gay couple married and divorced include 3rd man in relationship..it gets worse...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3273776/Gay-married-couple-divorce-one-year-include-man-relationship.html

Gay married couple who got divorced after just one year to include a THIRD man in their relationship now plan to have children with their sisters as surrogates

• Adam Grant and Shayne Curran, Canada, tied the knot in 2011 
  
  
• One year later they met Sebastian Tran in a nightclub and hit it off
  
  
• Got divorced so the relationship between the threesome could be equal
  
  
• Now all live together and plan on starting a family 
  
  

you can't make this crap up...

That's ridiculous.

sounds like Texas to me....

They must have strange divorce laws if you can get divorced on the grounds that another person doesn't feel "left out".

It's not going to last is it? Then there will be a kid or two who gets stuck in the middle with the sisters wanting custody, and all three men wanting custody.

On the surface of it, it sounds ludicrous and tacky, and if there wasn't going to be children involved I'd say, oh well, each their own.

But.

That's not exactly a great "image" for children is it?
A three-way relationship??!

I'm not sure social services and local Children's family centres will be letting them all run off and live happily ever after if there are to be children involved in this household.

eddie wrote:On the surface of it, it sounds ludicrous and tacky, and if there wasn't going to be children involved I'd say, oh well, each their own.

But.

That's not exactly a great "image" for children is it?
A three-way relationship??!

I'm not sure social services and local Children's family centres will be letting them all run off and live happily ever after if there are to be children involved in this household.

it sounds like a total recipe for disaster of several lives..

sisters as surrogates, three people in a relationship..

how can the children grow up normal...

The only way they'll grow up normal is if every single one of their "parental figures" is loving, supportive and sensible.

In a three-way relationship, I fail to see how that's possible, unfortunately.

eddie wrote:On the surface of it, it sounds ludicrous and tacky, and if there wasn't going to be children involved I'd say, oh well, each their own.

But.

That's not exactly a great "image" for children is it?
A three-way relationship??!

I'm not sure social services and local Children's family centres will be letting them all run off and live happily ever after if there are to be children involved in this household.

I don't know.  You haven't justified your claim that a two-way relationship is better than a three-way relationship.  And if you can justify it, how have we all somehow gotten into the "great image" business, anyway?  If we attach that standard to obligations associated with having and raising children, what other areas of child-raising do we want to legislate?

If we all have a legal duty to maintain a "great image", I know many Republicans who should be in prison.  Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, for example, who was having an extra-marital affair even as he was holding impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton for having an extra-marital affair.  How about the married governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, and his affair with an Argentine journalist? Not a very great image, eh?

If we are going to get into the "image" business, at least we need to know the lenth and depth of the issue.

I admit I would not be tempted into a three-way relationship, but that does not make me better.

Quill, what do you think the chances are of three happy people being equally treated and loved, within a sexual and "marital" relationship?

Ever heard the saying "Two's company, there's a crowd"?

Added to that, let's face it, would you rather your daughter in a happy two-way relationship where she's the "adored other half", or part of a crowd in a marital three-way?

Come on Quill. It's not rocket science!

eddie wrote:Quill, what do you think the chances are of three happy people being equally treated and loved, within a sexual and "marital" relationship?

Ever heard the saying "Two's company, there's a crowd"?

When I think about eds, we also weren't there when they invented the two-person relationship. It may well be that people were shocked at the idea of any kind of relationship when it was first invented.

Look at how many cases of spousal and family abuse take place. Some would argue that any kind of bonding relationship (beyond friendly association) is predatory. The minute you impose legal boundaries, you are going beyond the personal.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill, what do you think the chances are of three happy people being equally treated and loved, within a sexual and "marital" relationship?

Ever heard the saying "Two's company, there's a crowd"?

When I think about eds, we also weren't there when they invented the two-person relationship.  It may well be that people were shocked at the idea of any kind of relationship when it was first invented.  

