Are Multi-Partner Marriages Gonna Be a Thing?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6


"Abnormal" noun 'not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard'
How is it not abnormal?

And if it is so what?

It none of mine your business as long as it between consenting adults.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
It shouldn't be the government's business, but the government legislates all legal marriage, thus it falls completely within their jurisdiction unless and until the government extracts itself from all marriage topics (including tax penalties and/or breaks)

And I dont think the government should involved. Marriage is a personal right the government should be no part of.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I have 2 children who I am trying to raise right. Legitimization of the abnormal increases the amount of damage control I have to do as a parent to ensure they understand many of these "cause du jours" we see gaining momentum need to be heavily questioned rather than blindly adhered to and accepted.

Your children are not really my concern, no offense. How you bring them up is your business. But the values you impart on them should not necessarily be forced on others.

The "think of the children" line doesn't wash with me.


PS

I would not actually marry multiple wives myself. To mush hassle. But I would not have any qualms with someone who did as long as no one was forced into it.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Polygamy isnt good for society, it's about power and not love or even sex.

Where does this idea come from?

It's not something we want to see catching on.

Maybe YOU don't, but we have had relationships like this throughout history.

a reply to: ATODASO

Once society decided that "marriage" is primarily about what makes you feel good as an adult (the modern definition of love) and really nothing else, then no arrangement of people is outside the bounds.

This is what we have done to accommodate gay marriage.

Marriage is it once was, an arrangement for the begetting and rearing of children, no longer exists. That arrangement presumes that some people in society are still selfless. Those of us who still stick to this older version are called hateful, but at least we can still point out that we haven't changed and have a solid foundation on which to oppose all the newer permutations.

originally posted by: crazyewok
And I dont think the government should involved. Marriage is a personal right the government should be no part of.

i think the concern for people pursuing marriage models that deviate from the neotraditional norm is that they have no legal rights. it's simple # like being able to sign a permission slip for your kid, or being able to visit your spouse in the hospital, as well as more complex # like property rights and tax breaks. that's the kind of stuff that becomes possible only through governmental sanction, unfortunately.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Marriage is it once was, an arrangement for the begetting and rearing of children, no longer exists.

Marriage had been a political and financial tool as long as there has been recorded history.

originally posted by: ATODASO

... there must have been a man involved somewhere, mustn't there?

sperm banks, yo!

Yea... You need *MEN* somewhere to have a sperm bank??

a reply to: crazyewok

Marriage is your right is it?

Go ask the hottest supermodel to marry, and when she says no, try suing her for denying you a basic personal right. See how far you get.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ATODASO

Marriage is it once was, an arrangement for the begetting and rearing of children, no longer exists.

i guess that's why the two examples i gave in the op were so striking to me, because that's exactly what they're about. changing the mode of marital relations to make child rearing more feasible for more people.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ketsuko
Marriage is it once was, an arrangement for the begetting and rearing of children, no longer exists.

Marriage had been a political and financial tool as long as there has been recorded history.

It's also the means by which serious societies increase and grow stronger.

Try sending a colony composed entirely of married gay men to Mars and see how long that colony lasts. It might have stability, but it won't have any permanence.

Societies that grow and grow strong encourage stable families that are also families with children.

Look at our decaying Western world and tell me we live in a society that does this.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The governments jurisdiction over who and how many people get involved intimately is eroding the autonomy of the individuals who chose to get married to begin with.

In our evolutionary history we've never been strictly monogamous, even our cousins the chimps as Grypon66 mentioned earlier are observed to have practiced polygamy. If you find it unusual because of your cultural values, that's your opinion and doesn't mean your arbitrary standards for traditional marriage should be legislated across the board.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ATODASO

... there must have been a man involved somewhere, mustn't there?

sperm banks, yo!

Yea... You need *MEN* somewhere to have a sperm bank??

sorry, i thought your objection was that a man was being cut out of the equation against his will. thus, i presented a common means by which women can conceive with a voluntary donor who has no interest in rearing his spawn.

a reply to: [post=19987836]ketsuko[/po

Marriage is it once was, an arrangement for the begetting and rearing of children, no longer exists.

I agree with that statement.
I and my S.O. had and have nearly raised two girls (15 & 18). We only got married 2 years ago...
My parents married and weren't able to have children together although they adopted me late in life.

I think society's ideas and beliefs have changed since "back in those days"?

I don't know if that's good or bad. It may be years before we know the answer to that question.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Everything the government does erodes individual autonomy. Taxes erode my autonomous authority over my own finances... are they up for review?

a reply to: ketsuko

I am not sure what the Mars analogy has to due with the historical context of marriage. Why not just send more gay men along with the rest of the supplies?

