Hi all. Joined in here at the advice/talk of my husband. I have been doing debate sites since the days of Essembly (how many remember that site?). I tend to mostly be in the sexuality type threads and forums, as I am an educator/presenter in alternative lifestyle topics. I am part of a poly unit, consisting of two husbands and two wives. We are big time geeks and gamers, both board and RPG, not to mention video games. I am currently a truck driver for a well known charity/thrift store chain, but my experience has been all over the place; from the nuclear Navy, to retail, with a variety of blue collar work thrown in. Between us we have 8 kids (4 boys and 4 girls), and 4 grandkids by three of the girls (3 grandsons and a granddaughter). Looking forward to interacting with you all.
In what manner do you make you claim? I suppose that you also claim that I don't have two wives either.
Polyamory is where one has more than one intimate (not necessarily sexual) relationship at the same time. Polygamy is where marriage (not necessarily legally recognized) is involved. If there is only one husband and the rest wives, then it is polygyny. If there is only one wife and the rest husbands then it is polyandry. In our case it is simply polygamy, because we have more than one husband and more than one wife. Typically when discussing such a family with multiple spouses they are called units when referencing just the spouses. Whether marriage is involved or not, other words can indicate the structure. A triad is three people, with the implication that all three are romantically involved. A "V" would indicate three but only one person is romantically involved with the other two.
Thank-you! As a gay man, I still know squat about this topic so frequently compared by others these days. My first question goes to protecting the distinction between polyamory and polygamy. Assuming an interest in maintaining a working and consistent definition of 'marriage', Must there be either a civil or religious outside party recognizing of these polygamous units? In other words, for 'marriage' to retain any real meaning beyond the multi-party romantic relationship celebrated in polymory, it has to mean more than simply some declarative statements by the parties involved. Who are the other outside parties who may marry these parties changing polymory into polygamy if civil law is not one of them? In my experience, it is very hard to fight for rights that you can declare for yourself to already have, without a fight. There will probably be other questions, so you might consider starting a new thread on this topic.
Poly vs monogamy is quite separate from orientation or gender identity. While we can show trends, none are dependent upon any of the others. Why? Throughout most of our history the vast majority of marriages were declarative. Weddings were, when they happened, the preview of the rich or nobility.Simply moving her belongings into a man's house was enough for a woman to be recognized as married. The Church didn't even require Christians to be married under their auspices until around the 13th century. That's not to say they didn't do marriages before that, but that was when they said if you don't do it through the church then the church, and by extension God, would not recognize it. Civil marriages via licenses is a modern concept, so thus must be the idea that civil authorities define an actual marriage. Ultimately, the ones who most recognize the poly marriages are the friends and family of the marriage unit. Ask anyone who is currently married if they would consider the other person no longer their spouse if either the government and/or religion suddenly declare they would no longer recognize marriages, or even civil unions? A vast majority would still consider the person their spouse. And given that religion is very much an individual thing, all it takes is for those married to believe their deity approves. People have started new demoninations over less. So what makes one religion or denomination's claim of what makes a marriage superior to any others? Civil marriages don't even require sex or children, thus that version of marriage is the one that should be open to all consenting adults, same sex, opposite sex, related or not. Civil marriage is only about a label status and the rights and bennefits that come with it. Sure the purpose of civil marriage might be to create stable households, but any two or more consenting adults can do this. You assume a fight for rights. Right now the biggest fight polys are after has been won. It was declared in court that a state cannot force legal marriage status on anyone, especially with the intent of imposing another law against them, bigamy specifically for the case heard. Most polys recognize that legal recognition would take a major overhaul of law, unlike what was needed for SSM, or would be needed for incestous marriage. We are happy, for the most part, to simply be able to live with our spouses and families without the fear of the law above us.
If you could supply a link to this case, I would appreciate it. It would help me understand the scope of this decision . I am happy to hear that polygamous or polygory units are satisfied with the state of civil law as it now stands. If you are not seeking changes, I don't have to concern myself with any public policy or legal impact of suggested ones. You seemed to care enough to make a definitional distinction between two terms, polygamy and polygory, which I appreciated, but you leave with a very cavalier approach to that line. Matter of fact, practically speaking its pretty much non-existent. that is not a problem that will impact me. You can call yourself married on Thursday, and divorce on Saturday morning. You can refer an instance of party proclaimed polygory as party proclaimed polygamy within a 30 second soundbite if it works within your social circle. But I won't worry too much about using the 'right' word for the right circumstance as you describe it above, if the circumstances come down to only the whim of the participants. I am hopeful that at least there is a clear understanding, that if all parties do not agree that they are married, they are not married. Sally cannot declare that she is in a polygamous marriage that includes Jeff, if Jeff says it is only polygory.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1731463.html Here's is an excerpt from the related wiki article for a summation of the point I brought up. As I am understanding it from the articles that came out at the time, the state needs to prove multiple licenses before it can charge bigamy, and not just apply common law marriage. Don't get me wrong, there are many who are seeking these changes. It is just that the overall community recognizes the need to make changes elsewhere first and we realize that it is not something that can or even should be done hastily. The issue will come up eventually. The question is whether or not it will happen in yours or my lifetime. There are four words I used and ploygory is not one. Do you mean polygyny? Not quite sure what you are saying here, particularly in the first part with the "cavalier approach" bit. Could you possibly reword? No one, that I am aware of, claim any kind of marriage with someone that wouldn't also claim it. For the most part, whether marriage is part of it or not, most of us just say we 're poly, and leave it to our contextual uses of name/labels, such as husband or wife, or spouse, to indicate marriage. And quite frankly, few care if anyone gets the difference between polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry correct. I put it out usually since it is one of the topics I educate on. So for comparison sake all polyandry is polygamy, but not all polygamy is polyandry.
I can't make any sense of the question, as it seems to answer itself. Further, if you expect the conversation to continue - which is admittedly unlikely in any case - you'll have to use the quote function per rule 15.
Not sure why the first response did not include the quote. New system. I'll get the hang of it soon. In the meantime, by what standard are you claiming that I do not have a husband?
If you read his posts, it'll explain why he says he has a husband as well as two wives. Polyamory explains quite a lot.
Thank you. I hope you are using "tyranny" rather tounge in cheek. While monogamy is what the majority willl engage in, it just simply isn't for everyone.
Doubtful given that there are actually two religions between us. I think you might be thinking more along the line of the radical LDS out west.
