Polyamory. What exactly are you afraid of?

[Guitar's Cry]

I am not saying that it would make the sex slave trade legal, but it would probably make it easier. I would also like to clarify that I would not be apposed to pro-poly laws.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other.

I suppose the issue is that I don't make the connection between how something will be made easier through marriage when it is already unfortunately rampant. But, it may just be that I am biased.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Okay. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other.

I suppose the issue is that I don't make the connection between how something will be made easier through marriage when it is already unfortunately rampant. But, it may just be that I am biased.

Alright. It seems I am quite a pessimist when it comes to social problems.

 

[blackout]

Tell that to the sex slaves of the world. Look around google and find some numbers. In India alone it is estimated that about 200,000 Nepali girls under the age of 14 are sex slaves. That is just India, and just girls under 14.

But 14 year olds cannot marry in the US.

They are not legal adults.
So ....

I fail to see the correlation.

 

[blackout]

I have a question actually.

I'm not a legal type,
but I know from homosexuality threads here
that there are key benefits to spouses of legal marriages.

Some have to do with visits to hospitals,
some with work benefits offered,
some I guess governmental benefits of SS after a spouse dies?
(though honestly I don't know)

Certainly it would be unreasonable to expect the govt.
or an employer to pay out on anyone multiple times.
As well, you can't have 3 people arguing at the hospital
over what course of action should be taken
when a spouse needs treatment and is unable to make the decision
for him/herself.

Honestly I have a hard time with legal marriage at all
because I fail to see it's purpose, beyond the "benefits".

I actually do "fear" that these kinds of issues
might become a valid complication.
But then, I am no legal mind as I have said.

I am also unsure what the POINT of legally marrying
more than one... or certainly 2 persons... might be?
If it's just a matter of "legitimacy"...
I think that can be handled in other ways.

You know what started this whole thread?
A post from 9/10ths in another thread
that really upset me.
He said that in canada ...
"open adultery in the home in front of minors/children" was illegal and potentially punishable by law.
And he seemed to feel that law could come down on Poly families.

So, you have a situation where two people are married,
then they decide to invite in a third mutual love to share life, love, home and family
and that is considered "adultery"?!?
Or each spouse has thier own seperate second partner
living in the house.
Who is the government to say that is adultery?!
This is the family formation decision of the people in that house,
and as long as the children are loved and well taken care of,
it's nobody's damn business....
to step in, illegitimizing what is completely legitimate.

Me PERSONALLY, If equal marital benefits means one legal primary partner for everyone,
I really couldn't care less.
There could easily be applicable rights for all partners like visits to the hospital,
which do not involve monetary transactions.
If a poly family/group family wants other legalities drawn up,
they should have the option to draw them up on their own.

As I said. I hate legalities. But that means nothing.
We live in a world run and ruled by legalities.

At the very LEAST , the BASIC RIGHTS of families to chose Poly formations
must be protected.

 

[brox0rz]

I know this thread is a couple yrs old but I've been researching this topic for awhile and stumbled across this, one of the best threads of controversial topics I've ever seen. And everybody generally heeded your request about NO RELIGION.

Let me start this by clarifying that I support polyamory just as I support homosexuality. I am a 27yr old guy who is in love with the woman of my dreams and considering proposing marriage sometime next year. We are monogamous and have considered threesomes and/or "couplesomes" but are a little too shy and frankly, are afraid to try it because we have such a great thing going between the two of us. Any advice on this?

To answer your initial question, America isn't ready yet. Why? Just think about these concepts:

1) New ideas and acknowledgements take time. Think of all the major breakthroughs in science, religious and racial tolerances, and that happened in the last hundred years. Galileo wasn't even officially pardoned for his blasphemies (scientific discoveries) till this century!! It's my predicition that acceptance of polyamory will gradually grow over time. In your lifetime? Very doubtful. But here you are posting threads that get people to think about it and a thought is really all it takes for some people to find acceptance in something new! You are officially part of the polyamory revolution. Congrats!

2) Now to the legal questions you were asking. I will ring the same disclaimer bell you did about not knowing much about law. But I will claim to state some clearcut issues that would at least cause a lot of work for a lot of people if the US were to legalize (or at least legally recognize)it. When referring to benefits, taxes, issues with legal guardianship, etc, you have to remember that our society was BUILT for monogamous relationships and to add an entirely new, complicated family structure for such a small amount of the population would be PHENOMINALLY TAXING. Think of all the paperwork, computer programs, tax options, bank accounts, etc etc etc that would have to be completely redone. The whole infrastructure would have to be gutted and turned inside out in a manner of speaking. Maybe it would be easier to compare this to how our country was built to fuel our automobiles with gasoline and even though we have discovered several fuel alternatives, it is simply too costly at this time to convert our fuel stations to hydrogen fuel cells. Same deal with recognition of polyamory. Too much trouble at this time.

As far as social shunning of polyamory, this is mostly due to religion, which whether you choose to exclude it or not, is also what our country was BUILT on.

If you look at the big picture, major progress is made with our race at alarming speeds and although our lives are not long enough to see much of it, it is somehow reassuring for me to imagine that in 100 years, people will look back on the prejudices we are currently dealing with and laugh.

Gotta get going, but I hope this helped and looking forward to more conversation on this topic.

 

[Duck]

Thanks Alice.

Here is another question for you all.

Even though you may not "object" to polyamory,
is it something you would vote in favor of,
like homosexual marriage.

Or is there some REASON you would not feel comfortable doing that?

If there is, what is the reason?

Let me start by saying that I am not against legal recognition of poly- relationships.

The only reasons I might hesitate regarding some vote or other regarding poly- relationship recognition are: concern over the past history of specifically polygamy in the US (instances seen where polygamy is illegal have tended to involve insular communities where religious "duty" resulted in underage girls married to much older men as a means of societal control, with unmarried excess males forced out of the community or into roles of servitude). The other reason I might hesitate is over the logistics of the relationships (laws governing child support, dissolution of the relationship, survivors benefits, etc).

Of the two reasons, the only one that is even nearly a legitimate reason to advocate against legalization of poly relationships is the legal logistics of the the relationships. That is a surmountable obstacle, and isn't really a reason to advocate against legalization. The other (past performance) is just a matter of ensuring that all parties involved are actually consenting adults and aware of their choices regarding relationships, so it is just education that is needed.

So, overall, I am in favor of legalization. I am not sure that the rest of the country is ready for legalization of poly relationships, nor am I sure that I would be comfortable in a poly relationship myself, but you never know.

 

[copperblade]

Honestly I have a hard time with legal marriage at all
because I fail to see it's purpose, beyond the "benefits".

I think that's the central point. It's questionable whether the state should currently be endorsing any cultural point of view. There may be a reason to confer similar benefits in different circumstances, but generally speaking I think the term "marriage" should be moved away from in legal terms and allow people to exercise their cultural beliefs freely under that system.

I think this best satisfies the separation between church and state, and acknowledges that you can't make clear delineation between culture and religion.

I'm still open-minded to the question.

 

[brox0rz]

I think that's the central point. It's questionable whether the state should currently be endorsing any cultural point of view. There may be a reason to confer similar benefits in different circumstances, but generally speaking I think the term "marriage" should be moved away from in legal terms and allow people to exercise their cultural beliefs freely under that system.

I think this best satisfies the separation between church and state, and acknowledges that you can't make clear delineation between culture and religion.

I'm still open-minded to the question.

That's a very good point- One that has, for as long as I can remember, been the cause of a huge question mark hovering over my head. It's unfortunate that most of the reason marriage is such a big deal is simply tradition, whether it be religious or cultural(is there really that much of a difference between them anyway?). It's doubly unfortunate that we can all place large bets that it will take a loooonnnnnnng time for another form of government-recognized "family" to catch up with traditional marriage in its current form. The only saving grace about it is that nobody is ever really required to get married, so you DO have the freedom to live however polyamorously you can with as many consenting people that you can muster!

Other people simply have a problem with polyamory because it breaks tradition. I can't speak for other countries but I know people in America love tradition. Good thing there's people out there like us who like to mix things up for everybody!

 

[Witchy<>Woman]

Do you feel that open Polyamory is a threat to something?

No

Do you feel it should be "hidden" from the children?

No

Is it something you feel will somehow hurt society?

No

Will it destroy the family unit?

No

Will it give some "kinds" of families an unfair economic advantage?

No

What is it exactly, that governments and people are afraid of regarding Polyamory?

They are afraid of what they do not know. Anything that is considered "alternative" scares them and their constituents.

 

[Penumbra]

Ok. This thread is for anyone but members whose religions teach AGAINST homosexuality/non-marital sex/adultery/polygamy... etc.
I do NOT want to hear any "religious" viewpoints in this thread.

Pagans, Athiests, Agnostics, Deists, LHPers, Pantheists.....etc....

Sure.

Do you feel that open Polyamory is a threat to something?

Not to me.

Do you feel it should be "hidden" from the children?

No.

Is it something you feel will somehow hurt society?

Not sure. Probably not on any large scale.

Will it destroy the family unit?

Not sure. Probably not on any large scale.

I would question how it works with children. If two people in a group marriage conceive a child, is that their child or the child of the whole married group? Does the child have, say, three moms and two dads? Or do they have one mom and one dad, and several other parental helpers?

Will it give some "kinds" of families an unfair economic advantage?

Not sure.

For the last three questions, it's a matter of introducing a new variable into a complex system. Who knows how it would change things? How much it changes society, either for the better or for the worse, would likely depend on its specific implementation, the number of people that are polyamorous, and the statistics regarding their grouping habits. In other words, if most polyamory relationships consist of, say, two females and one male, that could result in an imbalance. If, on the other hand, most polyamory relationships consist of two males and two females, or three males and three females, or there is a wide spectrum of different parings that balance out to roughly 50/50, then it might not create an imbalance.

Based on the observation that the dating field, which is equivalent to a largely unregulated system (ie not government recognized, but still culturally influenced), is not full of critical imbalances, I don't think it would be any different for polyamory marriages.

Putting aside ALL RELIGIOUS issues...

What is it exactly, that governments and people are afraid of regarding Polyamory?

I just don't get it.

I think for most people it's simply against their tradition.

I don't see any reason to disallow marriage between more than two people. But I don't put much stock in marriage anyway.

 

[Madhuri]

Ok. This thread is for anyone but members whose religions teach AGAINST homosexuality/non-marital sex/adultery/polygamy... etc.
I do NOT want to hear any "religious" viewpoints in this thread.

Pagans, Athiests, Agnostics, Deists, LHPers, Pantheists.....etc....

Do you feel that open Polyamory is a threat to something?

Do you feel it should be "hidden" from the children?

Is it something you feel will somehow hurt society?

Will it destroy the family unit?

Will it give some "kinds" of families an unfair economic advantage?

Putting aside ALL RELIGIOUS issues...
What is it exactly, that governments and people are afraid of regarding Polyamory?

I just don't get it.

I guess for me it comes down to the meaning of marriage. I don't think of marriage in terms of religion to being with. For me it is about finding that one person, a soul mate, so to speak. It's very idealistic and romantic and probably unrealistic.

Polymory in and of itself doesn't bother me too much. People can do what they want. But I can't imagine how it would work with our economic systems. Maybe it could, I just don't know how.
Marriage was also very much an economic and political institution. I don't know how polymory fits into any traditional view of marriage, other than love and sex I guess.

In other words, when you rip apart the purposes from which the institution of marriage came to being, I start to wonder if it's really necessary to care about marriage at all. If I were to participate in a polymory arrangement, I'd probably not bother with marriage.

 

[AfterGlow]

For me, it all comes down to jealousy. Humans are naturally jealous animals, I think that in most cases relationships involving more than two people will involve emotional pain for someone involved due to jealousy at some point.

Something that stuck with me from a documentary I watched on polyamory and "free love" a few years ago was a relationship involving a married couple, but it was an open relationship. While the wife was perfectly comfortable with the arrangement, and the husband said he was comfortable with it, it was clear to us as observers that he was most certainly not comfortable, he even broke down into tears when his wife was not around. But not at one point did he say out loud that he was hurting, and his wife appeared utterly oblivious to his pain.

I don't think polyamory should be illegal or anything, and I'm sure that there are some relationships that work out ok for all involved. But my instinct is telling me that they are happy exceptions, not the rule.

 

[Flankerl]

So? Its obviously the husbands fault that he didnt confront his wife about what he dislikes in the marriage. But thats a problem you find in almost every relationship.


Though it sounds more like an open relationship and not polyamory.

 

[Madhuri]

I've noticed that a lot of the people who support polymory are bisexual. I think it is a really interesting correlation.

 

[AfterGlow]

So? Its obviously the husbands fault that he didnt confront his wife about what he dislikes in the marriage. But thats a problem you find in almost every relationship.

That's quite unsympathetic.
It's nobodys fault, just a result of the situation. He loved his wife, she loved him and the other men involved in the relationship. He didn't want to lose her.

Though it sounds more like an open relationship and not polyamory.

From the wife's point of view it was very much a polyamorous relationship.

 

[doppelganger]

Maybe it's because happy people make terrible consumers.

The "nuclear family" is an unstable and unworkable mythological framework for societies dealing with the economic realities of the modern world.

 

[blackout]

Maybe it's because happy people make terrible consumers.

The "nuclear family" is an unstable and unworkable mythological framework for societies dealing with the economic realities of the modern world.

People would rather have an economic "mine",
and then lose everything
when "mine" becomes unsupportable
by two working adults,
than work together for a cooperative "ours"
in a larger support structure.
(where more "sharing" is "required", for unified success)

I do agree that in today's economic structure
the "nuclear family" is becoming less and less supportable...
on any/every level.

 

[blackout]

People would rather have an economic "mine",
and then lose everything
when "mine" becomes unsupportable
by two working adults,
then work together for a cooperative "ours"
in a larger support structure.

I do agree that in today's economic structure
the "nuclear family" is becoming less and less supportable...
on any/every level.

Although I will also say that
areas of notably high unemployment
may not support even a team effort.

Unemployed adults are unemployed adults.
One, two or ten.

 

[blackout]

... and then there are limits to the number of 'unrelated' adult renters
or "borders"/housemates you can have in a particular home.
(depending on your town ordinances)
Which I do feel is designed to keep people from working together.
It keeps every one in a certain boxed in "nuclear" mindset,
and discourages group efforts for a better life.

 

[blackout]

There certainly seem to be efforts to keep us in our separate little boxes.
(ie houses, apartments, rooms)

It's how the system is designed.

But the question is.... does it really benefit us?