Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution?

[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?

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 doesn't require a legal contract. As for polygamy, the term does carry that stigma

[of patriarchal cultures], but it doesn't have to.

[Peikko 1,575]

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).

OK, fair enough, but you don't see this might be a little difficult? What grounds would be acceptable for dissolution for example? How would one assess validity and therefore compensation for those who do not agree with the dissolution and prefer the status quo?

[mawilson 2,133]

OK, fair enough, but you don't see this might be a little difficult?

Yes, I do.

[HAL 9000 96]

mawilson likes it difficult.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Everyone is talking about these relationships being comprised of a handful of people.

What happens if you have really big unions - 200, 3000 or even 1000 people.

Certainly conjures up a few interesting fictional scenarios.

Corporate families like a legitimate form of the mafia with their own internal hierarchy. Marry into the group to get certain economic and employment benefits. That's the premise for a novel right there...

I can see a few parallels there with ancient Rome, though on a whole other order.

Brave new world indeed.

[mawilson 2,133]

Ah.

It can be done - there's simply not enough momentum or interest right now.

[mawilson 2,133]

Everyone is talking about these relationships being comprised of a handful of people.

What happens if you have really big unions - 200, 3000 or even 1000 people.

Certainly conjures up a few interesting fictional scenarios.

Corporate families like a legitimate form of the mafia with their own internal hierarchy. Marry into the group to get certain economic and employment benefits. That's the premise for a novel right there...

I can see a few parallels there with ancient Rome, though on a whole other order.

Brave new world indeed.

Sounds like a good idea for a book. You're a writer, why don't you write one?

A fictional world where legalized gay marriage leads to legalized polygamy and a slippery

slope of moral decay.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ah.

It can be done - there's simply not enough momentum or interest right now.

Once we overcome the homophobia I'm sure those that want to seek polyamory as a nuptial exercise will have less to contend with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm in that scenario when someone says that you'll never work in this town again, they might actually mean it.

Imagine getting fired, divorced and bankrupted on the same day!

[BishopMnA 0]

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.

Too forensic...

Where is the love Sister Cleo?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the larger these "unions" are the less cohesive, they become - at least in the sense of the emotional/sexual side of things.

But I guess there could be a certain fashion appeal in being a modern day tribesman.

[Danno 1,228]

Everyone is talking about these relationships being comprised of a handful of people.

What happens if you have really big unions - 200, 3000 or even 1000 people.

Certainly conjures up a few interesting fictional scenarios.

Corporate families like a legitimate form of the mafia with their own internal hierarchy. Marry into the group to get certain economic and employment benefits. That's the premise for a novel right there...

I can see a few parallels there with ancient Rome, though on a whole other order.

Brave new world indeed.

Sounds like a good idea for a book. You're a writer, why don't you write one?

A fictional world where legalized gay marriage leads to legalized polygamy and a slippery

slope of moral decay.

Of course I would contend, once you embrace Gay Marriage you are pretty much at the bottom of "The slope" and "almost" anything else is...... going sideways.

Which is why I would not object to any other legal combination.

If two men can marry, why not three, as no logical argument can be formed at that point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure it can. You just reject the logical arguments.

[HAL 9000 96]

There's no need to reject what isn't any of one's rational and logical business.