• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

3 Lesbians Married To Each other?

Mike

Well-known member
Hey libs, here's your unintended consequences we told you of. :lol:
Skip to comments.
Three Lesbian Women ‘Marry’ Each Other, Claim to Be World’s First ‘Throuple’
Christian News Network | May 5, 2014

MASSACHUSETTS – Three women in Massachusetts claim they are the world’s first lesbian ‘throuple,’ after they all exchanged wedding vows and ‘married’ each other last year.

Brynn, Doll, and Kitten are three women who range in age from 27 to 34. Last August, they organized a wedding-style ceremony, in which they entered into a threesome “marriage” union.

Even though Massachusetts recognizes same-sex “marriages,” polygamy is illegal. However, that did not deter Brynn, Doll, and Kitten from entering into a three-way relationship.

“In our eyes we are married,” Brynn told The Sun newspaper. “We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

The three women recognized that their union is possibly unprecedented.

“As far as we know, there aren’t any other three women who are married like us,” Doll told the Daily Mail.

Doll says she has considered herself to be polygamous since high school.

“I had always dated girls, who—although they had boyfriends or girlfriends—were also allowed to date me,” she stated. “I never thought that much about it and I had never really come out as poly to my friends and family. To me, it was just how I was.”

Brynn describes their relationship as a “romantic committee,” where the household responsibilities are allocated between the three of them. Nevertheless, she says that she and her two partners are “very traditional people” and “perfectly normal.”

“Doll, Kitten, and I may not be the norm but we are perfectly normal,” she claims. “We are simply people trying to live the life that we feel is best for us and we deserve the rights afforded to others.”

According to the three women, they would like to raise children by using anonymous sperm donors. They say they want three children—one for each of them.

“We always joke that the children should never outnumber the parents,” Brynn says.

Massachusetts officials say they will not reprimand the three women for their polygamous relationship.

As previously reported, non-traditional marriage and parenting structures are becoming increasingly common, with contract-based “co-parenting” especially on the rise. Late last year, a federal judge struck down part of Utah’s polygamy ban as unconstitutional.

Experts have long warned of the societal consequences of non-Biblical “marriage” models. In an article published last December, Ken Klukowski of the Center for Religious Liberty explains that the legalization of homosexuality opens the door to polygamy.

“If government cannot forbid homosexual conduct, this argument goes, then neither can it deny those who define themselves by homosexual behavior to officially recognize any such relationship as a marriage,” Klukowski wrote. “It began a religious and philosophical debate in America between two different definitions of marriage and family.”

“The new conception of marriage, rooted in the proliferation of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s and the sexual revolution, is that marriage is about personal happiness and fulfillment,” he continued. “People should be free to form whatever relationships they find personally satisfying and to follow whatever their personal sexual inclinations are to engage in whatever form of sexual behavior they find gratifying.”

“If, therefore, you have a right to officially recognize those homosexual relationships through redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, then there is no reason to say it cannot include more than two people, so long as everyone is a consenting adult,” Klukowski proposed. “The exact legal arguments for same-sex marriage equally apply to multiple-person marriages.”
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Why not? Seems anything goes these days.

If they were not in a western country they would be in serious physical danger.

So I guess you could say they owe it to the kindness of the Christian background of our Founding Fathers plus the forgiveness and acceptance of a kinder and gentler society.

Then again, they would probably spit in my face for me saying that.

Oh what the heck - time for someone to marry their dog and adopt a set of twin boys.

It is coming.

bc
 

Mike

Well-known member
I'm waiting for Fatsquatch to stroll by and mention that Mormons have more than one wife, so why can't the Lesbians? :lol: :lol:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Why not? Seems anything goes these days.

If they were not in a western country they would be in serious physical danger.

So I guess you could say they owe it to the kindness of the Christian background of our Founding Fathers plus the forgiveness and acceptance of a kinder and gentler society.

Then again, they would probably spit in my face for me saying that.

Oh what the heck - time for someone to marry their dog and adopt a set of twin boys.

It is coming.

bc

That's quite a thought.
I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime, or my grandson's.
YUK.
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
Mike said:
I'm waiting for Fatsquatch to stroll by and mention that Mormons have more than one wife, so why can't the Lesbians? :lol: :lol:

you make several good points there, 3k---doubt the lesbians were raised to do this, so probably free choice. And it didn't sound as if any of them were minors . And no mention of their brothers being disowned or kicked out so girls could marry 'uncle bob'

havn't seen anybody in the great ongoing 'I'm a Christian!" debate professing to be Mormon. wonder---are Mormons Christians? I know they put crosses on a couple hundred of their meeting houses in salt lake during the Olympics but never see any anywhere else?
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
For BC

Anty Borrowwits

EXPANDED WASHINGTON DC, EASTERN FEDERAL DIVISION (MISSISSIPI RIVER TO ATLANTIC OCEAN)- The Supreme Court is now expected to rule on a monumental case of adoptive rights by September (Dhu l-Kada 1435- for those that practice Jihad on fellow believers in the same allah, but terroristically funny just don't know it :) ) This legislative decision by the court is going to have a ripple effect throughout the non-muslim community. It has been reported that the grand imam will likely make his decision the following week after reviewing the Supreme Court's suggestions. That decision will be the official national Sharia law applicable to practicing muslims and their purchased non-consenting, act of reproductive, partners.

The case has pit two fascinating and well funded political activist groups at odds with each other, People for the Ethical Treatment of Spousal Animals (PETSA), and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal Parents (PETAP). Both claimed to have extorted several hundred million from tax payers along with old fashion tactics of requesting donations. Those totals are expected to be tallied and delivered to the national bureaucratic coffers in late August giving the Court a week or more notice to assist in deciding the case outcome. When asked about the amount of money expected to change hands, Washington insiders notified the Free'ish Press that all the money would go to far left and farther left Congressional campaigns, so no further questions were necessary.

The question posed to the Court revolves around the legality of adoption of a baby by a newly married couple. The couple, a consenting 35 year old infertile Hispanic woman and a red, 2 year old, neutered male Golden Retriever named Sparky. The Court's new calculating formula still places the heaviest burden on political donations, but does take into consideration the sex and racial background of the parties following the mountain of precedents noted from college entrance, government mandated hiring quotas and fairness of imprisoning act that was upheld last year (A prison cannot accept a minority prisoner if the prisoner will increase the prison population of that particular race over the surrounding % of local, state, or national population on the last recorded census). It is believed that if the case had involved a white male, the Court would not have heard it.

The coupled applied for adoption of an infant girl, they hope to likely lean bi-courious. Being a "mixed" couple, their application was given priority and a background check was rubber stamped. When placed on the stand to inquire about the vigorous process by the PETAP lawyer, the application office employee beamed, "What little girl wouldn't want to go home with a Golden Retriever?".

Tension in the courtroom rose when (PETSA's) attorney quipped, "Isn't there a huge backlog of Homo's and Dikes waiting for a baby? The mother apparently doesn't want them, just kill em. What does it matter?". The un-nammed attorney with unknown political association was quickly reminded by the Court of the national outrage and rioting created by the infamous racist, rightwing, woman hating, age'ist- Mr. JOHN SMITH (SS# 555-55-5555) of the last Teabagging administration to stand in front of the court and use the archaic and insensitive "L" term describing two female companions. A freedom of information act request has been filed for JOHN SMITH's newest home address/cell phone number and will be posted in any follow up articles. A recess was requested for PETSA to donated $100k to the Women Against the "L" Word organization. PETSA is planning to attend and accept the WALW lifetime achievement award in 3 weeks.

Upon return from the short recess, the question was erased from the record and PETSA gave the Court a conundrum to decide. PETSA placed into the record, the original request that the wife filled with the Equal to humans Co-habitation League where the couple met. A specific question was highlighted in yellow: Are there any children in the home, or do you plan to introduce any children to the home? He then asked, "Ma'am did you or did you not answer No?" "Yes, I answered No.", she replied. He then notified the court, that not only did she act in willful disregard of the Co-habitation agreement signed prior to state authorized marriage, but that she will be neglecting Sparky, a crime much more heinous. He went on to say "How do I know Sparky will be neglected? I took a very scientific survey on the thoughts of local bar patrons."

Placing a paper file 3 inches thick on the counter, the PETSA lawyer noted how much time and effort it takes to obtain co-habitation authorization with a canine companion. He noted the references needed from friends, medical health professionals, spiritual leaders- if applicable, and environmental inspectors. He then placed a single document on the table, an abortion authorization form. He stated, "This doesn't even require the notification of a parent for an underage child." Resting his case, he said "Which do you think this woman has more obligation to care for? Which does our modern society, with it's modern views and interpretations say is more important?"
[/b]
 
Top