygamy? It's a number between 0-100%. I'll wait.

A warning? I have answered the question several times already. My answer is that there is no way to tell what percentage of middle bloc women voters will be effected. So any number offered up would simply be a guess pulled out of the blue, and so would be worthless.

And my comments do have a point. You opened the "slippery slope" area of the conversation. But unless polygamy has an effect on you (or the general population) the idea of a "slippery slope" has no relevance.

There is no relevance, because the only polygamy that would interest the middle class of women would be if underage girls were involved. But Sil won't be interested because that is only heterosexual in nature.

 

[gtarguy921]

Let's see ...... a relationship involving 3 or more consenting adults who's chosen lifestyle would in no way infringe on anyone else's rights.

So we need legislation protecting us from what, exactly?

 

[Silhouette]

There is no relevance, because the only polygamy that would interest the middle class of women would be if underage girls were involved. But Sil won't be interested because that is only heterosexual in nature.

For the puposes of this thread I am talking about legally-consenting adults. Now, rephrase the statement you just made taking that into account and then define how I am allegedly "lying" about polygamy following the precedent of LGBT behaviors unravelling marriage's traditional description.

Then,

Answer what you think normal middle bloc women voters will do when they visit the polls in 2014 & 2016 with regards to any party they believe is inadvertently or otherwise supporting polygamy-marriage. What % of them will support that party with their vote?

 

[WinterBorn]

*notices that Winterborn still hasn't addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy-marriage*

At least righty and Ash tar a had the guts to directly answer the question.

LOL! Do you think lying helps your cause?

Be specific when you accuse someone of lying. Lying about what?

When you claim I have not addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy, you lied. I have most certainly addressed both. Perhaps I did not answer as you wanted.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL! Do you think lying helps your cause?

Be specific when you accuse someone of lying. Lying about what?

When you claim I have not addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy, you lied. I have most certainly addressed both. Perhaps I did not answer as you wanted.

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

 

[Montrovant]

Be specific when you accuse someone of lying. Lying about what?

When you claim I have not addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy, you lied. I have most certainly addressed both. Perhaps I did not answer as you wanted.

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

He's said he doesn't have a number. He has no idea and doesn't think anyone else reasonably does. I believe that is what he meant when he said he's addressed this.

 

[Silhouette]

When you claim I have not addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy, you lied. I have most certainly addressed both. Perhaps I did not answer as you wanted.

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

He's said he doesn't have a number. He has no idea and doesn't think anyone else reasonably does. I believe that is what he meant when he said he's addressed this.

OK, yes, I get it. He doesn't want to address the question. His "new civil right" apparently is the right to be protected from reality if he doesn't want to confront it. No doubt he will rally supporters all around him to keep from being "bullied" into confronting reality on its [and not just his] terms.. His refusal to hedge a guess on the % of women who would support a platform that includes polygamy speaks more about any actual number he might have thrown out. And I get that if he threw out a number, it might alert democratic strategists that there is trouble in the kingdom. Wouldn't want them getting the idea that the LGBT agenda is sinking their ship now would we?

Of course we cannot believe rightwinger's absurd "0%" estimate. Naturally, some women will be quite put off and offended by the idea of hubby taking another younger, prettier wife legally so the number cannot be merely "0%".

I think actually that Ashtara's estimate of 60% is far more accurate. Though not for the strange reasons she cited. I think it's just a genetic thing, a woman wanting to keep a mate to herself. That way his resources won't be spread too thin and any children a woman has with him will stand a better chance of survival therefore. Monogamy might be a survival instinct. Certainly many bird species have figured out that equation and mapped it into their DNA.

 

[WinterBorn]

Be specific when you accuse someone of lying. Lying about what?

When you claim I have not addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy, you lied. I have most certainly addressed both. Perhaps I did not answer as you wanted.

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

I have said, repeatedly, that there is no way to know what that number will be, except to pull a number out of thin air. Whether someone else is willing to do so or not does not change that.

I have asked you how anyone would be able to get such a number, and you have not answered. I am not dodging anything. If you have some idea based on facts, please feel free to share it. Whether I said 100, 0, or 42.69748. None of those numbers are based on any relevant information.

 

[WinterBorn]

When you claim I have not addressed the topic or the question of % of women who would knowingly support polygamy, you lied. I have most certainly addressed both. Perhaps I did not answer as you wanted.

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

He's said he doesn't have a number. He has no idea and doesn't think anyone else reasonably does. I believe that is what he meant when he said he's addressed this.

Thank you.

 

[WinterBorn]

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

He's said he doesn't have a number. He has no idea and doesn't think anyone else reasonably does. I believe that is what he meant when he said he's addressed this.

OK, yes, I get it. He doesn't want to address the question. His "new civil right" apparently is the right to be protected from reality if he doesn't want to confront it. No doubt he will rally supporters all around him to keep from being "bullied" into confronting reality on its [and not just his] terms.. His refusal to hedge a guess on the % of women who would support a platform that includes polygamy speaks more about any actual number he might have thrown out. And I get that if he threw out a number, it might alert democratic strategists that there is trouble in the kingdom. Wouldn't want them getting the idea that the LGBT agenda is sinking their ship now would we?

