Senate Polyamory Acceptance Thread

This should be self-explanatory. I prefer polyamory to monogamy, though I would accept the latter.

How do you feel about this relationship style? Do you believe that a person should be able to marry more than one person (albeit with the individual being married only in a specific direction to specific individuals, for example)? I think that should be allowed. There are many types of polyamory. I personally favor the type in which someone can be monogamous with one individual while that person is in a relationship with other persons.

I don't believe being poly is an orientation, but I think an honest, caring, empathetic version of it would be healthy. Many Europeans endorse it. I can't say I saw healthy versions of it in Dallas, but those were ex-Baptists who only thought they were New Age, so I won't mention that here.

 

My platonic partner is polyamorous! (And by extension so am I.)

For Christmas last year, I found a scarf in poly pride colors and bought it for her, along with an accompanying gold Pi pin she could attach to it.

 

I personally am not poly, but I have no problem with people who are. I mean, I don't really have a problem with anything that consenting adults want to do.

Now as far as whether they should be allowed to be married... this possibly becomes a complex issue in terms of taxes and other legal benefits of marriage.

To be honest, it would be nice I think if the government didn't give or acknowledge marriages in the first place. I feel marriage could be more of a religious or personal thing. Like for me as a Christian, I would get married. But I don't think being married is something conferred on you by the state, but by a religious ceremony for Christians. And I think others should be able to do whatever kind of ceremony they want, religious or not, and if they want that to involve more than one person, cool. If everyone consents, why should anyone care.

So yes, basically this gets into the fact that I don't think the government needs to be involved in marriage at all. Sorta a different topic.

But sure, if anyone is poly, I support that identity for you.

 

Agreed: I'd like to see the state get out of the marriage licensing business. I'd prefer maybe a simple notarized declaration of intent to form a household, and when and if the household breaks up, then it can go to family court for determination of things like child custody, division of assets, pension rights, etc.

Why not a household of three or more adults?

If you're not forming a household, then it's even easier, so long as everyone agrees. The more common approach: "Polyamory? No, I just cheat on my spouse/partner." But infidelity is so common; it's hard to judge people. In their heads they have complex reasons for what they do.

 

Yeah, well, Solojones, you're one of the good Christians fo sho.

 

I have no interest in it personally, and it's none of my business, or concerning, if others choose it.

I do not support legalizing polygamy (marriage) because of how often it involves the exploitation of young women.

 

Apparently Alabama might do just that...but not for good reasons.

 

i'm not bothered about what other people do as long as they're not hurting anyone, but to me polyamory just sounds exhausting. honestly i can't even find time to date one person.

 

Yes my one concern about polygamy is that those are often actually extremely conservative religious sects who basically force polygamous relationships on young women, sometimes girls.

But that's why I say that I am fine with it amongst consenting adults. I don't think a 35 year old man should be able to officially marry three 15 year old girls.

 

it's the same kind of reasoning that Alabama, a state that depends more heavily on Federal welfare than almost any other, is among the most ardently pro Trump.

 

Polyamory, yes, alright. Do what you want. Polygamy? **** no. I'm very, very much against that. It is not the same thing and never has been. It's almost always one man and multiple women in some hyper-patriarchal culture or religion. I was under the impression that most polyamorous people did not want marriage anyway.

 

I'm traditional, so no

 

Marriage is useful when one partner is seriously ill, and for equitable division of assets when a relationship dissolves. It’s also helpful when it comes to the custody of children, but for that you have to amend birth certificates etc. as well.

 

Arlol, you can be traditional and still be accepting.

As for me, I'm with Tom... I can't even find the drive to date one person, let alone many, but what consenting adults do is none of my business..

 

One of my exes is actually Polyamorous, and I was OK with her pursuing relationships with other people. I have absolutely no problem with it, and I support people living their best lives.

 

I do wonder if polyamory is an orientation (or orientation-like). The part that strikes me possibly as an orientation is the ability to be in love/attracted to multiple people at the same time. That is "foreign" to me. I kind of fall for one person (and it's rare for that to happen even) and then there are no others.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this as I was with someone in the past who was polyamorous. This person was constantly struggling with the social expectation to only be into one other person that way because he was constantly romantically drawn to lots of people at the same time and I observed how whereas for me my default is just one person (not by choice or conscious decision, but just like a setting on default that's always been that way) for him the default is multiple people at the same time and it was seemingly as difficult for him to try to alter that to only one person at a time as it is for me to alter it to multiple people at the same time. (IOW, it's a matter of trying to force oneself to be a way one isn't - that kind of feels a bit like an orientation.)

Anyway there were a few relationships which made me try to get myself to be comfortable with being in a polyamorous relationship and I couldn't ultimately make myself do that. There was also this couple that wanted to be a threesome with me and it took me forever to just understand/accept I don't want that and it's that simple. I was trying to deal with how I feel no attraction just about to women (and to this woman) and I don't think I could even pretend to be into it in a convincing way. I'm not sure I could make myself even do it. All the feelings/passions I would need just aren't there and I can't manufacture them. But there was also the matter of the threesome itself, which I felt that I should be more open to in general, and maybe I could be if it were two guys, so maybe it's not orientation but culture, and I can't ultimately answer that.

Anyway the marriage laws are really arbitrary in this way and to me this whole question is more a legal mess than anything else. I don't care if people want to be in a relationship with one other person or ten other people. I think you do you sums it up. I don't want to think about how to rearrange the laws because it's like they'd be different per how many partners. And maybe there's a way just to make an equation that will cover it all.

 

Yeah, I think if I knew someone who was polyamorous, my response would probably be something like "are you sure?". I mean if they say yes, then I'll drop the issue...and it's absolutely their right to do it if everyone consents to it...but I would struggle to see why someone would want to do it.

 

I wouldn't ask if they're sure. Whether it's an orientation or not it still clearly is the way some people find they naturally are and I think it's usually best to be oneself rather than try to mangle oneself into what others tell one they should be instead.

It's like are you sure you really want to be with X person romantically AND with Y person? Are you sure you're typically in these situations in which you are in love with multiple people at the same time who you want to be with? These are things I think people tend to be sure about. They tend to be less sure when getting the message it's wrong to be the way they are--but that's self-doubt to accommodate external standards.

Although I mean romance is in general an area of uncertainty in which one will doubt their own feelings, or at least I do.

 

Indeed. I feel like asking if they're sure is kind of, I dunno, insulting? Like asking someone who's gay if they're "sure".

 

I don't buy the argument from nature. "Human nature" is a fluid, evolving, contradictory, arbitrarily defined thing but everyone who invokes it pretends they're being scientific. Arguments from nature by themselves also have certain implications. Like, we're also vicious, violent, cruel apes by nature, but we're rightfully told in most contexts to keep a lid on that. Humans can be mon-- er, amorous? is that a word? and polyamorous. While our culture heavily promotes one over the other, at least on the surface, we don't as a species have to choose one.

 

Though jealousy will be more intense in a culture that highly values monogamy and is kind of covetous about it. I could easily imagine it isn't/wasn't always so. It's also possible that people are just all of the above, but different things manifest in different cultures.

@Darth Guy - the issues is that sometimes you can't just simply choose... it's not that simple. there are pathways that are natural to you and ones that you would have to make yourself into "not you" to attempt to fulfill. The former is easy, and the latter difficult or even impossible. So in terms of "nature," whether biological or not, it isn't something you can just set to a different setting and voilà. And to me that's kind of a big point of the "nature" argument--if it's not your biological nature it might as well be, it goes so "deep."

It's kind of like one's sexual orientation. It doesn't seem to be something that just evolves most of the time. It seems to be something you kind of know from a very young age that often remains consistent for the rest of your life. It's so strong that even when all of society is telling you that your sexual orientation is just a lifestyle, and you have to hide it from others, that it remains "your nature." It doesn't change even under pressure in most cases. (There are however some people who have a more fluid sexual orientation.)

 

I'm saying one approach shouldn't be promoted over the other and it should be up to the individual, "natural" or not. There are people who would have no desire for a polyamorous relationship even in a society where it's fully accepted.

 

Agree.