Does 'ethical non-monogamy' really exist?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Sounds like another way of saying open relationship or swingers.

I generally don't have an issue with open relationships provided all parties are consenting and on the same page. Monogamy for men at least doesn't seem natural.

originally posted by: Dandandat3
a reply to: Annee

I agree; I never fully understood why the left was pushing for the current form of "marriage equality" that was ruled on by the SCOTUS at the turn of the century.

While the desire to be accepted makes sense; it was an missed opportunity to reinvent the concept of marriage all together.

"Marriage" (or perhaps "civil union" to bypass the religious constitutions) should be seen as nothing more than a familial contract in the eyes of the law. A contract that any number of people can enter into for any number of personal reasons.

This family union would than be treated akin to a corporation. Wherein assets belong to the "family" and can be passed around with out the need for wills and such. Duties are clearly defined. And the "family" can be desloved according to predefined actions.

But you can't allow one group to use marriage and force others to use contract.

Just because you discover you're LGBT -- does not mean you abandon the God you grew up with. So, using religion/god as exclusive to marriage is not OK.

Only "one man-one woman" is religious discrimination IMO.

Latter Day Saints (Mormon's) were forced to give up polygamy to join the USA -- also women had to give up the right to vote. More religious discrimination.

I sincerely think there should be contract marriages for groups. Considering a contract is legal protection for personal rights and property. Taxes? That would definitely have to be worked out first.

I really think the single family of "one man-one woman" in this country is a failure.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Annee

You also think it's okay to murder unborn children . . .

Wrong thread.

And just wrong in general.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Annee

You also think it's okay to murder unborn children for reasons of convenience, so it's kind of hard to take your position too seriously when you ask questions like "who raises the kids?".

If parents are unable or unfit to raise their children, the State should take the kids and place them with people who can.

At least that's Annee's opinion, from what I understand, in certain contexts.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Annee

You also think it's okay to murder unborn children for reasons of convenience, so it's kind of hard to take your position too seriously when you ask questions like "who raises the kids?".

If parents are unable or unfit to raise their children, the State should take the kids and place them with people who can.

At least that's Annee's opinion, from what I understand, in certain contexts.

This is not the topic of this thread.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You may not agree with anything I say.

But I am trying to have a legitimate discussion on your thread.

a reply to: Annee

I'd say it's in a similar enough vein, but, I don't want to go there either right now.

So, cheers!

a reply to: Annee

Agreed; under my preposed familial "corporation" the government would take absolutely no view on the religious form of "marriage". That would be left up to the family and whatever religious institution they can convince to "marry" them ... or not, the government would also not interfere with religious institutions that don't want to marry anyone for any reason. Government and religion stay completely separated.

That would then mean everyone would need to seek a "civil union" (or what ever name is the least offensive at the time of inception).

All "families", no matter their makeup, will need to seek this "civil union" with the government to be recognized and then if they want they can also get "marrried" through a religious institution. The later being of absolutely no consequence to government and law.

The complete decoupling of government and regional when it comes to family contracting.


The only caveat would have to be the grandfathering of current government marriage license as "civil union" license so that people aren't burdened into having to reply if a simple contract meets their needs. However many would find the benefits of the new system more appealing and would reapply on their own.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Annee

I'd say it's in a similar enough vein, but, I don't want to go there either right now.

So, cheers!

I would not say that it is in a similar enough vein.

Let's stay on topic.

originally posted by: AlroyFarms
You know what's NOT morally ethical these days?

The price on a carton of eggs, amirite people heh heh heh

Amen

originally posted by: Dandandat3
a reply to: Annee

That would then mean everyone would need to seek a "civil union" (or what ever name is the least offensive at the time of inception).

Except that is never going to happen.

Not here in the USA. Christianity is too ingrained.

I'm atheist -- so I'm all for legal contractual marriage. Which we actually have unless you do a covenant marriage.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dandandat3
a reply to: Annee

That would then mean everyone would need to seek a "civil union" (or what ever name is the least offensive at the time of inception).

Except that is never going to happen.

Not here in the USA. Christianity is too ingrained.

I'm atheist -- so I'm all for legal contractual marriage. Which we actually have unless you do a covenant marriage.

As an atheist myself I disagree that this could never happen in the US due to the (now waning) Christian influence. As their numbers continue to drop, Christians are beginning to feel the same persecution by the majority that many other groups have felt for a long time. They will come to see the benefits of protecting their religion from government by removing their religion from government.

Will there always be the fanatics who would rather see the whole system blow up rather than give an inch? Sure, those people exist in all subgroups; it's up to the rest of us to not let fear of that tiny minority stop us from moving forward.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think ethical non-monogamy exists and is well with several couples and others throughout the world. It doesn't work for me or my Darlin'. We have mentally dabbled with the inclusion of couples or a third to our two, but the reality of the situations were off-putting to us. We were younger then. Neither of us now want to risk our relationship in even a tiny iota. Nothing matters to us more than us. That sounds selfish, but that is our stance.

Fantasies are mental images that -- in my vast experience -- rarely measure up to reality. I think there are people who can create situations that include others outside of a marriage and it can work for them. I have known people in the past who were fully immersed in 'swapping' and 'swinging' and 'threesomes', and it appeared to enhance their relationship rather than cause it harm.

I guess us two are just old-fashioned. We need us. We don't ever want to risk a harm to the usness.

I think that whatever works for people should be sort of agreed upon before the fact. I think that people shouldn't just drift into situations, but talk about them and work out all the parameters of them. I think that if people work out all the details, they can have a fulfilling sexual expansion without harm.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Dandandat3
a reply to: Annee

That would then mean everyone would need to seek a "civil union" (or what ever name is the least offensive at the time of inception).

Except that is never going to happen.

Not here in the USA. Christianity is too ingrained.

I'm atheist -- so I'm all for legal contractual marriage. Which we actually have unless you do a covenant marriage.

As an atheist myself I disagree that this could never happen in the US due to the (now waning) Christian influence. As their numbers continue to drop, Christians are beginning to feel the same persecution by the majority that many other groups have felt for a long time. They will come to see the benefits of protecting their religion from government by removing their religion from government.

Will there always be the fanatics who would rather see the whole system blow up rather than give an inch? Sure, those people exist in all subgroups; it's up to the rest of us to not let fear of that tiny minority stop us from moving forward.

I think the Chrisitan influence will be here longer than you do. Although, yes, organized religion is on the decline.

As I don't want to turn this into a Christian vs other thread -- lets focus on the benefits (as you say) -- separating secular from non-secular.

"Marriage" currently does require a government license. It is in reality already a legal government contract.

I would just like to expand it to include: group - polygamy - polyamory, etc.

a reply to: Annee

Don't you think that's going to complicate divorce courts every further if things go South later in the relationship(s)?

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Annee

Don't you think that's going to complicate divorce courts every further if things go South later in the relationship(s)?

Absolutely!

Which is why I think the contracts need to be very specific before allowing a legal contract union.

a reply to: Annee

Semms to be overcomplicating the issue.

Why not just let an open relationship be an open relationship and leave well enough alone?

Why involve the courts?