Share
Go down
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 230
Join date : 2018-02-05
View user profile

It should be legal

on Wed 28 Mar - 23:22
*sigh* Another day another dose of stupidity regarding polygamy. If it’s between consenting adults it should be legal.

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/iran-khamenei-supreme-leader-polygamy-fatwa-support.html
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 186
Join date : 2018-02-14
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 1:20
Message reputation : 67% (3 votes)
My issue with polygamy in the case of this article is that its always been men having multiple wives. That just perpetuates the idea that women are the property of men in those countries. If we ever see a situation where both men and women have multiple spouses why get married at all? It seems like it would get very complicated and very messy.


Last edited by CelesChere on Mon 14 May - 10:22; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Clarity of point)
Member
Member
Posts : 52
Join date : 2017-11-07
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 12:15
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
I think the idea of marriage overall is being questioned by many. What's the point of getting married if you're going to end up divorced? I'm poly-amorous and I definitely don't see it as just men with multiple women. It really depends on the people that are involved. Of course it can get very messy but being poly by nature takes a lot of the jealousy and other issues out.
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 230
Join date : 2018-02-05
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:22
avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts : 1534
Join date : 2017-12-02
Location : North of Regular, south of Consang
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:32
While we're at it, legalize arboramory! Smile

Woman marries tree to keep it from being cut down (link)

Best,
UN

_________________
Every now and then, an ally can say a few words, the right words, and change someone’s life for the better.
Member
Member
Posts : 96
Join date : 2018-02-18
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:36
I started rejectihg the idea of marriage around the same tome that i realized I was polyamorous. Being bi/pan kinda went in with that, too.

Most people do not end up in a relationship where all they need is one other person. Most pairings leave someone's romantic and/or sexual needs sorely undermet.

Mind you, I have ended up in a monogamous marriage despite my nature. And I don't think anyone will ever love or support me more than my mono wife.

But she leaves my sexual needs horribly unmet, and I rarely have the time to meet her romantic ones.

If we ever camegal across a man who was sincerely into both of us and who both of us were into, I suspect she would melt on the mono point.

That has never happened however.

If it did, I could see us pursuing a poly
marriage, legal or no.
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 230
Join date : 2018-02-05
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:37
So you're against polygamy but support Consanguinamory? That makes no sense whatsoever guys! It's only equality if EVERYONE has it! That includes people who are polygamous!
Member
Member
Posts : 96
Join date : 2018-02-18
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:39
That was a good read, Unowen
Member
Member
Posts : 96
Join date : 2018-02-18
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:40
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I suspect he was being facetious.
avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts : 1534
Join date : 2017-12-02
Location : North of Regular, south of Consang
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 18:50
Bloodsexsugarmagick wrote:Mind you, I have ended up in a monogamous marriage despite my nature. And I don't think anyone will ever love or support me more than my mono wife.

But she leaves my sexual needs horribly unmet, and I rarely have the time to meet her romantic ones.

This is OT for this forum, but a number of us here are in Regular marriages with monogamy expected, so I'll expand on it. I'm also having similar issues.

I'm finding that romance and sex go hand in hand. And time is always precious. You are spending it at a constant rate and you will never get more of it than you have right now.

You've said that your wife supports you as much as any other human being ever will. Would you be willing, then, to invest a little more time into meeting her romantic needs? They might help the person who supports you the most in the world to open up more to you sexually.

At least it couldn't hurt. Smile

Best,
UN

_________________
Every now and then, an ally can say a few words, the right words, and change someone’s life for the better.
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 186
Join date : 2018-02-14
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 19:25
Ayatolla Khomeni is puting a fatwa up against men having multiple wives because thats the only type of polygamy that exists in muslim culture. In their culture Women are still the property of men. Same is true for Mormons practicing polygamy. This is a positive step towards  seeing women as more then mens property in a culture that offers little freedom to women. When a muslim man takes a second wife his first wife more often the not has no say in the matter. It's even mentioned in the article multiple times that its men taking multiple wives. Nowhere in Sharia law is it permissible for a woman to have multiple husbands.

