California law that would allow a child to have 3 legal parents

[Rebel Jeb]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sec...ate&id=8722708
http://gma.yahoo.com/three-daddies-c...ws-health.html

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGO) -- California could become the first state to allow a child to legally have more than two parents.

A bill being proposed by state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would eliminate the limit of two parents per child. Leno says surrogate births and same-sex parenthood are creating new possibilities for nontraditional households.
If three or more people who acted as parents could not agree on custody, visitation and child support, a judge could step in and split those things among them.
Critics of the bill say sit muddies the waters of a family structure and could result in a child being bounced among multiple adults.
The bill advanced through the Senate and is now awaiting an Assembly vote.

And people said that gay marriage wasn't a slippery slope into more than two people in a relationship. That surely happened quicker than I expected.

I'm not sure how many people would use this or what the fiscal effect would be. It surely seems to be another step down on the road of losing the moral fiber of actual parenting.

[Surgeon]

You'd think Utah would be the first to pass something like that

[s.rwitt]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

[frozenprince]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

The same reason this bill was introduced. Spliting custody or taxes or any of the breaks or privilages spouses share is complicated. And people don't feel like creating the legal ins and outs for poly relationships.

Or you know. Bla bla bla its immoral bla bla bla.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

If it was legal, you could have two (or more) mother-in-laws which will increase the chances of you going postal.

[s.rwitt]

If it was legal, you could have two (or more) mother-in-laws which will increase the chances of you going postal.

GOOD GOD MAN!

[TheDarkKnight]

If it was legal, you could have two (or more) mother-in-laws which will increase the chances of you going postal.

Seriously though. My state is going bankrupt and this is apparently a priority for them...

[Gaidin]

The meme you're looking for:

[MathiasOfAthens]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

Its mostly feminists that oppose it. I would imagine.

[Gaidin]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

Define good.

Mostly the government doesn't want to deal with the bureaucratic difficulties of polygamy. If by 'good' you mean, 'makes ethical sense' then you're out of luck. If by 'good' you mean, 'well...that makes sense...even if it's not fair', then you've got it.

[s.rwitt]

Define good.

Mostly the government doesn't want to deal with the bureaucratic difficulties of polygamy. If by 'good' you mean, 'makes ethical sense' then you're out of luck. If by 'good' you mean, 'well...that makes sense...even if it's not fair', then you've got it.

"We don't want to deal with bureaucratic difficulties" isn't a good reason by any measure. If it were, Congress could justify passing literally no legislation whatsoever.

[frozenprince]

"We don't want to deal with bureaucratic difficulties" isn't a good reason by any measure. If it were, Congress could justify passing literally no legislation whatsoever.

Nobody said it was a good reason. Just that it's the main one. Stupid and lazy as it may be. It's the same vein as the "It's immoral" crap against same-sex marriages.

[Kraut]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

Because more than one wife would ineviteably drive man crazy. I mean, even one single wife comes close doing the job, imagine what would happen if they gang up two or three strong...

I know there is a big religion allowing up to four wifes... but then, several male mebers of this religion tend to blow up themselves from time to time, I see a causal link!

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

no even polygamy, there are plenty of situations hardcore conservatives wouldn't be offended by that involve more than two parents. Someone being raised by a bunch of siblings because their parent's relationships broke up. Someone being raised by a single parent and both grandparents. Someone being raised by both parents and their sole surviving grandparent who lives with them. Other situations like that. This isn't strictly anything to do with polygamy.

Define good.

Mostly the government doesn't want to deal with the bureaucratic difficulties of polygamy. If by 'good' you mean, 'makes ethical sense' then you're out of luck. If by 'good' you mean, 'well...that makes sense...even if it's not fair', then you've got it.

Beaucratic difficulties is never and should never be tolerated as an excuse to infringe on any other kind of liberty, but it's fine if you find this immoraly?

There would be no be "beaureaucratic difficulties" if the government simply abolished interference in marriage.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm still looking for a good explanation of why it's a good thing thay polygamy is illegal.

Because it's either sexist or impractical.

Now, I won't even discuss why allowing only women or only men to have multiple partners is sexist and therefore unacceptable, but let's focus on the other case: both men and women are allowed to have multiple husbands/wives.

Let's start with you and suppose that you have 3 wives. Now, since poligamy is legal, those wives are allowed to have multiple husbands, and those husbands multiple wives themselves. And maybe one of the husbands is also married to 2 or all your wives. You should see where this is going.. with poligamy, everybody can be married to everybody, so what is the point in having marriage at all? It would just create a huge, unnecessary legal mess whenever someone wants to divorce.

Ironically, the only practical way for poligamy to work is to be sexist. Only one gender can have multiple partners.

On topic, the bill is poo.

[Rebel Jeb]

Because it's either sexist or impractical.

Now, I won't even discuss why allowing only women or only men to have multiple partners is sexist and therefore unacceptable, but let's focus on the other case: both men and women are allowed to have multiple husbands/wives.

Let's start with you and suppose that you have 3 wives. Now, since poligamy is legal, those wives are allowed to have multiple husbands, and those husbands multiple wives themselves. And maybe one of the husbands is also married to 2 or all your wives. You should see where this is going.. with poligamy, everybody can be married to everybody, so what is the point in having marriage at all? It would just create a huge, unnecessary legal mess whenever someone wants to divorce.

