I identify as asexual, so to say that polyamory is a sexual orientation is to say that I can't possibly have a polyamorous relationship. Which is of course nonsense. So there is some tight nuance in the word but it absolutely is not an orientation.

lithell: Maybe we can get rid of the nuance by making up two words: polyamorous and polysexual.

That would entail the polyamory-is-sexual people letting go of the term and switching. That would be difficult.

Then maybe we shouldn't limit ourselves to bad/simple terms of identification like 'polyamorous.'

And yeah...it is a silly word. The thing itself is important to some people, though, although take it or leave it for others.

The explanation from the "Poly Person (who) agrees with Me" is why I disagree with the proponents of "marriage equality". If the State no longer requires a man to marry a woman, then numerical restrictions on the number of participants seems old fashioned. If same gender marriage is permitted, then surely polygamists deserve "marriage equality" too. I'm not being fascetious: I'm completely serious. If two women can marry each other, why not three women? Why not two women and one man, or vice versa. It's not a slippery slope: it's the logical next step. Why place arbitrary limits on the number of people who choose to engage in the marriage contract?

@ bruce1-6:

firstly, the argument here is about definitions, not marriage rights.

but even if it was, so what if three or four people wanted to lawfully wed each other? what and how would that really matter to you or me, or anyone?

personally, i think that marriage between more than two people is a little odd -- not my cup of tea. but so what? who the fuck am i to say that they're not allowed to do it? if all concerned are consenting adults and aren't harming anyone in the process (excluding injuring someone's oh-so-sensitive feelings about what 'correct' marriage looks like), then what's the problem?

(and surely you know better than to counter here with an argument about how traditionalists have done such a good job of keeping the contract of marriage dignified.)

plus, multi-spouses might be beneficial come tax time -- a marriage credit squared or cubed sounds kind of nice.

@human in training: welcome to the slippery slope.

@ bruce1-6:

so, i'm just speculating here, but i suppose you think that such madness as marriage to dogs or chickens is at the bottom of that slick slope?.....if so, that's absurd. while i'm sure there are a few nutters out there who think dogs and chickens are 'consenting adults', such nonsense isn't relevant here.

otherwise, what could be so dangerous about slipping down it?

and besides, i thought you said that it "isN'T a slippery slope", but rather "the next logical step"?.....well, you were right.

and remember: the key phrase in all of this is "consenting adults" -- not kids or cats.

if my next-door neighbors are a quartet of folks all legally-married to each other, with tax benefits (and penalties), insurance, hospital visitation rights, etc., what skin is that off of my back?

I am in an asexual panromantic polyandrist relationship with my cats and I would totally move to Vancouver to pay less taxes if there was some fucking light rail on the CRC.

lithell:

if you are a female and promise to panromanticize me asexually while keeping your cats off of the bed, as well as your other (lesser) husbands, (they can take the guest bedroom), then, well, will you marry me??

(i'll even move to vancouver if necessary.....(even if i have to drive you back and forth over the river for lack of a proper train.))

I don't know, cats off the bed? That's kind of a slippery slope.

Polyamory isn't even a real word! You can't mix greek and latin roots like that! If it can be a sexual orientation, then we can make anything a sexual orientation, even if it's neither sexual nor an orientation. I like pie, that must mean I'm piesexual.