Is it 'Living the dream' to have 2 Wives ?

[Spearchucker87]

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/moms-dad-babies-make-big-happy-polyamorous-family/story?id=31184051

.......Who also happen to be lesbians?

.........And who let you make babies with both of them?

Not exactly "lipstick lesbians", but still, you get Two.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

No.
I don't even need to click the link to answer that question.

 

[nolelan]

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/moms-dad-babies-make-big-happy-polyamorous-family/story?id=31184051

.......Who also happen to be lesbians?

.........And who let you make babies with both of them?

Not exactly "lipstick lesbians", but still, you get Two.

Hell no. Based on personal experience 1 wife is too many........

 

[DanC78]

It's a perfect situation for two lesbians who want children and a male role model around to help raise them and pay bills...Yeah, that a perfect situation!

The guy...I'm sure he has some nights in the bedroom to be envious of, but outside of that...he can have that mess!

 

[BelemNole]

In theory? Perhaps. In practice? Shit, it's hard enough making a marriage work with two people, adding a third spinning plate is just a disaster waiting to happen. Look at this story, the short-haired lesbian already feels like a third wheel. It's only a matter of time before she leaves them for another woman who will be exclusive to her.

 

[RTM58]

Could he pick two less attractive women?

 

[alaskanseminole]

Could he pick two less attractive women?

Probably, but he'd be hard pressed.

 

[DanC78]

Could he pick two less attractive women?

They weren't knock outs, but I didn't think they were absolute dogs either.

 

[BelemNole]

They weren't knock outs, but I didn't think they were absolute dogs either.

At least not before they started squeezing out rug rats.

 

[Nole Lou]

Two wives sounds like a nightmare to me.

 

[Spearchucker87]

Could he pick two less attractive women?

LOL. Well in fairness, they picked Him.

If we could choose the hottest pair of lesbians our minds could imagine, with the exact sexual proclivities we most desired and the most amenable temperaments for easy living, I bet a lot more of us in this thread might want to seriously get into this PolyAmora or whatever it's called

 

[seminoledq]

Not a chance. If each woman gets a third in the divorce then he is worse off than if he only had one wife and a side piece that caused the divorce.

 

[Spearchucker87]

Not a chance. If each woman gets a third in the divorce then he is worse off than if he only had one wife and a side piece that caused the divorce.

Now that's thinking ahead. Article says that CA doesn't recognize the union, but it wasn't clear if he'd legally married either one of them. Legally, maybe if he actually married one that would limit him to losing only 50%. But if he marries neither, could there end up being some kind of "common law" recognition of the relationship, where he loses 67%?

 

[wdnole]

I smell a new reality show...

 

[runkpanole]

If by living the dream, you mean, having a nightmare, then sure.

 

[West Duval Nole]

Now that's thinking ahead. Article says that CA doesn't recognize the union, but it wasn't clear if he'd legally married either one of them. Legally, maybe if he actually married one that would limit him to losing only 50%. But if he marries neither, could there end up being some kind of "common law" recognition of the relationship, where he loses 67%?

I still don't understand why now this would not be a legal marriage. Shouldn't bisexuals be allowed to get married to botha man and a woman with the latest SCOTUS ruling?

 

[SeaPA]

I still don't understand why now this would not be a legal marriage. Shouldn't bisexuals be allowed to get married to botha man and a woman with the latest SCOTUS ruling?

I don't see any reason at all to think that the recent SCOTUS ruling would permit marriage to multiple spouses.

 

[West Duval Nole]

I don't see any reason at all to think that the recent SCOTUS ruling would permit marriage to multiple spouses.

Well then bisexuals are then being discriminated against. Why not allow multiple spouses if all are consenting and legally of age?

 

[FSUTribe76]

Well then bisexuals are then being discriminated against. Why not allow multiple spouses if all are consenting and legally of age?

I agree. If someone is stupid enough to saddle themselves up to multiple partners and they're fully capable of consent...go to town. I'm more than happy with just my wife. As a matter of fact I was just talking to her this weekend as I was forced to go to a typical longwinded full mass Catholic Wedding and I got bored so I read random portions of the bible during the ceremon. Why was that relevant to this? Because back then and in that area, if your brother-in-law croaked you were basically obligated to take your wife's sisters and SILs as your extra wives. My ^&*(, I would probably kill myself first or at least run away to someplace far, far from home or volunteer to be a frontline soldier.

But yeah, if you're stupid enough to do it...more power to you.

 

[kc78]

I honestly have no issue with multiple spouses as long as they are consenting and of legal age (Which many of the marriages of that type are not). I have no desire to have multiple spouses, but don't think it should be illegal. The only complexity that could cause the government from legalizing it would have to do with taxation and insurance benefits, etc...

 

[Fijimn]

I still don't understand why now this would not be a legal marriage. Shouldn't bisexuals be allowed to get married to botha man and a woman with the latest SCOTUS ruling?

The holding was that there was a marriage (one on one) marriage is a fundamental right. It did not say plural marriages are a fundamental right and you cant extend the holding to incorporate plural marriages. Second, you are conflating sexual orientation with love/marriage. What basis do you have to believe that a person that is bisexual (sexual orientation) would be accepting or even wanting to enter a plural marriage.

 

[West Duval Nole]

The holding was that there was a marriage (one on one) marriage is a fundamental right. It did not say plural marriages are a fundamental right and you cant extend the holding to incorporate plural marriages. Second, you are conflating sexual orientation with love/marriage. What basis do you have to believe that a person that is bisexual (sexual orientation) would be accepting or even wanting to enter a plural marriage.

The example provided in this thread is the example. The 1 lady is bisexual and wanted both a husband and a wife. And they seem to be making it work for all of them.

 

[RTM58]

And I think there were four other guys who didn't see the distinction.

"If not having the opportunity to marry 'serves to disrespect and subordinate' gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same 'imposition of this disability,' ... serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?" Scalia wrote. "I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any."

 

[Semiologist]

One frequently angry woman at a time....thank you.

 

[NYCNole]

Two wives is not a dream. I'm just thinking how many questions would be asked each day - frightening.

 

[Fijimn]

And I think there were four other guys who didn't see the distinction.

"If not having the opportunity to marry 'serves to disrespect and subordinate' gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn't the same 'imposition of this disability,' ... serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?" Scalia wrote. "I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any."

Scalia's dissent acknowledges that there may be a difference that he--as a conservative Catholic--is not familiar and did not want to equate them. Moreover, the last line is thrown in there as legality of plural marriage was not an issue on cert and, therefore, would not be addressed by the petitioners.

 

[West Duval Nole]

Scalia's dissent acknowledges that there may be a difference that he--as a conservative Catholic--is not familiar and did not want to equate them. Moreover, the last line is thrown in there as legality of plural marriage was not an issue on cert and, therefore, would not be addressed by the petitioners.

OK, so we may see yet another case specifically on this issue come before the supreme court? And chances are it would also pass with the same vote?

 

[RTM58]

Two wives is not a dream. I'm just thinking how many questions would be asked each day - frightening.

A Woman Will Say 21 Million Word's Before An Evinrude E-Tec Needs Maintenance.

 

[RTM58]

Scalia's dissent acknowledges that there may be a difference that he--as a conservative Catholic--is not familiar and did not want to equate them. Moreover, the last line is thrown in there as legality of plural marriage was not an issue on cert and, therefore, would not be addressed by the petitioners.

Yep

 

[Spearchucker87]

A Woman Will Say 21 Million Word's Before An Evinrude E-Tec Needs Maintenance.

I'm using a loaner computer today and i can't watch vids yet. But i can see a reasonably pleasant looking woman in the freeze frame. Is that her? The evinrude e-tec is some kind of artificial woman i could get instead of the aggravating real ones?

 

[Fijimn]

OK, so we may see yet another case specifically on this issue come before the supreme court? And chances are it would also pass with the same vote?

Possibly. However, the analysis will be different Under an EP analysis--the court would need to determine the level of scrutiny to apply to the EP argument (strict scrutiny (the highest), intermediate scrutiny or rational/reasonableness). I suspect that the court will find that there is no fundamental right to marry multiple spouses, thus, a law banning plural marriages (thus, discriminatory to polygamists that hold a sincere believe in plural) will likely have the rational basis scrutiny or the lowest scrutiny. A lot passes through this scrutiny level.

The state would argue that it has an interest in preventing a plural marriage for: (1) a regular and orderly system of property ownership, taxation and a system of descent & distribution (how intestate property is disbursed, which happens a lot). Second, there is a long history of abuse/predatory abuse to woman in plural marriage. Further, in plural marriage colonies, young males born in the community are ostracized and abandoned. The state has an interest in protecting these people.

 

[West Duval Nole]

Possibly. However, the analysis will be different Under an EP analysis--the court would need to determine the level of scrutiny to apply to the EP argument (strict scrutiny (the highest), intermediate scrutiny or rational/reasonableness). I suspect that the court will find that there is no fundamental right to marry multiple spouses, thus, a law banning plural marriages (thus, discriminatory to polygamists that hold a sincere believe in plural) will likely have the rational basis scrutiny or the lowest scrutiny. A lot passes through this scrutiny level.

The state would argue that it has an interest in preventing a plural marriage for: (1) a regular and orderly system of property ownership, taxation and a system of descent & distribution (how intestate property is disbursed, which happens a lot). Second, there is a long history of abuse/predatory abuse to woman in plural marriage. Further, in plural marriage colonies, young males born in the community are ostracized and abandoned. The state has an interest in protecting these people.

Interesting but could they then treat these polyamorous relationships differently then polygamous relationships and put the limit to 3 with the 3 being 2 of one gender and 1 of another and tell the states to figure out how to deal with property ownership and taxation. This way bisexuals are not discriminated against and not sure there is any history of abuse in polyamorous relationships.

 

[Fijimn]

Interesting but could they then treat these polyamorous relationships differently then polygamous relationships and put the limit to 3 with the 3 being 2 of one gender and 1 of another and tell the states to figure out how to deal with property ownership and taxation. This way bisexuals are not discriminated against and not sure there is any history of abuse in polyamorous relationships.

Well, there is no federal law on marriage after DoMA was declared unconstitutional. A state could approve polyamorous marriage and there would be no constitutional basis to challenge that law. Yes, there is a history of abuse and pedophilia in these type of relationships.

 

[KevNole]

Living with 2 wives =
A living nightmare

 

[More Kirk Less Spock]

2 girlfriends - yes. 2 wives - nope. Love my wife very much even after all these years, but there are days when I thank god I only have to ignore one woman's phone calls and texts....

 

[JLORYFSU!]

No. I am single and living the dream! One wife is one too many IMO.