ST Alpha - "you can't equate using a child for sex, and a loving relationship between two adults (of any gender). you just can't. drop it. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 183

In response to "Throw out the gender restriction, but keep the couple restriction. Why one and not the other? -- nm" by Dr.Vermin

you can't equate using a child for sex, and a loving relationship between two adults (of any gender). you just can't. drop it. -- nm

Posted by Andie Remembers (aka Andie) Nov 11 '08, 14:31

(No message)

Responses:

I think he's going with polygamy here. -- nm - Dano Nov 11, 14:32 3
- but couples don't apply to polyamorous relationships, right? (i'm confused.) -- nm - Andie Remembers Nov 11, 14:34 2
  - That's his point. Why remove the restrictions based on gender and not also remove the restriction of only allowing couples. -- nm - Ender Nov 11, 14:42 1
    - Because for legal purposes the point of the union is stability of property claims, and not gender or orientation. -- nm - Max Nov 11, 14:45

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.