Polyamory and Marriage

[SMOGZINN]

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.

That is actually a recent change in both Japan and China that has everything to do with America's influence.
Poly Marriage is recognized in 50 countries world wide, including United Kingdom, Australia, India.
So, it sounds like your argument is disproved. Polygamy is common throughout most of the world, and

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

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with this. It would seem to me that it would be even lower if they would allow poly people to get married. Because there are at least SOME poly people that are having children out of wedlock because the laws will not let them wed.

 

[Pulsar]

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).

Is that your argument against allowing multiple people in a single marriage then? The possibility that there might be an estate fight seems to be a pretty poor reason to me.

 

[nehalem256]

That is actually a recent change in both Japan and China that has everything to do with America's influence.
Poly Marriage is recognized in 50 countries world wide, including United Kingdom, Australia, India.
So, it sounds like your argument is disproved. Polygamy is common throughout most of the world, and

Mao Zedong was an atheist. Clearly religion was not an influence in the marriage laws he passed.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with this. It would seem to me that it would be even lower if they would allow poly people to get married. Because there are at least SOME poly people that are having children out of wedlock because the laws will not let them wed.

It goes to the idea of marriage being about mating. And that this idea does not stem from religion(Christianity). Japan being an example.

 

[smackababy]

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"



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.

Because cultures develop differently and a religious aspect might influence one, a different factor can influence another to the same conclusion. Polygamy was not discouraged in China, and practiced if a wife could not give you a male heir. Polyandry (one woman to multiple husbands) was discouraged, but common among the poor and still practiced in China today.

The New Marriage Act was passed in 1950, and if you think Western culture did not influence this, you are very naive.

 

[SMOGZINN]

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

BTW- That is a bit of a mistake on my part. The 'one man with many wives' is actually polygyny.

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.

Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism all permit polygamy. As does almost all the pagan religions. Buddhism does not even have marriage as a religious sacrament.
So that seems to cover almost all the major religions. Only Christianity bans it, and even then that ban is not supported in the bible.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Mao Zedong was an atheist. Clearly religion was not an influence in the marriage laws he passed.

Chairman Mao was a feminist. The New Marriage Laws were intended to give women more power, and were indeed modeled after US marriage laws. The main thing Mao wanted to end was forced marriages and concubineism.

 

[Bitek]

@smogzinn: could you define your marriage better please? I think there is a lot of confusion to what exactly you are referring to and how your marriage works. I understand the Mormon plural marriages and traditional polygamy but I'm not sure what you're proposing.

 

[Moonbeam]

SMOGZINN: Is heteronormative marriages just about sex?

M: No.

S: are they required to end if they decide to stop having sex?

M: No

S: What if one partner is unable to preform sexually?

M: Something they would work out, I guess.


S: Are they able to go out and have sex with other people if they don't want to have sex with their spouse?

M: Who marries somebody they don't want to have sex with. Exclusivity is the name of the marriage game, I was told.

S: 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?

M: Not in a traditional marriage.

S: The questions you are asking are just as silly.

I answered your silly questions. Why not answer mind. I don't mind if you find them silly. I don't understand what you are talking about so I don't know what questions to ask. It seems that others are as in the dark as I am.

 

[soulcougher73]

I am fine with polyamory. But i think to win this fight you should change the word to something without "poly" in it. The US is 90% retarded and they will jump straight to polygamy making your fight that much harder.

 

[SMOGZINN]

@smogzinn: could you define your marriage better please? I think there is a lot of confusion to what exactly you are referring to and how your marriage works. I understand the Mormon plural marriages and traditional polygamy but I'm not sure what you're proposing.

I am not married. To even claim I am married would break several US laws, for which they could put me in jail for a long time.

I'm not sure what you want to know, and for various reasons I won't talk about my own situation in any details here. I will tell you about a group of friends that are in a poly relationship that is like what I am talking about.

This relationship consists of 3 people, a woman and her two boyfriends. This is what is normally called a V setup. The men are in a sexual relationship with the woman, but not in a sexual relationship with each other. Everyone is in love and happy with the situation. The guys have become fast friends and are never seen apart. Their relationship is 'closed' (or polyfidelitous) meaning that none of them date outside of the triad.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I am fine with polyamory. But i think to win this fight you should change the word to something without "poly" in it. The US is 90% retarded and they will jump straight to polygamy making your fight that much harder.

Yes, but multiagape or totamator just sound weird.

 

[Kadarin]

OP - if you like it/enjoy it and practice it....and it's what makes you happy, I really don't see a point for our Government or Society to accept it.

Why are you looking for some kind of validation? Or do you think it should be more widespread? I think if people wanted it, it already would be.

Why NOT accept it? If you have consenting adults choosing to enter into a legal contractual bond, what's the problem? If we live in a "free" country, why can we not be free to do this?

Division of assets and what to do with children can be explicitly written into the marriage contract based on the wishes of the individuals involved, and the contract can be updated based on terms agreed upon by all.

 

[chucky2]

Wow, we've already moved into the bush is also now called a tree/mud is the same as clear water area, and now predictably have moved right through that into calling grass a tree/dry gravel same as mud.

At least after this next word perversion there won't be much left to further pervert...

 

[soulcougher73]

Wow, we've already moved into the bush is also now called a tree/mud is the same as clear water area, and now predictably have moved right through that into calling grass a tree/dry gravel same as mud.

At least after this next word perversion there won't be much left to further pervert...

Huh? I don't see any word perversions going on.

 

[5150Joker]

And the slippery slope begins...coming up next: woman and marriage to her 70 pet cats, they will need to ally with lgbt, Mormons and polyamorous groups! Why not make it easy for everyone and allow people to marry anything they want?

 

[smackababy]

And the slippery slope begins...coming up next: woman and marriage to her 70 pet cats, they will need to ally with lgbt, Mormons and polyamorous groups! Why not make it easy for everyone and allow people to marry anything they want?

Cats (and all pets) are considered property. You cannot enter a legal contract with property, besides that cats cannot consent.

But, I know nobody cares about actual facts, just crazy accusations that eroding the high moral standing marriage currently has will cause the country to fail. :eyeroll:

 

[5150Joker]

Cats (and all pets) are considered property. You cannot enter a legal contract with property, besides that cats cannot consent.

But, I know nobody cares about actual facts, just crazy accusations that eroding the high moral standing marriage currently has will cause the country to fail. :eyeroll:

Just a matter of time before it happens now that all the freaks and perverts want to get married.

 

[Pulsar]

Just a matter of time before it happens now that all the freaks and perverts want to get married.

This is not appropriate in Discussion Club. Please take it to offtopic if you feel the need to make insulting and disparaging remarks. We try to keep it constructive here.

 

[Pulsar]

And the slippery slope begins...coming up next: woman and marriage to her 70 pet cats, they will need to ally with lgbt, Mormons and polyamorous groups! Why not make it easy for everyone and allow people to marry anything they want?

If you had bothered to read this thread, rather than jumping in at the end and throwing out accusations, you'd understand that it's been discussed that CONSENT is at the key of any relationship. Cats can't consent. No relationship should exist.

 

[5150Joker]

If you had bothered to read this thread, rather than jumping in at the end and throwing out accusations, you'd understand that it's been discussed that CONSENT is at the key of any relationship. Cats can't consent. No relationship should exist.

Who is to say that it can't be changed? The concept of marriage is already a joke, there's no reason it can't incorporate animals.

 

[Pulsar]

Who is to say that it can't be changed? The concept of marriage is already a joke, there's no reason it can't incorporate animals.

Laws are living documents. They can always be changed. However, I think you would have a very difficult time persuading anyone that it is morally right to force animals with no choice to have sex with you.

I'm not sure how topic relates to polyarmory and marriage though. Really, the two shouldn't even be in the same post: it's a sign of what some people truly think about alternate lifestyles.

The real problem here is that 'marriage' has religious overtones, but it has been tied into our legal system. Provide an alternate term, or remove the word 'marriage' altogether from our laws. Let marriage be ordained only by priests, and then define civil unions without the religious persecution and it'd all be good. As long as people want to commit themselves to each other(s), I think an enlightened society should give them that right legally, and it should not be any different legally than a single man and woman being joined.

 

[soulcougher73]

And the slippery slope begins...coming up next: woman and marriage to her 70 pet cats, they will need to ally with lgbt, Mormons and polyamorous groups! Why not make it easy for everyone and allow people to marry anything they want?

And in comes the straw men.

 

[nehalem256]

If you had bothered to read this thread, rather than jumping in at the end and throwing out accusations, you'd understand that it's been discussed that CONSENT is at the key of any relationship. Cats can't consent. No relationship should exist.

Cats (and all pets) are considered property. You cannot enter a legal contract with property, besides that cats cannot consent.

I believe women at one time were considered property. And yet somehow marriage continued to exist.

If you want a more modern example how about child marriage? While essentially everyone in the western world would agree that such an arrangement is wrong. I have never seen anyone argue that such an arrangement is not marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/middleeast/29marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Laws are living documents. They can always be changed. However, I think you would have a very difficult time persuading anyone that it is morally right to force animals with no choice to have sex with you.

The same can be said of inter-racial marriage or SSM.

I'm not sure how topic relates to polyarmory and marriage though. Really, the two shouldn't even be in the same post: it's a sign of what some people truly think about alternate lifestyles.

Because it is exactly the same idea. What relationships should be regarded as marriage. The only difference is YOU are disgusted at the idea of human-animal marriage.

The real problem here is that 'marriage' has religious overtones, but it has been tied into our legal system. Provide an alternate term, or remove the word 'marriage' altogether from our laws. Let marriage be ordained only by priests, and then define civil unions without the religious persecution and it'd all be good. As long as people want to commit themselves to each other(s), I think an enlightened society should give them that right legally, and it should not be any different legally than a single man and woman being joined.

Saying that marriage has religious overtones is a complete understatement of the problem and really just a way to attempt to bully people into supporting whatever version of marriage you want.

The problem is that everyone views marriage as more than just a legal contract joining your finances to another person. And in fact the idea that because 2(or more) people love each other and should therefore join their finances together for eternity is a rather silly idea. And quite frankly if that was all people considered marriage to be I doubt people would care so much about trying to extend marriage to fit their same-sex or polyamorous relationships..

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This business of people marrying pets was already dealt with in a thread just a few days ago. In that thread, I and others repeatedly made the point that this is not possible because animals cannot enter into contracts. The very notion is utterly absurd.

Nehalem and others were repeatedly invited to address this issue with the "animal marriage argument" and refused to do so -- rather likely for the obvious reason that there IS no way to address it.

I will not allow every gay marriage thread in DC to be derailed by this red herring. Either explain specifically and in detail how a non-self-aware being can enter into a contract, or take this stupidity back to P&N where it belongs.

CK, moderator, Discussion Club

 

[Pulsar]

I believe women at one time were considered property. And yet somehow marriage continued to exist.

They were. We now consider it disgusting and obviously incorrect. Marriage as a word existed, however I believe you know as well as I do that the word marraige as it was used then is not the same as the word marriage we use now. I think trying to suggest the two are analogous is intellectually dishonest: you already know the differences.

If you want a more modern example how about child marriage? While essentially everyone in the western world would agree that such an arrangement is wrong. I have never seen anyone argue that such an arrangement is not marriage.

I'm not sure whether this is for your side of the argument or against it. I think you'll find that it would be illegal in the United States, and would not be considered marriage at all.

In fact, it wouldn't be considered marriage in many many places:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Just because they call it marriage doesn't make it marriage.

The short version is that marriage has evolved, considerably. We don't marry property, we don't marry underage (because they can't GIVE consent) and we don't marry people who can't or don't give their consent.

Hence, none of those are valid arguments against polyamorous marriages.