Polyamory & polygamy

[saizai]

What do you think of it and why?

If you don't know what it is, read
http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

If discussing a religious pro or con perspective, please cite relevant verses to justify your claims.

[Tricky]

What do you think of it and why?

If you don't know what it is, read
http://www.xeromag.com/fvpoly.html and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

If discussing a religious pro or con perspective, please cite relevant verses to justify your claims.
What? You mean it isn't about the simple yet beautiful love that can exist between a man and a parrot?

[clarsct]

Whatever floats your boat.


I'm not sure there's anything to cite, really. Whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business but their own. I could care less whom you f**k.

Kids need a nurturing environment. What difference if they have two moms, two dads, or five dads and three moms?

[saizai]

What? You mean it isn't about the simple yet beautiful love that can exist between a man and a parrot?

Only if there are three or more of them. ;)

[Z]

I'm all for it, if handled responsibly. Actually, I've seen up close and personal when these relationships work right, and when they don't work at all.

Like regular marriage, these relationships don't work out more often than do.

If anyone cares, I could probably pontificate quite a bit on the subject. I've even been accused regularly of being in such a relationship, though the exact details of my home life are considerably more complex than a blanket label like 'polyamory' can cover.

Still, if anyone's actually interested, I'll let flow such a torrent of words, that our most patient readers will be tempted to 'tl/dr' my post.

[clarsct]

From what I have read and remembered of your posts, Z, you're a pretty open guy. I think it's cool. Not everything you've discussed has been up my particular alley, and my alley is pretty wide, itself, but it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

[Z]

From what I have read and remembered of your posts, Z, you're a pretty open guy. I think it's cool. Not everything you've discussed has been up my particular alley, and my alley is pretty wide, itself, but it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


AAARRGGGHHH!!!!!

Did I mention that I'm metaphor-impaired and simile-challenged? It really rattles my boat when someone posts a can of stones like this and tries to rock my chain up the creek without ice skates!

:p

But thanks, I think that was supposed to be complimentary...

[Marquis de Carabas]

As to polyamory, whatever gets you off.

If by polygamy we are talking state recognition of such relationships, I'm not so sure. I'm not deadset against it, having honestly not given the issue a lot of thought, but my gut leans a bit towards no. I am prepared to be swayed, though. So, if anyone has given it some thought, and wishes to post pro or con, I'd be interested.

Personally, I'll stick to my Minion, thanks.

[Davidjayjordan]

True Chjristianity allows for polyamoury but church Christianity changed the law of the Lord to the law of man. ... because the law of man makes one man one woman and easier way to tax and keep inheritances simple.

But it should only be attempted if one has great love and understanding rather than a great hormonal drive, ..for instead of heaven you get Hell.

And furtthermore because males and females are equal with the Lord, polyandry is also possible if a woman is able to satisfy two in more ways than one..

And in all cases, the evil of jealousy has to be controlled and conquered, if three are to be one... it takes love brethren, and that kind of love really only comes from the creator of love.

Got to fly

david

[clarsct]

Z: It was. Sorry, I tend to communicate in metaphore most of the time. When I do not communicate in simile.

What I am saying is that I think it's good that you do what you do, and you're open about it. I would not want to do some of those things, but others I have tried and liked quite a bit.(I am trying to identify with you a little, here. I am told it helps improve communication.) I am not worried about what you do, though, as it does not impact me.

I hope this clarifies thing for you. I am aware, from other posts, that you and your wife(s?) lead a fairly open lifestyle, but I also remember you saying that you don't mind sex with other guys, either. Which is something I have no interest in, personally. I don't care that you do, but it simply isn't my thing, as it were.


Once again, I hope this is a decent enough clarification.

[clarsct]

As to polyamory, whatever gets you off.

If by polygamy we are talking state recognition of such relationships, I'm not so sure. I'm not deadset against it, having honestly not given the issue a lot of thought, but my gut leans a bit towards no. I am prepared to be swayed, though. So, if anyone has given it some thought, and wishes to post pro or con, I'd be interested.

Personally, I'll stick to my Minion, thanks.


I don't see why it wouldn't be recognized by the state. What difference does it make to the state whom you f**k?

[Z]

True Chjristianity allows for polyamoury but church Christianity changed the law of the Lord to the law of man. ... because the law of man makes one man one woman and easier way to tax and keep inheritances simple.

But it should only be attempted if one has great love and understanding rather than a great hormonal drive, ..for instead of heaven you get Hell.

And furtthermore because males and females are equal with the Lord, polyandry is also possible if a woman is able to satisfy two in more ways than one..

And in all cases, the evil of jealousy has to be controlled and conquered, if three are to be one... it takes love brethren, and that kind of love really only comes from the creator of love.

Got to fly

david


Except for all the creator/Bible stuff in his post, he's actually making a good point.

Jealousy is one of the key problems in polyamorous relationships - jealousy and control.

I'm aware at the moment of three polyamorous relationships. The first and oldest is an unhealthy polygyny, in which the male controls the two women with a nearly iron fist, has very strict rules, and in the past, has even attempted to disrupt the natural bonds between mother and child to assign those bonds artificially to his first wife.

The second is a polyandrous relationship which is non-sexual but very emotional, and while I won't say it's healthy - I sense heavy codependence - it's at least a happy relationship.

The third is only borderline polyamorous, on the grounds that one participant has been so psychologically scarred that she is largely unable at this time to show genuine affection. Otherwise, though, it's the healthiest of the three relationships, and shows genuine promise. All participants are considered equals, and all participants are also considered their own free agents.

