Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Often it is not. And of course trying to legimitize such a thing into law would be very difficult, given the difference between religious and secular version of this.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Well, I still see think this is a non-issue. Consenting adults can dress up like chickens and chase each other with whipped cream all over their living room for all I care. Consent is, indeed, the key.

[mawilson 2,133]

The thing with that of course is that its the antithesis of marriage - there's no workable way that such an institution could be enshrined into law without fundamentally destroying the idea of marriage.

The idea of marriage is outdated and should be destroyed.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

The thing with that of course is that its the antithesis of marriage - there's no workable way that such an institution could be enshrined into law without fundamentally destroying the idea of marriage.

The idea of marriage is outdated and should be destroyed.

OMG... do i find myself agreeing with the gekko??? What is the world comingto ???

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well, I still see think this is a non-issue. Consenting adults can dress up like chickens and chase each other with whipped cream all over their living room for all I care. Consent is, indeed, the key.

:blink: i better not ask where that came from.

Edited July 30, 2009 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing with that of course is that its the antithesis of marriage - there's no workable way that such an institution could be enshrined into law without fundamentally destroying the idea of marriage.

The idea of marriage is outdated and should be destroyed.

Possibly, but that isn't the debate at the moment.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Well, I still see think this is a non-issue. Consenting adults can dress up like chickens and chase each other with whipped cream all over their living room for all I care. Consent is, indeed, the key.

:blink: i better not ask where that came from.

Remember that movie by Polanski? "Bitter Moon"?? Awesome sexual thriller, and it included pig outfits

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well, I still see think this is a non-issue. Consenting adults can dress up like chickens and chase each other with whipped cream all over their living room for all I care. Consent is, indeed, the key.

:blink: i better not ask where that came from.

Remember that movie by Polanski? "Bitter Moon"?? Awesome sexual thriller, and it included pig outfits

i thought maybe you and the redhead........

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Well, I still see think this is a non-issue. Consenting adults can dress up like chickens and chase each other with whipped cream all over their living room for all I care. Consent is, indeed, the key.

:blink: i better not ask where that came from.

Remember that movie by Polanski? "Bitter Moon"?? Awesome sexual thriller, and it included pig outfits

i thought maybe you and the redhead........

now why would you think that??? Just because of what I said about our leather couch???? :whistle:

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think that the notion of marriage is necessarily either wrong or dead. It's a convenience to have a ready made contract that two people can enter into in order to be able to consolidate their lives together - the framework for having children and for having one's well being and property sanctioned into a format that is clear for everyone. It would be possible for everyone to make individual legal contracts based on a variety of ideas, but the fabric of society would be somewhat challenged if people did not bother with these contractual notions. It's bad enough when people do not make wills as it is, but at least in these cases there is a somewhat standard route for possessions to be divvied out. This would be a less articulate route without the marriage contract and of course there would be the scenario of mental incapacity and who's right/responsibility that is. I think people forget how much of our society's structure is based on this legal contract.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I agree Cleo; but I also think that society's structure, as it stands today; denies rights and legitimacy to a whole bunch of peepz. Including GLBTQ folk, poly-something folk; etc.

And soceity's structures are meant to evolve. Otherwise we would fall into a stagnant attitude towards marriage based on XIV century conceptions. Just my thoughts.

[Peikko 1,575]

True, it might be a good idea to look at the concept and make some changes, nothing wrong with that.

[Danno 1,228]

The thing with that of course is that its the antithesis of marriage - there's no workable way that such an institution could be enshrined into law without fundamentally destroying the idea of marriage.

Don't make me spill my coffee Pike.

Let me get this right; You see no reason to pause at two (consenting) men in a marriage adopting children (who not capable of giving consent)... and calling this thing a legal family yet you just don't see how a three-sum could work it out legally?

Now thats rich my friend.

Seriously, does it take a huge imagination to realize these other "combinations" are going to want.... and deserve their moment on the "Civil Rights" pedestal?

Let's assume Gays will win the marriage battle..... who do you suppose will resist the next group?

I kinda doubt the "Religious Right" will bother fighting for an institution already "legally" lost and lets be honest ...no one else is even capable of mustering up a "judgment" on what a marriage should be.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Well, I still see think this is a non-issue. Consenting adults can dress up like chickens and chase each other with whipped cream all over their living room for all I care. Consent is, indeed, the key.

Whipped cream!?!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The thing with that of course is that its the antithesis of marriage - there's no workable way that such an institution could be enshrined into law without fundamentally destroying the idea of marriage.

Don't make me spill my coffee Pike.

Let me get this right; You see no reason to pause at two (consenting) men in a marriage adopting children (who not capable of giving consent)... and calling this thing a legal family yet you just don't see how a three-sum could work it out legally?

Now thats rich my friend.

Seriously, does it take a huge imagination to realize these other "combinations" are going to want.... and deserve their moment on the "Civil Rights" pedestal?

Let's assume Gays will win the marriage battle..... who do you suppose will resist the next group?

I kinda doubt the "Religious Right" will bother fighting for an institution already "legally" lost and lets be honest ...no one else is even capable of mustering up a "judgment" on what a marriage should be.

I don't have a problem with polyamory, but as you should well know by now - I think that there are serious practical problems to creating a legal contract to enshrine it in law. In essence, there is no benefit to doing it.

Perhaps gay marriage will start debates about the merits of other lifestyles, perhaps it should.

But again, that isn't the debate right now.