Look at how many cases of spousal and family abuse take place.  Some would argue that any kind of bonding relationship (beyond friendly association) is predatory.  The minute you impose legal boundaries, you are going beyond the personal.

Invented? That's just silly. Perhaps you think that men should impregnate women and then be on their way.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When I think about eds, we also weren't there when they invented the two-person relationship.  It may well be that people were shocked at the idea of any kind of relationship when it was first invented.  

Look at how many cases of spousal and family abuse take place.  Some would argue that any kind of bonding relationship (beyond friendly association) is predatory.  The minute you impose legal boundaries, you are going beyond the personal.

Invented? That's just silly. Perhaps you think that men should impregnate women and then be on their way.

ugg and ogg saw nothing wrong with that idea.....

neither do many of todays young scrotes.......

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill, what do you think the chances are of three happy people being equally treated and loved, within a sexual and "marital" relationship?

Ever heard the saying "Two's company, there's a crowd"?

When I think about eds, we also weren't there when they invented the two-person relationship.  It may well be that people were shocked at the idea of any kind of relationship when it was first invented.  

Look at how many cases of spousal and family abuse take place.  Some would argue that any kind of bonding relationship (beyond friendly association) is predatory.  The minute you impose legal boundaries, you are going beyond the personal.

Let's face it, would you rather your beautiful daughter in a happy two-way relationship where she's the "adored other half", or part of a crowd in a marital three-way?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When I think about eds, we also weren't there when they invented the two-person relationship.  It may well be that people were shocked at the idea of any kind of relationship when it was first invented.  

Look at how many cases of spousal and family abuse take place.  Some would argue that any kind of bonding relationship (beyond friendly association) is predatory.  The minute you impose legal boundaries, you are going beyond the personal.

Invented? That's just silly. Perhaps you think that men should impregnate women and then be on their way.

That seems to be nature's design, doesn't it? I mean, in lion prides, cattle herds and monkey troops, they do it and go on about their business don't they? They don't get on with legal documents, bride's gowns and ritual parties.

A three-way relationship is just another arrangement. It doesn't interest me, but then who am I? I'm not writing the rules.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Invented? That's just silly. Perhaps you think that men should impregnate women and then be on their way.

That seems to be nature's design, doesn't it?  I mean, in lion prides, cattle herds and monkey troops, they do it and go on about their business don't they?  They don't get on with legal documents, bride's gowns and ritual parties.

A three-way relationship is just another arrangement.  It doesn't interest me, but then who am I?  I'm not writing the rules.

Well these men can't impregnate each other can they? It's all got a bit out of hand IMO with all these surrogates and three-way things.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

When I think about eds, we also weren't there when they invented the two-person relationship.  It may well be that people were shocked at the idea of any kind of relationship when it was first invented.  

Look at how many cases of spousal and family abuse take place.  Some would argue that any kind of bonding relationship (beyond friendly association) is predatory.  The minute you impose legal boundaries, you are going beyond the personal.

Let's face it, would you rather your beautiful  daughter in a happy two-way relationship where she's the "adored other half", or part of a crowd in a marital three-way?

Well, but what I'm happy with is just the conventional way, innit?  I'm locked into a cultural system as much as anyone else.  But I sure can't justify that system over any other.  Two-way relationship?  Three-way relationship?  No relationship?  

Only one is natural and that is the way we were born...and that would be no relationship.

Who are we to say that another arrangement isn't just as legitimate?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That seems to be nature's design, doesn't it?  I mean, in lion prides, cattle herds and monkey troops, they do it and go on about their business don't they?  They don't get on with legal documents, bride's gowns and ritual parties.

A three-way relationship is just another arrangement.  It doesn't interest me, but then who am I?  I'm not writing the rules.

Well these men can't impregnate each other can they? It's all got a bit out of hand IMO with all these surrogates and three-way things.

You are shifting the subject to impregnating, not just relationships.  I've tolerated it because the two do seem to go hand-in-hand.  But when you start saying there can be no other way, you have changed the subject to procreation only.

