It was a general rule which was imposed very weakly, though. There were multiple countries where celibacy didn’t truly become the general rule until after Trent, never mind those where it only took hold officially. By challenging that rule, Luther actually strengthened it.
Remember that, as slow as the Church moves today, back then it moved a lot slower just by reason of communications being so much slower. We were still arguing and excomunicating over Roman Rite vs. local ones for several centuries after Rome decreed everybody had to “go Roman”, and in fact there are still now branches of the Catholic Church which follow other Rites.
If the OP just said “Some people want to have polyamorous unions, and it doesn’t hurt anyone else, so why don’t we legalize poly marriage?”, then it would be reasonable to respond “Sure, we just need to work out the details.”.
But that’s not what the OP said.
What the OP said was, paraphrased, “Bisexual people want to have a relationship with both a man and a woman at the same time, so why don’t we legalize poly marriage?”. And the only correct response to that is “No, bisexuality doesn’t work that way.”.
As several of us have noted, it is done all over the world. You’d need some basic principles which would not be the same as in Islamic states, but it seems simpler than ACA.
The marriage documents which you mention, like pre-nups, are a result of marriage laws not working for everyone. There probably aren’t that many cases to consider for polygamy, so I’d guess that pretty soon there would be a set of boilerplate pre-nups to cover the most common cases.
There are a lot better reasons to oppose polygamy than that the laws would be too hard to write.
I think you’ve really veered off the tracks here, I reckon there is a good percentage of women that are bi that are married to men, and who knows if she is down the couple might engage in some threesome action, but I’ve never heard of someone like that feeling the need to also marry a woman to be content, they are just attracted to both, and I would definitely assume it goes the same way if the husband was the bi person in the relationship.
**Miller **can speak for himself, but I think he was positing situations where a male and female partner are both married to other partners, who in turn may be married to other partners. This is happening nowhere in the world and I doubt it ever has.
The form that polygamy usually takes is one male and 2 or more wives. Depending on prevailing laws and customs, the male may take further wives; the wives cannot enter into a further marriage.
I agree; I don’t know why posters here are hung up on this aspect; it really does sound like a fig-leaf for bigotry. A far far better reason is that, to the best of my knowledge, no one is seriously advocating for it in the Western world. Certainly not the complex polygamous marriages that Miller and others have advocated.
And most societies that permit “traditional” polygamy have noted a decline, which strongly suggests that support for polygamy amongst societies where it is an option has dropped.
**Miller, **speaking as someone with extensive experience in divorce law, (including comparative law) your hypothetical can all largely resolved by mandating separate estates in polygamous marriages. Existing children’s law can be applied to issues involving children. The degree of complexity will be far less than that of the tax laws, regulations and directives of your jurisdiction, wherever you may be.
The analogy is a little difficult because with corporate mergers, they are not three different corporations living together, they become one big corporation, perhaps with identifiable parts.
But, to go with the example given. GM wants to do something that IBM and GE doesn’t so it doesn’t happen. GM then can decide to continue in the “three-way” or leave but it can’t impose its will on GE and IBM. Mutual agreement is the key.
Yes, it is complicated and would take some adjustment but I’m not sure that is sufficient reason to reject something.
Marriage, sex and bisexuality are all lately codified as part of our laws. If you recognize bi people as a legal category (as part of LGBTQ), how can you have adultery as illegal, or at least the cause for divorce under the law? You are defining them out of legal activity.
Also how can you define the “contentedness” of any other person?
I think you have misunderstood my post. I’m not sure if you’re addressing these questions specifically to me, or asking rhetorically of society in general. I don’t think there should be laws against adultery in which a person could be prosecuted and sentenced or forced to pay a fine, adultery laws may have relevance in a divorce court and things like prenuptial agreements, reasons for divorce, etc. but I don’t believe it should be considered a crime.
Apparently in seven states you can sue your spouse’s paramour:
I think such a suit for “alienation of affection” is bullshit and should not be allowed, especially considering they aren’t the one cheating.
I didn’t define “contentedness” for any other person, again I think you’ve misunderstood my post which was in response to adaher. What I am saying is that the post from adaher seemed to conflate diverse tastes in sexual attraction to preference for polyamorous marriage which obviously is untrue. Saying that just because you are bisexual you would prefer to have a group marriage would be like me saying if you are attracted to both white and black women or short and tall women means you would prefer to be married to both and couldn’t be satisfied unless you were in a group marriage.
It doesn’t follow that being attracted to both men and women also confers a preference for that individual to desire group marriage. His initial premise follows a faulty logic, you could say he arrived at the right answer for the wrong reason. I have no moral opposition to group marriage as I stated in an earlier post in this thread, I went on to say that it would probably just be difficult for hammering out some of the legal aspects of making it work in a country like the United States where group marriage has never been practiced legally because it is a whole different animal than just gay marriage which is still just two people, group marriages would be legally much more complex I would think and has along with prejudice been a barrier against polyamorous marriage in this country because there is no precedent.
I would personally have no problem with group marriage here in the U.S. if people want to do it, I was simply stating the reality, that there would probably have to be a lot of legislation passed and court rulings made before it would become legal, whereas gay marriage was pretty simple to legalize because it is still just two individuals, and therefore a less complex legal matter.
I hope this posting cleared up any confusion you had with my earlier one.
I wasn’t specifically addressing you. I meant it to stand alone as a point favoring the OPs point.
I don’t think it matters whether any of us are for or against these things. This is the society we have and I am questioning the contradictions inherent in these positions.
Okay, two things. Firstly, the thread is specifically about plural marriage. “Needs more than one partner to be fulfilled,” admits a vast range of possibly relationship structures that don’t involve marrying multiple people - or, indeed, marrying any people. Secondly, “prefers not to be monogamous” is not even remotely the same as “needs more than one partner to be fulfilled.”
Look, I’m bisexual. I’ve been in monogamous relationships. They were great. I’ve been in open relationships. They were great, too. All else being equal, which would I prefer: the relationships where I only ever fuck one person, or the relationships where I mostly fuck the same person, but its okay if I get the occasional BJ from someone else? I think you can probably guess the answer. If I took that survey, I’d probably sort into the group that sees monogamy as more of a sacrifice, but it’s a sacrifice in the way that dating a vegetarian is a sacrifice. Sure, sometimes I eat a salad when I’d rather have a hamburger, but at the end of the day, it’s not that big a deal. It’s certainly a very far cry from, “Needs multiple partners to be fulfilled.”
As to what gender the other partner is, I wouldn’t make any assumptions there. While there are certainly some bisexuals who are specifically attracted to both traditional forms of gender expression, “bisexual” is a broad term that covers a lot of different sexual interests. A lot of bisexuals - such as myself - are largely disinterested in gender. Whether a person identifies as a man or a woman is not a significant factor in my attraction to them. I know other bisexuals who are more interested in gender expression than biology: they like feminine people, say, but aren’t bothered by what they might find under that skirt.
Oh, sweet Jesus. :smack:
Okay.
“Bisexuality” is not encoded in any part of our law. Neither are “bi people” a legal category. Sexuality is a legal class, with varying levels of protection depending on jurisdiction - and those protections apply to everyone, not just gay people. In California, if I refuse to hire straight people, I’m as much in violation of the law as someone who refuses to hire gay people.
Adultery is illegal in sixteen states, which is bullshit. Not that I condone it, but it should be purely a civil matter, not a criminal one. And the basis of adultery as grounds for divorce is this: if I promise you I"m only going to ever fuck you, and no one else, and then I go and fuck someone else - I’m an asshole. It doesn’t matter if I’m bi, straight, or gay, I’m a promise breaking, contract violating dickhole, and that’s plenty reason to kick me to the curb. If I’m so absolutely mad for more sex than I can get from one person, the solution to that is not to promise I’ll be monogamous. That’s got absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, that’s just being a decent person.
