Poly-gamy/-andry/-gyny/-amory Thoughts?

[Sir_Winston54]

Ran into the article below, which made me wonder what others here thought on the subject(s), especially since I know some people here are involved in some form of poly relationships. Certain "highlights" of the article are quoted; the entire article is linked in the headline.

(I'm putting this in the Café since it's not really a "BDSM" topic. If a/the mod/s want to move it to Talk, that's fine. )

Polygamy: form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse.
Polyandry: a form of polygamous marriage, or other sexual union, in which one individual is married to two or more husbands at the same time.
Polygyny: polygamy in which one man is married to two or more wives.
Polyamory: desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.​

I have two husbands: A polygamist’s diary
A polygamist on her ‘non-traditional’ lifestyle — and why ‘Big Love’ is silly
By Kathleen Lewis
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x95/Sir_Winston54/YouTango-v3.gif

• "Non-traditional" is a popular catchall phrase that seems, in common usage, to mean anything that differs from the mainstream. It also describes a large portion of my life.
• Around a year and a half after we were married, we met Eric. He and I were instantly attracted to each other and, as Alan had no objection, we began getting to know each other better. Over time, I found myself falling in love with Eric. Alan certainly wasn't blind to this, so we all got together to discuss it. This turned out to be one of the most important conversations of my life, and led to an increase in my family’s size.
• Alan and Eric let me make the sleeping arrangements, and I worked to make sure I spent time with both of them. To all outward appearances we were a married couple with a male friend living with us. While some found it awkward when the three of us occasionally attended parties and such together, very few people attempted to pry. To avoid legal troubles, I remained legally married to Alan, and we all decided a larger house was in order when we met Leslie.
• We have two family meetings a week, one of which is for adults only, both of which can get lively and loud. We've had our arguments over money, people monopolizing other people's time, dealing with children's issues, and so forth — like any other family — but we just have more voices in the discussion.
• Our respective families are aware that Alan and I are married, that Eric and Leslie are married, and that Amber is living with us. If they are suspicious of anything else, they've never mentioned it. Fascinating how people avoid asking uncomfortable questions.

Is the "traditional" marriage beginning to die out? (Not in the gaybashing states, obviously but in general, in real life?)

 

[WriterDom]

I doubt it. Even in tree-hugging California they voted down gay marriage. Poly has a bad rap from all the Mormonish freaks marrying underage girls.

I don't think I could do it. I'm pretty good at pissing off one woman at a time.

 

[JMohegan]

Is the "traditional" marriage beginning to die out? (Not in the gaybashing states, obviously but in general, in real life?)

The divorce rate is a hell of a lot more relevant to the state of traditional marriage than whatever these people are doing.

Personally I think the whole focus of these discussions is misplaced. As I said in the gay marriage discussion, I'd cast my vote for marriage as a purely religious construct. Let the Episcopalians, Baptists, Jews, etc., define it however they want. As long as nobody's fucking the underage or preventing exodus from the compound, it's none of my business whether their love gets anybody's officially sanctioned blessing or not.

The public conversation on this topic should focus on the financial and legal ramifications of opening up civil unions to multiples. For example, if the other 3 adults decide to hang out at home, work part-time, or sell poly advice books out of their basement, should Eric's full-time employer be forced to fund health insurance for everyone in that crowd?

 

[intothewoods]

I doubt it. Even in tree-hugging California they voted down gay marriage. Poly has a bad rap from all the Mormonish freaks marrying underage girls.

I don't think I could do it. I'm pretty good at pissing off one woman at a time.

I heard that the last time there was a proposition in California negatively affecting gay rights, it passed overwhelmingly. Prop 8 passed by a fairly small margin. So I do think the tide is turning there.