If you want to have a discussion about procreation, be my guest.  But I'm not willing to concede that the only thing a relationship means is an opportunity or setting for baby-making.

Once again, we've shot that argument down over marriage.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well these men can't impregnate each other can they? It's all got a bit out of hand IMO with all these surrogates and three-way things.

You are shifting the subject to impregnating, not just relationships.  I've tolerated it because the two do seem to go hand-in-hand.  But when you start saying there can be no other way, you have changed the subject to procreation.

If you want to have a discussion about procreation, be my guest.  But I'm not willing to say that the only thing a relationship means is an opportunity or setting for baby-making.  Once again, we've shot that argument down over marriage.

Part of the story is that they're going to have surrogates to produce babies for them though, so I haven't shifted anything.

I'm just curious about the divorce laws in Canada, and whether wanting to have another person join in and not feel left out is grounds for divorce. If it's not, they shouldn't have been granted a divorce in the first place. In fact, they shouldn't have got married in the first place really as it only lasted five minutes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are shifting the subject to impregnating, not just relationships.  I've tolerated it because the two do seem to go hand-in-hand.  But when you start saying there can be no other way, you have changed the subject to procreation.

If you want to have a discussion about procreation, be my guest.  But I'm not willing to say that the only thing a relationship means is an opportunity or setting for baby-making.  Once again, we've shot that argument down over marriage.

Part of the story is that they're going to have surrogates to produce babies for them though, so I haven't shifted anything.

I'm just curious about the divorce laws in Canada, and whether wanting to have another person join in and not feel left out is grounds for divorce. If it's not, they shouldn't have been granted a divorce in the first place. In fact, they shouldn't have got married in the first place really as it only lasted five minutes.

I don't know about Canada, but if they have joined the 20th-century (not to mention the 21st), they have 'no-fault' divorce...which means it isn't about fault, but only status, and anyone can get divorced for any reason. In that case, the question in this matter is moot.

Again, I'm at the point of questioning, why marriage at all?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Part of the story is that they're going to have surrogates to produce babies for them though, so I haven't shifted anything.

I'm just curious about the divorce laws in Canada, and whether wanting to have another person join in and not feel left out is grounds for divorce. If it's not, they shouldn't have been granted a divorce in the first place. In fact, they shouldn't have got married in the first place really as it only lasted five minutes.

I don't know about Canada, but if they have joined the 20th-century (not to mention the 21st), they have 'no-fault' divorce...which means it isn't about fault, but only status, and anyone can get divorced for any reason.  In that case, the question in this matter is moot.

Again, I'm at the point of questioning, why marriage at all?

You still need grounds for a no-fault divorce, and as they carried on living together, they didn't have any real grounds.

Nobody needs to get married, but if they do, they should at least try to take it seriously and not boast about getting divorced for such a stupid reason. Those three are really proud of it, and they're boasting about it - trio of morons IMO.

It's also why I rarely read the tabloids these days. They're full of ridiculous stories about ridiculous people doing ridiculous things.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know about Canada, but if they have joined the 20th-century (not to mention the 21st), they have 'no-fault' divorce...which means it isn't about fault, but only status, and anyone can get divorced for any reason.  In that case, the question in this matter is moot.

Again, I'm at the point of questioning, why marriage at all?

You still need grounds for a no-fault divorce, and as they carried on living together, they didn't have any real grounds.

Not really. You just file, pay the fees and ask for it. It's about a desire to change status, not about any factual contention. Kinda like getting a driver's license; you either want it or you don't.

What gets contested is the property division. But that isn't an issue here.

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody needs to get married, but if they do, they should at least try to take it seriously and not boast about getting divorced for such a stupid reason. Those three are really proud of it, and they're boasting about it - trio of morons IMO.

I don't know if they are proud or not. It's a question of their state of mind, about which I have no knowledge.

Seems to me that marriage is a fictitious bond, of which the State approves because it accords rights and releases the government of any burden...particularly where children are concerned.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You still need grounds for a no-fault divorce, and as they carried on living together, they didn't have any real grounds.

Not really.  You just file, pay the fees and ask for it.  It's about a desire to change status, not about any factual contention.  Kinda like getting a driver's license; you either want it or you don't.

What gets contested is the property division.  But that isn't an issue here.

Raggamuffin wrote:Nobody needs to get married, but if they do, they should at least try to take it seriously and not boast about getting divorced for such a stupid reason. Those three are really proud of it, and they're boasting about it - trio of morons IMO.

I don't know if they are proud or not.  It's a question of their state of mind, about which I have no knowledge.  

Seems to me that marriage is a fictitious bond, of which the State approves because it accords rights and releases the government of any burden...particularly where children are concerned.

You do need grounds, so I expect they lied about that. Of course they're proud of it - they're splashed all over that article, and they're boasting about it.

Anyway, it's just my opinion that they're a bunch of prats, and if it goes pear-shaped, it serves them right.

Ragamuffin wrote:You do need grounds, so I expect they lied about that.

No, if anything the particular jurisdiction they are in may not have 'no-fault' laws.  Where do you see 'grounds' are necessary? The article only says that a polyamorous marriage is not allowed, but that is a prohibition, not a requirement of grounds for divorce.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's also why I rarely read the tabloids these days. They're full of ridiculous stories about ridiculous people doing ridiculous things.

I am with you on that. I find a lot,of people in these stories immoral and fucking idiotic

Original Quill wrote:

Ragamuffin wrote:You do need grounds, so I expect they lied about that.

No, if anything the particular jurisdiction they are in may not have 'no-fault' laws.  Where do you see 'grounds' are necessary?  The article only says that a polyamorous marriage is not allowed, but that is a prohibition, not a requirement of grounds for divorce.

No fault doesn't mean you don't need grounds FFS. Try doing some research.

Are there other articles that go into more detail on the law in Nova Scotia?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, if anything the particular jurisdiction they are in may not have 'no-fault' laws.  Where do you see 'grounds' are necessary?  The article only says that a polyamorous marriage is not allowed, but that is a prohibition, not a requirement of grounds for divorce.

No fault doesn't mean you don't need grounds FFS. Try doing some research.

I'm afraid that's exactly what it means.

You are angry, suggesting that you are frustrated over not having the answer. If you have any authority, such as another article, I'd like to do the very research you suggest. But I must know where you are coming from.

well anyway...of course quill is in favour of this sort of thing...I mean...can you just imagine the size of the solicitors bill that will be required top sort out who inherits what when the time comes???


tching goes quills eyes......

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No fault doesn't mean you don't need grounds FFS. Try doing some research.

I'm afraid that's exactly what it means.

You are angry, suggesting that you are frustrated over not having the answer.  If you have any authority, such as another article, I'd like to do the very research you suggest.  But I must know where you are coming from.

No, it doesn't mean that. Please do some research. Google the divorce laws in Canada.

victorismyhero wrote:well anyway...of course quill is in favour of this sort of thing...I mean...can you just imagine the size of the solicitors bill that will be required top sort out who inherits what when the time comes???

tching goes quills eyes......

Why do you say I'm in favor of it? Can't you have a discussion without judgment?

TBS, I have no objection making money on any kind of case. But that's a different matter.

Even if I represented them, it was not be a reflection of what I favor. Even George Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, is one of the most pro-civil rights lawyers in the south, proving lawyers need not get involved in their client's causes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm afraid that's exactly what it means.

You are angry, suggesting that you are frustrated over not having the answer.  If you have any authority, such as another article, I'd like to do the very research you suggest.  But I must know where you are coming from.

No, it doesn't mean that. Please do some research. Google the divorce laws in Canada.

Google is not a research tool for law. I have better resources, but I need to know where you are coming from. Why are you reluctant to give me the basis for your claim?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it doesn't mean that. Please do some research. Google the divorce laws in Canada.

Google is not a research tool for law.  I have better resources, but I need to know where you are coming from.  Why are you reluctant to give me the basis for your claim?

