Polygamist family applies for 2nd marriage license in Montana...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

Well... why can't a marriage be more than two people?

It can of course, has been for millennium, will be in the US within 1-10 years now.

I am positive of that.

Pologymy is a sexual orientation and discrimination against ones sexual orientation is taboo in the US now, and illegal also.

a reply to: Autorico

If this becomes a thing, I say why stop at 2? Get 7. Assign them all a day of the week to hang out.

Boom. Done. Somebody start a petition.

They can claim whatever they want but it won't go anywhere. This isn't about love, rights, equality. It's about the law and it stipulates that a marriage is between 2 consenting people. A contract. They can live a polygamist lifestyle but will not be allowed to marry. This is ridiculous fear mongering.

Oh, I think you are sooooo wrong.

It will happen now, because they can now claim discrimination against polygamists, a sexual orientation, bisexuality and why can't a bisexual marry both a man and a woman if they want to.

Why is this fear mongering?

What do we have to fear from people loving each other?
What do we have to fear from polygamy? a sexual orientation?

It will be a reality, of that I am 100% certain.

Doesn't matter you don't think so or don't like it,
or if I don't like it. That is completely moot now.

We can no longer discriminate by sexual orientation, that is clearly the law
and we will all have to deal with it and accept it,
like it or not.

a reply to: grandmakdw

What part of "this has nothing to do with orientation" are you failing to grasp? 3 or more of ANY orientation can not marry. THAT'S why it's fear mongering. Next comes the ridiculous argument about marrying your cow.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Annee

Well...the church leader banned it first. Then the U.S. said they had to ban it in the state constitution, which they did. Then Utah became a state.

But, either way, the SCOTUS ruling is what it is.

Its been a while since I've read this.

I believe what they said is "marriages will be as law of the land" or something like that. Mormons are very strict about following government laws.

They tend to word things in interesting ways. Like it doesn't say you can't drink coffee. What it says is hot drink.

But, like I said - - its been a while since I was in LDS.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: grandmakdw

Read my above post, you have no idea what bisexual means do you?

Of course I do,
bisexual means you want to have sex with both males and females
and you love males and females equally

Therefore, someone with a bisexual orientation should have the right by law to love and marry
a person of each sex if they choose to, and at the same time if they choose to. Why are you against love and marrying those whom you love?

How 'bout marriage between municipal corporations?

All persons matter !!



Hmmm

originally posted by: grandmakdw

Therefore, someone with a bisexual orientation should have the right by law to love and marry
a person of each sex if they choose to, and at the same time if they choose to. Why are you against love and marrying those whom you love?

Wouldn't that be Polyamory?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

What part of "this has nothing to do with orientation" are you failing to grasp? 3 or more of ANY orientation can not marry. THAT'S why it's fear mongering. Next comes the ridiculous argument about marrying your cow.

Why on earth should anyone be afraid of who marries whom?
There is nothing to fear in love that leads to marriage.

To forbid a bisexual from marrying both sexes is to discriminate and to be against love and to deny them the right to marry whomever they choose.

That is not fear mongering.
I accept gay marriage.
I will accept polygamy.
What people choose to do in their bedroom is not my business.
Whom they choose to marry is not my business.

It is not for me to judge
it is not for me to express my personal feelings of right or wrong
for they are just that, my personal feelings,
which should not interfere with another persons rights under the law.

That is what this entire experience of the past few years has taught me.

To accept and live and let live,

as long as no one is physically harmed by another's actions.

My personal religious or private feelings of right or wrong

are to be kept to myself and to never, ever enter the public arena,

for that is to be judgmental and intolerant.


Therefore, whatever people choose to do

as long as it harms no one else

and involves fully informed and consenting adults

must be accepted by me and by society.

Like it, approve of it?

That is my choice, but my private choice

that is to never intrude on another's life choices or lifestyle.

Have the rest of you not learned this lesson yet?

a reply to: grandmakdw

Which didn't address my post at all. This is about the LAW, not sexual orientation. Will you ignore this again?

Someone asked about marrying a cow and my
idea of if it should be allowed.

Since a cow can never be fully consenting or aware
or make a choice to marry or not marry. One can not
marry a cow. Nor a child who can not consent or have
enough cognitive awareness to consent. Nor a dog,
nor a sex slave (excuse me human being who is trafficked),
nor anyone who is compelled into the relationship.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Ok, at least you understand that, but the context you use it in is wrong, if a Bisexual married both a Man and a Women it would be what...polygamy. that has nothing to do with Bisexuality

i don't think you understand it, or are purposely posting nonsense, either way you're wrong

Now, polygamy is not a Sexual Orientation, no matter how much you try to spin it it's not

What right does a government or any person/organization have to tell you what kind of marriage you can have?

(consenting adults, of course)

If you want a Polyamory (group) marriage - - why is it anyone else's business?

LEGAL rights in tax breaks, government support, etc - - - is where it becomes an issue. Not that it can't be done.

a reply to: intrepid

she has posted the same thing multiple times, she either doesn't understand, or she is purposely posting nonsense to "spin" her point of View

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Which didn't address my post at all. This is about the LAW, not sexual orientation. Will you ignore this again?

The LAW forbids sexual discrimination.

To refuse polygamy is to sexually discriminate, especially sexual discrimination against the bisexual.

Polygamy itself can be a sexual orientation, the need and desire to have multiple sexual (consecutive or at the same time) partners and the need and desire to love multiple people at the same time.

So there is legal grounds for polygamy and that forbidding it
is against the law because it discriminates against a particular
sexual orientation.

This is comical. I see some of the same arguments used against gay marriage being used against bigamy.


Can someone define irony?

Let's get the terminology right first.

And NO - - - they are not sexual orientations.

Monogamy ~ One sexual partner at a time

Polygamy ~ Married partners in which both partners can have multiple marriage partners, otherwise called group marriage

Polygyny ~ Husband has multiple wives

Polyadnry ~ Woman has multiple husbands

Polyamory ~ Having many loves, open relationship between consenting adults

awakeningthedivawithin.com...

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: grandmakdw

Ok, at least you understand that, but the context you use it in is wrong, if a Bisexual married both a Man and a Women it would be what...polygamy. that has nothing to do with Bisexuality

i don't think you understand it, or are purposely posting nonsense, either way you're wrong

Now, polygamy is not a Sexual Orientation, no matter how much you try to spin it it's not

Who are you to judge?

Why isn't bisexuality a sexual orientation?
Why forbid a person from marrying one person of each sex at the same time, so they can love, cherish, and live with each other in marriage? Just because you disapprove or find it offensive?

Why do you deem polygamy not to be a sexual orientation, the desire for multiple sexual partners and the deep need to love multiple sexual partners. Isn't that being judgmental on your part to forbid them the right to their happiness and sexual and marital fulfillment?

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Which didn't address my post at all. This is about the LAW, not sexual orientation. Will you ignore this again?

The LAW forbids sexual discrimination.

*shakes head*

Look:

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 and falls under the broader category of Consensual Non-Monogamy.[5][6] 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 polyamory,[7] group or conjoint marriage.

en.wikipedia.org...

NOTHING ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!!!!! It's about MULTIPLE PARTNERS. Which is ILLEGAL.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
This is comical. I see some of the same arguments used against gay marriage being used against bigamy.


Can someone define irony?

My point exactly.

And they took the bait, hook, line and sinker
using the same arguments that were used against gay marriage
to say that bigamy and polygamy should be outlawed.