Ironically, the only practical way for poligamy to work is to be sexist. Only one gender can have multiple partners.

On topic, the bill is poo.

You seem to be putting your want for legal simplicity over true love and this is bad.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Because it's either sexist or impractical.

Now, I won't even discuss why allowing only women or only men to have multiple partners is sexist and therefore unacceptable, but let's focus on the other case: both men and women are allowed to have multiple husbands/wives.

Let's start with you and suppose that you have 3 wives. Now, since poligamy is legal, those wives are allowed to have multiple husbands, and those husbands multiple wives themselves. And maybe one of the husbands is also married to 2 or all your wives. You should see where this is going.. with poligamy, everybody can be married to everybody, so what is the point in having marriage at all? It would just create a huge, unnecessary legal mess whenever someone wants to divorce.

Ironically, the only practical way for poligamy to work is to be sexist. Only one gender can have multiple partners.

On topic, the bill is poo.

And in hetereosexual marriage some couples could have 250 children, do you not see the problem with that? If everyone in a country consents to being married to everyone else, what's the problem with that anyway, even if it would never happen?

The reality is only a minority of the human race has ever been into polygamy, and only a minority would be if this were the case. Most polgygamists would have relationships of three people, with higher orders becoming exponentially rare.

Personally I am all for the government abolishing its control of marraige all together and leaving it to the private sphere.

You seem to be putting your want for legal simplicity over true love and this is bad.

People like you claimed to be pro-freedom yet they're the biggest opponents of freedom in America.

[s.rwitt]

Because it's either sexist or impractical.

Now, I won't even discuss why allowing only women or only men to have multiple partners is sexist and therefore unacceptable, but let's focus on the other case: both men and women are allowed to have multiple husbands/wives.

Let's start with you and suppose that you have 3 wives. Now, since poligamy is legal, those wives are allowed to have multiple husbands, and those husbands multiple wives themselves. And maybe one of the husbands is also married to 2 or all your wives. You should see where this is going.. with poligamy, everybody can be married to everybody, so what is the point in having marriage at all? It would just create a huge, unnecessary legal mess whenever someone wants to divorce.

Ironically, the only practical way for poligamy to work is to be sexist. Only one gender can have multiple partners.

On topic, the bill is poo.

And regular marriages don't descend into messy divorces every single day? These people are going to live as if they are all married regardless. Except the way it stands now all but the first wife are classified as single mothers which allows them to pool welfare checks and various other forms of government assistance and live off of tax dollars. It's not the government's job to prevent consenting adults from entering into complex or disastrous relationships.

I'd say every time another wife or husband is added all your stuff is going to get divided another time in event of divorce. Custody is decided between the biological parents only. For tax reasons you're treated as a single couple would be.

[Gatsby]

I hate when people assign undue importance to a law. If polygamy was legalised, it's not as though everyone's going to marry each other or the gubmint is going to force you into it - it just lets ploygamists practice their belief. If drugs were legalised, the nation wouldn't descend into anarchy as everyone got high or stoned constantly - it would just let drug-users do their thing. If gay marriage is legalised, your not going to wake up tommorow with your new husband kissing your neck and asking about breakfast - it just lets gays enjoy some basic rights.

The slippery slope idea is such crap, and irrational morals should never influence law.

[Basil II the B.S]

And regular marriages don't descend into messy divorces every single day?

It would be way more complicated... a divorce that somehow involves 34 wives and 43 husbands? Just no.

These people are going to live as if they are all married regardless.

I'm not aware of big polygamic communities. There must be a reason. Hippies in the 70s tried something similiar, didn't work.

Except the way it stands now all but the first wife are classified as single mothers which allows them to pool welfare checks and various other forms of government assistance and live off of tax dollars. It's not the government's job to prevent consenting adults from entering into complex or disastrous relationships.

That's not the point. The point is, non-sexist polygamy makes things incredibly complicated and marriage meaningless. Do you want to have multiple partners? Don't get married and leave marriage to those who want commitment to one person.

I'd say every time another wife or husband is added all your stuff is going to get divided another time in event of divorce.

See my first line. Potentially every divorce may involve hundreds of people. If things are already complicated with only 2, why would you make it worse...

Custody is decided between the biological parents only.

What about adopted kids? Another huge mess. Again, incredibly impractical.

You seem to be putting your want for legal simplicity over true love and this is bad.

True love... ahhahahahahahaha

And in hetereosexual marriage some couples could have 250 children, do you not see the problem with that? If everyone in a country consents to being married to everyone else, what's the problem with that anyway, even if it would never happen?

Oh, but they can do it... I give them 3 months before they go back to monogamy, or sexist poligamy at least. Non-discriminating poligamy is way too much impractical.

The reality is only a minority of the human race has ever been into polygamy, and only a minority would be if this were the case. Most polgygamists would have relationships of three people, with higher orders becoming exponentially rare.

Because it doesn't work.

Personally I am all for the government abolishing its control of marraige all together and leaving it to the private sphere.

Point is, people want someone to decide who's right and who's wrong when they start fighting over something. And that's generally the government.. so the government needs something to base its decisions on, which are the laws..