Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is a fundamental difference between one marrying the partner of his choice, and one having the marriage of his choice. The former wants to marry the partner of his choosing, the latter wants to choose the parts of marriage he wants to participate in.
thats not entirely true though, is it?
all one has to do is define gender as part of marriage, which it traditionally was, and you would be "choosing" the "parts" you want to "participate" in.
End of the day, I'm certainly not asking you to join me in an open marriage, and I'm happy to let you marry what ever you want, as long as it doesn't harm me.
I can't possibly see why that same consideration wouldn't be returned. Unless of course it is simply for the posterity of traditional 2 person marriage, yet that certainly doesn't explain why we should use the 2000s definition of traditional marriage and not the 1600s.
Lol, lets hear the moral argument against consensual polyamoury
Originally posted by inimalist
thats not entirely true though, is it?all one has to do is define gender as part of marriage, which it traditionally was, and you would be "choosing" the "parts" you want to "participate" in.
End of the day, I'm certainly not asking you to join me in an open marriage, and I'm happy to let you marry what ever you want, as long as it doesn't harm me.
I can't possibly see why that same consideration wouldn't be returned. Unless of course it is simply for the posterity of traditional 2 person marriage, yet that certainly doesn't explain why we should use the 2000s definition of traditional marriage and not the 1600s.
Lol, lets hear the moral argument against consensual polyamoury
I don't like it being labelled as an "open marriage" as if it's not a real marriage which it is.
A marriage where the spouses occasionally sleep with other people can still just be called a marriage.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats not entirely true though, is it?all one has to do is define gender as part of marriage, which it traditionally was, and you would be "choosing" the "parts" you want to "participate" in.
End of the day, I'm certainly not asking you to join me in an open marriage, and I'm happy to let you marry what ever you want, as long as it doesn't harm me.
I can't possibly see why that same consideration wouldn't be returned. Unless of course it is simply for the posterity of traditional 2 person marriage, yet that certainly doesn't explain why we should use the 2000s definition of traditional marriage and not the 1600s.
Lol, lets hear the moral argument against consensual polyamoury
Actually, it is entirely true. Marriage in the United States is a legal union of two, unrelated adults to the exclusion of all others.
Originally posted by inimalist
everywhere?people aren't allowed to marry more than one individual anywhere in America afaik....
The exclusion of others refers to other partners in the marriage (polygamy), I'd say. Not additional sex partners, that is, I think, still up to the people in the marriage, thankfully.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The exclusion of others refers to other partners in the marriage (polygamy), I'd say. Not additional sex partners, that is, I think, still up to the people in the marriage, thankfully.
ya, and myself and Adam_Poe were discussing definitions of marriage, one being polyamoury, which is currently illegal in all American states, to the best of my knowledge
that polyamoury, the practice of being married to more than one person, is illegal?
probably?...
EDIT: lol, you could have wiki'ed it 😉