Polygamy

[Mling]

Thank you for toning down your end of the conversation, and being more neutral in how you word your questions. I'll try to reciprocate. I would like to keep talking this, at least to the degree of untangling our misunderstandings so we get what the other's points are. Whether it's worth discussing past that point, we shall see.

For the sake of making important points first, I'm going to gut and rearrange your post a little bit. Hope you don't mind.

Considering what I think polgamy is...you're not talking about polygamy.

We're discussing a gray-area topic. I can't discuss true polygamy, per se, because marriage is an inherently legal relationship, and multiple marriage isn't legal. In effect, it doesn't exist here. But we're talking about what those relationships would look like, if they existed. So, I've been describing the types of relationships that do exist currently (polyamory) which would be likely to become polygamous if it were legalized ie: the people are already living in a poly sort of way, and would likely get married if they could.

At the moment, people who live that way don't usually use the word "polygamy" because of its religious overtones, but if polygamy was legalized and they took advantage of it, they'd at least meet the definition, and may well start using the word.

The "you" meant you specifically, Mling. It was not a general "you."

Ahh, there's the problem. It should have been general. I don't ask to have any more privileges than I'd want everybody else to have.

1) You want the freedom to do what you want with a consenting adult.

It would probably be best as: "I believe that all people have the right to live their life as they want, assuming that everybody involved consents, unless there is a specific reason to decide that that freedom should be restricted."

You mention drugs later, but it's a good example of what a reasonable restriction might be, so I'll address it now. Addiction can violate a person's own consent, even to themself. Addiction alters a person's mental state, so that they are very likely to continue doing something that they've decided they don't want to do. Unfortunately, some addictive things can't be legally controlled--like self-harm-- but other things can be, and because they have that power to hijack a person's brain and override their desires and ability to consent, I think they should be.

It seems that you always express the intervention of others in this way - that they can't do anything unless they "assault" you. Do you really see it that way? Is there someone to whom you are not "married" that has influence over you?...Someone who, if they said, "I disapprove of that," you would think twice just because you respect them, not because you feel put upon?

This is part of the point that we volleyed back and forth without resolving for so long.

There are plenty of people who could influence me. Strangers could influence me. If somebody came up to me, say on a bus or the street, and said, "excuse me, could you please stop that infernal whistling?" I would apologize for annoying them, stop, and try to get away from them. Cuz darn it, my whistling is a tic, and I can only stop for so long--but then, I don't know if they have any disorders of their own, say, a sensory integration problem that makes the whistling particularly brain-paralyzing, and I wouldn't want to inflict that on somebody else if I could avoid it.

When people close to me tell me, "I think what you're doing is harmful," or "I think this would be really good for you," or some other such thing, I listen, and take it under advisement. When somebody says, "what you're doing right now is a deal-breaker for me. If you don't stop and do this instead, I'm going to have to leave you," I take into consideration how much I value what I'm dong, what they're proposing instead, and how much I value the relationship, then decide how to proceed from there. I've received this kind of "choose now: this, or me" ultimatum twice. The first time, I gave up the friendship because what she was demanding was something utterly unreasonable, and a friend who would ask that is not a friend worth serving that way; the second time, I took the advice, which was, generally, that I take health-care measures that I'd been trying to avoid, because what I had been doing just wasn't working, and my not being a very functional person was placing more stress on a partner than they could handle. I am inordinately grateful that they found the guts to say that, because admitting my current strategy wasn't working and doing the new thing has improved both my life, and our relationship.

But none of those things are people "placing limitations" on me, or interfering with my life. Those are examples of people expressing opinions or asserting their own boundaries, which they have every right to do. Ultimately, I am free to take or leave the advice. I'm even free to take or leave the relationship, and so are they. The final decision about what I want in my life is still mine, and what they want, is still theirs.

The only way somebody could actually limit me, is by taking away my ability to make that decision. To use the drug example again--that wouldn't mean saying, "I don't want you to use drugs," or "I will cut off contact with you if you use drugs," (which are perfectly reasonable opinions and personal boundaries that I would consider when making the decision), it would mean putting their hand on mine and physically preventing me; beating me up before I can get to them; locking me someplace so I can't get to them, etc.

Or, if physical assault isn't their style and they were willing to take a round-about route to limiting me, the other tactic they could use would be to propose a law that bans the behavior they find offensive, and then the police and a jail cell would do their dirty work for them.

So, my references to assaults etc. aren't because I think nobody has a right to influence me--it's because I think anybody who has any kind of relationship with me (romantic, familial, platonic, whatever) is well within their rights to express their own boundaries and preferences, and I don't interpret that as a "limitation." Abiding by those boundaries and preferences isn't an imposition--it's an opportunity to improve the relationship.

When we're talking about people interfering/limiting my life, we're talking about people who've overstepped those bounds and aren't acting within their rights anymore--or are commissioning the government to do so for them.

OK, so you won't set other people's idea of "marriage." What is your idea?

"Marriage" is whatever the law says it is, because it's a legal relationship. That's why it's difficult to pin down a definition--it varies by culture and time, and amounts to "it is whatever it is." I've added in shades of my own opinions--like if people don't identify as "married," but use some other term, I'd respect that-- but for the most part, I just don't see the definition of marriage as a subjective, personal thing that I could have my own opinion on. It's defined by whatever the law says.

My boundaries for polyamory are something different. I'm not sure, though, whether you mean, "my definition for types of relationships which I'd consider polyamorous" or "my personal boundaries in the types of relationships I would have."

If the former, the only restriction I can think of is that everybody involved freely agrees--without coersion-- that they are not monogamous.

what is the difference between a guy who is your friend and one whom you consider part of your poly relationship?

That, admittedly, can be fuzzy, especially for people who are more free with sex than I am (meaning--they might be having sex with people who they don't consider to be romantic partners).

I can't think of any rule of thumb that would be applicable to everybody. Many people wouldn't want to make such divisions at all, and would be content with defining relationships by their individual quirks, and not splitting people into "romantic" and "not."

For me, it's always been self-evident by the obvious, gaping chasm of commitment levels between "the person I live with and am likely going to marry," and "the friends I occasionally play sexy games with."

For others, it would be a closer call. It's a case-by-case thing.

Are there relationships that make you uncomfortable? I think you said you were against adult/child, but if it's not about sex, why would an adult/child marriage be wrong?

Because most cultures assume that marriage will either be life-long or at least long-term, and it locks the child into such a relationship before they're old enough to consent to it. I suppose if, for example, a culture used sexless adult/child marriage as an equivalent of adoption--child's parents dies, so somebody else marries the child, cares for them, and then they "divorce" when the child grows up-- I'd be fine with that, but I've never heard of such a thing.

What about incestuous ones (for adults)?

Skeeves me out. Don't think it should be illegal if it's initiated in adulthood, though I wouldn't trust the consent of one that began during childhood and continued into adulthood. Childhood intimidation and coercion can last into adulthood.

Sadistic/masochistic?

Actively support, so long as it's consensual and done with awareness of risks and reasonable care for physical and emotional safety.

Beastiality?

Skeeves me out. Uncertain about my position, legally. It's hard to make an argument from consent when I think that killing them for food is ok.

Hitting the character limit and sick of editing. Splitting the post up.

 

[Mling]

Plus, you previously rejected an example that someone did provide because you were saying that studies on polygamous societies do not apply to single polyamory relationships... One can always slice a situation so thin that it goes the way one wants.

Well...evidence needs to actually be relevant to be useful, and what we're talking about is small pockets of plural relationships in a broader social context that promotes monogamy. This is a very different thing than a culture which promotes polygamy. I understand the problem that there is very little research into the specific thing we're talking about, but that lack of research isn't an excuse for pulling up studies into vastly different things and ignoring the differences. That would be like looking at a person with numbness in their legs, and saying, "Well, I couldn't find any info on what to do about numbness, but I did find these instructions on how to handle amputation. That's close enough, right?"

So, the impression I get is that (even though you've used the word "legal" a few times), what you're describing doesn't really involve legal, financial, political, or business aspects. It is just an "open relationship."

Each time I ask if you would set some legal bounds, it seems you say yes. Then when I ask for details, I feel that you answer, "I don't make those decisions for other people."...

This is related to what I said at the very beginning. That I'm talking about what the proto-polygamous relationships look like--the relationships that, if polygamy were to become legal, would be most likely to become polygamous. (Though, I've been leaving out the most obvious group: people who already identify as polygamous, like Fundamentalist Mormons. That's because I have no direct knowledge of how these relationships work, and there is evidence that there is coercion in some of them that makes me hesitant to support them.)

The major point I've been trying to make through all of this isn't, "Yes, we ought to be supporting legalized polygamy--let's go and do it!" It's been, "these relationships are not more inherently dangerous than any other kind of relationship (like monogamous marriage), and there is no evidence that they would cause social problems--as evidenced by the fact that these polyamorous relationships are the ones which would be most likely to be legally recognized, and they don't cause the problems that people are claiming polygamous relationships would.

Given that I'm not actively trying to promote legalized polygamy--just making the case that it's not as scary as people think it is-- I don't think the burden falls to me to figure out all the nitty gritty details of how insurance companies and the IRS would deal with it. Also, I am grossly unqualified to do so.

I'm not sure what I have said that you've interpreted as me supporting legal restrictions for it. I think that restrictions on who is allowed to be polygamous would be unjust--just as restricting what types of people are allowed to have monogamous marriages would be unjust-- and would be unnecessary anyway, since there's no evidence that many people would want to form polygamous relationships.

So, given that we're not talking about polygamy, but polyamory, I could cite information that shows its problems. But to be honest, due to the poisoned nature of our conversation mentioned earlier, I don't know that we could easily discuss it.

Closing the book on open marriage - Guest Voices - The Washington Post

That's not any kind of scientific study--it's one person's opinion, and not a well-supported one, at that. Most of the problems they mention are just risks associated with sex (pregnancy, STD's). Those don't change, whether you're married, polyamorous, serially monogamous or utterly random. The levels of risk go up and down, but it's not like one type of relationship has unique risks. And those can be managed and minimized, if not completely eradicated.

Number 3: "People often do not realize what they are really consenting to when it comes to open marriage" is just blatantly insulting. It's based on the mindset of "Oh you poor dear. You think you know yourself, but I know better, so just let me make decisions for you and don't you worry your pretty little head about your own life."

