Do you support the legalisation of polyagmy and polyandry

[Ben Davis]

There is just one - if one of the participants is not in the relationship out of his/her own volition.

Apologies, I ommitted a base assumption which acts as a qualifier: 'all relationships are between consenting partners'.

That is the case with most of the social contracts. The validity in this case does not refer to emotion or commitment on your side but to whether the contract is enforceable by law.

The concept of 'marriage as a contract' is one of the 'co-opted' points to which I referred in my previous post: marriage is only a contract because the governmental/religious institutions insisted that it be so (for various purposes of social control/engineering). There is no need for legal responsibilities to be defined as a consequence of a group's relationship status and it's a fallacy to suggest otherwise. In the UK, these responsibilities are catered for by other legislation (e.g. 'Common Law' relationships, maternity/paternity law, housing law). There's no need for 'marital contracts'.

[genkaus]

The concept of 'marriage as a contract' is one of the 'co-opted' points to which I referred in my previous post: marriage is only a contract because the governmental/religious institutions insisted that it be so (for various purposes of social control/engineering). There is no need for legal responsibilities to be defined as a consequence of a group's relationship status and it's a fallacy to suggest otherwise. In the UK, these responsibilities are catered for by other legislation (e.g. 'Common Law' relationships, maternity/paternity law, housing law). There's no need for 'marital contracts'.

But there do exist legal responsibilities that are a consequence of the group's relationship status. For example, the legal responsibilities of the parties to a contract are governed by contract law. Partners in a firm are governed by company law. I guess the relations between parents and children would be governed by maternity/paternity laws. So too the responsibilities in a marriage can be governed by marital law. You can change the name to call it "Common Law" relationships, but that wouldn't change their nature.

[Ryantology]

I have no issue with letting people do what they want sexually, but legalising it is a different matter. You change the very fabric society substantially by actively enacting legalisation.

That is the case presently. We actively legislate against bigamy, polygamy, and homosexual unions. So, what you are saying is that you support active legislation. Because, you can't exactly force people to do whatever they want.

Besides, who is to say the fabric of society could not use some substantial change? A society which legislates morality is a flawed society.

[pocaracas]

A society which legislates morality is a flawed society.

Well, you don't want people killing or just hurting each other, do you?
Or "thou shall not kill" is not a moral rule?

[Spectrum]

Besides, who is to say the fabric of society could not use some substantial change? A society which legislates morality is a chaotic society.

There, I fixed that for you.

I don't care what happens, concerning this particular piece of legislation, honestly. However, let's get something straight: You cannot trust humans to live in a society civilly, without some sort of moral backbone. That backbone comes from the state, church, traditional values, or what have you. In the end, men are beasts without principles. Stripping away all of the traditional morals and values is never a good idea, because there is no consensus on anything. Entropy is then the least of your worries. After a while, groups will start to form and bicker among each other, possibly leading to violence and/or excommunication.

[genkaus]

Besides, who is to say the fabric of society could not use some substantial change? A society which legislates morality is a chaotic society.

There, I fixed that for you.

I don't care what happens, concerning this particular piece of legislation, honestly. However, let's get something straight: You cannot trust humans to live in a society civilly, without some sort of moral backbone. That backbone comes from the state, church, traditional values, or what have you. In the end, men are beasts without principles. Stripping away all of the traditional morals and values is never a good idea, because there is no consensus on anything. Entropy is then the least of your worries. After a while, groups will start to form and bicker among each other, possibly leading to violence and/or excommunication.

Your correction seems to be at odds with your views. Perhaps, you meant "A society which does not legislate morality is a chaotic society".

[Violet]

Well, here is the thing. Why is copy right there? It's for the well being of society. There is consequences to society as a whole without copy right.

I believe you meant, "to choke out innovation and to slow progress in the protection of a monopoly." Because honestly... I cannot see a good reason for copyright to exist for longer than *one* (nonrenewable) year.

But people seem to focus on "physical" or "material" well being only. I think spiritual well being of society is also important.

So for example, I don't think prostitution should be allowed.

I think "honour" is important to protect in society.

I am a highly spiritual person... why shouldn't prostitution be allowed and tolerated? I'm not asking for the moon and the stars here, only that people's business be left to themselves. Honor is individual... at its most intersubjective it is the unwritten rules of fair play. I don't believe all honor is important to protect, nor do I believe it requires protecting. Why would it?

As for jealousy causing revenge, it's a factor, a motivation, but then their is praise when you overcome jealousy.

It's also praise where your love of the person and respect of his rights, overcomes your jealous feelings.

However, jealousy is not a bad feeling in itself. Well there is two types. There is one type, that wishes bad upon the other person. Then there is the type that you wish you had the good of that person. I think the latter is natural. Sometimes it's a mix of both.

And the type of jealous nature, the want of the partner for yourself, comes out appreciation of who they are. No it's not base all the time.

Why should one be praised for having been jealous... for resenting another for what they have? That's just plain unfriendly and misplaced, especially when envious of someone you care for. Jealousy is a horrible feeling... the paranoia, the absence of trust, the black desires causing one to want for harm upon another... why would this be a good thing? Simply: there are not 'two forms' for jealousy... there is wist and envy. Wistfulness is a pleasant or sad dream of what might have been, a fantasy... not that sick and mired covetous possessiveness.

Yes, jealousy is absolutely base. All of the time.

I'm sorry, you might as well call romantic love base all the time. Sure if you don't know the partner, and had no relationship with them, and you felt jealousy over them simply on their looks or something, that is base. But even that is natural. It simply sparks out of the love we have for ourselves.

Romance has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy. Sentimentality, idealization, excitement, sweet intrigue, fun: these are romance. One can easily despise themselves, and yet love someone... them value judgements. Master before thyself, thyself before thy food, thy food before thy enemy.

Jealousy is a double edge sword. It can be bad, it can be good. In marriage, not having jealous nature type love over your partner, means you care less if they go have sex with another or love another. I'm sorry but that means you don't value the romantic relationship between you as you should.

And kids naturally feel that way over their parents without parents ever telling them they should.

It's true, I care less if they do have sex with or love with others. But that's personal. Other couples make it clear to each other that they are monogamous... I couldn't do this because of the focus on possessiveness... I find it unhealthy. The staggering divorce rate speaks for itself. The mountainous affair rate speaks for the rest. Regardless... I do not believe jealousy is important to staying monogamous, especially given that many a jealous bitch is sleeping/flirting around themselves.

I'm sorry, but I've been through highschool, and it doesn't get better Children are possessive, so what: it's a survival technique. My method is entirely too giving for my continued survival... or so I believed until the world started giving back to me everything I need 0.o

... And children don't always love their parents. Too many assholes in this world, too much psychological damage possible.

You got to be kidding me. So if you love your husband/wife, and you don't want him/her having sex with others, you are having inconsiderate control?

I believe that, yes. If I am no able to fulfill every sexual, romantic, emotional, physical, or social need of a loved one: I am completely ready to allow them to find others to fill the void.

I will try harder, I will make fresh hummus... but if that isn't enough: I'm prepared to admit that I'm not enough for someone I don't joke around about being the best I can be for those I love... and sometimes that means stepping back.

Mob like potential preference of society...it's not necessarily that one will be majority, but that it can become a norm.

For example, it maybe that guys won't marry one woman with a husband. But the same would not be true of woman marrying men with another wife.

Or if society totally looses it , it can be the other way.

It's not that it will definetly happen, but it's possible. It's not necessarily that both would be embraced.

Harems happen plenty often already... I could only hope that in a society where polyamority/gamy is recognized and accepted: there would be a greater social safety net for people involved. Getting my hopes up too far? Yeah, we can't even accept people who've been goddamn trafficked.

Your missing the point. If it's legal to marry multiple partners, then it can become very hard to keep a monogamous relationship. It's become much easier to cheat.

Society already cheats well enough. It's something we should try to reduce, not make it more easier and more of a norm.

It doesn't become 'easier' to cheat, if the desire is there then there is little that can stop it but self-control and willpower. Cheating is just as deal-breakingly bad for polyamority as it is for monoamority. And the reason for this is simple: it is a relationship with another person... cheating is going behind the back of that person. I don't know many people who are so forgiving to just let it slide, even I take a huge beating over it (as recently occurred when my partner gave someone a blowjob. And I only ask for a heads-up).

What you don't seem to get, is that just because you *can* marry more than one person: it doesn't mean your other partners will accept that. Welcome to what I feel greatly traps me in this relationship

No, not just me. It takes the majority. But my voice in the many would be to enforce these red lines.

And in fact, personally, I want bigger consequences for cheating in society. Of course not the "stoning" penalty of Islam, but a heavy consequence.

A heavy consequence... for wanting to fuck people? What... the fuck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uv8Ej4CEoQ

Generations in the future will see who will win.

Hate to tell you... but the question for them will be if it's legal to 'marry' your clone. Or by then the atrocity that is marriage will be formally done away with for anyone not in a cult.

[JohnDG]

First I don't share... Second I would end up spending more time with one person above others. The practice is only used so the husband can have another girl whenever he is bored with his favorite. Personally I would be satisfied with one. Also it would be extremely difficult keeping so many women happy as I have problems keeping just one happy. Which I fail at because they all cheat on me.

[genkaus]

I believe you meant, "to choke out innovation and to slow progress in the protection of a monopoly." Because honestly... I cannot see a good reason for copyright to exist for longer than *one* (nonrenewable) year.

The reason is the same as why you are allowed to hold any other piece of property for more than one year.

Why should one be praised for having been jealous... for resenting another for what they have? That's just plain unfriendly and misplaced, especially when envious of someone you care for. Jealousy is a horrible feeling... the paranoia, the absence of trust, the black desires causing one to want for harm upon another... why would this be a good thing? Simply: there are not 'two forms' for jealousy... there is wist and envy. Wistfulness is a pleasant or sad dream of what might have been, a fantasy... not that sick and mired covetous possessiveness.

Yes, jealousy is absolutely base. All of the time.

I disagree. Jealousy can be a great motivator for self-betterment. I'm usually jealous of all of my closest friends for what they've achieved and I didn't. In fact, if a person doesn't have something I'd be jealous of, I wouldn't respect him enough to build a friendship.

[Darth]

How is intellectual property the same as physical property?

If I write (My copyrighted/patented text here) and then start telling it to people of my choosing, who then retell it others, who then tell it to even more people, how is that in any way theft? My copies haven't been touched. If I come into your house and steal your goldfish, you're down one goldfish. If you post a picture of your goldfish on the web, and I Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+v that picture, you have lost neither your goldfish or the picture of your goldfish, your copy hasn't even been borrowed.

Breach of contract, maybe even fraud, I can see, because the first people may have signed/agreed/checked a box, saying that they wouldn't make copies. But theft? No, especially not the people further down the line.