Polyamory and/vs. Marriage

[Olderwoman]

Originally Posted by SNeacail

I have no issue with choosing not to legally marry to begin with, but I do have issues with divorcing just to "even things up", then again, I don't believe that marriage should be limited to "one man, one woman".

Unfortunately it is, by law.

[marksbabygirl]

Not here its not - you can choose to marry a man or a woman.

The whole theory of dissolving an existing marriage to 'make things equal' makes a lot of assumptions about poly, the couple in question and how things 'should' be. Smacks a lot of the ONE TWUE WAY and I think you'll find that there is no one TWUE way of practicing poly, or anything else.

My husband and I will never divorce simply to 'make things equal' - it would be unfair to him, to our children and to our selves. The fact that we choose to NOT remain monogamous has nothing to do with why we married in the first place.

Someone else has it noted on their signature - there are as many ways to practice polyamory as there is people practicing it.

[Olderwoman]

Originally Posted by MindfulAgony

I believe it makes sense to be able to adapt your relationship contract to reflect the realities in the relationship. If a triad or whatever (beyond a pair) should develop the same level of commitment, sharing of life decisions, etc. that is typical of marriage, I think it makes perfect sense for them to find a way to find the approrpriate arrangement.

Dissovling a marriage and reforming a new union could be a wonderful way to acknowledge an important transition in the relationship(s).

There are advantages to marriage that can't be replicated outside this government sanctioned contract. So, it may not make sense economically to do.

That said, it might make a lot of "emotional" sense.

About the reason/excuse: making sense "economically to be or stay married..."

That is similar to how the Federal government controls and enforces its laws on the states by "bribing them" with federal funds. If a state wants to have more "home rule" and be more independent, they can't be taking bribes (funds) from the Federal government. They need to be independent. If they refuse to follow the Federal government guidelines or laws, they risk losing their funding.

There is a price to pay for independence and freedom. If you don't want to pay that price, then you have sold your freedom down the tubes.

A marriage is a contract with "THE STATE." They tax you to get married and they charge you to get divorced and lawyers make a lot of money in the process.

Some things are a lot harder to get out of than into...

It used to be easy for a woman to get out of a marriage when the state had funds to help her file for divorce. Depending on the state in question, its not so easy anymore. It costs so much in some states to get divorced some women can't break that tie legally because they don't have the money to file the papers.

You can try to convince yourself that a marriage will not change your relationship, but you are only fooling yourself if you think that. It means "I own that person... and he owns me."

Now everyone knows that nobody owns anybody, but that idea is burned into the subconscious mind, where marriage is concerned. You aren't going to get it out.

If you don't believe me, then I suggest you give it a try. Suggest to your partner that they dissolve the marriage and observe how both you and your partner begin to 'feel' about that idea.

[MindfulAgony]

Originally Posted by marksbabygirl

Not here its not - you can choose to marry a man or a woman.

The whole theory of dissolving an existing marriage to 'make things equal' makes a lot of assumptions about poly, the couple in question and how things 'should' be. Smacks a lot of the ONE TWUE WAY and I think you'll find that there is no one TWUE way of practicing poly, or anything else.

My husband and I will never divorce simply to 'make things equal' - it would be unfair to him, to our children and to our selves. The fact that we choose to NOT remain monogamous has nothing to do with why we married in the first place.

Someone else has it noted on their signature - there are as many ways to practice polyamory as there is people practicing it.

Why does it smack as a "one true" way to poly? It may not be something that you would choose to do. I don't think it does that at all.

Whether I think the OP was worded in all the right ways or not. I think the assumption that a marriage has to "survive" being poly inact doesn't allow for all the possibilities of growth in the relationship dynamic beyond the coupling.

Your last statement seems to be arguing against itself. Dissolving a marriage to reform a broader union could be one way to approach poly - acknowledging the way that grouping has evolved.

Indeed, only one way, not the only way.

[Olderwoman]

I said:

>>>If a "marriage" is really "open" then what is the purpose of the marriage other than financial benefits? Marriage for a woman is not all that beneficial unless she marries a man who has more wealth than her.<<<<

Originally Posted by SNeacail

I don't happen to agree. However, I don't necessarily think it is necessary to involve the state in a marriage.

If you get married LEGALLY you have involved THE STATE. ("THE STATE" in all caps represents THE GOVERNMENT in general.

You can't get legally married without involving THE STATE. (You can have a commitment ceremony but it will not be bound by the particular laws of the state you are living in.

Of course legally, depending on the state you live in, marriage by common law will have its own set of laws if one party files for common law divorce.

In Colorado, you only have to prove that you set up housekeeping with a person to use the common law legal system.

[marksbabygirl]

Originally Posted by Olderwoman

I said:

>>>If a "marriage" is really "open" then what is the purpose of the marriage other than financial benefits? Marriage for a woman is not all that beneficial unless she marries a man who has more wealth than her.<<<<

I call bullshit.

There are a LOT of benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with finances.

I am not going to take the time to spell it out for you - because your views on marriage are very clear. But needless to say - if I had known 11 years ago what I'd be in for now - I'd have still married him And financially? Nope - I am the primary financial support in our household...

[MindfulAgony]

Originally Posted by Olderwoman

About the reason/excuse: making sense "economically to be or stay married..."

That is similar to how the Federal government controls and enforces its laws on the states by "bribing them" with federal funds. If a state wants to have more "home rule" and be more independent, they can't be taking bribes (funds) from the Federal government. They need to be independent. If they refuse to follow the Federal government guidelines or laws, they risk losing their funding.

There is a price to pay for independence and freedom. If you don't want to pay that price, then you have sold your freedom down the tubes.

A marriage is a contract with "THE STATE." They tax you to get married and they charge you to get divorced and lawyers make a lot of money in the process.

Some things are a lot harder to get out of than into...

It used to be easy for a woman to get out of a marriage when the state had funds to help her file for divorce. Depending on the state in question, its not so easy anymore. It costs so much in some states to get divorced some women can't break that tie legally because they don't have the money to file the papers.

You can try to convince yourself that a marriage will not change your relationship, but you are only fooling yourself if you think that. It means "I own that person... and he owns me."

Now everyone knows that nobody owns anybody, but that idea is burned into the subconscious mind, where marriage is concerned. You aren't going to get it out.

If you don't believe me, then I suggest you give it a try. Suggest to your partner that they dissolve the marriage and observe how both you and your partner begin to 'feel' about that idea.

While I agree with your basic sentiment, I don't agree with all of the implications you suggest.

The state takes a levy on any contract that it has a role in enforcing or regulating - you pay a fee when you want to incorporate, etc. This is not unique to the marriage contract.

My freedom is not fundamentally constrained by paying those levies - if I value the enforcement of the contract.

Marriage also goes beyond the simple contract - in a legal sense. It has a set of implicit and explicit expectations (sometimes actively negotiated, sometimes not) that go far beyond what you are contractually obligated to perform. That is, people value it for reasons that go beyond the state's interest in supporting marriage.

Marriage has a priviledged position in our society (most others too, I presume). It is tax priviledged; it comes with social priviledges; it has social currency. I don't necessarily agree with it's priviledged status - particularly in the context of current value wars being waged (with respect to gay marriage). I'd much rather the state take a disinterested position in the parties in the contract and simply administer it (which would open up gay as well as plural marriage - or whatever you want to call it).

My freedom is constrained in ennumerable ways. In the vast majority of cases, I prefer those constraints (e.g., I'd prefer on most days to drive well above the speed limit - triple digits. I have the skill to do so. It is useful for me - and others with less skill - to be constrained from doing so). I do get quite prickly when my freedom is constrained in a way that is unjustified or unfair.

But, the tax advantage/economic advantaged position of marriage is not one of them. I would abolish those advantages as an unnecessary policy. The arguments for the state's interest in maintaining and supporting marriage don't sway me. For me, this is not a issue of abridged freedom.

[Olderwoman]

Originally Posted by marksbabygirl

Not here its not - you can choose to marry a man or a woman.

The whole theory of dissolving an existing marriage to 'make things equal' makes a lot of assumptions about poly, the couple in question and how things 'should' be. Smacks a lot of the ONE TWUE WAY and I think you'll find that there is no one TWUE way of practicing poly, or anything else.

My husband and I will never divorce simply to 'make things equal' - it would be unfair to him, to our children and to our selves. The fact that we choose to NOT remain monogamous has nothing to do with why we married in the first place.

Someone else has it noted on their signature - there are as many ways to practice polyamory as there is people practicing it.

I am new to the term polyamory and I am not clear on WHAT exactly it is or what the proper definition of it is. If its just screwing around with multiple partners married or not, without lying about it, well, that fad has been around for the last 60 years. I guess then, its nothing new, I just may have learned the term for it.

I believe in honesty above all in a relationship. Therefore you can't start making rules for your partner (married or not) and start telling them what they are and are not "allowed" to do or who they are allowed to love.

I remember when my friends were engaging in "swinging" and "open marriage" and I didn't go for it at all. It just seemed reckless and demeaning to me.

But I do understand "falling in love" with more than one person.

Being able to tell the difference between a base chemical sexual attraction and finding a compatible person that you can learn from and truly love is the tricky part.

If you like to "fall in love" a lot, I would suggest that maybe marriage might not be a good idea unless you resolve to be honest with your spouse that you have no intention of remaining monogamous.

Marriage then, would be sort of a business relationship. Lets share a house and expenses and pop out a few kids, but lets not demand each other be 100% monogamous. Lets be honest with each other.

Being honest with each other need not mean that we have to spill our guts about every affair we have and the details.

If I were to date a poly who was married, I don't think I would like him sharing details of our intimate encounter with his wife. That's just me. I think some things should be kept private. That is what intimacy is to me.

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by marksbabygirl

I call bullshit.

There are a LOT of benefits to marriage that have nothing to do with finances.

I am not going to take the time to spell it out for you - because your views on marriage are very clear. But needless to say - if I had known 11 years ago what I'd be in for now - I'd have still married him And financially? Nope - I am the primary financial support in our household...

Me too; we have specific personal reasons why we got married, and they have nothing to do with love OR finances. Basically, I need someone whom I trust to be my next-of-kin and to be able to speak on my behalf and be recognized legally in a variety of situations... there are some other details that exist which i choose not to disclose at this level on the forums... Let's just say that our marriage very much IS a contract with society and the government, but I wouldn't be able to get what i need from just ANYBODY.

[Olderwoman]

Granted, marriage can be a convenience and more sociably acceptable.

But how many people pretend to be sociably acceptably married, and lie to the public, ~~while they live an opposite (sociably unacceptable) lifestyle and at the same time attempt to practice honesty with their spouse(s) and their polyamory friends?

Practicing honesty is a challenge. I think we are programed to "play the game" (with society) and it becomes a habit. I don't know if I could lead a double life (pretending to be in a sociably acceptable monogamous marriage) to some, while being honest and open to selected others. I would think developing trusting relationships might be tricky.