You start to think this country is making progress, meanwhile there is Dick Dynasty everywhere.

That started as a typo, but I decided it was better off. Look at it, in all of its unedited beauty.

Better watch out, socially conservative florists and bakers of Utah.

Looks like there was a limited ruling in Ohio as well.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/fe ... ouples-out




I couldn't find the exact post in the archives, but I remember that this is a path that punkdavid had suggested way back around 2005 or so. It may not be necessary for a state like Ohio to certify same sex marriages, but it would be required to recognize such marriages performed in another state. This, of course, would result in de facto legalization nationwide.

However, if that Utah case gets traction this question becomes moot.

Oklahoma, come on down!

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... rriage.pdf

I'm still waiting to see an Idaho ruling soon.

When can we expect to see your slippery slope?

I honestly can't see why anyone would be against marriage being open to multiple partners. If people can live as married with multiple partners then they should be able to avail themselves to the sames rights and responsibilties and status as those who choose to have just one partner. Women and men can both have children with multiple partners and they have all the same rights and responsibilities as parents who choose to have children with just a single partner. Marriage should be no different.

Fuck. Why would any man want to subject himself to such a hellish prospect?

Are you disapproving of the personal choices some people make? Or that the same rights and responsibilities are granted to all?

I'm disapproving of these being considered equivalents. Parental rights are extended (initially) to the two people involved in the creation of a child. It's not possible for there to be more than two people involved in this act. The rights extend from the child to the people who created it. A third person who has a child with one of the two parents in question but isn't the parent of the specific child in question isn't extended the same rights with regards to the child. They exist in different units, with a clear line of separation between them. These are not conditions or delineations that exist within a polygamous marriage, so to act like it's an equivalent situation is absurd.

Tell that to step-parents, family members that children sometimes live with, or the parent paying court ordered child support to multiple people.

If the state can govern and sanction the relationship between a parent with children from multiple partners, I am quite sure they could do the same for adults who want to enter into multiple relationships that provide the same rights and responsibilities as provided to those in a one to one relationship.

Dude, you took the bait.

If I have multiple wives, and my wives have multiple husbands, what does that make me and the other husbands? i propose the term "fuck-husbands".

Fucksbands.

Gladly. There is a set of rights afforded to birth parents, and when certain rights are given to people who aren't the birth parents, they come at the expense of the birth parents. You don't have more than two people who have IDENTICAL rights in regards to the child.



There is a "product" that can tangibly be measured when you are dealing with parents, which is the child. A child is a physical being that exists and can be quantified in much more real ways than something as abstract than a marriage.

We need to talk.

Actually you can. Spem donation baby born into a lesbian relationship. All three parents have identical rights. The relationship is between the parent and child. Each additional child has an immediate impact on the rights of any preceding children, namely the right to and the amount of financial support available to them.

I am sorry that you don't feel those in the poly community shouldn't have the same rights, responsibilities, and government support as those in the LBGTQ* and hetero communities have when it comes to marriage. Each marriage is between on person to another, the only change is not mandating this be exclusive. About as big a change as "union of one man and one women" to "union of one person to another person". Every arguement I've hear against legalized multiple marriages sounds a whole lot like the bigoted crap that was spouted against gay marriage.

I have actually never said anything of this nature. I simply pointed out the sheer absurdity of your "equivalency." The irony of this is I probably know people who are legitimately members of the poly community than you do, but you're just trying to make an asinine point on a message board as opposed to actually knowing people who are affected by these issues. Not a single one of them would be dumb enough to try to make the equivalency claim you're making here between child rights and marriage rights. But then again you appear to be the equivalent of one of those teenagers who are really into LGBTQ rights because of Glee or some shit like that and view them as more about being an expression of "out there" as opposed to actually being someone concerned about the rights of actual people, aren't you?

Hey, I finally found an equivalency here that works!

why haven't any of you asked chud his opinion on this?