The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Meet The Three Gay Men Who Want To Get Married And Have Kids Together

sixthson said:
There is a difference between judging and dictating. I make judgements all the time. Everyone does. Dictating implies force. Everyone also has opinions and that is what we are here to do, express them. It's my opinion that they are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. It's my opinion that their relationship won't last. It's my opinion that bringing children into this mess is not a good thing for children. In the end, they can do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

I know, that's why I wrote dictate OR judge. Of course we all make judgments, but don't forget, there are a LOT of people out there who would say the exact same things that you're saying about you and your family. That doesn't make them right.
 
justaguy said:
I think it's because some of us, even some of us gays, think that marriage is a faithful single relationship between 2 people. If not, before we know it, it will be acceptable to bring up a kid with 4 fathers. He/she will end up living with 4 different people, every fourth week, once the whole thing breaks up. And then each father will have conflicting ideas on how to raise the kid. The kid will end up bewildered and confused, without proper roll models, and possibly in some sort of institution.
Click to expand...

The perfect two parent family is not the only way to raise a child well. It takes a village.
 
Taz said:
I know, that's why I wrote dictate OR judge. Of course we all make judgments, but don't forget, there are a LOT of people out there who would say the exact same things that you're saying about you and your family. That doesn't make them right.
Click to expand...

Yes, they could and did/do. They have their right to that opinion and I'm not bothered by it. Just as I have a right to my opinion about them. I'm sure they are not bothered by it, either.

BTW, only a village idiot would allow the village to raise their child.
 
I disagree. If every child should be raised in a, "faithful single relationship between two people", there'd be almost 0 population growth. Even today with divorce and remarriage, not to mention multigenerational family units (grand-parents?), many families already have multiple parental role models at the helm. It has been happpening around the world for millenia, and the kids are all the stronger for it. Institutions are already full of kids whom no one wants. I bet they would thrive in a loving home with multiple loving parents. For a second there it sounded like you were hinting that multiple gay men could not be positive parental role models, but i'm sure I must have misunderstood, because if three can't do it, neither can two. But obviously, that battle is already won, no?
 
sixthson said:
Yes, they could and did/do. They have their right to that opinion and I'm not bothered by it. Just as I have a right to my opinion about them. I'm sure they are not bothered by it, either.

BTW, only a village idiot would allow the village to raise their child.
Click to expand...

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, and when you share it on a forum you can expect it to be scrutinised.

I happen to live part time with a 5yo who lives between 4 different places he could call home. He's just as well adjusted as any nuclear family kid.
 
OOOOPSS!!!!!

justaguy said:
roll models
Click to expand...

roll-model.jpg
 
The issue really isn't the idea of 3 men bringing up a child or children. The issue is of 3 men marrying each other. Tom marries Dick and Harry. Dick marries Tom and Harry. Harry marries Tom and Dick. That doesn't work for straight people and it certainly won't work for these 3 guys.

I have no problem with them living as a 'family', committed to each other and their children, but I have a problem with them being a married trio.
 
mikey3000 said:
Why?
.......
Click to expand...

I realise the dilemma here as we are going to use the same arguments against legalising three people getting married as were used against legalising same-sex marriages.
 
dpnice said:
I realise the dilemma here as we are going to use the same arguments against legalising three people getting married as were used against legalising same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...

"But gravity will make this a terrible failure!" is an argument against throwing the baby far up in the air. It is not an argument against tossing the weather balloon up into the atmosphere.

People are free to raise the same objections to polygamous marriage that they raised about us. So far, I do not see a lot of merit in those arguments. But they're not wrong just because they failed in another debate.
 
Should a throuple be thrown in jail? No.
Should they be allowed to be my neighbours? Don't know. If they're quiet and not riffraff, sure.
Is this something new? Not really. Lots of examples from Victorian times.
Should we seize the children and have them adopted out? No, not based on this, absolutely not.
Should we stop their children playing with ours? No.
Should we make their kids feel like they are descended from freaks? No, some manners still apply.
 
bankside;10093505............................People are free to raise the same objections to polygamous marriage that they raised about us. So far said:
That is my dilemma. Obviously I agree with same-sex marriage and thought all the arguments against it quite ridiculous. Yet here I am considering that it is wrong for society to extend marriage to more than two people and all I can come up with are the same arguments already used against me (apart from the religious ones that is).
Click to expand...
 
@bankside: Pre-Victorian ;)

Nam prope soli barbarorum singulis uxoribus contenti sunt,
exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem plurimis nuptiis ambiuntur.
 
otters said:
@bankside: Pre-Victorian ;)

Nam prope soli barbarorum singulis uxoribus contenti sunt,
exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem plurimis nuptiis ambiuntur.
Click to expand...

Ahh, well there you go. Nowadays we just have proportional representation. :)
 
bankside said:
Ahh, well there you go. Nowadays we just have proportional representation. :)
Click to expand...

Now a serious question:
Do these 3 guys (not a "throuple" but rather "throwd" IMHO) have any idea how this should work social-insurance-wise, e.g. widow(er)'s pension? Or, tax-wise, "income splitting" (especially for US Americans the most intriguing point regarding marriage I suppose)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top