The Polyamorous Neighbors You Don't Know

[TygrBright]

The topic of plural marriage is heating up around here, and the ripples are slopping in predictable directions.

I've already said what I have to say on the topic in general, so I'm not gonna rehash the Bigger Picture.

But one issue I DO want to address is the numerous iterations of this argument that popped up in that thread and continue to pop up in other threads on the topic (Le Taz Hot's deeply-felt post on the difference between rape and polygamy, among others):

"There's a lot of exploitive, rapey, evil, misogynist polygyny out there. And I, personally, don't see a whole lot of healthy, wholesome, consensual polyamory out there. Therefore I must conclude that the exploitive, rapey, evil polygyny is a fair representation of "polygamy" and what would happen if plural marriage were legitimated and I DON'T WANT THAT."

Well, I don't want the positive sanction and proliferation of nasty exploitive rapey polygyny, EITHER, so can we at least start out with that as common ground?

Here's what I'm picking out of that argument that bothers me, though: The "I don't see a lot of healthy, wholesome, consensual polyamory out there, therefore there must not be much, therefore there wouldn't be much if plural marriage were legitimated," train of reasoning.

Consensual, thoughtful, intentional, shared polyamorous orientation and even commitment are pretty invisible for a damn' good reason. A reason very similar to why BDSM was relatively invisible until recently, and somewhat similar to why the "closet" was the primary habitat for LBGT folk until during my lifetime:

It's strongly, overwhelmingly, and near-universally misunderstood and negatively-sanctioned in our culture. (Yeah, one from the "duh" file, but it appears to need stating and re-stating, ad infinitum.)

Most polyamorists are STILL IN THE CLOSET, in other words.

Some "beard" as "swingers." (Not to be confused with the real thing-- monogamists who enjoy a little mutually-consensual variety in their sex lives.) Many live apparently monogamist lifestyles with one partner, just because it's easier.

Ethical polyamorous individuals sometimes accept a monogamous relationship because it's easier, too.

But some work out a clear prior understanding with their monogamous partner: There's no need for the monogamous partner to participate, but the polyamorous individual may have other, consensual, loving sexual relationships with other partners. In some cases, those other partners are welcome, albeit necessarily not permanent, members of the household. In some cases, the "household" the polyamorous person lives in, is spread over multiple dwellings.

These are not optimal arrangements, but they are required, because, remember that reaction you just viscerally had when I wrote about the "clear prior understanding with their monogamous partner?" Somewhere deep inside you hollered "bullshit! They just want permission to CHEAT, the selfish barstids!" didn't you?

The kind of people who are driven to pursue creepy exploitive nonconsensual polygyny usually associate themselves with whole subcultures of other sickos like themselves, and they're really not interested in living in the same culture as the rest of us, because, well, they know the whole "nonconsensual exploitation" thing is at the heart of why they do it, and it's a pretty big stretch to expect the rest of the world to backpedal into that swamp.

The kind of people who are ethically, thoughtfully, naturally polyamorous don't necessarily want to go live in a teeny little subculture with one another where they can be marginalized, stigmatized, prosecuted now and then, and generally made to pay a hellish price for the consensual expression of their sexuality with other adults.

So, you don't know them. But there are more of them than you think.

But they might live next door to you.

patiently,
Bright

[Nye Bevan]

1. "Hi Honeys! I'm home!" (nt)

[prayin4rain]

2. This is what I don't get.

Isn't every person naturally polyamorous? Isn't that what makes marriage extraordinary... eschewing our natural tendency to instead commit to just one person for life? Putting the person ahead of our natural tendency?
I thought that was the whole deal of marriage?

[MineralMan]

6. No, every person is NOT polyamourous.

I'm not. In fact, nobody I know is. Personally, I'm a serial monogamist. Always have been. My two marriages have lasted 17 and 24 years. I've never been tempted to form sexual or emotional relationships outside of them. So, no, "every person" isn't naturally polyamorous. Not at all.

[prayin4rain]

9. Interesting.

I am monogamous when I choose to commit to a person, as well.
But, I can't imagine only having sexual and romantic feelings towards one person my entire adult life. I can imagine not acting on those feelings, of course.
I guess people are really, really different.

[PoliticAverse]

54. I guess it's a good thing for you serial monogamy is legal (divorce hasn't always been). n/t

[StevieM]

35. Some people are asexual, in which case they are neither polyamorous nor monogamous. (eom)

[prayin4rain]

36. True.

But, for people who have sexual attractions, I thought they all had sexual attractions towards more than one person at a time.
If never been in a relationship where I ceased finding all others sexually attractive.

[Iggo]

3. Dammit! I missed one!

Trash word: Polyamorous.

[Orrex]

8. Right behind you.

[ismnotwasm]

15. Yup.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. I'm behind you on this too!

[Le Taz Hot]

4. THANK you!

I do surveys for the gummit and let me just say you are ABSOLUTELY right. It's much more common than most people know. They're also underrepresented because they tend not to self-report. For obvious reasons.

[Major Nikon]

5. Sex between consenting adults is none of my business

That should be the common ground, but strangely enough isn't. There's already too many people on the right trying to run other people's sex lives.

[Orrex]

10. Citation, please? I haven't seen anyone here trying to run anyone else's sex lives.

Arguing that polyamory is not legally or biologically equivalent to homosexuality is not the same as running anyone's sex life, for instance.

[Major Nikon]

48. That's true

But equating polygamy to rape or calling other people rape apologists who point out those things aren't the same kinda sorta is quite a bit like trying to run other's sex lives. And no, I'm not going to get into the jury trap of calling individuals out for it. I'm just saying I don't subscribe to the idea. Consensual sex, fine. Non-consensual sex, not fine. It's a simple concept that seems to escape many people, and it just isn't that hard to find here.

[treestar]

81. the more adults there are the harder to have consent

that's why I think it is rare. Or some of the partners are begrudgingly going along with it rather than lose the person they want.

[Major Nikon]

82. Harder to find people willing to consent to such a thing, undoubtedly

But some obviously do. Consent either is or isn't even if it's begrudgingly. If there is consent, then it's none of my business.

[Bonx]

7. Excellent post

I've tired already of wading into the acrimonious 'discussions' with supposed progressives about this, but your post is succinct and spot on.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Polyamory is fine. Institutionalized patriarchy as exemplified by polygamy not so much.

But if this "teeny subculture" wants to figure out a way to create a legal framework that empowers women as equals in that situation, great.

Until then, women and children are not well served by polygamy as its exemplified now. Their sexual agency isn't really "free" and that's hugely damaging. As a firm believer in equal rights, I'd love to see how those who advocate for polygamy would re-structure family law, tax law, welfare etc.

I've challenged a few DUers to answer that and I too patiently await answers. One thing same sex marriage advocates had going in their loooonng fight for equality was that the legal framework for monogamy is already well established here in the US.

Not so with polygamy.

[TygrBright]

12. "Institutionalized patriarchy as exemplified by fundamentalist religious polygyny " not so much.

Can we agree?

It's probably important to make the distinction between "polygamy" which is a nonspecific term for plural marriage, and "polygyny" which is the specific term for one male marrying multiple females.

I also threw in the specific reference to "fundamentalist religious" because in my observation, not all polygyny is repulsive. I know more than one happy triad consisting of two female and one male partners, in which there's neither nonconsensual exploitation nor unequal division of the emotional, economic, and social burden of household maintenance.

These are not, obviously "marriages." But they might like to be. One triad has been going strong for more than twenty years.

Keep in mind that until quite recently, the legal framework of monogamy was not a particularly equitable or friendly one for women. Monogamous marriage in many cultures and legal systems did (and still does, in some) render the female partner the status of property-at-law of the male partner, a transfer of that status from her father to her husband. The legal "rights" over such live property were conveyed to the husband only, no such rights were conveyed to the wife.

Slowly, over the past couple of centuries (a fairly short time in the history of marriage as an institution and even monogamous marriage as a specific form of the institution) legal codes began to specify some "marital right" for female partners. Interestingly, if you look at the legal evolution of such rights they often devolve back to the wife's family of origin (as in, the male patriarch thereof) retaining some attachment and/or control of dower property, with the actual benefits to the women being a side effect.

Only very recently indeed, with the women's suffrage movement in western industrialized cultures, has a confluence of social interests and demand created the current status.

One of the great joys to me in the (monogamous) marriage equity movement has been the forced abandonment of gender-related assumptions about partner roles. Remember back in the early days when ignorant and mocking bigots would pose the query "Yeah, but if we let two men/two women marry, how will we know which one is the 'husband' and which one is the 'wife?'" Vestigial assumptions about gender roles: gone. I rejoice.

But that's a damn' recent phenomenon. Let's not forget the couple of centuries of painful work required to evolve the legal basis to its current status.

Why then, is it impossible to believe that further evolution of marriage to allow additional partners as committed, legally bound parties to the contract is impossible?

I think that answer's been made again and again in these discussions, but it's just too difficult to hear, yet.

But if there's anything recent victories have confirmed for me, it's that change is possible, and humanity CAN evolve.

equably,
Bright

[riderinthestorm]

14. Completely agree but I haven't seen anyone address the legal framework question

obviously you have. I'd be happy to look it over if you can link it.

How specifically do you resolve the thorny issues of divorce, child custody, visitation, welfare etc?

As you've said, it's been a slog up until this point for monogamy.

Those who want polygamy must first become a legally recognized minority group. Then you must come up with the legal framework yourself to resolve the legal questions. Society won't do it for you. That's not bigotry, it's the reality of things for a "teeny subculture".

[TygrBright]

17. Actually, I think I just did. The framework for marriage in industrialized societies is contract law

And it's not a terribly elaborate modification to change the legal contract status from a two-party contract to a multi-party contract. You work out contract dissolution issues the same way we work them out now: In a court.

The interesting question, for me, would be what changes to the contract are assumed when one party wishes to dissolve their participation, but other parties wish to continue theirs.

Even there, existing contract law provides precedent.

