3-way Marriage. Are you pulling for it?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 5:55 PM GMT
    Once California strikes down the one woman/one man marriage as unconstitutional the legal precedent will be wide open for legal polygamy.

    I know happy gay triples. I also know gay guys that spend more time with their "girlfriends" then their guy friends. Then there is the male gay couple that wants a woman to bear their children.

    There seems to be a need to completely re-define marriage other than one-on one. What are you needs/thoughts about redefining legal relationships.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 6:06 PM GMT
    First, I do not think this will set a legal precedent. Legal marriage is being rightly redefined to not be gender specific. No precedent is being made in terms of number of people involved, in fact there is quite a significant body of precedent against polygamy.

    But, I ultimately would like to see marriage as simply a legal union between any body. That way the threesomes, the two old spinsters, anyone can enter into such a union. In fact, it sort of sounds like an LLC. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 6:46 PM GMT
    Islam is the fastest growing demographic trend in several "western " Christian countries for instance France, Sweden, therefore change will come. Southern France is 30% Muslim in the ""breeder" population. The Christian Bible contains precedent for polygamy so don't try to down play the effects this will have on white people's morality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 7:05 PM GMT
    I'm hoping one day we'll move beyond marriage to nullify it, and allow any willing, consenting adult to enter a civil union with whomever and however many people they want.

    Keep marital status in the church where it belongs. Keep it out of our government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 7:13 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidIslam is the fastest growing demographic trend in several "western " Christian countries for instance France, Sweden, therefore change will come. Southern France is 30% Muslim in the ""breeder" population. The Christian Bible contains precedent for polygamy so don't try to down play the effects this will have on white people's morality.


    Doubtless there is abundant social precedent, but that is very different from legal precedent. Though, all too often, one informs the other.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Oct 27, 2008 7:20 PM GMT
    Let's get two person marriage in every state before going further.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 9:24 PM GMT
    oh good heavens, I don't even wanna marry one, let alone two, how much of a pain in the arse would two guys be, do you know how often I'd get asked where stuff is then.. GAWD no, there freaking useless.. no, no I don't want even one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 9:36 PM GMT
    I don't think it's for me and I'm not really "pulling for it", per se, but from my perspective and experience there's no non-religious reason to deny it, save for the complicated government paperwork that it'd be bound to introduce. But then again, government organizations thrive on complicated paperwork.

    MunchingZombie saidin fact there is quite a significant body of precedent against polygamy.

    Could you cite some?
    <--curious, not picking a fight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 9:38 PM GMT
    God no I'm not pulling for it. Its creepy enough when people are in polyamorous relationships, much less marriages. I don't stay friends with people very long who are in polyamorous relationships, its just too weird.
  • metta

    Posts: 39133

    Oct 27, 2008 9:54 PM GMT
    I wish that this topic would wait until after the election. I think that it is fine to discuss this or any other topic for that matter. But to discuss it just prior to this election can be used to hurt us. We don't need anything like this to give them more ammunition. There are enough people out there trying to harm us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 11:24 PM GMT
    I dunno, government sanctioning of polygamous relationships seems fraught with perils & complications. So say I'm in a polygamous "marriage" with two other men. I fall into PVS. Which person has my power of attorney? Ok, say they have joint power of attorney. But they disagree. One says to pull the plug, the other says to keep me alive. How do we resolve this? I am in a marriage with a man and a woman. I die. Who then has legal authority over my children, the woman who bore them, or the man I'm living with? Can I divorce just one spouse, or does the entire union need to be resolved. Can I only enter in a union with 2 or more people at the same time, or can I add on more people as I see fit? If I join with one person, then at a later time, does the first partner take priority, or are they equal in the eyes of the law?

    Personally, I don't see a problem with polyamorous relationships. I just think legally, they'd be quite treacherous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 11:32 PM GMT
    This argument is what gives the Pro 8 people ammunition to go against gay marriage. I think marriage should be between two individuals and that's about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 11:35 PM GMT
    "Once California strikes down the one woman/one man marriage as unconstitutional the legal precedent will be wide open for legal polygamy."

    Oh? Please provide the text of the law that would allow such a thing. Currently, in CA, same sex marriage is allowed, two sex marriage is allowed. Polygamy is illegal. You know something that people with both hemispheres of the brain don't know?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 11:53 PM GMT
    im not pulling for it but id be supportive of it.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 27, 2008 11:53 PM GMT
    ival around Christmas.

    metta8 saidI wish that this topic would wait until after the election. I think that it is fine to discuss this or any other topic for that matter. But to discuss it just prior to this election can be used to hurt us. We don't need anything like this to give them more ammunition. There are enough people out there trying to harm us.




    Them? Who is it you are talking about? The Morman's may have ulterior motives. Not everyone in this world is flat out naive. They could be funding just enough of the "For Prop 8" to actually cause the Anti-Prop 8 people to rally big time against traditional marriage. They may want the shakeup of the definition of marriage to further their polygamy traditions.

    I think it is a hoot that now that my town has banned public creches the local Morman temple has a creche festival around Christmas.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 12:00 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidival around Christmas.

    metta8 saidI wish that this topic would wait until after the election. I think that it is fine to discuss this or any other topic for that matter. But to discuss it just prior to this election can be used to hurt us. We don't need anything like this to give them more ammunition. There are enough people out there trying to harm us.




    Them? Who is it you are talking about? The Morman's may have ulterior motives. Not everyone in this world is flat out naive. They could be funding just enough of the "For Prop 8" to actually cause the Anti-Prop 8 people to rally big time against traditional marriage. They may want the shakeup of the definition of marriage to further their polygamy traditions.

    I think it is a hoot that now that my town has banned public creches the local Morman temple has a creche festival around Christmas.




    hahahaha,

    im sure tons of "them" are reading threads on realjock and are gonna use it against us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 12:03 AM GMT
    Texian saidCould you cite some?
    <--curious, not picking a fight.


    Of course. Now, I have only ever done legal research a couple times before, so I am not sure how to gather the best resources. I apologize for quality of my links.

    Tom Green

    There is the prosecution of a pastor in Indiana

    Another one in Texas

    and asking people to show there work is not picking a fight, it is good edict in a discussion. icon_biggrin.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 12:40 AM GMT


    Alpha13 said,

    "Once California strikes down the one woman/one man marriage as unconstitutional the legal precedent will be wide open for legal polygamy."

    The US must be very very different from all the other countries where gay marriage is permitted, including our Canada.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 12:55 AM GMT
    i think people should stop trying to dictate the morals and religion of others.

    be it mono, poly, or void. too many people seem to get their nut over forcing their beliefs on others. if the other party has a capable and mutual belief or feeling between themselves, let it be.

    those of you who denigrate a poly relationship, a gay relationship, or etc, and avoid contact with such, you're being close-minded. they've simply taken their friendship to an intimate level. some people are fully capable of being emotionally involved with more than one person. there's nothing wrong with it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 1:02 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidOnce California strikes down the one woman/one man marriage as unconstitutional the legal precedent will be wide open for legal polygamy.

    I know happy gay triples. I also know gay guys that spend more time with their "girlfriends" then their guy friends. Then there is the male gay couple that wants a woman to bear their children.

    There seems to be a need to completely re-define marriage other than one-on one. What are you needs/thoughts about redefining legal relationships.


    Thats why you would call it a union but not a marriage. You cannot just up and change the Bible terminology of marriage because it is not ours to change. Besides a lot of people do not want to be associated with Christian beliefs so why try to redifine something such as marriage. Just let whoever wants to be joined together be unionized LOL. That is all it really is anyway especailly if you get the same benefits as a man and woman.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 1:12 AM GMT
    Chizzad said

    Thats why you would call it a union but not a marriage. You cannot just up and change the Bible terminology of marriage because it is not ours to change. Besides a lot of people do not want to be associated with Christian beliefs so why try to redifine something such as marriage. Just let whoever wants to be joined together be unionized LOL. That is all it really is anyway especailly if you get the same benefits as a man and woman.


    Which is why the state should stop using marriage in its legal functions and only recognize unions. The way marriage is now, it's like the church's own little toehold into the government. They act like they own the term and ritual too. If it has that distinction, why not other religions or philosophies have the same honor?

    As long as all parties involved are consenting of the union and are of age, I wouldn't give a crap if 14 men married 5 women honestly.

    P.S. Of course I object strongly to the Mormon way of betrothing multiple GIRLS to older guys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 1:16 AM GMT
    Chizzad said
    Alpha13 saidOnce California strikes down the one woman/one man marriage as unconstitutional the legal precedent will be wide open for legal polygamy.

    I know happy gay triples. I also know gay guys that spend more time with their "girlfriends" then their guy friends. Then there is the male gay couple that wants a woman to bear their children.

    There seems to be a need to completely re-define marriage other than one-on one. What are you needs/thoughts about redefining legal relationships.


    Thats why you would call it a union but not a marriage. You cannot just up and change the Bible terminology of marriage because it is not ours to change. Besides a lot of people do not want to be associated with Christian beliefs so why try to redifine something such as marriage. Just let whoever wants to be joined together be unionized LOL. That is all it really is anyway especailly if you get the same benefits as a man and woman.


    Marriage isn't a religious institution. It's secular above all else. It's a government contract. You can go to the courthouse and get married with no church involved at all.

    I agree that I don't really care what they call the word. I disagree though that the word isn't ours to change. I argue it's not theirs to have hijacked in the first place.

    Why set up another thing and call it unions when marriage already exists? seems ridiculous to me. Separate but equal? fuck that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 1:18 AM GMT
    Sedative said
    Chizzad said

    Thats why you would call it a union but not a marriage. You cannot just up and change the Bible terminology of marriage because it is not ours to change. Besides a lot of people do not want to be associated with Christian beliefs so why try to redifine something such as marriage. Just let whoever wants to be joined together be unionized LOL. That is all it really is anyway especailly if you get the same benefits as a man and woman.


    Which is why the state should stop using marriage in its legal functions and only recognize unions. The way marriage is now, it's like the church's own little toehold into the government. They act like they own the term and ritual too. If it has that distinction, why not other religions or philosophies have the same honor?

    As long as all parties involved are consenting of the union and are of age, I wouldn't give a crap if 14 men married 5 women honestly.

    P.S. Of course I object strongly to the Mormon way of betrothing multiple GIRLS to older guys.


    what he said!

    booya!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 1:19 AM GMT
    Sedative said
    Chizzad said

    Thats why you would call it a union but not a marriage. You cannot just up and change the Bible terminology of marriage because it is not ours to change. Besides a lot of people do not want to be associated with Christian beliefs so why try to redifine something such as marriage. Just let whoever wants to be joined together be unionized LOL. That is all it really is anyway especailly if you get the same benefits as a man and woman.


    Which is why the state should stop using marriage in its legal functions and only recognize unions. The way marriage is now, it's like the church's own little toehold into the government. They act like they own the term and ritual too. If it has that distinction, why not other religions or philosophies have the same honor?

    As long as all parties involved are consenting of the union and are of age, I wouldn't give a crap if 14 men married 5 women honestly.

    P.S. Of course I object strongly to the Mormon way of betrothing multiple GIRLS to older guys.


    DItto.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 28, 2008 1:25 AM GMT


    blinktwice4y said,

    "Marriage isn't a religious institution. It's secular above all else. It's a government contract. You can go to the courthouse and get married with no church involved at all.

    I agree that I don't really care what they call the word. I disagree though that the word isn't ours to change. I argue it's not theirs to have hijacked in the first place.

    Why set up another thing and call it unions when marriage already exists? seems ridiculous to me."

    ....Yep! Especially that first and last line! Thanks!
    -us