Are Multi-Partner Marriages Gonna Be a Thing?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

Human nature is Human nature...we're a weird bunch.

But i can only go by my own life experience when putting my personal slant on these issues.

I got married, in a registry office in Southern England 31st August 1990...and we just celebrated our 25th year of faithful marriage...she's my best mate and i'm hers.

It can be done, if you're willing to work to remember what you promised to each other especially when things are not going your way...or we can be weak and selfish and screw the marriage right up, because we don't have the personal honour enough to keep our word.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

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

To some extent,sure. I don't see why not? I mean...I say we go further and get rid of government all together.

a reply to: crazyewok

I suppose the absolutely honest answer in that case, is that for me, it is...for you, it might not be.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Because if marriage between two men or two women is ok, then there is no logical reason it can't be two guys and one woman or one guy and ten women. The arguments for gay marriage were that you had two people who loved each other, so there was no reason to prevent them from being married. If that is the case, then there is no reason to prevent three people who love each other from being married. If the standard is just going to be consenting adults, then you can't arbitrarily limit it to two people...

While I could careless if gays want to get married, I've long argued that it would be a slippery slope and that if gay marriage is legalized, then polygamy will be next.

Uh, marriage between a man and a woman was what already opened the door to polygamous marriages, not gay marriage. And polygamy was widespread in the old testament… so yeah… not 'the gays' after all huh?

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??

Not now you don't!

Scientists in mainland China have successfully mass produced high-quality artificial sperm for the first time.

Artificial Sperm Created

So, no Men are no longer needed for procreation..Ladies..i wouldn't start jumping up and down just yet...it seems they can also create artificial eggs the same way, so we don't need Women either!

originally posted by: MysterX

It can be done, if you're willing to work to remember what you promised to each other especially when things are not going your way...or we can be weak and selfish and screw the marriage right up, because we don't have the personal honour enough to keep our word.

Not saying it cannot be done, just that it was always not the 'norm'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fair enough.

But in my experience, talking to people i know in my small corner of the world...it has been the norm.

originally posted by: MysterX
But in my experience, talking to people i know in my small corner of the world...it has been the norm.

In western culture it has been for some time. It was not always this way and when people claim that it is 'traditional marriage' they are doing so from the perspective of the particular culture or religion they are a part of.

originally posted by: okrian

originally posted by: Edumakated

Because if marriage between two men or two women is ok, then there is no logical reason it can't be two guys and one woman or one guy and ten women. The arguments for gay marriage were that you had two people who loved each other, so there was no reason to prevent them from being married. If that is the case, then there is no reason to prevent three people who love each other from being married. If the standard is just going to be consenting adults, then you can't arbitrarily limit it to two people...

While I could careless if gays want to get married, I've long argued that it would be a slippery slope and that if gay marriage is legalized, then polygamy will be next.

Uh, marriage between a man and a woman was what already opened the door to polygamous marriages, not gay marriage. And polygamy was widespread in the old testament… so yeah… not 'the gays' after all huh?

No. The gays, after all. It's an issue of legality. Regardless of the fact that polygamy has been around since time began in other cultures and times, and regardless of the fact that it appears in the Old Testament, both gay marriage and polygamy have been outlawed in western culture for a long time. Through a long and protracted battle gays have STOPPED that and made gay marriage legal. They did this by systematically dismantling the legal arguments against gay marriage. We're not talking about Old Testament verses that do not apply here; we're talking LEGAL arguments TODAY. The kinds of arguments used to prevent gay marriage no longer apply--legally--as the courts have given ample proof and, most importantly, provided a precedent. That has opened the door to removing the ILLEGALITY of polygamous marriages because virtually the same arguments were used to ban both types. If they no longer count to prevent gay marriage, then it's just a matter of time before they no longer count for preventing polygamous marriage. All we need is a few court actions, and it will happen.

This is in NO WAY disparaging toward gays, and you guys who seem to think so are idiotic for doing so and completely missing the point. Gays are to be LAUDED and THANKED for forcing the issue into the open because ultimately we'll all be freer because of it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh yes, i'd say that is absolutely correct.

But aren't we giving our take based on our own cultural experiences and norms?

I thought we were..frankly, i don't know enough about other cultures and their customs towards marriage to make anything approaching an informed comment about their marriages, only my own.

originally posted by: MysterX

But aren't we giving our take based on our own cultural experiences and norms?

I am sure we all are.

I thought we were..frankly, i don't know enough about other cultures and their customs towards marriage to make anything approaching an informed comment about their marriages, only my own.

Which is why history can also be studied. Not to say we should reenact everything that has transpired historically, just that it allows us to reflect on how cultural mores have changed over the millennia due to various reasons.

a reply to: ATODASO

I think it will totally happen. Even more, I think it will be just another model for a healthy family environment. Our nuclear concept of marriage isn't the only (nor oldest) way of making families.

a reply to: okrian

Why are people taking offence at gay people having paved the way- it's a good thing!

I don't care who gets married, marry your lounge chair if you want. It doesn't affect me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LOL...generally, yeah education about one's fellows on this world is a good idea...but to participate in this thread, i would not have had enough time to both study and learn about all other cultures matrimonial traditions and then post my own take!


I'll get around to it though, i promise!

So you have some guy who has 5 wives and a bunch of kids...I would imagine some of those kids won't be getting all the attention they need from Daddy. Maybe one wants to play baseball with Dad and another one wants Daddy at her ballet recital and another is sick and not feeling well and they all want Dad's attention. Maybe out of 5 wives, one is fighting cancer and doesn't want to share her husband with 4 other wives. Maybe one wife has depression or a mental illness and she wants and needs more attention. When the wives get old and start having serious health issues, how many will want to be sharing their husband's love and attention? I don't know, all these scenarios keep popping into my head. And pets...most women and children love pets, who gets to choose which pets to get and how many? LOL

Not many cultures entered into multiple partner marriages out of love, but more out of necessity.

Some cultures the women would marry brothers, and women would have more husbands because of a shortage of women at the time.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

But why marry them? Why not just live together? Usually people marry for love and commitment and choosing one partner above all others. The partner is special and they share their love and life together, not with a group of people.

Seems it was mostly about keeping it all in the family, literally, herp derp

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: Stormdancer777

But why marry them? Why not just live together? Usually people marry for love and commitment and choosing one partner above all others. The partner is special and they share their love and life together, not with a group of people.

it was cultural, I think one would have to be brought up within this culture to fully accept it.

Even today first cousins marry into arranged marriages because of inheritance and property

I'd say our 50% divorce rate is what has undermined "traditional" marriage.

Further, use of the word "abnormal" is very specific contextually. For years it has been applied to physiological and psychological problems. Everyone knows what it means when it is used. Backing up to the basic meaning of the word (against or apart from the normal) and going with a statistical definition of normal, then sure, some sexual orientations are abnormal (away from the statistical mean in the population).

You know that's not what it means when it's used, and so do I.

However, given that, I'm sure there's no issues with statements like this when I make them in the future:

"Why do we tolerate these abnormal Republicans since they represent only about 23% of the population."

Pew Research Center

... and beyond all that ... what does "the mean population" have to do with the question at hand?

Let's check again in 20 years.