Dave correctly points out that love is the key to a quality polyamorous relationship - if it's the hormones talking, go swinging. Sex is a hard enough basis to manage a one-on-one relationship; using it as a foundation for a multipartner relationship is a recipe for disaster.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't see why it wouldn't be recognized by the state. What difference does it make to the state whom you f**k?
None. At least it shouldn't. But there is a difference between the state allowing you to do whatever you like with your bits and the state granting any kind of status to you because of what you do with your bits. I don't see it as automatic that because relationship type x is recognised officially, relationship type y must necessarily be also so recognised. Again, though, I'm willing to hear you out.

[Z]

Z: It was. Sorry, I tend to communicate in metaphore most of the time. When I do not communicate in simile.

What I am saying is that I think it's good that you do what you do, and you're open about it. I would not want to do some of those things, but others I have tried and liked quite a bit.(I am trying to identify with you a little, here. I am told it helps improve communication.) I am not worried about what you do, though, as it does not impact me.

I hope this clarifies thing for you. I am aware, from other posts, that you and your wife(s?) lead a fairly open lifestyle, but I also remember you saying that you don't mind sex with other guys, either. Which is something I have no interest in, personally. I don't care that you do, but it simply isn't my thing, as it were.


Once again, I hope this is a decent enough clarification.

Thanks, that helped!

Personally, I say, to each their own. But let them be HONEST with themselves about what they want, need, and have.

[Z]

None. At least it shouldn't. But there is a difference between the state allowing you to do whatever you like with your bits and the state granting any kind of status to you because of what you do with your bits. I don't see it as automatic that because relationship type x is recognised officially, relationship type y must necessarily be also so recognised. Again, though, I'm willing to hear you out.

I'm sort of with you here... but I'd take it farther.

I don't think ANY relationships should be formally recognized by the government, except those which actually impact such things as taxation and medical benefits - but in those cases, I suggest a social mutual support contract, rather than the archaic and religious concepts of 'marriage'. I know I've gone into this before... basically, if a person provides some level of support or mutual sharing of resources with another person, I think the two people (I'm talking adults of course) or more should be able to enter into a social contract whereby resources, responsibilities, benefits, etc. can be mutually and legally shared - be it a man and wife, two unmarried persons, a collective household, roommates of convenience, whatever. If three guys are living and working together, and each is independently supporting themselves, then they would get no such contract; but if they pool their resources, and one requires support from the others, for example, due to medical emergency, I think they ought to be able to manage a social contract to share benefits and responsibilities.

[clarsct]

MdC:

Well, from a logical viewpoint, I would say the state shouldn't grant any status whatsoever to people because of what they do with their 'bits'. But as it seems to do so, then doing so ought to be even across the board. To grant one specific segment of society certain rights because of a behavior(sex), then deny all others those rights based on....

Well, I actually don't know what they base it on. A Book? Apparently?

Well, it seems a bit silly and one-sided to me. If they're going to make a distinction between heterosexual, monogamous relationships, then on what basis is that distinction made? How is THAT particular form of sexual relation superior to any other that it needs to be granted special consideration?

Makes no sense to me. It isn't even the 'traditional' relationship, if you look back through history, or even the Bible.

Logic trumps a Book for me every time.

[clarsct]

I'm sort of with you here... but I'd take it farther.

I don't think ANY relationships should be formally recognized by the government, except those which actually impact such things as taxation and medical benefits - but in those cases, I suggest a social mutual support contract, rather than the archaic and religious concepts of 'marriage'. I know I've gone into this before... basically, if a person provides some level of support or mutual sharing of resources with another person, I think the two people (I'm talking adults of course) or more should be able to enter into a social contract whereby resources, responsibilities, benefits, etc. can be mutually and legally shared - be it a man and wife, two unmarried persons, a collective household, roommates of convenience, whatever. If three guys are living and working together, and each is independently supporting themselves, then they would get no such contract; but if they pool their resources, and one requires support from the others, for example, due to medical emergency, I think they ought to be able to manage a social contract to share benefits and responsibilities.
This makes sense to me.

[Tricky]

If by polygamy we are talking state recognition of such relationships, I'm not so sure. I'm not deadset against it, having honestly not given the issue a lot of thought, but my gut leans a bit toward no. I am prepared to be swayed, though. So, if anyone has given it some thought, and wishes to post pro or con, I'd be interested.
I've known a few "family groups" in the Pagan community who were unofficially polygamous and polyandrous. I've never seen one that worked for any length of time, not to say that it couldn't. There never seems to be an equal division of love.

One problem, as things stand now, is that since polyspousaly (or whatever you want to call the general term) is not officially recognized, it is quite possible that one or more members of the union will be cheated if they break up. Now I can see why this would be a nightmare for the courts to try to resolve, so about the only way I would support it becoming legal is if it required a prenuptial agreement by all members of the union.

That being said, I have known more than one couple of what you would assume to be average married couples, in which one or both members have a lover on the side of which the spouse is not only aware of, but approves of. They are not a unit, but there is an agreement. These usually don't work for long either, but they have a better chance than polyspousaly.
***
But of course, I am reminded of a joke. It is at a cocktail party where wealthy couples are gathered

Wife: Phillip, I saw you kissing a pretty girl I've never seen before, over by the hors d'oeuvres.

Husband: I should confess to you my dear, that is my mistress.

Wife: Oh Phillip! I cannot abide that. I want a divorce.

Husband: Well, if you must, my dear, but you well know that our prenuptial agreement would mean no more world cruises, no more mink coats and no more Rolls Royces for you.

Wife: I... I will have to think about it.

Husband: You do that my love. But really, it is not so odd. You see that girl over there kissing Edward? That is his mistress.

Wife: Ours is prettier.

[Marquis de Carabas]

MdC:

Well, from a logical viewpoint, I would say the state shouldn't grant any status whatsoever to people because of what they do with their 'bits'. But as it seems to do so, then doing so ought to be even across the board. To grant one specific segment of society certain rights because of a behavior(sex), then deny all others those rights based on....
If society grants status to pairs of people, then I agree that any pair of people (as Z notes, speaking of adults) should logically be able to grab the same status. Does it necessarily follow, though, that a larger group than two should get the same status? It is not clear to me that it does (nor is it clear that it doesn't).

ETA: I've met a few couples who claim a committed monogamous relationship 44 weeks a year--every week that the Texas Renaissance Faire isn't in session.

[ksbluesfan]

That's not for me. It's difficult enough having one committed relationship.

If you want to be in that type of relationship, I won't stop you. As long as everybody is completely honest about what's going on, I don't see a problem.

As far as state recognition, I think marriage should be a religious institution, not a secular one. Legal partnerships would make more sense to me.

[fuelair]

Whatever floats your boat.


I'm not sure there's anything to cite, really. Whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business but their own. I could care less whom you f**k.

Kids need a nurturing environment. What difference if they have two moms, two dads, or five dads and three moms?

Re: S3P1: or, mostly, what.

[Z]

If society grants status to pairs of people, then I agree that any pair of people (as Z notes, speaking of adults) should logically be able to grab the same status. Does it necessarily follow, though, that a larger group than two should get the same status? It is not clear to me that it does (nor is it clear that it doesn't).

I believe that if the reasons involved are the same...

Let me personalize this a bit.

In our household, there is me, my wife, and our roommate (To call her a 'lover' or 'mistress' or something would be misleading at the moment). There are the three children between myself and my wife; two children from our roommate's former relationship (wherein she WAS the mistress); and a shared child between myself and our roommate, conceived originally as a child for her and her (now estranged) husband, who was impotent (Since his leaving, I have adopted, renamed, and claimed full responsibility for our child).

My wife and our roommate both work. My wife is assistant manager at a clothing retail, while our roommate is an assistant manager for the airport's food concessions vendor at CVG. Both earn decent pay, both have decent benefits.

Among the six children, one has high-functioning autism, one has sensory integration disorder, two suffer from a number of physical medical problems, one quite probably will be a midget, and one has a number of psychological problems. The oldest are eight, the youngest, almost three.

Since my wife and our roommate work odd hours, I'm the primary caretaker for all six kids. I do all the cooking, cleaning, child care, potty training, preschool-running, home-schooling our SID child, taking care of the numerous weekly medical appointments and therapies, etc. Day care is simply not an option, whatsoever. And my earning potential, based on my military service, wouldn't even cover the basic day-care needs of the family, so my financial contribution to the family is as the day-care and household manager.

That being said...

Because I am the primary caretaker of the kids - including my roommate's two sons by her prior relationship - I am the one who has to manage most of their appointments. Children's Hospital Medical Center is a wonderful place, but they have a strict policy that the parent or legal guardian must be present. Thanks to their father, I cannot get recognized as 'legal guardian', as the courts have decided that I would need HIS approval to become their guardian.

I've also fallen to a grey area on medical coverage, in part, because my wife's company is stupid, and in part because my relationship to our roommate is difficult to understand. At the moment, I am covered under our roommate's medical, on the basis that I am father to one of her kids and chief caregiver of all of her kids; but it's as a 'significant other'.

I think in our case, a legally recognizable social contract would be ideal.

I don't think our family is typical, though.

[Lonewulf]

None. At least it shouldn't. But there is a difference between the state allowing you to do whatever you like with your bits and the state granting any kind of status to you because of what you do with your bits. I don't see it as automatic that because relationship type x is recognised officially, relationship type y must necessarily be also so recognised. Again, though, I'm willing to hear you out.

Actually, it might be a better argument if you say your own opinion as to why it shouldn't be allowed, and then we can move from there.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually, it might be a better argument if you say your own opinion as to why it shouldn't be allowed, and then we can move from there.
I'm not looking for an argument. I don't have a strong opinion either way. As I said, my gut leans slightly to no. I try not to make it a habit to argue from my gut. As such, I am interested in hearing either side, hopefully both.

[clarsct]

Re: S3P1: or, mostly, what.
Erm. I have no idea what this comment means.

[clarsct]

MdC: After a bit of thought, I think I have already answered your question.

My position is based on why any one sexual relationship is preferred over another. Three or more is a sexual relationship. So long as all parties consent, then what matter is it of the state? If a man divorces one wife, then marries another, the state recognizes this. If a man does this several times, the state still recognizes his relationships, even though he has proven that he has all the decision making abilities of a particularly retarded ant. Now, if a man decides to have three wives at the same time, then we say no. It isn't that a man cannot have three wives, but he must piss off two of them so badly that they can no longer stand to be around him. A man can screw around on his wife, and still have a legal marriage. A man can beat his wife, and still have a legal marriage. But a man cannot bring another woman into the marriage with the trust and acceptance of his wife? THAT'S wrong, somehow?

I am using a man here, but you can use the words man and woman interchangeably without negating the argument.

To me, it appears that the state is making moral judgements about how people live, then legislating them into a law that everyone must follow. I am against that.

Now, insurance comapnies will still have their own rules regarding such activities, regardless of what the law states. This is a slightly different issue.

[Miss Anthrope]

Speaking from first hand observations and my own experience, polyamory can be wonderful or a nightmarish drama fest, depending on the people involved and where they are at any given moment.

My husband and I are semi-poly, that is, our family unit comes first and is always a priority. We are open to intimate, loving friendships with others. We are not swingers, that's a hobby unto itself and just not our thing. It's been wonderful knowing that we can have those other relationships and remain so in love, and such good friends through it all.

Polygamy...well, that can fall under the umbrella of polyamory, too, really. Legal recognition for it? Hmmm, tough call. On principle I am for it, as I am for gay marriage, but it's quite a thing to tackle.

If anyone wants a Dawkins style look at monogamy via evolutionary animal behavior, The Myth of Monogamy by David Barash is very interesting.