Historical data shows that birth rates drop when societies are financially successful. Marriage has not always been about procreation as I mentioned above and there have been polygynous/polygamous societies as well.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: ATODASO

Will multi-partner marriages going to be a thing?

Not in my bloody house they won't be! For a marriage to mean anything at all, other than a tax break or way to divvy up assets, it should be between two people only.

Don't care if that's a 'conventional' or 'unconventional' two, it's the oaths and vows between two that are sacred.

More than two...it's not a marriage more than it is a state sanctioned gang bang or something.

Ok then by that logic marriage should only be between a man and a women.


If you can get to dictate what consenting adults do then the anti gay crowd should be allowed too then.

No...marriage is, at the very least, a sacred promise of loyalty, exclusivity and fidelity between two people...as i said, it doesn't have to be a 'conventional two', but it does have to be two...in my opinion anyway. Others are totally free to think what they like.

I'm not saying that groups can't live and sleep together..only that that is not a suitable situation for marriage..i'm not a pulpit preaching kind of person, and this to me at least, has nothing whatsoever to do with any organised (or unorganized) religion or what they preach...that's for religious people to ponder, and i'm not one of them.

originally posted by: MysterX

No...marriage is, at the very least, a sacred promise of loyalty, exclusivity and fidelity between two people...as i said, it doesn't have to be a 'conventional two', but it does have to be two...in my opinion anyway.

History has proven otherwise, it was often not just two people.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Marriage is your right is it?

Go ask the hottest supermodel to marry, and when she says no, try suing her for denying you a basic personal right. See how far you get.

O get real that was not what I was angling it and you bloody well know it.

It my right in regards to government telling me yes or no.

Same as a gun is your right. IE government cant tell you yes or no but a Gun shop can refuse sale.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: ATODASO

Will multi-partner marriages going to be a thing?

Not in my bloody house they won't be! For a marriage to mean anything at all, other than a tax break or way to divvy up assets, it should be between two people only.

Don't care if that's a 'conventional' or 'unconventional' two, it's the oaths and vows between two that are sacred.

More than two...it's not a marriage more than it is a state sanctioned gang bang or something.

Ok then by that logic marriage should only be between a man and a women.


If you can get to dictate what consenting adults do then the anti gay crowd should be allowed too then.

No...marriage is, at the very least, a sacred promise of loyalty, exclusivity and fidelity between two people...as i said, it doesn't have to be a 'conventional two', but it does have to be two...in my opinion anyway. Others are totally free to think what they like.

I'm not saying that groups can't live and sleep together..only that that is not a suitable situation for marriage..i'm not a pulpit preaching kind of person, and this to me at least, has nothing whatsoever to do with any organised (or unorganized) religion or what they preach...that's for religious people to ponder, and i'm not one of them.

Again why is your interpretation of it any more right or wrong than someone else who wants a multi person marriage?

originally posted by: okrian
What does gay marriage have to do with this? Gay marriage is still just between TWO consenting adults. And still has the same relationship dynamics as a monogamous male/female marriage/partnership. More blame and baiting being thrown around for no good reason.

(Sigh) Wrong, and why do you say "blame." There is no "blame" involved, i.e.: Unless you have a problem with it. Gay marriage has been illegal until recently. Any form of polygamy is still illegal. Gay marriage is no longer illegal, laying the groundwork for taking the illegality away from polygamy. It' has nothing to do with the number of people involved. That's a false and unnecessary dichotomy, which is really none of your business. The issue is the government dictating who you can marry. Gays fought for and won the right to marry same sex partners. Now it's the Mormon's turn. There is no good reason for the government to be involved in either. The precedent has been set and will be used in subsequent court cases.

I'm sure your point of view will be used against it, but it is doomed to failure. Declaring "marriage is defined as being between TWO people!" is the same logic as saying, "Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman!" Who says? You? And it deserved the same derision. So change the definition of marriage. If you can do it for gays, you can do it for polygamists.

My spouse and I have discussed polyamory for several years.

It's something we're open to, we just haven't really found anyone we like that would fit in around here.

A lot of it is the social stigma, for many people, especially those who are close to their family. Society has the 1 to 1 relationship pushed at them in all directions, religion, music, tv, media.

Funny enough tho, on the religion side much of the Old Testament was harems and concubines, and such. And in the New Testament, it isn't specifically stated that you can't have more than one either, but you should have at least one.

In Utah, multiple-partner marriages are legal again, btw.

Personally, I believe they're a good thing if you have the right people. It takes a lot of communication, and a lot of not being a controlling type personality.

Financially, it makes sense, as well as with having children.

Many hands to spread the responsibilities around too.

Oddly, out of all the options on dating sites, it's not really listed as an option either. Tho, you can find anything else you would like. Though there are groups you can find that have meetings once a month, that are based upon the poly lift-style.

Food for thought..