It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

With gay marriage legal, what about bisexuals? Should they have the right to marry two people?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
In a nation or state with legal gay marriage should a bisexual have the legal right to marry one woman and one man? How can society legally make them choose?

If a true bisexual falls in love with a man and a woman, both equally and in that state of mind called 'True Love', they have to pick one or the other. This seems unfair. A legal case would be interesting. Say an already happily married bisexual woman now claims the right, in a gay marriage state in the U.S., to also marry her female longtime lover (pun not intended but self-appreciated). A true bi could love both.

Of course straight people can fall in love with two or more others at the same time, and must choose only one if they want to marry (except in countries where they can marry several people, but I'm not sure if any of those have gay marriage). But the question I'm raising is for a true bisexual - one who can fall deeply in love with someone from both sexes. Would such a case have a legal foundation?
edit on 25-11-2014 by Aleister because: spelling



+3 more 
posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
That's called polygamy, and it's currently illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind how many legal-age spouses a person has, but a lot of people seem to think many wives/husbands = pervy Fundie Mormons drooling over 12 year olds, so whatever.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
What possible precedent is there that love for a bisexual person is somehow different from love that heterosexual people experience? And that such difference warrants having two partners beyond reasons a heterosexual person might have?

Just sounds like porn film logic to moi.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Of course it's polygamy, which would derail a lawsuit. My question concerns an thought-game attempt to argue that the polygamy laws shouldn't be applied in a case of a true bisexual who lives in a gay marriage jurisdiction. That means the law says "Choose one aspect of your genetic predisposition". As an ape I'm all for having an extended marriage family (one man I knew told every woman he slept with that she could not consider him her husband, and live with him if they wanted), but as a straight ape I don't know the feeling of having to choose one side or the other, as a bisexual is now legally forced to do. And if they can't or won't choose, they are denied marriage rights, at least in the scenario I'm suggesting.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
It's not like bisexual people are more 'slutty' (which is a common misconception) or love several people at once, necessarily. Your question would be more accurate for polyamorous folk who might/can love several people at the same time- if I'm not mistaken here.

But no, I don't believe in polygamy nor in such 'discrimination' where a certain type of sexuality gains more rights. It'd also be great for unequal and exploitative marriages.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke
What possible precedent is there that love for a bisexual person is somehow different from love that heterosexual people experience? And that such difference warrants having two partners beyond reasons a heterosexual person might have?

Just sounds like porn film logic to moi.


You can never go wrong with porn film logic, but that's besides the point. Straight people can love two or more others, which makes a sham and tragedy of many marriages. I'm a polygamy supporter, if it was up for a vote, yet I can see a converted route to a case made by a bisexual wanting to marry one of each (mix and match) at least having a court hearing (or a segment on Maddow).



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
That's called polygamy, and it's currently illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind how many legal-age spouses a person has, but a lot of people seem to think many wives/husbands = pervy Fundie Mormons drooling over 12 year olds, so whatever.


IMHO, consenting adults should be able to engage in any contractual arraignment they wish. The key to this, IMHO, is "consenting adults." I agree that it is in the interest of the state to ensure that protections for minors if polygamy was ever legalized exactly because of what you mention.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I would then ask how far do we take this.

What if the two partners fall in love?

Would you then close the triangle and let them marry as well?

Now, if both are gay and marry, can you see them both allowed to marry again.

Now we have four people, do we close the square. And if you say yes, then can the four cross marry so now we have four people but six marriages?

This can get very complicated. Your wife could also be your sister in law.

Now then, lets talk about a divorce or six!

Oh, and let us not forget the children!

Um... what are your thoughts on the children. They have a mummy and a daddy while at the same time a step daddy and a step mommy.

OK, my brain just exploded.


P



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Everyone marries everyone else (didn't Vonnegut have a story about every person being a member of one of 16 extended families or so?). And I guess the partners in these marriages, if they were also true bisexuals, would have to have the right to marry another to balance off their personalities as well. As for the children, any marriage has to care for the children, no matter how many people are involved in the marriage. Would make for a crowded parent-teacher day.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

Since the trend is to make the genders entirely equal, then you cannot discriminate against that policy by having a marriage partner from both sexes. That is discrimination at its most vile! The argument for such would have to be, "But I want one of both." In a genderless society, that argument would be totally absurd and contrary to the most basic of PC philosophy and downright simple logic. The only way to break that impasse is to make it legal to have a marriage partner from some aspect of the animal kingdom, thereby side-stepping this raging gender issue which must rule the land.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

But in all actuality, isn't that discrimination against heterosexuals?...I mean I am sure we can think of many who would love to have 2 wives or 2 husbands. But it is illegal and just because your preference is to love both men and women does not give you the right to have your cake and eat it too...So regardless if you are bisexual or straight or gay, you only get ONE PARTNER!

Legalizing gay marriage has NOTHING to do with choosing multiple partners so where does your concept of the "same should apply to bisexuals", come in?

Thanks,
pax



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
We had a man recently charged with bestiality, under the local city law. what happened he was caught having sex with his dog. while most who practice bestiality are women very few are caught or prosecuted and it is usually with a pet dog or larger animal.

