Civil Unions coming to Illinois?

[Garrison0fMars]

It would not be good to suggest that partners in polyamorous relationships are "trophies".

I am not poly but I support it for people who want to be in romantic relationships involving more than two informed, consenting, happy partners.

Agreed. It's why I questioned the idea only the "rich" would do so out of the sake of having "trophy" spouses. Polyamorous relationships are generally not like that.

 

[Drachasor]

It would not be good to suggest that partners in polyamorous relationships are "trophies".

I am not poly but I support it for people who want to be in romantic relationships involving more than two informed, consenting, happy partners.

That's not what I am saying.

I'm saying that if you could marry multiple wives, then there'd be a lot of rich men grabbing multiple wives because they could. I think that would grow over time. I believe this would be problematic and make marriage viewed more like a commodity.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

That's not what I am saying.

I'm saying that if you could marry multiple wives, then there'd be a lot of rich men grabbing multiple wives because they could. I think that would grow over time. I believe this would be problematic and make marriage viewed more like a commodity.

Er, I see a few problems with that argument. First, what marriage is "viewed" as is very different from the reality of it. The reality is, people marry for a whole assortment of reasons, many outside the traditional "view" of marriage. I've known people who've married for the following reasons. Guilt is one (usually for knocking someone up), just for the children's sake, another to secure permanent residency status for another, status (yes, it happens with monogamous marriage), to be a freeloader off the more wealthy spouse, and actual love. Some will use marriage (as they already do) for commodity's sake, so what? Why is it ok for a monogamous marriage? Who's to say the rich don't already kind of do this, since after all, they almost always have multiple mistresses. If anything, letting them marry their other mistresses will possibly improve those relationships, since after all with a marriage, they couldn't just dump them and expect to get away scot free (alimony, which may actually discourage frivolous multiple marriages) But aside from the commodity aspect, which already happens, I don't find that a particularly good argument to deny polyamorous couples from the right of marriage, or otherwise legal recognition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Uh really? Would you like to expand your thoughts on that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Traditionally it was about a husband and wife, with womens rights removing any distinction between husband and wife, how can anyone honestly claim that modern marriage is even remotely traditional.

If they hadn't let women own property the whole gay marriage thing would not be an issue as well, because marriage wouldn't be a union of two equal people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Uh, well, the ability to marry more than one individual I'd imagine?

And it would make greencard marriages so easy, you get one citizen or even a couple and you can have as many people given spousal visa's as you want. How many spouces does a company have to offer health care for?

How about the most basic part, is it multiple people in one marriage or one person in multiple marriages? This will strongly impact the effects on divorce as well.

There are hundreds and hundreds of laws and statues that define marriage, and many of them will need to be reinterpreted to look at how polymarriage will work.

This is why you don't see Muslims and Polyamorous folks joining forces to try to get a legal framework for how they run their lives.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It would not be good to suggest that partners in polyamorous relationships are "trophies".

I am not poly but I support it for people who want to be in romantic relationships involving more than two informed, consenting, happy partners.

And I support legal recognition of such things. The problem is I want to see their legal framework for what they will do and what effects this will have. This is a fundamental change to the current legal structure of marriage in a way that is much more like women's rights than gay marriage.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Er, I see a few problems with that argument. First, what marriage is "viewed" as is very different from the reality of it. The reality is, people marry for a whole assortment of reasons, many outside the traditional "view" of marriage. I've known people who've married for the following reasons. Guilt is one (usually for knocking someone up), just for the children's sake, another to secure permanent residency status for another, status (yes, it happens with monogamous marriage), to be a freeloader off the more wealthy spouse, and actual love. Some will use marriage (as they already do) for commodity's sake, so what? Why is it ok for a monogamous marriage? Who's to say the rich don't already kind of do this, since after all, they almost always have multiple mistresses. If anything, letting them marry their other mistresses will possibly improve those relationships, since after all with a marriage, they couldn't just dump them and expect to get away scot free (alimony, which may actually discourage frivolous multiple marriages) But aside from the commodity aspect, which already happens, I don't find that a particularly good argument to deny polyamorous couples from the right of marriage, or otherwise legal recognition.

So start finding all the laws and see exactly how you think they should effect poly individuals.

 

[Alan]

And I support legal recognition of such things. The problem is I want to see their legal framework for what they will do and what effects this will have. This is a fundamental change to the current legal structure of marriage in a way that is much more like women's rights than gay marriage.

I am aware of the difficulties with it and think that we agree completely on this point.

[...]This is why you don't see Muslims and Polyamorous folks joining forces to try to get a legal framework for how they run their lives.

Here's an editorial by one Muslim trying to argue for polygyny. He was very sexist.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...should-polygamy-be-a-crime-20091002-gfdg.html

While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying "yes" more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt's research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.

If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.

The sexism would disgust all the people who support polyamory that I know.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The sexism would disgust all the people who support polyamory that I know.

Even though they want the same legal changes.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

And it would make greencard marriages so easy, you get one citizen or even a couple and you can have as many people given spousal visa's as you want.

Then change the legislation regarding "Greencard" marriages. Or you can cheat and have second, third, etc. marriages be counted only as "civil unions" without sponsorship rights which I'd imagine if such groups ever got organized and pressed for their reforms would get something that anyway, rather than full blown marriage.

