I think "queer" is used in some sense ironically. Similar to black people referring to each other as N***** or the like. By owning the word you control its meaning. Or something.
The LGBT abbreviation is one of those things that can change quite often as there's some disagreement over order and how many letters ought to be included. It's probably better to go for "LGBT*" where the * stands for "miscellaneous". But entering this world can be a bit of a minefield I'm afraid. Most people won't mind so long as you respect them; others (but a tiny minority!) can get a incredibly irate if you don't instantly divine that they are non-binary trans*** fruitarian helicopters.
In terms of three-way marriages... I'd hesitate to call them marriages, but such matters really ought to be a matter for the three people concerned and if that is the relationship they choose to pursue then why not allow it?
AOG wins the "act of pettiness of the week award" for digging all the way through ZM's posts to go back to something from February -- and in Chatterbank, for that matter.
The Green party were asked a question about 3 way marriages and they said they would discuss it. They have no definite 0plans one way or the other.
Lets face it a few years ago the idea of men marrying men was something nobody thought would happen and if a politician was asked 20 years ago they would have laughed at the idea.
But if they were asked 5 years ago (from any political party) they may not have laughed and said they may think about it.
When one opts to debase the meaning of a word it is then fair game to be used for all sorts of things.
Might this be a hope for tax benefits and death estate benefits to be extended ? In which case can I request someone who has their own place apart from mine can be counted as my partner, and not have all this privilege for some and not others ? all it needs is a name box (or maybe a name list) on the tax return.