moonbattery logo

Jul 03 2015

That Didn’t Take Long: Now Comes Polygamy

Hold on for a wild ride; down the slippery slope we slide:

Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood [Montana] family is now looking to solidify rights of its own. …

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality. Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” said Nathan.

Sound familiar?

You might argue that this marriage is actually uphill on the slippery slope from homosexual travesties. But we’ll get downhill soon enough to extremes of perversion previously undreamt of.

Nathan-Collier
Nathan Collier and his expanding family.

On tips from seaoh, Jester, Ken in Florida, and DinaRehn.



  • Why not just have a whole gaggle of Bath House gays marry? Perhaps a baker’s dozen of homos all marrying each other because they are all ‘IN LURVE’.

  • Tchhht!!!

    Right, and make that a Christian baker’s dozen…or else.

  • Tchhht!!!

    Right, and make that a Christian baker’s dozen…or else.

  • jayeS

    Will it work for me? I want 4 husbands! 🙂

  • jayesouthworth

    Will it work for me? I want 4 husbands! 🙂

  • Henry
  • Henry
  • Son_of_Taz

    I figure any guy that wants multiple wives must be a glutton for punishment. /lol

  • Eddie_Valiant

    I figure any guy that wants multiple wives must be a glutton for punishment. /lol

  • Doom

    Hmm? Polygamy has a place in history, and is fruitful. The only place I have seen the notion that a man should have only one wife is when the early church suggested (and it was just a suggestion) that bishops only have one wife. Some suggest that Jesus put in a limit when He said that only one man and one woman could marry. But that wasn’t the truth of it. In His day, men commonly, usually, had more than one wife. A younger brother was expected to marry an elder brother’s widow. And if a woman couldn’t have children, she had a moral obligation to find a childbearing wife for her husband to keep his name alive, to carry on his line. And, it was done for ease of the wives and such.

    There is a huge difference between polygamy and “gay marriage”. There simply is not precedence of the latter. There shouldn’t be any tolerance at all. Regardless of what they say, the Romans and Greeks were quite intolerant, as have all societies, until this one. Pagan, secular, monotheistic, until the fools of now here, and slightly before in Europe. Know them by their fruits. Hemorrhoids or children, I pick those who produce children.

  • Doom

    Hmm? Polygamy has a place in history, and is fruitful. The only place I have seen the notion that a man should have only one wife is when the early church suggested (and it was just a suggestion) that bishops only have one wife. Some suggest that Jesus put in a limit when He said that only one man and one woman could marry. But that wasn’t the truth of it. In His day, men commonly, usually, had more than one wife. A younger brother was expected to marry an elder brother’s widow. And if a woman couldn’t have children, she had a moral obligation to find a childbearing wife for her husband to keep his name alive, to carry on his line. And, it was done for ease of the wives and such.

    There is a huge difference between polygamy and “gay marriage”. There simply is not precedence of the latter. There shouldn’t be any tolerance at all. Regardless of what they say, the Romans and Greeks were quite intolerant, as have all societies, until this one. Pagan, secular, monotheistic, until the fools of now here, and slightly before in Europe. Know them by their fruits. Hemorrhoids or children, I pick those who produce children.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    You make good points. There is plenty of history documenting polygamy (both the pros and cons). Gay marriage is an idea without historical precedent.

    From a religious point of view, God never destroyed a society because they engaged in polygamy. Can’t say that about homosexual activity.

  • Mr. Freemarket

    You make good points. There is plenty of history documenting polygamy (both the pros and cons). Gay marriage is an idea without historical precedent.

    From a religious point of view, God never destroyed a society because they engaged in polygamy. Can’t say that about homosexual activity.

  • marcus tullius cicero

    …Afraid that Polygamy will result in accelerated inbreeding…Take a look at Muslims…Newton’s 3rd/half Law, proves my point!

  • marcus tullius cicero

    …Afraid that Polygamy will result in accelerated inbreeding…Take a look at Muslims…Newton’s 3rd/half Law, proves my point!

  • Ramblin Rose

    They will probably win the case. The same-sex marriage ruling knocked out all the constitutional arguments against it. Supporters of same-sex marriage have knocked the moral foundation out from under arguments against polygamy; after all, love is love. If two people love each other and want to marry, why not three or more?

  • Ramblin Rose

    They will probably win the case. The same-sex marriage ruling knocked out all the constitutional arguments against it. Supporters of same-sex marriage have knocked the moral foundation out from under arguments against polygamy; after all, love is love. If two people love each other and want to marry, why not three or more?

