Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?

Bisexuality is sexual preference, not a marriage stance. Just because you are sexually attracted to both sexes doesn't mean you have a boyfriend AND a girlfriend at the same time. Bisexuals have monogamous relationships just like homosexuals and heterosexuals do. I guess it's possible for someone to have multiple relationships (happens with heterosexuals and homosexuals), but it's definitely not common.

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
reply to post by fred call

 

Say, Troll. Bisexuals are not by definition polygamous but surely you know that already. Most who I've known are in fact just like the rest of us - they tend to prefer one monogamous relationship at a time.

Indeed, very true. In fact, the ability for multiple people to be joined together under a single marriage license has never been the question and would certainly not apply here. I personally believe it should be allowed, but in this case, the definition of marriage as a union between two persons is not up for debate -- only the question of whether gender is important in deciding who can get the marriage license.

reply to post by rogerstigers

Indeed, very true. In fact, the ability for multiple people to be joined together under a single marriage license has never been the question and would certainly not apply here. I personally believe it should be allowed, but in this case, the definition of marriage as a union between two persons is not up for debate -- only the question of whether gender is important in deciding who can get the marriage license.

Marriage is merely an agreement, I can't believe people still don't see this.

You can create your own agreements to marry multiple people. The problem is that the state controls all our affairs, that is idiotic.

The state shouldn't have that much power, this is between people.

reply to post by oozyism


Agreed. I hope you do not misunderstand me, I am very much against any marriage as a whole. I explained my opinion on what should be done to put this issue to bed once and for all in another thread today. I should probably write it up and post it on my profile...hmm

Ok, done.. added it to my comments section on my profile if anyone cares.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

Why anyone wants the government involved in personal relationships is beyond me. If we allow the government to regulate who can marry - that means one day they can regulate who YOU chose to marry. "Dont have the same heredity - cant marry" "You both dont have blue eyes - you cant marry" "10 years difference between you - cant marry". The list could go on.

'bout time the government butts out of personal relationships. I certainly dont want them interfering and involved in MINE! So I dont care what YOU chose to do in yours!

Originally posted by fred call
[

Equal rights are equal rights. If you say gays have equal rights, but bisexuals don't have equal rights, there is a contradiction in terms. And there are bound to be legal issues involved.

Let me see, bisexuals like men and women, and with gay marriage legal, then they could marry a person of their choosing irrespective of gender. Now how is that a denial of their rights? They can even marry another bisexual if they want. So your argument (and I'm being generous calling it that) is nonsensical.

A while ago people of different races were not allowed to marry in many states. Now they can but does that mean that a bi-racial person (say black mother and white father) is denied his rights if he can't marry a white woman AND a black woman?

Thanks for the laugh.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Well - I think gays have made it clear its more about Legal Rights - - then personal issues.

Too many real life stories of when a long time partner dies - - relatives take everything because they are the legal legitimate heirs.

The partner of many years has no rights - - without marriage.

reply to post by Annee


Yeap.

Also access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges, inheritance rights, workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans and. A straight couple can make the decision to be married or not. Same-sex couples don’t have the choice. Why should we deny something so basic as the right of another human being to marry the person they love?

Polygamous marriage of all forms should also be legal. This will probably be the next legal marriage row to hit the western world, after the 'interracial marriage' one of the past and the ongoing 'gay marriage' one today.

reply to post by fred call


Hmm my question is why would a bisexual male or female get married to two people? That doesn't make any sense to me. I am bisexual but I do not want to get married to another chick. Why because I can just get a girlfriend instead, why commit yourself in that way? From what I have been told with female bisexuals and myself, is we go through sexes in runs. Like right now I am considering chicks again. I don' want a female for a relationship, but as a friend with benefits for right now. I have my husband and I am happy with him always. Now in 3-4 months I may not even be seeing this female again. Now if I married her and my husband I would be in the #ter, because what if I get sick of her, and don't want her involved in my other marriage? See the issue here, it is not the same as being gay, nor do I see it that way! So never in a million years will I ever want to marry a female!

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person. Men have the right to marry a woman, whereas a woman does not have that same right. That is the reason why the equal protection clause protects the right to gay marriage. It restricts a fundamental right that all people have, to people who want to marry someone of their own gender.

Equal protection for one is equal protection for all.

If I want to marry several of my wifes girl friends, I should have that right. Who are you (or anyone else) to tell me that I cant. Where's the harm?

Oh, its a moral/ethical issue.

Well, if the law say's is kosher, then hey! Shut up and sit down.

I was thinking that marrying a 12 year old might be ok too. Why not?

I might even pull my dog in on the action. That way I have the gay angle taken care of.

Oh, thats not legal.

Well, inter-racial marriage wasnt for a long time. Gay marriage wasnt either.

Keep moving the bar folks! Our society is going to hell and half of the idiots in it deserve the fruits of their labor.

Thank the dope smoking hippies for all of this chaos.

reply to post by fred call


I hope you realise that your basic premise is flawed? Just because a person is bisexual does not mean, as others have said, that they want to have two partners at the same time.


A bisexual person is attracted to both men and women, yes. Obviously they're not going to be attracted to everyone just because they're attracted to both sexes just as a heterosexual person isn't going to be attracted to everyone of the opposite sex.

As a straight person, you're not going to be in a relationship with two different people because you're attracted to both of them (unless you're polyamorous or something like that, or you're cheating - you catch my drift).
Well, a bisexual person isn't going to be in a relationship with two people because their attracted to both either.

So therefore, a bisexual person isn't going to want to be in a relationship with a man and a woman at the same time just because they're attracted to both sexes.

Hope this helps

Originally posted by fred call
Judge Vaughan Walker is an openly gay judge. There is a legal question whether this judge should have recused himself.

I'm curious, what if he was straight and ruled in favour of Prop 8???

EDIT: to put the "reply to" thingy in

[edit on 6/8/2010 by Sparkly_Eyed777]

reply to post by felonius


12 year olds and dogs cannot give consent.
The fact that you even mention such cliched things shows that you have zero comprehension of the issue.
This is why the Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the majority. From people like you.
A little education would help, a lot of education would help more!
It's just a little more complex than "dope smoking hippies".

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person.

Says who and based on what interpretation of any law or the constitution?

Equal protection as the proponents of gay marriage have interpreted it means anything goes between consenting life forms.

Literally, why couldn't you teach your dog to bark once for no and twice for yes (to make the yes more difficult) and then ask it to marry you? If you get two barks in answer, here comes the bride.

Crazy?

Where in the constitution and how it is currently being interpreted does it say you can't do that. And since the constitution does NOT say marriage is only between two humans ...

Pandora's Box is creaking open.

Originally posted by Sparkly_Eyed777
reply to post by fred call

 

I hope you realise that your basic premise is flawed? Just because a person is bisexual does not mean, as others have said, that they want to have two partners at the same time.

[edit on 6/8/2010 by Sparkly_Eyed777]

No, your premise is the one that's flawed.

No one said that all bisexuals would want to be in such a relationship. They're simply saying that an "anything goes" interpretation of the constitution would make such relationships possible AND legal.

reply to post by centurion1211


Wilbur proposes to Mr. Ed?

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Wilbur proposes to Mr. Ed?

I hope not to ever see that, but someone please explain how under the current interpretation of the constitution that such a relationship would not survive a legal test.

Especially if the judge turned out to also be an animal lover.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Especially if the judge turned out to also be an animal lover.

The caveat on that conundrum is "What current definition of the Constitution is Obama using at the moment. Obama defines the Constitution based on his political convenience.

We can't have fifty laws governing immigration. But we can have fifty laws governing gay marriage or marijuana legalization.

Ah, but the people are getting weary of Obama's need for convenience.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by fred call

For example, can a bisexual man be married to two bisexual men and one bisexual woman?

Well I'm no lawyer so don't take my life advice at face value ... but you should do whatever makes you happy.

What if eliminating liberals from the population makes me happy?

reply to post by LiquidMirage


It made Hitler, and the Nazis happy.....