Abolish Marriage

Whyte Horse wrote: We need to abolish monogamy, not marriage. It's just plain wrong to deny your own human sexuality and your capacity to love more than one person. Marriage allows people to reach their ultimate capacity for love by saying they will be there for their spouse until they die... a truly noble expression if I do say so myself. So why deny that expression or limit it to one person?

What if your sexuality drives you to be monogamous? Or your capacity for love? We can certainly love more than one person, just as we can lust after multiple people, but does all love or lust require physical expression? Im also pretty sure that the desire to have sex with someone is not the same as being in love with them.

Also, why abolish it? Why not simply tolerate more diversity? No relationship has to be monogamous if the partners agree its not what they want. My preference for monogamy in my own relationship does not impact anyone elses preference for polyamory in theirs.

Whyte Horse wrote: We need to abolish monogamy, not marriage. It's just plain wrong to deny your own human sexuality and your capacity to love more than one person. Marriage allows people to reach their ultimate capacity for love by saying they will be there for their spouse until they die... a truly noble expression if I do say so myself. So why deny that expression or limit it to one person?

That is all quite well for a couple who is an agreement with that sort of thing. Being on the wrong end of such a thing, I will have to disagree with you in an extreme way. Let me lay it out for you, from experience and knowledge. Most couples that enter into an "open" relationship will usually end up splitting because of it. 95% of the time, there is always 1 person who doesn't want an open relationship and doesn't do anything but they agreed to it so the other person would stop cheating. The whole thing about marriage and being engaged means you are COMMITING yourself to that other person. That means you are giving them sole "ownership" of your heart, mind, body and soul. If you want to share your body with others, then go for it. That is your choice.

The funny thing about love is the fact that you don't "fall in love" you "fall in lust". The first 2 years of a relationship is the honeymoon phase. When you get to the point that you start finding everything wrong with the other person and they start annoying you more often than not, that is when the relationship really begins. At that point you choose to actually love them for who they are and start working through the stuff or you find reasons to split up. We have at least a 70% divorce rate in the US. Most of that is within the first 2 years. So people are choosing lust and the desire to get around more then they are choosing to actually love someone.

This all being said, what about the side effects of non-monogomy? We have so many males willing to go out and do their "thing" but they are never willing to take care of what happens 9 months later. It is so much easier to commit to yourself and your selfishness than it is to commit to someone else and the mistakes you create. Honestly, grow the hell up and take care of your responsibilities instead of your lustful desires. You may think you aren't hurting anyone, but that is the problem with 98% of the world. They think, therefore they are. All the problems you have are caused by YOU. You put yourself there with your choices. I am no different. I allowed stupid shit to happen, but I have chosen to love my bride and work through it. Not take a flight of fancy with another female.

And let's not even get started on all the gifts that keep on giving. Yeah, lets cut out monogamy so we all can end up with ganoherpasyphilaids. Good idea... Give me a break.

Being married, I thought I should chime in.

Firstly the idea of "getting rid of marriage" seems to imply that marriage is a forced institution which it is not. One can choose to marry many people throughout their lives or never marry. If it is not a requirement by society, then I feel marriage is a perfectly acceptable institution to allow.

Marriage as the relationship between people.
I think there could potentially be situations where more than two people desire a legal relationship to exist and the institution should be expanded to include such parties. Two people can exist in a monogamous relationship for their entire lives without going through the institution of marriage and many people have open marriages where a sexual desire for many partners is met while the legal institution with its division of assets and inheritance are maintained.

Marriage as a legal contract.
If two people chose to be in a devoted relationship enforced by legal contract in order that they feel societal pressure to maintain their social and legal obligations to one another and offspring, I see no reason why they can't chose to do so. Marriage in the legal sense allows for the easy transfer of property between parties and their offspring and other types of legal contracts can be setup (and in some cases should be allowed to be set up) for all sorts of non-traditional relationships.

Marriage as a religious institution
Religious practice did not invent marriage it simply codified a practice already in society and enforced it with ritual. Again, unless you are a follower of a religion which mandates marriage than it should also have little effect on your freedom to love people in any way you feel is right.

Some of the language here troubles me. Abolish, allow, disallow.

Why not simply let matters such as marriage be of concern to those who wish to engage in it, and for those who do not believe in - or, indeed, dislike - such matters, simply continue your life, free from the concerns of that which does not affect you, and does not, in itself, harm those around you.

Brenna wrote:

Whyte Horse wrote: We need to abolish monogamy, not marriage. It's just plain wrong to deny your own human sexuality and your capacity to love more than one person. Marriage allows people to reach their ultimate capacity for love by saying they will be there for their spouse until they die... a truly noble expression if I do say so myself. So why deny that expression or limit it to one person?

What if your sexuality drives you to be monogamous? Or your capacity for love? We can certainly love more than one person, just as we can lust after multiple people, but does all love or lust require physical expression? Im also pretty sure that the desire to have sex with someone is not the same as being in love with them.

Also, why abolish it? Why not simply tolerate more diversity? No relationship has to be monogamous if the partners agree its not what they want. My preference for monogamy in my own relationship does not impact anyone elses preference for polyamory in theirs.

Well yeah maybe I said that wrong. I would have liked to say it so that people can be monogamous if they choose. Or even abstinent. The reality is that right now it's like illegal to be married and polygamous. Does that make sense?

Whyte Horse wrote: Well yeah maybe I said that wrong. I would have liked to say it so that people can be monogamous if they choose. Or even abstinent. The reality is that right now it's like illegal to be married and polygamous. Does that make sense?

Yes, it makes sense.


I am curious though (and Im going to have to look into this because I know little about it) why is polygamous marriage illegal?

Brenna wrote: I am curious though (and Im going to have to look into this because I know little about it) why is polygamous marriage illegal?

Because the Abrahamic religions rule the Western World, and deem it to be so!

Okay, maybe their grip has lessened somewhat in recent years, but most of our legal structure seems to be based on Christian "morality"

MagnusD wrote:

Brenna wrote: I am curious though (and Im going to have to look into this because I know little about it) why is polygamous marriage illegal?

Because the Abrahamic religions rule the Western World, and deem it to be so!

Okay, maybe their grip has lessened somewhat in recent years, but most of our legal structure seems to be based on Christian "morality"

I was wondering more about what the specific argument against it was.

Brenna wrote:

MagnusD wrote:

Brenna wrote: I am curious though (and Im going to have to look into this because I know little about it) why is polygamous marriage illegal?

Because the Abrahamic religions rule the Western World, and deem it to be so!

Okay, maybe their grip has lessened somewhat in recent years, but most of our legal structure seems to be based on Christian "morality"

I was wondering more about what the specific argument against it was.

My very limited understanding of the matter, as it stands in the US, is that it's more a matter of what would be "easiest" in terms of taxation. At least that was how it was explained to me. Since more spouses would mean more deductibles? Or who would claim what child? Then there's inheritance and what happens if one spouse divorces another, but not the rest? Who gets the children? What about the property? What if two of the spouses of one spouse hate eachother? They can't divorce eachother? They're not the ones married; they're married to that third individual! It all becomes one giant mess!! I don't really know, nor do I understand, the logic behind it, to be honest...I'm just repeating the arguments I've heard argued. It's not something I've ever really considered in any depth.

My thoughts on the matter is, if the people are mentally capable of consenting to, and fully understanding of, the relationship, then let them have the relationship... After all, just a few decades ago, we were arguing the legality of mixed race marriages, and no one seems to have suffered by allowing those. I think it's only a matter of time before marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, becomes as common practice. I do not, however, foresee an age requirement, both for legal marriage and legal, consenting sexual relationships, going away any time soon. And maybe, with time, those who want to marry multiple people at once will be able to do so legally as well. I've heard that there's currently an interesting case in Utah on-going about such things, regarding the family on the show Sister Wives.

Brenna wrote:

MagnusD wrote:

Brenna wrote: I am curious though (and Im going to have to look into this because I know little about it) why is polygamous marriage illegal?

Because the Abrahamic religions rule the Western World, and deem it to be so!

Okay, maybe their grip has lessened somewhat in recent years, but most of our legal structure seems to be based on Christian "morality"

I was wondering more about what the specific argument against it was.

I don't know the exact reasons or motivations behing the laws. It's a traditional christian thing to say that God wants one man and one woman together forever so therefore the law is justified by god's will, supposedly. Since the majority of lawmakers have been Christians, they have passed many laws making things like sodomy illegal, interracial marriage, polygamy, beastiality, being homeless, being poor, etc. Did I mention I live in a totally f'ed up society?

Since this thread is about marriage and since people have mentioned polygamy, I think it's important to mention that polygamy is somewhat normal and monogamy is somewhat unusual when we talk about human behaviour. SO yeah the laws are hosed and fixing them would really help.

Peace