The one about child abuse pretends to be cited, but that just links to a report on child abuse in general, and has nothing to say about what they're talking about. Unfounded accusation based on the assumption that people in open relationships are uniquely unconcerned about the welfare of their children. Any problems that could arise from irresponsible open marriage/polygamy/polyamory would also arise from a single parent who was irresponsibly serially monogamous, or a married couple with one parent (or both) irresponsibly cheating, or irresponsibly bringing over drinking buddies...or any other situation where the parents are bringing people into the children's lives without vetting them first. That's not a problem of polyamory/polygamy--that's a problem of parents not being responsible with who they introduce to their kids.

Also, it seems to conflate infidelity with open marriage.

Can they expect benefits for what is against current laws? Should they continue in civil disobedience forever, even if they never win? Should they leave?

Depends what they're unhappy about and what they're doing. I've been trying to write a response but really...it would depend so heavily on what they object to and what they're doing about it. Acquiescing would be fine...bombing buildings wouldn't. Certainly, if people aren't doing anything that's outright harmful, it's fine by me if they want to protest for ever. They're welcome to leave the country if they like, too. I dunno...nobody's elected me the judge of how everybody ought to protest everything, so I haven't written out a manifesto.

As for whether they should expect benefits for things that are against the law...logic dictates it wouldn't be wise, but sometimes, depending on the law, a personal sense of justice suggests that they ought to be able to expect protection for something that the law says they can't.

I understand (I think) your view of "personal choice." But how far does that go? Doing meth could be claimed as a personal choice. But as soon as they start a house fire that spreads into the neighborhood it's no longer personal.

See my thing about drugs at the beginning. Addiction violates consent, because the person loses the option of saying "no." Producing addictive drugs is an obvious danger to society.

You may think relationships are a personal choice...(bad situation with poly)

The problem is that a similar equation exists for every individual a person knows. A similar thing happened to me-- my neighbor threw a party and somebody stabbed somebody else there. Nobody was married--it was just a function of how many people where there and what types of people they were.

I also had neighbors when I lived alone in an apartment who fought constantly, one threw knives in the parking lot, and a friend of their's once broke into my apartment while I was there and robbed me. Nobody was married there, either.

The problem is that you're treating this as if it's a matter of the relationships, and not of the people.

People who can't solve problems without violence, or turn to violence by choice because they like it, pose a danger to society no matter what kinds of relationships they form. People who can communicate in productive, non-violent ways pose no such danger, no matter what kinds of relationships they form.

If you want to protect society from problems like this, you'd be better off encouraging education for non-violent communication, than just trying to keep too many people from forming relationships.

Actuarial science shows that a married man and woman are a lower risk. As such, I pay lower insurance rates. It also shows teenage drivers to be a very high risk. As such, I pay higher rates for that.

People who have healthy marriages with supportive communication are charged the same rate (on the marriage front, at least) as people who have high-stress marriages spotted with the occasional knife-fight. I think there is a problem with averaging them together and treating them as if they experience the same amount of marriage-based risk.

There is no reasonable way to judge an individual's level of risk by assuming that they're a homunculus built out of the averages of all other people somewhat similar to them. If that doesn't worry you--say, if "you" is a corporation that doesn't really care about individuals-- then there is certainly profit in charging everybody who engages in [x risky activity] more. But if you're an individual with individual financial needs and experiences, then it's not exactly just to devote yourself carefully to learning about the risks and safety measures of something you're doing, and then be punished because your neighbor did something stupid.

There are certainly risks I am taking that I would be fine paying for. Archery--somewhat risky. No matter how many security measures I take, other people can do stupid things that hurt me, and accidents can definitely happen. I've accepted that level of risk, so I'd pay for it. I'm not going to be happy about paying more because somebody averaged together "woman enjoys movie night with her husband and his girlfriend," with "woman finds her husband cheating on her and shoots both of them," and decides that there's a 50/50 chance of me shooting somebody. (I do understand that it's a bit more complicated than that).

I'm sure there are people who don't like it. I don't happen to be one of those people. If you want to challenge actuarial science, then let's have that discussion. Otherwise, I don't see the point.

I'd rather not have that conversation, really. It's not entirely irrelevant, but it's serious tangent.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would like to keep talking this, at least to the degree of untangling our misunderstandings so we get what the other's points are. Whether it's worth discussing past that point, we shall see.

I'm not sure there is much more to say.

That's not any kind of scientific study--it's one person's opinion, and not a well-supported one, at that.

I'm not surprised you would say that. The link itself is only the starting point. It was a pop piece written for a public that often has a very short attention span and little desire to research the nitty gritty. If you follow some of the links and dig deeper, there is more.

And I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but for all the statements you've made, they don't seem to be much more than your opinon. Even if the research I've quoted is new and incomplete, at least it's something.

People who have healthy marriages with supportive communication are charged the same rate (on the marriage front, at least) as people who have high-stress marriages spotted with the occasional knife-fight. I think there is a problem with averaging them together and treating them as if they experience the same amount of marriage-based risk.

I think you're missing several things here - first of all how insurance works. Until some of the recent health care laws (and it remains to be seen if those laws will stand), no one was required to have insurance. You might think of how some states require a minimum liability for cars, but even that is not strictly mandatory. If you choose not to drive a car, you don't have to carry the insurance.

Insurance is an agreement amongst a group of people to share risk. It doesn't make sense to say, "I should pay less because I've never had cancer." That's not the point. The point is that treating cancer is expensive, and it would be difficult if everyone tried to keep enough cash on hand just in case they got cancer. So, everyone pools their money together. The idea is that you're willing to pay in a little at a time to avoid paying a huge hospital bill if you're the unlucky one who gets cancer. Yeah, if you never get cancer then you paid too much. But you didn't know that before hand, so you pay a little now to hedge your bet against the future.

The insurance company wants to make money. If they tried to analyze every person for their "personal" situation, it would cost too much. People would be better off not buying insurance, and holding a big wad of cash for a rainy day.

But what insurance companies can do is encourage safe behavior. The rate of cancer is lower among non-smokers. So, they try to encourage good behavior by offering a lower rate. If it works, you pay less and the company makes more money.

If you think you lead a charmed life - that you can beat the statistics - then don't buy insurance. It's a common mindset among the young. If you're confident that you can read your partners and that violence won't be an issue - that they'll be upfront about who they're sleeping with so that disease isn't an issue - then roll the dice and don't buy insurance. But it is interesting to note that those who have lived a longer life become more conservative.

You won't like this comment, so get ready. You've said it's not about sex. Maybe. But at the very least it seems everything you've described about these open relationships involves at least flirting and romance - that sexy edge you mentioned. I still think that flirting and romance plays a dangerous game with people's expectations - especially when it's a new partner that you don't yet know well. Also, I see that you list your age as 28 - and you are apparently attractive enough to get the attention of all these guys. The population of men who would be interested in an attractive, 28-year-old woman is quite large. Give it 10 to 20 years and see if you don't notice a change in how many men are interested in having an open relationship with you ... and if no one has made a long term commitment with you, I bet it will start to feel a little lonely as the circle shrinks.

Second, you still give out a conflicted message about "marriage." At the very least I wouldn't call what you talk about polygamy unless there was a pre-nup contract of some kind - something you could take to court. As such, the whole thing about "needs" is pretty useless. The contract would need to be stated in terms the law recognizes: property, income, tasks, etc. Even then, if marriage simply became lawyer heaven where everyone is making pre-nups and not actually obtaining a marriage license, then marriage is no different than making an agreement with your plumber.

Currently, that is not the case. Currently, marriage is a very specific type of contract. Getting a license means you have agreed to that special contract - not an individualized one. You are right that over time the parts included in that contract have been chipped away, and soon we may not have much left. In fact, it actually seems you are trying to further chip away at the narrow definition rather than add to it (yes, I realize you've said you're not advocating for any specific rendering of polygamy, but I base that on what you have said about personal choice). That's why I wonder why gays, etc. even bother to fight to legalize their relationships. What does it mean to them? Approval by society? I would think it's a rather hollow victory.

 

[Mling]

I think you're missing several things here - first of all how insurance works.

I know that insurance works on principles that I really don't like. That's why, when you first asked specifics of how I would participate in it, I brushed it off because the context (the way insurance as a whole works) was too messed up for such a specific question to be meaningful. If it was your job to execute every third person in a line, just to make the point that your boss was in charge, would it be ethical to execute somebody who was second in line until somebody else cut in front of them? The screwed up context makes the specific question somewhat meaningless. I tried to avoid this conversation altogether.

If you think you lead a charmed life - that you can beat the statistics - then don't buy insurance. It's a common mindset among the young.

I don't. I have an anxiety disorder of some kind or another--I'm overly aware that I face risks--I'd get insurance for everything if I could avoid it, just in case I accidentally trip and my hand falls in a woodchipper I didn't notice or something. I don't think I'm special--I want the system to treat everybody better. And I'm aware that that isn't profitable for a private business, so maybe the best approach isn't to base the care of individual citizens on letting private businesses decide who is most profitable.

You won't like this comment, so get ready. You've said it's not about sex. Maybe. But at the very least it seems everything you've described about these open relationships involves at least flirting and romance - that sexy edge you mentioned. I still think that flirting and romance plays a dangerous game with people's expectations - especially when it's a new partner that you don't yet know well.

This doesn't inherently change anything you've said, but you should be aware that flirting and romance work differently in the social groups I travel in than in the mainstream world. Something like, "Just so you're aware--I know you have a crush on me, but I'm not attracted to you and don't want to have a romantic relationship with you; I'm just looking for this one thing because it's fun, you're good at it, and I like you as a friend," is a perfectly acceptable, non-hurtful, non-exploitative statement.

Also, I see that you list your age as 28 - and you are apparently attractive enough to get the attention of all these guys. The population of men who would be interested in an attractive, 28-year-old woman is quite large. Give it 10 to 20 years and see if you don't notice a change in how many men are interested in having an open relationship with you ... and if no one has made a long term commitment with you, I bet it will start to feel a little lonely as the circle shrinks.

lol. I've deliberately avoided describing deeply personal things like the specifics of how my relationship works (apparently, I do that too much), but if you really want to get into it... First off, I'm gay, so toss out what guys are into. Second, my girlfriend and I are planning our wedding, so long-term commitment is already established, unless something goes catastrophically wrong. Third--the physical attractiveness stuff? Let's just say I'm already dipping from the pool of people who have other priorities or unconventional standards, and from what I've seen of the people older than me who are physically comparable, that pool remains fairly constant. Somebody's who is most interested in, let's say chess, or your awesome politics, or your artistic skills, or ability to crack a whip, aren't going to suddenly become more shallow when they turn 40. Or maybe they will, in which case...I don't want to be with them anyway and there are a fair number of people who haven't done a 180, so good riddance. My real limiting factor is the social anxiety.

Beyond that, I primarily support polygamy, not because I am so devoted to having multiple partners, but because I've seen how much good it can do for others, and especially because my girlfriend functions so much better as a person when she has at least one other partner. And her being happy and fulfilled makes our relationship better. I've been known to play around a little bit (in ways that I don't consider sexual, but other people might), and I wouldn't turn down another relationship that fell into my outstretched hand, but mostly, what I get out of this is that

My girlfriend is happier
I don't have to struggle with guilt over not being everything for her that she's looking for in a partner
when I have a crush on somebody, I get to share the little moments of squeeful joy, instead of treating them as something shameful I have to hide. I got to dance with the tattooed, steampunk quear at contra dance? If I tell my partner about it and get giggly, the worst response I'll get is, "awww...jealous! I wanted to dance with them!"

Second, you still give out a conflicted message about "marriage." At the very least I wouldn't call what you talk about polygamy unless there was a pre-nup contract of some kind - something you could take to court.

It could be...if it was legal. that's what I was saying--we're talking about relationships that are not yet polygamy, and what they would be like in the hypothetical future where the law allows them to be so.

As such, the whole thing about "needs" is pretty useless.

???

do you not recognize the different realms in which the legal aspects of a relationship take place, vs. the emotional aspects? Sure, the law doesn't codify the specific needs of individuals, but that hardly makes the discussion useless--should those needs not get met, the relationship dissolves. There are different layers to relationships. all of them are worth discussing at some point or another. This conversation has been about both the legal aspects of polygamy, and whether non-monogamous relationships of all sorts have inherently dangerous properties. If a comment doesn't make sense in one category, see if it makes sense in the other-- if you stop assuming that every single comment is about the legal codification of marriage, you may find that my position is not as "conflicted" as you think.

The contract would need to be stated in terms the law recognizes: property, income, tasks, etc. Even then, if marriage simply became lawyer heaven where everyone is making pre-nups and not actually obtaining a marriage license, then marriage is no different than making an agreement with your plumber.

Good thing nobody's suggesting that, huh?

Currently, that is not the case. Currently, marriage is a very specific type of contract. Getting a license means you have agreed to that special contract - not an individualized one. You are right that over time the parts included in that contract have been chipped away,

Darn people legalizing miscegenation and letting women out of the kitchen!

and soon we may not have much left. In fact, it actually seems you are trying to further chip away at the narrow definition rather than add to it (yes, I realize you've said you're not advocating for any specific rendering of polygamy, but I base that on what you have said about personal choice). That's why I wonder why gays, etc. even bother to fight to legalize their relationships. What does it mean to them? Approval by society? I would think it's a rather hollow victory.

Why do you assume that minorities must have such different motivations as you? Why does anybody get married? Got an answer? That's why gay people want to, too. Why does anybody take care of their partner by making legal arrangements with them? If poly people find that they're not able to manage that to their satisfaction under the current laws, they may try to push for marriage, and that will be their reason.

As for approval from society being hollow...do you function well when everything around you says you're a freak? Well again...not many people are all that different in that respect either.

 

[Resha Caner]

Darn people legalizing miscegenation and letting women out of the kitchen!

Not what I meant. This attitude has always confused me a bit. Take, for example, arranged marriages. In order for there to be a Juliet, there also had to be a Romeo. IOW, young men used to despise arranged marriages and forbidden loves just as much as young women. Same thing with Fiddler on the Roof. Arranged marriage was more a friction between generations, between establishment and personal choice, than between the sexes.

The same thing goes for division of labor. I come from the traditional, Midwestern, conservative farm background that supposedly demands women be in the kitchen. But that's not what I saw. In my family (and this is not recent, but goes back many generations) it was expected that all children learn all the chores. My mom learned to drive a tractor. My dad learned to cook.

At certain points, though, certain chores just make more sense. If a woman is carrying or nursing a child, it fits better for her to focus more on the chores around the house.

Of course women have been marginalized (and still are in many places). I know it happens. But I think the dynamic is very different from the popular myth that it was a feature of times past that has disappeared.

It could be...if it was legal.

This was a point I tried to make earlier. Legal agreements about property, etc. can be had right now. It doesn't have to be specified as a pre-nup. So, people agitating to expand the definition of marriage are taking the hard path, not the easy one. That's why I always suspect they're after something else. It's not really about getting tax breaks or whatever.

lol. I've deliberately avoided describing deeply personal things like the specifics of how my relationship works (apparently, I do that too much), but if you really want to get into it... First off, I'm gay, so toss out what guys are into.

This doesn't really change anything. The comments still apply. To be honest, it made me sad. I've seen it happen many times that someone will make a concession because of anxiety about holding on to a partner ... well, probably too personal and also probably something you wouldn't accept as applicable to your situation.

do you not recognize the different realms in which the legal aspects of a relationship take place, vs. the emotional aspects?

Yes, but you and I still disagree on this. You previously replied to this, and mentioned relying on your lover's other partner if things are too overwhelming. To me that is a manifestation of how elevating individualism above all else has led to isolation. I never said I had promised to do everything myself. My kids help. If it became too much, I'd have relatives or people from my church in a heartbeat. I know that because I've been there. But the idea that you dissolve a relationship because your needs aren't being met ... very wrong.

It makes me sad to see people become isolated.

Why do you assume that minorities must have such different motivations as you? Why does anybody get married? Got an answer? That's why gay people want to, too.

I realize that. The guy who got me involved in political activity to defend marriage came out of some "alternative" situations. I find it interesting that he approached me. It wasn't like I went looking for an example of someone who left that lifestyle. I probably would have made excuses not to get involved.

So, again, it just makes me sad. I realize people share many of the same desires. I've thought about how difficult it would be for someone to choose to remain single & celibate (1 Cor 7:1-9). I think a supportive community would go a long way to helping, though.

What won't help is appropriating a supposed acceptance of the alternatives - changing the meaning of "minority" and "marriage" to include what was once excluded.

When I was a kid I knew a WWII Vet who had participated in D-Day. He helped me appreciate how incredibly difficult that was as well. My heart aches for people like that. But he was also a chain smoker who died of emphysema. I realize smoking helped him cope, but that didn't make smoking OK.

 

[Tolerant Skeptic]

Is polygamy wrong? Should it be legal? Why?

I don't see anything wrong with it, though even if I did there would still be no justification for outlawing it as long as it's consensual. Who's the victem?

Would it harm society?

No

Lead to abuse or treating people like property?

No more than objectification occurs in monogamous relationships. It all depends upon the individuals involved

Would it harm the children?

No

What if they love each other and doesn't harm anyone?

Then all power to them.

 

[Mling]

That's why I always suspect they're after something else. It's not really about getting tax breaks or whatever.

It's not entirely about tax breaks etc, of course. It's about wanting to be married.

This doesn't really change anything. The comments still apply. To be honest, it made me sad. I've seen it happen many times that someone will make a concession because of anxiety about holding on to a partner ... well, probably too personal and also probably something you wouldn't accept as applicable to your situation.

What "concession" are you talking about? The only concession I've made is, as I described previously, taking better care of my health. And really, that was something I've known I needed to do for a while--I just didn't have the courage to face it by myself.

What makes you sad makes me sad--more on that below.

Yes, but you and I still disagree on this. You previously replied to this, and mentioned relying on your lover's other partner if things are too overwhelming. To me that is a manifestation of how elevating individualism above all else has led to isolation. I never said I had promised to do everything myself. My kids help. If it became too much, I'd have relatives or people from my church in a heartbeat. I know that because I've been there. ...
It makes me sad to see people become isolated.

We were the least isolated we've ever been, during that broad time-span. There were tons of friends in the equation who could, and did, help. Me being overwhelmed came down to too things.

1. Me not taking care of my own needs. In the stress of the situation, I forgot that I had to put on my own oxygen mask before I'd be competent to help anybody else with theirs. This is part of the reason I harp so much on taking care of yourself first--because only in doing so can you remain a competent, functional person, able to help other people with their needs.

2. It's fine to ask a friend to bring you lunch, or take notes in class or whatever, but for tasks that involve a tremendous amount of vulnerability and intimacy, like "can you help me get my pants off and hold me up so I don't fall off the toilet?" it's least awkward to get that help from somebody you already share similar levels of vulnerability and intimacy with.

But the idea that you dissolve a relationship because your needs aren't being met ... very wrong.

"needs aren't being met" covers literally every reason a person might dissolve a relationship--and you don't seem to be talking just about marriage, either, but even dating/courting relationships.

I mean, everybody has an emotional need to be treated with basic dignity. When that isn't met, it's called abuse. If that's what somebody's relationship is like, why shouldn't they leave it?

Some people are introverts, and need a period of time to themself to "recharge." If they paired with somebody who didn't allow them to meet that need, they would live in a state of constant anxiety and exhaustion. They wouldn't be functional. Some people are extroverts. They need to recharge by having quality time out with friends, surrounded by social energy. Both of these are valid ways to be a person, but if the extrovert feels neglected that their partner won't join them, or suffocated because they feel ashamed to go out alone, or if the introvert goes out with them when they can't handle it just to make them happy, these people are going to make each other miserable. One, or both, isn't having their needs met, and it's going to result in one, or both, being miserable and non-functional. They may both be fine people on their own, but they're not compatible together. They aren't good for each other. Why would it be better to stay in a relationship where everybody is hurting each other than to leave and have a chance at being happy, healthy and functional?

Every single reason a person might have for leaving a relationship comes down to them being somehow unsatisfied with the relationship--having either a need or a want that isn't being met. If you think it's wrong to leave a relationship because your needs aren't being met...what good reason could there possible be to leave? I don't get it. Should no relationship ever end? Do you think everybody is honor-bound to marry and grow old with the first person they stutteringly ask out for ice cream when they're 15?

Personally, I think the personal honor--and contribution to society-- is greater for the person who, at the end of their life, can honestly say this,

"I took care of my needs-- I got to know myself, my strengths and weakness, I asked for help when I needed it, and I took time to myself, to recover when I was hurt. I forged relationships with people who were healthy for me, and broke ties with people who were toxic, and because of that, I was able to leave the world better than I found it. I was healthy and happy enough to make the people around me happy. I had the energy to hold a job that improved society, and volunteer and contribute to causes that were important. I loved, I helped, and the world around me is a little bit better for my being born,"

rather than this:

"I tried to put others first, but I ignored what I needed. I drove myself into the ground by thirty and was miserable for the rest of my life. I turned to drink to ignore how miserable I was, and beat my spouse and kids. Nobody wanted to be around me because I was always so angry and resentful. I hated my spouse, I hated my job, I hated my kids, I hated my life, but darn it, I stayed with the first person I dated!"



It makes you sad when people leave relationships that aren't good for them.

It makes you sad that I take joy in my partner's joy, and share my joy with her, and that this increases the overall joy of our relationship.

Is there any way that people unlike you could be happy, healthy and functional, (while still being unlike you) that you would interpret in a positive way? Is there any situation in which you'd look at the people involved and say, "You know, I don't think I'd want to live that way--but this clearly works for you, so I'm happy that you're happy"?

 

[Resha Caner]

I mean, everybody has an emotional need to be treated with basic dignity. When that isn't met, it's called abuse. If that's what somebody's relationship is like, why shouldn't they leave it?

There are needs and then there are needs. I doubt that when you discussed needs with your partner you specified that you need to be able to breathe in an atmosphere of 20% oxygen, 79% nitrogen, and that only 1% should be other gases. That was just assumed - to such an extent that often you may not even realize you're assuming it.

In terms of human needs these are called "inalienable." For example, in the Declaration of Independence, life is listed as an inalienable right. There is no need to specify the right to life in the U.S. Constitution. It is simply something that cannot be legislated away. To take someone's life is a crime recognized by all legitimate socities without question.

Abuse falls into that category as well.

It makes you sad when people leave relationships that aren't good for them.

It makes you sad that I take joy in my partner's joy, and share my joy with her, and that this increases the overall joy of our relationship.

This isn't what I meant, and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Is there any way that people unlike you could be happy, healthy and functional, (while still being unlike you) that you would interpret in a positive way? Is there any situation in which you'd look at the people involved and say, "You know, I don't think I'd want to live that way--but this clearly works for you, so I'm happy that you're happy"?

Of course. My wife likes ballet. I can't stand it. I find the music trite and the dancing repetitive and lacking in expression. But I certainly understand that other people like it and consider it great art. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'm willing to attend an occassional ballet with her, and I can actually get caught up in her excitement about it.

On the flip side, I have an interest in abstract painting that my wife just can't comprehend. (FYI, abstract doesn't just happen in snooty NY galleries. One of my favorite abstract pictures of all time is in a children's book called Carl's Afternoon in the Park.)

For what it's worth, we also share some artistic common ground ... and that patten of likes, dislikes, and common ground extends into many areas. But if my wife had smoked ... that could very well have been a deal breaker, and there is a list of those things as well.

 

[The Gregorian]

I read the first couple pages and diidn'lt see anyone claiming poly experience, so I thought I'd help out (typing on cell phone, so excuse typos please):

The seattle area has a LOT of poly people, some in healthy comitted, long term relationships... some not so much.

a large mistake people make up here is that individuals call themselves poly ad individually date a number of people... who in turn may be poly, who may have partners... etc. If an individual is poly, it's sure-fire trouble because it's nothing more han a group of people sleeping around. This I wholely disapprove of.

likewise there are groups where one man lays claim to multiple pieces of property, as some have suggested. polygamy isn't the problem... his disrepect is the problem. Him treating one woman that way or five, is still wrong.

When I met my wife, she was in the first situation and I didn't quite know until after we were dating. I didn't approve and offered her my love, but only if she gave up what I consider an unhealthy situation, which luckily, she did.

couple years later, we're renting a 5 bedroom house to split bills with a couple room mates (all in our 20s, so none of us have a great job), and one shows intrest in my wife, and is a respectul young lady herself... so at the moment, we're trying it. So far it's just like any relationship, with a bit of extra help. Someone's always there for or child, so less time at day care, more time with family. Plus when my wife or I get upset, there's alway a third party to help balance things out. It's pretty nice! just have to maintain a closed group... no "guests."

 

[Chajara]

I, too have poly experience. Just got finished having a dramatic conversation with my secondary about how his being busy lately has caused me to feel neglected, and whether or not we could work through it or not. We're going to work through it, because honestly, our chemistry is too good and we've improved each others' lives far too much over the past several months to call it quits because of a busy summer. We communicate and resolve our problems just like my husband and I do when we have one.

It works for us. It doesn't work for everyone. I don't see what the problem is, other than people who simply cannot comprehend that other people's experiences might be different than their own and if that's the case, that it might be working anyway.

 

[The Gregorian]

That's definitely a potential positive.... some of us need more attention or more space than others. Having a third person to pick up the slack lets the people who need extra attention get it and the people who need some more space can let the other one pick up the cuddle slack.

 

[Puptart]

Is polygamy wrong?

No.

Should it be legal?

Sure.

Why?

Why not? Whatever goes on between two or more consenting adults is none of my business.

Would it harm society?

No.

Lead to abuse or treating people like property?

No.

Would it harm the children?

No.

What if they love each other and doesn't harm anyone?

I'd hope this would be the case.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Apologizies for the late reply.

While I can tell the difference between legality and morality, God also granted me more than a casual aquaintance with reality. I know that there are different laws in different countries and see education and raising standards of living as better tools than the brute force of State, for creating changes where I feel some country's laws allow immorality. In short - you can't legislate morality. If you accept that you can't legislate morality, you are free to pursue more effective means of helping people morally and you won't get caught up lobbying for silly ineffectual laws.

Of course you can legislate morality. If we couldn't we would not have a justice system. Indeed I'm fairly sure if I were to punch you in the face you would demand I be arrested for assault.

Really? If someone were to victimize my children, I would stake them out in the sun, give them a good going over with a cheese grater, dump iso-alcohol on them, light it, put it out with lemon juice, and then gut them with a snake whip and BBQ tongs. Was that what you were expecting? There is a difference between parents who sell their daughters (accept a dowry) and parents of a child who is sexually assaulted by a pedo. It may be subtle enough that it is difficult to grasp. On the one hand, you have a culturally accepted means of conducting marriage (wherein the bride is taken into and accepted by another family and all those good things that come from marriage despite it happening at an age you are uncomfortable with) on the other you have a predatory criminal who does what they do and moves on to the next victim with no thought other than feeding a sick need. You really can't tell the difference?

The only difference here is legality. You've made it pretty clear that you don't like the idea of adults having sexual contact with children - or rather, you don't like the idea of asults having sexual contact with your children - so it seems pedophilia does indeed bother you. If the USA were to suddenly legalise sex between adults and minors, would you still set the person who assaulted your children on fire?


And you're very much mistaken when you say that girls receive all the benefits of marriage. The female homicide rate in countries where polygamy and underage marriage are the norm is frighteningly high.

Oh, and thanks for confirming my criticism that pedophilia is only wrong developed nations ...

Well yeah, if that was what I was saying. Staying in the underage marriage gives the girl family support from her own culture (which is important, especially if you are in a foreign country) and yes, she may have sex while she is under age. What are the stats for virginity in England as a whole? When are your good little English girls giving it up? I susspect that in reality, your child marriage ages and your virginity stats are alarmingly the same. the difference being, the foreigner childbride is in a committed relationship with whatever civil protections are afforded to a wife as opposed to British girls just being. . .. open, as it were. Same is true of American girls BTW.

Don't give me that crap. Underaged sex is considered a problem in both the UK and the US, even if it's with another minor. You can't justify accepting underaged marriage on the basis that girls lose their virginity below the legal age limit anyway - then give a description of the various painful things you would do to a pedophile if he even touched one of your children.

As I have said, you can't legislate morality. Look at prohibition in the US for a good example of legislating morality and how it works out. Making law based on how you feel is. . . not good. Laws should only prevent one person from victimizing (an unwilling person) where the people involved aren't willing to take personal responsibility for protecting themselves (and others). To put it another way: I don't need any laws to protect my children from pedophiles. ... If someone was able to get inside "the wire" or gain a position of trust, they would also be aware that I would hunt them to the ends of the earth and they would watch anybody they cared about die slowly before taking alot longer than you'd think a person could, to die themselves. I have never said I was a nice guy. I have invested more than a decade in pennance. Nobody gets close to my children without knowing (deeply, on a soul level) that victimizing them is praying for hell, 'cause that'll be a relief. I have no fear of pedophiles and I don't need laws.

Your argument is ridiculous for two reasons:

Firstly, not all children have protection from pedophiles. Many children, runaways for example, have no family to defend them and are more likely to become victims of sexual abuse. When that happens we need to make sure they receive justice too. We do this by making sexual contact between adults and minors illegal and punishing the adults who break this law.

Secondly - and I can't tell if you're being facetious here - if your children were unlucky enough to fall victim to a predator, you say you would make the pedophile suffer. This, combined with your argument that "you can't legislate morality" makes me think that you'd rather dish our your own form of vigilante justice rather than take the issue to court like a civilized human being. Didn't you just say we shouldn't base morality on how we feel? Heck, do you bother reading what you write?

Also - since you used the USA as an example - I would also like to point out that they was also legislating morality when they banned slavery, gave black people the right to vote, and made it illegal to discriminate against other based on their race. But hey, if you can't legislate morality I guess those laws mean nothing and I can just ignore them, right?

You should know that I was on the streets helping male prostitutes out of their addictions and their lifestyle in Chicago when Barrack Obama was "community organizing" in those same 'hoods. You should know that I have years of experience helping the homeless. You should know that my views on abortion changed when I cleaned the bloody mess out of a homless shelter bathroom sink after a coat hanger abortion. My sleeves have been rolled up and I have been working a LONG time.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you. I find it hard to believe somebody who apparently does all these things would so casually accept underaged marriage - when it happens in another country of course.

And on the off-chance you actually are telling the truth, I'd point out the Bible frowns upon people who brag about their good deeds. It also frowns upon revenge. We legislate morality to avoid vigilantes like you.