What if a Bisexual person wants to marry both the same and opposite sex?

[madville]

If someone is born Bisexual and wishes to be married to both someone of the same and opposite sex at the same time and current law prevents them from doing that, could such a law be seen as unjust and infringing upon their lifestyle?

Or should they be limited by the law to have to select which sex to be married to, even though they may wish to be married to both?

[BillZBubb]

1. Too bad.

And no, the law isn't unjust.

[LanternWaste]

2. It never is when it aligns with our biases.

"And no, the law isn't unjust..."

It never is when it aligns with our own personal biases.

[mythology]

4. I try to match my personal biases with history

In this case that polygamous societies are bad for the people involved including often being coercive toward the women and children involved.

[LanternWaste]

5. Creative rationalization.

"I try to match my personal biases with history"

Creative rationalization.

[jberryhill]

14. Not recognizing plural marriage is not an Equal Protection violation

People can live together in whatever voluntary arrangements they like. There is no law against that.

However, to implement plural marriage, a vast body of law would need to be re-worked, and there would be a lot of unanswered policy questions which I have not seen anyone posting on the topic address.

So I guess I'll ask you, since it is so obvious.

Person A is the hypothetical bi-sexual person in the OP. Person A is male.

Person B is a straight woman.

Person C is a straight man.

Now, are you saying you want person A to marry person B and person C? Or are you saying that you want all three of them married - i.e. by implication then that person C and person B are also "married".

If so, then tell me the outcome of this situation.

I'll give them names - Andrew, Barbara and Charlie.

They all get married in 2015.

In 2017, Barbara has a child, Bill, by Andrew.

In 2035, a week after Bill turns 18, Barbara dies.

Do Barbara's personal assets go to Andrew and Charlie jointly? Or do her assets go to Bill? Normally, in most states, her assets would go to her spouse first, so I am going to assign her assets to Andrew and Charlie jointly.

In 2036, Andrew dies. All of his assets go to his spouse Charlie.

In 2037, Charlie dies. Charlie is not the father of Bill. His assets presumably go to other relatives of his.

Is that right? Is that how this works? Does intestacy law in your state provide an answer to any of these questions?

Once you work your way through that, I will throw in another child of Barbara's by Charlie, and a different death order. Then throw in a sequence of divorces and re-marriages.

It's not as simple as you and others seem to believe. Interestingly, these problems don't crop up with "let's allow two same sex people to get married on the same terms as everyone else", but there is a huge CLASS of problems that crop up with any number beyond two.

And none of the people bringing up the question seem to have any answers to the ensuing legal problems.

[cwydro]

17. Good analysis. Thank you.

Gah. I can only imagine the in-law issues.

No, just no.

I hope a new shiny object shows up on DU soon.

[jberryhill]

20. There's a whole bunch of conundrums that come up

But none of the plural marriage advocates seem to have any interest in addressing them.

I have no objection to a legal framework to accommodate it, but nobody seems to want to put in the work.

[cwydro]

22. Exactly. nt

[Whiskeytide]

24. I love it when a lawyer...

... lays a little lawyering on the laymen. Well done. I, like cwydro, hope another issue takes hold of DU soon. I'm tired of this silliness.

[Sheepshank]

26. And even messier if Barbara and Charlie

are either hetersexual or gay....the whole thing gets so convoluted when the home life is not meeting everyone's expectations and rather than the deaths in your scenario, we are dealing with divorce and splitting property, and may community property at that. In the scenario of the 3 getting married only Andrew's desires are addressed.

[StevieM]

57. On a total change of subject....I think Charlie is a really awesome name for a girl.

I was disappointed when I kept reading your scenario and realized that Charlie was a guy. If I ever had a daughter, I would love to name her Charlie.

But I don't have kids and I don't think I ever will have kids. We are destroying the planet and I don't think I would want my children and grandchildren to live in the horrible world that they will be inheriting.

[jberryhill]

60. Yep

[CTyankee]

70. Loved "Charlie." Loved Bobby Short! He epitomized New York cool when I lived there!

[jberryhill]

74. Kinda young, kinda wow

I still don't know what to make of that commercial.

What did it smell like?

[CTyankee]

76. I dunno, I never smelled the perfume...it was just so much fun and so New York...

and how I LOVED Bobby Short and his albums. Great music, great time in NYC when I worked and lived there. You hadda be there to know what I mean jberryhill...

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

68. Throw in some half-siblings and step siblings

And it's really a nightmare.

Of course, it "works" with fundamentalist mormons because women are stuck and rarely leave.

Putting aside any religious connection, however:

"Husband" is "married" to "Wife A" and "Wife B,"and has two children with each woman.

"Wife B" wants out. Does "Husband" keep the kids in order to keep the half siblings together who have been living in the same household together? Does that give him a stronger argument in divorce court re: child custody?

And I'll keep writing this until my fingers fall off. If anyone thinks that polygamous marriages (1 man, multiple women) won't make up the vast, vast majority of the poly marriages, they aren't living in reality.

And it's bad for women.

[Scootaloo]

102. Thanks.

This "But what about polymarriage!?" meme on DU needs to be dustbinned along with all the fucking flag-rallying.

[KitSileya]

111. Not to mention, if we allow poly marriage, do they all have to marry at the same time?

What if Andrew and Barbara were married before Andrew met Charlie, and Andrew wants to marry him and Barbara doesn't?

Or if they all three marry, and 10 years later Andrew wants to divorce Barbara, but not Charlie? Will Charlie have to divorce Barbara too?

[snooper2]

89. Can I add a redhead to my family unit? We don't have that option currently

[yeoman6987]

39. I think it is for bisexuals

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. He or she has to choose./nt

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Then he or she better find a hermaphrodite

Each person can marry one other person (within certain limitations).

Sorry, marriage equality is not a slippery slope.

[oldandhappy]

7. marry another bi and take turns

[Whiskeytide]

23. Brilliant...

... no wonder your old and happy.

[PowerToThePeople]

8. I had been planning on posting this question too

Love the new and improved DU with added right wing bigotry.

[brer cat]

18. Are you saying

that anyone who opposes or even questions poly marriages is a right-wing bigot?

[NuclearDem]

49. You mean like the assumption that bisexual people can't make up their mind?

[jberryhill]

9. A lot of folks don't seem to understand what is meant by "equal protection of the laws"

You appear to be one of those folks.

Prior to two weeks ago, the law in a lot of the US was that two consenting non-consanguinous adults could get married, unless they were of the same sex.

That is, two people of the same sex were being denied a right provided to other pairs of two people.

Hence, they were not afforded equal protection of the laws.

There is NOWHERE in the US that any combination of THREE (or more) people can be married. NO ONE is being discriminated against in that regard.

There is also no Constitutional provision about "infringing on their lifestyle".

Furthermore, the "two person" marriage framework touches on a lot of things like Social Security survivor benefits, tax status, child custody, intestate inheritance, etc..

Now, while all of the thousands of instances where marital status is legally or financially important for one reason or another, the simple fact of the matter is that you'd need to change a WHOLE HUGE WAD of laws in order to accommodate legally recognized marriage between more than two persons.

Sure, someone could embark on re-writing the various inheritance, tax, death benefit provisions etc., but that is IN NO WAY COMPARABLE to the simple change which occurred two weeks ago in relation to the recognition of same sex marriage.

There is no one anywhere with the legal power to stop any combination of adults living together in whatever arrangement they like (provided they don't exceed housing codes on occupancy by unrelated persons).

But, really, are we going to get past these uninformed and facile posts about marriage involving more than two persons? It is not comparable, does not involve and Equal Protection legal claim, and simply cannot happen as a consequence of a decision like the one which just happened.

[prayin4rain]

15. Oh! Shall not deny any person equal protection of the laws!

I thought it said: shall write new laws that take into account whatever scenario any citizen wants.

Now, it makes sense.

[Monk06]

104. A very succinct overview of the issue jberryhill. Unfortunately it will be ignored by the

pan sexuality/polygamy pot stirrers on DU.

Personally I think people pushing polygamy as a consequence of fair marriage laws are just shit disturbers or worse, Freeper trolls.

[tymorial]

10. My wish come true?

Oh wait, we weren't talking about me?

[geek tragedy]

11. "could be seen as unjust" doesn't mean unconstitutional.

just about any law that inconveniences anyone can be seen as unjust.

[Tatiana La Belle]

12. What would the argument be to legalize the marriage of a bisexual to two spouses?

If that is what you're talking about doing.

[gollygee]

13. .

http://www.alternet.org/story/149710/9_stupid_myths_about_bisexuals_that_will_make_you_laugh

7. Bisexuals can never be happy in a monogamous relationship. Let the record show that bisexuals are just as likely to fail at monogamy as the rest of you infidels! According to Peggy Vaughan, author of The Monogamy Myth, statistics show that 40 percent of women and 60 percent of men have affairs at least once in their marriages. Since these people aren’t always married to each other, that means about 80 percent of all marriages are “touched” by adultery. But being bisexual doesn’t make you any more likely to cheat than being straight or gay does. Nor does it mean that bisexuals are destined to be miserable without a variety of genitalia at their disposal. Just as in other sexual relationships, being partnered with one person doesn’t suddenly negate your attraction to other people. The same goes for bisexuals in monogamous relationships.

[treestar]

16. not really different from a man wanting two wives IMO

[Yo_Mama]

19. Well, currently it's "Pick 1" - plenty of people sleep with more than 1 person at a time

So a bisexual person is no different than a straight person who wants to marry two persons.

There is an Equal Protection issue if a person is not allowed to marry the person of their choice, but no Equal Protection issue if a person is faced with the same predicament as everybody else.

[jberryhill]

21. Your second sentence sums it up quite well

[smiley]

62. That makes the most sense out of any explanation of heard so far.

And I tend to be on the pro-poly marriage side as long as it with consensual adults of course. But it would seem to be a lost-cause issue based on that argument.

Thanks for the legal talk!

[Cleita]

25. Again, the consenting adults principle rules here.

If all parties married to one another are agreeable, why not? If a married partner insists on monogamy then that should be discussed before the I do's are said. I have known couples where one partner is bi, but he/she is faithful to the married partner.

[jberryhill]

32. Okay

So if two of them have a child, then are all three of them parents?

In most states, any child born in a marriage is presumptively deemed a child of the spouses.

For example, the way that child support works quite often is that a couple has a child for a number of years, and then divorce. After the divorce, it is found that the child is not genetically related to the husband of that marriage. In many instances, he wants to stop paying child support.

However, the way the law works in most places, he cannot do that. Since the child was born in that marriage, and he raised no objection prior to well after the divorce, the story ends right there. Legally, that is his child.

That's done for a number of public policy reasons, with which I happen to agree. I've gone into them at length in DU in the past, but the bottom line is - that's the way it works.

So, in your world, do "consenting adults" ever have children? Get divorces? Take out life insurance policies? Pay social security taxes? If they do any of those things, then there are impacts that go well beyond the "consenting adults" involved.

[jberryhill]

52. I don't have a problem with it at all

But "we can come up with some kind of formula" is a bit cart before the horse in this context.

Oh, and, welcome to DU.

[Cleita]

47. In most polygamous societies the children do call all their dad's wives

mother and the non birth spouses are regarded as mother as much as the biological mother. Except with some Asian societies where only the head wife is mother and the children refer to lesser wives as auntie even if one is their biological birth mother. I suppose the same protocols could follow multiple dads. I think we have similar designations for family in our society. I have a step daughter and a son in law for instance.

I have always thought that children should take the surname of their birth mother myself. Makes it so much easier to figure out family ties when there is serial marriage involved between biological parents. Just because we only take one spouse at a time, doesn't mean that family isn't as complicated.

[jberryhill]

50. Meaning what in relation to what I posted?

Are you going to sit down and revise the child support, custody, inheritance, insurance, social security, and thousands of other legal provisions involved, or just hand-wave at "other societies"?

Yes, other societies manage it. I had a lovely conversation one afternoon with a woman in Morocco where, indeed, there are plural marriages.

What other societies also have is a legal framework that accommodates it.

No such changes are required in the US to eliminate the equal protection violation involved in same sex marriage.

Huge changes would be required to accommodate plural marriage.

I am pointing out that these things are not related.

If you are volunteering to do all of the re-drafting, then go for it. I have no objection to it. But I am not dumb enough to think that it can be done by the wave of some magic wand.

[Cleita]

56. Marriage has always been a business contract.

You don't have to get married to have sex and procreate. If and when other kinds of marriage become legal then laws surely will be made to accommodate those kind of marriage contracts. Why worry about it now?

[jberryhill]

58. "Why worry about it now?"

Well that's sort of my question.

What do you suppose has made it such a fascinating topic on DU lately?

[LittleBlue]

59. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

96. I'm all for consenting adults being free to structure their lives as they see fit, but there are

compelling legal reasons to limit marriage to two person pairs.

Marriage, as a legal institution, confers a whole host of tax benefits and other structural implications. Consider the alternative, with group marriage- what is to stop, say, the board of directors of Wal-Mart from all getting "married" to one another, and as such being able to transfer large sums of money around, tax-free? It's pretty guaranteed that if the door is left open to those sorts of loopholes, people will take advantage of them.

Conversely, extending marriage as it stands today to same-sex couples does not involve anything like a massive structural overhaul of the institution or the financial and legal implications thereof. In fact it is essentially akin to the overturning of laws against interracial marriage; an overdue righting of an injustice, but not one that implied any real change in what marriage is or does.

Legalizing plural marriage as in institution, legally, would imply a whole host of other changes and problems. None of this means that consenting adults can't and shouldn't be allowed to have long-term polyamorous arrangements if that's how they wish to structure their lives- still, there are solid compelling reasons to limit marriage to, again, couples.

[Cleita]

98. A gay couple I know once explained why they wanted to be married although they already

had a committed relationship. They wanted to have the tax benefits and other structural implications that hetero marriage gives a couple. All the problems you imply are the same ones, as well as religious objections, that prevented the passing of gay marriage for so long. Sure, once you legalize a form of marriage, you need to recognize where the loopholes are and pass legislation to prevent it. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman had it's problems too. Old men could marry younger women. Children could be married to each other. People could be forced to marry each other even if they had never met. Societies had to tighten what could legally be done. It's no different with this.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. I still think it's a vastly different question.

And not one which has been made any less intractable or immediately relevant, by the fact that same sex couples can get married, now.

[hrmjustin]

27. What is with these questions about plural marriage?

[randys1]

29. Didnt you hear, those Gays got equal rights. Pisses of some

Well, all they got was the right to marry.

In most states it is still legal to interview a Gay person for a job, then look them straight in the face and say the following:

"I hate you because you are Gay and I will not hire you because you are Gay"

[hrmjustin]

30. Well this crap is pissing me off and i see right through it.

[jberryhill]

35. It's pissing off Maryland? Or Medical Doctors?

[hrmjustin]

36. Corrected.

[jberryhill]

37. Oh, Maine!

Of course!

[madinmaryland]

41. Well, there are some things that do piss me off. One was John Kerry getting swiftboated, and

another appears to be this topic!!

[jberryhill]

42. I thought of you when I saw that comment

I was like "md"... is it Madem or madinmaryland?

[madinmaryland]

43. I'm a guy, so it's NOT maidinmaryland!!

[jberryhill]

44. lol

No, I thought the poster was referring to another DU member, either Madem or madinmaryland.

Oh, skip it.

[guillaumeb]

28. Marriage should be open to all people.

What compelling state interest can be demonstrated by limiting the combinations and/or numbers?

[jberryhill]

34. First of all no "compelling state interest" is required

There is no cognizable class of persons denied equal protection of the law in relation to plural marriage.

[guillaumeb]

81. Given that the 14th Amendment extends equal protection under the law to all persons,

is this equal protection limited to cognizable classes, or is equal protection only triggered when there is a statistically significant percentage of persons who would otherwise be impacted by a statute?

In the case of plural marriage, is there a legitimate state interest in denying the contractual and other associated benefits of marriage to people wishing to engage in a plural marriage?

[jberryhill]

84. In answer to your first question....

...it is "cognizable classes".

Yes, a law that does not allow, say, double parking, has an impact on people who want to double park. But merely being able to define a set of people by some characteristic, does not render them to be a class for 14th Amendment purposes.

As it stands, there is no law forbidding people from living together in whatever arrangements they like.

As a legal status, however, there is a definite state interest in orderly administration of matters of inheritance, child custody and support, social security survivor benefits, and a host of other incidents to the civil legal status of "marriage".

No substantive changes in that administrative framework were required to recognize that denial of marriage equality to same sex couples was unequal treatment under the *existing* framework - i.e. unequal protection of law.

Expanding beyond 2 is not looking for "equal treatment", because it requires a host of entirely new and presently-non-existent laws.

Let me give you one teeny example, and there are thousands of these.

My father served in two wars. As a veteran, he was entitled to a grave site at a US Veteran's Cemetery. As the spouse of a veteran, my mother was entitled to be interred at the same site. You know how deep they dig 'em when a married veteran dies?

Going beyond 2 renders a lot of otherwise simple administrative functions to fall into paradoxes - particularly in relation to intestacy. Try this:

Allen, Barbara and Cheryl are married. Allen has a child, David, by Barbara. David turns 18. Allen dies. Allen's estate goes, I guess, jointly to his "spouse" Barbara and Cheryl, who remain in the marriage (and correct me if you think Allen's death somehow renders Barbara and Cheryl unmarried). A year later, Barbara dies. Who, in your mind, inherits from Barbara?

As you may or may not know, children born in a marriage are presumptively the children of the married couple. So, let's try another scenario. Same setup - A, B and C are married. A&B have child D. Allen divorces Barbara and Cheryl. In computing the child support formula in that situation, can you tell me if you consider the joint income of the remaining two - Barbara and Cheryl - versus the sole income of Allen?

Let's say that Allen becomes the custodial parent and he makes $50,000 per year. Barbara and Cheryl each make $25,000. So, do you start from the proposition that each "household" has the same income? Why or why not? And then, in order to administer child support, as many states do now, Barbara and Cheryl each have their wages attached for whatever their support level is supposed to be.

Cheryl gets tired of this, and she divorces Barbara. Does that change her child support obligation to Allen? And why is she paying child support for a child that has two other parents?

The state DOES have an interest in the administration of stuff like that, and the idea of waving a magic wand and saying "any number of people can now be married" throws a monkey wrench into that without FIRST having an n-marriage based legislative and regulatory framework in place.

[guillaumeb]

106. Dealing first with any expansion of marriage:

When you wrote:
"As a legal status, however, there is a definite state interest in orderly administration of matters of inheritance, child custody and support, social security survivor benefits, and a host of other incidents to the civil legal status of "marriage". "

First, I would assume that whenever there are multiple marriages with survivors from each or all marriage, there can be complicated issues of inheritance that family law attorneys deal with. Plural marriage could make a growth industry of family law.

As to your two examples of individuals A, B, and C, if all three are married the death of one partner would not invalidate the relationship of the survivors. As to your hypothetical concerning inheritance from Barbara, given only the information that you have provided, I would assume that Cheryl would inherit, with David to inherit only upon Cheryl's death.

As to example 2, I would suggest that the three people each hire an attorney to work out these issues.

And I agree that the legal industry would have a lot of work to do in dealing with the ramifications.

As an hypothetical, would the issues attendant on a plural marriage be any more complicated than partnership agreements between multiple partners in a business setting?

And complexities aside, the issue still stands that if equality is the issue, what compelling state interest requires intervention if more than 2 people wish to get married? Yes the complexities would require a legislative and regulatory framework, but what aspect of business does not require such a framework? Marriage after all is a contract.

[jberryhill]

114. No, you don't understand

"First, I would assume that whenever there are multiple marriages with survivors from each or all marriage, there can be complicated issues of inheritance that family law attorneys deal with. Plural marriage could make a growth industry of family law."

It's not a matter of "hiring lawyers".

First off, most people can't afford lawyers to deal with their affairs, which is why the law fills in a lot of blanks.

But there is no "growth industry of family law" in a legal system for which there is NO law, no precedent, nothing, governing the outcome of all kinds of situations that lead to deadlock under a legal system which presumes as a basis that a person only has one spouse at a time.

There is nothing at all analogous to situations involving serial marriages and divorces.

No "compelling state interest" is at issue because you seem to have ignored the short and simple answer to the question involving cognizable classes of persons. The "group of people wanting plural marriage" is not a cognizable class, and no compelling state interest is required in order to limit marriage to two persons at a time.

[guillaumeb]

116. Some thoughts here on your points,

In many aspects of life, hiring a competent attorney, if not an absolute necessity, is a practical way to make sure that your home purchase, or your special needs trust, or your will, or your divorce, is competently executed. I hope that we can agree on that. And while many people feel that they cannot hire/afford an attorney, the consequences of not having proper legal advice can be costlier than hiring an attorney.

As to plural (meaning more than two persons) marriage, it would be a completely new field, with much to be done. I agree on that, and agree that there is no legal or social structure dealing specifically with a plural marriage.

But the law did not spring up spontaneously throughout human history. It was organized to deal with issues that arose among early human societies, and it has evolved as society has grown more complex. If plural marriage was made legal, the law of necessity would evolve to deal with the ramifications of such marriage. Business law has evolved over the centuries to deal with sole proprietorship businesses as well as very complex corporate structures.

Finally, the term "cognizable class" as I understand it refers to any group possessing a common characteristic or trait that allows the members of the group to be distinguishable.

My source here is:
Capable of being seen as a member of a unique group by the common characteristics shared with other members.
http://thelawdictionary.org/cognizable/

If this is correct, would not people desiring a plural marriage meet the definition? If a class can be identified, would that class not become a cognizable class?

[luvspeas]

31. I would say that they probably have a lot of time on their hands and don't have to worry about being

killed by the cops.

[PowerToThePeople]

33. Guess you better step up

the push for a more millitarized police force.

[Iggo]

38. You don't marry a sex. You marry a person.

.

[seveneyes]

45. You are free to petition for this social construct expansion

In fact, you may have more success than a petition to the unknown ...

[alphafemale]

46. I am all for the legalization of what ever arrangement adults decide among themselves.

And they should be able to make binding contracts with each other recognized by courts of law.

But for a state to have in place every possible scenario is beyond what has just happened and that being that marriage is between two people without changing any real structure of what a marriage is.

To codify all options say 3 people who want to all be married and bound to each other.

Or only one person wants to me married to two people but the other two do not wish to have that legal bond.

Then once you would go beyond 3 the situation is going to get more complicated and would need to be decided only by the individuals involved.

And what of people that want to have a non-binding 2 year contract?

If children are involved it is going to get insanely more complicated.

The easiest way around this is to end legal persecution of voluntary polygamy, which I believe has already occurred, and to allow people to draw up their own contracts.

There should be some way to monitor cases of involuntary polygamy especially in the case of minors, though.

[ibegurpard]

48. jesus...are there no bisexuals on this board???

To counter this insulting notion that bisexuality means you you most have access to either sex at all times? Bisexuals can be monagamous or not...it's an orientation...just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. The idea of legally recognized plural marriages is of no more consequence to a bisexual than it is to any other orientation.

[Tree-Hugger]

77. +1 nt

[Cal Carpenter]

94. +1000

I can't believe I had to scroll through so much thread before someone pointed out that the OP's premise and assumptions about bisexuality are, at least, ignorant, or maybe even totally fucking offensive.

[Ms. Toad]

117. +1000 n/t

Just scrolling through in the hope that someone has already addressed it.

What an ignorant premise.

I fully discussing poly marriages - and have found much of the bigotry directed at poly families extremely offensive, particularly since I have several friends who would like their poly families to have access to benefits similar to those afforded married couples.

But the premise of this OP is offensive. Bisexual individuals are no more inclined to simultaneous relationships with multiple people (of both genders) than straight people are inclined to simultaneous relationships with multiple people (of the opposite gender). Poly families have nothing more to do with bisexuality than they do homosexuality, heterosexuality, or even asexuality.

Not to mention that equal protection has nothing to do with the policy decision as to which family structures society should choose to encourage by recognition - as long as those structures are equally available to all individuals..

[NuclearDem]

51. Jesus! Being bisexual isn't being polygamous, indecisive, or need of both at once!

It means being attracted to both sexes.

That's all.

Bisexual people are just as capable or incapable of mongamous relationships as anyone else.

By the Nine, what the hell is going on here?

[ibegurpard]

53. Yeah no shit

[jberryhill]

54. No, no, no, no... you don't get it

You see, bi-sexual people need to be married to people of both sexes for the same reason that heterosexual people need to have multiple partners of the opposite sex.

Or, uh, something.

[NuclearDem]

61. Hey, if I'm attracted to different types of women, I need one of each!

Sorry, but that makes me incapable of a committed relationship with just one woman.

[jberryhill]

64. Oh, things are going to be interesting in my house tonight!

Thank you for that argument.

[Iggo]

66. You mean to tell me that bisexual people are...people?

[Tree-Hugger]

78. +1 nt

[Matariki]

82. Yes. Thank you.

[randr]

55. The best of both worlds?

[CatWoman]

63. this is a stupid thread

[ibegurpard]

67. It's a real stupid thread

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Why the fuck don't you ask bisexuals about it? They are not fictional people and they are not

incapable of speaking for themselves. Among the shabby ass aspects of this manufactured bullshit is the fucking fact that it is a bunch of straight people yapping about others as if those others can not yap for themselves. 'What if' is not the right question here. The right question is why are these threads being foisted suddenly and out of the blue?

[Initech]

69. Who needs butter? I've got plenty!

[Rhythm]

108. Popcorn's salty... I brought the beverages!

[Initech]

112. Popcorn and beer, can't go wrong!

[pnwmom]

71. Then that person needs to pick ONE person, just like everyone else.

Did it never occur to you that plenty of straight people have trouble choosing between possible people to marry? And yet if they want to marry, then they have to choose a single person for that honor.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. The complete lack of any replies by the thread starter pisses me off no end

It may as well be titled 'something stupid that will piss people off, but I won't bother trying to justify it'.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. The gay baiting crowd found a new shiny toy.

It's common that they start these things then run off. It's a game to them.

[Zenlitened]

73. Their "lifestyle," really?

Please, tell me more about your tireless advocacy for the LGBT community.

[AZ Progressive]

79. Where is this blitz of polygamy / polyamory threads coming from?

Talk about a planted group of members just going out and executing the propaganda campaign of an anti-liberal group...

[ohnoyoudidnt]

80. It is strange. I know liberals and conservatives and in real life the only ones

talking about gay marriage leading to polygamy are the conservatives.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Today Earl G ppr'd Wella, the instigators of this shit for having multiple accounts....

Multiple accounts about multiple marriages. Ironic.
Posting Privileges Revoked - "Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."

So it was a blitz and a big giant fake, which fooled many people and made them look like stooges, chumps, hacks and patsies, dupes, idiots, shills, and schlemiels of the first order.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317022&sub=trans

[ibegurpard]

88. you don't say

Shocked...not.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. I am still amazed that so many fell for such obvious bladerdash.

They should all be so ashamed to be that daft.

[Tatiana La Belle]

83. Is there a lot of this?

Do bisexuals really want to marry one of each gender?

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Tatiana La Belle-Posting Privileges Revoked

Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review.

[Hekate]

100. I wish they'd get them all....

But what do I know

[Orsino]

85. Don't care. Let them...

...assuming you meant three equal partners. The "traditional" polygamy where one husband separately weds multiple women has tended toward sex slavery.

Adults who want the protections and obligations of marriage should have them, and I'm not picky about numbers.

[Cobalt Indigo]

91. As an actual bisexual...

that's not how that works. Bisexuality =/= polyamorous. Bisexuality means being attracted to two or more genders (yes there's more than two). That's the actual definition. If a bisexual is in a relationship with a different gender, still bisexual. If they're in a relationship with someone of the same gender, still bisexual. It doesn't mean we won't "one of each" AT THE SAME TIME. For myself, I, a bisexual woman, have been in a relationship with a straight man for 10 years and we've been married for 4. Guess what? STILL BISEXUAL. I don't "need" a woman in order to be happy. But my identity is still valid and my attraction to women is still there.

Buzz off.

[ibegurpard]

93. thank you!

[pnwmom]

110. Thank you. And welcome to D.U.!

[Cobalt Indigo]

115. Thank you!

Happy to be here!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

92. Flame bait drive-by of bigoted sore-loserism. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

95. people marry people, not genders.

Good grief, are some folks really all pissy and so bent out of shape over "teh gay" being able to legally wed, that they have to spend all day coming up with these inane "oh no" slippery slope so-called thought experiments?



Christ, get a grip.

[yewberry]

97. You marry a person, not a sex.

This whole question is silly.

[redstateblues]

101. Another Day Another Polygamy Thread

[randys1]

103. What if I came up with two reasons a day to NOT celebrate the AWESOME

SC decision about Gay marriage?

You think the bigots would reward me with a rainbow ribbon?

Maybe these anti LGBT people need tickets to this



https://beachblanketbabylon.com/

[dballance]

105. What a completely asinine thread.

I'm very, very tired of all these stupid hypotheticals.

[Rhythm]

107. That has ~nothing~ to do with 'being bisexual... That's a polyamory issue

Two different things...
But you knew that already.

[pnwmom]

109. What if a bisexual person wants to marry two people of the same gender?

Same answer.

If you want a state-recognized, legal marriage, then you need to pick ONE partner to be legally married to -- no matter what your gender or orientation.

But you can do anything privately that you want.

[Lil Missy]

113. They'd have to pick one. n/t