Quote from: EmmaMcAllister on January 06, 2013, 02:58:13 PM
Perhaps this debate would have been more fruitful if the initial question was, "Should marriage be open to more than two people?" Sexual orientation is largely irrelevant to the question of whether or not codified polyamory should be permitted.

this. Wording can change a whole lot in meaning and context.

Well as it stands now , there is no law against having a boyfriend and a girlfriend. But marriage laws for wanting to be with both are probably a long ways off still.

Quote from: dalebert on January 06, 2013, 10:58:33 AM
Marriage isn't about sex. People can have sex without marriage. Marriage is about becoming a family that supports each other to the end. Thinking marriage is about sex is extra fuel for the fire for social conservatives fighting same-sex marriage. There are plenty of open marriages that are still valid. There are sexless marriages. Asexual people sometimes get married for very valid reasons. I don't know why this particular case should be mocked.

I'm aware that marriage isn't just sex. It's actually a commitment between two people who love each other very much and want to share that love with the rest of the world. 

However, considering that this isn't going to change the minds of, let alone be seen by anyone who can change law, I can make all of the jokes I want. 

I think one of the marriages should be legally recognized while the others would just be spiritual/just a strong relationship.  With more than one legal marriage, you run into problems with filing taxes and such.  It gets confusing and can cause a whole bunch of issues.

Either way, enter a polyamourous relationship if it's for you.  I see no reason to limit consenting adults.

Quote from: kyh on January 07, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
Because I think it would be difficult to give both partners, your wife and husband, the love and attention they deserve.

By that logic, no one can love both of their parents deeply. 

Quote from: DianaP on January 07, 2013, 09:11:56 PM
By that logic, no one can love both of their parents deeply. 

ooo good point. I think that sums it up nicely.

Ew, Black Lantern Supergirl. 

EDIT: I'm not offended; I just don't like heroes being evil due to stupid black lantern rings. I read comics and watch cartoons too, Shawn.


    The Blackest Night falls from the skies,
    The darkness grows as all light dies,
    We crave your hearts and your demise,
    By my black hand, the dead shall rise!

I'm... a... nerd! 

Quote from: kyh on January 07, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
Because I think it would be difficult to give both partners, your wife and husband, the love and attention they deserve.

I've heard that before.  I like to point those people in the direction of someone I know who has been in a loving, committed polyamorous relationship for over 15 years.  I'd also like to point them out to a friend of mine who has been in a loving, committed polyamorous relationship for 25+ years. 

Some people just aren't wired for monogamy.  I'm not though I can try very hard for the right person.  I'm wired to love more than one person romantically and I will be there for them no matter what.  I would probably never enter a polyamorous relationship that involved more than two or three consenting adults as that seems more than I could handle, but two is a.ok by me.  No, I'm not a whore and I would prefer to keep sex out of the equation, but my emotional needs are not necessarily filled by one person. [I've tried multiple times, but it always fails even when I didn't realize polyamory was a thing.]

Anyway, people are sometimes just wired differently.  Some people are wired to be monogamous and are comfortable with that while other people aren't.

Quote from: Elspeth on January 05, 2013, 03:10:08 AM
Personally, I do consider matriarchies superior to just about anything I've seen in American societies or subcultures.  Let freedom ring! 

Just a comment here, but I think if  early matriarchal/egalitarian societies were truly superior then there would not be so few of them remaining.

Quote from: Ave on January 07, 2013, 10:08:23 PM
Just a comment here, but I think if  early matriarchal/egalitarian societies were truly superior then there would not be so few of them remaining.

Oh snap! 

I think that the reason why so many monogamous marriages fail is because the myth that you can (and should) get all of your needs met by one other person is... a myth. So for me, the idea that in a polyamorous marriage your husband and wife (or husbands, or wives, or whatever the combo) wouldn't get enough attention is based on the assumption that the most loving you can possibly get is from just one other person, and I think that assumption is wrong. In a polyamorous relationship, depending on the setup, you may have the devoted love of more than one person. Yes please! And give your devoted love to more than one person. Yes please!

Quote from: Ave on January 07, 2013, 10:08:23 PM
Just a comment here, but I think if  early matriarchal/egalitarian societies were truly superior then there would not be so few of them remaining.

That they had the disadvantage of not being prone to the use of force, brutality, and rape as means of control and intimidation, along with other "strengths" of patriarchy is almost certainly part of the reason they are not prevalent today.

On the other hand, one can hope that Marx was right about how "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope." -- granted, that quote strikes me as yet more patriarchal bluster, so something will still need to subvert that form of patriarchy too, no doubt.  I may be a hopeless Pollyanna, but there do seem to be at least some signs that matriarchy might "win" in the long run, by a kind of subversive influence, if only because patriarchy and capitalism seem to contain the seeds of their own eventual collapse.

At some level, in fact, I think that there is a (far from perfect) underground matriarchy in place that allows those who choose to find ways of living in relative peace even while patriarchy continues to do its damage to those who are not able to avoid it.  A girl can dream, at least. One thing seems clear, for matriarchy to prevail it needs to happen without force and direct coercion.

There's a problem here in defining what we each mean by "superior" -- my definition had to do with moral suasion and other factors that don't necessarily fit with prevailing notions of "winning" as seen by patriarchs or Charlie Sheen.

...and most of our existing societies haven't been around for very long anyway.

Quote from: Padma on January 08, 2013, 01:31:45 AM
I think that the reason why so many monogamous marriages fail is because the myth that you can (and should) get all of your needs met by one other person is... a myth.

I find myself in agreement with all or nearly all of your premises. What I do find interesting in this thread about the cases being made to defend monogamy, is the observation that a polyamorous marriage contract that was workable would probably have to be very different in its details from the prevailing model of the monogamous contract.

For polyamorous relationships to receive equal legal protection (which it seems to me is something hard to argue as a social ill) it seems like there would need to be some major rethinking of what is entailed in a marriage contract in general. Seems to me that one of the key issues (one I know is shared by some of those who have reservations about spending time and effort seeking equal marriage rights) is that the institution itself is deeply flawed, and even when people think it's working, often time and personal sorrow demonstrates that it wasn't working, or at least not working very well.

Many of the best arguments against polygamy tend to center on how similar a polygamist marriage tends to be to a form of slavery. What seems to be sidestepped is that the same has been true, historically, of many of the basic tenets of monogamy as well. It takes some clever legal thinking to reframe things in a way that makes something that looks like slavery into a voluntary contract, though I suppose many BDSM folk actually come close to finding ways of doing that more consciously than most. The popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey, however, seems to demonstrate (at least to me and my kids) how little influence the ethical thinking in BDSM circles has had on mainstream society and those who romanticize marriage and other forms of non-consensual bondage.

One thing that distinguishes most polyamorous relationships from most monamorous ones is that they're a lot more conscious, because a lot more discussion has to take place.

Most of marriage law is there to deal with the consequences of marriage breakdown (or death). It's pretty much all about "ownership" when it comes down to it, including the iffy concept of who "owns" any children.

Something that intrigues me about the discussion of polyamorous marriage (I'm deliberately not using the word polygamy, as that's something else), and also the discussion of equal marriage, is that people keep saying things along the lines of "it will require a lot of work to update the laws" as if that's a valid reason not to do anything. I'm sure there are people willing to do that work. (Note: this is not a response to anything anyone's specifically said here - it's just been a general observation of mine over time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

QuotePolyamory in a same-sex setting
Gay psychotherapist Michael Shernoff wrote that non-monogamy is "a well-accepted part of gay subculture," although "often viewed by some therapists as problematic,"[41] and that somewhere between 30%[42] and 67%[43] of men in male couples reported being in a sexually non-monogamous relationship. According to Eli Coleman & B. R. Simon Rosser (1996), "although a majority of male couples are not sexually exclusive, they are in fact emotionally monogamous."[44] Shernoff states that:

One of the biggest differences between male couples and mixed-sex couples is that many, but by no means all, within the gay community have an easier acceptance of sexual nonexclusivity than does heterosexual society in general. ... Research confirms that nonmonogamy in and of itself does not create a problem for male couples when it has been openly negotiated.[45]
In practice, most discussion of lesbian and gay polyamory occurs primarily within the context of relationship ethics. It should be noted that there is a broad spectrum of partner numerical and frequency profiles amongst lesbians and gay men, so that polyamorous ethical debates may be undertaken, but most legislative effort is expended on legal recognition of same-sex couples, whether through civil unions, registered partnerships or same-sex marriage proper. As yet, there is no movement for lesbian/gay 'polyamorists rights' akin to that for same-sex marriage or alternative forms of legal relationship recognition.[46]

Found some more interesting things on wiki about Polyamory, has quite a bit of info

Quote from: Padma on January 08, 2013, 07:18:10 AM(I'm deliberately not using the word polygamy, as that's something else),

I realize that by referring to polygamy I may have added to confusion here.

As you point out (and I overassumed others here might also realize) polygamy and polyamory are not synonyms. And when I've referred to polygamy, it has been specific to polygamy and should not be assumed to have much to do with polyamory.

This is a byproduct of the historic fact that polygamy in specific has gotten almost all the attention in general public debate, while, outside of GLBTQ communities, polyamory has gotten almost no attention or substantial debate in the general public or in media aimed at a general audience where heterosexist, cisgendered assumptions tend to be the starting point for any discussions related to polyamory in all it's possible forms.

I've been referring to polyamory here rather than polygamy simply because polyamorous relationships are very intentional and mainly healthy and carefully considered multiple relationships, whereas, as you say, polygamy has the historical stigma of just being a legalised harem/baby factory.

So when the subject of marriage involving more than two people comes up, I like to wave the flag of polyamory because it's such a healthy model compared to polygamy (and compared to much monogamy too). For people who want, it, of course. But most people I know who are in polyamorous relationships weren't looking for one, they just fell in love with the right 2 or 3 people, and voilà .

Quote from: kyh on January 07, 2013, 08:45:24 PM
Because I think it would be difficult to give both partners, your wife and husband, the love and attention they deserve.

Why can't they give love and attention to each other?  They're in a marriage together, shouldn't they do that?

To answer the original question:

Quote
I am just curious to hear peoples thoughts on the matter. Some might see that as Polygamy and some may not. Is there any area where that's legal to marry more than 1 person?

It is polygamy, as polygamy is a well defined term. I am sure there are places or times where it is/was legal. However, in most countries as you file legal documents, you will in legal documents, such as those concerning taxes, you would only list one spouse. There is no law preventing you from referring to multiple people as your husbands or wives, except when it comes to legal documents.

Quote
Do you think that if your bisexual you can instead marry one person and have another as a housemate of sorts? So where does it end though, do you get 50 husbands and wives? I just am wondering ,  because I don't see many people talking about bisexual marriages.

I have several friends that are polyamorous and they can handle that well enough and so can their partners. I, however, could not. I identify as pansexual (a superset of sexualities of which bisexuality is a subset) and my spouse is also pansexual. Neither of us could manage a polyamorous relationship and we don't want to For those that can and want to, that is their choice and is quite possible as I have seen by my friends' examples.

The issue that I have seen, however, is that polyamorous individuals do not tend keep multiple partners for an extended period of time (for example, forever) and they don't desire marriage. The friends that I was referring to really do love their partners, they just don't want to make it a marriage.

I am pretty sure that a polygamous marriage could work just as easily as a monogamous marriage, but I don't know how much that says. Many people are pessimists when it comes to the divorce rate. If 50% of marriages end in divorce, 50% last forever.