California mulling law that would allow children to have more than two parents

[Simfan34]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12543099-california-bill-would-allow-children-to-have-more-than-two-parents

You all probably think this is an excellent idea, so I'm not even going to try. I know gay marriage is often considered an "assault on traditional family", but I do not consider it such. This, however, is. Multiple parents, come on! Why don't we just take the great leap right now and prohibit marriage, ban the churches, go to test tube babies, in short just jump straight into Brave New World?

Also, there's something incredibly agitating about California's insistence on having a complex web of legislation that always requires people to do more and/or get less- whether it be for insurance. cars, or hot dog stands. It just reeks of arrogance. I don't have a problem with the pieces of legislation themselves, just the fact they feel the need to almost always make things more complex, as if they're better than the rest of the country or something. The sad thing is their size means they get away with it.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Could someone please explain to me why this is an issue?

[Donerail]

Because, Alfred, in sexual reproduction in all species (apparently excluding Homo sapiens californian), it involves two parents. Try to make a Punnett square with more than two parents.

[Supersonic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12543099-california-bill-would-allow-children-to-have-more-than-two-parents

You all probably think this is an excellent idea, so I'm not even going to try. I know gay marriage is often considered an "assault on traditional family", but I do not consider it such. This, however, is. Multiple parents, come on! Why don't we just take the great leap right now and prohibit marriage, ban the churches, go to test tube babies, in short just jump straight into Brave New World?

No don't worry, I agree with you.

[Хahar 🤔]

Mark Leno's a cool dude, and California is better than the rest of the country.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

...This...I don't think many non-Mark Leno people are going to think this is a good idea.

[Alcon]

Woah Sim, hold up.  The article seems to suggest that the purpose of the legislation is to recognize that more than two people can assume a parental role in a child's life -- something that doesn't seem particularly crazy, considering the way divorces oftentimes work out.  That's not an ideal situation, and maybe you have a problem with incentivizing non-ideal situations, but it's not like there aren't potentially reasonable arguments for doing so in this case.

Would you like to present an argument against this that isn't an overt logical fallacy?

[Alcon]

...This...I don't think many non-Mark Leno people are going to think this is a good idea.

I must be completely out of my mind these days?  I'm not saying I've firmly established a position on this bill at all, but I don't understand why this bill is apparently so Evidently Bad that no one is even explaining why it's bad.

[rob in cal]

I wonder if the law pertains to polygamous families with one dad and multiple moms.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

After initially reading the article, I fully agree with this bill. Many children are placed in situations at the onset of life where they're passed along between two nuclear families or have two father or two mother figures because of divorce. It then makes sense to say that these parental figures deserve the legal rights of a parent for the benefit of the child.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should any of the people described in the paragraph above be denied legal parental rights? Don't mention a myopic slippery-slope fallacy, life doesn't work like that. The reactions on here make the Atlas seem like a bunch of conventional fundamentalists who can't stand any sort of filial structure outside of the nuclear family.

[Link]

Woah Sim, hold up.  The article seems to suggest that the purpose of the legislation is to recognize that more than two people can assume a parental role in a child's life -- something that doesn't seem particularly crazy, considering the way divorces oftentimes work out.

Yeah look at Ronald Reagan.  My parents were disgusted with his lifestyle, but what are you going to do?  I mean they were taught you get married and stay married.  They didn't approve of his swinging Hollywood marriage lifestyle.  Now you're married, oops, now you're not.  I guess Ronnie's boys out in Cali need to change the law to accommodate that kind of lifestyle.

[milhouse24]

This sounds like a good idea.  Jerry Sandusky would approve of this law.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Because, Alfred, in sexual reproduction in all species (apparently excluding Homo sapiens californian), it involves two parents. Try to make a Punnett square with more than two parents.

I meant 'why is the legislature bringing this up?'.

[Donerail]

Because, Alfred, in sexual reproduction in all species (apparently excluding Homo sapiens californian), it involves two parents. Try to make a Punnett square with more than two parents.

I meant 'why is the legislature bringing this up?'.

Cause a legislator was bored and decided to make something to create some sort of controversy to get their name out.

[fezzyfestoon]

Makes sense considering our culture of disposable marriage in this country.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aside from people having their emotional ties codified, what would be the benefit of this?

[Indy Texas]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to allow this in cases where, say, a child's parents are divorced, one or both remarried, and the child is equally close to both the biological parents and the stepparents?

A friend of mine's parents divorced when she was very young. Her mother remarried. However, her father lived nearby, remained on amicable terms with his ex, and was still very involved in her life. She refers to her father and her stepfather as her "two dads."

[tmthforu94]

I think there are unfortunately many circumstances, largely due to divorce, where a child has more than two "adult caretakers" in their life. After consideration, I would support this legislation, thinking logically.

Makes sense considering our culture of disposable marriage in this country.

^^^

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think if people untwisted the knickers and stopped screaming about moral decay and "won't somebody please think of the children"... and actually think about the children.

The purpose of the law is pretty clear, to permit people the child considers to have a parental role, despite not being a biological parent, to have a legally protected role. If you have divorced parents and then they re-marry, it allows those step-parents to take on a legal role for things like granting parental consent.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's funny to see the chasm in this thread between people who actually looked at what the law did and people who just read the thread title.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's by no means a terrible idea, but if this is how it's being presented in California as well as on Atlas Forum it kind of becomes one in spite of itself.

[Middle-aged Europe]

This is the end of civilization as we know it.

In other words, strongly approve.

[minionofmidas]

As long as parents are allowed to have more than two children, such a bill is only fair. [/insane troll logic] Nah seriously, this bill is about situations where more than two people satisfy the conditions for legal custody already but some have to desist because you can't legally have more than two as of now. It's not creating new such situations, only a way to deal with them.
Whether giving ever more people a legal say is going to always be a good thing is a different question entirely. Depends on the individuals involved, frankly.

[morgieb]

It isn't that bad. I have 4 parents, ftr.

[Brittain33]

It's funny to see the chasm in this thread between people who actually looked at what the law did and people who just read the thread title.