ChatterBank3 mins ago
The World's First Married Lesbian Threesome.
67 Answers
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/f email/a rticle- 2611020 /Meet-w orlds-m arried- lesbian -threes ome-bab y-make- four-Ju ly.html
I know that this happened in America, but isn't this taking the gay marriage thingy a little too far?
I know that this happened in America, but isn't this taking the gay marriage thingy a little too far?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Scooping, you seem a tad confused, does this entry from Chambers help?
Marriage 1 the state or relationship of being husband and wife. 2 the act, or legal contract, of becoming husband and wife. 3 the CIVIL or RELIGIOUS ceremony during which this act is performed; a wedding. 4 a joining together; a union.
I think you're treading on thin ice there, scooping. The Oxford dictionary defines marriage as: "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife". If it were solely a religious institution, religious marriage ceremonies conducted without a registrar present would render the union legal - but they're not.
I'm interested to see that one of them is handfasted to the other two. I know in the past handfasting in front of witnesses was a perfectly acceptable way of uniting man and woman, but I didn't know it had legal standing anywhere these days, which this article seems to suggest it does. If so, what's the difference in law (or not in law) between handfasting and just living with someone, which so many people do these days?
You are reporting how something is described, not how is should be correctly be defined.
My view is that the term marriage should be viewed and understood in its historical context, that of a religious institution.
I am not saying that marriage is not a legal entity in this country, of course it is. I'd repeat my point about whether we should have civil baptism. It makes no sense.
May I add that we need as much love in world as we can get. That applies to everyone.
First rule of holes, I suppose, when you're in one stop digging...Love to all.
My view is that the term marriage should be viewed and understood in its historical context, that of a religious institution.
I am not saying that marriage is not a legal entity in this country, of course it is. I'd repeat my point about whether we should have civil baptism. It makes no sense.
May I add that we need as much love in world as we can get. That applies to everyone.
First rule of holes, I suppose, when you're in one stop digging...Love to all.
If only religious marriage is legal, scooping, then neither of mine were/are legal. Of course marriage isn't contingent on religion. You can be married by anyone who is licenced to marry people, the Church or whatever religion has nothing to do with it.
Scooping, we already have civil baptism. It's called a naming ceremony.
Scooping, we already have civil baptism. It's called a naming ceremony.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.