Plural marriages

[quatona]

That is an oxymoron.

How so?

 

[BlackSabb]

How so?

How do you think? "Committed" means dedicated, giving of yourself to another person, not persons, (plural). As soon as you're in some sort of threesome arrangement, whether it's casual or permanent, (marriage), you're not "committed" to one person anymore.

And this gets back to my argument I've used before. That all you people engaging in your unorthodox lifestyles want to use traditional terms for your relationships, but distort the meaning of it completely. Eg, homosexual relationships where the men and women ridiculously use the terms "husband" and "wife", but are no way a husband or wife. As I said before, by implication when you say "husband", you imply it's counterpart "wife". This implies male and female, not 2 males or 2 females.

Another example that I've mentioned is "family". Again, gays love this term but it does not implicate homosexual relationships involving children. That is not a family.

Committed is another good example. Alternate lifestylers love to copy this traditional lifestyle term. But in it's original sense, committed means dedicated to one other person. Not more than one.

Like I said, you want to have your cakes and eat them too. You want the credibility and respectablity of such traditionally accepted concepts such as "family", "husband" , "wife", "committed" etc. But then you want to show contempt for the true meanings of these terms and distort them to your own alternatives. Having the best of both words is what you're doing. And you are hijacking traditional concepts.

But you know my position on all of this.

 

[quatona]

How do you think? "Committed" means dedicated, giving of yourself to another person, not persons, (plural).

"Committed" means a lot of things. I don´t think you can establish the idea that something is an oxymoron based on a very special meaning of a word.
Of course, you are perfectly entitled to create your own ideas as to what you find a necessary prerequisite for being "committed".

As soon as you're in some sort of threesome arrangement, whether it's casual or permanent, (marriage), you're not "committed" to one person anymore.

I doubt that exclusivity is a necessary trait of being committed, by any common definition of the word.

Here´s what the dictionary says ("committed" wasn´t in it, so I had to go with "commit" and "commitment":

Main Entry:com·mit·ment Pronunciation: \k&#601;-&#712;mit-m&#601;nt\ Function:noun Date:1603 1 a: an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1): a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2): an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee b: mittimus2 a: an agreement or pledge to do something in the future ; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date b: something pledged c: the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled <a commitment to a cause>

Main Entry:com·mit Pronunciation: \k&#601;-&#712;mit\ Function:verb Inflected Form(s):com·mit·ted; com·mit·tingEtymology:Middle English committen, from Anglo-French committer, from Latin committere to connect, entrust, from com- + mittere to sendDate:14th century transitive verb1 a: to put into charge or trust : entrust b: to place in a prison or mental institution c: to consign or record for preservation <commit it to memory> d: to put into a place for disposal or safekeeping e: to refer (as a legislative bill) to a committee for consideration and report2: to carry into action deliberately : perpetrate <commit a crime>3 a: obligate , bind <a contract committing the company to complete the project on time> b: to pledge or assign to some particular course or use <commit all troops to the attack> c: to reveal the views of <refused to commit himself on the issue>intransitive verb1obsolete : to perpetrate an offense2: to obligate or pledge oneself
— com·mit·ta·ble \-&#712;mi-t&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective

(source: Merriam Webster Online)

I fail to see anything in these multiple definitions that substantiates the idea that you can be committed only to one person/thing.

 

[cantata]

How do you think? "Committed" means dedicated, giving of yourself to another person, not persons, (plural). As soon as you're in some sort of threesome arrangement, whether it's casual or permanent, (marriage), you're not "committed" to one person anymore.

Do you fail to be committed to your spouse because you have friends?

What nonsense. Commitment is dedication to the ongoing success of a relationship. It need have nothing to do with sexual or any other kind of exclusivity.

 

[BlackSabb]

Do you fail to be committed to your spouse because you have friends?

What nonsense. Commitment is dedication to the ongoing success of a relationship. It need have nothing to do with sexual or any other kind of exclusivity.

No, the only nonsense is your suggestion! Do I fail to be committed to my spouse if I have friends? Well yes, if I'm having sex with my friends!!! Good grief cantata, get with the program here. This thread is about plural marriages, okay? Please stick to the thread, not deviating from it. We're talking about marriages and by implication, sexaul relationships. Please don't weave in and out of this thread drifting from marriage/sexual relationships to non sexual friendship relationships.

Stick to the issue of this thread. I did, you didn't. So I'm not the one talking nonsense.

 

[quatona]

No, the only nonsense is your suggestion! Do I fail to be committed to my spouse if I have friends? Well yes, if I'm having sex with my friends!!!

I don´t think so. Can you make an attempt at an argument that might convince me - other than merely fitting the definition of "committed" to your purposes?

 

[cantata]

No, the only nonsense is your suggestion! Do I fail to be committed to my spouse if I have friends? Well yes, if I'm having sex with my friends!!! Good grief cantata, get with the program here. This thread is about plural marriages, okay? Please stick to the thread, not deviating from it. We're talking about marriages and by implication, sexaul relationships. Please don't weave in and out of this thread drifting from marriage/sexual relationships to non sexual friendship relationships.

Stick to the issue of this thread. I did, you didn't. So I'm not the one talking nonsense.

I did stick to the issue of this thread. I was trying to ascertain what aspect it was of a plural marriage that you considered to be a failure of commitment. Apparently, it is sex.

Why is going to the cinema with your friends not a breach of your commitment, while having sex with them is? It's a serious question. Why is sex the sole deal-breaker? And why should it be a deal-breaker?

Where I come from, "commitment" doesn't mean "not having sex with anyone else" except where that is in the terms of the individual persons' relationship with one another. Since "commitment" doesn't apply solely to romantic relationships, sexual exclusivity is clearly not a requirement for "commitment". For example, I am deeply committed to my friendship with my best childhood friend, but my commitment to that relationship does not even involve sex, let alone sexual exclusivity. My parents are deeply committed to their relationship with me, but again, surprisingly enough, that commitment has nothing to do with sex.

You may feel that in your romantic relationships, you prefer that sexual exclusivity is a term of your commitment. I do not share your preference.

 

[BlackSabb]

I don´t think so. Can you make an attempt at an argument that might convince me - other than merely fitting the definition of "committed" to your purposes?

The term "committment" implies a single mindedness of purpose. Let's say for eg, someone is "committed" in a professional pursuit of wanting to be a doctor. And to support themselves at university they are stocking supermarket shelves at night. Well, here are 2 jobs. One of those jobs is that which the person really wants to do for the rest of their lives. The other is a temporary job to help pay the way during study. One job commands a person's attention and desires, and the other one the person just does with no passion. He does it for the money only.

In marriage, committment has always been traditionally understood as one partner towards another partner-singular.

 

[BlackSabb]

And let me ask you something. Imagine for a moment that you invited me to a huge party of yours, filled with gays, bi's and lesbians. You ask me over to get to know some of your friends, and for me to get to know some homosexual people for myself, so that I can meet and mingle with them in the hope of dispersing some stereotypes and resentments.

And I go to your party. And I go around with all your gay friends calling myself "gay" and "queer". But in my mind, I am only "gay" because I'm an easy going, happy kind of gay. And I'm only "queer" because I'm one of those few guys that loves cats and would rather go to the movies than go camping. And all through the night, I'm using the "gay" and "queer" labels amongst your homosexual friends.

Would you like it? Would you like the fact that I take commonly accepted terms that have a specific meaning and lie and distort them to give myself an air of respectability amongst your homosexual friends?

Well that is what you do when you engage in highly unorthodox lifestyles and call yourselves, "family", "husband", "wife", "committed" etc.

 

[cantata]

And let me ask you something. Imagine for a moment that you invited me to a huge party of yours, filled with gays, bi's and lesbians. You ask me over to get to know some of your friends, and for me to get to know some homosexual people for myself, so that I can meet and mingle with them in the hope of dispersing some stereotypes and resentments.

And I go to your party. And I go around with all your gay friends calling myself "gay" and "queer". But in my mind, I am only "gay" because I'm an easy going, happy kind of gay. And I'm only "queer" because I'm one of those few guys that loves cats and would rather go to the movies than go camping. And all through the night, I'm using the "gay" and "queer" labels amongst your homosexual friends.

Would you like it? Would you like the fact that I take commonly accepted terms that have a specific meaning and lie and distort them to give myself an air of respectability amongst your homosexual friends?

Most non-heterosexual people I know would not mind in the slightest. I for one am not possessive about the words I use to describe myself. I don't mind what language you use to describe yourself.

Well that is what you do when you engage in highly unorthodox lifestyles and call yourselves, "family", "husband", "wife", "committed" etc.

I disagree.

The difference is that the words "family", "husband", "wife", and "committed" are the only words we have which come close to describing some of the new and exciting relationship models that are emerging today. What is the name for someone to whom you are legally conjoined? Your spouse; your husband or wife. What is the name for people in a committed relationship and the children they are raising? A family. What is the name for dedication to insuring the ongoing success of your relationship with someone? Commitment. We (I am using "we" to denote, for the moment, anyone who rejects heteronormative relationship models, including same-sex couples, polyamorous people and groups, &c.) use these words because we want to highlight what is important about our relationships, the essence of them: our love and respect for one another, our loyalty, our closeness, and, where applicable, our commitment to the raising of our children.

What would you have us do?

 

[quatona]

The term "committment" implies a single mindedness of purpose.

All it implies is a certain degree of intensity in pursuing a purpose. Like so many concepts it isn´t an on/off thing, but a matter of gradation. It doesn´t exclude the possibility that you are committed to two different purposes at the same time, and it doesn´t exclude the possibility that you are doing different things in order to pursue the same purpose you are committed to.

Let's say for eg, someone is "committed" in a professional pursuit of wanting to be a doctor. And to support themselves at university they are stocking supermarket shelves at night. Well, here are 2 jobs. One of those jobs is that which the person really wants to do for the rest of their lives. The other is a temporary job to help pay the way during study. One job commands a person's attention and desires, and the other one the person just does with no passion. He does it for the money only.

That´s a fine example for two things, one of which the person is committed to, and the other he´s not.
However, that people do things without commitment (or merely as a means in pursuing a purpose) is undisputed. This example doesn´t make a case for your assertion that committment necessarily comes with exclusivity.
(And please don´t criticize me for bringing up examples that don´t have to do with marriage and sex, as you did with cantata. It was you who brought this up for an example ).
Peronally, e.g. I am committed to playing guitar, to teaching, and to studying, with none of them being a means to the end of the other.

In marriage, committment has always been traditionally understood as one partner towards another partner-singular.

No, it hasn´t. But even if it would have had, a traditional modal equation does not an argument make. If tradition would be an argument, change would be excluded.

I don´t understand committment to be coming with exclusivity, neither in the general definition nor in my idea of relationships. I am committed to a person as long as we spend time together, and if we don´t interact there´s no way to be committed to him/her or our relationship.
I go to the movies with different friends, I go to the theatre, I do sports with them, I have meals with them, I have confidential conversations with them - without losing my commitment. Singling out exclusive sex as the hallmark of committment means establishing jealousy as a virtue, imo. Everyone is free to define commitment in this way, but I don´t, and your personal modal equations don´t make my use of the word an "oxymoron".

 

[quatona]

And let me ask you something. Imagine for a moment that you invited me to a huge party of yours, filled with gays, bi's and lesbians. You ask me over to get to know some of your friends, and for me to get to know some homosexual people for myself, so that I can meet and mingle with them in the hope of dispersing some stereotypes and resentments.

And I go to your party. And I go around with all your gay friends calling myself "gay" and "queer". But in my mind, I am only "gay" because I'm an easy going, happy kind of gay. And I'm only "queer" because I'm one of those few guys that loves cats and would rather go to the movies than go camping. And all through the night, I'm using the "gay" and "queer" labels amongst your homosexual friends.

Would you like it? Would you like the fact that I take commonly accepted terms that have a specific meaning and lie and distort them to give myself an air of respectability amongst your homosexual friends?

Sorry, but I fail to see any relevance of this question.

Well that is what you do when you engage in highly unorthodox lifestyles and call yourselves, "family", "husband", "wife", "committed" etc.

Except that I am providing the way I use these words along with their use.
When making the statement that I can be committed to a person and partnership while having sex with more than one person, I don´t leave you in the erroneous assumption that I am talking about your idea of sexual exclusivity. So please have the courteousy of not comparing me to someone intentionally misleading others when I am not.

 

[MarcusHill]

I don't see why a "marriage" shouldn't consist of a group of any number* of adults all of whom make a commitment to the other members of the group, and all of whom need to agree for another person to be added to the group. This covers models of polygyny, polyandry and polyamoury, leaving out only the complex "web" model which would be difficult to integrate into the laws on taxation, inheritance and so on.

The exact nature of the "commitment" is up to the people involved, it need only have the legal minimum content of the financial and legal rights and obligations which are included in current monogamous marriage contracts.

(*For fellow mathematicians: any integer number greater than or equal to two)

 

[wanderingone]

That is an oxymoron.

Umm.. no

I or we may be committed - what I or we are committed to may be a single or plural number of things.

 

[wanderingone]

How do you think? "Committed" means dedicated, giving of yourself to another person, not persons, (plural). As soon as you're in some sort of threesome arrangement, whether it's casual or permanent, (marriage), you're not "committed" to one person anymore.

So you can only commit yourself as a parent to one child?

And this gets back to my argument I've used before. That all you people engaging in your unorthodox lifestyles want to use traditional terms for your relationships, but distort the meaning of it completely. Eg, homosexual relationships where the men and women ridiculously use the terms "husband" and "wife", but are no way a husband or wife. As I said before, by implication when you say "husband", you imply it's counterpart "wife". This implies male and female, not 2 males or 2 females.

What does this have to do with the OP and polygamy? What is implied by a word often depends entirely on context. Language is a rather living thing, your morning toast in certain eras would have nothing to do with what pops up from your toaster now. I am married to my husband, he's male, I'm female, guess that's um.. "traditional" ... except for those people who are offended by "interracial" families (and unfortuantely far too often we encounter folks who find the differences in our complexions unnerving)

My cousin is married since he is male and his partner is male they are both "husband" no reason to make up a new name for a word that is clearly understood. If he says "partner" most people understand that this is his romantic partner but some people are left wondering if that's really what he means.. after all it could be his business partner, no? They are legally married - that's what the license and marriage certificate say so you don't get to change the words that apply to their situation just because you can't handle the idea of words being used to apply to people who aren't like you that also may be applied to you.

Another example that I've mentioned is "family". Again, gays love this term but it does not implicate homosexual relationships involving children. That is not a family.

Family is whatever your family is. People who are gay have families just like you do.

Committed is another good example. Alternate lifestylers love to copy this
traditional lifestyle term. But in it's original sense, committed means dedicated to one other person. Not more than one.

Umm no.. you're just wrong on what committed means.

Like I said, you want to have your cakes and eat them too. You want the credibility and respectablity of such traditionally accepted concepts such as "family", "husband" , "wife", "committed" etc. But then you want to show contempt for the true meanings of these terms and distort them to your own alternatives. Having the best of both words is what you're doing. And you are hijacking traditional concepts.

The only time my "traditional" marriage felt hijacked was when my husband and I divorced... and nobody else's "alternative" marriage caused that.

But you know my position on all of this.

uh-huh

but what's that all got to do with the OP?

 

[mpok1519]

what does it matter?

Marriage isn't exactly sacred, or even needed. Whats the point of buying a ring if everyones just gonna have one giant sexy party anyway! =)