[Marquis de Carabas]

clar,

Since I haven't addressed this before, let me go ahead and say that I agree that it'd probably be for the best if the government got out of the business of giving special status to any kind of relationship at all. But they do. [shrug] That said...

Here (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/) is a list of typical benefits of marriage in the USA. Why is it necessarily so that larger partnerships should receive those same benefits?

Take the employment benefits (page 2 of the link), for instance. The Family and Medical Leave Act would probably need reworking if the government recognised poly relationships. In a three-person partnership, if one is sick, do both other spouses get the benefit of leave with continued medical coverage? If only one, how is the decision made as to which one? Let the family decide (probably best)?

This type of question would crop up all over for marriage benefits (who has burial arrangement rights?). The more partners allowed, the more complicated those questions (and their legislative answers) would get. Is it worth the trouble, then, to formalise the practice?

I agree with your stance in spirit--people should be able to do with their bits as they please--but opposition to recognition of polygamy need not be based on moral revulsion of the practice. It is practically more complex than a two person marriage. Is the fact that this type of relationship complicates the process enough of a reason not to give it status? [shrug] I dunno. Still pondering that one.

Again, yeah, it'd be easier if the government just backed off the whole issue.

[saizai]

polyspousaly (or whatever you want to call the general term)

Polygamy = multi-marriage <-- the term you meant
Polygyny = multi-female
Polyandry = multi-male
Polyamory = multi-love
Polyf*ckery = polyamory but mostly interested in the sex :p

[clarsct]

MdC, Miss Anthrope:

So, because it is difficult, we shouldn't tackle it?

I think not.

Complexity should not make second class citizens, nor be used as an excuse to do so. I'm sure that the changes to the constitution regarding civil rights f**ked up a lot of laws in several states. Not that I am comparing on a moral level, merely in this aspect of complexity.

Our legal definition of marriage is archaic and outdated, and needs to be changed. Not a popular platform, but it will happen either in the legislature or the courts. If it happens in the legislature, there will less of a legal mess, in my non-professional opinion.

I'd like to see AS or a real lawyer tackle this one....;) Would be interesting.

[Miss Anthrope]

MdC, Miss Anthrope:

So, because it is difficult, we shouldn't tackle it?

I think not.

Complexity should not make second class citizens, nor be used as an excuse to do so. I'm sure that the changes to the constitution regarding civil rights f**ked up a lot of laws in several states. Not that I am comparing on a moral level, merely in this aspect of complexity.

Our legal definition of marriage is archaic and outdated, and needs to be changed. Not a popular platform, but it will happen either in the legislature or the courts. If it happens in the legislature, there will less of a legal mess, in my non-professional opinion.

I'd like to see AS or a real lawyer tackle this one....;) Would be interesting.

Would I vote for it to be legal? Yes. But I would like to see the legal aspects hashed out properly. Child support and the like would be very complicated. Having been through a divorce and years of litigation over my eldest child, I see the legal aspect to be very, very messy in polygamy. So as I said, on principle, I am for it. However, I can't argue much beyond principle because I haven't seen anyone's ideas on how property division and child support would work when the legal marriage is terminated.

[Marquis de Carabas]

MdC, Miss Anthrope:

So, because it is difficult, we shouldn't tackle it?

I think not.

Complexity should not make second class citizens, nor be used as an excuse to do so. I'm sure that the changes to the constitution regarding civil rights f**ked up a lot of laws in several states. Not that I am comparing on a moral level, merely in this aspect of complexity.
I am certainly not advocating not tackling it. I am just saying that from a practical standpoint, allowing legally recognised partnerships of more than a couple opens up a whole lot of issues that would need to be clarified. Can those issues be realistically resolved? It is certainly worth looking into.

I had considered the civil rights angle, and I think it is only marginally applicable here. The marriage benefits are a privilege, not a right. Should complexity bar a group from claiming basic civil rights? No. From privileges? Another question I haven't yet comfortably decided for myself.

Further complications that occur to me...

The importing of spouses. Do we put a cap on it? I can easily imagine fairly well-to-do men importing themselves a harem of servants, indentured for citizenship. Are existing laws enough to curtail this sort of exploitation?
Number of people in the partnership. A cap? Or do we create a system in which, theoretically, everyone in the country could be one big happy family? Yes, I know that wouldn't happen, but should there be a legal size limit?
Separate living arrangements. Should one be allowed to have two (or more) families in separate cities, even states, assuming all parties agree?

I don't expect you to have ready-made answers to all (or any) of these. I just wonder if there is a workable model for recognised polygamy. As MA said, "I'd like to see the legal issues hashed out properly". I do hope we get one of our esteemed legal minds in on this one. It could prove interesting, maybe even fruitful.

And since MA brought up voting on the issue. I honestly couldn't say right now which way I would vote. Very likely, I would abstain, not feeling a good enough grasp of the issue to decide. I wouldn't be out campaigning for people to vote no, however.

[Antiquehunter]

Good gravy! I agree with the MdeC!

I really have no personal investment on the issue - Polyamory and the related topic of polygamy don't interest me. Monogamy works for me and mine. But, I'm quite sure that some people prefer to have these types of relationships, and I don't have any issue with it. People should always play safe tho, especially those with multiple partners - so wear your raincoats you polyamorous peoples!

However - when we look at the practical side of polygamy and how we handle a variety of logistical matters around looking after kids, wills, medical care and decisions when loved ones are disabled... well, the legal boondoggles are vast. And, it may not even be possible to create a set of guidelines that work for the majority of polygamous relationships. (If the relationship is one male and multiple females, and the male becomes incapacitated in a car wreck, then the longest-married female decides when to pull the feeding tube? A poll from all the wives? What if there were more than one male in the relationship?)

Perhaps the best way to handle this would be as MdeC (and I) have said - that the government stays out of the 'marriage' business. The government could and should be responsible for making sure that relationships have some guidelines around how they are handled as regards civil rights and privileges. And - if you find yourself in a love nest of a convoluted relationship, maybe you need to see a nuclear family lawyer.

[Roswell-Perseis]

What an interesting thread . . .

I do believe that it is hypocritical to legitimize one relationship over any other "alternative". Moral legislation leaves me bitter.

I agree that there are real problems that would need to be looked over, such as the Marquis' list. This would make for interesting tax returns, prenups, etc. Doesn't mean we shouldn't walk away from it, just that it would be best done cautiously.

That said, there are many people, mostly mormons still practicing polygamy, who live "off the grid". Men have more wives than they can afford (and these wives are not allowed to work), and so the women can apply for welfare as single mothers. Even though they are supposed to be married. Legalizing polygamy would make a dent in this.

There are also severe cases of child abuse, wife abuse, etc. It isn't that legalizing polygamy would solve this, per se. However, giving these people the chance to live in mainstream culture will get them into a system that may catch some of these abuses. Physicians or teachers, or whomever, for example, may recognize these things if people would be able to gain access.

My opinions are far from perfect, but if it makes child abuse and incest easier to detect and punish it would make more sense to me to deal with it instead of dragging our feet.

[saizai]

I find it interesting that nobody's yet posted the "one man one woman = one marriage" type argument yet.

What happened to the Focus on the Family set's scripturally based moral condemnation of anything other than the 1m1f family structure? What about the slippery slope arguments that have poly marriages as the Scary Potential Consequence of allowing gay marriage?

* saizai is suspicious when the Christians around here don't bash these ideas

[Meadmaker]

I find it interesting that nobody's yet posted the "one man one woman = one marriage" type argument yet.

What happened to the Focus on the Family set's scripturally based moral condemnation of anything other than the 1m1f family structure? What about the slippery slope arguments that have poly marriages as the Scary Potential Consequence of allowing gay marriage?

* saizai;2423838 is suspicious when the Christians around here don't bash these ideas

Actually, I was about to post the following comment:

Polygamy and polyamory are straw men. No one really wants them.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I had considered the civil rights angle, and I think it is only marginally applicable here. The marriage benefits are a privilege, not a right. Should complexity bar a group from claiming basic civil rights? No. From privileges? Another question I haven't yet comfortably decided for myself.
Of course, it's worth noting that as it currently stands, everyone is being treated equally. Any individual is entitled to marry another individual (as long as it's one of the opposite sex grrr) and reap the benefits thereof. Polyamorists are not being prevented from marrying.

In any odd-numbered relationship, obviously not everyone can get in on the benefits, and I have no doubt marriages within a poly relationship only protract problems of favoritism and jealousy, but it's not the government's job to make everyone's relationships easy.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Polygamy and polyamory are straw men. No one really wants them.
[sigh] I hate to do it, but...

Evidence?

[Davidjayjordan]

Except for all the creator/Bible stuff in his post, he's actually making a good point.

Jealousy is one of the key problems in polyamorous relationships - jealousy and control.

I'm aware at the moment of three polyamorous relationships. The first and oldest is an unhealthy polygyny, in which the male controls the two women with a nearly iron fist, has very strict rules, and in the past, has even attempted to disrupt the natural bonds between mother and child to assign those bonds artificially to his first wife.

The second is a polyandrous relationship which is non-sexual but very emotional, and while I won't say it's healthy - I sense heavy codependence - it's at least a happy relationship.

The third is only borderline polyamorous, on the grounds that one participant has been so psychologically scarred that she is largely unable at this time to show genuine affection. Otherwise, though, it's the healthiest of the three relationships, and shows genuine promise. All participants are considered equals, and all participants are also considered their own free agents.

Dave correctly points out that love is the key to a quality polyamorous relationship - if it's the hormones talking, go swinging. Sex is a hard enough basis to manage a one-on-one relationship; using it as a foundation for a multipartner relationship is a recipe for disaster.

Z ..... Tis true that love and wisdom and maturity is the key to multiple relationships, especially if under one roof. This is why in other countries where multiple marriages are legal, the vast majority of them are under two roofs, and in two or more houses.

Consider

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/TwoHousePolygamy.html


.

[Tricky]

Why is no one concerned about the gripping problem of autoamory?

[Foster Zygote]

Why is no one concerned about the gripping problem of autoamory?

"Gripping." :D

[RenaissanceBiker]

Gripping is a problem with autoamory? Maybe you just need new tires.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Might have over-lubricated.

[IllegalArgument]

I would think the complexities of sorting out medical insurance would be enough to make someones' head explode.

[Miss Anthrope]

Actually, I was about to post the following comment:

Polygamy and polyamory are straw men. No one really wants them.

That's definitely not true.

[Z]

Z ..... Tis true that love and wisdom and maturity is the key to multiple relationships, especially if under one roof. This is why in other countries where multiple marriages are legal, the vast majority of them are under two roofs, and in two or more houses.

Consider

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/TwoHousePolygamy.html


.

I gotta say, it is so weird to be in agreement with you.

Then again, love, wisdom, and maturity is the key to any relationship - straight, gay, multiple, whatever. ESPECIALLY under the same roof.

Sometimes I think I'd have had an easier marriage if we had lived separately... :D

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder; familiarity breeds contempt."

Let's face it - if 50% or more of all regular marriages end in divorce, and more marriages are failed but refuse to get divorced... and poly relationships are even more difficult to maintain...

I say this all the time to my friends, but I'll advise it here to one and all: DON'T GET MARRIED. To one, two, or fifty - just don't do it. Me, I love being married; I love being in my home as it is now - for the most part. But I think my life is the exception, not the rule. And it is VERY hard work; I've had to learn to subdue my ego, dispense entirely with jealousy, and many other hard lessons besides.

Love is hard.