  • Smith and Wesson and Me

    I’d drive with you any day to the county clerk in Billings 😉

  • Smith and Wesson and Me

    I’d drive with you any day to the county clerk in Billings 😉

  • Smith and Wesson and Me

    It will never make it as far as the SCOTUS for that would make liberals throw three-year-old tantrums if it did.

  • Smith and Wesson and Me

    It will never make it as far as the SCOTUS for that would make liberals throw three-year-old tantrums if it did.

  • FLIRT! (sneaks a smooch on your cheek). lol

  • formwiz

    Ah, but the queers don’t want to share the pie, it seems.

    Let them all fight it out.

  • formwiz

    Ah, but the queers don’t want to share the pie, it seems.

    Let them all fight it out.

  • 762×51

    Since the SCOTUS ruling is, in and of itself unconstitutional, it has no force of law.

    The SCOTUS manufactured this “right” out of moonbeams and unicorn farts, just ask Antonin Scalia. Assholes who go around saying stupid shit like “it’s the law” are part of the problem and are your enemies just as surely as Barack Obama is your enemy. It is NOT the law because SCOTUS does not have the Constitutional authority to make it law out of thin air.

    You cannot simultaneously obey rules that strike at the foundation of your beliefs and opposed them. You either violate your core principles in which case they are no longer your core principles, or you stand by those core principles and fight.

    I will not obey their laws
    I will not surrender.

  • 762×51

    Since the SCOTUS ruling is, in and of itself unconstitutional, it has no force of law.

    The SCOTUS manufactured this “right” out of moonbeams and unicorn farts, just ask Antonin Scalia. Assholes who go around saying stupid shit like “it’s the law” are part of the problem and are your enemies just as surely as Barack Obama is your enemy. It is NOT the law because SCOTUS does not have the Constitutional authority to make it law out of thin air.

    You cannot simultaneously obey rules that strike at the foundation of your beliefs and opposed them. You either violate your core principles in which case they are no longer your core principles, or you stand by those core principles and fight.

    I will not obey their laws
    I will not surrender.

  • TED

    Long TIME FOR THE LEFT!

  • TED

    Long TIME FOR THE LEFT!

  • TED

    LIBERALS can’t LOVE anyone! ONLY agendas!

  • TED

    LIBERALS can’t LOVE anyone! ONLY agendas!

  • John Yaeger
  • John Yaeger
  • Doom

    The reason muslims have a problem with polygamy, or everything really, isn’t because polygamy is a problem, it’s because their beliefs are. Put a sun-baked retrograde with a penchant for murder (the Charles Manson of his day) in charge of drafting a religion, and you’ll get what you get. Jews, and other groups, have done very well with polygamy, given the limits, so long as there were basic objective truths and rules and those were kept. Those of islam? About the only thing they all seem to agree upon is that the hand is better than toilet paper. Not exactly a group to trust to handle human husbandry well no matter the context. For example, most people are peaceful. The vast majority of wars occurring, at any time since their beginning, involve muslims. War honestly is an unnatural state for man, it’s is only a fallen man that knows war, and a totally broken man who loves war or knows nothing else.

    If you want to give them a little anti-dhimmitude? When introduced, force them to shake your left hand. I mean, before they see it coming, when their hand is out, shoot your left hand right in there. Squeeze tight! Use your right hand to hold their hand. Shake like you mean it. Maybe even write a poem to the wonders of toilet paper, keep it in your space if they happen through. Somewhere prominent. Always shake with your left, if they are muslim.

  • Doom

    The reason muslims have a problem with polygamy, or everything really, isn’t because polygamy is a problem, it’s because their beliefs are. Put a sun-baked retrograde with a penchant for murder (the Charles Manson of his day) in charge of drafting a religion, and you’ll get what you get. Jews, and other groups, have done very well with polygamy, given the limits, so long as there were basic objective truths and rules and those were kept. Those of islam? About the only thing they all seem to agree upon is that the hand is better than toilet paper. Not exactly a group to trust to handle human husbandry well no matter the context. For example, most people are peaceful. The vast majority of wars occurring, at any time since their beginning, involve muslims. War honestly is an unnatural state for man, it’s is only a fallen man that knows war, and a totally broken man who loves war or knows nothing else.

    If you want to give them a little anti-dhimmitude? When introduced, force them to shake your left hand. I mean, before they see it coming, when their hand is out, shoot your left hand right in there. Squeeze tight! Use your right hand to hold their hand. Shake like you mean it. Maybe even write a poem to the wonders of toilet paper, keep it in your space if they happen through. Somewhere prominent. Always shake with your left, if they are muslim.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy