Don't say we weren't warned.

[amrchaos]

I knew it. The homosexual lifestyle is a thinly veiled cult.

First, they demand acceptance for their way of life.

Then they brainwash Hollywood actors to support them

Now they are having polygamous marriages!

I say it again--CULT

P.S. You christians need to watch out. With all that "love thy" this and "Love thy" that crap, it won't be long you before you hear "Love thy homosexual". Come to think about it, Isn't "Love the sinner but hate the sin" an obscure way of saying "Love the gays"?

Yep. Jesus loved the gays!!

 

[gallantwarrior]

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.

GW, their "marriage" is in their minds.

The reactionaries on the weird far right think they are "normal."

The libs on the far left think they are "normal."

It's America.

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?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I love this stuff. So trashy, like something out of the National Enquirer. Three Lesbos demand marriage for the sake of their child! The Sasquatch demands equal rights! Ghost Diet exposed! Well, except, this isn't a joke. Gays take this nonsense seriously. Should the rest of us, though?

"Resistance is futile." You will willingly assimilate or be forced to, your choice.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It is only a matter of time;

Praying mantis sucks out male brain after mating.

.

Like males have a brain to be sucked out?

 

[amrchaos]

I love this stuff. So trashy, like something out of the National Enquirer. Three Lesbos demand marriage for the sake of their child! The Sasquatch demands equal rights! Ghost Diet exposed! Well, except, this isn't a joke. Gays take this nonsense seriously. Should the rest of us, though?

Wait--this is not some kind of farce?

 

[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.

GW, their "marriage" is in their minds.

The reactionaries on the weird far right think they are "normal."

The libs on the far left think they are "normal."

It's America.

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?

What these women did is legal. Wanna marry your gerbil? Not.

Dumbfuck.

 

[HenryBHough]

What these women did is legal. Wanna marry your gerbil? Not.

True.

Not YET.

 

[guno]

I knew it. The homosexual lifestyle is a thinly veiled cult.

First, they demand acceptance for their way of life.

Then they brainwash Hollywood actors to support them

Now they are having polygamous marriages!

I say it again--CULT

P.S. You christians need to watch out. With all that "love thy" this and "Love thy" that crap, it won't be long you before you hear "Love thy homosexual". Come to think about it, Isn't "Love the sinner but hate the sin" an obscure way of saying "Love the gays"?

Yep. Jesus loved the gays!!

Keep both hands on the keyboard

 

[Old Rocks]

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 fuck. 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.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

GW, their "marriage" is in their minds.

The reactionaries on the weird far right think they are "normal."

The libs on the far left think they are "normal."

It's America.

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.

 

[BreezeWood]

Polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamia, "state of marriage to many spouses" or "frequent marriage")[1][2][3][4] is a marriage that includes more than two partners.[5] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group or conjoint marriage.[5]

Polygamy: Polygyny - Polyandry - Conjoint Marriage ...

the progression to Conjoint Marriage almost begs the question why a marriage license should not be reclassified as simply a financial contract, voiding all other considerations.

.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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 fuck. 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?

 

[gallantwarrior]

GW, their "marriage" is in their minds.

The reactionaries on the weird far right think they are "normal."

The libs on the far left think they are "normal."

It's America.

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.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Don't say we weren't warned.

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

You say that like it's a bad thing!​

As long as it's a household wherein violence is at a minimum and the tax-payers aren't footing any more of their bills than they are for the average Jane, who the fuck am I to judge?

`​

 

[The Professor]

Fifty years ago I would have been committed to a mental institution for merely suggesting the possibility of things that are happening right now.

 

[HenryBHough]

Fifty years ago I would have been committed to a mental institution for merely suggesting the possibility of things that are happening right now.

That happens to prophets who prophecy in their own lands!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

They are human, not goats, and they are not married by the law.

Do you understand this?

 

[HenryBHough]

Fifty years ago I would have been committed to a mental institution for merely suggesting the possibility of things that are happening right now.

That happens to prophets who prophesy in their own lands!

 

[Gracie]

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.

 

[Gracie]

Also...I like to consider myself open minded but...this kinda throws me for a loop. No, still none of my business what they do in the bedroom...but now we have oodles of kids involved. Kinda changes things.