First family in California with THREE dads on birth certificate opens up

[miketx]

Holy shit, are you stalking following me ? Since you asked, I do support polyandry ? We have the capacity to love and be intimate with multiple people and infact I have experienced it. Plural marriage is a more complicated question. I have no moral objection but it could be problematic legally for a whole lot of reasons.

How many husbands do you have?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Holy shit, are you stalking following me ?

Paranoia will destroy ya, TPP.

I clicked on "Law and Justice System," and your thread about Oklahoma law and this thread were the first two listed. I assume the reason for keeping threads from months ago is in case someone wants to comment on them.

You are the first progressive I ever saw appear to express support for plural marriage, so I was interested. Sue me, or PM the mods that you're being victimized.

Since you asked, I do support polyandry ? We have the capacity to love and be intimate with multiple people and infact I have experienced it.

Ok . . .

Plural marriage is a more complicated question. I have no moral objection but it could be problematic legally for a whole lot of reasons.

So could same-sex marriage as your other thread demonstrates. It sounds like you are making up excuses for not supporting plural marriage. What's the matter? Mormons and Muslims not PC enough for you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Paranoia will destroy ya, TPP.

I clicked on "Law and Justice System," and your thread about Oklahoma law and this thread were the first two listed. I assume the reason for keeping threads from months ago is in case someone wants to comment on them.

You are the first progressive I ever saw appear to express support for plural marriage, so I was interested. Sue me, or PM the mods that you're being victimized.

Ok . . .

So could same-sex marriage as your other thread demonstrates. It sounds like you are making up excuses for not supporting plural marriage. What's the matter? Mormons and Muslims not PC enough for you?

Dude! Are you really so far out on a limb that you have to resort to a Straw Man Logical Fallacy. I never said that I was opposed to plural marriage. I said that it is complicated legally. Much more so than same sex marriage involving just two people which is what our legal system is geared up to.

For instance:

How would employer benefits be handled? If you are married to 5 people, would an employer be obligated to extend benefits all of your spouses?

If one of you numerous spouses has a child, are all of them presumptive parents?

Would the IRS be able to deal with a joint income tax return filed by 10 people?
If someonewants a divorce, do they have to divorce everyone or can they be selective?

I could go on but you get the idea. Group marriage in infinatly more complex than same sex marriage

 

[miketx]

Dude! Are you really so far out on a limb that you have to resort to a Straw Man Logical Fallacy. I never said that I was opposed to plural marriage. I said that it is complicated legally. Much more so than same sex marriage involving just two people which is what our legal system is geared up to.

For instance:

How would employer benefits be handled? If you are married to 5 people, would an employer be obligated to extend benefits all of your spouses?

If one of you numerous spouses has a child, are all of them presumptive parents?

Would the IRS be able to deal with a joint income tax return filed by 10 people?
If someonewants a divorce, do they have to divorce everyone or can they be selective?

I could go on but you get the idea. Group marriage in infinatly more complex than same sex marriage

How many husbands do you have?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Dude! Are you really so far out on a limb that you have to resort to a Straw Man Logical Fallacy. I never said that I was opposed to plural marriage. I said that it is complicated legally. Much more so than same sex marriage involving just two people which is what our legal system is geared up to.

For instance:

How would employer benefits be handled? If you are married to 5 people, would an employer be obligated to extend benefits all of your spouses?

If one of you numerous spouses has a child, are all of them presumptive parents?

Would the IRS be able to deal with a joint income tax return filed by 10 people?
If someonewants a divorce, do they have to divorce everyone or can they be selective?

I could go on but you get the idea. Group marriage in infinatly more complex than same sex marriage

Yes, in the words of the Statler Brothers,

Things get complicated
when you get past eighteen

But, if you support plural marriage, I have no dispute with you on that.

All of those issues you list, are different from, but no more complicated than, the legal issues involved in two-person marriage. Often, when posters make vague statements about things being "complicated," it's an attempt to deflect from the fact that they oppose whatever is being discussed for no good reason.

I think that is is crazy that a guy can get a dozen women pregnant, watch them all go on welfare and come over for a barbecue courtesy of their food stamps with no penalty at all, while a guy who marries two women and takes care of them and their children can go to jail.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But, if you support plural marriage, I have no dispute with you on that.

All of those issues you list, are different from, but no more complicated than, the legal issues involved in two-person marriage. Often, when posters make vague statements about things being "complicated," it's an attempt to deflect from the fact that they oppose whatever is being discussed for no good reason.

I explained where I stood on it. Take it or leave it. You can believe what you want about whether I support it or not. I do not deflect. I say what I think, and although I could support it, I think that it is not something to rush into for the reasons that I gave Plural Marrige can be a legal mine field and I maintain that it is infinitly more complex that same sex marriage involving two people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think that is is crazy that a guy can get a dozen women pregnant, watch them all go on welfare and come over for a barbecue courtesy of their food stamps with no penalty at all, while a guy who marries two women and takes care of them and their children can go to jail.

I agree. The question is how do we fix it in a way that is workable?

 

[Seymour Flops]

I explained where I stood on it. Take it or leave it. You can believe what you want about whether I support it or not.

No, I believe you and I said so. If I sounded sarcastic about that, it was not my intent.

I do not deflect. I say what I think, and although I could support it, I think that it is not something to rush into for the reasons that I gave Plural Marrige can be a legal mine field and I maintain that it is infinitly more complex that same sex marriage involving two people.

Right, and same-sex marriage had its own complexities. The USSC did not tell the states how to overcome those complexities, it only told them to issue marriage licenses and to and recognize the marriages of, same-sex couples.

I don't believe that they would ever make a similar ruling for trios and more, and I don't know that they should. States can make those laws and states can figure out what to do about them.

I agree. The question is how do we fix it in a way that is workable?

The obvious solution is for government not to give any benefits to people for having babies with no jobs, nor any benefits just for being married. My solution is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether, and let churches or other organizations sanction marriage as they see fit. Meanwhile, allow everyone to select their next of kin. If a person wants to name more than one next of kin, they can do that, but they should realize things will be complicated if they die that way.

I'd love for the state to track down deadbeat dads, but I also know that we would spend more money on that than we could squeeze out of them.

So, the workable solution is to just allow allow a person to marry a second spouse without having to divorce the first. I'm not sure why that would be complicated for anyone other than the people involved who choose that. There were are are complications for inter-racial married couples, but they have to work those out also.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, I believe you and I said so. If I sounded sarcastic about that, it was not my intent.

No problem

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As one could have predicted, California is again of the progressive cutting edge. The definition of "family" is ever evolving and California is leading the way. To all of those who lament the fact that there are too many absent fathers, I ask you, how great is this?

First family in California with THREE dads on birth certificate opens up – Ruheight

View attachment 428686

Which one has the vagina?

 

[Meathead]

As one could have predicted, California is again of the progressive cutting edge. The definition of "family" is ever evolving and California is leading the way. To all of those who lament the fact that there are too many absent fathers, I ask you, how great is this?

First family in California with THREE dads on birth certificate opens up – Ruheight

View attachment 428686

What a joyous occasion!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Right, and same-sex marriage had its own complexities. The USSC did not tell the states how to overcome those complexities, it only told them to issue marriage licenses and to and recognize the marriages of, same-sex couples.

Yes same sex marriagedoes have complexities, like the buisness about presumption of parenthood. Actually, as I have established, the court did indeed tell the states how to deal with that issue.

Also, as I have established , the SCOTUS ruling did much more than just tell the states to allow gay marriage. It instructed the states to extend to same sex couples ALL of the same rights that others enjoy under their state laws. I don't understand why you keep ignoring that fact

Your takeing the position that group marriage is not more legally complex than samesex marriage, but you have had little to say about the reasons that I outlines that suggest that it is more complex.

 

[miketx]

Yes same sex marriagedoes have complexities

Like figuring out if you're a pitcher or a catcher? Do you flip a coin to decide?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't believe that they would ever make a similar ruling for trios and more, and I don't know that they should. States can make those laws and states can figure out what to do about them.

Right probably not. Laws against same sex marrige got shot down by SCOTUS because the states could not establish a compelling government interest or even a rational basis for them. It would be a whole different ball game for plural marriage for the reasons that I gave and probably others that I have't thought of

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The obvious solution is for government not to give any benefits to people for having babies with no jobs, nor any benefits just for being married. My solution is for government to get out of the marriage business altogether, and let churches or other organizations sanction marriage as they see fit. Meanwhile, allow everyone to select their next of kin. If a person wants to name more than one next of kin, they can do that, but they should realize things will be complicated if they die that way.

I saw that one comming a mile away. Sure, throw the baby out with the bath water inorder to avoid sticky issues. I have hear this all before but no one has been able to explain exactly how they would go about untangling marriage and goverment in a way that would garner public support

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your takeing the position that group marriage is not more legally complex than samesex marriage, but you have had little to say about the reasons that I outlines that suggest that it is more complex.

Since you support plural marriage, you should have answered those questions for yourself.

It doesn't seem so complicated to me. Inheritance law is more complicated when there are more than one heir, but we don't use that as a reason to ban plural childbirth. If it really is such a brain teaser for you, here:

How would employer benefits be handled? If you are married to 5 people, would an employer be obligated to extend benefits all of your spouses?

The libertarian answer: However the employer wants to handle it. Employers shouldn't be obligated to extend benefits to anyone.

If an employer does extend benefits because the law forces them to, I see no reason why they can't do that for multiple spouses, as they already do for multiple children.

If one of you numerous spouses has a child, are all of them presumptive parents?

The family could choose to designate only two people on the birth certificate, or three or more as in the example of three dads that you seemed to have no problem with.

Would the IRS be able to deal with a joint income tax return filed by 10 people?

They can't deal with my very simple one spouse joint tax return this year. It has bounced back three times with no real explanation of what the problem is, no one answering the supposed customer service line, and no help from the website, even though I sign on to my account. If we have to wait for the IRS to suddenly become competent, we'll wait a long time.

If someonewants a divorce, do they have to divorce everyone or can they be selective?

In both the Morman tradition and the Muslim tradition, the woman marries the male, who later marries another woman, and so on. Each of the women are married to the man, so any divorce would also be between the man and the woman. Morman women call each other "sister wives," but as far as I know, do not consider themselves married to each other.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Right probably not. Laws against same sex marrige got shot down by SCOTUS because the states could not establish a compelling government interest or even a rational basis for them. It would be a whole different ball game for plural marriage for the reasons that I gave and probably others that I have't thought of

What is the compelling government interest in stopping plural marriage? Is it the same as the compelling government interest in stopping all plural relationships?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which one has the vagina?

Hey kid! This is an adult forum. Take your juvenile, school yard bullshit some place else

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since you support plural marriage, you should have answered those questions for yourself.

I said that I have no moral objection. I support it in principle . But I also said that there arepitfalls and we should not plung head long into it for the reasons that I outlines

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It doesn't seem so complicated to me. Inheritance law is more complicated when there are more than one heir, but we don't use that as a reason to ban plural childbirth. If it really is such a brain teaser for you, here:

The libertarian answer: However the employer wants to handle it. Employers shouldn't be obligated to extend benefits to anyone.

Ah you are a libertarian! That explains a lot