Log In
Create Account
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
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 2, 17:22
2: Dec 2, 11:48
3: Dec 2, 08:21
4: Dec 1, 17:33
5: Dec 1, 11:23
6: Nov 30, 15:54
7: Nov 30, 09:41
8: Nov 29, 16:44
9: Nov 29, 08:01
10: Nov 28, 16:19
11: Nov 28, 09:42
12: Nov 27, 18:07
13: Nov 27, 12:04
14: Nov 27, 08:26
15: Nov 26, 18:06
16: Nov 26, 12:05
17: Nov 26, 08:29
18: Nov 25, 18:33
19: Nov 25, 11:12
20: Nov 25, 07:08
Posts: 183
In response to
"
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
"
by
Andie Remembers
I think he's going with polygamy here. -- nm
Posted by
Dano (aka dano)
Nov 11 '08, 14:32
(No message)
Responses:
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.