If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[martybegan]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

 

[Katzndogz]

Let this go long enough then the groupings of everyone married to one another will be big enough to be a clan. It's called going backwards. The daughters and sons of the clan can marry one another and be the husbands and wives of all the parents, and of all the other sibling husbands and wives. There might even be marriages to other clans.

Polygamy definitely had a place in history. Now it would merely be a quaint method of rapidly spreading disease and insanity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And there's no way you can keep it illegal for long.

Polyamory Is Next, And I’m One Reason Why

Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next.

By Sara Burrows

JUNE 30, 2015

Email

Print

“You’re going to bed already?” I complained, as I prepared to read our three-year-old a bedtime story across the hall. It was my not-so-veiled solicitation for sex. I was nearing ovulation and in the mood. I knew Brad was rarely in the mood at night—unlike me, he’s a morning person—but I was hoping, by chance, he might be.

“Yeah, I’m tired,” he grumbled. “I have to work in the morning.” After I got my daughter to sleep in her own bed—a rare gem—I came back in to cuddle, to see if he was really asleep or just faking.

“Fine… come on over here, Beast,” he said endearingly and reluctantly. Half-asleep, he started doing his duty, but I could tell he wasn’t into it. He’d joked earlier in the evening, after one of my innuendos, that he might be in the mood if Kitty were around. Kitty (not her real name) is a friend of mine whom Brad’s been on a couple of dates with since we decided to open up our relationship about six months ago. At the moment, he’s wild about her. She’s new, different, everything I am not.

A few minutes into our ritual, I started laughing uncontrollably. This irritated Brad immensely. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” I said. “It’s just this is exactly like the video I watched about bonobos earlier, where the females push and kick the males until they agree to satisfy them.”

“Okay, I’m done,” he said, rolling over angrily and pulling the up the covers. I stormed off to the shower to cry.

“This is it! This is exactly why we need to be polyamorous,” I sobbed from behind the shower curtain, when Brad came in to make amends.

“Why?”

“Because you don’t want me, and I’m tired of it! I need to be desired! I need to be touched!”

“Shh, you’re going to wake Nora up,” he tried to calm me, as I worked myself into hysterics. He tried to coax me back into the bedroom to make it up to me, but it was too late. The mood had been killed, and it was neither one of our faults.

After going round and round in circles, Brad finally convinced me that he did, in fact, want to “make love” to me, even though I’d just thrown a tantrum more obnoxious than any two-year-old’s. He gave me what I needed, and we went to sleep.

Fanning the Flame

Polyamory Is Next, And I'm One Reason Why

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, and is nothing but baseless demagoguery.

 

[Fang]

This couple's relationship has run its course. It is over. They both need to move on. Bringing other people into the relationship won't reignite the old one. As soon as the first person falls in love with someone else that party will move on.

The good part is, they aren't married. Splitting up isn't filing divorce papers. It's filling out a change of address card.

Except there is a child involved (in the article). So splitting up is much, much harder than divorce papers. There's the whole commitment as a parent and family thing.

 

[Skylar]

They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.

No, I just interact with them on a daily basis. And they're American. Culturally and otherwise.

Most children of immigrants don't have time to 'carefully preserve their culture'. They're working 2 and 3 jobs to eat. And its the lack of time to study English that isolates the parents. Their kids aren't isolated as they generally have native fluency. So their world is far, far larger.

Really? Have you been to Orange County, Ca, San Francisco, Seattle counties?

How do Asian students get to the top of the class? | GreatKids

And these students can't speak English? Aren't Americans? Are isolated from society and refuse to integrate?

Because I've been to all those places. And the asian students I've met can speak English, are thoroughly American, aren't isolated, and are thoroughly integrated.

If even east asians harvard and standford students don't meet your standards of 'integration', then your standards are so skewed as to be essentially worthless.

 

[Katzndogz]

This couple's relationship has run its course. It is over. They both need to move on. Bringing other people into the relationship won't reignite the old one. As soon as the first person falls in love with someone else that party will move on.

The good part is, they aren't married. Splitting up isn't filing divorce papers. It's filling out a change of address card.

Except there is a child involved (in the article). So splitting up is much, much harder than divorce papers. There's the whole commitment as a parent and family thing.

So, there's a child. Unmarried couples with children split up all the time. It isn't hard at all. Having a child in no way means the adults have any commitment to one another. Pack your shit and go.

 

[Skylar]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

 

[Katzndogz]

They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.

No, I just interact with them on a daily basis. And they're American. Culturally and otherwise.

Most children of immigrants don't have time to 'carefully preserve their culture'. They're working 2 and 3 jobs to eat. And its the lack of time to study English that isolates the parents. Their kids aren't isolated as they generally have native fluency. So their world is far, far larger.

Really? Have you been to Orange County, Ca, San Francisco, Seattle counties?

How do Asian students get to the top of the class? | GreatKids

And these students can't speak English? Aren't Americans? Are isolated from society and refuse to integrate?

Because I've been to all those places. And the asian students I've met can speak English, are thoroughly American, aren't isolated, and are thoroughly integrated.

If even east asians harvard and standford students don't meet your standards of 'integration', then your standards are so skewed as to be essentially worthless.

The Asians that I have met, I was in an entirely Chinese art school so I'm not unfamiliar with Asians.

The Chinese take special pains to keep their children Chinese. They go to Chinese school in addition to public or private school. They certainly have a facade of integration. In my school we had all ages. None of them would speak English. They could all speak English. The children spoke unaccounted English. If they spoke English to one another, the instructor would correct them.

The children went back to China every year. Become too western, that vacation would be a year long. They were friendly to everyone, up to a point. Their very closest friends were Chinese.

I grew to greatly admire the Chinese, especially the way those tiger moms raised their kuds.

 

[Skylar]

Now that we have same sex marriage, there is no reason why a man cannot marry several men who then become the husbands of one another as well as the husbands of the wives married to the original wife. Naturally, each wife and each husband can take wives and husbands of their own.

Sure there is: bigamy laws make that illegal in every state.

If you want to make a case for bigamy, feel free.

 

[Katzndogz]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

 

[Skylar]

They do. You live in fantasy land where everyone sings kumbaya.

No, I just interact with them on a daily basis. And they're American. Culturally and otherwise.

Most children of immigrants don't have time to 'carefully preserve their culture'. They're working 2 and 3 jobs to eat. And its the lack of time to study English that isolates the parents. Their kids aren't isolated as they generally have native fluency. So their world is far, far larger.

Really? Have you been to Orange County, Ca, San Francisco, Seattle counties?

How do Asian students get to the top of the class? | GreatKids

And these students can't speak English? Aren't Americans? Are isolated from society and refuse to integrate?

Because I've been to all those places. And the asian students I've met can speak English, are thoroughly American, aren't isolated, and are thoroughly integrated.

If even east asians harvard and standford students don't meet your standards of 'integration', then your standards are so skewed as to be essentially worthless.

The Asians that I have met, I was in an entirely Chinese art school so I'm not unfamiliar with Asians.

The Chinese take special pains to keep their children Chinese. They go to Chinese school in addition to public or private school. They certainly have a facade of integration. In my school we had all ages. None of them would speak English. They could all speak English. The children spoke unaccounted English. If they spoke English to one another, the instructor would correct them.

The children went back to China every year. Become too western, that vacation would be a year long. They were friendly to everyone, up to a point. Their very closest friends were Chinese.

I grew to greatly admire the Chinese, especially the way those tiger moms raised their kuds.

Oh, the children certainly have influences from China. But they're thoroughly American. They work wonderfully in our businesses, they excel in our schools, they live in our neighborhoods. They serve in our militaries. They fight for and protect our values. And they are their values too.

But as I said, if even east Asians the proverbial 'model minority' fail your standards of hating American and failing to integrate......then your standards are ludicrously meaningless.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

PolySTDery

 

[Skylar]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

 

[Skylar]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

For the same reason that bigamy laws have never been successfully challenged.

 

[Katzndogz]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

 

[Skylar]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

 

[martybegan]

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

For the same reason that bigamy laws have never been successfully challenged.

Bigamy usually involves unknowing parties, and is a crime. Deception is needed because a license won't be issued to knowing parties. They are two separate things.

 

[Katzndogz]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

I doubt it can. Mostly though, you will find no marriage. Like the people in this article. They never married. Of course they could bring other people into their relatiinship.

 

[martybegan]

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?