nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2012 - 05:41pm PT
|
I admit to skipping all but the first few and last few posts in this thread... but there is still discussion of polygamy as an abuse of power. This is a pretty narrow view. Sure polygamy may often be a result of an imbalance of power, and that imbalance of power should be addressed.
But have folks discussed polyamory in general (multiple males/females with full or partial permutations of coupling)? I had a very very intelligent co-worker, and discussed his personal life in detail because I was very curious, and I found no fault with a polyamorous lifestyle, aside from our own parochial limitations in accepting non-traditional relationships and our own emotional maturity to act appropriately in such a relationship. If folks can get past the emotional feelings of jealousy or envy and work out issues as emotionally mature adults, it seems like it would be a better family environment for several reasons:
1. More financial stability from multiple income earners
2. More redundancy for children to find an emotionally calm and supportive adult at all times
3. Each adult can claim the space they need to deal with moments of anxiety or stress without everything coming unraveled. No worry about dinner un-prepared or missed pickups from school or other responsibilities dropped. This means each adult can remain in a healthier space.
4. More personalities to exercise different facets of yourself, to more fully realize your potential as a human being.
I can imagine other problems arising, such as A likes B and B likes C but A doesn't like C. If there are some ground rules that respect each individual's rights and establish the circumstances for including or excluding members from the polyamorous relationship, then it seems like all is fine with the setup. I suspect, much like eating pork, that old rules developed based on common sense at that time based on general wisdom at the time. For example, it's hard enough to make a relationship work with 2 people, and adding more people makes it more complicated, so such ban it to avoid headaches.
I would argue it is more complicated than living with roommates because more emotions are involved, but less complicated than living as adults with parents because there is an initial commitment to equality and peer-based relationships that more fairly and equitably establishes the rights and ground rules.
The only reason to have a special definition for marriage with multiple people would be to limit corporate liability for benefits. I see no other valid reason. And that reason could be solved by corporations simply stating "we support benefits for up to X number of spouses or significant others." Corporations would back republicans that fight against it, with the major ads framed from a christian religious perspective.
If we had government-sponsored health insurance, this whole issue would be side-stepped and we'd have no reason to impose faux morality that masks the corporate profit motive.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Prop 30 supporters. You suck too.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Yep, and by the time Anthony Kennedy has his say there is going to be a whole lot more Prop. 8 suckage going on.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Seems like a RANTING thread!
SO i bet soon some "unreligious" type will want to "marry" multiple
spouces. And the "Left" will scream FREEDOM!
OR what if i wanted to "marry" my dog? i'll bet if i barked loud enough
they would agree with this too!
BOOOWWWWWW!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
|
Blublocr:
You suck.
|
|
stinkeye
climber
NORCAL
|
|
Christians, please keep your f*#ked up christian religious beliefs to yourselves. And go f*#k yourself, Namaste,
|
|
Dingus Milktoast
Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
|
|
healyje what do you mean, re Kennedy?
Thanks
DMT
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Wait a sec, I must have missed something.
I voted for prop 8 right before I moved out of California. It passed, right?
Then, some Christians pushed a repeal through, right?
Now, it's obviously such a contentious issue that it's going to the Supreme Court.
I say hell yeah. Bring the god pushers, love is love. There is no degradation of society to worry about when women marry women or men marry men.
Anyone who disagrees simply needs to look to the current divorce rate.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Laugh now! But its com'in..
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
The question is whether the law is constitutional, not whether it is right or wrong. At the very least there must be a "rational basis" for the law, i.e., some legitimate reason for the law.
That's an easy standard for things like polygamy and incestuous marriages. Evidence of the problems of both are easily identified.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Anthony McLeod Kennedy - swing vote and pro gay rights.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
St. Bernard Poodle advicate for Pro-Dogs rights.
Poodle's are people too!
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
Laugh now! But its com'in..
What is coming? Gay marriage? Armageddon? Your wedding with your dog?
Not quite sure what you're trying to say...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Blue here is exactly why are the whitehouse and senate going to go blue in 2016 and 2020. Dude, please don't change.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
It would be so sweet if Bluering chimed in right now.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Norton here U come again
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE
iTS TIRED YO!
GIVE IT A REST...
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
Religions can dictate dogma (quasi-pun, blueblocr) to their adherents. Government has no business defining for its citizens what marriage is.
g
|
|
Dingus Milktoast
Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
|
|
Government has no business defining for its citizens what marriage is.
This is a libertarian slippery slope hahaha. What business DOES a government have?
The ones her people tell and allow it to have, no more and no less. I'd rather topics of marriage were defined by we the people (for better or worse) than some grizzled sonofabitch in the Vatican, I know that.
DMT
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
I should have said...
Government has no business telling its citizens what marriage is or isn't.
g
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!