Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
I don't see any difference in the rights granted to the third parent in the scenario below and the rights that would be granted to a step-parent in a straight, non-polygamized divorce scenario. In long-standing marriages, any step-parent has the right to seek custody should the biological parent die; we already have scenarios and have had for years where a child may have three parents. Protecting the rights between parents and children is very different from allowing marriages between three or more individuals. Seriously, didn't you read this article with any sort of critical eye before posting it, or were you aware of all the logical flaws and you were just hoping to stir up debate?
|
The difference is we are not talking about guardianship. We are talking about three way shared custody. That is a huge difference. This has only been afforded to married/common-law couples or divorced/separated parents.
If these three can share custody of a child why not Winston Blackmoore and his 5 or 6 wives? After all they all participate in the primary care of said child. And if they can be afforded this status why deny them the "right" (as so many call it) of being married.
You see once we opened the door to redefine marriage we were not going to be able to shut it. The definition will continue to dilute until marriage as the institution we know will cease to exist.