What do you think? Why or why not?

Sure and to make it fair, the first wife is in charge and she gets to choose who the next wife will be.

So guys make sure that the first wife is always happy.

Yes, but what most people on this board think polygamy is, is completely wrong. (First of all, it should be polyamory, not polygamy, which is inherently gender-biased, but I digress...)

If everyone involved is a consenting adult and is not being pressured, I see nothing wrong with it. It's when people feel compelled to do it or are not old enough/mature enough/competent to consent that there are problems.

Source: My own experience, being in a polyamorous relationship for going on three years now with two partners.

You mean "de-criminalized?"

I personally don't care.

before they are legally recognized, there are many issues that need to be ironed out that are not present in couples only marriages.

Issues such as power of attorney, common property rights, and wealth distribution are three that I think of right off the top of my head.

I can't think of ways that such issues can be resolved equitably and until they are, I oppose legal recognition of such relationships.

And too many opportunities for abuse.

La la la, the same old tune you've been singing every time the subject comes up. What part of CONSENTING ADULTS do you not get, lady? Sheesh.

Except that it involves more than consenting adults. It involves children who don't have a say in the matter. Children are short changed as finite family resources of attention, money and time are stretched thinner and thinner with each new spouse and child. Mothers are going to battle with each other to make sure their children are provided the best and most. They will curry favor with the husband to ensure they and their children get the most - often at the expense of the other children in the family. That is just human nature.

My objection is that in the practical world it doesn't and never has worked.

I am Sarah ...... Hagar and Ismael will be sent into the desert to die so that Isaac will not lose his inheritance.

Cheryl comes from a polygamous background so maybe she has insights you can't possibly fathom.

BTW, when kids are introduced to the party it ain't between consenting adults no more.

Get a clue.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 05:22PM by Timothy.

Last I checked, that's called a knee-jerk reaction: "My experience of X was bad, therefore ALL experiences of X will be bad, so we should prohibit X." It doesn't fly with me.

My children love my partners and they actually have MORE time with me than they did before, since I have more free time as there are more people taking care of chores, money issues, etc. So that argument doesn't fly with me either. (And children don't have a say in their parents' relationships, regardless. It's part of being a child. People divorce and remarry all the time and nobody thinks we should make divorce or remarriage illegal just because it might hurt the children anymore - well, except for the uber-religious who think that people should be forced to stay together even though that almost always harms the kids even worse. So yet another "doesn't fly" argument bites the dust, there.)

Therefore, I'll continue to advocate for legal recognition of my relationships, and I'll continue to call b.s. on people who use these lame excuses for not moving forward on them.

Do you even know what the word "implicated" means? Your sentence makes no sense.

I'm not saying either of you is right or wrong.

But the only source of your claims is YOU. Yet, you reject all of her personal experiences as not being valid data.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Just something to think about.

Since she's decided to unilaterally say that NOBODY's polyamorous relationship can be honored because of her personal experiences, you bet I'm saying her experiences are not valid data. They are one person's opinion. She is insisting that any more-than-two-adults relationship has "too much potential for abuse" and that's a ridiculous statement any way you slice it (let me show you all the monogamous abusive relationships that I've seen, witnessed, and been through).

Meanwhile, I've got plenty of examples of polyamorous relationships a) working and b) working well both for the adults AND for the children, with zero abuse.

Last point: I'm not saying she has to be in a polyamorous relationship. I *am* saying that her personal experiences are not a good enough reason to deny me or anyone else who chooses that kind of relationship for ourselves the right to the same recognition that monogamous relationships have.

unbeliever42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> La la la, the same old tune you've been singing
> every time the subject comes up. What part of
> CONSENTING ADULTS do you not get, lady? Sheesh.
===========================================
That was rude, sir.

The thread was to ask for opinions, all sides, not just opinions that agree with yours.

Obviously you count as a "yes" vote. That's fine but you needn't be so impolite about it.

Yep, it was rude, and not only that, it was rude by choice. I'm tired of people who insinuate that my relationship style automatically equates to child abuse, neglect, and marital strife, and I won't put up with the insinuation any more.

Cheryl's arguments are about nonconsenting relationships with children and very young naive women, which is not the whole picture or even a large part of the picture, and she needs to learn that it not only can be done right/consenting/freely, but often is. Her view of it as abuse is skewed, and thus I do not trust her opinions on this. But I'm also not going to sit by and let her claim that polyamory is inherently abusive, because I'm not an abuser and neither are my partners, and I'll be damned if I let anyone imply that we are just because there's three of us together instead of two.

My children are being raised in a polyamorous home, and they're doing just fine. I think you're the one with the problem and the wild (and unfounded) assumptions.

adults maybe O.K. with it, but when children are involved, turns to CRAP.

I think it's for libertarians & moslems.

They also seem well adjusted and happy.

I'm an atheist and my partners are, at best, agnostics. So here's an n=1 data point for your hypothesis ;)

Posted in the wrong place...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 05:02PM by unbeliever42.

It should be decriminalised.

It is no business of government who we choose to share our beds with. That said, there should be no legal "benefits" to marriage either.

...and a church should not regulate what I drink and how I purchase it.

freeman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It should be decriminalised.
>
> It is no business of government who we choose to
> share our beds with. That said, there should be no
> legal "benefits" to marriage either.

=================================================
Polygs get bennies all the time because technically these women with gazillions of kids are not married (legally) so they get government benefits up the wazoo. I'm sure they find it quite amusing that hardworking folks (like my mom & dad) can't afford health care but they (polygs) get it for free as a reward for breaking the laws of a country to which they have NO loyalty!

Sorry... this ole dog h8s it when my folks get sick and depressed cause they can't do nuthin about it.

Our government should not regulate personal behavior in any way other than when such behavior inflicts on the rights of others. What consenting adults do is their business.

Government should step out of the bedroom, but marriage is a different matter.

Imagine anyone could marry anyone. How would resources be distributed? For instance, if I divorced one of my spouses, does she get a portion of my resources from my other marriages? Of course not. Are resources then not shared in any relationship, or do you have to segregate groups of resources attached to each marriage you are involved in, and only that one? If so, what's to stop you from draining the resources of that marriage without your spouse's knowledge right before you divorce them? Should you only be allowed half of the resources? That would mean that fundamentally all resources belong to individuals and no couples whatsoever. Thus everyone is essentially independent and there is no reason to get married in the first place except to say some nice words and have a fancy ball.

MJ is right. There are too many problems inherent in a free-marriage system. It would be fascinating, but it would eventually undermine the institution of marriage itself. Many people would be more than happy with that, and I can understand that, but I like pooling everything with my spouse. I don't want to be prevented from doing so because all legality associated with marriage disappears.

The only choices are one-on-one marriage, or no marriage. Our system is good how it is now, because it allows people to live either way individually.

Nonsense.

Marriage laws need only be patterned after corporate statutes & bylaws in order to ensure fair and equitable distribution & redistribution of resources in the event of either a merger or dissolution.

These arguments never go far at all.

I'd love to see Uniform Commercial Code move to "One-Merger Only" business practices. What a joke...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 05:17PM by kolobian.

Maybe I just don't understand how the corporate world works. If company-A mergers with company-B, then company-B mergers with company-C, but company-C doesn't want to have anything to do with company-A, how are the resources allocated? Are there two separate accounts for company-B, one for each merger? And what's to keep company-B from stealing from one account to give to the other in the case that a dissolution is imminent?

I thought that once A and B joined, they behaved as one entity, and if C wanted in, it would be joined to the combined entity. For this to work marriages would have to be comprised of discrete groups. You could never marry any individual unless you consented to the entire group. This would lead to mega-marriages, which would be interesting, but would also limit a person's ability to choose marriage partners, especially if they fell in love with someone from a different mega-marriage.

Or am I understanding this wrong?

Obviously you are correct, but that is no different from saying that if you marry somebody who is already married, then you have to except the current situation.

True. Who's to say we should impede someone's right to join a mega-marriage?

Let's say there is a 5 person polyamorous relationship. One man in the relationship has a child with one of the women in the relation ship. Now let's say that the biological parents want to by the child a new set of shoes and the decision goes for a "corporate" vote. The vote goes 2 in favor of buying the shoes (the biological parents) 3 against. The biological parents have lost parental rights, the non-biological partners could override every decision the biological parents make in regards to how much money should be spent on the child.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 05:55PM by MJ.

And?

Really?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 06:01PM by MJ.

What's the difference between your example and two parents who can't agree on whether they want to buy new shoes for the kid? What if the mom says yes and the dad says no?

Thank you. This. What it sounds like the poster is saying is that only blood gives rights to a child. I have a few thousand adoptive parents (including third-parent adopters such as the partners of same-sex partners who came to the relationship with kids) who will loudly disagree with that premise.

Making THEM responsible is making them responsible for their behavior. The other 3 did not engage in the behavior that created the child so why should they be held accountable? The couple has an obligation to care for (spend money on) that child because they are the TWO that brought the child into the world. The other 3 have no such obligations.

You really can't see the distinction?

So, besides not answering my question (which didn't go unnoticed), are you saying that a step-father or step-mother have no parental rights to a child?

http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199908.html

"Under the common law, a stepparent has no duty to financially support a stepchild during the marriage to the child's natural parent merely by reason of the marriage" In reading the article, it seems clear that a step parent needs to assume the parental role, simply getting married would not necessitate the that obligation.

But a step parent enters a relationship knowing that there is a child to support. So, are you saying that who can or can not have children in the relationship should be put to a vote?

Oh, and I DID answer the question, I have shown how it is different when I said that a couple dispute could not be resolved by a vote.

I'm saying that it should be up to the members of the group to decide that kind of thing. I shouldn't decide for them, and you shouldn't decide for them either.

The vote was taken and the decision was made. With the couple, the disagreement would not be resolved just by out voting each other. They have to find a resolution through compromise.

So why can't polyamorous groups come to an agreement on how much money should be allocated for a child and allow the biological parent(s) choose how that money is spent?

Are you so against this that you're suspending your ability to create compromising solutions for all involved?

Why not let these groups decide amongst themselves how these decisions are made?

If the group locates $0.00 then the biological parents can not spend anything.

Again, the decision on how much is spent is taken out of the hands of the biological parents.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 06:21PM by MJ.

Um, if the group is allocating $0.00 to the children why would the parents stay in the group?

Is this really the best you can do?

Under the circumstances you describe, what is to stop the biological parents from disolving thier tiies to the marriage because a compromise could not be reached? Besides, is there not incentive to compromise? Afterall, I am sure the parents of the barefoot child would remember who the disenting voters were when it came thier turn to request resources.

My dictionary defines polygamy as having more than one wife, husband or mate at the same time. Most people think of a man having multiple wives, but it would also have to allow a woman having multiple husbands.

I think the real problem would not be in what consenting adults want to do, but in all the other laws and companies that would have to rewrite their regulations. How about insurance companies in how they insure, and businesses in what they offer and/or will pay for employees insurance. How will they handle it?

What about all the laws of inheritance needing to be revised?
What happens when the patriarch/matriarch dies and doesn't leave a will? Who gets the house and property? All ten wives equally?

What if they can't agree on everything, then I suppose all the real and personal estate would have to be sold, and the proceeds divided equally. What about Social Security (if it continues to exist) payments? Is it split equally among 10 widows who now will most likely depend on government assistance if they are only getting 1/10? Companies needing to rewrite how pensions are dealt with.

We shouldn't de-segregate. Think of all the restaurants that will have to take down their "whites only" bathroom signs...

Think of all the buses in which people of every race will be entitled to any seat they want!

CHAOS! CHAOS I TELL YOU!!!

fine....but the spayed and neutered only. no adoptions either.

ROFL, I'll go along with Mia's rule.

If you bring kids into the mix, the head "spouse" should be wealthy and/or extremely well-employed. NO government monies should be allocated for Section 8 housing, food stamps, or Medicaid coverage. The Daddy (or The Mommy) must provide adequate health and dental insurance (or have mighty deep pockets for self-pay) and the entire bunch should be working, tax-paying members of society.

You get that part squared away, I don't care WHO gets married.


~VOW

It's interesting that this is always thought about as a male, or female, with multiple spouses of the opposite sex. And, that is how it has traditionally been.

But how about 3 guys and 2 girls (vary the numbers however you please) that are all married to each other?

A is married to B who is married to C who is married to D

Could D then marry A? Would this fit the "corporate" model where everyone gets a vote? How is common property handled?

Under a corporate model marriages could be pretty equal depending on the type of charter agreed upon. The amount each spouse contributes as an individual could be measured and used to establish how much of a vote each member of the marriage recieved. Heck you could even set it up where marriage officers hodl thier positions based on a pre established term which would eventually rotate thru each member of the marriage.

I would love to see it decriminalized if only to watch the Mormon church squirm. If that happened they'd be in a pickle because they would need to restart polygamy to stay true to their core beliefs.

But they're trying to go mainstream so they would find a way to avoid it.

My guess is that the church would spend lot$ of lobby money to ensure that polygamy is not decriminalized.

Do the words HELL NO! mean anything to you?

Soooo...if you have a hypothetical husband and wife who are both bisexual, they both develop a relationship with a third, male or female, who ends up living with them, and contributing financially, but has zero interest in interacting with the couple's children. All adult behavior stays in the bedroom where it belongs. How is that horrific?

As far as the kids are concerned, there is no issue.


I know several people in similar situations, and could offer a half-dozen variations.