Polygamy and Polyamory -

[Auster]

i was associated with an organization called family synergy for a while. it was devoted to forms of alternative relationships. i had an occasion to read various studies on group marriages. one of the studies said that the best group marriages were formed by people that had formed close relationships during high school or earlier. they were not as easy to form by older people unless they were vary idealistic or dedicated. those relationships that survived were excellent for their children.

I'd actually be interested in reading some of these if you have them lying around.

Preferably the success rate of these groups at varying ages and the tendeny for dominate pairs to emerge.

 

[Don Quixote]

So long as it is informed consent between adults it should be legal.

quite

 

[Granule]

I have no problem with Polygamy in theory.

In the past it was outlawed because many women were uneducated and it was used as a tool to abuse them. Now, consenting adults have a right to do what they choose, as long as they know about it.

Now I woud say it would require consent of all parties, meaning that some man should not be allowed to go out and marry another woman if the first woman did not give informed consent, because it would materially affect the first womans rights.

Additionally, we would have to change many laws such as Social Security benefits and Medicare elegability.

The only real issue I see that may not be cureable would be a situation where a moderatly low earning spouce marry's three dependent spouces... the three dependent spouces forgoe an education then later divorce... the income of the one spouce would not have enough alamony to support the ex's and they would then become dependent on the State...

This however is not much different if the spouce had simply married them one at a time.

This sounds like a job for bloated government.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Gay marriage isnt even 'done' yet, and this isn't the only thread or forum raving about this.

Disguisting display of excess and moral coruption. I suppose while they have momentum they'll push it, although our politicians don't seem to be behind it. . . yet.

What makes anyone here think polyamory/polygamy will do a thing to stabilize marriages, given the fragile and fickle nature of truely equal 'love triangles'? If anything this only complicates every legal and social aspect of life when a more informal is legal even today.

So you think the only reason people don't engage in this behavior is because they cannot legally marry two people?

 

[Auster]

??? Not at all. I know it happens without marriage. And I know some religions condone it, at least with only 1 man or 1 woman.

 

[Timshel]

Gay marriage isnt even 'done' yet, and this isn't the only thread or forum raving about this.

Disguisting display of excess and moral coruption. I suppose while they have momentum they'll push it, although our politicians don't seem to be behind it. . . yet.

What makes anyone here think polyamory/polygamy will do a thing to stabilize marriages, given the fragile and fickle nature of truely equal 'love triangles'? If anything this only complicates every legal and social aspect of life when a more informal is legal even today.

I would guess many of those raising these issues are trolls (not WB). They just want to encourage slippery slope associations. Some limited government advocates (like WB) will entertain them by taking it head on. I fully agree, with WB in principle. Why shouldn't we allow polygamy? I just think it has to be addressed in a different way.

If polygamy is unstable then it won't be successful or popular and so why do we need to make it illegal. We don't need a punitive government or God to keep us from doing these things.

 

[Auster]

I would guess many of those raising these issues are trolls (not WB). They just want to encourage slippery slope associations. Some limited government advocates (like WB) will entertain them by taking it head on. I fully agree, with WB in principle. Why shouldn't we allow polygamy? I just think it has to be addressed in a different way.

If polygamy is unstable then it won't be successful or popular and so why do we need to make it illegal. We don't need a punitive government or God to keep us from doing these things.

I would venture that many who respond like this are simply to afraid to discuss the issue directly with their opposition and seek togarner support from their bedfellows instead.

If polygamy is unstable then it won't be successful or popular and so why do we need to make it illegal. We don't need a punitive government or God to keep us from doing these things.

We don't need to 'make' it illegal. Its already taboo. Watch it stay that way for at leat 20 years.

 

[Timshel]

??? Not at all. I know it happens without marriage. And I know some religions condone it, at least with only 1 man or 1 woman.

It only happens where religions ENCOURAGE it. You will also see gender inequality in those communities.

But why does the religious right oppose polygamy or incest since God condones it? They tell us it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. According to the Yahwist's version of creation in Genesis, Eve was a clone of Adam. That is as incestuous as it gets. Cain married a sister or neice according to many of the faithful. Abraham married Sarah, who was apparently related, and had many other wives. If you believe the bible is the definitive source on marriage then these sort of relationships should not only be allowed but encouraged.

 

[Auster]

It only happens where religions ENCOURAGE it. You will also see gender inequality in those communities.

But why does the religious right oppose polygamy or incest since God condones it? They tell us it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. According to the Yahwist's version of creation in Genesis, Eve was a clone of Adam. That is as incestuous as it gets. Cain married a sister or neice according to many of the faithful. Abraham married Sarah, who was apparently related, and had many other wives. If you believe the bible is the definitive source on marriage then these sort of relationships should not only be allowed but encouraged.

What are you talking about? Polygamy only occurs where religion encourages it? And homosexuality has nothing to do with the discussion yet.

 

[Timshel]

I would venture that many who respond like this are simply to afraid to discuss the issue directly with their opposition and seek togarner support from their bedfellows instead.

What do you mean by that? I will and have discussed it directly.

We don't need to 'make' it illegal. Its already taboo. Watch it stay that way for at leat 20 years.

Okay, I will watch it. So you are saying it would be an attractive option and spread widely even though you claim it is unstable and prone to failure?

 

[Timshel]

What are you talking about? Polygamy only occurs where religion encourages it? And homosexuality has nothing to do with the discussion yet.

I mean exactly what I said. It is practiced where it is encouraged by religion and usually where there is gender inequality.

 

[Auster]

What do you mean by that? I will and have discussed it directly.

you seemed pretty quick to start second guessing my talking pioints, and thats after you tried tsimply ignoring me. I dont think you want to debate at all.

Okay, I will watch it. So you are saying it would be an attractive option and spread widely even though you claim it is unstable and prone to failure?

I do claim it to be unstable. Its selfish and lust-orientated. Don's studies seem to support that unless raised polygamously.

But a failure? Never said that. attractive option? nope. You seem to be second guessing alot of what I am saying.

I'm going on the record to say I don't see politician's supporting this for at least 15 years.

 

[Auster]

I mean exactly what I said. It is practiced where it is encouraged by religion and usually where there is gender inequality.

So there are not atheists who practice polygamous relatinships? cmon, guy.

 

[Damocles]

As far as I understand it, so long as you do not seek to be given specific benefits you can enter a polygamist or polyamorist relationship without the government caring one iota. The idea that every relationship we enter should be blessed with government benefits is obscene to me.

The government has no power to define the relationships of a free people, nor should it have the will. A free people should have no urge to constantly have the "blessing" of the government in all things, it is a form of theft to accept "free" gifts from people who have had their money taken by force, even if it is given freely by the entity who takes the money through force. It is disgusting to do so when it is given because the government wants to impress upon the people a specific way of life they find to be "better" than any other.

Laws should be against fraud (like lying and marrying women/men who are not informed of the polygamy/polyamory), or against child abuse (having a parent give consent for a 14 year old to enter such a relationship unwillingly, and without the capacity for self-consent or forcing such on children/dogs/etc that have no capacity for consent), not against your relationships themselves.

 

[Timshel]

So there are not atheists who practice polygamous relatinships? cmon, guy.

An overly literal troll. Yurt?

Yes, I am sure some atheist practice polygamy. I meant, that it was most commonly found among the religions that encourage it.

I don't think it is likely to be very popular outside of those communities or we would have seen more of them already.

 

[Auster]

And in today's american society, there are not those who have sex/romance withg multiple couples?

I think you may be talking about strict marriage, which is of course almost nonexistent where illegal. I'm talking about the validity of multiple partners.

 

[Auster]

*EDIT: I've been talking baout multiple partners since my first post.

And please stop with your 'troll' calling. Nothing I have said in this tread has been trolling, as nothing I said in the prior thread was strawmanning. I wonder if you know the meaning and are using the terms incorrectly on purpose.

 

[Timshel]

you seemed pretty quick to start second guessing my talking pioints, and thats after you tried tsimply ignoring me. I dont think you want to debate at all.

I do claim it to be unstable. Its selfish and lust-orientated. Don's studies seem to support that unless raised polygamously.

But a failure? Never said that. attractive option? nope. You seem to be second guessing alot of what I am saying.

I'm going on the record to say I don't see politician's supporting this for at least 15 years.

Countering your points is a sign that I don't want to debate? Okay....

If it is unstable then it will fail.

I doubt they will ever support it. There will not be enough demand or much sympathy for those that do demand it. Most polygamists are religious nuts and mysoginistic, so they will have no firm ground to argue that it is about individual rights.

 

[Auster]

So we are in some agreement. I'm not sure what you are countering . . .

What about the polyandrists? Polygamy is only one side.

And then, what about extramarital relationships, if mongamy is the word?

 

[Airstrip One]

Gay marriage isnt even 'done' yet, and this isn't the only thread or forum raving about this.

Disguisting display of excess and moral coruption. I suppose while they have momentum they'll push it, although our politicians don't seem to be behind it. . . yet.

What makes anyone here think polyamory/polygamy will do a thing to stabilize marriages, given the fragile and fickle nature of truely equal 'love triangles'? If anything this only complicates every legal and social aspect of life when a more informal is legal even today.

Hahaha, behind...