The man claimed he loved and was in love with his dog. when the dog was brought into his presence the dog went to him and showed great fondest to the man. the dog was told to heal during the interview and it sat right down on the man's foot. This by animal psychologist meant the dog really missed his owner or was showing extreme connection to the man in question. The man claimed he loved his dog and if it were legal he would like to marry his dog. They eventually prosecuted the man, sent him to jail for 30 days, ordered to pay fines, ordered to never have mammalian pets of any kind, and assigned him a psychologist for further evaluation.

The dog was given to a shelter and adopted by a family. the strange thing the dog would come to the dominate male of the family and sit on his foot. Though the dog was fixed, every cycle the dog would push her genital area against the knee of the man in the family. the family sent the dog back to the shelter because of this strange behavior and the shelter put the dog down.

Was it training or did the dog initiate sexual activity with the original owner as it was trying with the adopted families dominant male?

the next step in the marriage law will be for humans to marry out side of species. We will be seeing it soon enough if we haven't already. Remember the man who was forced to married a goat he had sex with?



edit on 25-11-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Sure just not at the same time. Come on is this even a valid reason to start a thread? Every one knows you can't be married legally to more than one person no matter what your sexual orientation is. Dumb question.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

But if you can redefine marriage in one way there will be other ways of redefining it as well.


edit on 25-11-2014 by ChesterJohn because: grammar correction



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Nyiah
That's called polygamy, and it's currently illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind how many legal-age spouses a person has, but a lot of people seem to think many wives/husbands = pervy Fundie Mormons drooling over 12 year olds, so whatever.


IMHO, consenting adults should be able to engage in any contractual arraignment they wish. The key to this, IMHO, is "consenting adults." I agree that it is in the interest of the state to ensure that protections for minors if polygamy was ever legalized exactly because of what you mention.


I agree that consenting adults (over the age of 18, and can prove it) should be able to engage in any contractual arraignment they wish. I would draw the line at animal/adult marriage since the animal can not consent, and definitely child/adult marriage since the child does not have the maturity to consent.

FYI, recent research shows that the brain does not fully mature until around the age of 25 and so actually I'd like to see the age of consent raised to reflect biology, but that won't happen.

HOWEVER, that said.

I really get angry at people who wish to impose their moral standards on others through force of law.

I.E. forcing closely held businesses to do things against their moral code. If we are to honor one persons moral code (ie, gay marriage) then we need to honor another persons moral code (a private baker who does not wish to make a cake for them). I think this type of behavior is as morally "bad" as being homophobic.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Chester, is this story real???? I only have this to add....In some Middle Eastern countries it is illegal to have sex with the animal you plan to eat!! Real law I swear! Punishable by death!

When do we as a human race say enough is enough! Our society is already depraved if we continue to chip away at the moral fabric then we can no longer define our specie as human...It is our moral conscious that separates us from the animals!

Pax



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Sure just not at the same time. Come on is this even a valid reason to start a thread? Every one knows you can't be married legally to more than one person no matter what your sexual orientation is. Dumb question.


This is absolutely not a dumb question.

In the vast majority of ancient cultures, polygamy was a normal and accepted practice.

It is fairly recent in history that marriage has been only defined as two persons.

In a fair number of countries around the world polygamy is still accepted as a legitimate form of marriage.


With historical and cultural and foreign legal precedence this is a quite valid question.

Doesn't mean I think it is a good idea,
I don't because interpersonal complications are inevitable.

But it is still a valid question.




edit on 8Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:55:47 -0600am112511amk252 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Aleister

Personally, I think polyamory should be legal and anyone should be able to "marry" whomever they want and as many people as they want. I also think it should be individualized so that person A can marry person C and B, but person B and C have no legal connection to one another directly whatsoever. This would allow us to define to a very large degree who is a member of our estate and who is not. I also think we should be able to "adopt" people into our estates so that we can extend our working benefits to the 70 year old widower next door if we so choose to. There's zero reason the state and our corporations should have so much control in deciding who belongs to our family and who does not.
edit on 11 25 2014 by Nechash because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Nyiah
That's called polygamy, and it's currently illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's behind how many legal-age spouses a person has, but a lot of people seem to think many wives/husbands = pervy Fundie Mormons drooling over 12 year olds, so whatever.


IMHO, consenting adults should be able to engage in any contractual arraignment they wish. The key to this, IMHO, is "consenting adults." I agree that it is in the interest of the state to ensure that protections for minors if polygamy was ever legalized exactly because of what you mention.




I really get angry at people who wish to impose their moral standards on others through force of law.

I.E. forcing closely held businesses to do things against their moral code. If we are to honor one persons moral code (ie, gay marriage) then we need to honor another persons moral code (a private baker who does not wish to make a cake for them). I think this type of behavior is as morally "bad" as being homophobic.





The first bit--how does that square with your stance against legal prostitution?


The second bit--I agree. A private business owner should not be compelled by the state to engage in commerce that they are morally opposed to. The freedom of choice and conscience should go both ways, not just to cover a protected class.



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
very straightforward answer legally speaking. polygamy is not legal. Should it be legal is a different question. But for purposes of state based right of attorney and tax breaks and crap..only 1.
Now, should there be some sort of ritual union between multiple?...that would be their decision I would think. If a man or woman have 3 or 20 spouses..so long as it isn't costing tax payers anything, or confusing the legal system..not really my business.

That's one of the issues with government involving itself in a religious structure. it becomes unmaintainable. legal union/right of attorney. that's fine between two..anything more and its just asking for trouble



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join