How about the most basic part, is it multiple people in one marriage or one person in multiple marriages?

Either/or

This is why you don't see Muslims and Polyamorous folks joining forces to try to get a legal framework for how they run their lives.

Muslims are (by tradition) polygamous, not polyamorous.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

So start finding all the laws and see exactly how you think they should effect poly individuals.

Here in this thread? That'd be quite an undertaking, and possibly OT as well...

 

[Garrison0fMars]

This is a fundamental change to the current legal structure of marriage in a way that is much more like women's rights than gay marriage.

Absolutely, but I don't think that's an good argument on it's own against such a reform.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then change the legislation regarding "Greencard" marriages. Or you can cheat and have second, third, etc. marriages be counted only as "civil unions" without sponsorship rights which I'd imagine if such groups ever got organized and pressed for their reforms would get something that anyway, rather than full blown marriage.

But it clearly shows how changes that polymarriage will have on monomarriage.

Either/or

So you don't have a legal framework for the legal changes you want.

Muslims are (by tradition) polygamous, not polyamorous.

But the point here is polygamy, this is about marriages after all. If you are defining them as separate then why do you care that polygamy is not recognized? That is the issue you are arguing about.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

So you don't have a legal framework for the legal changes you want.

Uh? I don't think you understand polyamory Also, do I need to craft legislation state and federally before I can argue for any certain point? I think you're thinking that somehow I'm arguing for a specific way such a reform would happen, which I'm not. I'm simply showing my support for the idea (if ever seriously proposed) for legal recognition of poly relationships.

But the point here is polygamy, this is about marriages after all. If you are defining them as separate then why do you care that polygamy is not recognized? That is the issue you are arguing about.

No, it's not. The point was about polyamory, not polygamy. I don't support legal recognition for one man to have multiple wives, but women to not have multiple husbands as well. Or rather, let me reword that.

I don't support a legal framework that would bar women to have multiple husbands, but not men to have multiple wives. I also wouldn't support a legal framework where men couldn't have multiple husbands, and women couldn't have multiple wives.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Absolutely, but I don't think that's an good argument on it's own against such a reform.

But it is an argument when its proponents have no answers for how they even want the laws changed.

This also touches on why I am in favor of marriage as it stands as opposed to a checklist of the rights associated with it that a couple chooses what they want. By bundling them together people get protections that they were unaware of before they needed them.

The changes needed might move marriage away from the current form that many people want, so it is possible that polygamous relationships would be recognized under a different legal framework than marriage.

Gay marriage is simple from a legal perspective. And there are kinds of polygamy that I would want still criminalized, namely for example having two families that know nothing about each other.

So until I start seeing real legal frameworks and suggestions from the advocates of polygamy, I will always argue against it because the proponents don't even have something to advocate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Uh? I don't think you understand polyamory Also, do I need to craft legislation state and federally before I can argue for any certain point? I think you're thinking that somehow I'm arguing for a specific way such a reform would happen, which I'm not. I'm simply showing my support for the idea (if ever seriously proposed) for legal recognition of poly marriage.

Well you might want to learn the definitions of the words you are using.

No, it's not. The point was about polyamory, not polygamy. I don't support legal recognition for one man to have multiple wives, but women to not have multiple husbands as well.

You are confused and don't understand definitions of the words you are using. Polygamy is the term for multiple people in a marriage, polygyny is one man having multiple wives and polyandry which is much less common is one woman having multiple husbands. Polyamory talks about multiple love and has no specific relations to marriage. A polyamorous married couple who have significant long term but secondary relationships do not need any kind of legalized polygamous framework to make their lives work.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

A polyamorous married couple who have significant long term but secondary relationships do not need any kind of legalized polygamous framework to make their lives work.

Nor do gay couples either.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

You are confused and don't understand definitions of the words you are using. Polygamy is the term for multiple people in a marriage, polygyny is one man having multiple wives and polyandry which is much less common is one woman having multiple husbands. Polyamory talks about multiple love and has no specific relations to marriage.

My bad, I used the wrong specific words. I am still comparing two different relationships though than you are. Also, while polyamory while technically having no relationship to marriage (as doesn't homosexuality), there are polyamorists who want some legal recognition for their multiple relationships.

*edit* actually I was using the correct term, per se. There's no concrete word to describe relationships with men and women having multiple marriages themselves. (IE, the husband having multiple wives and/or husbands, the women having multiple husbands and/or wives). In fact, polyamory is a rather new word anyway, so I was making due

 

[Garrison0fMars]

So until I start seeing real legal frameworks and suggestions from the advocates of polygamy, I will always argue against it because the proponents don't even have something to advocate.

I'm not at the forefronts of activism for polyandry relationships, sorry. You may want to ask polyamorous organizations for specific proposed reforms if interested.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My bad, I used the wrong specific words. I am still comparing two different relationships though than you are. Also, while polyamory while technically having no relationship to marriage (as doesn't homosexuality), there are polyamorists who want some legal recognition for their multiple relationships.

And it is their job to propose a legal framework. Of course it needs to be a framework that they can all get behind as well.

And the point holds that both polygynous religious groups and polyamorous relationships want the same or similar legal changes. And why should I be so preferential that one groups relationships gain legal recognition and the others do not?