Quote from: DianaP on January 05, 2013, 10:48:21 AM
Tell me about it. I could probably have purely sexual relationships with more than one person at a time, but I couldn't share my spouse.

I can hear it now. "B****, he's mine!" *Hair pulling* 

Diana...I swear you are so funny.....I would pay money to see a fight like that!

I don't understand why bisexual people are being singled out in the title.
As for polyamory, to each their own.

Quote from: JasonRX on January 04, 2013, 10:59:00 PM
Most people aren't polygamists, bisexual or not...

So basically, no, I don't agree with this.

That's an argument against it?

Most people don't like Dungeons & Dragons, so I don't agree with people playing Dungeons & Dragons.

I tend to be monogamously-oriented myself. That said, I don't feel it's my place to tell other people what will make them happy or work for them. It seems most of the arguments people make against polyamory has to do with things that are issues for the person making the statement and not necessarily issues for everyone.

There are so many people getting divorced from monogamous marriages. It's so far from being a perfect institution already. I feel a lot of people are getting into relationships for questionable reasons or who have unreasonable expectations of a relationship. One has to have their own head screwed on well first. A relationship shouldn't be looked at as something that's going to fix you or fulfill a deep need. It should be something that enhances your life once you're already healthy and have good self-esteem and so forth. The jealousy, failure of communication, and other things I think have to do with other things than whether you're in a monogamous or a polyamorous relationship.

I see no problem with people trying new things while they try to figure all this complicated stuph out.

Quote from: Edge on January 05, 2013, 01:30:58 PM
I don't understand why bisexual people are being singled out in the title.
As for polyamory, to each their own.

I had the same thought. Bisexual people have more options when it comes to polyamory but gay or straight people can also be in polyamorous relationships. I've even heard a straight man talk about welcoming another man into a relationship because he wanted the camaraderie and even looked forward to sharing some limited physical affection. As long as everyone is clear on their boundaries and communicates well and everything is consensual, I don't see any reason to put arbitrary limits on what people can choose to do.

I'm coming to this rather late, but why focus on bi people? Why shouldn't straight or gay people be able to marry more than one person?

Here is why I am bringing up bisexual people specifically

QuoteBesides challenging people's ideas about sexuality, gender, and love, another issue here is that bisexuals tend to be rather invisible. If they're in same-sex relationships, they're viewed as gay, and if they're in opposite-sex relationships, then they're seen as straight. They have to speak up and label themselves as bi or else adorn themselves with bisexual jewellery if they want to be understood as bisexual. But since it's tiring and impossible to always do this, instead bisexuals get absorbed into other groups (gay or straight), and thereby their own needs and rights are conveniently ignored.

For these reasons and more, bisexuals tend to be left out of the debates and discussions surrounding equal marriage. But as society is slowly but surely moving towards a situation where all people have the right to marry whomever we choose, we must not ignore or fear bisexuals. Rather, we should learn from them.

If people can be attracted to others as more than just a particular set of genitals - and that's clearly the case - then that's a strong argument for allowing everyone the freedom to marry. Bisexuality thus is essential to the marriage debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bj-epstein/bisexuality-and-marriage_b_1577176.html

Quote from: Arch on January 05, 2013, 01:59:15 PM
I'm coming to this rather late, but why focus on bi people? Why shouldn't straight or gay people be able to marry more than one person?

I think its because of the common misconception that bisexuals can't be satisfied with one person.

No it is not, I am simply stating that bisexuals should be allowed to legally marry 2 people of different genders if they want to do so, equal marriage should not be limited to 1 partner if that's not what they want.

Quote from: Jaime on January 05, 2013, 02:04:23 PM
I think its because of the common misconception that bisexuals can't be satisfied with one person.

Then perhaps this thread should focus on whether gay men should be able to marry in packs.

I'm still a little confused about your objective.

Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on January 05, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
No it is not, I am simply stating that bisexuals should be allowed to legally marry 2 people of different genders if they want to do so, equal marriage should not be limited to 1 partner if that's not what they want.

To me, your comment sort of proves my point. You are assuming they want to be married to more than one person because the one kind of genitals aren't enough for them. 

The article doesn't really seem to be advocating any sort of multiple partner marriage, its just venting about how bisexuals aren't mentioned in the whole marriage thing, but really, they don't so much need to be. If equality in marriage is achieved, they can marry whichever gender they wish, but only one of them, just like everyone else could.  And really, to me, its like a particular crayon complaining about its specific color not being mentioned on the box that is marked assorted colors.  Just my view of it. Heck trans people aren't  mentioned in most marriage equality debates either.

Quote from: SageFox on January 05, 2013, 12:37:28 PM
Well, I'm bisexual and I've been in plenty of long-term monogamous relationships - and I've never cheated on my partners.  But in all honesty I would prefer to be in a polygamous relationship with both a man and a woman.

However, the only way that a poly relationship would really work is if there is plenty of open and honest communication amongst mature adults that can let go of jealousy.  Having a third person that's fully trusted and loved by the other two means that when arguments erupt that there should always be a mediator to help work things out.  And it's everyone's responsibility to ensure that no one is excluded.  This doesn't mean that two people couldn't have time alone - only that it's done with the knowledge and consent of the third person.

As for ""group marriage" between three or more people - Robert Heinlein wrote about this is more than a few of his novels and I really liked the concept of everyone contributing to a common family during their time in the "marriage".  That means everyone contributes financially and otherwise to the common good.  Anyone is free to leave when they want to and members could come and go - (ie divorce as in normal marriages).  Children are raised by all the adults.

Here's a wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage

This is best answer I have heard so far and makes total sense.

The way I see it the government should not be making decisions about who or how many people you can marry. That needs to be left up to you and your value system and how you feel about it. Some states are alllowing for equal marriage now but it is still illegal to be married to 2 people at the same time. Instead they just live together as roomates and what not.

QuoteI've always thought that marriage should be open to more than two people.  I don't know if that makes me an anarchist or just liberal, but I never understood why "the state" felt they had a right to define 1) religious unions 2) civil unions 3) who you're allowed to love and commit your life to.

I think that once same-sex marriage is legalized throughout the nation the next great leap will be removing the two-person limit on marriage.  While I do believe that 98% of people wouldn't be interested in a marriage to more than one person, there's nothing wrong with the other 2% having multiple wives or husbands as long as everyone is aware and in agreement on the situation.

AND... Bigamy, being married to more then one person, always gets a bad rap because it's either done without the other spouses knowing about it or it's some crazy man marrying a woman and her sisters and her 14 year old daughters - that's just wrong.  But three or four adults that all agree to live together, love each other, contribute to a common household, and all participate in the raising of children?  Nothing wrong with that IMO.

SageFox has said what I currently see as well with all of this.

I have never understood why the equal-marriage naysayers keep banging on about "it'll lead to (gasp!) more than two people wanting to be married to each other! That's like bestiality!!" etc.

Quote from: dalebert on January 05, 2013, 01:53:30 PM
I had the same thought. Bisexual people have more options when it comes to polyamory but gay or straight people can also be in polyamorous relationships. I've even heard a straight man talk about welcoming another man into a relationship because he wanted the camaraderie and even looked forward to sharing some limited physical affection. As long as everyone is clear on their boundaries and communicates well and everything is consensual, I don't see any reason to put arbitrary limits on what people can choose to do.

Ah, the bromance. 

Camaraderie? That makes me think that they'll be pleasuring the same girl at the same time and then... HIGH FIVE! 

eh what is the female word for "bromance"?

Quote from: Padma on January 05, 2013, 02:28:47 PM
I have never understood why the equal-marriage naysayers keep banging on about "it'll lead to (gasp!) more than two people wanting to be married to each other! That's like bestiality!!" etc.

I don't understand most of those people. They're usually the same ones who claim to be stunned when their spouse gets caught doing something with someone else that strikes me as not being an improvement on bestiality. I just tend to put it all down under the general category of Christian posturers trying to pretend that if you don't look at something, it won't really exist. They're in marriages that have never actually worked to begin with, looking for someone else to take the blame for their own personal failure to deal with the reality that 90% of sex takes place between one or more sets of ears.

Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on January 05, 2013, 02:34:28 PM
eh what is the female word for "bromance"?

There isn't one. It's superceded by the U-Haul phenomenon.

Quote from: Shawn Sunshine on January 05, 2013, 02:34:28 PM
eh what is the female word for "bromance"?

A womance.

Also, while looking that up, I came across a funny set of terms.

The female equivalents of cock block are "taco block" or "clam slam." 

U-Haul is a lesbian syndrome - presumably a womance, like a bromance, assumes the participants are nominally heterosexual .