Lifesite.com: The next marriage redefinition? Massachusetts lesbian ‘throuple’ expecting their first child

[twa]

I'd expect polygamy as being more likely than ancestral just because I think there's more individuals in this country that would likely desire such then desire an ancestral relationship between two legal aged individuals.

Additionally, I disagree with you in regards to gay marriage possibly removing the issues for these particular relationships. The strongest CONSTITUTIONAL argument for same sex marriage (not gay marriage) being legalized is an equal protection clause argument based on gender discrimination. The next strongest is likely a EPC argument based on sexual orientation.

I can't see something similar in terms of relatives. The "state interest" seems to be here that a married couple is more likely to have children, and relatives are more likely to have physically or mentally defective children.

Though I admit, I'm not sure how sound of an argument that will be in terms of a state interest. But I think society is closer to viewing polyamarous relationships as somewhat understandable as opposed to incest. Just my personal opinion there though.

 

hard to claim defective children as a barrier to two brothers or sisters ect. marrying  , and once there ya now have a gender based inequality issue that the science does not really support as far as birth defects.

 

how could SSM not remove it?

 

if gay brothers marry in a state w/o incest barriers ya then begin the same track we are on now.

the incest law is no different than the sodomy law Lawrence removed.

 

everything is just arbitrary lines

[Springfield]

I would just like to thank Adam for what he has added to the conversation. I think it's one of the things that makes this board so special. Great insight on the subject.

I was going to post something witty and clever (and smart-assed) about polygamists but Adam's posts really changed that. It's not all religious nuts who want 14 wives. It's normal people who have a different view on relationships as well.

Thank you Adam.

[s0crates]

I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with a polygamous relationship in principle, but I wouldn't want to be in one.

Incest is bad because of potential birth defects but, as has been pointed out, that potential doesn't necessarily exist in such relationships, so again hard to see anything wrong with it in principle. It just kind of grosses me out.

Pedophilia is a completely different matter. It involves victims and doesn't involve consent.

All that said, and I guess my point is that the slippery slope of re-envisioned sexual morality has to stop at consenting adults.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Does anyone else cringe when they see an article posted from "lifesitenews"?

[Kosher Ham]

Three's Company.

[Dan T.]

"Throuple" sounds like a really really drunk person saying "I threw up a little."   Pretend you are really really drunk, like almost passed out, and say it out loud .  Go ahead, try it a few times.  See what I mean?

[Slateman]

Is it sad that I'm more interested  in how a custody battle would work out? Or how the court would do child support payments?

[zoony]

Polygamy is coming. It's got it's reality show where millions of dip****s can tune in and realize that backwards women hating fundamentalist douchewads are actually normal people like me and you, and the arguments for polygamy are no different than the arguments for gay marriage

My question is what is next after polygamy. Polygamy is legal now just a matter of 5 years of legal wrangling of details. Best to accept its legality it is a fight that cannot be won

[spjunkies]

 

Would with 1 and 2 the smurf can stay away though.

[Larry]

Is it sad that I'm more interested in how a custody battle would work out? Or how the court would do child support payments?

I think it's pretty clear how child support would work.

Every single person in the "family" pays.

Least as I understand it, the laws and precedents are pretty clear. When it comes to child support, pretty much anybody who even resembles a parent, pays.

(That's because the laws are intentionally stacked, in favor of the kid. A principle that I can certainly understand, at least as a principle).

[AdamB]

I think it's pretty clear how child support would work.

Every single person in the "family" pays.

Least as I understand it, the laws and precedents are pretty clear. When it comes to child support, pretty much anybody who even resembles a parent, pays.

(That's because the laws are intentionally stacked, in favor of the kid. A principle that I can certainly understand, at least as a principle).

 

Another possibility down the road is something similar to what British Columbia is doing under their Family Law Act which allows for more than two names on a birth certificate (up to 4 in this case) as long as there is a written agreement before conception. The first case was last February where a lesbian couple had a child via a sperm donation from a male friend who they also wanted to be part of the child's life as the father. This gives those involved (both biological and non-biological parents) legal rights under the law. 

 

If applied to a poly family, such as the one in the op, the biological mother and the two non-biological parents would have the same legal rights as well as the same responsibilities in regards to things such as child support. In the case of a triad, it would be the same amount of child support, just divided differently.

I would just like to thank Adam for what he has added to the conversation. I think it's one of the things that makes this board so special. Great insight on the subject.

I was going to post something witty and clever (and smart-assed) about polygamists but Adam's posts really changed that. It's not all religious nuts who want 14 wives. It's normal people who have a different view on relationships as well.

Thank you Adam.

 

*blush*

 

Thank you

[Kosher Ham]

 

Would with 1 and 2 the smurf can stay away though.

 

You have low standards sir.

[Zguy28]

 

 

Would with 1 and 2 the smurf can stay away though.

Did you really just objectify and (de)value those women based on whether they would be worthy of you sexually?

[Kilmer17]

Are you buying into the premise of the article that allowing homosexual marriage paves the way for polygamy?

Edit: That's not meant to be a judgmental or loaded question. I'm just asking whether you're posting the article out of passing interest, or because you're genuinely concerned that polygamy is around the corner.

I'm not "concerned" about it. But I do think its inevitable now.

[SJValleySkinz]

My ex girlfriend almost exclusively dated woman before me ( Dont ask me what she saw in me I have no idea) and i know from her stories that the notion that this will work because woman can coexist if there's no man invovled is a big fat myth. When the second birthday of one of them rolls around put a video camera in the house I'd pay money to see what transpires.

[Renegade7]

I can deal with federal benefits for the first two in any marriage, then any other spouse added to the marriage has to file married filing separately.  That's gay or straight, I'm afraid of this getting abused royally.  

[Chew]

If this is going to become a thing, they need to come up with a better word than "throuple."

 

"Tri-fecta?"

 

 

[Beygo]

I can deal with federal benefits for the first two in any marriage, then any other spouse added to the marriage has to file married filing separately.  That's gay or straight, I'm afraid of this getting abused royally.  

 

If they were all working their combined income would put them into a higher tax bracket due to the marriage penalty.  Wouldn't it?

[The Evil Genius]

Meh.

 

I'm still waiting to be shown by conservatives how this (and let's include non-polygamous gay marriages too even though they aren't comparable to this thread issue) lessens and/or threatens my interracial heterosexual marriage. 

 

Maybe in 100 years gay and/or polygamous marriages will be accepted into the norm (as interracial marriages are mostly now).

 

Personally, I think this throuple should file for incorporation. Especially since the SCOTUS has afforded corporations some of the same rights as personhood.  

 

[Slateman]

I can deal with federal benefits for the first two in any marriage, then any other spouse added to the marriage has to file married filing separately.  That's gay or straight, I'm afraid of this getting abused royally.  

Why don't we just do away with all benefits for married people?

[Renegade7]

If they were all working their combined income would put them into a higher tax bracket due to the marriage penalty.  Wouldn't it?

 

That's given they all want to work.

Why don't we just do away with all benefits for married people?

 

Because its helping the people that aren't abusing it.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Why don't we just do away with all benefits for married people?

I am 1000% for this.  People said I would change my mind when I get married.  Well that was 4-5 years ago and I still think married people shouldnt get special benefits.  I'm in the military and got a pay increase for being married.  I'm not going to turn down the cash but I do think it is wrong that I get it.  The government should have nothing to do at all with someones marital status.

[Slateman]

That's given they all want to work.

 

Because its helping the people that aren't abusing it.

Why do married people need special benefits?

 

I'm completely behind a tax break for having kid(s). But just for being married? No. You're already getting the benefit of splitting bills and dual incomes.

[Zguy28]

Why do married people need special benefits?

 

I'm completely behind a tax break for having kid(s). But just for being married? No. You're already getting the benefit of splitting bills and dual incomes.

It was probably somebody, somewhere's, way of encouraging folks to marry instead of co-habitating.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Why do married people need special benefits?

 

I'm completely behind a tax break for having kid(s). But just for being married? No. You're already getting the benefit of splitting bills and dual incomes.

 

I was on your side until the part about kids.  I honestly don't think there should be a break for kids.  Can't afford kids without the break?  Don't have children!  I've been told, and will admit I don't know the source or how credible it was, that the kids tax break was implemented after WWI to help drive the population back up.  I think we have reached a point where we don't need to continue to do that.

 

It was probably somebody, somewhere's, way of encouraging folks to marry instead of co-habitating.

Probably from the days where being married was considered better because it wasn't living in sin.  But those views are pretty outdated.  And so are the tax breaks.

 

 

I really don't understand why taxes can't be more like "you made $X this year, give me 10%" and worry less about what people do with it.  If I choose to spend it on kids or a Harley, that shouldn't matter. 

 

*Disclaimer: this is for income tax.  Obviously other things, like cigarettes, should have a higher tax than flowers to help discourage their purchase.