Polyamory and Marriage

[Vdubchaos]

Easy to say, but the government has a way of intruding and making your life difficult. It has recently made my life difficult, for no reason other then someone didn't like our lifestyle.

And that's why I say "fuck them". They should have no interast or business getting into your personal life...but they do, not just the way you experianced either.....with internet, they know more about you than you probably know about yourself hehe (Corps do as well)

ESay that often enough and eventually the government will fuck you.

Ohh, Government has ALWAYS fucked me and will continue to do so for MANY years to come.

There is no stopping that buddy (but I like your optimism hehe)

 

[Vdubchaos]

I'm a bit unclear how the limiting of ones rights can be solved by saying "fuck the government".

Vdub has been spinning his old NWA records...

You have no rights, when rights can be taken away/changes at a drop of a hat.

I like how George Carlin described it "you have set of temporary privileges"

Heck, TODAY your government can label you a terrorist and strip you of EVERYTHING!!! No trial/judge or anything.....

Welcome to America

 

[Pulsar]

I think the best idea would be to only allow a single marriage of however many number of people. It can be easily nulled and a new marriage formed in the event x and y are married and would like to add z to that marriage. Possibly an alteration process that every member of new union must consent and become equal partners in. Marriage is a contract and in order to alter that contract one must have consent of all parties involved, if I understand basic contract laws correctly.

I agree.

If I buy a house, then later get married, I can add my wife onto the house so we both own it.

Why not make marriage work the same way? After all, it's just a legal contract. It can certainly be modified with a couple signatures.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I agree.

If I buy a house, then later get married, I can add my wife onto the house so we both own it.

Why not make marriage work the same way? After all, it's just a legal contract. It can certainly be modified with a couple signatures.

Yep, just like Bill of Rights Amendments. :biggrin:

 

[nehalem256]

I agree.

If I buy a house, then later get married, I can add my wife onto the house so we both own it.

Why not make marriage work the same way? After all, it's just a legal contract. It can certainly be modified with a couple signatures.

Probably because most people do not believe that marriage is just a legal contract.

I mean why would society create a legal contract to let you skip out on paying estate taxes?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Probably because most people do not believe that marriage is just a legal contract.

I mean why would society create a legal contract to let you skip out on paying estate taxes?

Marriage does more then let you get around estate taxes.

Long ago society decided that the best way to handle a person that is not capable of making his own decisions, due to physical inability, mental instability, death, or age (children) is to give that responsibility to family. But many people do not consider their blood relatives to be who they consider family. Why would I want a brother that I haven't heard from in 20 years to make decisions for me instead of the people that I choose to share my love and life with? Marriage is society's way of recognizing that a group of people have become family despite blood connections.
What we are asking for is that the government recognize that people I choose to call my family, and give them the rights that come with that.

When you take away someones ability to marry the people of their choice that is what you are taking away from them, the ability to decide who THEY consider family.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Marriage does more then let you get around estate taxes.

Long ago society decided that the best way to handle a person that is not capable of making his own decisions, due to physical inability, mental instability, death, or age (children) is to give that responsibility to family. But many people do not consider their blood relatives to be who they consider family. Why would I want a brother that I haven't heard from in 20 years to make decisions for me instead of the people that I choose to share my love and life with? Marriage is society's way of recognizing that a group of people have become family despite blood connections.
What we are asking for is that the government recognize that people I choose to call my family, and give them the rights that come with that.

When you take away someones ability to marry the people of their choice that is what you are taking away from them, the ability to decide who THEY consider family.

You have a right to assign anyone you want to manage/handle your estate when you die (I believe)

Problem with your approach is that if you die and you are married to 2 or more people, there will be battles between them for your estate.

That wouldn't happen if it was only 1 person (easier to handle).

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage does more then let you get around estate taxes.

Long ago society decided that the best way to handle a person that is not capable of making his own decisions, due to physical inability, mental instability, death, or age (children) is to give that responsibility to family. But many people do not consider their blood relatives to be who they consider family. Why would I want a brother that I haven't heard from in 20 years to make decisions for me instead of the people that I choose to share my love and life with? Marriage is society's way of recognizing that a group of people have become family despite blood connections.
What we are asking for is that the government recognize that people I choose to call my family, and give them the rights that come with that.

When you take away someones ability to marry the people of their choice that is what you are taking away from them, the ability to decide who THEY consider family.

Western civilization has never as far as I know recognized the ability to decide that arbitrary people are part of your family as a matter of law. One could reasonably say that a lifelong BFF is like a brother or sister. But that would not be "marriage" as reasonably understood by anyone.

It seems you are asking for a special right that has previously not existed. You want to be able to appoint people you are not married to as members of your family. Why not ask for that instead?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Western civilization has never as far as I know recognized the ability to decide that arbitrary people are part of your family as a matter of law.

It has granted that right as long as you are a heteronormative couple. That is because they are in the large majority, that is the only people society has wanted to recognize. It was able to do this largely because the rest of us were small in number, separated by distance, and unable to organize due to the dangers of discovery. Advances in communication technology changed all that. Now we are talking to each other, forming communities, centralizing our power, and speaking with a unified voice.
We are becoming harder to simply ignore as you always have in the past. many people are not happy with that.

 

[Vdubchaos]

It has granted that right as long as you are a heteronormative couple. That is because they are in the large majority, that is the only people society has wanted to recognize. It was able to do this largely because the rest of us were small in number, separated by distance, and unable to organize due to the dangers of discovery. Advances in communication technology changed all that. Now we are talking to each other, forming communities, centralizing our power, and speaking with a unified voice.
We are becoming harder to simply ignore as you always have in the past. many people are not happy with that.

Why do you want to be recognized/not ignored?

Are you going to have parades too? Like gay people?

If you are happy with your life and your partners, that's ALL that really matters. Don't look for acceptance from other people, and especially from your government.

NOW, if you give Government/Corps a financial reason to change the laws etc.......you will get what you are looking for. But I still don't see what that accomplishes.

 

[nehalem256]

It has granted that right as long as you are a heteronormative couple. That is because they are in the large majority, that is the only people society has wanted to recognize. It was able to do this largely because the rest of us were small in number, separated by distance, and unable to organize due to the dangers of discovery. Advances in communication technology changed all that. Now we are talking to each other, forming communities, centralizing our power, and speaking with a unified voice.
We are becoming harder to simply ignore as you always have in the past. many people are not happy with that.

A heteronormative couple is a special kind of familial relationship.

Again, it sounds like you are trying to define a new right to define any arbitrary person has a member of family. You are perfectly free to do that. But it really has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wanted to continue the conversation about polyamory that was started in the "Gay Marriage and Society -- the Sequel" thread. I recognize that it was derailing that thread, so it deserves it's own thread.

I would like to start this out with with some information.

I am a polyamorous man in a polyamorous relationship. I am a active member in the local polyamory community. I personally know hundreds of polyamorous people.

Polygamy (one man with multiple women) is not very common in the poly community. People think polygamy is way more common then it is because that is what they see on the news and (fictional) TV shows like Big Love. The reality is that quads (four people of any gender) and polyandry (one woman with multiple men) are much more common, but even those tend to just be the way relationships formed from the larger concept of 'any number of any type' that modern polyamory espouses.

I personally think that Marriage Equality needs to include multiple partner groups, but I don't think America is ready just yet. There are a lot of things that need to happen before we can have a serious national debate on Poly Marriage, but it is coming.

First we need to win the same sex marriage fight. Because poly marriage will obviously include same sex members in the groups. We need to distinguish ourselves as a group distinct from but allied with the LGBT communities. We need to convince more of our members to come out and be public about their lifestyle in order to generate familiarity with the concept of modern polyamory, and serve as examples to repair our image in the media.

We are getting organized and are starting to work on all of these issues. The national debate on poly-marriage is coming. We know it is an uphill battle, and that there is a lot of practical issues that need to be addressed, but we have answers for most of them.

From where I sit the biggest problem is getting people to accept that polyamory is even a viable alternative to monogamy.

So is this a group in which everybody has sex with everybody else? I thought marriage was for people declaring a sexual relationship with one other person, that they were committing to sex with a single person they love. I thought not being married was where you aren't committed to having sex with just one person. Would such a group be fixed after marriage or could people come and go as they please? What would be the purpose of all of this? Where do kids fit in with this? Can they have sex with non-related members of their parents partners as part of the family relationship? Would a brother and a sister in such a group be expected to have sex too?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Why do you want to be recognized/not ignored?

I thought I explained that already. I want to be protected from discrimination. I want to be able to choose who my family is so that when the time comes they get to make the decisions for me.

Are you going to have parades too? Like gay people?

Yes. Right now we march with the LGBTQ (we are considered gender Queer).

If you are happy with your life and your partners, that's ALL that really matters. Don't look for acceptance from other people, and especially from your government.

I don't need acceptance, I need the government to not unfairly discriminate against me. I need my family unit to have the protections that any married couple get.

 

[SMOGZINN]

A heteronormative couple is a special kind of familial relationship.

Why?

Again, it sounds like you are trying to define a new right to define any arbitrary person has a member of family. You are perfectly free to do that. But it really has nothing to do with marriage.

Of course it has something to do with marriage. Poly people consider themselves married. Just because it does not fit your concept of marriage does not mean it does not fit my concept of marriage.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I thought I explained that already. I want to be protected from discrimination.

Law will not change that....

I want to be able to choose who my family is so that when the time comes they get to make the decisions for me.

You can do that legally without marriage

I don't need acceptance, I need the government to not unfairly discriminate against me. I need my family unit to have the protections that any married couple get.

How do they discriminate against you and what is it that you consider "protection of any married couple".

 

[randomrogue]

Vdub how do you figure that the law can't protect you from discrimination?

 

[SMOGZINN]

So is this a group in which everybody has sex with everybody else? I thought marriage was for people declaring a sexual relationship with one other person, that they were committing to sex with a single person they love. I thought not being married was where you aren't committed to having sex with just one person. Would such a group be fixed after marriage or could people come and go as they please? What would be the purpose of all of this? Where do kids fit in with this? Can they have sex with non-related members of their parents partners as part of the family relationship? Would a brother and a sister in such a group be expected to have sex too?

What? Is heteronormative marriages just about sex? are they required to end if they decide to stop having sex? What if one partner is unable to preform sexually? Are they able to go out and have sex with other people if they don't want to have sex with their spouse? If there are stepkids can they have sex with the non-related parent? If each person in the new marriage had one kid not related to the other, would they be expected to have sex?

The questions you are asking are just as silly.

 

[nehalem256]

Why?

Heteronormative relationships are considered special in essentially all cultures. It is a legal/societal recognition of the natural mating pair-bonding that occurs in people. It is also a way of encouraging people to engage in mating/sexual activity in a way that is socially controlled.

Of course it has something to do with marriage. Poly people consider themselves married. Just because it does not fit your concept of marriage does not mean it does not fit my concept of marriage.

You can consider yourself whatever you want.

Society has never seen marriage as about being able to specify arbitrary people as apart of your family. What you want is a new concept. By all means fight for a new right allowing you to say that personX and personY and personZ are all part of your family. But don't be dishonest and call such a thing marriage as a way to bully people into giving you new rights for fear of violating your civil rights.

 

[smackababy]

Heteronormative relationships are considered special in essentially all cultures. It is a legal/societal recognition of the natural mating pair-bonding that occurs in people. It is also a way of encouraging people to engage in mating/sexual activity in a way that is socially controlled.



You can consider yourself whatever you want.

Society has never seen marriage as about being able to specify arbitrary people as apart of your family. What you want is a new concept. By all means fight for a new right allowing you to say that personX and personY and personZ are all part of your family. But don't be dishonest and call such a thing marriage as a way to bully people into giving you new rights for fear of violating your civil rights.

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.

Sounds me like it has nothing to do with mating or pair-bonding. Our society grants legal rights to married couples. And, as a secular government, we cannot base these legal unions on outdated religious nonsense. We are already seeing this in the marriage equality movement for gay couples. Expanding this to poly couples is the next logical step. The family unit being argued here is the same, just with additional people. If one or more spouses give up careers and forego education to provide a stable home environment, they should not be discriminated against receiving benefits legally married couples receive. A single breadwinner should have the right to name multiple spouses on their insurance and as beneficiaries. This currently cannot be done.

 

[nehalem256]

Sounds me like it has nothing to do with mating or pair-bonding.

Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.

Sounds to me like it does have something to do with mating

Our society grants legal rights to married couples. And, as a secular government, we cannot base these legal unions on outdated religious nonsense. We are already seeing this in the marriage equality movement for gay couples. Expanding this to poly couples is the next logical step. The family unit being argued here is the same, just with additional people. If one or more spouses give up careers and forego education to provide a stable home environment, they should not be discriminated against receiving benefits legally married couples receive. A single breadwinner should have the right to name multiple spouses on their insurance and as beneficiaries. This currently cannot be done.

That is tired disproven argument. See Japan and China. Neither is what most western people would call a religious country and yet both recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In fact I believe Japan has one of the lowest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the world.

 

[smackababy]

Sounds to me like it does have something to do with mating



That is tired disproven argument. See Japan and China. Neither is what most western people would call a religious country and yet both recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In fact I believe Japan has one of the lowest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the world.

Before the New Marriage Law was passed in China I think it was traditional for husbands to have additional wives or concubines. Also, the culture and family dynamic are drastically different in Asian cultures.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Vdub how do you figure that the law can't protect you from discrimination?

Because discrimnation happens around US each and every day.

I also worked for Employment Law Lawfirm and they delt with these sort of issues.

Sure there is some cases where you can win against these companies, but in MOST cases, you will NOT.

There is ABUNDANCE of discrimination to go around in the American work environment etc.

Heck, it even happened to me not too long ago. Guess what "reporting" or pursuing law would've got me.......NO JOB

 

[smackababy]

Sounds to me like it does have something to do with mating



That is tired disproven argument. See Japan and China. Neither is what most western people would call a religious country and yet both recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In fact I believe Japan has one of the lowest out-of-wedlock birthrates in the world.

I'd also like to point out you wish to argue semantics over the fact that rights ARE being denied in AMERICA and legislation being proposed to fix this is being opposed by the religious wing on religious grounds.

 

[smackababy]

Because discrimnation happens around US each and every day.

I also worked for Employment Law Lawfirm and they delt with these sort of issues.

Sure there is some cases where you can win against these companies, but in MOST cases, you will NOT.

There is ABUNDANCE of discrimination to go around in the American work environment etc.

Heck, it even happened to me not too long ago. Guess what "reporting" or pursuing law would've got me.......NO JOB

We have murders that happen every day. Laws do not stop this from happening, so are you proposing we do away said laws because they don't stop 100% of something?

 

[nehalem256]

Before the New Marriage Law was passed in China I think it was traditional for husbands to have additional wives or concubines.

Perhaps for the very wealthy. But then the very wealthy always seem to live by a bit different rules than normal people.

and from the OP:
"Polygamy (one man with multiple women) is not very common in the poly community"

Also, the culture and family dynamic are drastically different in Asian cultures.

How does that go against my claim that religion(and more specifically Christianity) is not the cause of the belief of marriage being between a man and a woman? If anything I would think it strengthens it.