Lastly (for this post, not, I suspect, this thread) bisexual is not the same as non-monogamous. Bisexual people are perfectly capable of being in a relationship with one, and only one, person. A bisexual is someone who is not exclusively attracted to only one gender. That is the sum and total of the characteristics required to be bisexual. Everything else is stereotyping.
You are speaking for bisexuals, and correcting people on what it might be, and then saying that it is a wide ranging description, (covering lots of people who are not you) but that whatever someone else might say is “stereotyping”?
It’s inconsistent at least.
If you have to say how you feel about adultery laws, don’t you think you have lost the debate already? It exists. I can’t see how it is possible to limit bisexuality to your political belief about it. It contains people who may come into conflict with the law and society’s more’s just because they are attracted to more than one person as a fundamental part of their identity. How are your isolated beliefs or practices changing this?
You were making broad assumptions about bisexuals that don’t apply to all people who identify as bisexual. That’s a stereotype. I pointed out that, contrary to your stereotype, there is a broad variety of attitudes towards non-monogamy among bisexuals, thus countering your stereotype. In what way is that inconsistent?
Wow, that’s a hell of a word salad there. I’ll do my best to pick some chicken of meaning out of the soggy lettuce of that paragraph.
My feelings about the appropriateness of adultery laws are entirely divorced from my understanding of the nature of bisexuality. If bisexuality didn’t exist, I would still feel that adultery laws are an improper imposition of the criminal justice system on what should be purely a civil matter. Saying that does not mean I’ve lost the debate, and I don’t see how you think that would be the case.
My sole “political belief” about bisexuality is that bisexuals should have the same rights as hetero- and homosexuals. Describing my own sexuality, and the sexuality of people I’ve had as friends and lovers, isn’t political. Nor is my view of bisexuality limited. If you were actually following this conversation, you might have twigged to the fact that I’m arguing for a broader understanding of what bisexuality is, not a more limited one. The idea that bisexuals are particularly discriminated against by the lack of plural marriage is the limited understanding, here. While there are certainly some bisexual people who are not going to be happy in a monogamous relationship, that is not the default attitude of bisexuals, or even the majority attitude. And, obviously, it’s hardly unique to bisexuals. There are some homosexuals who are not ever going to be happy in a monogamous relationship. There are some heterosexuals who are not ever going to be happy in a monogamous relationship. People who aren’t going to be happy in a monogamous relationship are not that way because they are bisexual: it’s an independent variable. If you want to argue that “can’t be happy in a monogamous relationship,” should be a protected class, and laws against plural marriage struck down on that basis, go wild. But don’t do it because you’re trying to be “fair” to bisexuals. You are not being “fair” by arguing that bisexuals can’t function in a monogamous relationship. You’re being offensive and ignorant.
You are complaining about being stereotyped, by me?
You are right I am not buying the thesis that bisexuality has nothing to do at all with monogamy vs non-monogamy. I am arguing that bisexuals are not defined by your experience alone, or the experiences of SD posters, for instance. In the spectrum there are those who are not served by a monogamous system. They will be forced to commit adultery by those values society has historically had and is struggling to settle now. How does that make me ignorant (or even a Republican god forbid)?
I think you are doing too much jumping and projecting.
I’ll say it again. (I’m giving only fresh raw veggies so please please try not to toss the salad too much, after all you made it.
“It contains people who may come into conflict with the law and society’s more’s just because they are attracted to more than one person as a fundamental part of their identity.”
I will quote you here: "You were making broad assumptions about bisexuals that don’t apply to all people who identify as bisexual. "
I was talking about a part of a spectrum, not a rule or a stereotype or a label. I never said anything about “all” of any population and never do. There is a big difference, rhetorically, and in reality. You don’t own or control what bisexuality means by your own admission, from your vantage point. How is it me that is making the broad assumptions?
Now if I never said all of anyone was anything, why say I’m ignorant?