[Cosmo]

Z ..... Tis true that love and wisdom and maturity is the key to multiple relationships, especially if under one roof. This is why in other countries where multiple marriages are legal, the vast majority of them are under two roofs, and in two or more houses.

Consider

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/TwoHousePolygamy.html
.

You have a web page for everything, don't you?

[Miss Anthrope]

I gotta say, it is so weird to be in agreement with you.

Then again, love, wisdom, and maturity is the key to any relationship - straight, gay, multiple, whatever. ESPECIALLY under the same roof.

Sometimes I think I'd have had an easier marriage if we had lived separately... :D

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder; familiarity breeds contempt."

Let's face it - if 50% or more of all regular marriages end in divorce, and more marriages are failed but refuse to get divorced... and poly relationships are even more difficult to maintain...

I say this all the time to my friends, but I'll advise it here to one and all: DON'T GET MARRIED. To one, two, or fifty - just don't do it. Me, I love being married; I love being in my home as it is now - for the most part. But I think my life is the exception, not the rule. And it is VERY hard work; I've had to learn to subdue my ego, dispense entirely with jealousy, and many other hard lessons besides.

Love is hard.

Very well said. Too many think marriage is a solution to something. It isn't. People change and hopefully grow as people, but when there are two (or more), there are a lot of tough adjustments to make along the way. Communication, humility, partnership...those are truly difficult things to make work successfully over a lifetime.

Adding other people to the mix drastically changes the dynamic, and it's not a "solution" to a problem, either. It's a recipe for more. This is why I, too, advise so many to not get married (despite being very happily married myself), and while extolling the virtues of a semi-poly lifestyle, I tend to warn more against it than encourage. It takes amazing chemisty (not the short lived, sexual kind) to make a partnership work. The odds of finding that between two are not great. Between three, four, six? TOUGH!!

[Tricky]

That's definitely not true.

Though I could be wrong, I believe that Meadmaker's reply was a tongue-in-cheek response honoring Saizai's request.
* saizai is suspicious when the Christians around here don't bash these ideas

[Miss Anthrope]

Though I could be wrong, I believe that Meadmaker's reply was a tongue-in-cheek response honoring Saizai's request.

My bad;)

[Tricky]

My bad;)Maybe. Like I say, I could be wrong, but I've found MM to have a sense of humor. Still, he should have used a smiley.:boggled:

[Ysidro]

Why is no one concerned about the gripping problem of autoamory?

I don't think we have a handle on the problem yet. Perhaps someone should seize it and lubricate the wheels of research.

[Miss Anthrope]

I don't think we have a handle on the problem yet. Perhaps someone should seize it and lubricate the wheels of research.

As Doctor R. Palms has said in her reports, the call for research has been beaten to death.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ooh, blind-sided by the good doctor...........

[Björn Toulouse]

Sometimes I think I'd have had an easier marriage if we had lived separately... :D

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder; familiarity breeds contempt."

I say this all the time to my friends, but I'll advise it here to one and all: DON'T GET MARRIED.


When my 1st marriage went south, i discussed it casually with a psychiatrist friend who was Lebanese. i told him that i felt like i could have handled it better if our house had been designed like this: a driveway into a garage with 2 completely separate living quarters on each side of it with one common area. He told me that there was a culture he knew of somewhere that already did that.

On another note, having spent my career in mental health, whenever i hear the word "commitment" in any context, you know the 1st thing that comes to my mind.

[Z]

On another note, having spent my career in mental health, whenever i hear the word "commitment" in any context, you know the 1st thing that comes to my mind.

That is so fitting...

[Meadmaker]

Maybe. Like I say, I could be wrong, but I've found MM to have a sense of humor. Still, he should have used a smiley.:boggled:

Usually, when I use a smiley it's because I figure even the clued in might miss the joke.


Yes, Tricky is correct, although not 100%. It was my plan to post that response when I signed on. Saizai happened to post something closely related to it as the last post in the thread.

And, about that smiley, it wasn't really so much tongue in cheek as it was pointing out an irony. In every thread regarding gay marriage, someone will inevitably bring up the specter of polygamy, and whoever does it will be set upon with a viciousness approximately equal to a pack of rabid coyotes. Everyone will say that that is a total straw man and no one wants it and it has absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing, to do with gay marriage.

So, I'm echoing that. This is a straw man. It doesn't exist. No one wants it.

My own opinion on polyamory....whatever floats your boat. I have friends in polyamorous relationships and they seem to be doing ok. To be honest, most of them are at least little bit weird, but I think they would be just as weird if they only shared a bed with their official spouse. As for making it legal by turning it into polygamy, it sounds too complicated. I think they should be able to work out legal details amongst themselves, and have those agreements honored in contractual law.

[saizai]

meadmaker - Please be clearer. What do you mean by 'no one wants it'?

People who are poly don't want to be married? They think they do, but if they realized the complexities they wouldn't? They don't count, and by 'no one wants it' what you mean is 'the majority of people arguing for gay marriage don't actually care whether polymarriage is allowed'? Or is it really a joke i.e. you realize that sane informed people do want it?

I'm confused as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

[toddjh]

I'm polyamorous in theory, in the sense that I see the appeal of the idea, and if I had the time and energy for more than one serious relationship I might pursue it. But I don't have the time or energy, and I'm happy with my current relationship, so in practice I'm, er, monoamorous?

I'm firmly against polygamy. It would wreak havoc with our legal system, and I can't see any good workarounds, or, for that matter, reasons to bend over backwards for it.

[Darth Rotor]

True Chjristianity allows for polyamoury but church Christianity changed the law of the Lord to the law of man. ... because the law of man makes one man one woman and easier way to tax and keep inheritances simple.

david
What are you talking about? Ever read Ephesians? Try Ehpesians 5, and tell me where this canonical Christian doctrine does not set up a fairly rational discussion of monogamy.

As I recall, you were the wandering preacher. Did you know what you were talking about, or were you just selling a line?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I would think the complexities of sorting out medical insurance would be enough to make someones' head explode.
I think the gripping and head exploding is routine ejaculation under autoamory. (Your post was directly beneath a gripping joke post, so I think this is all linked together.) If not, oh well.

For Saizai: why would a Christian interrupt an intelligent discussion of polygamy and polyaomry with an OT diversion about monogamy? You tend to prefer your threads address the thorny questions you think you are posing.

My take on polygamy got posted in Politics a while back. It does not strike me as irrational, but a higher risk proposition than monogamy due to the increase in variables, and the geometrically more challenging dynamics it presents to interpersonal relationships. I expect there are some people who can manage it, with the right mix of personality types. As tough a fit as just the right man and wife can be to make, I'd expect a polygamy "best fit" to be geometrically more difficult to put together.

Polyamory is an interesting undertaking, hard to sustain. Some call it "fornication." Whatever. It's not impossible, as many non Western cultures seem to handle it OK. I don't see how it can be a 'pact among equals' but that is biased by experiential data points on a number of one guy with multi girlfriends set up and flowed.

Polyf:cool::cool:kery describes some of the periods during my twenties. To be honest, it was emotionally exhausting, but since I was young, dumb, and full of cum, I did not much care. I eventually found "the one" for me, and the rest is history.

Between the episodes of Polyf:cool::cool:kery were some rather long, dry spells of polybloodyf:(:(kall, with a bit of autoamory to keep the prostate over pressure from reaching critical levels.

DR

[saizai]

For Saizai: why would a Christian interrupt an intelligent discussion of polygamy and polyaomry with an OT diversion about monogamy? You tend to prefer your threads address the thorny questions you think you are posing.

My intention for this thread was
a) religious perspectives on it (which has turned out to be summarizable as "enh, so?"), and
b) general philosophical discussion.

If you have something to add to (a), please do, since I consider that more interesting for this forum.

Your comments however seem to object purely on a practical / pragmatic level (like the discussion so far in this thread), rather than being particularly religious.

"Fornication" doesn't seem at all particular to poly vs mono; either can have or or can not have it. Granted, those who are into polyamory (rather than polygamy) tend to be more liberal sexually as well, but that's mainly just cultural IMO.

I don't see how it can be a 'pact among equals' but that is biased by experiential data points on a number of one guy with multi girlfriends set up and flowed.

Indeed. Do you know any mixed modern polyamorous relationships rather than stereotypical polygynous ones?

Polyf:cool::cool:kery

That's mostly a tongue-in-cheek word actually. ;) Used to describe people who claim polyamory but are really more in the 'swinging' paradigm.

[Meadmaker]

meadmaker - Please be clearer. What do you mean by 'no one wants it'?

People who are poly don't want to be married? They think they do, but if they realized the complexities they wouldn't? They don't count, and by 'no one wants it' what you mean is 'the majority of people arguing for gay marriage don't actually care whether polymarriage is allowed'? Or is it really a joke i.e. you realize that sane informed people do want it?

I'm confused as you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I guess I need smilies. Let's try this:


Over in a gay marriage thread, they said polygamy was a straw man. That must be true. :)


Seriously, though. The two are related. What we see happening is that with the advent of reliable birth control, the rules for sexual relationships, including marriage, changed. Suddenly, it was possible to have sex with minimal danger that it would result in babies, and Roe v. Wade further reduced the risk. It turned out that this whole one man, one woman, relationship wasn't really the thing that everyone wanted. It was just what people were kind of forced into by the whole biology problem.

Now, people are rethinking the whole question of "What is marriage?" It used to be set in pretty simple rules. One man. One woman. Til death do us part. Now, we, as a society, are questioning each of those assumptions. We've pretty much discarded the last part as optional. A lot of people want to cross out man and woman and replace them with "adult" and "another adult". This thread is about crossing out the number "one", and replacing it with "any number of".

Do we want to do that? My opinion is that no good can come of getting the government involved in trying to write the rules on how 3+ people share lives, bodies, and property.

[Antiquehunter]

I don't disagree with your final point that polygamy-positive legislation is probably way more effort than what its worth. I also agree that the gay-marriage debate is starting discussions around the definition of marriag - and I don't see that as a bad thing. Progress is progress, and it often isn't easy.

However, suggesting that gay marriage shouldn't be considered or is 'wrong' because it leads to polygamy is a hollow argument - nor is there any evidence to suggest its a slippery slope. I don't think there has been any serious consideration of approving polygamous relationships in any jurisdiction where gay marriage has been approved.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, of course you'd say that. You don't want to hit everyone with all of your ammo in the fight against marriage at once.


XV. Traditional Marriage, Destruction of
A. Push for legalisation of gay marriage
B. Wait for people to get used to the idea
C. Ambush them with polygamy
D. Wait again.
E. Suggest marrying of livestock.

[Antiquehunter]

Hey! You snuck in E all on your own. That's not on my gay agenda!

[Darth Rotor]

My intention for this thread was
a) religious perspectives on it (which has turned out to be summarizable as "enh, so?"), and
b) general philosophical discussion.
Not sure how you mean "religion" and religious

Religious as a cultural baseline?
Religion as "law of God" regarding marriage?
Reilgion as purely philosophy?

It is worth considering the habits of the rich, versus the habits of the poor. Not all persons are equally served by all marriage conventions. My slight understanding of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures is that monogamy is the norm, and mistresses a luxury one either can or cannot afford. Kings and emperors wrere allowed multiple wives. The variations on that among Eastern religions and philosophies (digression: is the Tao a philosophy or Religion? Both?), and my lack of deeper understanding precludes fruther comment from that angle. It seems, from a snapshot view, that over the millenia the Asian norm has titrated down to a monogamous standard, with variable opinions on mistresses and philandry. Hmmm, rather like the French. :) (See Wolfman's excellent post about a small subculture in China with no marriage, Politics forum. Fascinating, and I hope useful for your examination of the topic. IIRC he entitled the post "A world without marriage." )

Some Islamic norms that allow a man to keep wives in numbers greater than one, providing he can afford them, which is a significantly one way polygamy deal, as it is not a reciprocal standard.