There's a difference between polyarmory, polygamy and Consanguinamory. I dont care about Polyamory do whatever you want as long as everyone agrees to it. Polyarmouros relationships aren't being arrested and thrown in jail like cosanginous couples are.

Again my question no one has answered is if your not making a lifelong commitment to a single partner what are you getting out of marriage at all? Why bother with marriage? It seems pointless. Other then being able to file your taxes jointly (And are you really going to jointly file with 3 or more people?) there's not much benefit to marriage. Almost all insurance policies will cover domestic partners. So you dont need it to offer Insurance like in me and my dads case where once Im 26 Im off his insurance and because Im his daughter I CANT be covered as a domestic partner. Nothing is stopping Polyamouros couples from doing that.

So if its not about a lifelong commitment to a partner, and its not about taxes or insurance and your not going to get arrested for having relationships with multiple people why do you need marriage at all? And if you do what happens when one person decides to "divorce" the other people? now you have a mess of assets to split rather then just keeping all your assets to yourself. I cant think of any situation where its actually beneficial to enter into a marriage contract with more then one person but lots of reasons why liquidating that contract becomes a huge legal nightmare. Your better off just not marrying at all.

Example. Jack, Jill and John decide to marry each other. 5 years later Jill decides she no longer likes John and wants to divorce John but stay with Jack. Jack and John still like each other and still want to remain married to each other and Jack wants to remain married to Jill. Who divorces who? And how do the assets get split? What did they get out of marriage to begin with bedsides a more complicated divorce?

It seems very impractical.
avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts : 1534
Join date : 2017-12-02
Location : North of Regular, south of Consang
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 21:09
CelesChere wrote:Again my question no one has answered is if your not making a lifelong commitment to a single partner what are you getting out of marriage at all?

Disclaimer: I am in a lifetime commitment to a single partner. But I acknowledge that other arrangements are possible and may be desirable for some.

Marriage is a covenant, a contract. Covenants memorialize an agreement between the partners entering into them. Regardless of the number of partners or the term, that's what a marriage is ultimately for: to memorialize the agreement between the partners.

Yes, dissolving poly marriages could get complicated. Dissolving monogamous marriages can as well. No one enters into any sort of covenant with the intent of breaking it. Or at least, it's not a very smart thing to do.

Best,
UN

_________________
Every now and then, an ally can say a few words, the right words, and change someone’s life for the better.
avatar
Admin
Admin
Posts : 1527
Join date : 2016-04-14
Location : UK
View user profilehttps://consanguinamory.wordpress.com

Re: It should be legal

on Thu 29 Mar - 23:07
I'm for polyamory as long as both genders have equality, so if a man can have multiple wives, a woman should be allowed multiple husbands. That lifestyle is not for everyone of course, it wouldn't be for me, but if it works for some people then they should be allowed to persue that without legal restriction. As long as it's ethical and everyone can give informed consent to the marriages, I do not see any problem.

A marriage is a legal agreement between people, there is no reason why three or more cannot partake in such an agreement. If somebody falls in love with two people, and both those people want to marry that person, and are in agreement that this is to mutual benefit, why should this not be allowed? Not everyone gets sexual jealously, I mean, would the love for one partner reduce somebodys love for another? I doubt it would or else poly would not work. I'm not poly, but this is my understanding of it.


Last edited by Jane Doe on Thu 29 Mar - 23:11; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : more thoughts)
avatar
Admin
Admin
Posts : 916
Join date : 2016-04-15
View user profilehttp://marriage-equality.blogspot.com

Re: It should be legal

on Fri 30 Mar - 0:21
From my blog:

Why do polyamorists get married?
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2011/12/frequently-asked-question-why-do.html

And my general ethical nonmonogamy link already posted in this thread:
http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/polyamory-and-polygamy.html

_________________
I blog to support the right of all adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 83
Join date : 2017-07-21
Location : Texas, United States
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Fri 30 Mar - 5:36
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
I had thought that Celes was right that dividing assets would be too complicated for people to understand, and that, therefore, I would be against poly-marriage. But I decided to actually work out the math, and I think the answer depends on the type of poly-marriage that would be allowed.

Celes has already hinted at the two basic forms that poly-marriages can take, plus a third option that combines these:

1. Marriages are limited to 2 people, but any individual can enter into multiple marriages.
2. Each person can be in only one marriage, but a marriage can consist of multiple people.

So to answer Celes's questions about John, Jill, and Jack, if there was just one marriage among the three of them (option 2), then the divorce is simple: Jill gets 1/3 of the assets and 2/3 remains in the marriage between Jack and John. So I think that option 2 is a viable form of poly-marriage. I strongly oppose, however, Jill being able to divorce John only and remain married to Jack. That would put Jack into more than one marriage, as in option 1, above, and the math for dividing assets is too complicated; people won't be able to foresee the financial impacts of their decisions and understand how their assets are being divided.

The conceptual basis for my math is that with every new marriage someone enters, they withdraw their portion of the assets from all their preexisting marriages, much like they are divorcing their current spouses, and redistribute them equally among all their marriages, including the new one. If someone can think of a fairer conceptual basis, please say so. This is the best I could come up with, and I am happy to explain why in subsequent posts, or concede to a better idea.

So let's say John and Jill are married. John is married to x people including Jill, and Jill is married to y people including John. In the divorce, John gets y/x+y of the assets, and Jill gets x/x+y.
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 186
Join date : 2018-02-14
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Fri 30 Mar - 7:32
J.S. Money wrote:I had thought that Celes was right that dividing assets would be too complicated for people to understand, and that, therefore, I would be against poly-marriage. But I decided to actually work out the math, and I think the answer depends on the type of poly-marriage that would be allowed.

Celes has already hinted at the two basic forms that poly-marriages can take, plus a third option that combines these:

1. Marriages are limited to 2 people, but any individual can enter into multiple marriages.
2. Each person can be in only one marriage, but a marriage can consist of multiple people.

So to answer Celes's questions about John, Jill, and Jack, if there was just one marriage among the three of them (option 2), then the divorce is simple: Jill gets 1/3 of the assets and 2/3 remains in the marriage between Jack and John. So I think that option 2 is a viable form of poly-marriage. I strongly oppose, however, Jill being able to divorce John only and remain married to Jack. That would put Jack into more than one marriage, as in option 1, above, and the math for dividing assets is too complicated; people won't be able to foresee the financial impacts of their decisions and understand how their assets are being divided.

The conceptual basis for my math is that with every new marriage someone enters, they withdraw their portion of the assets from all their preexisting marriages, much like they are divorcing their current spouses, and redistribute them equally among all their marriages, including the new one. If someone can think of a fairer conceptual basis, please say so. This is the best I could come up with, and I am happy to explain why in subsequent posts, or concede to a better idea.

So let's say John and Jill are married. John is married to x people including Jill, and Jill is married to y people including John. In the divorce, John gets y/x+y of the assets, and Jill gets x/x+y.

This makes sense if there is one marriage that can include multiple people but to leave the marriage you have to leave it entirely. Otherwise with people who can have their own multiple individual marriages you can wind up with ridiculously complicated webs of marriages especially when if you start looking at more then 3 people. I.E. Jill is married to Jack but not John, Jack is married to John, John is also married to Jane who isn't married to anyone else.
avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts : 1534
Join date : 2017-12-02
Location : North of Regular, south of Consang
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Fri 30 Mar - 9:49
CelesChere wrote:Otherwise with people who can have their own multiple individual marriages you can wind up with ridiculously complicated webs of marriages especially when if you start looking at more then 3 people. I.E. Jill is married to Jack but not John, Jack is married to John, John is also married to Jane who isn't married to anyone else.

