What's Your Opinion of Polyamory?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't mention secular marriages in my OP and you took a flying leap to all those conclusions about my opinions on the topic.

You described marriage as a "religious sacrament" and said that the government shouldn't be involved.

If you didn't mean to imply that marriages like mine shouldn't exist, you're welcome to explain yourself better. However, it's still what your OP implied.

 

[joe1776]

You described marriage as a "religious sacrament" and said that the government shouldn't be involved.

If you didn't mean to imply that marriages like mine shouldn't exist, you're welcome to explain yourself better. However, it's still what your OP implied.

It's not possible to explain anything well enough to prevent all readers from finding fault. This is what I said.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

"Marriage is a religious sacrament." This is a true general statement. Most of the statements people make are true only as a general rule. That means that you had to jump to the conclusion that my statement was meant as an absolute and didn't allow for the exception of secular marriage.

Then, somehow you missed the fact that a liberal mind like mine, willing to accept polyamory, would be unlikely to be narrow-minded enough to oppose secular marriage.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nope. At least here in Brazil, marriage is first and foremost a civil contract, assuring legal rights for the people involved.

That it is often coupled with a religious ceremony that may or may not have significance for the people involved is definitely secondary.

 

[VioletVortex]

I see no problem in it as long as all parties are well informed of the situation. What is however wrong is when one goes and engages in another relationship without their main partner's knowledge.

 

[ChristineM]

...

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

Your opinions?

People (and many animals) have paired/married since long before religion hijacked the idea as theirs.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I'm from a broken home, so I have issues regarding multiple partners. However, it's taken awhile, but I accept that as long as they are consenting adult humans, whatever.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

My opinion is that there's nothing immoral about the arrangement so I wish them luck.

I didn't say anything as to morality. You asked for opinions, and my opinion is that polyamory is a foolish attempt.

Also, marriage is not religious by default. The word that you're looking for there is "Matrimony," though that's only relevant to Christians. Other religions have their own rituals and ceremonies for marriage as well.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm from a broken home, so I have issues regarding multiple partners. However, it's taken awhile, but I accept that as long as they are consenting adult humans, whatever.

Snap!

...and ducks. Consenting adult ducks. I'm not going to shoot Dolly, Daphne, Peaches, Splish and Splash, just 'cos they've got somethin' goin'.

 

[QuestioningMind]

According to Dictionary.com, polyamory is the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.

I have no problem accepting polyamory, even in lifetime partnerships, because I see nothing immoral in an act unless there's harm done to a victim, an innocent person. If the people involved are happy with it, that's fine with me. This is a general rule for me, of course, there will be exceptional cases of immoral acts that derive from any kind of relationship.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

Your opinions?

I agree that as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, people should be able to have whatever living arrangements they desire. As for marriage being a religious sacrament, it can be for some people, but certainly not for all. The government isn't promoting religion by regulating secular marriages.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's not possible to explain anything well enough to prevent all readers from finding fault. This is what I said.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

"Marriage is a religious sacrament." This is a true general statement. Most of the statements people make are true only as a general rule. That means that you had to jump to the conclusion that my statement was meant as an absolute and didn't allow for the exception of secular marriage.

Then, somehow you missed the fact that a liberal mind like mine, willing to accept polyamory, would be unlikely to be narrow-minded enough to oppose secular marriage.

"Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? "

By claiming that the government is promoting religion by regulating marriage you are suggesting that ALL marriages are considered to be a religious sacrament. Since the government is ONLY involved in secular marriage, you're contention that the government is promoting religion is incorrect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's not possible to explain anything well enough to prevent all readers from finding fault. This is what I said.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

"Marriage is a religious sacrament." This is a true general statement. Most of the statements people make are true only as a general rule. That means that you had to jump to the conclusion that my statement was meant as an absolute and didn't allow for the exception of secular marriage.

Then, somehow you missed the fact that a liberal mind like mine, willing to accept polyamory, would be unlikely to be narrow-minded enough to oppose secular marriage.

I have to agree with Penguin. In this time and place, marriage is a legal relationship that confers rights and responsibilities regarding rights and obligations of couples,especially regarding the disposition of children following a divorce, inheritance, the status of the combined assets, and similar legal issues.

My marriage has nothing to do with any religious concept including sacrament, an otherwise meaningless term me like sin and grace (in the religious sense only - both words have irreligious meanings as well that are valid).

 

[David1967]

Acceptable in some cultures. That's their business. For me personally? One woman is
enough.

 

[joe1776]

I have to agree with Penguin. In this time and place, marriage is a legal relationship that confers rights and responsibilities regarding rights and obligations of couples,especially regarding the disposition of children following a divorce, inheritance, the status of the combined assets, and similar legal issues.

You can take care of those legal matters by a prior agreement ( lawyers have forms ready) whether you marry or not and you ought to be able to marry without a license which the state can deny as some are doing with same sex couples.

My marriage has nothing to do with any religious concept including sacrament, an otherwise meaningless term me like sin and grace (in the religious sense only - both words have irreligious meanings as well that are valid).

So, your marriage is not a religious sacrament. Therefore it's an exception to my general statement that marriage is a religious sacrament.

Marriage began as a Christian sacrament here if not sooner: The fifth-century Council of Florence declared, “The seventh sacrament is marriage, which is a figure of the union of Christ and the church.”
What is the history of marriage?

Recently, Pope Francis congratulated a woman for her courage. She was the clerk who, despite a court order, refused to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

My position is that the state shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. Let the religious groups work out the rules with their parishioners. Why should people who want a secular marriage need the state's approval for a license?

 

[Kenny]

According to Dictionary.com, polyamory is the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.

I have no problem accepting polyamory, even in lifetime partnerships, because I see nothing immoral in an act unless there's harm done to a victim, an innocent person. If the people involved are happy with it, that's fine with me. This is a general rule for me, of course, there will be exceptional cases of immoral acts that derive from any kind of relationship.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

Your opinions?

It's gone on since after the lives of Adam and Eve.

I'm sure THAT'S a hot potato.

But original intent was one man and one woman and is probably why government gave them special rights. IMO

 

[Deidre]

I'm married now, but no lie, polyamory sounds intriguing. I don't know how it might play out in practice as there might be emotions of jealousy and such to contend with, depending on how deep people's feelings go, but...it is definitely curious in theory.

 

[joe1776]

Nope. At least here in Brazil, marriage is first and foremost a civil contract, assuring legal rights for the people involved.

That it is often coupled with a religious ceremony that may or may not have significance for the people involved is definitely secondary.

People can enter into legal agreements without a ceremony. Is there a ceremony involved if Brazilians don't want a church ceremony?

 

[joe1776]

"Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? "

By claiming that the government is promoting religion by regulating marriage you are suggesting that ALL marriages are considered to be a religious sacrament. Since the government is ONLY involved in secular marriage, you're contention that the government is promoting religion is incorrect.

As I explained in other posts, I was not suggesting that ALL marriages are religious sacraments. I made a general statement, one which allows for exceptions.

In the USA, I think most, if not all, states are involved in the licensing all marriages although a minister can sign the license in most. The laws do vary so I'm not certain.

 

[LuisDantas]

People can enter into legal agreements without a ceremony. Is there a ceremony involved if Brazilians don't want a church ceremony?

As should be clear, that is the celebrant's choice to make.

Is it so different in the USA? I thought not. Isn't there even a government-issued marriage license there?

 

[Ponder This]

According to Dictionary.com, polyamory is the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.

I have no problem accepting polyamory, even in lifetime partnerships, because I see nothing immoral in an act unless there's harm done to a victim, an innocent person. If the people involved are happy with it, that's fine with me. This is a general rule for me, of course, there will be exceptional cases of immoral acts that derive from any kind of relationship.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

Your opinions?

The government exists to protect the Life, Liberty, and Happiness of its people.

As such, the government is not necessarily concerned with the 'morality' of actions. For example, the government may declare War. This does not automatically make war a moral action. The government is inclined to follow the Will of the People it governs. Those things that are in the best interests of its people are not necessarily moral things.

Anytime the government considers getting involved, it has to consider its duty to protect the Life, Liberty, and Happiness of its people.

If marriage is a religious sacrament, that does not mean that the government should not be involved.
The government shouldn't make laws establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof.

Marriage has implications.
Who owns the house?
To whom do the children belong?
What about the grandmothers and grandfathers, the aunts and uncles?
This formalized relationship affects everyone.
You cannot simply say, "We don't care about the world, so why should the world care about us?"
It doesn't work that way. There are other lives at stake besides your own.

What if those involved just want the sex and don't care about marriage?
You think this is just about you? What if someone gets pregnant?
It's such a self-centered, ignorant view to think your actions don't affect others.

The morality of polyamory is irrelevant really. The religious significance of those relationships is equally inconsequential. The only real question is what are the rights of the people and how is the government protecting (or not protecting) those rights.

The question is not "Are these actions moral?"
The question is not, "Does marriage hold some religious significance?"

If someone wanted to revive the Aztec human sacrifice, the government shouldn't be stumbling over itself about not interfering because it's a 'religious' ceremony. It should be getting involved and protecting people's Lives. Freedom of Religion is not freedom to destroy the lives of others. That's not how this works...

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm personally against it and believe in monogamy as the ideal.