Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Well, I just don't care. And i think marriage is a completely anachronistic concept that needs to be rethought in its entirety. What consenting adults decide to do behind the closed doors of their home is none of my damn business.

[Peikko 1,575]

It does, for the reasons I explained before. To make the entering and leaving fixed is to alter the notion of flexibility that presumably is the point of multiplicity. However, in terms of 'marriage' the point of it is to make a relationship exclusive, not inclusive so I suggest again, that such a 'marriage' is pointless.

Indeed, and I don't care how many partners a person chooses to have but to suggest that wanting and having multiple partners is 'marriage' is silly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there's already provision given to social enclaves - the amish, for example where special dispensations are given to the community exempting it from certain laws.

That would be the easiest way perhaps..

But still... Still doesn't address the issue of ensuring that the parties signing up to this aren't being coerced or abused.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I can barely afford one wife, and deal with all the BS... why in gods name would I want more than one?!!!

because you can! or get two bisexual ones and you can drink beer while resting.

Edited August 12, 2009 by charles!

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Well there's already provision given to social enclaves - the amish, for example where special dispensations are given to the community exempting it from certain laws.

That would be the easiest way perhaps..

But still... Still doesn't address the issue of ensuring that the parties signing up to this aren't being coerced or abused.

Neither does current legislation. Mono-marriage partners can also be coerced and/or abused brother.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well, I just don't care. And i think marriage is a completely anachronistic concept that needs to be rethought in its entirety. What consenting adults decide to do behind the closed doors of their home is none of my damn business.

it's no one's business but the 3/4/5 involved

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure, but I would say its endemic in insular subcultures.

[mawilson 2,133]

It does, for the reasons I explained before. To make the entering and leaving fixed is to alter the notion of flexibility that presumably is the point of multiplicity. However, in terms of 'marriage' the point of it is to make a relationship exclusive, not inclusive so I suggest again, that such a 'marriage' is pointless.

Indeed, and I don't care how many partners a person chooses to have but to suggest that wanting and having multiple partners is 'marriage' is silly.

IMO, entering or leaving should render the marriage contract null and void. Adding or removing

a person is a significant change and should require the creation of a new contract rather than

a mere variation. When any major change is made to the marriage arrangement, the parties

involved should be asked to agree to an appropriate new set of terms, which may of course include

some or most of the original terms.

[mawilson 2,133]

But still... Still doesn't address the issue of ensuring that the parties signing up to this aren't being coerced or abused.

How do you ensure that someone entering a traditional marriage union is not being coerced or abused?

You don't. Why should polygamous marriages be any different?

[Peikko 1,575]

It does, for the reasons I explained before. To make the entering and leaving fixed is to alter the notion of flexibility that presumably is the point of multiplicity. However, in terms of 'marriage' the point of it is to make a relationship exclusive, not inclusive so I suggest again, that such a 'marriage' is pointless.

Indeed, and I don't care how many partners a person chooses to have but to suggest that wanting and having multiple partners is 'marriage' is silly.

IMO, entering or leaving should render the marriage contract null and void. Adding or removing

a person is a significant change and should require the creation of a new contract rather than

a mere variation. When any major change is made to the marriage arrangement, the parties

involved should be asked to agree to an appropriate new set of terms, which may of course include

some or most of the original terms.

Null and void? As in, pfft, disappear? No consequences? The end of alimony and child support?

[Peikko 1,575]

But still... Still doesn't address the issue of ensuring that the parties signing up to this aren't being coerced or abused.

How do you ensure that someone entering a traditional marriage union is not being coerced or abused?

You don't. Why should polygamous marriages be any different?

Because of the nature of the relationship. A polygamous marriage is a very different animal to a partnership no matter what the specifications.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But still... Still doesn't address the issue of ensuring that the parties signing up to this aren't being coerced or abused.

How do you ensure that someone entering a traditional marriage union is not being coerced or abused?

You don't. Why should polygamous marriages be any different?

I thought a distinction had been made between polyamory and polygamy. As far as polygamy goes, the only examples we have are the product of patriarchal cultures than enforce strict gender roles for men and women and where the husband has many wives.

Polyamory would be antithetical even to that.

Still legally very thorny though..

[doodlebugg 10]

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.

http://www.bk.com/en/us/campaigns/subservient-chicken.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Null and void? As in, pfft, disappear? No consequences? The end of alimony and child support?

No, as in "require dissolution upon a dissociation of a member".

You know, like a company? When a company dissolution occurs by a member's dissociation,

if the remaining members choose to continue the business of the company without liquidating

its assets, the company must purchase the distributional interest of the dissociated member,

less any damages caused by the member's untimely dissociation.

Same with marriage. If the remaining members (spouses) choose to remain married, they

must settle with the dissociated member (spouse).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I suggest everyone who wants to understand want a truly polyamorous society would be like should go rent Fellini's Satyricon.

Its eye opening to say the least.