And that sort of thing is always going to be a problem. People relate to each other in complicated ways, and they don’t always keep the same relationships. Which in turn means that the more people are in the marriage, the less stable it becomes. I have a feeling that if poly marriage ever becomes legally binding, it’s going to be a great income generator for divorce lawyers.

It’s also the problem with law in general. Law is an increasingly complicated set of rules that are supposed to cover every situation, but don’t, really.

Best,
UN

_________________
Every now and then, an ally can say a few words, the right words, and change someone’s life for the better.
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts : 34
Join date : 2018-02-13
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 2:41
Unowen17 wrote:
CelesChere wrote:Otherwise with people who can have their own multiple individual marriages you can wind up with ridiculously complicated webs of marriages especially when if you start looking at more then 3 people. I.E. Jill is married to Jack but not John, Jack is married to John, John is also married to Jane who isn't married to anyone else.

And that sort of thing is always going to be a problem. People relate to each other in complicated ways, and they don’t always keep the same relationships. Which in turn means that the more people are in the marriage, the less stable it becomes. I have a feeling that if poly marriage ever becomes legally binding, it’s going to be a great income generator for divorce lawyers.

It’s also the problem with law in general. Law is an increasingly complicated set of rules that are supposed to cover every situation, but don’t, really.

Best,
UN

I'm curious to know how many people here have actually successfully put into practice polyamory? Do you all have actual experience with it or is it all theoretical? I ask because coming from the Liberal Capital of the US I've seen a lot of my friends get into polyamory relationships and I've seen them all, every single one end up badly. Someone winds up emotionally, neglected, hurt and jealous.

The worst case of this was my old college room mate. He and his wife had an open poly marriage until she got pregnant. Once the kid was on the way she wanted to close the marriage and he didn't want to. He continued dating other people throughout her pregnancy and into the first year of their child's life. She became increasingly bitter, jealous and resentful. Eventually he could no longer stand how toxic she had become and he filed to divorce her. At that point all hell broke lose. She became the very definition of the phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." She went scorched earth in the divorce. He came from a very conservative Jehova's witness family so when she broke the news to them on why he had filed to divorce her they shunned him. It's been maybe around 8 years now and his parents and siblings still refuse to speak to him. They testified against him in the custody hearings. She got custody of his son in the most one sided custody agreement ever. Now my friend for lack of a better word, is an idiot. I love him, but he made a series of bad choices starting with ignoring his wife's feelings and moving into getting involved in some extra legal activities that wound him up in trouble with the law. He wound up in jail and she took that opportunity to have his visitation rights completely revoked, leave the state with their son and marry someone else. It was 5 years before he saw his son again and then only with the supervision of a court appointed social worker. The last time he saw his son he didn't remember his father. He still struggles to have even the most basic level of contact with his son.
avatar
Admin
Admin
Posts : 916
Join date : 2016-04-15
View user profilehttp://marriage-equality.blogspot.com

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 4:31
It depends on what is considered successful practice. Not all polyamorists want to actually live with more than one partner and not all polyamorists expect and seek out lifetime relationships. If you're asking if three or more people have been in a polyfidelitous relationship for better or worse for life, that happens but it's not common, at least not outside the Mormon splinter groups that do polygyny-only (one patriarch, multiple women) but I think our forum here would agree we're talking about a situation where women are considered people rather than property.

_________________
I blog to support the right of all adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com
avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Posts : 1534
Join date : 2017-12-02
Location : North of Regular, south of Consang
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 10:58
We do have some triads and some larger consang families here. They appear to be pretty stable.

Best,
UN

_________________
Every now and then, an ally can say a few words, the right words, and change someone’s life for the better.
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts : 49
Join date : 2017-08-21
Age : 32
Location : FL
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 11:02
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
yep. triad family here. can confirm. stable and happy.
avatar
Admin
Admin
Posts : 916
Join date : 2016-04-15
View user profilehttp://marriage-equality.blogspot.com

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 16:23
I do think it can be more likely to last when consanguinamory is involved. Since this was in the Off Topic area I was thinking of non-consang. The triad who inspired me to blog and fight for rights is a GSA triad. They've been happily living together for a long time now.

