the polygamy thread

[titan1968]

I don't believe in polygamy or in polyamory nor could I be in a such a relationship-- I would feel very uncomfortable.

As Lordpendragon put it so well, marriage is a question of balance and harmony. It is hard enough for two people, but can it be achieved by three or more people? It makes for some balancing act.

I believe that many marriages fail for two reasons: 1) the partners are not willing to work hard to maintain their marriage; 2) they married for the wrong reasons or they were pressured.

Indeed DC - the duality of monogamy. Yin and Yang, but that is just about balance and harmony - if that is achieved by two, three, or four and more, then so be it.

I can't see any rational argument for monogamy in an affluent society. Morally, religiously, ethically, and socially for children perhaps, but not rationally. I would base my reasons on the reality of the failure of more than half of all monogamous relationships, and the hard work that most others have to put in to mantain it.

I often wonder how many people are happily married - on a % basis like the orientation scale.

 

[GoneA]

Personally, I think we'd all be much happier if we weren't under constant pressures to mold our lives into some idealized paradigm that effectively crushes some very primal desires within us.

Dear HazelGod:

Please marry me.

Thank you,
GoneA

 

[Lordpendragon]

Heather Mills (McCartney) is a very good reason why anyone who is worth anything should avoid marriage like the plague.

Why our cultures think that being married for a couple of years entitles you to half of the assets that someone has spent 64 years accumulating, or a family centuries to save, is quite beyond me.

The balance of law and the reality of modern life is out of line - that's why a lot of people won't marry.

I saw six men kicking and punching the mother-in-law. My neighbour said 'Are you going to help?' I said 'No, Six should be enough." The late great Les Dawson.

 

[Mr Ed in Mass]

I took a concensus and, among my six wives and it was this; three yeas and three nays. I have the deciding vote, the tiebreaker.
HELP!!! these women are driving me fucking crazy!!!:crazy: :011:
Mr. Ed

 

[AlteredEgo]

Kali, this is what I tried to underscore above, and also what I think the "HELL NO" responses are just failing to understand. In these relationships, (the ones that work, anyway) it has nothing to do with two people competing for the attentions and affections of one person, but rather the cooperation between all of them.This is my biggest concern with the current same-gender marriage issue in the United States right now. There are approximately 1400 federal laws that are tied to the "institution of marriage." Tax law, rights of succession, inheritance, child custody, health care, it just goes so far beyond what most people realize. But federal law does not recognize any other partnership, other than a state-sanctioned, legal marriage, in order to take advantage of any of those laws. Because of our individual incomes, it would be vastly advantageous if my partner and I could claim "married, filing jointly" on our income tax returns. That ain't gonna happen. Legally speaking, and in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the law in the 14th Amendment, I think the government should extend those rights to all citizens, or to none. Personally, my opinion is that every single federal, state, and local law that mentions marriage should be repealed and stricken from the books. Let the churches deal with marriage on their own, without government subsidy.

DC, I think you misunderstand the "Hell no!" group. It's not that they/we don't understand that it's about cooperation. It's that they/we are unwilling to cooperate! However, I don't feel that my unwillingness to share my partner ever, ever, ever should impact anyone else. If you want to share yours, and you're grown, you do you. I will do me, and go to war with anyone who interferes.

I disagree with you about repealling all marriage laws. I don't think of a marriage as a religious thing at all. I see it as a purely legal issue. I see it as a contract. Oh, the lawyers will be present (in spirit anyway) when I wed. Yes indeedy. Please sign the pre-nup on the dotted line, kthanx.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Dear HazelGod:

Please marry me.

Thank you,
GoneA

You already have a wife. Oh. I guess your poly.
*hugs you, and kids you*

 

[NCbear]

Polygamy is the state of having more than one female spouse.
Polyandry is the state of having more than one male spouse.
Polyamory is the state of having more than one spouse, but of both genders.

Point taken. Perhaps I should have called this the polygamy/polyandry/polyamory thread??

NCbear (wishing he'd been a little more awake when he started the thread -- and remembered how to quote more than one poster in the same post; thanks, HazelGod, for the updated understanding of the three above plus polygyny)

 

[NCbear]

This is my biggest concern with the current same-gender marriage issue in the United States right now. There are approximately 1400 federal laws that are tied to the "institution of marriage." Tax law, rights of succession, inheritance, child custody, health care, it just goes so far beyond what most people realize. But federal law does not recognize any other partnership, other than a state-sanctioned, legal marriage, in order to take advantage of any of those laws. Because of our individual incomes, it would be vastly advantageous if my partner and I could claim "married, filing jointly" on our income tax returns. That ain't gonna happen. Legally speaking, and in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the law in the 14th Amendment, I think the government should extend those rights to all citizens, or to none. Personally, my opinion is that every single federal, state, and local law that mentions marriage should be repealed and stricken from the books. Let the churches deal with marriage on their own, without government subsidy.

I sense a new thread sneaking up on us, DC Deep, on little cat feet.

NCbear

 

[DC_DEEP]

Hazel, thank you for the corrections to my (quickly and poorly remembered) distinctions between the terminology.

AlteredEgo, of course I know you well enough to understand your HELL NO being different from the average. There are almost always exceptions when I generalize like that...

However, there are already other laws which regulate a lot of things, it's just that the marriage laws give special status and exemptions to the laws that apply to unmarried persons. I did make the concession that if the laws remain on the books, they should be available to all citizens. As it stands, they are only available to a specific, privileged class. Current federal (and most state) laws tell us "you and your life partner certainly may have access to these protections; we require you to marry first, though. Oh, and by the way, even if you do get married, we will not recognize it."

 

[naughty]

Wow!

Not that I believe in Poly androus, gamous or amourous relationships myself but "Crush her fucking skull?" Like it or not I have to remember the man is willingly involved in this, so.....

I didn't know there were any polygamous families in TX till they were on a cable channel talking about their situation.
He has 3 women......the first is the one with the marriage license.

I can't remember if he said he had a legal contract with the others or not, but I know a family in another state had lifetime contracts with the women after the one who was on his marriage license.

Intriguing......but I don't think I could handle that.

I do know that my reaction to "another woman" would be that I'd like to crush her fucking skull like a junebug.

 

[Full_Phil]

I agree that "marriage" as such should be left to churches---Civil unions should be available to anybody who wishes to make a public committment of their love---There really are far fewer men who are interested in being providers than we are led to believe. Yes, most men want someone to fuck, but I think it's obvious by the number of single mothers that not every guy who wants to blow a load wants to be a father. If man truly enjoys this role and is good at it, why shouldn't he be able to do that for more than one woman---CONSENTING and ADULT are the vital points here. If those two terms are met, then why should anyone else care---I think that the people who choose to bring children into the world should sign a document of financial responsibility for them---THEN let's see how many guys bitch about condoms.---Unwanted children should be able to be adopted by anyone who has the desire, the ability, and the room in their hearts to attend to their needs with love.

I agree with all of the above. Our country's Puritan-Ethic background still shines forth in the frequency of how often some people feel they can dictate the personal morals and spending habits of others as if its their right and responsibility. "Holier than thou" really comes from this kind of heritage. It's OK for other societies to be polygamous, but not ours, for some

 

[Heather LouAnna]

I'm all for it. I condone it. I encourage it. I live it.

Love who and how you feel without regret. Be comfortable. Be mature. Be flexible.

 

[Lordpendragon]

I'm all for it. I condone it. I encourage it. I live it.

Love who and how you feel without regret. Be comfortable. Be mature. Be flexible.

I especially agree with the flexible bit.

 

[HazelGod]

I'm all for it. I condone it. I encourage it. I live it.

Love who and how you feel without regret. Be comfortable. Be mature. Be flexible.

Welcome to the neighborhood! :wink: