Triad Equality

[Ceoli]

Yeah, it makes sense and yeah, it's a pretty hard sucky situation to be in.

[greenearthal]

If there was a thing that was very important to me and where I'm trying to go in life, and then someone told me they could get it for me or take me there, and then that destination started coming into view for me, and then the person said "Hey, would you like to go somewhere else and totally forget all about that place?" I would be pretty angry about that.


It sounds like the three of you have three different views on where to go and how to get there. So different, in fact, that you need to do a lot more communicating and compromising. Communicating and compromising can be very enjoyable. Even when someone has to sacrifice something for the benefit of someone else.

I hope you all get to talk it out some more. I hope you all assume good intentions. I get the sense that HMA is coming from a very genuine and well meaning place in an attempt to help everyone have what they need to thrive. We don't really have a legal system that tries to facilitate that in any way where polyamory and marriage are concerned. But polyamorous couples have figured it out in the past. And you all seem pretty smart and determined.

Still rooting for you all.

[LovingRadiance]

I didn't read the whole thread-but wanted to answer your question Violet-from my perspective.

I wear more than one ring.

I have one, my engagement ring which is also Maca and I's son's birthstone. I won't remove it for anyone.

One that symbolizes my MARRIAGE AND LOVE and history (too full to elaborate) to/for/with Maca. I would NEVER remove it for another, even if he dies-it's MY RING and symbolizes a part of MY life and MY heart. It's not even HIS to say I must remove, if he divorces me I will continue to wear it and he can be damned. I love him even if he left me that won't change.

I also wear a ring for GreenGecko. It symbolizes my love for him and my memory of our lost child. I don't remove it for anyone either.

I wear a ring with my birthstone and my friend (male who is not my lover) S's birthstone as a memory/commitment to our 30+ year friendship. I don't remove it for ANYONE.

I wear my mothers ring which has my daughter, stepson, godson, son, youngest daughter, my own, Maca's and GreenGecko's birthstones on it.
It symbolizes my love and devotion to all of those people and I don't remove it for anyone either....


No offense HMA, but if Maca told me that I had to remove ANY of the rings that meant something to me I would tell him where to get off. I love him, but these are MY symbols and ways of holding true to myself, not his.

Maca wears one ring, our wedding ring. If he asked to wear one for someone else I might raise an eyebrow-but it's his hand. He plans to get the 3 geckos tattoo'd to his back (as does GreenGecko) as a symbol of their growth, learning and commitment to our family. At this point, I don't. But that's cool for them.

GreenGecko wears one ring right and two necklaces.

It's really a personal choice and decision. For financial purposes it might mean getting a cheaper ring or waiting longer for a second-but wedding rings aren't practical in the first place. They are symbolic. It's about comfort.

Maca wears his ring (as does GreenGecko) 24/7. I on the other hand only wear mine when I leave the house because my fingers swell.

Don't fight over impracticalities-if it means something to wear two, wear two. Not everyone has to!

[Sunshinegrl]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

The trouble is that with that kind of commitment, it also comes with a lot of privilege and legal rights that would not be afforded to the person who isn't in the marriage. I'm not saying this is Violet's specific situation, but if a third is joining a married couple in a lifetime commitment, is it fair for that person to have to give up their ability to have spousal benefits? Or to have the legal protections of marriage where kids are concerned?

I'm not saying there right and wrong answers to this, but there are certainly things to be considered.

Ok then, so If Anne and HMA Decide to have children..That legal binds them Regardless. That is how the law sees that. To me that itself is a HUGE sign of commitment. So Why Should Violet not have that ( commitment) too. REGARDLESS of her desire not to have children. HMA and Her have/will make the Commitment to be husband and Wife. Legal Documentation ( legal wills and guardianship papers) can be drawn up to provide the same level of commitment to The Children and/or Anne that may or may not come of that relationship. Yeah Its a screwy way to look at it Marriage V Children. But HMA Obviously still desires to Marry Violet and vice versa. JMO.

[NeonKaos]

I give you this:

I don't wear a ring. Steve and I don't even HAVE rings.

It freaks some people out.

Our marriage is a piece of paper. It's a legal thing, a social contract that says we are each other's closest relative by choice.

Our relationship is neither a piece of jewelry nor a piece of paper.

It boggles my mind the way a lot of women think that their ring IS their marriage, and when they lose their ring, it's like the end of the world as we know it.

I think there is far too much emphasis placed on rings and weddings, very much like sex can focus too much on orgasms.

That's enough from me for now.

I hope you folks can work it out.

[ImaginaryIllusion]

All of this reminds me of a certain thread from a while back... I think it was this one:
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=746
where you will read:

Originally Posted by Ceoli

This commitment to remain open has lead me to some unexpected places, including this relationship I'm now having with a married couple. We've approached it slowly and with little pressure on each other and allowed it to grow into whatever it would be, not some preconceived notion that any of us may have had.

There's also another item that came up about marriage in the poly context in a Yahoo group...which I'll cross quote here...it's not going to answer the question posed by the OP...but it should provide something to chew on.

From Shamus:

Much of the traditional in marriage ceremony should go. You cannot pledge faithfulness in the future, because you only own the present, and can affect a small amount of the future.You should not say, "Whither-soever Thou goest, There will I follow Thee"

In a nutshell, I now think that if we are polyamorists successfully, we have to redefine lover and relationship. We must not depend upon and need each other, we should not even need each other. Wanting each other is fine, but needing is codependent. We are not looking for our destiny, because the future is worked out one day at a time in the present.

I am happy with my marriage, but I don't really think any more than marriages are necessary in the poly world. We are taking a monogamous ceremony and trying to adapt it to have meaning in a poly world. That is like taking two jigsaw pieces that "fit together" and trying to find others that fit in the same way. It would be better to be "so whole in myself" that I can live beside anyone who means me no harm, and live with anyone who gives me joy or just pleasure.

I should clarify something about this, in that the post was not strictly about marriage or poly, but also about existentialist philosophy.

[Sunshinegrl]

I dont think Of my Marriage as my ring at all. To Me its Symbol of that commitment I made. That's why its important to me.

[Ceoli]

I'm not saying that anyone shouldn't have one thing or should have another. I'm just laying out there what issues can arise. Here in the US, the person who isn't married in the arrangement will always be at a legal disadvantage. For some people, this isn't an issue, for others, it is. Just sayin....

[violet]

Originally Posted by Sunshinegrl

I dont think Of my Marriage as my ring at all. To Me its Symbol of that commitment I made. That's why its important to me.

This is very much how I feel. I don't think that my ring is my ENTIRE MARRIAGE at all. I am, however, HUGE on symbolism. In fact, the idea of getting 3 rings for HMA, Anne, and I to wear was MY idea in the first place! It was a SYMBOL of our commitment to one another. It doesn't even have to be a ring. It could be a necklace, a tattoo, anything.

My ring is a symbol of the promise made to marry me, and when I have a wedding ring, it's a symbol of the vows I took. That symbolism is VERY important to me.

[QUOTE=ImaginaryIllusion;10426]All of this reminds me of a certain thread from a while back... I think it was this one:
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=746
where you will read:



There's also another item that came up about marriage in the poly context in a Yahoo group...which I'll cross quote here...it's not going to answer the question posed by the OP...but it should provide something to chew on.[quote]

I saw that thread. We aren't trying - anymore, anyway, lol - to force our relationship with Anne into a form it wasn't meant to take. However, there are some things I'm just sort of unwilling to let happen. If our relationship with Anne is going to "grow" HMA and I's relationship apart, or make it take a different path, that isn't what I signed up for. We are all here to enhance one another's lives - not to grow people apart.

From Shamus:

I should clarify something about this, in that the post was not strictly about marriage or poly, but also about existentialist philosophy.

This is very much how Anne thinks. I don't. I can get my head around that way of thinking, but I don't agree with it at all. Especially the way of thinking that polyamory and monogamy are so different. In my mind, they aren't. Our triad is made of 6 separate but complementary monogamous relationships, as far as I'm concerned. Each of us as a person having a "monogamous" relationship with the other. I explained it to HMA last night, and it's a REALLY complicated way of thinking - but it's just how I'm wired. lol It's tough to get out in a concise manner. I'm not even gonna try any further than I have. Suffice it to say that polyamory didn't "reconfigure" the way I view love or relationships. At all. I definitely appreciate the input, and because it SO clearly defines how Anne seems to think, it gives me something to talk about with her. Maybe we'll understand one another better!

[Sunshinegrl]

Perhaps not intentionally. To me it sounds like you think it IS a case of All or none when it comes to "marriage". To me it sounds like that you think that Violet is wrong/inconsiderate for wanting that symbol of commitment.My thoughts are commitment is only as good as the People involved..People walk away from Children and marriages everyday. I would think that if HMA and Anne decided to have children together that would be a huge sign of commitment. Choosing to have a child with someone it a freaking huge commitment. As big a step as making the commitment to marry someone IMO.