Your original post makes it seem that polygamy is wrong. It is not, as far as I am concerned so long as consenting adults are concerned.

There always seem to be a recurring theme with those who attempt to make a correlation between same-sex marriage and whatever nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense.

Honestly, the same exact fucking damn arguments were used during and after interracial marriage was made legal.

Does not anyone study history any more or are all theists such fucking die hard idiots to the extent that reason must come at a high price?

I fucking swear.

Quote:Lol, I didn't realize this had anything to do with bestiality... 

Check out that famed catholic nut, Rick Santorum.

He actually started making that argument years ago and he hasn't gotten any smarter in the interim.

(July 8, 2015 at 11:32 pm)Kitan Wrote: Your original post makes it seem that polygamy is wrong.  It is not, as far as I am concerned so long as consenting adults are concerned.

There always seem to be a recurring theme with those who attempt to make a correlation between same-sex marriage and whatever nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense.

Honestly, the same exact fucking damn arguments were used during and after interracial marriage was made legal.

Does not anyone study history any more or are all theists such fucking die hard idiots to the extent that reason must come at a high price?

I fucking swear.

I would recommend just reading the question as it is asked and not looking for/assuming/accusing me of any sort of subliminal messages or "hidden meaning" that is not there.

(July 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Whether the unions be between 1 men and multiple women, 1 women and multiple men, multiple men, or multiple women, should unions between more than 2 people be recognized by the government as marriage?

Why or why not?

The government recognizes many unions of multiple people regularly for the purpose of respecting and restricting rights. It calls those unions corporations, and allows those multiple partners to join their finances together in order to achieve that goal of maximizing profits.

Why should the government not extend the same benefit to people who wish to join together in order to attain a non-financial goal? And so long as you're not involved in such an arrangement, why is it any of your business, Cathy?

(July 8, 2015 at 11:59 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Whether the unions be between 1 men and multiple women, 1 women and multiple men, multiple men, or multiple women, should unions between more than 2 people be recognized by the government as marriage?

Why or why not?

The government recognizes many unions of multiple people regularly for the purpose of respecting and restricting rights.  It calls those unions corporations, and allows those multiple partners to join their finances together in order to achieve that goal of maximizing profits.

Why should the government not extend the same benefit to people who wish to join together in order to attain a non-financial goal? And so long as you're not involved in such an arrangement, why is it any of your business, Cathy?

Just curious to hear yall's views on this, that's all.

Sheesh, is it a full moon tonight or something? Lol.

---

(July 8, 2015 at 11:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Lol, I didn't realize this had anything to do with bestiality... 

Check out that famed catholic nut, Rick Santorum.

He actually started making that argument years ago and he hasn't gotten any smarter in the interim.

Ok, but that's not what I'm doing. It was just a simple question and I was curious to know the views of the people here. Nothing more, nothing less.

I doubt I will ever marry.

However, marriage has its perks.

It should be between two consenting adults, of course.

Marriage is an expression of love.

What irks me, however, are theists who advocate divorce informing others that they cannot marry.

That is a veritable definition of hypocrisy.

(July 9, 2015 at 12:24 am)Kitan Wrote: I doubt I will ever marry.

However, marriage has its perks.

It should be between two consenting adults, of course.

Marriage is an expression of love.

What irks me, however, are theists who advocate divorce informing others that they cannot marry.  

That is a veritable definition of hypocrisy.

(Bolding, mine)

I agree.

So, here's where I'm coming from, in the interests of full disclosure: for much of my adult life, I have been polyamorous. Not at present, but most of my significant romantic attachments came as part of a group relationship with three other people and an orbiting collection of other, less serious partners.

The point is, I have experience with this stuff, which is why I don't see any particular reason to stop polygamous unions, assuming they aren't in any way gender segregated. Yes, the laws would have to get more complex to suit this, but not as much as people might think. By and large, those partnerships willing to go the distance and seriously commit like that already have a lot of experience working out the minutia of their relationships on their own, up to and including the skullduggery associated with marriage. It's a labyrinthine process just being in a poly group, and that tends to weed out the less serious ones on its own; I see Steel asking if 40 people could get married on the first page, and I gotta tell ya, that's unfeasible. That ship will sink real quick; too many people, too many individual relationships to manage, something will break and the whole thing will crumble.

To be honest, I think mine was the largest poly group I've met (eight regular members, four serious romantic partners included in that) and even something like that drifted apart in the end. This idea of armies of people marching down the aisle together just isn't gonna happen.

(July 9, 2015 at 12:39 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, here's where I'm coming from, in the interests of full disclosure: for much of my adult life, I have been polyamorous. Not at present, but most of my significant romantic attachments came as part of a group relationship with three other people and an orbiting collection of other, less serious partners.

The point is, I have experience with this stuff, which is why I don't see any particular reason to stop polygamous unions, assuming they aren't in any way gender segregated. Yes, the laws would have to get more complex to suit this, but not as much as people might think. By and large, those partnerships willing to go the distance and seriously commit like that already have a lot of experience working out the minutia of their relationships on their own, up to and including the skullduggery associated with marriage. It's a labyrinthine process just being in a poly group, and that tends to weed out the less serious ones on its own; I see Steel asking if 40 people could get married on the first page, and I gotta tell ya, that's unfeasible. That ship will sink real quick; too many people, too many individual relationships to manage, something will break and the whole thing will crumble.

To be honest, I think mine was the largest poly group I've met (eight regular members, four serious romantic partners included in that) and even something like that drifted apart in the end. This idea of armies of people marching down the aisle together just isn't gonna happen.

Thanks for the honesty and the insight.

As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract like any other. Any extra meaning it has is granted by the people involved, and is not a necessary component.

So in theory I see no problem with drawing up a similar contract including several people. I have no moral objection to multiple partner relationships between consenting adults.

My concerns would be the practicality of the contract, and how it would affect any children of the involved people. I'd have to know more about the exact proposal before answering these concerns, so I say other.