National Day of Support for...

[Townsend]

I've never really considered that to be honest and it's a good question.  Polygamy has been "socially acceptable" for thousands of years in many societies.  I could see where it could become ripe for abuse if it were allowed in the United States.

There again, people have said gays just want to game the benefits system with gay marriage as if hetero couples haven't considered the financial and survivorship benefits of marriage.  Mrs. C and I certainly didn't "have" to get married at our age.  We really are THAT committed to each other, but I'd be lying if we didn't discuss the legal benefits of marriage before we decided to do it, certainly not the only reason we did tie the knot but it was a consideration at least.

I've wondered about the marriage thing many times.  

Polygamy's not for me.  I'd freakin' snap if I had another wife.

My thing is, if the commitment is already there, your God thing is thrown in between you, the only thing left (if you really need it) is for someone besides yourselves to recognize it.  I don't really see many chances for someone to F that up, gay or straight, unless you allow it.

That being said, it sounds to me that all these folks freaking out about gay marriage must not have much confidence in their relationships.

[Gaspar]

Meh. . .and I thought the Dixie Chicks thing was stupid. People should be free to believe the way they want to believe and be free to speak of their beliefs without threat from government.   People should also be free to support or boycott a business for whatever reason they choose.

Where it crosses the line is where government officials (Rahm "Lets Destroy Chicago" Emanuel, and others) penalize or infringe on an individual's right to free speech by "banning" a business because of the beliefs of it's leadership.  That fits the definition of intolerance.

There are many businesses that I won't visit because I don't agree with where the money goes, and I am free to share my feelings with others, but I have no intension of launching a campaign of hatred, threatening, or misusing the force of government to infringe on the rights of those individuals, their employees, or their investors.

I agree with Conan, the entertaining part of this is the use of the term tolerance.  Chick-fil-a's CEO believes in traditional marriage and other biblical stuff, and some of its leadership is Christian.  They do not discriminate against anyone in hiring, they provide money to numerous charities and make a delicious albeit expensive little chicken sandwich.  Because Liberals cannot tolerate anyone who defines anything differently than they do, they launch a massive effort to "Shut Down" Chick-fil-a.  And liberal government leaders ILLEGALLY pledge to throw the force of government behind it by being obstructionist.  It's rather amusing, and sadly silly to watch.

Liberals should probably stop buying gasoline that comes form most of the OPEC countries.  I hear they believe in traditional marriage, AND many of them even kill homosexuals.  

If only their was an abundant source of Canadian, gay friendly oil?. . .

[Townsend]

Meh. . .and I thought the Dixie Chicks thing was stupid. People should be free to believe the way they want to believe and be free to speak of their beliefs without threat from government.   People should also be free to support or boycott a business for whatever reason they choose.

Where it crosses the line is where government officials (Rahm "Lets Destroy Chicago" Emanuel, and others) penalize or infringe on an individual's right to free speech by "banning" a business because of the beliefs of it's leadership.  That fits the definition of intolerance.

There are many businesses that I won't visit because I don't agree with where the money goes, and I am free to share my feelings with others, but I have no intension of launching a campaign of hatred, threatening, or misusing the force of government to infringe on the rights of those individuals, their employees, or their investors.

I agree with Conan, the entertaining part of this is the use of the term tolerance.  Chick-fil-a's CEO believes in traditional marriage and other biblical stuff, and some of its leadership is Christian.  They do not discriminate against anyone in hiring, they provide money to numerous charities and make a delicious albeit expensive little chicken sandwich.  Because Liberals cannot tolerate anyone who defines anything differently than they do, they launch a massive effort to "Shut Down" Chick-fil-a.  And liberal government leaders ILLEGALLY pledge to throw the force of government behind it by being obstructionist.  It's rather amusing, and sadly silly to watch.

Liberals should probably stop buying gasoline that comes form most of the OPEC countries.  I hear they believe in traditional marriage, AND many of them even kill homosexuals.  

If only their was an abundant source of Canadian, gay friendly oil?. . .

You realize the amount of kettle v pot there is in there?

The gasoline thing?  The conservatives buying from OPEC countries are supporting anti-christian ideals.

[Conan71]

you mean just your word was not enough to be committed?

Actually going through the spiritual sacrament of marriage and executing the legal contract of it implies a bigger or more permanent commitment to some people.  To others it doesn't.

[swake]

Out of curiosity, do you think it needs to be between just two people?  (I'm not throwing animals in here, just consenting adult humans)  If so, from a socially acceptable view or due to insurance/taxation etc.?

I have thought a lot about that. Much of the world does allow plural marriage and various religions allow it. It's all through the bible. Theoretically I would not be against it so long as it involved only consenting adults in non arranged marriages that involve no monetary consideration. If plural marriage meant that there were equal numbers of marriages with multiple men as women there I would have no issue but that's not how it happens. In places where you are allowed multiple spouses it's always multiple wives which creates big problems.

Only the men with the money to support multiples wives (and the resultant increase in the number of children) are the ones that have multiple wives. This first lowers the potential pool of wives for men with less money. Second, it devalues women because it creates a culture where a single man is worth many women. The first problem is very bad, it creates an underclass of men with few potential mates sex starved and lonely. And angry. The second problem is even worse because women are little more than property to be bought if you have the money.

Tell me this doesn't explain a lot of the problems Islamic world.

Unlike with gay marriage I think there are real world non-religious based reasons to be against plural marriage.

[Gaspar]

You realize the amount of kettle v pot there is in there?

The gasoline thing?  The conservatives buying from OPEC countries are supporting anti-christian ideals.

You don't get it.  Who cares.  If the individual consumer wishes to boycot a company, they should be free to do so.  It is not the role of government to limit the rights of an individual or company because of the beliefs or speech or sexual preference, or race, or eye color of that group.

This was just another issue of Liberal intolerance until liberal politicians got involved and began to pledge actions that are ILLEGAL!  You can't use the power of government to infringe on the rights of people because you disagree with their religion, or their personal beliefs.

It's not that difficult to understand.

[Townsend]

You don't get it.  Who cares.  If the individual consumer wishes to boycot a company, they should be free to do so.  It is not the role of government to limit the rights of an individual or company because of the beliefs or speech or sexual preference, or race, or eye color of that group.

This was just another issue of Liberal intolerance until liberal politicians got involved and began to pledge actions that are ILLEGAL!  You can't use the power of government to infringe on the rights of people because you disagree with their religion, or their personal beliefs.

It's not that difficult to understand.

You'll make up all sorts of crap to post and make yourself feel superior in your belief system.  

Someone has a deferring opinion to yours you give a "who cares?"

Such a grumble.

edited to say:  Dammit, I fell for it.  What you meant to say was "Who cares what Gaspar has to say about politics or finance?  It's a big pile of pucky and you're wasting your time reading it."

I'll read your grilling ideas though.

[Gaspar]

The silver lining is that some of the more logical liberals are starting to understand, but that does not change the fact that the lesser politicians will still engage ignorant emotional majority of their constituency and set precedents that are damaging to this country.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/chik-fil-a-homophobes-have-rights-too

Edited: to remove the term liberal because it was offensive and confusing to some.

[Townsend]

I have thought a lot about that. Much of the world does allow plural marriage and various religions allow it. It's all through the bible. Theoretically I would not be against it so long as it involved only consenting adults in non arranged marriages that involve no monetary consideration. If plural marriage meant that there were equal numbers of marriages with multiple men as women there I would have no issue but that's not how it happens. In places where you are allowed multiple spouses it's always multiple wives which creates big problems.

Only the men with the money to support multiples wives (and the resultant increase in the number of children) are the ones that have multiple wives. This first lowers the potential pool of wives for men with less money. Second, it devalues women because it creates a culture where a single man is worth many women. The first problem is very bad, it creates an underclass of men with few potential mates sex starved and lonely. And angry. The second problem is even worse because women are little more than property to be bought if you have the money.

Tell me this doesn't explain a lot of the problems Islamic world.

Unlike with gay marriage I think there are real world non-religious based reasons to be against plural marriage.

On Phlox's world the men and women all had multiple partners.  He had 7 wives and his wives had multiple husbands.

Whatever floats the canoe.

[AquaMan]

The silver lining is that some of the more logical liberals are starting to understand, but that does not change the fact that the lesser liberal politicians will still engage ignorant emotional majority of their constituency and set precedents that are damaging to this country.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/chik-fil-a-homophobes-have-rights-too

So, Gasler, what about the people married to lesser liberals? Or their children and grandchildren who are part liberal? Major ignorant emotional half liberals, quarter liberals. How far down the line does it go before they are pure enough to be considered normal, you know conservative enough?

We need to know so these people can be accurately classified and denied Chick-fil-a employment or food service.

[Townsend]

John Goodman, as the Colonel, on Funny or Die.  There's an S word near the end so heads up.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86050c415/kfc-loves-gays-with-john-goodman

[Teatownclown]

Actually going through the spiritual sacrament of marriage and executing the legal contract of it implies a bigger or more permanent commitment to some people.  To others it doesn't.

Ah, but whadda bout the contract? The contract is what gay marriage is all about. What about those contracts? You do know this country was built on contract law...and on rock and roll.

"I would slave to learn the ways to sink your ship of fools" Garcia/Hunter

[Gaspar]

So, Gasler, what about the people married to lesser liberals? Or their children and grandchildren who are part liberal? Major ignorant emotional half liberals, quarter liberals. How far down the line does it go before they are pure enough to be considered normal, you know conservative enough?

We need to know so these people can be accurately classified and denied Chick-fil-a employment or food service.

My apologies. Let me clarify.  I am using two adjectives and I see where one can be confused.  What I mean is to apply the term "lesser" to the term politician.  After I post this I will remove the term liberal because there are "lesser" politicians on all sides.  A lesser politician is one who is interested in motives other than to serve his constituency.

[Gaspar]

Nice gesture.  It was over 110 today, and the line of cars went all the way down Memorial for Chic-fil-a.  There were a few protesters with signs that demonstrated they had no idea what they were protesting. 

The protesters were not prepared for the heat, so Chic-fil-a provided them with unlimited free beverages and supported their rights to free speech.  KRMG posted this photo.

[Townsend]

It was over 110 today, and the line of cars went all the way down Memorial for Chic-fil-a. 

That's because we're in Tulsa.  Have you noticed the crazy in this state and what it does to people?

Also, we can't seem to put down our processed chicken parts.