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

[Skylar]

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

The same way the law judges bigamy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

The same way the law judges bigamy.

Now we know they don't. Consenting adults can do what theybwant.

 

[Silhouette]

The same way the law judges bigamy.

Let me get this straight...you're citing law...(remember, Prop 8 and others like it are also laws) to justify denying marriage to people who love each other and want to be married?

That's rich. ...and hypocritical...

 

[WinterBorn]

Does anyone bother to look at the definition of the words they use?

Polyamory is simply loving more than one person. Whether it is a committed union of 3 or more people or two people who love each other but date others as well, unless they marry (and want more than one spouse), it is none of the gov't's business.

There are poly people who enjoy orgies. There are some who enjoy all sorts of things. There are also those who enjoy a quiet dinner & movie sort of date as well.

Yes, jealousy can cause problems. But it is not always an issue. We have no problem with it in our house.

But please, tell us all why it is anyone's business whether people are polyamorous or not? What possible basis could there be for having the gov't involved?

 

[Katzndogz]

Does anyone bother to look at the definition of the words they use?

Polyamory is simply loving more than one person. Whether it is a committed union of 3 or more people or two people who love each other but date others as well, unless they marry (and want more than one spouse), it is none of the gov't's business.

There are poly people who enjoy orgies. There are some who enjoy all sorts of things. There are also those who enjoy a quiet dinner & movie sort of date as well.

Yes, jealousy can cause problems. But it is not always an issue. We have no problem with it in our house.

But please, tell us all why it is anyone's business whether people are polyamorous or not? What possible basis could there be for having the gov't involved?

It might be polygamy or polyandry.

 

[WinterBorn]

Does anyone bother to look at the definition of the words they use?

Polyamory is simply loving more than one person. Whether it is a committed union of 3 or more people or two people who love each other but date others as well, unless they marry (and want more than one spouse), it is none of the gov't's business.

There are poly people who enjoy orgies. There are some who enjoy all sorts of things. There are also those who enjoy a quiet dinner & movie sort of date as well.

Yes, jealousy can cause problems. But it is not always an issue. We have no problem with it in our house.

But please, tell us all why it is anyone's business whether people are polyamorous or not? What possible basis could there be for having the gov't involved?

It might be polygamy or polyandry.

Except those are different things. I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry, provided everyone involved knows the score.

But the OP talked about polyamory.

 

[Katzndogz]

Does anyone bother to look at the definition of the words they use?

Polyamory is simply loving more than one person. Whether it is a committed union of 3 or more people or two people who love each other but date others as well, unless they marry (and want more than one spouse), it is none of the gov't's business.

There are poly people who enjoy orgies. There are some who enjoy all sorts of things. There are also those who enjoy a quiet dinner & movie sort of date as well.

Yes, jealousy can cause problems. But it is not always an issue. We have no problem with it in our house.

But please, tell us all why it is anyone's business whether people are polyamorous or not? What possible basis could there be for having the gov't involved?

It might be polygamy or polyandry.

Except those are different things. I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry, provided everyone involved knows the score.

But the OP talked about polyamory.

Actually talked about both polyamory and polygamy. Polyandry wasn't mentioned because the op is a woman hating bigot.

 

[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.

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.

Well sure, if you suck as a parent and should have kept you worthless sperm to yourself, then it's not hard to split up when you have kids. But for those of us who take parenting seriously and do everything to provide a stable home it would be extremely difficult. Clearly a difference of values.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

 

[martybegan]

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

You don't have to lie to anyone within a marriage to commit bigamy. Bigamy is when you get married more than once at the same time. Your insistence that deception is required for bigamy isn't reflected in our laws.

It isn't required for it, but it is required for some prosecutor to go any further than just nullifying the 2nd marriage contract.

If deception is a lega requirement of bigamy....show me the law saying this.

If you can't, then your claims are without basis.

its required for most prosecutions beyond just nullifying the 2nd license. That has been my point from the beginning.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me the law saying that deception is a legal requirement for bigamy.

Not having much luck, are you?

I said "involves", not that it is a legal requirement, you are the one setting that bar, not me.

 

[martybegan]

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

And under the law gay marriage wasn't legal until recently. You are arguing mechanics, not the underlying reasoning.

Same sex marriage wasn't legally recognized until recently. It wasn't 'illegal' as it violated no law. It was merely legally void, being unrecognized by the law.

Bigamy is illegal. And there's been no successful challenge against it. Nor is there any recognized right to bigamy.

But if 3 or 4 people love each other, who are we to judge?

The same way the law judges bigamy.

I'm using the same logic SSM supported used, but for some reason you reject it. Why?

 

[martybegan]

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?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

 

[WinterBorn]

I cannot understand why we, as a people, allow the gov't to validate our most sacred and important relationships.

The gov't has no business being in the game at all. And the most amusing thing is all the "small gov't" conservatives advocating for gov't interference in this most personal of relationships.

 

[martybegan]

I cannot understand why we, as a people, allow the gov't to validate our most sacred and important relationships.

The gov't has no business being in the game at all. And the most amusing thing is all the "small gov't" conservatives advocating for gov't interference in this most personal of relationships.

I look at this from a federalist view. The Feds can force States to recognize any legitimate marriage license issued by another State. To me the mistake was thinking the constitution forces said States to issue marriage licenses.
If one State OK'ed plural marriage, to me the other States would have to grant people all the privileges that come with it, even if they don't issue it themselves.

 

[rightwinger]

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

It is a contract between three people

If it is done with consent of the parties involved, I see no reason the government should get involved

 

[martybegan]

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

It is a contract between three people

If it is done with consent of the parties involved, I see no reason the government should get involved

But should a baker have to bake a cake for their wedding?

This would be more of a Mormon thing, as even if legally plural marriage is allowed, the LDS church gave it up themselves a while ago, and most probably would not want to go back to it.

 

[rightwinger]

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

It is a contract between three people

If it is done with consent of the parties involved, I see no reason the government should get involved

But should a baker have to bake a cake for their wedding?

This would be more of a Mormon thing, as even if legally plural marriage is allowed, the LDS church gave it up themselves a while ago, and most probably would not want to go back to it.

God knows I couldn't handle it

 

[WinterBorn]

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

It may not be a right, but I see no reason why it is wrong

But when you use the courts to say SSM is a"right", to be imposed on States that don't want to participate in it, how can someone turn around and say "well we can stop at plural marriage, because ???????"

It is a contract between three people

If it is done with consent of the parties involved, I see no reason the government should get involved

But should a baker have to bake a cake for their wedding?

This would be more of a Mormon thing, as even if legally plural marriage is allowed, the LDS church gave it up themselves a while ago, and most probably would not want to go back to it.

God knows I couldn't handle it

Two wives could be doable. Two mother-in-laws not so much.

 

[Votto]

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

I disagree.

It polygamists want special rights, like gays just obtained, then they will have to pay up like the gay community did pouring millions of dollars into the political system and choosing a given party to back.

Gays on average have more money than their heterosexual counterparts, mainly because they have less issues with raising children and are more career oriented. For them it's not that much of a problem. However, for polygamists, they usually have large families to support and are typically Mormon and conservative, the lowest of the low within society.

Nope, they won't legalize it.

The only way polygamy gets legalized is if gays want to marry in groups.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

I disagree.

It polygamists want special rights, like gays just obtained, then they will have to pay up like the gay community did pouring millions of dollars into the political system and choosing a given party to back.

Gays on average have more money than their heterosexual counterparts, mainly because they have less issues with raising children and are more career oriented. For them it's not that much of a problem. However, for polygamists, they usually have large families to support and are typically Mormon and conservative, the lowest of the low within society.

Nope, they won't legalize it.

The only way polygamy gets legalized is if gays want to marry in groups.

So it is about the money? lol ok.

And polygamy may be an issue that will require changes in laws.

Polyamory is certainly not.