Time to recognize polyamorous marriage?

Here's the key point: why does the "social reality" have to be legal definition? We're merely talking unchallenged tradition here and making a challenge to it.

I've no problem with that; challenge away.

But they way you challenge traditions about marriage is not to demand legal recognition for some hypothetical, abstract, idealised concept that has no existence in the real world; it's to develop and practice a new model of marriage. You need an alternative tradition.

The state can't "recognise" something that doesn't exist. You need to be able to point to to people who are actually living in polyamorous marriages and to a wider community of people who accept and support those marriages and then you can say "look, this exists; you need to recognise it". Until you can say that, there is no case for recognition; there is nothing that needs recognising.

We already have one - it's exactly what's being proposed.

The State - i.e. the will of the people - can recognise anything it likes and define marriage in any way it wants. The question, therefore is not do we have an alternative tradition (we do - or we wouldn't even be having this conversation), but does it have the will of the people? And THAT is what's up for debate.

Beyond that, it's a catch 22 situation: you're saying "prove it exists in order to make it legal" but in order to do this, you have to make it legal first in order to conduct the experiment.

No, marriage is a contract between consenting adults: marriage between a man and a tree is what we're REALLY claiming and was rightly called out as said fallacy. And you know this because you took part in the conversation when it arose, and you made the exact same arguments then as you did now, with the same flaws you have now.

The rhetorical question remains the same: if the will of people decree a,legal change be enacted to a social tradirion known as marriage- as we both know has happened in the past - what is to prevent said will becoming law?

And before you answer that: what stopped the redefinition of marriage BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS from becoming law at the request of the will of the people, the last time it was asked?

Nothing. My point entirely.

As I posted above:

The question, therefore is not do we have an alternative tradition (we do - or we wouldn't even be having this conversation), but does it have the will of the people? And THAT is what's up for debate.

Honest answer: no idea. I'm as curious about that as you are. But as I said - that's why I'm here.

Now you're arguing against points I never made, so - one again: I laeve you here with the point I DID make proven.

Deleted (thought I was being quoted, point irrlelevant)

Not relevant to the point I made.

Polyamorous relations exist, so the next step would be for them to get married.

IF the wanted to and IF the State via the Will of the people allowed it - but those are big IFs.

I've answered this.already.

Not my position.

It depends if you mean an argument against implementing it actively or an argument against the concept per se.

For me personally - as someone actively in one of those relationships - I would say the foundational argument against implementing it is just one of cost/benefit. I feel that any change we make in our society to add new services or structures - or indeed expand the remit of existing services and structures - would be that the scale of effort and expense should track at least somewhat sensibly with the effect and demand. Since there is pretty much no one in such relationships - and those of us that are in them are seeking no such thing - even moderate effort would seem unwarranted. But I suspect the effort is not moderate compared to the change we made for the Marriage Equality Referendum.

Arguments against it in and of itself however I can think of fewer of. I just know that if a referendum or vote were put to the people tomorrow on it I would neither be voting for nor campaigning for such a change. I would be against.

I would assume the state would follow the usual approach of siding with the biological parents first and the non biological ones second? Certainly from my limited knowledge our children from our relationship - should say I die - be legally more relevant to their actual mother than the other. I assume divorce would be similar? I can see why the head would hurt though for sure. Thankfully since no one actually seems to want such a new institutional change - we do not actually have to hammer out the details :)

"shagging around" and "promiscuity" make it sound to me like you are both talking about open relationships or similar. Where partners come and go or in some way change over time. I am not sure that is the same thing we are talking about on this thread though?

What we appear to be talking about in relation to the OP is a non standard number of people (usually 3 but I am sure more is possible) enter into a relationship that contains every bit as much commitment, honesty, fidelity and mutual respect as any average couple can claim to have.

Certainly in our relationship you would be hard pushed to argue successfully that we have any less of those things than any couple you could find in Ireland.

I can not find any way to agree with what you say here at all.

Let's move away for a short moment to an analogy. Most parents are committed to their children. Some parents have 1 child. Some have 4. Some have more. But they can honour their commitment to each of those children - and do. Sure sometimes to use your words individual situations call for "putting one person over the other". As parents that happens to us often.

But long term committments are not undone by individual instances within them. The demonstration of our commitment is through consistency over time.

So too - moving back away from the analogy - is it in a relationship like my own. We are every bit as committed to each other as pretty much any couple you could find us in Ireland to hold us up against.

As I said in a post earlier in the thread I think it is a minor error to think of being in a relationship and being "committed to 1 person". Rather think of it as you are committed to the relationship. Just like the people in my analogy with multiple kids are committed to the family. And yes being committed to any structure of people with more than 2 in it requires occasional compromise. But that does not negate the reality and strength of the commitment in any way.

So while I can think of some arguments for not affording people like myself the structure of marriage - I do not think questioning our ability to commit to it or to each other is even a remotely valid one at all.

In Islam its a normal style of relationship, or is your point different?

What's Islam idea of a normal style of rleationship ot to do with it?

I'm not in favour of or against this.

I was trying to understand P's point which seemed to imply it wasnt a thing. its a thing in some countries and there was a logic to it in pre industrial societies. Not sure there is any pressing "need" for it today so I cant see why a western government would look to recognise it or that there would be any public pressure to do so

That's probably something you need to take up with relevant community.