As far as custody and visitation rights, again, the basic contract law addressing them provides a perfectly adequate foundation, and the more recent precedents being established based on grandparental rights, adoption, and other complex family interrelationships are evolving fast, so it shouldn't be overwhelmingly difficult to integrate a multi-partner model into the law.

Where it might get interesting is in the realm of inheritance, but even there, the interpretations and precedents vary so widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction already, that there is plenty of basis to work with.

I suspect that as they are energized by the new possibilities on the horizon, the legally-savvy folks who perceive plural marriage as a do-able thing will come up with plenty of strategies.

It will be the un-closeting of what may not be as teeny a subculture as many assume, that will be the painful and time-consuming element of the process.

If the misunderstanding, odium, naive assumptions, and outright bigotry on this discussion site as manifested within the past few days are anything to go by, it'll be a long slog indeed.

wryly,
Bright

[riderinthestorm]

23. Marriage isn't contract law. It's why civil unions were always seen as second best

because it's not the same.

Family court is different because marriage has its own host of issues and the dissolution of it isn't nearly as straightforward as you appear to want it to be...even now with monogamy.

Regardless, I'll take your word that polygamous families would be content with contracts within the existing legal framework. I'm deeply skeptical they'd actually want that if that's what's presented for the same reasons SSM advocates hated civil unions but I'm not you. Gays wanted marriage for many legal reasons, it's why civil unions were a failure but if the polygamous are content with that, okay.

Lastly, I used your own phrase "teeny subculture". That wasn't my phrase. If it's bigger than that, then they're going to have to come "out of the closet" (another DUer said it was coming "out of the hole" - is there a preferred term amongst the poly?).

[TygrBright]

42. You asked about a legal framework as the basis. No, marriage isn't "civil union."

And those who want to have plural marriages are unlikely to regard "civil union" as providing the same social basis as "marriage."

Marriage as an institution has both a legal basis and a social basis. The legal basis is very much one of contract law. It is a set of legal assumptions enshrined in law that allows parties to enter into a legal agreement without explicit negotiation of every provision, because the law has provided a "template" that defines much of it already. (This template can, by the way, be legally altered on a case-by-case basis, within certain limits, by the use of prenuptual agreements, which are also a form of contract.)

You asked about the legal basis, and I responded to that.

The social basis is another matter. That's the one where polyamorous individuals must be prepared to come out of the closet and be subjected to the kind of abuse, bigotry, scorn, misunderstanding, and odium that we're seeing a small sample of, here on this thread and in DU generally over the past few days.

As with every other civil rights struggle for social groups considered non-legitimate, non-equal, inferior, and/or criminal, and assigned scorn and rejection on the basis of whatever qualities and characteristics distinguish the group, the process is a slow on.

While there are probably way more polyamorous individuals who'd like to be able to live their lives, families, and identities in a normal, unremarkable, un-pointed-at, un-stigmatized manner, at the moment the "teeny" applies to the percentage who are probably willing to put up with being assumed to be selfish, cheating, sex-obsessed, narcissistic, whiners asking for unreasonable accommodation and recognition of who they are and how they want to live.

So, yeah, probably "teeny" at the moment.

But there are a good many who'd love to invite their neighbors over for a barbecue and make no bones at all about there being three, four, five, whatever "spouses" taking turns at the grill to prepare their favorite specialties.

My expectation is that even with the escalated pace of social change, based on how freely people feel comfortable slinging cruel insults and degrading assumptions around, it's going to be anywhere from three to five decades before the dimensions of the poly community even begin to become apparent.

wearily,
Bright

[riderinthestorm]

52. So since you're the first person to try to answer the legalities

Ive got a couple examples I'd love to get your feedback on. (I'm not trying to weary you... This is your thread).

Persons A,B,C,D are married with three children.

Person B wants a divorce from person D but wants to remain married to persons A and C. Persons A and C want to stay married to D. How does that happen?

Person D is the biological parent of a 13 yr old but has left the parenting to person B. The child wants to live with person B and has stated they'll run away if forced to live with Person D. Person D insists person B has no biological ties to the child and insists on severing that relationship between Person B and 13 yr old child. Who gets primary custody?

Person B has done all of the child raising for the entire group and hasn't worked outside the home. B wants half the marital assets, pension and inheritance of person D who makes the significant bulk of the marriages money, plus alimony. How is that divisible?

These are just a few of many, many such questions I foresee. These things are very very difficult with two people. Adding in three, four or more people and I can see the acrimony escalating. Throw in a child abuse accusation, discovery of hidden assets, and/or tax evasion for further chaos.

[TygrBright]

56. These are actually questions that have already been tested, to some extent.

Plenty of monogamous marriages have children. Sometimes those marriages ended in divorce.

Then they marry others.

In some cases exactly the situation you refer to here: "Person D is the biological parent of a 13 yr old but has left the parenting to person B. The child wants to live with person B and has stated they'll run away if forced to live with Person D. Person D insists person B has no biological ties to the child and insists on severing that relationship between Person B and 13 yr old child. Who gets primary custody?" obtains.

An ex-spouse who wants to retain "control" of their biological child, and/or has considerable animus and resentment against their ex-spouse and the new spouse, initiates a viciously ugly custody battle, and the family courts are forced to determine where the child's bests interests lie.