Because you can look it up for yourself, like I did. They still had to give a reason for the divorce, and I don't think their reason was one of the approved listed ones.

Anyway, I have no further time for your fannying about Quill. If you want to sit here and dither, that's up to you. I've given my opinion already - that these guys are idiots, and that they shouldn't have been granted a divorce or got married in the first place.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I have no further time for your fannying about Quill. If you want to sit here and dither, that's up to you. I've given my opinion already - that these guys are idiots, and that they shouldn't have been granted a divorce or got married in the first place.

In other words, you were wrong.

OK...why don't you just say so and move on?  I have not problem with that.

The filthy disgusting perverts should be clinically stopped from making babies who will have a difficult life if they are bred.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I have no further time for your fannying about Quill. If you want to sit here and dither, that's up to you. I've given my opinion already - that these guys are idiots, and that they shouldn't have been granted a divorce or got married in the first place.

In other words, you were wrong.

OK...why don't you just say so and move on?  I have not problem with that.

I'm not wrong at all. You just get on my nerves with your pussyfooting around. Just look it up - you're supposed to be a lawyer.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, I have no further time for your fannying about Quill. If you want to sit here and dither, that's up to you. I've given my opinion already - that these guys are idiots, and that they shouldn't have been granted a divorce or got married in the first place.

it's a good point raggs, they must have given a reason for the divorce and all they could have done is lied...

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's also why I rarely read the tabloids these days. They're full of ridiculous stories about ridiculous people doing ridiculous things.

I am with you on that. I find a lot,of people in these stories immoral and fucking idiotic

I sometimes read one of them at a cafe if there's one lying around, and then I wish I hadn't. People featured in them are generally so stupid that they're depressing!

Especially Fiona Phillips with her column in The Mirror!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In other words, you were wrong.

OK...why don't you just say so and move on?  I have not problem with that.

I'm not wrong at all. You just get on my nerves with your pussyfooting around. Just look it up - you're supposed to be a lawyer.

You're wrong. Probably 5-words would be all it takes to substantiate your claim.

You don't have the answer. That's alright. As I say, I'm not keeping score. It just puts the question to rest.

Stormee wrote:The filthy disgusting perverts should be clinically stopped from making babies who will have a difficult life if they are bred.

Are you talking about Bush and Cheney?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not wrong at all. You just get on my nerves with your pussyfooting around. Just look it up - you're supposed to be a lawyer.

You're wrong.  Probably 5-words would be all it takes to substantiate your claim.

You don't have the answer.  That's alright.  As I say, I'm not keeping score.  It just puts the question to rest.

I'm not wrong.

eddie wrote:On the surface of it, it sounds ludicrous and tacky, and if there wasn't going to be children involved I'd say, oh well, each their own.

But.

That's not exactly a great "image" for children is it?
A three-way relationship??!

I'm not sure social services and local Children's family centres will be letting them all run off and live happily ever after if there are to be children involved in this household.

Children should be immediately removed from such a twisted environment.

a prime example of the LBGT creepshow

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're wrong.  Probably 5-words would be all it takes to substantiate your claim.

You don't have the answer.  That's alright.  As I say, I'm not keeping score.  It just puts the question to rest.

I'm not wrong.

You just don't have the answer right now? I understand.

It's silly to keep denying it. Everybody knows.

well I dont think the personal arangement they have in their life should concern any of us tbh....but I must admit their avowed intent to bring children into such a fucked up mess is dubious....
Oh and I do hope "with their sisters" means each others sister...not their own

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not wrong.

You just don't have the answer right now?  I understand.

It's silly to keep denying it.  Everybody knows.

You are wrong. I know that.

Dont BTW get me wrong...if they want to HUMP their own sister well...who am I to object.....but breed with her...seriously.....nah THAT is an offence against nature....

victorismyhero wrote:
Oh and I do hope "with their sisters" means each others sister...not their own

Yep, that caught my eye too.