The Christian norm of monogamy has the advantage of the KISS principle, whether or not you take it as God's instruction for the two to become one flesh, which raises an interesting parallel to the Far Eastern Yin and Yang coupling.

As a philosophy, then, Christian monogamy it is egalitarian in nature, whereas polygamy seems to be biased toward the rich. In the Christian mode, if you have one wife as a standard, rich guys don't get extra legitimate lady resources any more than poor guys do. The trick is to find that woman who makes with you a best fit, with her families blessing, that last consideration slightly favoring a rich guy.

Under Christian philosophy, polyamory is not sanctioned by doctrine. Is there anything further to add to that? Not as I can see it. The idea behind that, philosophically, seems to me an effort to reduce that human dynamic tension -- who is your favorite wench? -- as a source of societal friction.

DR

[Meadmaker]

Under Christian philosophy, polyamory is not sanctioned by doctrine. Is there anything further to add to that? Not as I can see it. The idea behind that, philosophically, seems to me an effort to reduce that human dynamic tension -- who is your favorite wench? -- as a source of societal friction.

DR

Under Muslim law, I'm told, it's ok to have four wives according to Mohammed, but only if you treat them all equally. Modern Muslim scholars have interpreted this as meaning that it is NOT ok to have four wives, because it is impossible to treat them all equally.

I personally can think of four "family units" that called themselves "poly" that I have known well enough to call friends, meaning I knew them well enough to have some insight into their personalities. I don't know if it means anything, but all of them consisted of an officially married couple, and another woman. In one case, the three were an item for a long time, when two of them got married. (That's when I met them.) Later the non-wife wanted a baby, and they all thought it would be better if the parents were married, so the two got divorced and then the man married the other partner. After the baby was born, they all moved off to California. I lost track of them at that point, although rumour had it that the now third woman (the non-mom and official ex-wife) had left the partnership. Two other groups consisted of a husband and wife, who added occasional long term partners, always female. There was also a lot of "swinging" sorts of sex. A final group consisted of a monogamous couple who added an extra woman, called themselves poly for a while, but it really didn't last long, when the first wife got tired of the deal and walked out.

So, all of them involved one man with more than one woman. None of them were permanent. For what it's worth, I would say mental illness was involved in two of the relationships. (One of the official wives was chronically and severely depressed, marginally functional in society. Another was a bipolar alcoholic.) Anecdotally, it doesn't seem to me to be working out well for most. On the other hand, at least half of plain old marriages end in divorce these days, so maybe it isn't any worse.

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Medical benefits: This will be worked out by the insurance companies..no worries.

Legal rights: By contract basis. There are several ways a contract could be worked out. The easiest way to deal with this, legally, is to have the state issue licenses in order to keep track of stuff like census data and whatnot, but only to those people that have a social contract filed with the state. In other words, you would all go see a marriage lawyer(Yet another type of lawyer..*sigh*) and get a contract hammered out, then go file it with the state. In that contract, things like wills, children, death benefits and divorce proceedings will be handled.

In other words, let the People decide how/who they want to marry, and have the state simply keep track, the way it always has. Perhaps they will have a 'standard contract' that they use for hetero couples, as they tend to be the most numerous.

Doesn't seem that complex to me. It does seem like a change, and maybe a decent one for a lot of people to swallow all at once, but it is far more sensible than what we have in place.

As far as Christianity is concern, Church is, by definition, a private club. They can say it isn't a marriage in the eyes of God if they so choose. What they cannot say is that the state should only recognize marriages that are marriages in the eyes of their God.

Something about the Constitution......

[Marquis de Carabas]

Well, it seems pretty complex to me, but I'm not sure it's worth it to argue about how complex it is if we've nobody around with a real solid idea of what, exactly, would need to be done (where the hell are all our lawyers, eh?). I'd definitely have to see a fully fleshed-out plan for covering all the bases before I could say I support legally recognised polygamy.

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmm.

I cross-posted this over at SC to try to get another perspective, and because the only two folks I KNOW to be lawyers are posting there and not here.
http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=269904#269904

I know MdC is over there now, so perhaps we'll get some kind of legal input, which would be nice.

Any other lawyers out there are welcome to comment here, of course, it just seems that we aren't attracting any with our discourse.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'll try to keep an eye on that for lawyer inputs. Thanks, clarsct.

[Antiquehunter]

Any other lawyers out there are welcome to comment here, of course, it just seems that we aren't attracting any with our discourse.

Just wait - lemme try something:

"Help! Help! I was in a car accident that wasn't my fault, and now my neck and back are really sore, and I'm so traumatized by the incident that I fear I'll never be able to drive again, which will significantly impede my ability to generate revenue and support my family! Whatever shall I do?!?!?"

If that doesn't attract a lawyer, nothing will.

[neutrino_cannon]

I'd like to see AS or a real lawyer tackle this one....;) Would be interesting.


My father, who is a real lawyer, has mentioned one such case.

It concerned a rich couple in his town, the names of which he refused to divulge on the grounds that I had met them.

It would appear that the physical passion had left their marriage, and both were seeking fullfillment, or at least recreation, outside the bounds traditionally ascibed. My father's job was to help create a document that said something to the effect of "we both screw around, but it isn't grounds for divorce". Presumably, a divorce would have compromised their combined fortune, and this couple was simply too pragmatic to consider something as messy and time consuming as a divorce.

It's such a calculated and greed driven move that I can't help but admire that couple, however they are.

No, it's not remotely polyamory, but it does give some idea of what can be legally accomplished.