I don't see why it would be different with a plural marriage, do you?

The same thing applies to the other "marital issues" you raise. Talk to any marital therapist and/or experienced divorce attorney about some of the bizarre shenanigans involved in serial monogamy, and you begin to realize the apparent complexities of a poly marriage are just typical human weirdness in a form perhaps not immediately familiar to you, but very recognizable.

Spouse B deciding they don't want to have a relationship with spouse D, but want to stay connected with spouse A and C, that would be a negotiation process for all of them, wouldn't it? Spouses A and C would have to decide whether they were comfortable keeping the marriage intact if spouse D and B are no longer connected, and spouse D would have a say, as well.

One aspect of poly relationships that those unfamiliar with them don't always perceive is the extent to which careful and candid communication is NON-optional. Poly relationships ARE complex, and that means they require a very high level of communication to work.

A few of the MANY options open to the quad you hypothesize are:

Spouses A, C, and D can tell spouse B that they don't think it'll work to exclude spouse D from the relationship, so spouse B has the choice of going altogether, or working things out with spouse D (with the help of spouses A and C, perhaps, and maybe a good marital therapist) and staying. Marriage remains existent, and possibly (if B and D can work it out) intact.

Spouse D can decide that if spouse B can't connect with them, they're no longer getting what they needed from the marriage with only A and C willing to connect, and D can opt to leave. Marriage remains existent.

Spouse A and C can tell spouse B and D they're not particularly happy with the notion that spouses B and D can't work out their connection, and A and C can opt to leave, and the marriage dissolves.

A, C, and D can arrange to accommodate whatever B's problem is, temporarily or permanently, by allowing B to have a separate living area where D won't intrude. B will still have to tolerate D in the shared living areas. Marriage remains intact, but not necessarily stable.

There are lots more. Adults negotiate this stuff, even if it's complicated.

helpfully,
Bright

[riderinthestorm]

58. The laws are set up for serial monogamy.

You haven't touched on specifically how to legally handle child custody, visitation, division of marital assets, alimony etc and instead are focusing on the emotional core issues.

I've already said I have no problem with polyamory. The emotional relationship stuff can presumably be worked out.

Division of assets, alimony, child custody etc are where the shot hits the fan and can take years to resolve legally and that's with just two involved. I can tell you adults do NOT work these things out when it's acrimonious. I'm going to guess you have never been involved in, or watched, a bitter divorce. My sister and her ex-husband were back in court just last week - they're five years into their divorce proceedings - over his refusal to pay for his oldest sons college fees. It's in the divorce agreement but since my sister has re-married, he's contesting it. Again.

Multiply times three or five with polygamy and I believe the courts would go nuts over trying to resolve each person's grievance.

Until someone comes up with a legal framework that protects women and children, I'm skeptical about polygamy. Since you've said poly families will reject civil unions, then I foresee a long road ahead as they work towards re-configuring many aspects of the law and then persuading society to go along.

[haele]

57. Serial Monogamists run into the same situation.

Semi-custodial stepchildren, who might end up two or three steps away from one of the original birth parents.
Which spouse gets how much of the estate - the first wife, or the fourth wife?

I've seen it at work. My father-in-law had five wives, lucky for him - only the first gave him children, and the last two had children from a different father, so the pre-nup was still in place by the time he died. He divorced the first three but was a fairly willing non-custodial parent according to my husband and his sister.

Wife # four was a widow with her own rather large estate (her husband was wealthy. So, when FiL died, the joint property that stayed with him through marriage #5 went to her children in accordance with that pre-nup.

Wife #five's children aren't even her own, they were her husband's, and wanted nothing to do with his ex who had run off with someone when the youngest was two. Wife # 5 ended up with legal guardianship, so when she divorced her Husband #1, the kids decided that they'd rather live with her than their own dad. (They were grown by the time she married FiL)
She's a sweetie, and had known Wife #4, so she had no issues when the time came to deal with my FiL's estate.

Now, if Wife #three had children with him as she had been apparently bugging him to do (and that was one of the issues that lead to that divorce, according to my spouse), you betcha there'd still be a huge fight over how his estate was to be split up - and he died three years ago.

FiL was a retired flag level Air Force officer and was high up in business, living off a very nice set of retirement packages. So, who gets his pension(s), retirement, and SSI? Wife # 1, married to him for twelve years, who helped him get his degree and stayed married to him five years into his Air Force career as a young officer? Wife #2, who saw him through six years as a mid-level officer's wife? Wife #3 who played the hostess role for a flag level officer's wife for almost ten years? Wife #5, his survivor, married to him for fourteen years?

Each has a survivor's claim to his estate, because he made his money with them at one point or another. The only difference between his situation and that of a polygamist's would be dependent on the ex-spouse's legal ability to make a claim. (I think wives # 2 and #3 are either deceased or have gotten re-married, so they no longer have a claim.)

Marriage as a legal entity is dependent on the clauses that are set into the agreement. That's why there's a big business in pre-nuptials; and there honestly would be very little difference between polygamy and serial monogamy when it comes to that.

