vote yes?Three Lesbian Women In Massachusetts “Marry” Each Other

wenxue

http://www.westernjournalism.com/three-lesbian-women-massachusetts-marry/



Is polygamy now becoming acceptable in American society? Three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”

Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

timetogo

wenxue wrote: »

http://www.westernjournalism.com/three-lesbian-women-massachusetts-marry/



Is polygamy now becoming acceptable in American society? Three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”

Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

What's that got to do with voting yes?

Imagine marrying 2 women. Since getting married I think 1 might be too much

gazzamc

Threesome for life, or atleast until one dies/divorces them.

elfy4eva

Your title is disgraceful, you've attempted to relate this scenario to a yes vote in next month's referendum even though the referendum has nothing to do with polygamy.

One eyed Jack

It's a good thing you at least put the word "marry" in inverted commas. They're not married at all in the civil and legal context, and they admit as much themselves. They're only "married" in their own eyes, which is meaningless legally speaking.

You ask is polygamy becoming acceptable in American society, and then acknowledge that Massachusetts doesn't recognise polygamous marriages, and even the article points out that these three women aren't married. So they're not any "world's first throuple" or anything like it.

Utterly daft, non-story that has nothing to do with an Irish Referendum on marriage.

markfinn

Seems to be the way of the No campaign.

They have no actual arguments or points that aren't completely spurious to all non-bigots, so they throw a continual stream of dodgy statements unrelated to the actual issue, and hope to emotively persuade enough uninformed folks to vote based on the "ick factor" of their straw-men.

Which would be hilarious, if we as a nation didn't divide so nicely between complacent and ill-informed.
Just take this newest spray of nonsense as one more reminder that ALL non-bigots need to be out campaigning and voting on this one.

Regardless of any polls (seeing as no-voters/campaigners seem to have no problem with deceit and misinformation) we need this to be a YES landslide, or we could well end up with news articles along the lines of "And as the polls close, it seems the homophobes have voted in record numbers..."

wenxue

elfy4eva wrote: »

Your title is disgraceful, you've attempted to relate this scenario to a yes vote in next month's referendum even though the referendum has nothing to do with polygamy.

They just want to marry someone they loves,why you want to stop them?are they wrong?did they affect others? no!

LET THEM GET MARRY!

markfinn

wenxue wrote: »

They just want to marry someone they loves,why you want to stop them?are they wrong?did they affect others? no!

LET THEM GET MARRY!

I'll happily debate you on the topic at length and in detail, sometime when you're actually interested in it and not just throwing ****e around trying to disrupt an informed democratic referendum.

For now, however, your rights to an opinion have been suspended due to deliberate stupidity on your part in an effort to deceive and derail.

elfy4eva

wenxue wrote: »

They just want to marry someone they loves,why you want to stop them?are they wrong?did they affect others? no!

LET THEM GET MARRY!

I never said anything against the concept of polygamy (that's coming from your post with its warped sarcasm), all I said is that this referendum in Ireland has nothing to do with it. Trying to attribute it is purely just trying to rabble rouse.

nice_guy80

I was expecting videos or at least photos

Uncle Ben

wenxue wrote: »

http://www.westernjournalism.com/three-lesbian-women-massachusetts-marry/



Is polygamy now becoming acceptable in American society? Three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”

Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I like.

AlphaRed

elfy4eva wrote: »

Your title is disgraceful, you've attempted to relate this scenario to a yes vote in next month's referendum even though the referendum has nothing to do with polygamy.

The referendum has nothing to do with equality.

The question is about does sex matter. So our identity as men and women is at sake.

househero

AlphaRed wrote: »

The referendum has nothing to do with equality.

The question is about does sex matter. So our identity as men and women is at sake.

No it isn't.

A man is still a man. A woman is still a woman.

And some people will remain to be idiots

AlphaRed

househero wrote: »

No it isn't.

A man is still a man. A woman is still a woman.

And some people will remain to be idiots

You don't even know what the vote is about.

househero

AlphaRed wrote: »

You don't even know what the vote is about.

Enlighten me then o ye of higher powers

gctest50

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I was expecting videos or at least photos

spurious

firstfamiliesfirst.com

AlphaRed

househero wrote: »

Enlighten me then o ye of higher powers

Go to my thread about "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction" Do you see any word about equality there?

househero

AlphaRed wrote: »

Go to my thread about "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction" Do you see any word about equality there?

Hahahaha o dear...

I asked you to explain what the election was about for you. Giving you a fair opportunity to explain how you feel. But instead you send me to a thread that has destroyed your own bigoted view and you carry on to claim its not about equality. Which I didn't mention.

Don't tell me what its not about. Take this opportunity to say what you think, it IS about.


For me
The vote is about telling the government to fek off telling people what to do. Not equality.

We have free will.

gctest50

AlphaRed wrote: »

Go to my thread about "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction" Do you see any word about equality there?

can't find it ? is it this one ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95188098

househero

If you want alpha. I have started a new thread,

SSM what are you voting no?


There seems to be a lack of reasons to vote no

AlphaRed

househero wrote: »

Hahahaha o dear...

I asked you to explain what the election was about for you. Giving you a fair opportunity to explain how you feel. But instead you send me to a thread that has destroyed your own bigoted view and you carry on to claim its not about equality. Which I didn't mention.

Don't tell me what its not about. Take this opportunity to say what you think, it IS about.


For me
The vote is about telling the government to fek off telling people what to do. Not equality.

We have free will.

The title of the thread explains what the referendum is about. People are trying to conflate equality with the referendum. The referendum is about sex and whether is matters or not. You only call me a bigot because I don't agree with your views, that's just name calling but whatever.

spurious

AlphaRed wrote: »

The title of the thread explains what the referendum is about. People are trying to conflate equality with the referendum. The referendum is about sex and whether is matters or not. You only call me a bigot because I don't agree with your views, that's just name calling but whatever.

So, allowing me to marry the person I choose to means you will have to marry two lesbians?

AlphaRed

househero wrote: »

If you want alpha. I have started a new thread,

SSM what are you voting no?


There seems to be a lack of reasons to vote no

The number of reasons is not relevant. If there is only one and that one is correct that's all that matters.

If the yes side have more reasons I suspect it's because they are confusing the issue.

househero

AlphaRed wrote: »

The title of the thread explains what the referendum is about. People are trying to conflate equality with the referendum. The referendum is about sex and whether is matters or not. You only call me a bigot because I don't agree with your views, that's just name calling but whatever.

I didnt call you a bigot. But you do appear to have bigoted views.

The referendum is about sex to you. As other no voters I know, you also seem incapable of seeing things from another persons point of view. For others, its about rights, its about freedom of choice, its about reducing the states influence, its about boosting our economy, its about 1 in 10 people being told they can live their lives without middle eastern style fear of reprisal, it's about showing the world we are not backwards bigots.

Voting yes, Is about alienating bigoted people and accepting good, hardworking people who want to be recognised as a couple.


I am voting YES, so people like you can no longer force your bigoted view on others.

I am not entirely comfortable around gay people. But I would rather be on their side, than the side of oppression and the no vote.

househero

AlphaRed wrote: »

The number of reasons is not relevant. If there is only one and that one is correct that's all that matters.

If the yes side have more reasons I suspect it's because they are confusing the issue.

The only reason people have given to vote no. Is they are homophobic.

Is that the right reason you are referring to?

AlphaRed

househero wrote: »

The only reason people have given to vote no. Is they are homophobic.

Is that the right reason you are referring to?

You don't know that the NO side is homophobic, in general it seems people are concerned with redefining marriage. I think the issue is does sex matter and I think it does.

You seem very closed minded about the issue. You keep going back to homophobia, that just isn't the issue.

bopper

househero wrote: »

The only reason people have given to vote no. Is they are homophobic.

Let's be fair, that's not true, and tarnishing every no voter as a homophobe will not help the yes campaign in the slightest. I think a lot of no votes come down to a lack of understanding towards the significant number of yes supporters who will be personally effected by the result of this referendum on a massive level. Add that to the fact that the mothers and fathers matter campaign is based on scaremongering and misleading information. This will only inevitably sway some impartial/undecided voters to vote no. I don't agree with any of the reasons people have given to vote no, but it's unfair to say that every no voter out there is a homophobe (even though some of them obviously are).

To be honest the two arguments for a no vote presented in this thread are so overwhelmingly stupid that the best thing to do is simply ignore. They actually hinder the no campaign instead of helping it, so why bother getting into a pointless argument that will inevitably get nasty. The best thing for the yes voter to do is remain positive and allow the no campaign to keep digging their own grave.

BoJack Horseman

Ridiculous post to start a thread.

Some sillyness no less trivial than my toddler "Marrying" our two cats to each other..... Somehow used as a means to question the motives of supporting SSM.

You can't get good bigots these days.

mister gullible

This follows on from OP's scintillating thread entitled "If vote yes,can brothers get marry?"

Del.Monte

markfinn wrote: »

Seems to be the way of the No campaign.

They have no actual arguments or points that aren't completely spurious to all non-bigots, so they throw a continual stream of dodgy statements unrelated to the actual issue, and hope to emotively persuade enough uninformed folks to vote based on the "ick factor" of their straw-men.

Which would be hilarious, if we as a nation didn't divide so nicely between complacent and ill-informed.
Just take this newest spray of nonsense as one more reminder that ALL non-bigots need to be out campaigning and voting on this one.

Regardless of any polls (seeing as no-voters/campaigners seem to have no problem with deceit and misinformation) we need this to be a YES landslide, or we could well end up with news articles along the lines of "And as the polls close, it seems the homophobes have voted in record numbers..."

Just like anybody who intends to vote No, or dares speak out against the herd, is labelled a homophobe or bigot. :rolleyes: