NationStates Jolt Archive

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.

This is not saying polygamous marriages, as I am only talking about 3 people marrying, and no more.

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.

Depends how you voted for:

Democrat:
No, because homosexual marriage does not imply polygamy.

Republican:
Yes, because homosexual marriage will cause polygamal and beastialital marriages.

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.

This is not saying polygamous marriages, as I am only talking about 3 people marrying, and no more.

3 people marrying = polygamous marriage. It might be a very specific kind, but it's still polygamy.

I don't see how that's meaningfully different from a polygamous marriage.

Bisexuals are perfectly capable of monogamy.

Homosexual marriage =/= polyamory. They're separate issues and should be treated as such. Obviously it is entirely possible to be homosexual without being polyamorous, and entirely possible to be polyamorous without being homosexual. People linking together in discussion all the time seems to me to be a right-wing scare tactic.


edit: Oh, and as Soheran pointed out, just because bisexuals find both men and women sexually attractive, doesn't mean that they're necessarily in relationships with both at the same time. I know several bisexuals, but I don't know any who have both a boyfriend and a girlfriend.

Marriage is a contract. Any reason to disallow any group of adults to freely enter into such a contract? Some people haven't read enough Robert Heinlein :rolleyes:

Marriage is a contract. Any reason to disallow any group of adults to freely enter into such a contract? Some people haven't read enough Robert Heinlein :rolleyes:

some people haven't read enough period.

some people haven't read enough period.

The majority of people are illiterate.

Some people don't give a rats arse.:p

People should be able to marry in whatever combination they want, as long as they're all consenting adults.

yeah i'm all for any groups of consenting adults coming together in whatever forms make them happy... heck marry your sister for all i care, just don't blame me if your flipper limbed ofspring eat the family pets and wallow back to the the sea.

edit: Oh, and as Soheran pointed out, just because bisexuals find both men and women sexually attractive, doesn't mean that they're necessarily in relationships with both at the same time. I know several bisexuals, but I don't know any who have both a boyfriend and a girlfriend.

Not that we wouldn't jump at the chance!
Though trying to keep up with two mates might be a bit more than I can handle. I'd like to have one, at least, anyway.
Such a relationship can really only work in a triumvirate. Otherwise there would be significant feelings of jealousy from the two unjoined ends.

One of the biggest hurdles to polyamory/polygamy is the bad name the mormons and other groups gave it. Polygamy then was all about domination of the husband.

The idea of polyamory excites me, but the complications of such a relationship might outweigh it's benefits.

In any case, Polyamorous marriage should be allowed, so long as such relationships do not become abusive.

The majority of people are illiterate.

some literate people don't read enough.

This is not saying polygamous marriages, as I am only talking about 3 people marrying, and no more.

I don't think you understand polygamy/polyandry then...

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.

This is not saying polygamous marriages, as I am only talking about 3 people marrying, and no more.

o_O

As pointed out above repeatedly (but I can't resist to repeat it again):

Bisexuals are just as monogamous (or not) as everybody else.

Your premise is like saying heterosexual marriage should be between a guy and two girls, or two girls and a guy, so that the cheating option is built in from the start, because that's what all heterosexuals truly want.

simply put I think the U.S.A should allow polygamy as a matter of free choice except that every person within a persons polygamous marriage should have the right to tell the other a person engaged to is not allowed to be brought into the marriage....in other words if I dont like who my husband/wife wants to marry I can say no to that person. Therefor the empire of stigmati does support bisexual polygomy as a freedom/right....be it respecting equally all persons involved in said marriage.

o_O

As pointed out above repeatedly (but I can't resist to repeat it again):

Bisexuals are just as monogamous (or not) as everybody else.

Your premise is like saying heterosexual marriage should be between a guy and two girls, or two girls and a guy and a pizza place, so that the cheating option is built in from the start, because that's what all heterosexuals truly want.

Fixed. =)

But yeah, Zilam's mucho misdirected.

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.
"Bisexual" marriage doesn't require more than two people. I'm really damn sick of people assuming that being bisexual means that you always want a threesome.

Bisexuals are just as likely to want monogamous unions as heterosexuals or homosexuals. It's just that bisexuals don't require that their (monogamous) partner necessarily be either male or female.

I don't see what the problem is with people marrying cats and stuff...I mean, if you would marry yer cat, you shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool.

I don't see what the problem is with people marrying cats and stuff...I mean, if you would marry yer cat, you shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool.

They are in a way because they're exlcuding themselves.

They are in a way because they're exlcuding themselves.

That was what I was getting at. In fact, saying outright. Good job! do you feel smart? Oh, who's a good little parrot? You are!

That was what I was getting at. In fact, saying outright. Good job! do you feel smart? Oh, who's a good little parrot? You are!
Do you feel hot? Oh, who's a good smouldering crater? You are!

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.

This is not saying polygamous marriages, as I am only talking about 3 people marrying, and no more.

In a nutshell, no, polygamy (and yes, three people marrying is a polygamous relationship) would not be suddenly allowed because same-sex marriage is. One thing that is obvious about marriage law is that it is built for a two-person relationship. Quite a bit of marriage law could not simply be carried over to a 3 or more person relationship, because it simply wasn't built that way. In order to recognize any type of polygamous marriage, the legal construct would have to be different - probably more along the lines of incorporation.

"Bisexual" marriage doesn't require more than two people. I'm really damn sick of people assuming that being bisexual means that you always want a threesome.

Bisexuals are just as likely to want monogamous unions as heterosexuals or homosexuals. It's just that bisexuals don't require that their (monogamous) partner necessarily be either male or female.

Indeed. What we are talking about here has nothing to do with bisexuality, and everything to do with polygamy, despite the attempted distinction in the OP. Now, one might argue that a polygamous relationship might be more likely to work if the participants were bisexual (assuming male and female participants), as there would be room for sexual and romantic ties between all partners involved, rather than the situation in which one person is in a relationship with two others, but the others are not. But that, of course, would be an entirely different discussion.

To argue for "Bisexual Marriage" is to essentially argue for gay marriage, since allow a bisexual individual the greatest freedom in selecting a spouse, gay marriage would have to be legalized.

I'm not sure if we're talking about gay marriage, or polygamy, or both. I'm for gay marriage, but I'm not so sure about polygamy. I the latter might be hazardous to men's health, and for that reason should be banned for the good of the male populace.

If ever the US were to pass pro homosexual marriages, would bisexual marriages, 2 guys and a girl, or 2 girls and guy, be allowed? WOuld it be right to allow such marriages? This honestly just came to my mind about 23.345 secs ago.

This is not saying polygamous marriages, as I am only talking about 3 people marrying, and no more.

What's the difference between 3 people marrying and 2 people, in principle?

There is none, other than an arbitrary decision.

Thus,.. the gradual obliteration of the social institution of marriage will go,.. if allowed.

First same sex "marriage".

Then Threesome "marriage".

Then Polygamy/Polyandry proper.

Then the loss of age limits.

Then the species barrier falls.

Then dearly beloved inanimate objects get some cool new rights.

Then there is so much laughter coming from "normal people" at the "odd folks", that the word "marriage" is reappropriated, unofficially, by "normals" much the same way that the word "gay" was appropriated by homosexuals, and life goes on as usual.

What's the difference between 3 people marrying and 2 people, in principle?

From a legal perspective, a great deal. Much of marriage law cannot be applied directly to a 3-person marriage. It would have to be rewritten. New bits of beurocracy would have to be added in.

Meanwhile, what if 1 person wanted to marry both, but they didn't want to marry each other? Now we can't even properly apply marriage law to each couple, as it would end up meaning that they were all married and had communal property, whether that was what they wanted or not.

The truth of the matter is quite simple, as the legal construct of marriage now stands, polygamy can't simply be an expanded version. It will need a legal construct unto itself.

From a legal perspective, a great deal. Much of marriage law cannot be applied directly to a 3-person marriage. It would have to be rewritten. New bits of beurocracy would have to be added in.

Meanwhile, what if 1 person wanted to marry both, but they didn't want to marry each other? Now we can't even properly apply marriage law to each couple, as it would end up meaning that they were all married and had communal property, whether that was what they wanted or not.

The truth of the matter is quite simple, as the legal construct of marriage now stands, polygamy can't simply be an expaned version. It will need a legal construct unto itself.

Agreed, I have no moral issue with it but figuring out the legality may be a significant process

I'd like to toss in my two cents. At current, I'm the only person I know actively engaged in a polyamerous relationship, one male (myself) and two females. As it stands, I and one of the women are married, and the second simply lives with us. It's annoying that the second cannot be legally recognized as a part of my legal "family", but that does not necessarilly change the relationship. Marriage is a legal and social construct, not an impediment to the actual relationship; legally, she just cannot automatically inherit my stuff or get a tax break.

As such, and I may be a bit biased, I see no problem to marriage being whatever combination of concenting adults so choose. I reject as idiotic the argument that even multi-partner marriages will end in beastiality or marriage to inanimate objects, as members of neither of those two catigories are capable of entering legal contracts. That said, it is not the government's place to regulate how many people of legal age are in a relationship. Government cannot regulate how much I drink (in the privacy of my home), the number of guns I own, or who I fuck, so why can it regulate who gets to be a part of my family? If I pay the tax for the marriage lisence, I should be able to put as many names on it as I please. And I do fully support the idea that, to add anyone else to an existing marriage, all parties must consent. That's only fair.

Lastly, comments from the practical side. As questioned earlier (too lazy to look up the post), living with two women is...interesting...especially at certain times of the month. And keeping the relationship intact, where no one is getting jealous of anyone else takes work, but it is possible. One simply finds one's niche in the relationship and accepts that others will be better or get more attention in one area, but it will all come around in the end. Difficult, but workable.

my two cents...
~PI

As such, and I may be a bit biased, I see no problem to marriage being whatever combination of concenting adults so choose. I reject as idiotic the argument that even multi-partner marriages will end in beastiality or marriage to inanimate objects, as members of neither of those two catigories are capable of entering legal contracts. That said, it is not the government's place to regulate how many people of legal age are in a relationship. Government cannot regulate how much I drink (in the privacy of my home), the number of guns I own, or who I fuck, so why can it regulate who gets to be a part of my family? If I pay the tax for the marriage lisence, I should be able to put as many names on it as I please. And I do fully support the idea that, to add anyone else to an existing marriage, all parties must consent. That's only fair.

The difference here is that the legal construct currently known as marriage couldn't just involve adding more names. Once we added more names, legal recognition of many of the legal ramifications of marriage would be impossible. Suppose you added your second partner's name onto the marriage license. Great. Now who is your next-of-kin? It cannot be both, as decisions simply wouldn't get made if they disagreed. If you were incapacitated, which wife would you want to make medical decisions for you? You must give one precedence, otherwise there will be no way to decide unless they both agree, which may not be the case. Do you to legally mesh all of your assets with both women? Do they wish to legally mesh their assets with each other? And so on....

I agree that consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever living arrangements they choose, and they should be able to make and have the govnernment enforce contracts for whatever they enter into (so long as it is not unconscionable). However, this cannot be accomplished simply by adding extra names to a marriage license. A marriage license refers to a specific set of legal constraints and benefits that was specifically designed for two people.

I don't care. Why do people care if three people marry or if 46 people marry? Why do people care about things like this?


Just for a minute though... try to imagine if you had 46 parents...

"was specifically designed for two people," I think makes the best point. The system would need a revamp, but you make it sound like that would be somehow problematic or somehow wrong. Like anything legal, it'd be complicated to get a new system worked out, but that doens't mean it shouldn't be done. I'll agree that the current system could't support multi-party marriage, but is that really saying anything useful? Most changes to laws or society require at least some legal tap-dancing.

As for other issues...when a minor is incapacitated, who makes the decisions: the mother or the father? If nothing else, have things like that decided upon beforehand and put into some sort of living will. Concerning assets, why not mesh it all together? If all parties are living together and meshing incomes anyway, why would assets not be meshed? That seems to be the idea of marriage: the union of multiple individuals into one legal entity. Divorces could get nasty, but they get nasty as is, so I don't really see that as a major issue.

Simplest answer, why not just abolish marriage completely?

Simplest answer, why not just abolish marriage completely?

That would be like trying to abolish pizza. The public outcry would be unimaginable.

The difference here is that the legal construct currently known as marriage couldn't just involve adding more names. Once we added more names, legal recognition of many of the legal ramifications of marriage would be impossible. Suppose you added your second partner's name onto the marriage license. Great. Now who is your next-of-kin? It cannot be both, as decisions simply wouldn't get made if they disagreed. If you were incapacitated, which wife would you want to make medical decisions for you? You must give one precedence, otherwise there will be no way to decide unless they both agree, which may not be the case.

You’ve made a false dichotomy argument there. It is not an ‘either this or that’ situation you are talking about. For example, all single young adults today (particularly persons with divorced parents who are both still alive and sharing legal custody, for this example) are already in the exact situation you described above, but you described what is an everyday occurrence that gets resolved with the system we have in place as being impossible simply because the next-of-kin are now spouses instead of parent. Obviously you are mistaken, the system would not be so stretched that it would not work. It works fine already is the proof that it would work under those circumstances too.

Do you to legally mesh all of your assets with both women? Do they wish to legally mesh their assets with each other? And so on....

Exactly. And it is exactly the same situation that every single child goes through when mom and Dad or mom and different Dad, or Dad and different Mom do when they have another child. The family properties get divided one more way by the inclusion of a new individual to the party. The argument could be made that the third party shouldn’t even have veto power (out side of filing for divorce themselves) over new spouses being added, in the same way that children don’t get to vote to stop future children being added to the family.

I agree that consenting adults should be able to enter into whatever living arrangements they choose, and they should be able to make and have the govnernment enforce contracts for whatever they enter into (so long as it is not unconscionable).

Who is to determine what is unconscionable? You? Why you and not me? Or me and three others? Or this state vs. that state? If any rules are allowed to limit the associations allowed to occur by these contracts, then all limits are possible…


However, this cannot be accomplished simply by adding extra names to a marriage license.

A marriage license refers to a specific set of legal constraints and benefits that was specifically designed for two people.

This exact same argument can be applied to stopping same-sex marriages today.

edit: Oh, and as Soheran pointed out, just because bisexuals find both men and women sexually attractive, doesn't mean that they're necessarily in relationships with both at the same time. I know several bisexuals, but I don't know any who have both a boyfriend and a girlfriend.

I do. I know a woman (who even plays NationStates) who is married to a man, but has a female lover as well. Unsurprisingly, her NS nation whole-heartedly endorses polygamy. Obviously, her type of polygamy is all about the consenting adults, and not about subservient teenagers being married to older men a la certain branches of Mormonism (think Bountiful, BC), and certainly not about women (or men) as property or chattel.

No

No

Maybe.

NoMaybe.
Yes.

Yes.

We have a winner!

"was specifically designed for two people," I think makes the best point. The system would need a revamp, but you make it sound like that would be somehow problematic or somehow wrong. Like anything legal, it'd be complicated to get a new system worked out, but that doens't mean it shouldn't be done. I'll agree that the current system could't support multi-party marriage, but is that really saying anything useful? Most changes to laws or society require at least some legal tap-dancing.

When I specifically said that it should be allowed, how can you interpret that as making it sound wrong?

Meanwhile, it would be legally problematic. We can reasonably assume that certain things about most two person relationships will be the same, and thus will, for the most part, fit into a specified legal construct. Once we start discussing polygamy, however, we run into all sorts of possible combinations. Polygamy is unlikely to fall into a single specified legal construct. As such, while there may be certain guidelines put in place, each polygamous contract would likely be somewhat different from the others, and the law will have to allow for that. As I've said before, the best thing would probably be to start with the laws on incorporation and go from there.

As for other issues...when a minor is incapacitated, who makes the decisions: the mother or the father?

Generally, consent from either is adequate, unless the other blocks such action in court. Then, in the end, a judge decides, rather than the parents. Would you want a judge to decide your fate?

If nothing else, have things like that decided upon beforehand and put into some sort of living will.

Under current marriage law, if a person designates someone other than their spouse (their next-of-kin) to make medical decisions, inherit property, etc., the spouse can override that decision and take control. This is because married couples are considered to be a single legal entity, so one person cannot give away that which belongs to both of them. The closest thing you can have is a pre-nup, and even those are not completely enforceable in court.

Concerning assets, why not mesh it all together? If all parties are living together and meshing incomes anyway, why would assets not be meshed?

Because all parties may not want it that way. One person may marry two people, with the consent of both, but those two people may not wish to merge their assets. In your case, it would be possible that your two wives may wish to share assets with you, but not with each other. How would that be enforced legally?

You seem to think that your particular polyamorous relationship accurately represents all such possible relationships. I can assure you that there are many, many, many more possibilities.

That seems to be the idea of marriage: the union of multiple individuals into one legal entity. Divorces could get nasty, but they get nasty as is, so I don't really see that as a major issue.

In the case of polygamy, it could be multiple individuals who wish to be a single legal entity with one, but not with the others. How would that work?

Meanwhile, I'm not trying to portray polygamy as bad or as anything to be avoided. As far as I am concerned, consenting adults can enter into whatever type of relationship they please, and distribute their assets and familial ties as they please. I am simply pointing out the legal issues that would have to be addressed for legal recognition of polygamy.


You’ve made a false dichotomy argument there. It is not an ‘either this or that’ situation you are talking about. For example, all single young adults today (particularly persons with divorced parents who are both still alive and sharing legal custody, for this example) are already in the exact situation you described above, but you described what is an everyday occurrence that gets resolved with the system we have in place as being impossible simply because the next-of-kin are now spouses instead of parent. Obviously you are mistaken, the system would not be so stretched that it would not work. It works fine already is the proof that it would work under those circumstances too.

And, as I pointed out, in such disputes, the next-of-kin no longer makes the decision - hardly an ideal situation for anyone.

Meanwhile, with most situations involving adults, one person is already designated. Often, a specific child will be designated, in a living will or some other such construct, to be the legal next-of-kin when it comes to decision making. Many people have recognized this problem and taken steps to deal with it.

Exactly. And it is exactly the same situation that every single child goes through when mom and Dad or mom and different Dad, or Dad and different Mom do when they have another child.

No, actually, it isn't anything like that at all. When two people are married, they are presumed to share all assets by the law. There is no distribution here. It is a matter of both owning all of it. Even if two people keep separate bank accounts, if they are legally married, they both own all the assets in those accounts....jointly. Presumably, when two people get married, they agree to this situation (otherwise, they wouldn't sign the papers).

The problem with expanding this to polygamy is that this may not be the case in polygamy. One person involved may be perfectly happy being married to another, and may be ok with that other person being married again to a third. But the first and third may not want to be married to each other. This is an issue that could possibly be dealt with in contract law, but has no place under marriage law. If the law were to recognize both marriages, the person in the middle would legally own all of the assets of the other two. And, since the other two would legally own all of that person's assets, they would own all of each other's assets as well.

None of this is anything like adding another child to a family. In that case, it isn't a legal matter of assets being divided or owned differently. The parent(s) still own all the assets, either as a single parent or jointly as a married couple. They now have one more dependent to provide for, and that may change their budgeting, but it doesn't change the legal distribution of assets at all.

Who is to determine what is unconscionable? You? Why you and not me? Or me and three others? Or this state vs. that state? If any rules are allowed to limit the associations allowed to occur by these contracts, then all limits are possible…

Judges already determine which contracts are unconscionable. It is pretty standard, legally. If a person is contracted, for instance, to give up a fundamental right, that contract can be thrown out. If a court decides that no reasonable person would willingly sign a contract, it can be thrown out (obviously, this can be appealed).

This exact same argument can be applied to stopping same-sex marriages today.

Same-sex marriages involve two people. How can the argument that marriage was designed for two people be applied?

The difference is that, to allow same-sex marriage, the only thing that might have to be changed are the idiotic amendments currently being made to the laws around the country. The marriage code, as it stands, would not need to be altered in the least. It would simply be applied equally to men and women, rather than in a discriminatory manner, as it now is. There is no logical difference between a same-sex couple and the legal protections such a couple would need and an opposite-sex couple and the protections it would need. The situations in both cases will be the same, with the only differences being found in the genitalia/chromosomal make-up of the two partners, something the government shouldn't be concerning itself in anyways.

On the other hand, to allow for polygamy, much of the code would have to be rewritten completely. New rules to allow for various combinations would have to be added. The tax code (which, to be fair, needs to be revamped anyways) would have to be completely redone. Rules on divorce would have to be altered. New rules regarding next-of-kin would need to be in place. Rules for what to do when one party died would have to be remade. And here's the kicker: While we can reasonably assume that the vast majority of married or cohabitating (in the case of those who cannot marry) will be protected by the current marriage law, we cannot assume this for the huge number of variations that could occur in polygamy. We may be able to set up a few fairly universal guidelines, but each polygamous relationship could be different enough that it would need its own separate contract above and beyond any specific marriage laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
What's the difference between 3 people marrying and 2 people, in principle?

From a legal perspective, a great deal. Much of marriage law cannot be applied directly to a 3-person marriage. It would have to be rewritten. New bits of beurocracy would have to be added in.

Meanwhile, what if 1 person wanted to marry both, but they didn't want to marry each other? Now we can't even properly apply marriage law to each couple, as it would end up meaning that they were all married and had communal property, whether that was what they wanted or not.

The truth of the matter is quite simple, as the legal construct of marriage now stands, polygamy can't simply be an expanded version. It will need a legal construct unto itself.

Just as one of the components of a "normal" marriage can't decide whether they want to be "partially" married, other than as regards property/offspring which can be dealt with mutually via a prenuptual, the "marriage" between 3 or more people can't be "partial" without violating the very meaning of the word "marriage".

If you choose to redefine the word "marriage" as whatever you want to redefine it as, then that is what you're doing, and doing it utterly arbitrarily.

The degree to which the legal framework must be "changed" to institute the new definition is irrelevent to the fact that it's still a change of definition.

You're NOT changing the traditional meaning of "marriage". You're simply creating a new institution which using the old word (marriage) with an entirely new meaning.

In other words, you can do what you like as regards redefining words if you can get enough people to agree with the redefinition, but if you can't get those who's job it is to write those laws to do so and those who must approve of those laws to approve them, then nothing really changes.

If the people of a culture are overruled legally in the use of a word by an elite few, whether the elite is correct or not, violates the basis of democracy.

Sometimes violations of democracy are correct! But they are still violations of democracy.

And if the people of a culture never come to agree with their definitions being overruled, then there will be a long term conflict created.

What I'm describing is a civil war that will be mostly inflicted on those who are not the majority population.


Be careful what you wish for.

Three people in a marriage would be polygamy, because "poly" means "more than two."

Technically, a "bisexual marriage" is the same thing as a heterosexual marriage: a marriage composed of the two sexes. That's why "bisexual marriage" isn't a term that is used, because it doesn't mean anything other than a normal marriage.

Being "bisexual" doesn't mean that you need or want to be with two people (one man and one woman) at the same time. It just means that you are attracted to both men and women. A bisexual man or woman who is married could be married to either a man or a woman: if they are married to a man AND a woman, they'd be not just "bisexual," but a "bisexual polygamist."

Just as one of the components of a "normal" marriage can't decide whether they want to be "partially" married, other than as regards property/offspring which can be dealt with mutually via a prenuptual, the "marriage" between 3 or more people can't be "partial" without violating the very meaning of the word "marriage".

We aren't talking about a marriage between three people, however. We are talking about one person marrying two different persons.

If you choose to redefine the word "marriage" as whatever you want to redefine it as, then that is what you're doing, and doing it utterly arbitrarily.

I'm not redefining anything. Historically, polygamy referred to a construct in which many were married to one person, without being married to one another. Some people have begun to see it as being a construct in which three or more people enter into a marriage construct together, but this is a relatively new idea in the scheme of things. Thus, if you are using this definition, you are much closer to redefining terms than I.


The degree to which the legal framework must be "changed" to institute the new definition is irrelevent to the fact that it's still a change of definition.

If the legal framework must be altered significantly to allow for something and the old legal framework is perfectly fine for those currently in it, chances are good that it would be better to put together a new legal framework instead. Thus, the degree is important. If all it takes is applying the legal framework as-is to a new subset of people (ie. same-sex marriage), there is no need for a new legal framework. Indeed, creating one would most likely create, not only unnecessary legal beurocracy, but would also most likely create inequities in the way people were treated based on sexuality.

However, the legal framework would have to be altered significantly to recognize polygamy, especially with all its possible forms. Such alterations could actually end up having the effect of removing protections from two-person couples. As such, a new legal construct is most likely the way to go.

*snip a bunch of stuff that I'm not sure is at all relevant to the conversation*

"Polygamy, it cures what ails ya."

Oy, and polyandry is included in polygamy, enough of the 'polygamy/polyandry' stuff. You mean to say 'polygyny/polyandry'. Of coure that leaves out group marriage, so maybe you can just stick to 'polygamy' all on it's lonesome?

:confused: Wha...? Since when does "bisexual person" = "person who always wants a threesome"...?

:confused: Wha...? Since when does "bisexual person" = "person who always wants a threesome"...?

You didn't get the memo that bisexual persons are incapable of monogamy?

The Netherlands allow 3-person civil partnerships, but not marriages (yet). I'm OK with same-sex marriage, but I am against that. Marriage is for two people.

You didn't get the memo that bisexual persons are incapable of monogamy?

You should have noticed, it was the day millions of men had parties worldwide.

Marriage is for two people.

Why?

:confused: Wha...? Since when does "bisexual person" = "person who always wants a threesome"...?

Since the start of the OP's masturbating session. Don't ruin the fantasy.

You didn't get the memo that bisexual persons are incapable of monogamy?
Hmm, must have put that one in my "ridiculous" pile. Other memos in that pile include the one saying that allowing gay marriage would lead to people marrying their dogs and the one saying that I'll never be in a relationship with a "real man" because I'm a feminist. :rolleyes:

w00t for polygamy!

I know a bisexual woman who is married. She's married to one man.

I know a bisexual woman who is married. She's married to one man.

Tsk. That is almost as silly as someone who likes both brunettes and redheads, but does not marry both of them at the same time.

Tsk. That is almost as silly as someone who likes both brunettes and redheads, but does not marry both of them at the same time.
This one time I met a guy who was attracted to both tall women and short women, but he was only married to a short woman.

It was scary. I don't know what to do when confronted with the kind of freaks who are capable of marrying just one person despite being physically attracted to more than one person. That's perverted.

This one time I met a guy who was attracted to both tall women and short women, but he was only married to a short woman.

It was scary. I don't know what to do when confronted with the kind of freaks who are capable of marrying just one person despite being physically attracted to more than one person. That's perverted.

I like being perverted! I'm going to marry my one skinny nerdy white man, even though I am also attracted to some brawnier, more athletic, and/or darker skinned men. On top of that, I'm even attracted to women sometimes and I'm not going to marry them either. So there! =p

I like being perverted! I'm going to marry my one skinny nerdy white man, even though I am also attracted to some brawnier, more athletic, and/or darker skinned men. On top of that, I'm even attracted to women sometimes and I'm not going to marry them either. So there! =p
Oh yeah? Well, I can one-up you, because I don't plan to marry ANY of the people I'm attracted to!

Mwa ha ha!!!