Haele

[riderinthestorm]

59. Nope. Serial monogamy is NOT the same as polygamy.

Each of those legal issues were resolved before you FIL was allowed to re-marry.

Especially when it comes to pension, inheritance and child custody with you FIL being a wealthy guy, no way did his ex-wives let his $$ go un negotiated. There are laws already in place to deal with the dissolution of a monogamous marriage and there were NO questions on who got what at the end.

Polygamy has no such legal structure.

Life happens. Only @ 3% of the population have pre-nups (an uncomplicated pre-nup will run you $15k. A complicated one can be closer to $60k)

Only 30 - 40% of people have wills. Assuming that polygamous families will have better stats is wishful thinking.

[luvspeas]

32. you are delusional...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6951303

[Mojorabbit]

34. A team of lawyers could handle the legal changes.

I don't understand why that would be an issue. It would take some time but like anything else would not be horribly difficult.

[MattBaggins]

62. Just like that ?

A team of lawyers every time a group of people wants to get married; and carry that over into 50 different states?

[Mojorabbit]

64. Modify existing parameters. Doable. nt

[MattBaggins]

66. An army of lawyers and 50 years maybe

[Mojorabbit]

67. They are already able to navigate confusing

cases now where people have multiple divorces and child custody and support issues. The ground work is there. Modifying it is needed. If lawyers can write up incredibly complex multibillion dollar international mergers that include hundreds of brands bought up and all the intricacies that that entails...I think this is doable.

[MattBaggins]

68. not even

5 people in a divorce court fighting over property, alimony, children would leave a court tied up for years.

[prayin4rain]

13. "women and children are not well served by polygamy as its exemplified now" I agree. n/t

[Major Nikon]

55. It's pretty simple really

Just get the government out of the marriage business.

[MattBaggins]

63. sorry to offend but that is a libertarian naive comment

[Major Nikon]

69. I don't belive you are sorry to offend

Going by some of your other posts you seem to have a penchant for it.

In this case you have utterly failed because I'm certainly not offended any more than Noam Chomsky is offended by labeling himself as a libertarian along with many others on the left. As far as being naive goes, you can throw many others in your label bin as well like countless philosophers throughout history all the way from Plato, to Mary Wollstonecraft, to Soren Kierkegaard, to Jean-Paul Sartre. Countless feminists have also subscribed to the same idea. I think it's quite comical you would think them naive for saying so. Few things are as authoritarian as wanting the government to approve and license people's private love lives. Seems more naive to desperately want to concede such power and control to the state for no good reason which has been a source of institutionalized abuse, prejudice, and discrimination throughout US history, but I guess that's just my libertarian naivete coming out.

[MattBaggins]

73. It is naive

You don't want the government involved in marriage: that is until you have a dispute

[Major Nikon]

74. I didn't say anything about dissolving tort law or family courts

Those will exist whether or not the government is in the marriage business. Allowing the government to license marriage is completely unnecessary to resolving disputes between parties.

Sometimes you just gotta throw off your authoritarian yoke and think outside the box rather than just assuming things are always better when the government has more, rather than less control over your life, which is a pretty good example of naivete whether you choose to admit it or not.

[MattBaggins]

75. Ahh you don't realize that courts and law

are part of the government

[Major Nikon]

76. Yeah, in the same way they are involved in everything else that doesn't concern marriage

If I had said the government should get out of the parcel post business do you think that would mean you couldn't sue UPS if they lost your package?

You might be amazed to learn lots of people don't bother to get married and yet still have processes to resolve disputes.

[underahedgerow]

16. I don't have much respect for people who focus their entire lives on sexual gratification.

I just think there is a lot more to life than spending all day and all night thinking about bumping genitals. It just all seems rather silly.

[Bonx]

18. I don't have much respect for non sequiturs

Wastes my time.

[TygrBright]

19. I agree. Marriage is about so much more than sex.

But the bigoted assumption that plural marriage is all about getting lots of nookie from multiple partners will continue to drive the discussion for a long time.

wearily,
Bright

[underahedgerow]

21. The OP connected up the poly-whatever thingy to swingers... which is about.... sex.

People can go ahead and schtup anyone and everyone they want, but I don't see the need to compare it to and piggy back on the recent LGBT marriage equality act in an effort to somehow legitimize and legalize and validate what a few people (seemingly limited to DU) are interested in, for their own personal agendas.

I'm one of those 'for the good of all' instead of 'for the good of ME' type people...

[uppityperson]

41. Maybe you missed this part of the OP. Your replies here sound to me rather like those who

want to deny the right to marry to people who are gay because, after all, "it's all about...sex". Poly-relationships are not...about...sex only.

The kind of people who are ethically, thoughtfully, naturally polyamorous don't necessarily want to go live in a teeny little subculture with one another where they can be marginalized, stigmatized, prosecuted now and then, and generally made to pay a hellish price for the consensual expression of their sexuality with other adults.

[Tatiana La Belle]

65. It's also about rights.

nt

[Cal Carpenter]

20. Ironic that you're practically the only one talking about that in this thread then

[underahedgerow]

22. Buuuuut it's the entire point of the OP. And the entire point of the whole issue. This whole

issue boils down to little more than some attention seeking swingers hoping to validate and legitimize -- and 'educate everyone' about -- their chosen lifestyle.

I'm quite tired of this non-issue being the shiny new toy everyone has to play with.

Meanwhile, the US stock markets are under cyber attack by China, China's stock market has taken a HUGE nosedive and Greece has gracefully bowed to the concessions of the EU.

Lots of interesting REAL issues going on out there!

[The2ndWheel]

24. Sounds like a good time to start screwing

Can't trade stocks anymore, might as well do something.

[underahedgerow]

25. Pfft what for? It'll be over with in 2 minutes.

Then what? And ick, what a mess to clean up.

Dots. I like the dots game a LOT.

Poker is even better though..... you got to know when to hold and know when to fold!

[Le Taz Hot]

31. Damn! Two minutes?

Who do you hang out with? Nevermind, it was rhetorical.

[underahedgerow]

38. lol, why men, of course!

Rhetorically, at all cost!

Your other OP was brilliantly written, btw. An exceptional piece on a very tough topic, That which does not kill us makes us stronger... xoxo

[Cal Carpenter]

28. I haven't posted on any of the threads about this topic before

so take the 'shiny new toy' crap elsewhere.

I do, however, feel the need to point out that, while I don't see this issue on exactly the same plane as same-sex marriage, polygamy/polyamory is NOT all about sex. It is about being a family and the legal hurdles that come about when your chosen, committed family is not sanctioned by the state.

Reducing it to being about sex is quite similar to reducing the issue of gay marriage to being all about sex, and obviously that isn't the point of gay marriage either. This OP is not all about 'bumping genitals', as the above poster so crudely claimed.

With that said, I am getting the hell outta here lest people think I am concerned with polygamy over all other issues.

[Le Taz Hot]

33. Welcome to DU.

Hang around a bit. Lots of Groups of varying interests and not all of us are judgmental douch . . er, people.

[underahedgerow]

37. Golf is a genuine sport requiring skill. It's social, doesn't cause someone to destroy their careers

or commit crimes or spread STDs (I will NOT insert a joke about Tiger Woods here). It hopefully doesn't destroy family homes nor is it the source or cause of many types of damaging perversions.

Neither does 'travel', which in and of itself is educational to say the very least.

Sex is hardly a moral issue in any way unless vulnerable people are being exploited. In that case the perp is the immoral one, not the victim. I'm all for decriminalizing prostitution, and fail to see how abortion is any different than using a birth control pill or a condom. The end result is the same, no shame, just common sense employed, by way of example. No moral judgement is at play here.

I'm not too stupid, I'm not attacking anyone personally or calling names. I'm being rational about a really odd subject. Respect is reserved for people who earn it. I start out respecting everyone the same, regardless of gender, color, nationality, age, etc., until they start behaving poorly or better, then the respect level changes respectively.

I just called this topic as I see it. I broke it down to the absolute bottom line basis for their entire premise, and that seems to be a bit unsettling for some people, and of course I apologize if I've offended anyone obsessed by sexual activity who seem to feel that I should respect them based on, er that.

Which seems silly. Sex is good fun, but gosh, I can think of better things to occupy my thoughts, conversation and energy when I'm not enjoying it! I just don't understand the cultural obsession with sexual activity and this overwhelming need for people to seek validation for every single alternative sexually oriented lifestyle. *Note my stern belief and proviso that the LGBT spectrum is not a lifestyle choice please.

Thanks for weighing in. I hope it all goes well for you.

[uppityperson]

46. Is "the LGBT spectrum" a "lifestyle"? You says it's not a "lifestyle choice", but is it a lifestyle

in your belief?

[underahedgerow]

61. Yes, in the definition as "a way of life".

In many variable forms.

As opposed to believing it's a choice to be Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual & Transgender.

All life forms have a 'lifestyle'. Sometimes it's chosen by that life form. Sometimes it's chosen for the life form by a myriad of factors. Nature vs Nurture.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. I must ask something, isn't this almost everyone?

I mean, its certainly not exclusive to the polyamorous, but most people, except asexuals, think about bumping genitals, it would be safe to say, at least once a day. What is wrong with that?

[underahedgerow]

43. Exactly. Nothing is wrong with it at all, but gosh, we're bombarded by sexualised messages allllll

day long, every medium, on every billboard... It just gets so tiring and obsessive. Music about sex, adverts, 'you will have sex if you buy this car, you will have sex if you wear this makeup... You will have sex and get the most gorgeous girl if you buy this car...' It's the advert cos appealing directly to the market they know they can exploit and capitalize on the easiest... And I find that sad.

I would rather buy a car because it drives well and is reliable. I would rather buy tennis shoes if they fit well and last a long time... I would rather drink THAT brand of beer because it actually tastes good, etc.

The incredibly broad manner in which western civilization has been so blatantly sexualised has taken nearly all the genuine potential of a real relationship between people to heights of impossible likelihood...

And when I see how the absolute opposite, how extreme oppression and fear of sex, has driven people like ISIS to the extreme in degradation and punishment of anyone committing the least perceivable sexually oriented 'crime', while at the same time committing horrific sex crimes and torture against females and children... well, it's all just so overwhelming.

I just wish something so mundane and ordinary wasn't propped up to be something so important. There is so much more to life, and everyone is missing it.... it makes me sad and frustrated.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. Uhm, this isn't a recent phenomenon, indeed, sexual repression is, as you pointed out, quite the...

perversion.

I don't see what you think is so bad, sex sells, sex has been sold, people love sex, people love having sex with other people. We should encourage and talk about expressing ourselves sexually in healthy and happy ways that emphasize respecting boundaries and bodies. I doubt it would ever become mundane.

In fact, in much of the industrialized world, things are getting better in this regard, we still have a long way to go, mostly related to abandoning old hangups related to sex, gender, identity and orientation, but, rather than being sad or frustrated, I'm hopeful.

[smirkymonkey]

78. I'm with you. It's importance has been blown completely out of proportion.

It's a part of life, it's not the be-all-end-all. People who think so are rather boring, I think.

[derby378]

26. Last I heard, porn star Nina Hartley is in a long-term polyamorous relationship

She's been rather frank about it. But since I'm neither of her lovers, it's no skin off my ass. (Besides, I'm taken.)

[luvspeas]

30. I want to hear from even 2 "groups" (for lack of a better term) who want to get married...

This is all a bunch of moralizing crap. Yes, moralizing can cut in both directions. Just depends on you morals. Who the hell cares who wants to do what with whom. The argument is about MARRIAGE. Seriously, of all you fantasizing blowhards how many of you are actually in a relationship with another 2,3,4,etc people that all want to MARRY one another.

[luvspeas]

51. anybody? (crickets)

[Hydra]

79. I wasn't around the other day for this

But my fiancees and I would like to get married at some point. We were thrilled when the ball started rolling, and despite the backlash on DU, I'm encouraged by how many people are actually not against the idea.

I've been living in various closets for most of my life- it'll be nice to come out to sunshine and daisies rather than pitchforks and stakes with fires under them.

[luvspeas]

80. but you must have a dozen people on du that support you

And they are very vocal.

[Hydra]

83. On this issue, after all the progress with LBGT movement, which I am helping

The rest, not so much...and had I posted about it even a few weeks ago people would have been like "Huh...?"

The best I can say about the people who are reacting badly to this is that most of them have refused to engage me on it. Then again, I could be on all their ignore lists too for various reasons, which I'm ok with.

I do think there are at least 5 posters on DU that are speaking out that would or would have in the past gotten married plurally if the option was open to them. Many people have pointed out that they can have the relationship without the marriage, but there are a few problems with that:

1. They wouldn't be asking for it if they were happy with the current arrangement
2. Being Poly is not socially acceptable, just as being LBGTQI isn't. Many polys are in the LBGT community, and we've made gains on how being LBGT is seen in society, the biggest blow so far being the SCOTUS decision. A similar SCOTUS decision for Polys would be yet another blow to the Religious Right's legislated morality, and should clear the air for people to live how they want without fear of persecution.
3. Legal rights for such relationships should be available to everyone, whether it's "traditional" or not. When the argument came that Gays should accept civil unions as a compromise on the right, we didn't accept that as acceptable then, so why should we now? It's not like the RW is going to start loving us if we do.

It's exciting times- I'm encouraged about how far we've come, and where we might be able to get soon.

[lostnfound]

40. This is more of a social issue than a political one.

Laws aren't intended to address every possible scenario. Legally, marriage is a set of rights and responsibilities conveniently packaged to address most of the legal consequences of a love partnership between two people. It's common to want to address inheritance laws, shared medical benefits, shared parenting obligations, protection from being obligated to testify against a partner, income security in old age (I.e., social security spousal income), shared ownership of financial assets, etc.

A three-way polyamorous partnership has much more complexity which would make legal recognition of such relationships complicated and beside the point. It is rare for such a thing to be completely balanced (let alone stay balanced) among the three people.

If you want such a relationship to become embedded in financial and legal issues, you'd probably want to custom design it to your own particular circumstances anyway. And you wouldn't expect your company or the Social Security administration etc. to double up on benefits to which you are entitled. You might trust one partner with certain things (finances) and another with certain other things (parenting duties in event of your death).

Nothing wrong with it, in an abstract way, in my humble (both ways) opinion. But it's not worth institutionalizing it when it's all custom-built.

[Tatiana La Belle]

60. It's a legal issue if you think

multiple spouses have the right to the dignity of marriage, as Kennedy's decision makes clear:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-the-dignity-of-same-sex-marriage/2015/07/02/43bd8f70-1f4e-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html

...But Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences.

For the record, I have long advocated the recognition of same-sex marriage. But the most direct way the justices could have arrived at their conclusion would have been to rely on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. It, along with the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, holds that all citizens are entitled to the same treatment under the law, no matter their race, sex, religion or other attributes known as “protected classes.” Kennedy and his allies could have added “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes, making the denial of marriage licenses an act of illegal discrimination. This approach would also have clarified the standard in a host of other areas, such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations.

Instead, Kennedy fashioned the opinion around another part of the 14th Amendment, holding that denial of marriage licenses infringed on the liberty of gay men and women by restricting their right to due process. As Justice Clarence Thomas correctly pointed out, liberty under the Constitution has largely been defined as protection against physical restraints or broader government interference — “not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” While Kennedy makes a powerful case for an expansive new view of due process, he extends the concept of liberty far beyond prior decisions.

In reality, he has been building to this moment for years, culminating in what might now be called a right to dignity. In his 1992 Casey decision, he upheld Roe v. Wade on the basis of “personal dignity and autonomy [that] are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Kennedy wove this concept of protected dignity through a series of cases, from gay rights to prison lawsuits, including his historic 2003 Lawrence decision striking down the criminalization of homosexuality. These rulings on liberty peaked with Obergefell, which he described as an effort of the petitioners to secure “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” He used the word “dignity” almost a dozen times in his decision and laid down a jurisprudential haymaker: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”

These words resonate with many of us, but it is not clear what a right to dignity portends. As Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in an earlier dissent to Lawrence, it signals “the end of all morals legislation.” Some of us have long argued for precisely that result, but the use of a dignity right as a vehicle presents a new, unexpected element, since it may exist in tension with the right to free speech or free exercise of religion.

Dignity is a rather elusive and malleable concept compared with more concrete qualities such as race and sex. Which relationships are sufficiently dignified to warrant protection? What about couples who do not wish to marry but cohabitate? What about polyamorous families, who are less accepted by public opinion but are perhaps no less exemplary when it comes to, in Kennedy’s words on marriage, “the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family”? The justice does not specify. It certainly appears as if Obergefell extends this protection because same-sex unions are now deemed acceptable by the majority. The courts may not be so readily inclined to find that other loving relationships are, to quote the opinion, a “keystone of the Nation’s social order” when they take less-orthodox forms. But popularity hardly seems like a proper legal guide to whether a relationship is dignified.

[Tatiana La Belle]

47. Thank you.

There are more than people know.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. Tatiana La Belle-Posting Privileges Revoked 7-10

Reason: "Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."

So a person operating multiple accounts says "there are more people than you know". That's poly ironic, meta poly ironic.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. LGBT people were closted in great majority until laws against homosexuality were repealed, in CA

where I lived this happened in 1975. At that very same time, polyamory became legal in CA. This was 40 years ago. By 1978, gay people were coming out in droves as part of our politics as well as out of simple honesty, Harvey Milk, gay and elected at the end of 1977, spoke extensively on the subject of coming out for the good of others, teachers a big example of the time as gay teachers were being targeted politically. So when the laws which could have jailed us were repealed, we instantly formed public community, elected people, set agendas and most importantly came out great numbers and by the way at great cost for many people, it was courageous, brave and bold and millions of men and women took that stand and continue to today.
So when you tell me that another group liberated at the same time is still cowering meekly afraid to speak, I don't even know what to say. It indicates that this group is not wanting to come out in great numbers, it indicates they are not willing to go out and seek change, and it might mean they don't want any. Whining about how scary it is? Get real. That's insulting.

[TygrBright]

50. Thanks for judging those of us who don't live in California. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

70. I did no such thing. You are evasive and disrespectful. Clearly you don't even know the history

That was 40 fucking years ago. I don't live in CA anymore either. 40 years of freedom.

Obviously you don't even know the legal history of the 'movement' you claim to speak for. Transparent.

Cowering in closets is a stupid choice. I don't respect it. I've seen hundreds of people come out and thrive.
It's insulting to all of us that just won a major victory purchased with our own commitment and honesty. This week, you come here to do this. Decades in which your cohort could have come out just like we did. 40 years your cohort stewed in silence and this is the moment they pick and the method they select to promote themselves? It's just so deeply mean spirited. 40 years of cowering in fear, then you folks want to piss on our celebration. It's creepy as behavior. Mean. Just mean.

And you won't even discuss. You snark and you preach like any other religious atavist pushing dogma.

[TygrBright]

71. I'm scum, alright. Feel free to put me on ignore, it'll be a first for me.

[luvspeas]

77. plus a bajillion!

[peacebird]

53. I personally have no problem with any combination of consenting adults who choose to bond together

to support each other physically & emotionally in this life. I do not understand why so many people care about other consenting adults most personal relationships. Your OP will undoubtably draw a lot of the venom I have seen here at DU over multiples in a relationship, for the life of me I do not understand why.
I am happily married to my best friend. Monogamy works for us. It does not work for everyone, but then, wouldn't the world be a lot more dull if everyone liked the same thing? And btw, it isn't the number of adults IN the relationship that matter, or their genders, the only thing that really matters is how they treat and care for each other!

That's my bottom line, fwiw.

[Blue_Adept]

72. Spot on

I was that neighbor for quite a long time. My secondary partner lived across the country but came out to visit several times a year for a couple of weeks at a time. I basically introduced them as a longtime family friend that stays on occasion and little more than that.

I would have loved to have made it something more but the complications of society can intrude into any relationship.

As an aside, totally love your username if it's the old SF novel reference.