Posted on 09/13/2014 5:10:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Perhaps it is good old Heshem. Hard to say for sure though. In TV appearances the nose was usually wrinkled up in what some might interpret as disdain for those nearby. I always reckoned it just stink from her upper lip.
Kelly on Fox gave Kohn multiple opportunities to shine. Apparently not enough glimmer. First Kohn, then Ayers and most recently Churchill. Kelly’s taste doesn’t go much beyond her mouth.
Marry sisters.
Gay polygamy? Bathhouse Barry will be fully engaged in this one.
In today’s society a man is taking a huge liability by marrying just one woman. Most marriages end in divorce. Even if the woman is unfaithful and worthless she gets half. Polygamy is just stupid squared. Unless both partners are equal in wealth, marriage is not a good proposition, especially for older men.
Pre-nuptial agreement.
From the article:
Wrong. The gays and lesbos were quite happy to tell everyone 40 years ago how they wanted to change the definition of marriage. In order to destroy it, of course. ALSO, they were happy to announce they wanted to jump on children too.
From the 1972 Gay Rights Platform ( http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm ):
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
ISLAM
The horror of polygamy - the man and woman who stay together BOTH having to give up property and money to the one who left.
Or polygamy becoming legal, and long time mistresses or on again / off again relationships lead to someone suing for a share of the marital property, inheritance from the dead guy, part of his retirement account, etc.
Some lib married a redwood?
Once they have ruled that marriage doesn’t really mean anything, I don’t see how they would legally stop polygamy.
I can’t see what the legal reasoning would be, once the door has been opened.
It’s just a matter of the first few court cases, imo.
And the horror of a state condoned marriage to an animal. If the animal is treated and malpractice is charged, the veterinarian will have to defend a lawsuit for significant damages for more value than just the property value of the animal. The state will also have to consider medical care for the animal spouse and medicare if the animal is left alone when the human spouse dies.
“In today’s society a man is taking a huge liability by marrying just one woman. Most marriages end in divorce. Even if the woman is unfaithful and worthless she gets half.”
Yeah, but who can one blame for marrying a worthless, and unfaithful women?
It makes more sense than homo marriage...which is unnatural.
I’ve said for years that it would be polygamy first, then the pets, then the neighbor’s children. The naturalists/atheists say there is no creator. If no creator then no basis for moral law. No moral law means anything goes.
If you believe 2 people of the same sex can be married to each-other, then you have to believe one man can be married to as many people and animals and he wants because its all about how he feels isn’t it? It has nothing to do with God, or children(family), or tradition.
Honestly if you believe 2 people of the same sex can be marred to each-other that believe alone puts into question your own capability to be married because obviously you don’t have a clue what marriage is. Therefore you cannot be engaged in that which you know not what.
But setting that technical issue aside, if that is your idea of ‘marriage’ then it must also necessarily include animals and as many other people as a man, woman, animal, plant, or child can feel the ‘sensation of love’ for. Which of course is no more a definable number than it is a verifiable condition.
LOL
“I’ve said for years that it would be polygamy first, then the pets, then the neighbor’s children. The naturalists/atheists say there is no creator. If no creator then no basis for moral law. No moral law means anything goes.”
I agree, if you want to re-define marriage on a foundation of emotion, rather than God, children(family), and tradition then there is can can be no logical or meaningful bounds to that definition or union. The institution itself is thus meaningless and ultimately dead.
It should be pointed out, that people who define marriage in such a way really aren’t capable of the union for that reason alone, because you can’t possibly be engaged this kind of union if you don’t know or accept what it is.
That is like saying your a mathematician who refused to accept the concept of numbers.
The barn door has been opened so to speak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.