Polyamory General - Polyamory drama from Facebook, Reddit, and more

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The court also said ‘Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy.’ which I think is interesting in the context of this thread.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a religious freedom bill for Virginia before the Consitution existed and he included an exception for when the principles of the religion are against peace and good order, which the court mentioned in their decision—it shows the spirit intended by 18th century proponents of religious freedom.
 
MediocreMilt said:
There's not one. The court was saying they can ban polygamy (despite religious infringement) for similar reasons to why they can ban religious ritual murders.
Click to expand...

Once you allow the general principle that religious law can override laws of general applicability, including religious law made up by people like convicted felon Joseph Smith, you've ceded that secular authority isn't supreme. The government then needs to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't legitimate religion, because otherwise, they can't sort out which religious law supersedes secular authority.

We decided not to do that. First, the government shouldn't be into deciding what is a "legitimate" religious belief, and second, anyone of any religion can get involved in the political process, which is where we decide what laws apply to everyone equally. You're free to live a multiple partner lifestyle with or without a religious justification. What you can't do is claim a special legal status for it that's granted only to monogamy (and until very recently only for heterosexual unions).
 
AnOminous said:
Once you allow the general principle that religious law can override laws of general applicability, including religious law made up by people like convicted felon Joseph Smith, you've ceded that secular authority isn't supreme. The government then needs to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't legitimate religion, because otherwise, they can't sort out which religious law supersedes secular authority.

We decided not to do that. First, the government shouldn't be into deciding what is a "legitimate" religious belief, and second, anyone of any religion can get involved in the political process, which is where we decide what laws apply to everyone equally. You're free to live a multiple partner lifestyle with or without a religious justification. What you can't do is claim a special legal status for it that's granted only to monogamy (and until very recently only for heterosexual unions).
Click to expand...
A multiple partner lifestyle if two of the parties were married to each other would have been illegal at the time, because there were adultery laws.

In some US states, adultery is still a crime. Some have 'alienation of affection' laws, where you can sue the other woman/man, and in 2010 a woman in North Carolina won a large sum of money by suing her husband's mistress. Could a poly person sue under this? Not entirely sure how it works. Also you may or may not get in trouble with the military because they have adultery policies.

While looking on r/polyamory on a thread about poly and the military, I found this comment:
[...]I have many friends that are in a bind because if their employers found out, employers that have no problems with gay people and backed gay married before it was passed, have huge problems with people who have an open marriage/relationship/life and talk about it.
Click to expand...
I agree that a lot of people are fine with gay marriage and not at all okay with non-monogamy, but what's the reason for that?
 
AnOminous said:
Once you allow the general principle that religious law can override laws of general applicability, including religious law made up by people like convicted felon Joseph Smith, you've ceded that secular authority isn't supreme. The government then needs to get into the business of deciding what is and isn't legitimate religion, because otherwise, they can't sort out which religious law supersedes secular authority.

We decided not to do that. First, the government shouldn't be into deciding what is a "legitimate" religious belief, and second, anyone of any religion can get involved in the political process, which is where we decide what laws apply to everyone equally. You're free to live a multiple partner lifestyle with or without a religious justification. What you can't do is claim a special legal status for it that's granted only to monogamy (and until very recently only for heterosexual unions).
Click to expand...
Awesome explanation.

What do you think the chances are, of polyamorous groups being able to marry?

One foreseeable problem, is if we allowed plural marriage, where would the line be drawn, as to how many parties could join? When same sex marriage was on the table, I was concerned that this would open the floodgates to plural marriage, and a legislative ball of twine.

If a marriage is between a man and a woman, this rules out more than a couple because when one party dies, the other is no longer married, and technically widowed. And that has its own entitlements. But if for example you have one man and two women, and the man dies, then "under the new gay marriage rules" the women would still be married.

So practically speaking, polygamous marriage was de-facto off the table, because the surviving female spouses would not be able to live as married lesbians. And at least in the states, it would be difficult to draw rules that would not withstand legal challenges: "well you can have two women and one man but not one woman and two men because that is absolutely fucking gross."

And would the two women live as a lesbian couple with his pension/social security/survivor's benefits? Or would they be denied all of it? Massive fucking tangle. And how many add-ons could the law tolerate? Under what justification?

So I am assuming that the limiting factor is "two human individuals capable of consent?"

What is the legal justification for restricting marriage to ⬆?
 
Last edited:
Non-Expert! said:
Awesome explanation.

What do you think the chances are, of polyamorous groups being able to marry?

One foreseeable problem, is if we allowed plural marriage, where would the line be drawn, as to how many parties could join? When same sex marriage was on the table, I was concerned that this would open the floodgates to plural marriage, and a legislative ball of twine.

If a marriage is between a man and a woman, this rules out more than a couple because when one party dies, the other is no longer married, and technically widowed. And that has its own entitlements. But if for example you have one man and two women, and the man dies, then "under the new gay marriage rules" the women would still be married.

And would the two women live as a lesbian couple with his pension/social security/survivor's benefits? Or would they be denied all of it? Massive fucking tangle. And how many add-ons could the law tolerate? Under what justification?

So I am assuming that the limiting factor is "two human individuals capable of consent?"

What is the legal justification for restricting marriage to ⬆?
Click to expand...
I heard there were Muslims who supported legalizing gay marriage not because they wanted it but because they hoped it would lead to legalized plural marriage. And that's part of the reason why I don't see poly marriage becoming legal. People supported gay marriage because they knew gay people: they were their friends and neighbors and relatives, who otherwise engaged in normative cultural practices. On the other hand, Muslims aren't normies and don't have the same relationships with the rest of society as gay people do. And people will see it as oppressive to women.

In Reynolds v United States, they note that marriage has always been monogamous going back in England from time immemorial. Precedent is a huge deal in the US court system.
 
Crunchy Leaf said:
I heard there were Muslims who supported legalizing gay marriage not because they wanted it but because they hoped it would lead to legalized plural marriage. And that's part of the reason why I don't see poly marriage becoming legal. People supported gay marriage because they knew gay people: they were their friends and neighbors and relatives, who otherwise engaged in normative cultural practices. On the other hand, Muslims aren't normies and don't have the same relationships with the rest of society as gay people do. And people will see it as oppressive to women.

In Reynolds v United States, they note that marriage has always been monogamous going back in England from time immemorial. Precedent is a huge deal in the US court system.
Click to expand...

Islam is a religion though. Just like Christianity. Globally Muslims are every bit as diverse as Christians, and there is a metric fuckton of them. I know that Muslims get a bad rap on this forum, but most Muslims here in the States are not of the [strap dynamite to yourself, throw on a Niquab and pull the string] variety. In fact, those whom I have encountered want their mosque, but appreciate the secular situation here. Unless you live in a rural community or work for a Megachurch, you probably brush shoulders with Muslims every day, and remain blissfully unaware of it.

Powerlevel here, but trust me, you all would be the first to hear about if I had encountered a real-live (literally?) "ka-boom" Muslim. Although we do seem to encounter our share of "ka-boom" Christians.

Actually one issue folks had with same-sex marriage was not so much with lesbians but with Gay men. As far as normie behavior is concerned, here is a joke ...

What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
A U-haul.

And gay men? What do they bring?
What second date?

Ok back to the possibility of state-sanctioned orgies ...
 
Non-Expert! said:
Islam is a religion though. Just like Christianity. Globally Muslims are every bit as diverse as Christians, and there is a metric fuckton of them. I know that Muslims get a bad rap on this forum, but most Muslims here in the States are not of the [strap dynamite to yourself, throw on a Niquab and pull the string] variety. In fact, those whom I have encountered want their mosque, but appreciate the secular situation here. Unless you live in a rural community or work for a Megachurch, you probably brush shoulders with Muslims every day, and remain blissfully unaware of it.

Powerlevel here, but trust me, you all would be the first to hear about if I had encountered a real-live (literally?) "ka-boom" Muslim. Although we do seem to encounter our share of "ka-boom" Christians.

Actually one issue folks had with same-sex marriage was not so much with lesbians but with Gay men. As far as normie behavior is concerned, here is a joke ...

What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
A U-haul.

And gay men? What do they bring?
What second date?

Ok back to the possibility of state-sanctioned orgies ...
Click to expand...
Normie Muslims aren’t the ones interested in plural marriage, though. I have seen people in my hometown wearing niqabs and lots and lots wearing hijabs, including small children. Also a lot of them aren’t white, which can’t be discounted. I really don’t think the American populace at large would ever warm to plural marriage.
 
Crunchy Leaf said:
Normie Muslims aren’t the ones interested in plural marriage, though. I have seen people in my hometown wearing niqabs and lots and lots wearing hijabs, including small children. Also a lot of them aren’t white, which can’t be discounted. I really don’t think the American populace at large would ever warm to plural marriage.
Click to expand...
Where I live there just happens to be Abdul and Fatima, and then for some reason two or three of Abdul's "cousins" just happen to come over from their shithole with a lot of kids. And then they have more kids.

It happens, and it's not a good idea. But here in the USA Muslims at least aren't as bad as Mormons.
 
TaimuRadiu said:
Where I live there just happens to be Abdul and Fatima, and then for some reason two or three of Abdul's "cousins" just happen to come over from their shithole with a lot of kids. And then they have more kids.

It happens, and it's not a good idea. But here in the USA Muslims at least aren't as bad as Mormons.
Click to expand...
Are they all boinking each other and 150 of their best friends? Then we have a polyamory problem.

Statistics show, almost universally, that once removed from pro-natalist, sexist, worm-infested shitholes, the second generation actually enjoys the fact that women can work for a fair wage and love being able to buy their own home and not have to stand in line to use the bathroom,

And having grown up, competing with 8 siblings for 3 kidney beans, a corn tortilla and a microscopic wedge of pie sucks. And spending your own childhood babysitting siblings sucks. It is a shit sandwich, any way you present it.

So generally when Abdul and Fatima become grandparents, their family tree starts to look like a pear and not a pyramid. When they are great-grandparents, it looks more like a diamond.

This is more or less an accepted fact. I mean look at the Duggars. Have any of their kids come out and said that they can't wait to find their own Jimbob to keep them pregnant for the next 30 years?

Anyway like I said, unless these folks are boinking multiple partners, with no accountability in place, seeking advice for what is screamingly obvious, and being general douchebags, they are a different kettle of fish.

Although we do know how family pyramids collapse into diamond shaped things and ultimately into inverse pyramids (look at China..) I can't help but wonder about the fate of these "polyamorous" folks.

Do they make poly-kids, paternity unknown, who become poly themselves?

These folks behave in such odd ways, that comparative studies seem off the table ...
 
Last edited:
Non-Expert! said:
Are they all boinking each other and 150 of their best friends? Then we have a polyamory problem.

Statistics show, almost universally, that once removed from pro-natalist, sexist, worm-infested shitholes, the second generation actually enjoys the fact that women can work for a fair wage and love being able to buy their own home and not have to stand in line to use the bathroom,

And having grown up, competing with 8 siblings for 3 kidney beans, a corn tortilla and a microscopic wedge of pie sucks. And spending your own childhood babysitting siblings sucks. It is a shit sandwich, any way you present it.

So generally when Abdul and Fatima become grandparents, their family tree starts to look like a pear and not a pyramid. When they are great-grandparents, it looks more like a diamond.

This is more or less an accepted fact. I mean look at the Duggars. Have any of their kids come out and said that they can't wait to find their own Jimbob to keep them pregnant for the next 30 years?

Anyway like I said, unless these folks are boinking multiple partners,
Click to expand...
No, but it has to do with polygamy. Abdul, Fatima, and the sister-wives are at least not as cancerous as Soybeard and Fatcunt posting on Reddit about their totally woke polycule. Considering what my LIVED EXPERIENCE is, I seriously doubt that it actually does get better, but maybe the white race deserves it for unleashing the cancer that is Reddit upon the world.
 
TaimuRadiu said:
No, but it has to do with polygamy. Abdul, Fatima, and the sister-wives are at least not as cancerous as Soybeard and Fatcunt posting on Reddit about their totally woke polycule. Considering what my LIVED EXPERIENCE is, I seriously doubt that it actually does get better, but maybe the white race deserves it for unleashing the cancer that is Reddit upon the world.
Click to expand...
Like ok, do a simple search on Margaret Sanger and the world she faced. She dealt white folks having like 8 kids, cramped in a rat-infested hovel, uneducated, and mom and kids faced daily beatings from Big Biff who would unleash his drunken rage on them. Oh yeah and bring home whatever he picked up from the local whores or degenerate homos in local privy holes. Then either Mom would finally die giving birth to a sick or dead baby, ormfrom having some shit infested finger jambed upmher vagina to get the kid out. Europeans had the same problems. Worse in fact.

Basically the once West finally had the mental awareness to see that this sucked, they took a spray hose with soap, bleach and water and fucking flooded the place. Condom-filled piñatas were hanging on street lamps ... (Actually no, but we are OT.)

Do some geneological research on your own family ... read the history.

Basically almost every white person on the planet (excepting quiverfull fundies) got the memo on this, like a century ago. Nothing has changed. Birthrates are down across All mileau in the states.

Are white folks responsible for Reddit? That seems more like a global conspiracy to me ... Conspiracy is a strong word. But enabling a platform that allows people to gain social support for self-destructive behaviors, reeks of "hmmmm ..." especially since they do have a "awareness raising" disease spreading component.

Honestly, all of this moves toward social collapse ... unraveling the moral and social fabric of the nation.

If the owners of Reddit and Insta and Twitter wanted to do something about this, all they would need to do is narrow the terms of service. That is what makes me deeply cynical too,
 
Last edited:
Non-Expert! said:
Like ok, do a simple search on Margaret Sanger and the world she faced. She dealt white folks having like 8 kids, cramped in a rat-infested hovel, uneducated, and mom and kids faced daily beatings from Big Biff who would unleash his drunken rage on them. Oh yeah and bring home whatever he picked up from the local whores or degenerate homos in local privy holes. Then either Mom would finally die giving birth to a sick or dead baby, ormfrom having some shit infested finger jambed upmher vagina to get the kid out. Europeans had the same problems. Worse in fact.

Basically the once West finally had the mental awareness to see that this sucked, they took a spray hose with soap, bleach and water and fucking flooded the place. Condom-filled piñatas were hanging on street lamps ... (Actually no, but we are OT.)

Do some geneological research on your own family ... read the history.

Basically almost every white person on the planet (excepting quiverfull fundies) got the memo on this, like a century ago. Nothing has changed. Birthrates are down across All mileau in the states.

Are white folks responsible for Reddit? That seems more like a global conspiracy to me ...
Click to expand...
Birthrates being down is absolutely a bad thing in general. Not like I'm going to have any children.

The "poly" scene seems to be overwhelmingly White, and so do the users of Reddit in general. Aaron Swartz, one of the founders, was unquestionably killed in a glowop
 
Birth rates being 1.7 children per woman is bad. Birth rates going back to the pre-modern 7 children per women is also bad. (I say pre-modern because the white American birthrate noticeably went down between 1800 and 1900–illicit birth control was absolutely a thing then.) 2.5 or 3 would be ideal.

Poly is definitely white people bullshit. People of other races sleep around, have multiple partners, etc., but the ‘only people with extremely high iqs are poly’ is whites only.
 
I know that we all have our prejudices ... so -SNIP-

But what is particularly irritating about this, is that people who look and act "white enough" are "polyamorous" and get unofficial political support for their degeneracy. And we (whites) still set the tone, due to the fact that we are still the majority.

If Negros, colored Puerto Ricans, Asian boat people, or non-white Hispanics/Amerindian types act like this, (and some do) they are simply acting like "niggers." And ... well ... hmmm ....

Chinese and Indians seem to have it together enough to not make a public display of being complete fucktards. At least not in the States.
 
As entertaining as this is it's the kind of conversation that makes everyone hate Articles and Happenings. Fatima and Abdul aren't funny and they don't post on Reddit.

Back to the subject. "I'm very hot and lots of random guys want to have sex with me. Is this normal?"

1581127332802.png


r/polyamory - Navigating jealousy and indignation over ease of finding secondary partners

16 votes and 21 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
 
melty said:
As entertaining as this is it's the kind of conversation that makes everyone hate Articles and Happenings. Fatima and Abdul aren't funny and they don't post on Reddit.

Back to the subject. "I'm very hot and lots of random guys want to have sex with me. Is this normal?"

View attachment 1135230

r/polyamory - Navigating jealousy and indignation over ease of finding secondary partners

16 votes and 21 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
Click to expand...

Answer: doesn't matter because that marriage is doomed. And as for this married "hottie" who enjoys being fucked by multiple men, she is just going to have to learn by trial and error. Her trials, and other people's errors in getting involved with her in the first place.

As for Fatima and Abdul, who knows ... But they have somehow surpassed these idiots in their understanding of life's basic rules.
 
Last edited:
Non-Expert! said:
This is more or less an accepted fact. I mean look at the Duggars. Have any of their kids come out and said that they can't wait to find their own Jimbob to keep them pregnant for the next 30 years?
Click to expand...
Yes. Kendra and Joe are the ones that spring immediately to mind. They’ve been popping out a baby every year since they got married. Jill Duggar also wanted a ton of kids. Honestly I’m surprised that the quiverfull fundies aren’t into plural marriage. Way more arrows if you have multiple women popping them out.
 
Non-Expert! said:
I know that we all have our prejudices ... so -SNIP-

But what is particularly irritating about this, is that people who look and act "white enough" are "polyamorous" and get unofficial political support for their degeneracy. And we (whites) still set the tone, due to the fact that we are still the majority.

If Negros, colored Puerto Ricans, Asian boat people, or non-white Hispanics/Amerindian types act like this, (and some do) they are simply acting like "niggers." And ... well ... hmmm ....

Chinese and Indians seem to have it together enough to not make a public display of being complete fucktards. At least not in the States.
Click to expand...
The culture of machismo is very real among Hispanics, there is an equivalent among Black people, at least there is a kind of serial monogamy going on that lets you have six gorillon babymommas and not take care of the children. But at this point I'm glad it isn't like "THIS IS OUR LIFESTYLE CHOICE AND YOU'RE NOT WOKE IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT JUAN GOING OUT AT NIGHT TO PLOW BONITA WHILE LEAVING MARIA AT HOME WITH OUR EIGHTY CHILDREN"
 
melty said:
As entertaining as this is it's the kind of conversation that makes everyone hate Articles and Happenings. Fatima and Abdul aren't funny and they don't post on Reddit.

Back to the subject. "I'm very hot and lots of random guys want to have sex with me. Is this normal?"

View attachment 1135230

r/polyamory - Navigating jealousy and indignation over ease of finding secondary partners

16 votes and 21 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com www.reddit.com
Click to expand...
This girl might be hot but she's a complete trainwreck. Apparently she's also a sugarbaby:
hjjhjhhhjhjnbbbnbnbbn.PNG

Wonder if the new guy is her sugar dadddy or if it's some other dude. Feel pretty bad for her husband if that's the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom