Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72
  1. #41  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I see this as being more of a problem with straight people who have been married and divorced multiple times as being a problem for gay couples.


    This could give step-parents rights, or let step-parents adopt without the legal parent signing off his rights. Lawyers are going to love it-more cases to fight in court! More retainers! More money! And, they will say it's for the children.
    It's a problem for the entire culture. First, it will create chaos in the courts, as you correctly pointed out, but it will also directly impact families in other ways. For example, if a child has multiple custodial parents, who is ultimately responsible for the child's well-being? The courts will eventually have to identify a primary custodian, who has the power to veto the decisions of the others. In a polygamous Muslim or other religiously inspired household, you can imagine who that will be. Also, many gays in couples started out as members of straight couples. Gays raising children are much more likely to be raising the children of their previous straight spouses than they are children resulting from surrogacy or IVF, which means that gay couples will now have to contend with straight former spouses intruding on their authority within their home. Somehow, I don't think that Nova spotted that unintended consequence. However, more critically, it also means that children will grow up with even more confusion and uncertainty in their lives, as multiple parental sets fight over who has final authority over them. This goes way beyond anything that Brown might have envisioned (not surprising, as the man is a complete dolt).

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    The point was that these things do change and have changed and do vary geographically. It's disingenuous to maintain that there is a moral issue with a 16 year old having a relationship with a 22 year old in Florida when it would be perfectly legal in another state for that same 16 year old to be married to a 50 year old. But let's not continue this discussion, because derailment and deflection is NJ's objective. Clearly the man has moral failings, but it would be cruel to point out the evidence of them.
    Ahhh... So that's what this is about. Sorry, but for a 16 year old to marry in any state, she'd have to have parental permission, so the gay female sexual predator that you're trying to defend would still be a felon. But thanks for exposing your agenda here. As for NJ, if I were you, I'd avoid discussing the moral failings of others. As a wise Jew once pointed out, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #42  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    As a wise Jew once pointed out, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
    Good thing His mother wasn't in the crowd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #43  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Ahhh... So that's what this is about.
    No idea what this is supposed to mean.


    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Sorry, but for a 16 year old to marry in any state, she'd have to have parental permission........
    What is the moral distinction there? That's it's somehow moral for a parent to consent for his daughter to have sex with a 50 year old, but it's immoral if she chooses to do it on her own?

    How about this bit of morality? Georgia: Applicants who are 16 or 17 may apply for a license with consent of the parents or guardians, who must accompany the minor applying for the marriage license and must have proper identification, such as a valid driver's license. Guardians must present proper guardianship papers. Underage female applicants who are pregnant may apply without parental consent. A letter from a doctor must be presented at the time of the application. The doctor's letter must state that the female is pregnant, how far along she is and her estimated due date. This letter must be on the doctor's letterhead with his/her original signature, not a stamped signature. If underage applicants already have a child, they should present a certified copy of the birth certificate for the child at the time of application. If parental consent is not required, the court will notify parents or guardians that you have been issued a marriage license. All applicants need to take a premarital blood test. The blood test results must be printed on the mandatory state form #3411. Blood tests results must be signed and dated by the physician and must be less than thirty (30) days old when you apply for the license.[92]

    Minnesota: Applicants 18 years of age may obtain a license. It is necessary to provide proof of age.
    Applicants between the ages of 15 and 18 must have the consent of a parent, guardian or the judge of juvenile court.
    Applicants under the age of 15 needs the written consent of a parent or guardian and the consent of a juvenile court judge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #44  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post

    ......... so the gay female sexual predator that you're trying to defend would still be a felon. But thanks for exposing your agenda here.
    I wasn't referring to her, that's a different issue and the ages were 14/15 and 17/18 not 16 and 22.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #45  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,651
    Coming next year, Californistan's "More than one legal spouse" law.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #46  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,626
    Noonie,

    I had already written at length about the potential problems for straight couples with this horrible bill.


    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    Ody has already answered this one, but I'll second his assessment and add: you inherently create instability the more "parents" you allow to have legal control over a child. It's bad enough when two biological parents fight over custody issues, and a child is made to move back and forth between parental residences. Put extra "parents" into that equation, and you're looking at an absolute nightmare for a child.

    And before you jump in with the idea that a child can "get used to it" look at the figures for children of divorce in terms of their ability to succeed educationally, economically, and personally (relationships). Divorce forces all those numbers down. Add extra divorcing "parents" (and you know they will divorce--gay couples are already divorcing in California, where gay marriage was only legal for a few months in 2012 before the Prop 8 fights) and these poor children are going to have extremely serious mental health issues.

    And when does a child "have" more than two parents? In the straight world, children have two bio parents and, sometimes, step-parents, but these step-parents don't have custody or legal parental rights (usually), and unless there are serious mental health or drug issues with the bio-parent, they shouldn't have. This new law opens up a whole new arena to manipulative step-parents who wants some kind of control over a children that are not theirs. The control of a bio-dad, for example, can be completely undercut if the abusive second husband mommie married gets some kind of parental rights under this new law and "disciplines" a child that is not his own. The potential for abuse increases exponentially and bio-parents will no longer be able to protect their children from strangers who claim "parentage" for one reason or another.

    The only place this law makes any sense is in the gay world, where gays, who cannot have children, use other people's wombs, eggs or sperm to create children that are not biologically theirs. But even in the GLBT utopia of no natural parentage, a law giving rights to multiple parents is not going to play out well. Let's say Adam and Steve use Susie's womb like an Easy Bake Oven to "have a baby." The baby's egg is from Susie; the sperm may be from either Adam or Steve. Now I am totally opposed to the creation of children in this way, but if you're hell-bent on doing this, then Adam and Steve must be the legal parents, even though Adam and Susie (or Steve and Susie) are the real bio parents. The child's stability depends on a consistent two-parent family, where the two parents are a married couple who have a vested interest in what's best for the child and who have learned to compromise for the sake of their relationship and the child.

    The last thing you need is a third party (Susie), who after having second thoughts (and experiencing a thoroughly natural and biologically necessary bonding with her baby) realizes that she wants a role in the child's life and becomes "parent" #3. Now you have a situation in which you have a committed couple against a third party. Disagreements about the child--and there are ALWAYS disagreements--can lead to 2-against-1 situations, which pit the parties against each other. The couple's stability is threatened with every disagreement in which one of them sides with Susie against the other, even though there may be good reasons for doing so. Or, perhaps, Adam and Steve are in lock step and it's Susie's opinion that get thrown under the bus again and again, creating real resentment. After all, she carried that child for 9 months, while Adam and Steve did no physical labor outside of one of them picking up some porn one afternoon and filling a plastic cup. If Susie has no recourse legally (since they are all parents), might she not do what so many parents who lose control do and kidnap the child?

    You might argue that they are all mature adults, all friends, and that they should all work to get along. But people always have their bad moments, their immature moments, and--when there are 3 or more of them--their "us" against "them" moments. The more people you have raising a single child, the more opportunities there are for disagreements and in different permutations. In the end, you're creating havoc for a child. A two-parent household has its disagreements, but there are fewer people, fewer directions in which to disagree, and much more of a need to compromise since both the relationship and the child depend upon it. Even in adoption situations, this holds true for 2 people.

    In the case of Adam and Steve, one of the men should simply adopt the baby (assuming the other is related) and Susie needs to be out of the picture. If she really yearns to stay, she should learn from that experience that giving birth is not something you do for money or for someone else's family. Adam and Steve will have to answer extremely uncomfortable questions later on (like "Who is my mommy?") and both men will have to go through what adoptive parents do when their beloved children still feel incomplete and go in search of their bio-parents. It's a thoroughly natural thing for a adopted kid to do, but, in the end, a steady background with two loving parents can do a lot to mitigate the loss.

    The GLBT's brave new world of babies who don't belong to the people who bore them or whose chromosomes they share has created a new and overwhelming kind of havoc. The utter selfishness of gay couples to not consider the true effects on children of any laws (like multiple parenting) on the larger community and only consider their own needs is beyond comprehension. It can only come from people who are so wound up in their own grievances that they can't see other people or their needs, even children. This multiple parent law will wreak havoc on children, and not just from the gay community. It will bleed into the straight community, and there will be test cases of step-parents wanting "parental" rights as a 3rd party (or "parent") and winning them, much to the destruction of the child's stability.

    Children should not be given "third" parents. If a child's bio-parent is severely abusive, a drug addict, or chronically absent geographically, then parental rights should be severed and a step-parent or grandparent be given parental rights for the good of the child. But under no circumstances should a third party be given parental rights when there are two other available and serviceable parents. (They needn't be perfect.)

    About the only good thing I can see that might perhaps come out of this law is that both non-related parents (like Adam or Steve) and the surrogate bio-mom parent (like Susie) will have to come up with money for the child. This will mean that if any of them leave the situation, they will still be hounded by the California courts for child support. This might make some people think twice about getting involved in these 3-way parenting situations.

    Other than that, it's bloody hell for children. And Robert Oscar Lopez gets that, which is why I read him and bring him over here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #47  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Coming next year, Californistan's "More than one legal spouse" law.
    Well marriage should be a private contract as it is. Marry whomever you want and as many as long as they are of age and consent. Get the government out of it.
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #48  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Well marriage should be a private contract as it is. Marry whomever you want and as many as long as they are of age and consent. Get the government out of it.
    We call that "Living together." The difference between that and "Marriage" is that the latter affords particular legal rights and duties (As eroded as the difference may be in California, and in the brains of the mush-minded products of our so-called educational system), which necessarily makes it the government's business, since "Legal rights and duties" means that the question of enforcing the same through the exercise of governmental powers will inevitably arise, as will further questions of entitlement to various government-provided (And hence taxpayer-funded) benefits based upon that legal status difference.

    I really shouldn't have to explain that to anyone able to get two neurons to connect somewhere between their ears, but apparently a large segment of both the Left and the Libertarians don't seem to rise to that level of rationality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #49  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Coming next year, Californistan's "More than one legal spouse" law.
    So you're saying that California will pass a law to be in compliance with plural marriages in the Bible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #50  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Generation Why? View Post
    Well marriage should be a private contract as it is. Marry whomever you want and as many as long as they are of age and consent. Get the government out of it.
    The problem is that you end up with serious societal consequences. First remember that the vast majority of polygamous societies are based on one-male marrying several females. This is not an aberration, but the result of hard-wired biological differences in the way that men and women approach sex and relationships. Cultures in which women marry multiple men are rarer than honest Democrats, and nothing said or done by feminists is going to change that. It is because of this that polygamous cultures have an inherent inequality, not just between men and women, but between men. Assuming a roughly equal birth rate, a society with a monogamous system can provide a partner for almost every man and woman. However, in a polygamous society, a certain percentage of men will never have access to women or sex in a relationship. If you have 100 men and 100 women, and only 10 men can afford multiple wives, with 2 or 3 affording the Islamic goal of 4 wives, then you end up with 10 men accounting for 24 women, which means that 14 men have been pushed out of the gene pool. This has serious consequences for sexual relationships. Recent studies of polygamous societies strongly indicate that the absence of marriage prospects creates perverse incentives in men to engage in high risk behaviors which provide short-term gratification, even to the detriment of their own long term success. Those 14 men who have been excluded from marriage are more likely to see sex as something to be taken, rather than given freely (rape is endemic in polygamous cultures), which leads men who have wives and daughters to take extreme measures to protect them, again to the detriment of the interests of women. This is how purdah (the segregation of men and women in Islamic societies) began and why it remains. It results in the objectification of women as commodities, rather than as free agents who can seek their own relationships. It turns men into predators. Even in cultures where religion does not play a major role, such as American ghettoes, the same high-risk behavior applies to men, while those fathers who remain with their families seek to protect their daughters in ways that are incomprehensible outside of that community.

    A culture that accepts the legal equality of people must recognize that one person cannot have more than one spouse. A culture in which polygamy rules will invariably raise men over women and treat women as chattel.


    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    So you're saying that California will pass a law to be in compliance with plural marriages in the Bible?
    Once again, you resort to cheap shots at religion to avoid the issues. This decision lays the groundwork for polygamy. I've repeatedly explained why this is a bad idea, without once referencing religious values. If you cannot address the sociological issues raised by polygamy without attacking straw men, then you need to review your premises.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •