Polyamory/Polygamy

[Foxi4]

...I'm just going to post my 2 cents and retreat hastily from this thread, too slippery for my taste.

I'm againts polygamous relationships personally - the sense of exclusivity is one of the core elements of "loving someone", not a by-product. Polygamy is perfectly fine when in the context of purely biological levels of attraction, however it doesn't pass the test of emotional commitment, at least not up to my standards. For me, to love someone is "to adore", it's not something that passes with time. I accept the fact that love that's experienced by the senses is a by-product of a chemical balance etc. however there's also a mental component to it which very well may be unaffected by the flow of time.

To adore is to painstakingly select the other half of the apple, it's choosing one specimen which, in your opinion, is the ultimate and "completes you" in a manner of speaking. When I "fall in love" I practically stop noticing other females because I'm far too occupied with the one I have in my heart. I wouldn't be physically capable of loving more then one person at a time because when I love, it's not a feeling that can be subject to gradation - I either love one particular person or I don't.

What I'm trying to say is that to me, love not only implies exclusivity - exclusivity is explicit in my relationships. If I "love" someone and suddenly "fall in love" with someone else it means that I merely didn't truly love in the first place. Were I to love someone, I would not look for thrills elsewhere.

Now, should it be legalized? Sure, if people want to engage in polygamous relationships, why not? I personally wouldn't be a part of one though, that's for sure. For me, true love is exclusive between two partners, physical attraction can apply to numerous partners. If I am to be loved, I want to be "the only one".

 

[XDel]

I think I'm going to get a lot of mileage of this picture.

You said slippery!

 

[Lacius]

i say just live together and share expenses, no need to be married.

why is everyone so uptight about "marriage", its just a formal way of saying we are legally financially bound.

if me and two other people make a verbal/signed/whatever type of agreement to do something with finances, its quite the same, actually you are in that type of deal when you get a loan. its a legally binding financial agreement between you and a bank, which is comprised of many people. getting a loan is polygamist marriage. lolwut

Because we live in a society in which thousands of rights and benefits, both at the state and federal levels, are only bestowed upon couples that are legally married, including but not limited to tax benefits, health care benefits, housing benefits, family benefits, etc.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

 

[Foxi4]

Because we live in a society in which thousands of rights and benefits, both at the state and federal levels, are only bestowed upon couples that are legally married, including but not limited to tax benefits, health care benefits, housing benefits, family benefits, etc.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Which is why marriage should not be considered a "legal institution" - our contemporary understanding of marriage alongside other similar relationships should fall under the category of a civil unions and actual marriages per-say should be organized by religious institutions. This automatically puts every type of a relationship on equal footing and people who want to be "married" can do so accordingly to the rules stated in their religion (if they follow one).

 

[XDel]

Which is why marriage should not be considered a "legal institution" - our contemporary understanding of marriage alongside other similar relationships should fall under the category of a civil unions and actual marriages per-say should be organized by religious institutions. This automatically puts every type of a relationship on equal footing and people who want to be "married" can do so accordingly to the rules stated in their religion (if they follow one).

I do agree in that the state should keep it's nose out of people's marriages. Just the same as they should stay out of people's private lives, stop using S.S. as a form of ID, stop keeping records on everything you do (only violent crimes and such should be on record), and so on. That would make me a happier person for sure!

 

[Foxi4]

I do agree in that the state should keep it's nose out of people's marriages. Just the same as they should stay out of people's private lives, stop using S.S. as a form of ID, stop keeping records on everything you do (only violent crimes and such should be on record), and so on. That would make me a happier person for sure!

That really wasn't my point.

What I actually meant was that, for example, I don't see a valid reason for tax deductions for people who follow one particular lifestyle that's been outlined by the law. If someone feels like having relations with 20 women and we encompass that within the law, does he get tax reductions 20 times? Is it 1 marriage or 20 marriages? Whose last name will the baby have?

Those issues are regulated by religion or word of mouth already - lifestyle should not be a concern for law. I understand that marriage is promoted for the sake of keeping the population numbers steady (at least that was the point in the past) but we live in an overpopulated world already and I don't think the state should keep anyone by the penis/vagina at this point in history.

It's simply a private matter that should not be regulated by law, part biological, part dependant on individual beliefs.

 

[Lacius]

Which is why marriage should not be considered a "legal institution" - our contemporary understanding of marriage should fall under the category of a civil unions and marriages per-say should be organized by religious institutions. This automatically puts every type of a relationship on equal footing and people who want to be "married" can do so accordingly to the rules stated in their religion.

If you can make civil unions equal to the current institution of marriage under the law and then remove all the rights and benefits of marriage under the law, then be my guest. This includes (but isn't limited to) changing all state and federal laws to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, changing all employee unions to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, etc. Suffice it to say, what you're suggesting is not practical, particularly when you're just splitting hairs in regards to what words are used. You can have the religious institution of marriage, and you can have the legal institution of marriage. Religions and churches can do whatever they want; religions and churches and recognize whatever they want. In regards to marriage, I only care about how people are treated under the law.

Edit: or as you mentioned above, you could just take out all the rights and privileges altogether, but I don't think many couples would go for that. It's now an issue of equality under the law.

 

[Foxi4]

If you can make civil unions equal to the current institution of marriage under the law and then remove all the rights and benefits of marriage under the law, then be my guest. This includes (but isn't limited to) changing all state and federal laws to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, changing all employee unions to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, etc. Suffice it to say, what you're suggesting is not practical, particularly when you're just splitting hairs in regards to what words are used. You can have the religious institution of marriage, and you can have the legal institution of marriage. Religions and churches can do whatever they want; religions and churches and recognize whatever they want. In regards to marriage, I only care about how people are treated under the law.

Edit: or as you mentioned above, you could just take out all the rights and privileges altogether, but I don't think many couples would go for that. It's not an issue of equality under the law.

Believe it or not, there are places in the world where marriage is pretty much equated to religious marriage and the separation between Church and State is very, very thin in this regard.

In some cases it's very much a matter of phrasing - a lot of people say marriage is marriage and sort-of forget about the "religious versus legal" issue altogether.

I don't think the state should regulate those issues at all, and if they do want to regulate them for the sake of benefits then they should equalize the benefits for all possible options and, preferably call it a civil union, but that's not really a key factor.

 

[Lacius]

I don't think the state should regulate those issues at all

So you don't think couples should have the legal rights listed in the link I posted above?

 

[Foxi4]

So you don't think couples should have the legal rights listed in the link I posted above?

Couples, as in civil unions? Sure. Marriages? Sure, as long as they're legalized by registering as civil unions.

...and yes, I know it's nomenclature and it would take pain-stakingly copy-pasting the term instead of marriage, but sometimes extensive changes, even if impractical, are good. The name "Civil Union" does not have the same "syntactic weight" marriage does - it cannot be subscribed to any contemporary image of a marriage that one could derrive from a religion, and that often happens in disputes about, say, gay marriages.

 

[Lacius]

Couples, as in civil unions? Sure. Marriages? Sure, as long as they're legalized by registering a civil union.

That means you think the state should regulate those issues.

...and yes, I know it's nomenclature and it would take pain-stakingly copy-pasting the term instead of marriage, but sometimes extensive changes, even if impractical, are good. The name "Civil Union" does not have the same "syntactic weight" marriage does - it cannot be subscribed to any contemporary image of a marriage that one could derive from a religion, and that often happens in disputes about, say, gay marriages.

To be honest, I don't care about the syntactic weight. I only care about equal treatment under the law.

What people do with their religious institutions is of no consequence to me. "Marriage" is just a word, and if one defines marriage as a religious union, then to that person, people like atheists, gays, polygamists, etc. might not be considered married. But that person is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter what he or she defines as a marriage so long as people are treated equally under the law.

 

[Foxi4]

To be honest, I don't care about the syntactic weight. I only care about equal treatment under the law.

What people do with their religious institutions is of no consequence to me. "Marriage" is just a word, and if one defines marriage as a religious union, then to that person, people like atheists, gays, polygamists, etc. might not be considered married. But that person is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter what he or she defines as a marriage so long as people are treated equally under the law.

I think we're on the same page here, I'm just a tad more extreme. Actually, I may be pedantic about the phrasing since I'm studying linguistics, but not to look too far, I'll show you an example from my own country. In Polish, "Marriage" is "Małżeństwo" which is a compound of the words "Husband" and "Wife" - by definition it implies a relationship between two people, one man and one woman. This, coupled with a strong Catholic influence on the state greatly hampers the efforts in equalizing other types of relationships to marriage since, well, it's just not "Marriage" as we understand it from a linguistic stand-point.

What I'm saying is that all efforts should be made to:

• Separate the Church from the State
• Equalize the legal status of all relationships between consenting adults

...so I suppose we're thinking very much the same thing, just in different lexical categories.

 

[KingVamp]

Because we live in a society in which thousands of rights and benefits, both at the state and federal levels, are only bestowed upon couples that are legally married, including but not limited to tax benefits, health care benefits, housing benefits, family benefits, etc.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Because Marriage to me is a special gift that one best friend gives to the other. It is the highest pact one human can make to another as far as I see it, but that's just me, I don't always run with pure logic and scientific reasoning I guess?

Sorta this.

And as XDel somewhat pointed out, a physical/documented show of commitment.

In Polish, "Marriage" is "Małżeństwo" which is a compound of the words "Husband" and "Wife" - by definition it implies a relationship between two people, one man and one woman.

Besides that, words change despite if it gain or lose weight.

That said, people will outrage if their marriages become merely just civil unions.


"Will...will you have a civil union with me?" "Will you take my hand in a civil union?"

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

I want the next president to have like 3 or 4 first ladies, or would that be like the first second third and fourth first lady? I need an aspirin now...

 

[Foxi4]

Besides that, words change despite if it gain or lose weight.

You have to look at it from the perspective I outlined to get to the point. Imagine that you weren't saying "marrige", you'd be saying "husbandwife" - that would be the noun. Imagine how awkward it would be to denote one husband and one wife in a homosexual relationship - that's as funny as your civil union joke.

"Will...will you civil union with me?" "Will you take my hand in a civil union."

In Polish it's "Will you take me?" - similarily to the English vows of "Do you take this xxx as your beloved Husband/Wife", so the problem never occured to me.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

You have to look at it from the perspective I outlined to get to the point. Imagine that you weren't saying "marrige", you'd be saying "Husbandwife" - that would be the noun. Imagine how awkward it would be to denote one husband and one wife in a homosexual relationship - that's as funny as your civil union joke.

In Polish it's "Will you take me?" - similarily to the English vows of "Do you take this xxx as your beloved Husband/Wife", so the problem never occured to me.

I think a lot of the "pro" talk is from men thinking "oh yeah a couple of hot chicks to bang all the time and do laundry and cook? Hell yeah!!!" with out considering the end of the shoe.... What if the woman says "Yeah 3 or 4 husbands to fix things and do the cleaning and cooking!!!" so I think a lot of the yes's would turn into no's real fast if things where on equal terms.

 

[KingVamp]

In Polish it's "Will you take me?" - similarily to the English vows of "Do you take this xxx as your beloved Husband/Wife", so the problem never occured to me.

If people have their way, it's going to be "Do you take these xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx... and xxx as your beloved Husbands/Wives?"

I want the next president to have like 3 or 4 first ladies, or would that be like the first second third and fourth first lady? I need an aspirin now...

Go to 1:53

I think a lot of the "pro" talk is from men thinking "oh yeah a couple of hot chicks to bang all the time and do laundry and cook? Hell yeah!!!" with out considering the end of the shoe.... What if the woman says "Yeah 3 or 4 husbands to fix things and do the cleaning and cooking!!!" so I think a lot of the yes's would turn into no's real fast if things where on equal terms.

There are compromises in relationships. So rather it is a closed/"open" monogamous, polygamous or no relationship at all, is on the people in them.

The guy or girl has to decide if they can work/deal with polygyny or polyandry, if it comes to that.

 

[RPG Hacker]

I've noticed that many people here equal "polygamy" with "being sex driven" or "being in an open relationship" when arguing. Now that is just wrong and biased. There can be plenty of reasons for being in a polygamous relationship that don't even need to have anything to do with sex. Also many people here seem to equal "relationship" with "love", which isn't quite right, either. Sure, for many people that's an ideal, but again an ideal without any biological source. From a biological standpoint love is merely a chemical reaction and not bound to just a single partner. Once again our understanding of love nowadays originates from our culture and once again there is no real reason to keep up that understanding except for "morals", "religion" etc.

That asside: Yeah, many people really have a wrong understanding of polygamy. If a monogamous relationship isn't all about the sex, why do people think a polygamous relationship is? Because it isn't possible to "love" more than one person? Then what are you basing this believe on? And even if this was true that would automatically mean that "love" was a permanent feeling, which quite simply isn't true. In that case divorce wouldn't exist in the first place. But damn, let me not even get started about love here. In our "modern" society there exist so many false myths and common believes regarding the feeling "love", it really isn't funny. I don't know where they all came from. I guess partially from Hollywood movies and, once again, partially from our culture.

But just to state one example: "Love without conditions". What kind of bullshit is that and who came up with it? Love is ALWAYS bound to conditions; there are no exceptions. It's axiomatic. These conditions are what actually DEFINE the term "love". I mean just think about this: Imagine you and your husband were a happy couple that has been married for over 10 years already. I think everyone here can agree that you would both be in a state that you could refer to as a "love relationship". And then, for whatever reason, your husband suddenly murderd all of your children. Would you still be able to "love" him? Obviously not, because love IS bound to conditions, even if it's just the condition "everything stays the way it is".

But yeah, I'm really drifting off here. The topic is about polygamy, after all, and not about how you define love.

Legalise polygamy and soon people will be collecting wives like cards. We'll see a huge increase in the number of small tattoos on women as they start getting rarity marks tattood on their arses like Magic the Gathering cards.

I don't really get your point here. We're not talking about slavery; we're talking about polygamy. Since when does legalisation of polygamy force women to partake in it? If you were a woman who wouldn't want to be treated like a "collectible" then you simply shouldn't get involved with men who treat women as such. Even if said men don't expose themselves as assholes at first, there is always the option to leave them later. And anyways: I don't see how being in a polygamous relationship makes you the property of your husband. If that was the case then the same thing would go for monogamous relationships, which is not the case.

 

[ThatDudeWithTheFood]

A lot more No just no's in the poll then I would expect.

It seems hard to implement though because of taxes and health insurance though.

 

[KingVamp]

Long quote about love and the misunderstanding of polygamy.

Other than the love part, I mostly agree.

If polygamy is moral and is legalize, I doubt I ever will or want be in one.