Time to recognize polyamorous marriage?

I think that is the main reason no government would recognise this because we have seen the problems from Muslim countries where they have been doing it for thousands of years, most women and a majority of less connected men are disenfranchised by it. The disenfranchised men turn violent and the disenfranchised women disappear, are hidden , that's really the reason why they insist on women covering up in those countries . You don't need those laws when everyone just as one wife or husband. Monogamy maybe boring but it results in the most stable harmonious societies

Ah come one! - That's twice you've blamed polygamy for problems in Muslim counries - can you make a direct causational link?

It's also legal in Utah and that has NONE of the violent issues you mention

My apologies, I stand corrected - but the rest of my post stands: there is no causational link between polygamy and violence.

Finally decided to start using my new account after my old one closed :) I requested it be closed when the site was "upgraded" and then forgot I had done that months later. Than suddenly all those requests were processed and a lot of us who were still posting were suddenly reminded we had closed our accounts :)

I hope so. "Deviant: adjective: departing from usual or accepted standards". Certainly something worth getting behind. While the word has negative connotations - not being a slave to what is accepted as the norm is to my mind a good thing. Once one stays within the bound of law and morality - or works to change law or morality through discourse and reason - then deviate all you wish and add color to our society and lives. I would hope we are not at the peak. I would like to see more of it across the board.

Indeed. We worked hard to formalize much about our relationship with the help of our family solicitor. It helped a lot of course that one of my partners is in fact a law doctorate working now in the more academic side of law. So she could talk that talk and helped us deal with a lot of it. Though to this day we joke that she likely hid small print in there that we do not understand that means she controlls all our assets and souls!

Most of this we completed about 12 years ago so a lot of the details - even the ones I as a legal lay person understood - are fuzzier to me now. The weekend after we signed the final papers related to all of this we had a "marriage" of sorts with friends and family to mark it with a ceremony and party and so forth. And that was enough for us.

The most important aspects of the whole thing for us were things like medical proxy, inheritence and parental status. I have two children with each of them now. Were they both to die tomorrow - or were I and one of them to die tomorrow - we wished to ensure that the remaining parent would be recognised as the legal parental guardian of all 4 of the children. Should one of the three of us - or any of our children - be hospitalised, then we wish to be sure that medical access and choices would be afforded all three of us. And so on.

The other luxuries that married couples enjoy - such as tax status or whatever - we did not pursue much. Though my username is inspired mostly by how much I hate tracking and controlling our taxs and tax situations. Hence the use of the word "cruel" and painful scream of "AHHHH" to play on Tax Accrual.

And as Nozz rightly pointed out I would have no interest in pursuing a campaign for any kind of legal recognition for relationships like ours. I feel such changes to marital law should scale sensibly with the amount of benefit they would bring - and inversely with the amount of effort required to implement. Unlike the Gay Marriage Referendum which I campaigned heavily for on- and off-line and walked the streets of 6 counties working on - the relative benefit is tiny and relative effort huge - and so I would see no benefit to wanting it.

I would say that we feel exactly the same as you do. Every word you wrote would apply to us too. The one small change we would make is that where you write "my wife" we would write "our relationship". Everything else is exactly the same and I could not have said much of it better myself.

A vague analogy here to me is to imagine a king. Many people might bow to a king. But in fact he is just a representative of the throne. Both the king and the people bowing to the king serve the throne. In much the same way your wife - or my partners - and myself are representatives of our relationships. And it is to that relationship we are dedicated - and by proxy therefore to each other.

Not a perfect analogy in many ways I grant you - but it serves.

Oh they can be maintained alright. It just is not easy. Then again when you look at divorce rates these days - maintaining any relationship is not easy. So I would not say these kinds of relationships are harder per se. They just have different challanges. And different can be hard because you have fewer peers to turn to for advice who share your lived experience and fewer social supports tailored to your situation.

On the other side of the coin however many things are easier. Economies of scale mean that many things that cause marital break down - such as financial resources, time to spend with children, chores, and much more are easier. We have pretty much identical requirements on such things as any couple with 4 children have - but that responsibility and effort split over three people rather than two. So when I ever feel like saying our relationship is difficult - I do remember to check my privileges too.

A lot also comes down to why or how you enter such an alternative relationship. For us it just happened. We neither sought it or desired it but simply found ourselves in it. I suspect this is one of the healthier ways to end up in it. Others actively seek it and then it becomes part of their agenda in partner selection and so forth. And I think the more "forced" such things are - the higher the chances of failure. Partly but not entirely because people might be compelled to take certain compromises just to get the goal attained of being in such a relationship.

Certainly though there are no dysfunctions in our home that I am currently aware of :) Most of all we try to remember that our relationship is in fact 4 relationships. 3 couples and a truple. And we do our best to maintain and nurture each of those individually and equally.

I have no idea if it is or not. I have never seen statistics on it. However I could make some random guesses as to why it might be. The first is that I find the one thing that makes such a relationship work is communication. And the old male stereotype is that men are worse at expressing themselves and their emotions. A second could be that men tend to be more competative. A third might be the whole biological aspect of off spring recognition where women are much more certain that an off spring is theirs than men can be. A fourth might be that men tend to have more resources historically - maybe less so today - so more capable of supporting such a relationship. A fifth might be the "ick" factor many men have to other males in sexual contexts that women perhaps have less of. I have no idea if any of these are real or true. Just 5 random guesses.

Though you said you were specifically referring to TV shows rather than statistics on such relationships. I guess the reason such shows might tend towards the 1 man multiple women scenario - might be the same reason as why people may be more likely to click on a story about a male teacher sleeping with his teenage student than a female teacher sleeping with a teenage student. The former tends to get more of a reaction than the latter. Especially from men. It's just more click baity. Again guesswork though. But I have certainly seen men in the former case call it exploitation but in the latter say "good on the kid - I wish my hot teacher was doing that with me when I was that age!".

Yes and I'll say it a third time if you like, of course it's not the only reason but it's a fundamental part of the problems in the ME.

As for a direct causation link, look no further than Osama bin laden, the product of a polygamous marriage where his father was a very wealthy guy who could afford to have many wives. Unfortunately he didn't have much time for his many children so then you have the likes of Osama vying with his many other children for attention. Of course Osama went on to a polygamous marriage himself and the process repeats as some of his sons then followed him into terrorism.

In the real world it is women that consent to this being shared, hardly any man would consent to sharing his wife with another man. That's where the problems for society as a whole would result as seen in the ME. Society should not be encouraging this practice because it is not good.

That's a correlation, not a causation - which is a classic logical fallacy.

That last paragraph is again assumption (and factually incorrect, if you've every actually been in a polycule) - men wouldn't last five minutes with an attitude like that.

So yeah - you cleary have no idea who the concept of polyamory works, you're guessing, telling us what you want us to hear and getting it completly wrong. Leaving you here at this point.

It wasn't legal in Utah even before it was admitted as a state, though it was widely practised. The US federal government banned polygamy in all US territories (which included Utah at the time) in 1862. For a long time the Utah Territory authorities were reluctant to enforce the ban — meaning, they didn't prosecute bigamists, but bigamous marriages were still unlawful and were unrecognised for all legal purposes.

That changed in the late 1880s — not only were bigamists prosecuted, but the authorities also began to seize the asset of the Mormon church. In 1890 the church prohibited new plural marriages (though it continued to assert the validity of existing plural marriages) and a few years later its assets were returned to it.

In 1896 Utah was admitted to the Union as a State, one of the conditions of admission being that the State Constitution would include a ban on polygamy. The constitutional prohibition is still in force.

(Polygamy wasn't the only issue that delayed Utah's admission to the Union. Because the white settlement of the territory had been organised and conducted by the Mormon church, the church owned a huge part of the Territory's land area. That gave it enormous political influence which was felt to be in appropriate for a US state. The seizure of the church's assets in 1893 was partly a measure to punish its complicity in conducting polygamous marriages, but partly also a way of reducing its land ownership and redesignating much church land as public land.

I don't hear Dil Wickremasinghe going on about her "throuple" much lately, maybe they are just back to a couple again. Maybe she frightened away the +2 person with all the adverse publicity associated with this "lifestyle". I doubt it will become a thing

Do they have a spreadsheet on who's turn it is or what?

She seems happy anyway.

She shouldnt always be bleeding.

But that never happens, 2 men and 1 woman, its always 1 man and several women like in the ME not a stable situation because then you have many angry men that cannot get a woman the fundamental reason why so much violence in the ME and Africa. Therefore in order to maintain the stable societies we have in the developed world these types of relationships should never be accepted or legalised

How does the tin of beans sign the contract?

That's a bit like me saying I never signed the contract - the ink is liable!

This is the type of mental stuff that seems mental now but media/NGO/activists will attempt to make it normal over the next decade or so.

Has she elaborated how the Tax Credits work?

Polyamoury is simply a "woke" term for promiscuity. Marriage is an institution based on fidelity and mutual respect. Having multiple shag partners is not. A polyamourous marriage, therefore, is a contradiction in terms.

that would make rational sense but then feminists would be aligning themselves 100% with conservatives and against the groups they like to associate themselves with

the same rationale with regard to mandatory religious face coverings for women, feminist stay very quite on this issue

It would have to be fundamentally different terms. One of the defining characteristics of marriage as we currently have it it that it's exclusive — if I marry A, then I cannot marry anyone else. And much about the nature of marriage flows from that - presumption of paternity, inheritance rights, rights to maintenance and support, etc. So it's not simply a question of extending existing rules to an additional person as devising a new set of rules appropriate to a different set of relationships between a larger group of people.

A related point is that marriage, the legal institution, isn't the foundation for marriage, the social reality — it's the other way around. People have been marrying, and have been recognised and treated as married by their families and neighours and communities, long before the state got involved and started recognising and regulating marriage. Even now, the state's capacity to regulate marriage ultimately has to give way to the social reality of marriage — e.g. this state's attempt to ban divorce ultimately had to give way to the reality of relationships ending, and the legal and regulatory regime simply had to deal with that.

Which means that there is no point in the state recognising polyamorous marriage if polyamorous marriages aren't an established social reality. I pointed above to some questions that would have to be asked about polyamorous marriage - e.g. how would the inheritance rights of my various spouses be reconciled on my death? But in fact there are much more fundamental questions that would need to be settled - e.g. if I am married to A can I go ahead and marry B, or is this only possible if both I and A marry B, so that A and B will also be spouses of one another?

If polyamorous marriage were a social reality in Ireland, we would already know the answers to questions like this, because we would point to the reality of polyamorous marriage as lived by those in them, and to the shared understanding of polyamorous marriages and their consequence by the wider community within which people enter into polyamorous marriages. We can't point to to these things because they don't exist yet; polyamorous marriage is just an abstract idea and, if we're honest, a not very well developed one.

In short, the state can't recognise polyamorous marriages because there aren't any polyamorous marriages to recognise. Only when the community starts practising, accepting and supporting polyamorous marriage can the the question of legal recognition arise.

Waco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco:_American_Apocalypse

Polyamorous marriage is an oxymoron. I have no issue with someone having multiple partners, it's their life and there is nothing to stop them, and more importantly, nothing illegal about it.

If they want a polyamorous relationship, have one. If they feel the need to offer security to their partners should they die/ separate, then write a will/ cohabitation agreement.