Absolute nonsense. But if that is your contention, please offer any basis you have for a number? What facts do you have that address this specific issue and the percentage number you are so obsessed with?

Because unless you can offer some factual basis for a number, my contention stands.

 

[Montrovant]

For the number of middle bloc voting women against a party with a political platform that means polygamy-marriage Ashtara supplied a percentage # between 0-100, "60%". Rightwinger threw out "0%" What's your number? Not whether or not you think the question is relevant. That's a clear dodge bro.

He's said he doesn't have a number. He has no idea and doesn't think anyone else reasonably does. I believe that is what he meant when he said he's addressed this.

OK, yes, I get it. He doesn't want to address the question. His "new civil right" apparently is the right to be protected from reality if he doesn't want to confront it. No doubt he will rally supporters all around him to keep from being "bullied" into confronting reality on its [and not just his] terms.. His refusal to hedge a guess on the % of women who would support a platform that includes polygamy speaks more about any actual number he might have thrown out. And I get that if he threw out a number, it might alert democratic strategists that there is trouble in the kingdom. Wouldn't want them getting the idea that the LGBT agenda is sinking their ship now would we?

Of course we cannot believe rightwinger's absurd "0%" estimate. Naturally, some women will be quite put off and offended by the idea of hubby taking another younger, prettier wife legally so the number cannot be merely "0%".

I think actually that Ashtara's estimate of 60% is far more accurate. Though not for the strange reasons she cited. I think it's just a genetic thing, a woman wanting to keep a mate to herself. That way his resources won't be spread too thin and any children a woman has with him will stand a better chance of survival therefore. Monogamy might be a survival instinct. Certainly many bird species have figured out that equation and mapped it into their DNA.

You very much seem to have your own idea about this percentage you keep harping on about, and you also seem to think that anyone's answer that doesn't jibe with your own is a lie or misrepresentation. You do not appear to really want an honest discussion about this subject; rather you are waiting to use answers you disagree with to somehow try and denigrate the posters who give those answers, or make some point that requires you to first shoot down someone else's opinion.

If WinterBorn gives you a percentage it might alert Democratic strategists? Really? Maybe this thread belongs in the conspiracy theory section....

 

[Silhouette]

You very much seem to have your own idea about this percentage you keep harping on about, and you also seem to think that anyone's answer that doesn't jibe with your own is a lie or misrepresentation. You do not appear to really want an honest discussion about this subject; rather you are waiting to use answers you disagree with to somehow try and denigrate the posters who give those answers, or make some point that requires you to first shoot down someone else's opinion.

If WinterBorn gives you a percentage it might alert Democratic strategists? Really? Maybe this thread belongs in the conspiracy theory section....

Wrong.

Here's what I already said on this page about that percentage. Bear in mind that as a person I don't regard Ashtara highly either:

Of course we cannot believe rightwinger's absurd "0%" estimate. Naturally, some women will be quite put off and offended by the idea of hubby taking another younger, prettier wife legally so the number cannot be merely "0%".

I think actually that Ashtara's estimate of 60% is far more accurate. Though not for the strange reasons she cited. I think it's just a genetic thing, a woman wanting to keep a mate to herself. That way his resources won't be spread too thin and any children a woman has with him will stand a better chance of survival therefore. Monogamy might be a survival instinct. Certainly many bird species have figured out that equation and mapped it into their DNA.

If you're willing to stipulate that 60% is a good ballpark, we can move on to talking about why that is.

 

[Montrovant]

You very much seem to have your own idea about this percentage you keep harping on about, and you also seem to think that anyone's answer that doesn't jibe with your own is a lie or misrepresentation. You do not appear to really want an honest discussion about this subject; rather you are waiting to use answers you disagree with to somehow try and denigrate the posters who give those answers, or make some point that requires you to first shoot down someone else's opinion.

If WinterBorn gives you a percentage it might alert Democratic strategists? Really? Maybe this thread belongs in the conspiracy theory section....

Wrong.

Here's what I already said on this page about that percentage. Bear in mind that as a person I don't regard Ashtara highly either:

Of course we cannot believe rightwinger's absurd "0%" estimate. Naturally, some women will be quite put off and offended by the idea of hubby taking another younger, prettier wife legally so the number cannot be merely "0%".

I think actually that Ashtara's estimate of 60% is far more accurate. Though not for the strange reasons she cited. I think it's just a genetic thing, a woman wanting to keep a mate to herself. That way his resources won't be spread too thin and any children a woman has with him will stand a better chance of survival therefore. Monogamy might be a survival instinct. Certainly many bird species have figured out that equation and mapped it into their DNA.

If you're willing to stipulate that 60% is a good ballpark, we can move on to talking about why that is.

Um.....you seem to have just confirmed what I said. If I'm willing to stipulate 60% is a good ballpark, we can talk about it. If I have a different opinion, what, you will just ignore me?