Partnerships Revisited

Kender had some vailid points.

Read them here

I really do have to agree on what you have posted so far. Again as I have pointed out it is not a man woman thing. One other point to make is that most are arguing the point of marriage being between a man and woman based on some idea that marriage is about love. As you can see from Kenders point it is a corprate issue.

Also, you all must realize that most argue this whole thing based on the idea that you can only have two people in a realtionship. Well, I agree actually.

Party 1 or Party 2 may add the occational outside entertainment partnership, but there are to be no permanent additions unless the new partner is only singly invested upon by partner1 or parner2. A long term clause would be necessary to bind the 3rd party through adendum to the opriginal contract Again, this is an entertainment expense/gain over all if the partnership is turned into a living environment partnership and not just outsourced services.

So three ways and swinging would be legal in the original contact but not binding in the inclusive idea of the partnership. It is merely a legal loophole for this interested in extracaricular adventures.

Gods now I have really sent out a strange message don't you all think. But I have several examples of these situations to work from.

Couple #1 in Fresno, are both bi sexual and have extra caricualr outside entertainment adventures that are agreed upon before said adventure takes place.

Couple #2 is a straight couple from Orange county where one said female in the relationship likes to spank, bite, and comand other male specimen without sexual completion for thier entertained involvments. This is also done through pre arrainged agreements in their current marriage contact of prostition.

Couple #3 is a straight female and a Bi-sexual male married for 6 years with said male having a male partner for 5 years living in the same home. Note: they have suceded in this endeavor for five year without the help of the sate or federal government. They also do not expect to legalize their partnerships any time soon because persons 1 & 2 have a legally bind marriage contract of prostitution and adding another person to that would be illegal under the current standing of laws.

Note: With the new rules and contracts proposed couple #3 would be able to add said third individual under the clause of long term entertainment expense and gain. Thus allowing for retirement benifits, life and death situtational dtermination, and tax benifits.

Seems crazy but many couple are already doing all of this without anyone help of changing family values or prostetution charges. Seems to me that allowing anyone to contractually obligate themselves to one another would make paying taxes and such a little confusing, but much more profitable to all involved including our government.

Tee hee