As far as Mormon polygamy goes, as long as we're talking consenting adults and not 14 year old girls, I'm fine. I realize the legal age of consent to marry is below 18 in plenty of states, but raise it to 17 at least and we take care of that. How religious polygamists are treated in this country raises some interesting questions about freedom of religion. At what point is it a dangerous cult? It's a bit of a tightrope to walk, but I'm comfortable with not allowing underage marriage. I don't feel bad about letting government control that one. I feel more discomfort over smoking bans, to tell you the truth.

As for, er, the rest, poly-whatever and the questions about insurance, I think you can have as many kids as you want, and your employer typically has to pay for them in some way, so really, why not spouses?

I'd be curious to know if polyamory and open marriages are a rising trend or not. I really don't know.

 

[Homburg]

The public conversation on this topic should focus on the financial and legal ramifications of opening up civil unions to multiples. For example, if the other 3 adults decide to hang out at home, work part-time, or sell poly advice books out of their basement, should Eric's full-time employer be forced to fund health insurance for everyone in that crowd?

I agree with the idea that financial and legal issues should be the focus. Unfortunately, questions based on cultural and religious mores dominate the "discussion".

Some other cultures allow polygynous arrangements (though they are not usually free choice, as they often societies with arranged marriages, etc) and many of those cultures have situations where men of wealth and power can afford multiple wives, and do so. This lessens the available pool of eligible women and leaves a strata of non-wealthy single men, usually young.

Single, young, disempowered men are the leading proponents of violent crime, the primary actors in extremist terrorism, etc. No, I'm not linking polgamy to terrorism, but am pointing out that existing cultures that allow polygyny only have some attendant problems relating to scarcity.

I am mentioning this as it is an argument I have seen (in Reason, for example) against polygamy in general. I can see it, sure, but can also see a balance were we, in the pseudo-enlightened non-third world, to allow polygamy, as it would explicitly include polyandry as well. While we would likely have wealthy men snapping up young brides, we would also see similar movements by women of means as well. Would it balance? I've no idea, but it would be more balanced than the polygyny-only situations practiced in various cultures where scarcity is an issue.

I am personally of the opinion that government should get the hell out of the marriage business in general. Marriage is a cultural and religious construct, certainly, but is composed of two basic components. First you have the religious ceremony side (which the govt should be as far from as possible in the US), and second the contractual side that handles the sharing of property, legal obligations, etc. It is perfectly legitimate for the govt to be involved in contracts. It is a function of govt. It is not legitimate for the govt, at least in the US, to be involved in religious ceremonies.

So getting the whole idea of marriage out of the way insofar as govt is concerned, we save a lot of time by solely discussing civil unions. In my eyes, civil unions are contracts. Contractual law includes options for contracts between multiple parties. It is complex, and would require a lot of legal thinking, but it is possible. And, personally at least, I consider liberty to be worth the hassle. Of course I am biased, I freely admit. Others may well feel that it is not worth the attendant hassle. I can accept that, but it would certainly be nice to have some protection under the law.

In my own case, most people don't ask. My friends sometimes do, but it is largely because most of them know me well enough to know that I do things differently, and that I am forthright enough to answer questions. To date, I've been asked once at a night club that I occasionally attend. The person asking was an acquaintance that I'd known for many years, and knew that I am married. He saw me with MIS and asked. I told him. He was cool with it, and that was that. More people my age and younger are accepting of it than those that are my folks age.

I don't personally think that an employer should have to extend health benefits to every adult in the household, whether they are in a relationship or not. Then again, I'm pretty much tired of the whole healthcare issue, and am becoming more and more in favor of nationalized health care in general. Yeah, it has its' problems and worries, but, wow, it would handle so many other oddball attendant issues. As Netz pointed out in another thread, an awful lot of folks on the dole are there because of medical reasons, and frequently they've nothing to do with the choices made. No one choices to get CD or pancreatic cancer or somesuch. This is an entirely separate discussion though.

Overall, let people do what they want to do in the privacy of their homes, so long as informed consent is obtained, and we accept that children and animals cannot give consent, informed and otherwise.

And, yeah, the religious whacko polygamists really are fucking it up for everyone. They are the poster boys for the scarcity and extreme measures spawned by monopolising young eligible women. And one of their worst crimes is the abandonment of young teenage boys. A 14 year old boy should not just be dropped off on a city street somewhere, abandoned by the family that spawned him and church that he clung to. It's fucking criminal.

 

[WriterDom]

I heard that the last time there was a proposition in California negatively affecting gay rights, it passed overwhelmingly. Prop 8 passed by a fairly small margin. So I do think the tide is turning there.

As far as Mormon polygamy goes, as long as we're talking consenting adults and not 14 year old girls, I'm fine. I realize the legal age of consent to marry is below 18 in plenty of states, but raise it to 17 at least and we take care of that. How religious polygamists are treated in this country raises some interesting questions about freedom of religion. At what point is it a dangerous cult? It's a bit of a tightrope to walk, but I'm comfortable with not allowing underage marriage. I don't feel bad about letting government control that one. I feel more discomfort over smoking bans, to tell you the truth.

As for, er, the rest, poly-whatever and the questions about insurance, I think you can have as many kids as you want, and your employer typically has to pay for them in some way, so really, why not spouses?

I'd be curious to know if polyamory and open marriages are a rising trend or not. I really don't know.

So if a woman has forty 60 year old husbands, all with medical issues, the employer should pick up the tab?

 

[Homburg]

I'd be curious to know if polyamory and open marriages are a rising trend or not. I really don't know.

I'm seeing more about it, but I'm also seeing more pictures of rabbits with pancakes on their heads. The internet may be colouring perceptions of trends. May? Who am I kidding. The internet allows all sorts of weird trendcasting.

 

[intothewoods]

So if a woman has forty 60 year old husbands, all with medical issues, the employer should pick up the tab?

So cap it at 10. Or however many kids the Duggars have.

I'm seeing more about it, but I'm also seeing more pictures of rabbits with pancakes on their heads. The internet may be colouring perceptions of trends. May? Who am I kidding. The internet allows all sorts of weird trendcasting.

Exactly. There are places for polyamorists to meet up and chat now, but it may be about the same number of people who lived on a commune in the 60s. I don't know.

 

[Homburg]

Exactly. There are places for polyamorists to meet up and chat now, but it may be about the same number of people who lived on a commune in the 60s. I don't know.

Exactly my concern. That said, there are signs (websites, message boards, conventions, presentations, TV shows, web TV series, etc) that the idea is becoming more commonly. Those signs alone allow it to become more common too. I had no idea at all what polyamory was 20 years ago. Now I do. Having good information and role-models of it back then would certainly have helped me. People nowadays have more access to that info.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Robert A. Heinlein, possibly the most influential science fiction writer of the second half of the 20th century, postulated (in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress) a form of polygamy now described as a "line marriage": the married group (more than one couple) adds younger spouses over the decades, alternating sexes, so that the marriage does not end. While there were deeper-than-average attachments between various pairs within the family, there were also both hetero- and homo-sexual pairings and attachments (and if I remember correctly {it's been years since I last read TMIAHM}, some triad {or greater?} internal 'pairings'), as well as shared parenting responsibilities (and other divisions of responsibilities, too, much as Lewis describes in the article that initiated the OP), family meetings to discuss/determine both family and business policy, etc.

In TMIAHM, Heinlein emphasizes the sexual & emotional benefits of this kind of marriage, but he only marginally describes the effects of what many see as the core issues of marriage: property and status. The great benefit of line marriage would be that the property never has to be broken up: there is no generational transfer. The marriage becomes a kind of corporation, a way to concentrate and perpetuate wealth and influence.

For those familiar with TMIAHM, how workable did/does his concept of a plural marriage seem to you? (For those not familiar with the book, it basically conceives of it from a legal POV as a contractual matter between the parties, with {essentially} a Board of Directors, etc., yet allows for {almost requires} a great deal of emotional/sexual input regarding the intake of new "members.")

Side note: Heinlein was, according to Advocates for Self-Government, a libertarian educational site, "a libertarian who glorified individualism, progress, honor, and responsibility. In fact, the DailyObjectivist.com opined: "The man was as libertarian as they come." In the American Spectator (February 10, 2004), Colby Cosh wrote: "If you wish to trace the sources of the libertarian strain in 20th-century American thought, you must include the science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein."

ASG also says:

"Five of his novels have been honored with the Hall of Fame Award for Classic Novel of Liberty from the Libertarian Futurist Society: Time Enough for Love, Methuselah's Children (1958), Red Planet (1949), Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

In the Libertarian Party's monthly newspaper, LP News (September 1999), Laissez Faire Books editor Jim Powell named The Moon is a Harsh Mistress one of the 20 best introductory books about libertarianism. In 2003, Heinlein was named one of the past three decade's '35 Heroes of Liberty' by Reason magazine. Heinlein is also credited with coining the popular libertarian phrase, 'There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch,' commonly abbreviated to TANSTAAFL."​

 

[Sir_Winston54]

[hijack]

Shoot, man! After doing a little research and refreshing myself on TMIAHM, I'm going to have to pick a copy up and re-read it! I know I enjoyed it the two or three times I've previously read it.

This is the second time I've hijacked my own threads in a matter of ten days or so... got to watch that s**t!

[/hijack]

 

[FurryFury]

I've always said it makes no sense for a man to have more than one wife. I've rarely met a man that took good care of ONE wife much less more.

OTOH, it makes far more sense for a woman to have more than one man. Men are far simpler to manage in my experience.

I adored reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and about group marriages. The problem is so many people can't love that way and are really just shitty to one another. Still, the more you can love, the better person you are IMO.

That is IF all parties are aware and agree to it and have NOT been indoctrinated so that they really know of no other choices.

 

[deeteeZA]

Speaking purely from a polygyny perspective (what I am involved in), what is the difference between a series of marry / divorce relationships (serial monogamy or non-concurrent relationships) and polygyny (or concurrent relationships)??

I ask this not from the health insurance etc. point of view, but rather from the point of view of the spouses and children bearing the strain and stigma of coming from broken homes.

I am most certainly totally against the Mormon type of polygyny wherein minors are forced into arranged marriages, most seemingly for the sole reason to collect dole / social security (termed by the Mormons as "milking the beast").

With regard to the "contract" aspect of the marriage, the simplest solution (in our case) to the govt's refusal to allow and/or recognize a poly marriage, is to institute a "Living Trust", with all the spouses registered as trustees, and the trust so set up that no one person can shaft any of the other out of any of the family's assets / possessions.

If an additional spouse (or more specifically in our case wife) is added, all can discuss the issue in an adult manner, and if and when all are in agreement, then an attorney can (with the unanimous agreement of all the existing "trustees") amend the terms (and registered trustees) of the trust.

If for any reason there is a breakdown in any one of the "marriages", then in accordance with the pre-agreed terms of the trust, the wife can leave the marriage with whatever was agreed to. Very much like a pre-nuptual agreement in monogamous marriages.

Views / Comments please...

 

[JMohegan]

Speaking purely from a polygyny perspective (what I am involved in), what is the difference between a series of marry / divorce relationships (serial monogamy or non-concurrent relationships) and polygyny (or concurrent relationships)??

I ask this not from the health insurance etc. point of view, but rather from the point of view of the spouses and children bearing the strain and stigma of coming from broken homes.

I don't know what things are like in South Africa, but in the U.S. the divorce rate is quite high. Children with divorced parents are very common, as are single parents, step-parents, half-siblings, step-siblings, and so on.

Although this is hardly viewed as a first choice situation in most cases, the prevalence of divorce renders it one version of that which is considered normal. Therefore, the "stain and stigma" from decades ago is virtually gone. This is true for both parents and kids.

Mormons aside, polygynous families in the US are very rare. The stigma for women in these situations is quite high, as most mainstream people view them as either saps or as women who couldn't attract men of their own, for whatever reason. Mainstream cultural understanding of what could possibly motivate a woman to embrace polygyny is almost nonexistent.

As for the children of polygynous families, I assume they would bear the brunt of their parents' fringe lifestyle choices in the same way children always do. Kids are cruel; the playground's brutal. That's just the way it is.

 

[BiBunny]

What if you're in a polyamorous situation, and you don't want kids? I always hear children brought up in these discussions, but it doesn't apply to me. I don't want kids, and I've never been seriously involved with anyone who had them.

Does that somehow make it more ok? I never want to say "never," but I actively dislike children enough to take steps not to have them in my life. Either way, kids or no, in a poly situation, someone's going to get screwed because of the inability to enter into legal contracts that gives the same rights as marriage.

As far as the marriage thing goes, I always see it discussed as a man having two wives or a woman having two husbands or whatever. I never see it addressed as the two people of the same sex being married to one another. Like, saying I had a husband and a wife or whatever.

I don't think that made much sense. Everything's coming out way too stream-of-consciousness today. Sorry.

 

[Netzach]

What if you're in a polyamorous situation, and you don't want kids? I always hear children brought up in these discussions, but it doesn't apply to me. I don't want kids, and I've never been seriously involved with anyone who had them.

Does that somehow make it more ok? I never want to say "never," but I actively dislike children enough to take steps not to have them in my life. Either way, kids or no, in a poly situation, someone's going to get screwed because of the inability to enter into legal contracts that gives the same rights as marriage.

As far as the marriage thing goes, I always see it discussed as a man having two wives or a woman having two husbands or whatever. I never see it addressed as the two people of the same sex being married to one another. Like, saying I had a husband and a wife or whatever.

I don't think that made much sense. Everything's coming out way too stream-of-consciousness today. Sorry.

Yes to all that.

And, I honestly don't have any issues if the state doesn't want to make employers cover triad health insurance - particularly moot as I believe access to health care in a civilized country to be a right.

Till that bit of sanity comes down, I'd be fine in a world in which I can designate one other adult or my blood-related children only on my insurance. The problem I have is that the state is going to tell me what adult I can enter into that contract with. It should make no difference if it's my lesbian lover, my husband, my dear old gran or my BFF, just like a life policy. I'm still normally paying part of the insurance, often a larger part, and it's my money.


I also function on an "open relationship" model. The only legally protected relationship I have is to M and that's just how it is. I'm very vocal about my legal/personal wants and I just have to hope they'll be respected, and they usually are. Perhaps I have some traditional holdout about me, but the last thing I'd ever enter into is a group marriage. It goes against the overwhelming rule of thumb in my relationships - each partner's relationship being unique. My lover is my lover. My husband my husband. My slave, my slave.

 

[intothewoods]

What if you're in a polyamorous situation, and you don't want kids? I always hear children brought up in these discussions, but it doesn't apply to me. I don't want kids, and I've never been seriously involved with anyone who had them.

Does that somehow make it more ok? I never want to say "never," but I actively dislike children enough to take steps not to have them in my life. Either way, kids or no, in a poly situation, someone's going to get screwed because of the inability to enter into legal contracts that gives the same rights as marriage.

As far as the marriage thing goes, I always see it discussed as a man having two wives or a woman having two husbands or whatever. I never see it addressed as the two people of the same sex being married to one another. Like, saying I had a husband and a wife or whatever.

I don't think that made much sense. Everything's coming out way too stream-of-consciousness today. Sorry.

Well I'll just say it certainly removes a lot of issues. As far as everyone talking about kids when it comes to polygamy, there is a strong contingent of people who believe that with marriage comes kids. I'm not one of them, mind you. But I know a lot of childfree married people who are told they are selfish, or immoral, almost. It's very odd to me that anyone cares.

 

[Xelebes]

Xelebes, the accountant-in-training, steps in...

I personally visualise a wreathed structure. You are only legally obliged to overlook one spouse and be overlooked by another spouse.

In the case of a menage a trois, there is Partner A, Partner B, Partner C. Partner A overlooks the health and well-being of Partner B. Partner B is then, in essense, the "wife" of Partner A. Partner C oversees the health and well-being of Partner A, becoming the "husband" of Partner A.

Come tax time, Partner A claims Partner B as spouse but not C. Partner C claims Partner A as spouse but not B. Partner B claims C as spouse but not A. One is only able to transfer to the "wife", and is only able to receive from the husband. If this is done wrong, then that is to be determined as equal to a transfer to a child or dependent.

In the menage a quatre or higher, Partner D and everybody is viewed as only a dependent to Partner A come tax time.

This is done such that no one becomes too powerful in the relationship as to overwhelm all other partners, to prevent abuse.

Come to divorce, a female spouse has rights to all children born by her. Alimony and child support is more difficult, because questions have yet to be agreed upon towards whether the marriage be presumed to be "until death do them apart" or is the marriage a temporary construct.

 

[Netzach]

Well I'll just say it certainly removes a lot of issues. As far as everyone talking about kids when it comes to polygamy, there is a strong contingent of people who believe that with marriage comes kids. I'm not one of them, mind you. But I know a lot of childfree married people who are told they are selfish, or immoral, almost. It's very odd to me that anyone cares.

It's surreal. With fucking comes kids, perhaps. Anything else is just distraction.

 

[intothewoods]

It's surreal. With fucking comes kids, perhaps. Anything else is just distraction.

But it's not fucking. It's that family means children. I mean, really, couples I know who have struggled with infertility get this too - as if they are pariahs.

 

[Netzach]

But it's not fucking. It's that family means children. I mean, really, couples I know who have struggled with infertility get this too - as if they are pariahs.

You don't have to explain that one to me I'm simply saying that it's a whole lot easier, messier, and stupider most of the time than not, the "marriage then baby carriage" is in fact a looped fantasy sold to us - it CAN be like that, but most people in the mainstream are making their own mistakes and feeling superior because they have an instituition to hide in, pretend towards etc. A whole lot of kids just kind of happen and then people scramble.

The mistakes made by "normal" people like my mother aren't a full blown assault on marriage crisis. A poly family is automatically "holy shit!"

 

[intothewoods]

You don't have to explain that one to me I'm simply saying that it's a whole lot easier, messier, and stupider most of the time than not, the "marriage then baby carriage" is in fact a looped fantasy sold to us - it CAN be like that, but most people in the mainstream are making their own mistakes and feeling superior because they have an instituition to hide in, pretend towards etc. A whole lot of kids just kind of happen and then people scramble.

The mistakes made by "normal" people like my mother aren't a full blown assault on marriage crisis. A poly family is automatically "holy shit!"

Yeah, we are mulling over the timing right now. I mean, literally, it's a scheduling issue. When we can get family together, when we can get all moved in, and when we can get pregnant. Number 3 on that list is presumably the easiest to get done. But then I should get on his health insurance, so probably we'll wait. I mean, whatever, but it's all just so arbitrary, in a way.

 

[LilyBart]

OTOH, it makes far more sense for a woman to have more than one man. Men are far simpler to manage in my experience.

I have days where I might disagree. Sometimes men confound me.

Speaking purely from a polygyny perspective (what I am involved in), what is the difference between a series of marry / divorce relationships (serial monogamy or non-concurrent relationships) and polygyny (or concurrent relationships)??

I ask this not from the health insurance etc. point of view, but rather from the point of view of the spouses and children bearing the strain and stigma of coming from broken homes.

I am most certainly totally against the Mormon type of polygyny wherein minors are forced into arranged marriages, most seemingly for the sole reason to collect dole / social security (termed by the Mormons as "milking the beast").

With regard to the "contract" aspect of the marriage, the simplest solution (in our case) to the govt's refusal to allow and/or recognize a poly marriage, is to institute a "Living Trust", with all the spouses registered as trustees, and the trust so set up that no one person can shaft any of the other out of any of the family's assets / possessions.

If an additional spouse (or more specifically in our case wife) is added, all can discuss the issue in an adult manner, and if and when all are in agreement, then an attorney can (with the unanimous agreement of all the existing "trustees") amend the terms (and registered trustees) of the trust.

If for any reason there is a breakdown in any one of the "marriages", then in accordance with the pre-agreed terms of the trust, the wife can leave the marriage with whatever was agreed to. Very much like a pre-nuptual agreement in monogamous marriages.

Views / Comments please...

Its probably worth pointing out here (although I am not a Mormon, I have many Mormon friends) that the Mormon church does not condone or encourage polygamy (or its variants). The instances of underage girls being forced in to marriages, or teenage boys being eliminated from the church are all associated with breakaway sects. I think there is general agreement within the traditional Mormon community that these acts are despicable.

And while I do not have the ability, I think, to manage a poly relationship, I think the suggestions that deeteeZA raises are interesting. The idea of a trust may be a way to sort of get around the legal issues. Insurance still not resolved of course.

Yes to all that.

And, I honestly don't have any issues if the state doesn't want to make employers cover triad health insurance - particularly moot as I believe access to health care in a civilized country to be a right.

Till that bit of sanity comes down, I'd be fine in a world in which I can designate one other adult or my blood-related children only on my insurance. The problem I have is that the state is going to tell me what adult I can enter into that contract with. It should make no difference if it's my lesbian lover, my husband, my dear old gran or my BFF, just like a life policy. I'm still normally paying part of the insurance, often a larger part, and it's my money.

Amen. But we could start a whole other thread about health coverage in the US.

Well I'll just say it certainly removes a lot of issues. As far as everyone talking about kids when it comes to polygamy, there is a strong contingent of people who believe that with marriage comes kids. I'm not one of them, mind you. But I know a lot of childfree married people who are told they are selfish, or immoral, almost. It's very odd to me that anyone cares.

Agreed. And one can be initially opposed to having children and then find themselves with one or more despite the opposition. Either through failed birth control or through a relationship with someone with children. Then what?

I'm not sure how one deals with this. I'm not poly, so I honestly haven't given the topic much thought in this specific regard. But I did witness the cruelty towards the children of a man I know who was going through the trans-gender process. Children should not be expected to be automatically enlightened...up until some point ( or in some cases, always) they are exclusively the products of their parent's values.

I do think, the discussion is interesting...at least in terms of my knowledge of US law and customs.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I'm rather pleased. It's been a while since I opened a (semi-serious or more) thread that got such uniformly thoughtful responses. Thank you all!

I actually think the kind of plural marriage (for lack of a better word, since my brain is kinda dessicated at the moment) described by Heinlein in TMIAHM, and some of his other thoughts on poly relationships do offer us a stepping stone toward a more enlightened view of relationships in general. His viewpoint, sometimes described as "Do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others to do what they want to do," or "Your right to wave your fist around stops at the tip of my nose," seems to me to be a much better way to live our lives than for some group (majority OR minority) to tell us what we can and can't do. But then, in some ways, I'm an idealist, and want to believe that people can live their lives logically. <sigh>

 

[A Desert Rose]

Polygamy: form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse.
Polyandry: a form of polygamous marriage, or other sexual union, in which one individual is married to two or more husbands at the same time.
Polygyny: polygamy in which one man is married to two or more wives.
Polyamory: desire, practice, or acceptance of having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.​

I read this much and my head exploded... true cure for a brain tumor anytime.

THANKS for that!