?I love my dog, but that doesn?t mean I should be allowed to marry it?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnuQgZaT8eY

And in hindsight, Grant Gillon was right about the sheep.

It's the only rational response.

Yes, it's a practice that exists, but can't be given legal protections. And I can't think of any reasonable reason why it shouldn't. I mean, theoretically, if?

ew

And incest. And Muslims.

I think I should remember that. I must have been distracted.

Rest assured: we have some top people working on solutions to the n-body problem for increasing values of n. One promising line?

In the interests of balance, shouldn't you have some bottom people too?

Serious question: how many people are allowed to adopt a single child? Now that our adoption laws are under scrutiny, that would be one obvious place to start.

In software development, there is a saying known as the?

Every time I answer a legal question I expect to get made an idiot of by Graeme, but:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1955/0093/latest/DLM3641615.html
A child can be adopted either by an individual, or jointly by two spouses. ("Except as provided in subsection?

It was just after I got called out for that illegal double team... So it's even almost relevant.

Yes, it is an attempt to muddy the waters and widen the marriage debate. But it is only that and saying:

Why? Well, legislating for multiple marriages is infinitely more?

Fine by me, make?

Wait ... I thought you said that wasn't illegal?

Well put. Civil relationship?

Well, not in the sense that I could have been cuffed and taken into custody... sorry. I lost my train of thought.

Hmm, can't see anything morally wrong with fully consensual polygamy. Nor do I see any great difficulty in drafting a multi-party matrimonial agreement.

Funny how contravening established cultural?

Amen (so be it)!

I do feel that this relates to the same-sex marriage debate, insomuch as various proposed scopes of marriage form a subset of such relationships. This has pushed me to advocate the disestablishment of marriage, with?

+1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

Every one of those articles focuses on traditional, patriarchal polygyny. There's very little in them that's actually relevant to modern Western polyamory. We're not actually talking about having a society where most people are in polygynous relationships, but one where existing polyamorous relationships are allowed legal recognition.?

Another challenge for people: is there any reason why incest laws should still be in?

The Judd: we have some top people working on solutionsIn the interests of balance, shouldn't you have some bottom people too?

Charmed I'm sure.

Piratical and poly-armed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

Of course, because all of the above isn't even an honestly dishonest well-oiled playground slide of an argument as far as I can see.?

b) it puts a lot of pressure on family relationships by introducing a romantic/sexual component that isn't usually there.

Perhaps this conflation of romantic and sexual is in part a conditioned response to incest's taboo status. A romantic expectation seems to put a lot of pressure on the sexual component?

lolololol

And wasn't it nice to have the Herald take their first foray into discussing polyamorous relationships with that lovely article about the guy and the female twins? No, no slippery slope-ism there.

Anyway, abolish marriage,?

Too much sexist baggage?

Thanks Stephen.

In your paper you go to some lengths to show that the probability of any given polyamorous relationship being personally fulfilling to all the involved parties is less than that for a two-person marriage. This may be true; I don't?

That's kind of a key point though. The question of probability of personal fulfillment is so irrelevant to the question of whether someone's relationship should?

See, I wasn't going to go into the whole implication that I don't "really" love my partners. But this? This is the absolute essence. This?

Yeah, at least. For example, a couple in this situation should be allowed to marry.

As far as the Glaister piece goes, say what now? Glaister's excuse for subjecting poly-marriage to greater tests than mono-marriage is that mono-marriage has a chance to succeed but poly-marriage just doesn't. This excuse is erroneous on its own,?

Instead of – bear with me, this is a bit of a leap – examining people's actual?

The first 30 years of my life are a huge conceptual loss for New Zealand! Bummer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ZIYJYA-Ho&feature=related

Too soon?

please explain

None of those; I think because a) my?

Yeah. Only being able to be in one place at once does NOT equal only being able to be with one partner at a time. My?

I have just linked to this comment thread from a discussion on polyamory on a NZ-specific board at FetLife. I think the people with appropriate experience here have opened?

Tom, I, too, have feelings for your post.

I think it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why those assumptions are valid. That demonstration would need to demonstrate some engagement with psychology, sociology and anthropology that's at least?

there's your problem. maths is no substitute for humanity

A/ These are not so much "basic assumptions" as the foundations of all your work, without which it's basically meaningless. Whether they're true, therefore, is far more important than whether?

bet she has lots of friends, eh

The time issue can only hold any water at all if we think of marriage as an intense, romantic relationship. If we see marriage as a domestic and familial arrangement then it?

I'm afraid Stephen's math leaves me cold...?

She is great fun at parties, I can attest to that.

However, have you considered that for a poly person, a strictly monogamous relationship might never be fulfilling, no matter how much love there is between those people and how much time they?

complex roots of unity

And here's to the polymorphous universality of the internet with all its Virtual Love Relationships. PAS is a many-to-many connection that's as meaningful to me as most in my life. Love y'all. Sayin.

Everyone else has pretty much explained the problems with this, but I'd?

nominee for best pun in the thread

Sex has become so respectable and acceptable that it?s a ubiquitous backdrop to our lives?.When exactly did this shift occur -and can we attribute it to the internet?

"I can see in calculus"

The Happening (2008)

Everybody would be taking up with everybody! Nobody would get anything else done. ;-)

Haha. So you're not required to wear a seatbelt in NH? Is there a big market in services to disable seatbelt-alarms there?

Back OT, I was just trying to understand how many people?

Not if you're over 17. They take their state motto very seriously.

Back OT, I was just trying to understand how many people would be interested in being?

12. Based on Glaister(2011) it is clear that twenty pages of complex maths devoted to irrelevancies can conclusively show that there can be at most 12 polyamorous marriages in New Zealand at any one time, provided you accept?

Ah, but how many partners in each marriage? Based on Jules et Jim (1962) the most popular combination would appear to be one female and two male partners in each marriage . Although, more recent studies in Big Love (2006) would suggest?

Based on the communes I've lived in (sample size=3) actual fully committed life partners seems to run about one per person at any time, but ongoing close relationships is more like three but that's very variable. And they don't have to be polyfi?

I'm too snowed under with work to have the energy to make a serious contribution to this very interesting thread, so I'll only make?

Oh, come on. Armani is clearly a boy's name.

Oh, Shelley you brainless trout? Someone really needs to get the kids to crack open a book and figure out they didn?t invent fucking. Unexpurgated?

(I think?

Excluding all my other middle-class-judgey feelings about most of the names on that list...Blake is gender-ambiguous? Logan? Ryan?

animal, vegetable, mineral ...
Ryan?s Daughter, Blake?s 7, Logan?s Run,
Clam Blake, Loganberry, Von Ryan's Express?
Not only gender, but species...

Ah, I always wondered what that meant. Some of my Facebook friends just became much more interesting.

Yes. It also runs the other way. Seven is unabashedly a boys name. Obviously.

I'm also interested in names where the usual gender varies with location or language. Like french boys names being given to pommy girls because french sounds kinda feminine to the english?

Isn't it? I have known both males and a female called Blake. Though admittedly the female one is Canadian. Wonder if it is a little like Blair, which in NZ seems to be a primarily male name whereas in the US at least it's gender-neutral.

Say that name, and this is who I think of. "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have..."