Don't say we weren't warned.

[HenryBHough]

I knew a gal like that but I can't remember which board she was on. She had a partner (female) but had the hots for yet another female friend...which was friends with both of them. They wanted a 3 way "union". And they all had kids. I thought...what are the kids going to think...knowing mommy and mommy and mommy all slept together in the same bed.

They found time for sleep????

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, society changes over time.

 

[Howey]

I find it interesting because some were adamant that polygamy and other alternative forms of family configurations would never be an issue if same-gender unions were permitted. So, if these three women are permitted their "marriage" (that's what they consider their union to be), why not allow polygamy. As long as all parties are in agreement, what difference does it make.

Naked apes like to ****. Simple fact. In whatever arrangement suits them at the moment. Other naked apes, not getting any, like to object to whatever arrangement that the naked apes that are getting some make.

And I don't give a shit about any of it. Their business, not mine.

I agree with most of what you've said here. But I would pose a question.
Why is "their business" always making national news? Of course, they are usually the first to squall when anyone else disagrees with or criticizes "their business". Doesn't stop them from making a public side-show of "their business", does it?

"Their business" hasn't made the national news. "Their business" made a British gossip paper that was picked up by various fringe blogs and homophobic websites and then posted on Web forums by indignant homophobes such as you.

Incredibly, we wouldn't know about "their business" if it wasn't for you posting this inane thread.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Naked apes like to ****. Simple fact. In whatever arrangement suits them at the moment. Other naked apes, not getting any, like to object to whatever arrangement that the naked apes that are getting some make.

And I don't give a shit about any of it. Their business, not mine.

I agree with most of what you've said here. But I would pose a question.
Why is "their business" always making national news? Of course, they are usually the first to squall when anyone else disagrees with or criticizes "their business". Doesn't stop them from making a public side-show of "their business", does it?

"Their business" hasn't made the national news. "Their business" made a British gossip paper that was picked up by various fringe blogs and homophobic websites and then posted on Web forums by indignant homophobes such as you.

Incredibly, we wouldn't know about "their business" if it wasn't for you posting this inane thread.

And yet, you're here...still?

 

[Montrovant]

I will repeat this: I could really care less. What I find repugnant is that they feel they should somehow be "special" because of their arrangement. Apparently, the press feels so, too. But why would society be expected to accept a "throuple" and not a polygamous family group? While only two are legally "married", the third has been "handfasted" to the relationship through legal documentation (read: contract). Now, here's another question; if "handfasting", or the initiation of a contract such as this suffices to legitimize a "throuple", why would such a contract not have been sufficient for other alternative contractual pairings?
Why should I not be able to list my livestock on my tax form as dependents? After all, I house, feed, and provide health care for all of them, don't I? Or is it a prerequisite that one have sexual relations in order to sue for special consideration?

I am unaware of any reason another polygamous grouping cannot use the same type of contract. That is why it is important to remember that the three women are not actually married.

I'm consistently amazed at people jumping from romantic or contractual pairings between humans to similar agreements with animals or inanimate objects. If you cannot see why there is a huge difference between those things, I honestly question whether you should be able to enter into such a contract yourself. It is not a prerequisite that you have sexual relations, it IS a prerequisite that a dependent be human, so far as I'm aware.

But who knows? Perhaps there is some legal loophole which would allow you to declare livestock as dependents. You should look into that.

Actually, for tax purposes, livestock can be considered depreciable assets.

Hopefully there is no way for a human being to be considered a depreciable asset. Maybe a prostitute is a depreciable asset of her pimp?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Judge carefully, kids. Lest ye be judged.

Jus' sayin'​

 

[gallantwarrior]

I am unaware of any reason another polygamous grouping cannot use the same type of contract. That is why it is important to remember that the three women are not actually married.

I'm consistently amazed at people jumping from romantic or contractual pairings between humans to similar agreements with animals or inanimate objects. If you cannot see why there is a huge difference between those things, I honestly question whether you should be able to enter into such a contract yourself. It is not a prerequisite that you have sexual relations, it IS a prerequisite that a dependent be human, so far as I'm aware.

But who knows? Perhaps there is some legal loophole which would allow you to declare livestock as dependents. You should look into that.

Actually, for tax purposes, livestock can be considered depreciable assets.

Hopefully there is no way for a human being to be considered a depreciable asset. Maybe a prostitute is a depreciable asset of her pimp?

First, I've never seen "prostitute" on that list.
Second, we give our dependents other designations in order to glean tax benefits. Hence this entire brouhaha about who gets to "marry" whom and what type of bonded relationships should be acceptable. If there was no money in it, most of these people would continue in the same vein they always have.

 

[Againsheila]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

Yeah, they are. On of them is technically "handfasted" to the other two to make it legal, but they are married to each other.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Congratulations to the happy moms.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There's nothing new here. IVF has been around for many years.

And, funny that some revile these women but there are TV "reality" shows about polygamous morms with a couple dozen illegitimate kids.

I don't see anyone here wetting their pants over that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

Yeah, they are. On of them is technically "handfasted" to the other two to make it legal, but they are married to each other.

They represent themselves as "married" to each other. They have formulated legal documentation that is equivalent to "marriage", affording all of them the same protection and privileges.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...except they're not all married to each other.
Apart from that your post is totally...ya knooowww...like, really true...?

Yeah, they are. On of them is technically "handfasted" to the other two to make it legal, but they are married to each other.

They represent themselves as "married" to each other. They have formulated legal documentation that is equivalent to "marriage", affording all of them the same protection and privileges.

Nonsense.

A family lawyer drew up paperwork - in terms of assets, wills and legal rights to children - to bind them all together as much as they could without an actual three way marriage.

Which is appropriate given the fact there is no such thing as ‘three-way marriage.’ And because the contract created does not conform to the contract law that governs marriage in their state, they are not ‘married,’ and not afforded the same protection and privileges.

This confirms the fact that the OP is wrong and a demagogue, where the right of same-sex couples to marry has nothing to do with the women in the cited article, and will in no way result in ‘three-way marriage.’

 

[idb]

Yeah, they are. On of them is technically "handfasted" to the other two to make it legal, but they are married to each other.

They represent themselves as "married" to each other. They have formulated legal documentation that is equivalent to "marriage", affording all of them the same protection and privileges.

Nonsense.

A family lawyer drew up paperwork - in terms of assets, wills and legal rights to children - to bind them all together as much as they could without an actual three way marriage.

Which is appropriate given the fact there is no such thing as ‘three-way marriage.’ And because the contract created does not conform to the contract law that governs marriage in their state, they are not ‘married,’ and not afforded the same protection and privileges.

This confirms the fact that the OP is wrong and a demagogue, where the right of same-sex couples to marry has nothing to do with the women in the cited article, and will in no way result in ‘three-way marriage.’

We'll be able to marry our pets next...or our cars...or trees.
Or a pet AND a tree in a three way marriage abomination!

Oh where, oh where will it end?!!!

 

[Noomi]

One chink in the dyke and it's off to the races, a no holds barred, anything goes free-for-all. As long as it feels good, go for it.

Married lesbian threesome expecting their first baby in July | Mail Online

They are not all married to each other. They merely live together and sleep together. No biggie.