We also have to remember that there are same-sex polyamorous relationships, such as three men together and three women together.

_________________
I blog to support the right of all adults to share love, sex, residence, and marriage: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com
avatar
Senior Member
Posts : 230
Join date : 2018-02-05
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 18:00
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 83
Join date : 2017-07-21
Location : Texas, United States
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 20:22
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
Keith,

Those were good reads that you linked to over in the Solidarity is Needed thread. I agree that we should not pick and choose who gets the right to marry and who does not, except that they must be at least 18. And that's why it pains me that allowing people to have multiple marriages seems to make the finances so complicated that we can't reasonably expect people to understand the math well enough to make well-informed decisions. I would love to hear how you would address this.

Let's say you and I are married only to each other. I would like to marry someone additional. To do that, I see no alternative but to have our joint assets valued and then have my portion redistributed evenly between our existing marriage and my new marriage. Here's what that looks like:

Let's call our assets a. x = the number of people I am married to; y = the number of people you are married to. So my interest is a(y/x+y). Now plug in x = 1, y = 1: so I get a(1/1+1) = (1/2)a. Likewise, you also get (1/2)a.

My new spouse has no other marriages, his assets are n, and he is now married to z = 1 person (me). I'm married to 2 people now, so y = 2. The assets of my new marriage will be: (1/4)a + n. Let's say, for simplicity, that b = (1/4)a + n. So my interest in that marriage is b(z/y+z), which is b(1/2+1) = (1/3)b, and his interest is b(y/y+z) = b(2/2+1) = (2/3)b.

The assets of the marriage between you and me now are (1/4)a + (1/2)a = (3/4)a. For simplicity, we'll say c = (3/4)a. My interest in our marriage will be (1/3)c and yours will be (2/3)c.

You can keep this up as we add more and more marriages. Plug in some numbers for a and n, and use real numbers for the assets of subsequent spouses. Do you like how all this goes? Do you think this is feasible?

My key questions are:
1. Do you propose an alternative method for tracking assets?
2. Should you have to give permission for me to marry my second spouse?
3. Do you expect people to be able to understand all of this?

My answers are:
1. no (obviously)
2. yes, because it impacts you financially, and because we should have consent that you are okay with the non-monogamy.
3. no

And, thus, I--very regrettably--cannot support people having multiple marriages. I very much want to hear your thoughts because I am hoping I can be convinced otherwise.

And, for what it's worth, the proximate reason that I am here on KS is that my wife used to work in a probate court, and I assisted her with the math for complicated inheritance distributions. Even this gets pretty complicated, and I'm sure some heirs cannot understand what happens, but they don't have any deciding power, anyway. So one complicated case involved a lineage where someone married a first cousin once removed, I believe, so we had to add the fraction from one side to the fraction from the other side. One fraction had a 2-digit denominator, and the other had a 3-digit denominator, and the lowest common denominator (which we had to google) was in the 13,000s. My wife had a negative reaction to this intermarriage, and when I told other people the story of this interesting adventure in math, they had negative reactions as well. It was then that I realized how oppressed consang people must be, and was compelled to join this community.
avatar
Admin
Admin
Posts : 1527
Join date : 2016-04-14
Location : UK
View user profilehttps://consanguinamory.wordpress.com

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 22:49
Perhaps one way to try to simplify it would be for poly people considering marriage to carefully plan out a pre-nup agreement so that if one of the people at any point wishes to seek a divorce, it would outline what assets that person is entitled to. For instance, in a triad where the each of the three are married to the other two, if person A divorces B AND C,then they should be entitled to a certain share of the assets (one third of total mutually held), but if they only divorce ONE person, but not the other, then maybe they should get half of that share of the assets (one sixth of total). I agree this would be far more complicated than for monogamous marriage, but complexity is not really a good reason to ban the practice of multiple marriage. It would probably be a headache for family lawyers though trying to sort out divorce cases.
Sponsored content

Re: It should be legal

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum