Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[Puppycow]

Threesome Marriages (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-07/threesome-marriages/)

Less than 18 months ago, Sasha Lessin and Janet Kira Lessin gathered before their friends near their home in Maui, and proclaimed their love for one another. Nothing unusual about that—Sasha, 68, and Janet, 55—were legally married in 2000. Rather, this public commitment ceremony was designed to also bind them to Shivaya, their new 60-something "husband." Says Sasha: “I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

Maine this week became the fifth state, and the fourth in New England, to legalize gay marriage, provoking yet another national debate about same-sex unions. The Lessins' advocacy group, the Maui-based World Polyamory Association, is pushing for the next frontier of less-traditional codified relationships. This community has even come up with a name for what the rest of the world generally would call a committed threesome: the "triad."

Unlike open marriages and the swinger days of the 1960s and 1970s, these unions are not about sex with multiple outside partners. Nor are they relationships where one person is involved with two others, who are not involved with each other, a la actress Tilda Swinton. That's closer to bigamy. Instead, triads—"triangular triads," to use precise polyamorous jargon—demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other. In the Lessins case, that can be varying pairs but, as Sasha, a psychologist, puts it, "Janet loves it when she gets a double decker."
Want. :D

[volatile]

Slippery slope!

[Puppycow]

Slippery slope!

So was freeing the slaves. Look what it led to.
:newlol

[volatile]

So was freeing the slaves. Look what it led to.
:newlol

My thoughts entirely... :p

[Puppycow]

In other news, South Africa now has its first polygamous president (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8037900.stm).

[shuize]

If I could add another wife to the marriage so that the current one would have someone to argue with without me, I might be willing to give it a try.

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

Told you so.

Naturally, the pro-gay marriage folks first told me I'm crazy for saying gay marriage could possibly lead to this... and now they will tell me it's the most natural thing in the world and that I'm crazy for saying there's anything wrong with this.

(We've seen the same thing before, when opposition to civil unions fearing it would lead to gay marriage was first denigrated as "paranoid" and later, when just that happened, the "paranoid" conclusion was taken up as the most natural thing in the world.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

By the way, the "slippery slope" argument is legitimate if the slope is in fact slippery. If recognizing gay marriage is likely to lead to recognizing polygamy, then it's simply a valid argument; it is only a "slippery slope" fallacy if recognition of gay marriage is not likely to lead to this. I tend to think the slope is slippery in this case. Others disagree. But that is a matter of fact. Merely making a slippery slope argument is not in itself a logical fallacy.

It is true that it is a fallacy to claim that if society recognizes gay marriage then it must ipso facto recognize polygamy. It does not logically follow that one leads to the other. It only might, under certain conditions, practically do so, which is the "slippery slope" claim. But these are two different claims. I agree with the latter, but am not claiming the former.

However, if gay marriage is recognizes, not due to the legistlature following public opinion, but because the courts decide there is a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, in that case it logically follows as a necessity, not merely as a possiblity, that the states must also recognize polygamy: if sex is no barrier to a "constitutional right" to marriage, neither is number.

[ponderingturtle]

(Shrug)

Told you so.

Naturally, the pro-gay marriage folks first told me I'm crazy for saying gay marriage could possibly lead to this... and now they will tell me it's the most natural thing in the world and that I'm crazy for saying there's anything wrong with this.

How did gay marriage lead to this, please demonstrate.

Of course it is not surprising that some people would start advocating for this. Again you ignore actual legal considerations in the equivocation.

However, if gay marriage is recognizes, not due to the legistlature following public opinion, but because the courts decide there is a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, in that case it logically follows as a necessity, not merely as a possiblity, that the states must also recognize polygamy: if sex is no barrier to a "constitutional right" to marriage, neither is number.

Not at all, as has been explained sex is a much more protected class than number.

[volatile]

(Shrug)

Told you so.

Naturally, the pro-gay marriage folks first told me I'm crazy for saying gay marriage could possibly lead to this... and now they will tell me it's the most natural thing in the world and that I'm crazy for saying there's anything wrong with this.

(We've seen the same thing before, when opposition to civil unions fearing it would lead to gay marriage was first denigrated as "paranoid" and later, when just that happened, the "paranoid" conclusion was taken up as the most natural thing in the world.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

By the way, the "slippery slope" argument is legitimate if the slope is in fact slippery. If recognizing gay marriage is likely to lead to recognizing polygamy, then it's simply a valid argument; it is only a "slippery slope" fallacy if recognition of gay marriage is not likely to lead to this. I tend to think the slope is slippery in this case. Others disagree. But that is a matter of fact. Merely making a slippery slope argument is not in itself a logical fallacy.

It is true that it is a fallacy to claim that if society recognizes gay marriage then it must ipso facto recognize polygamy. It does not logically follow that one leads to the other. It only might, under certain conditions, practically do so, which is the "slippery slope" claim. But these are two different claims. I agree with the latter, but am not claiming the former.

However, if gay marriage is recognizes, not due to the legistlature following public opinion, but because the courts decide there is a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, in that case it logically follows as a necessity, not merely as a possiblity, that the states must also recognize polygamy: if sex is no barrier to a "constitutional right" to marriage, neither is number.

In each of the threads where you have failed to explain your arguments, this has come up. More than once, posters here (myself included) have discussed the similarities and differences between gay and polygamous marriages, and the cons of the latter (because there are some, unlinke with same-sex binary marriage where there are none).

All this post proves is that you've not been reading anything anyone's said to you. At all.

ETA: I also suggest you reconsider your use of the word "logically" in your previous post. You do the word a disservice.

[Cainkane1]

Actually four people getting married would make more sense than three people getting married. Two women, two men getting married.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually four people getting married would make more sense than three people getting married. Two women, two men getting married.

Why? In a practical sense adding more people makes more relationships that need to keep working for the marriage to work.

[Puppycow]

(Shrug)

Told you so.

Naturally, the pro-gay marriage folks first told me I'm crazy for saying gay marriage could possibly lead to this... and now they will tell me it's the most natural thing in the world and that I'm crazy for saying there's anything wrong with this.

(We've seen the same thing before, when opposition to civil unions fearing it would lead to gay marriage was first denigrated as "paranoid" and later, when just that happened, the "paranoid" conclusion was taken up as the most natural thing in the world.)

I wish they'd make up their mind.

By the way, the "slippery slope" argument is legitimate if the slope is in fact slippery. If recognizing gay marriage is likely to lead to recognizing polygamy, then it's simply a valid argument; it is only a "slippery slope" fallacy if recognition of gay marriage is not likely to lead to this. I tend to think the slope is slippery in this case. Others disagree. But that is a matter of fact. Merely making a slippery slope argument is not in itself a logical fallacy.

It is true that it is a fallacy to claim that if society recognizes gay marriage then it must ipso facto recognize polygamy. It does not logically follow that one leads to the other. It only might, under certain conditions, practically do so, which is the "slippery slope" claim. But these are two different claims. I agree with the latter, but am not claiming the former.

However, if gay marriage is recognizes, not due to the legistlature following public opinion, but because the courts decide there is a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, in that case it logically follows as a necessity, not merely as a possiblity, that the states must also recognize polygamy: if sex is no barrier to a "constitutional right" to marriage, neither is number.

Yes, social progress has been one very long slippery slope. Others may argue the point if they wish to, but I will stipulate it.

So if I concede the slippery slope, then what harm is there in letting these polyamorous people get married? Maybe there is one that I didn't think of. Maybe, for example, we should be careful to limit tax benefits so that there is no perverse incentive to get married simply for a tax break (which seems to be a flaw even with traditional monogamous hetero marriage). Other than that, however, where's the harm?

[volatile]

Other than that, however, where's the harm?

Aside from, of course... "It's squicky and perverse and amoral and WEIRD", which strikes me as the overt sentiment of Skeptic's "arguments".

Skeptic - as you still haven't explained, could you now, at this point, take the time to explain why gay marriage is a Bad Thing and why polyamorous marriage is a Worse Thing? Otherwise we're forced to draw conclusions, like the one I make in the preceding paragraph, which may not be entirely fair on you.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, social progress has been one very long slippery slope. Others may argue the point if they wish to, but I will stipulate it.

So if I concede the slippery slope, then what harm is there in letting these polyamorous people get married? Maybe there is one that I didn't think of. Maybe, for example, we should be careful to limit tax benefits so that there is no perverse incentive to get married simply for a tax break (which seems to be a flaw even with traditional monogamous hetero marriage). Other than that, however, where's the harm?

I would extend that from just tax benefits to all laws and regulations.

As an example I do think that an employer shouldn't be forced to extend health coverage to all spouces someone has, just because they cover binary partnerships. You get one member of s cult and the whole cult can get coverage.

And I have not seen which models people want to use, letting multiple people into a marriage, or letting one person have multiple marriages or both.

[Lonewulf]

It's because women will lose their rights in polygamous marriages, of course. D'uh. No woman ever has a choice to join such a marriage, and there's no such thing as multiple husbands ending up with one wife.

[ponderingturtle]

It's because women will lose their rights in polygamous marriages, of course. D'uh. No woman ever has a choice to join such a marriage, and there's no such thing as multiple husbands ending up with one wife.

Ignoring those freaks in the OP.

[Lonewulf]

Meh, facts just distort the truth.

[Starthinker]

Didn't Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold try this?

[Soapy Sam]

Actually four people getting married would make more sense than three people getting married. Two women, two men getting married.

Bigot!
;)

[D'rok]

Other than that, however, where's the harm?
This is where the harm is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia

Some argue that the Criminal Code is sufficient to deal with the abusive (including child abuse) aspects of polygamy and that these abuses shouldn't stand in the way of a constitutional right to free marriage.

It's a harm vs. rights balancing issue. I'm not sure where I stand yet. The harm is real, but the means for dealing with it is the difficult part.

ETA: Some context:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/bustupinbountiful/video.html

[thaiboxerken]

I think this is why the government should get out of the marriage business completely. I think consenting adults should be able to marry each other, in any number and in any gender. I don't think the government should be regulating marriages at all.

[shadron]

Why? In a practical sense adding more people makes more relationships that need to keep working for the marriage to work.

Sort of like a limited partner corporation, ehh? Maybe just a little more intimate, but who's business is that?

As has been argued before, the state only needs to get involved to insure the basic rights of the members (including the existing relatives of all involved) are handled equitably. If it takes a formal contract to do that, then provided the parties can come to terms, what's the basic problem? That's why we have lawyers, right? We can go o the moon but can't find a way in equity to work this?

[Skeptic]

So if I concede the slippery slope, then what harm is there in letting these polyamorous people get married?

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...

[Madalch]

If I could add another wife to the marriage so that the current one would have someone to argue with without me, I might be willing to give it a try.
Are you kidding? They'll gang up on you.

[ponderingturtle]

Sort of like a limited partner corporation, ehh? Maybe just a little more intimate, but who's business is that?

As has been argued before, the state only needs to get involved to insure the basic rights of the members (including the existing relatives of all involved) are handled equitably. If it takes a formal contract to do that, then provided the parties can come to terms, what's the basic problem? That's why we have lawyers, right? We can go o the moon but can't find a way in equity to work this?

We might be able too, but it also might effect binary marriage as well. Gay marriage as it stands does nothing to change marriage, this would require rewriting marriage. It might well come out better, but it is tricky business.

[ziztur]

This is an interesting subject.

I was once part of a triad. Recently - we ended our relationship not quite a year ago.

We (self, female partner, and male partner) heard this argument several times - that gay marriage would lead to polyamory, as if it were self-evident that polyamory is bad/immoral. We knew that the three of us could never get married, aside from symbolically.

[thaiboxerken]

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

It's not dishonest in the slightest.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

No one told you that. It was only ceded to you that gay marriage leads to polygamy for the sole purpose of finding out what harm polygamy posts. In other words, to factor out the "slippery slope" herring and get right to the issue.


The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

Now you've gone off the deep end. Does your paranoia know no bounds?

Polygamy is a different issue than gay-marriage. Get over it.

[NobbyNobbs]

Polygamy is wrong because if some other people form a triad, my marriage will obviously suffer, by....um, by....

Hang on. Maybe not.


(Some tell the Marquis it's a little too early to buy his goat a wedding gown.)

[DC]

Marry 2 Woman? No way, you should be allowed to if you want it, but for me 1 woman is mostly enough stress and im not even married.....

[skepticality]

Back between 1994 and 1996 I was also involved in a Triad. We all assumed that it would take, at least, as long for people to come to grips with people who were dedicated to each other in multiple relationships, as it has taken for folks to even be 'okay' with normal homosexual, one on one relationships.

And, the current spat of states legalizing gay marriage is still only a few weeks/months old. So, I still am unsure just how much 'better' it has become.

It wasn't even a year ago now that the residents of California, of all places, voted on the prop which made same sex marriage illegal. :(

This is an interesting subject.

I was once part of a triad. Recently - we ended our relationship not quite a year ago.

We (self, female partner, and male partner) heard this argument several times - that gay marriage would lead to polyamory, as if it were self-evident that polyamory is bad/immoral. We knew that the three of us could never get married, aside from symbolically.

[Alt+F4]

Where has there ever been a case where a polygamous group (or incestious couple) was denied a marriage license then sued the government claiming that gay marriage gives them, too, the right to marry?

[paximperium]

There is no issue with equality when it comes to polygamy.

[D'rok]

Where has there ever been a case where a polygamous group (or incestious couple) was denied a marriage license then sued the government claiming that gay marriage gives them, too, the right to marry?

Although not related to marriage licenses, this sort of case is ongoing as we speak in Canada. Some Mormon polygamists have been charged under the Criminal Code and are making arguments that the constitutionally protected right to same-sex marriage plus the right to freedom of religion gives them the right to practice polygamy.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/563546
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/08/bc-polygamy-winston-blackmore.html
http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/canada-prosecuting-polygamy-protecting-gay-marraige/

They might even win. The CC prohibitions against polygamy may be struck down as unconstitutional. In which case, the slippery slope argument is at least partially correct.

[BenBurch]

I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.

That said, couple marriages seem to be almost as fragile any more, so why not?

[Typicallucas]

I think the government should butt-out of people's relationships.

Stupid tax benefits...

[DC]

I think the government should butt-out of people's relationships.

Stupid tax benefits...

thats not a solution i think.

its not only about taxes, there are more important things, like who will get money and property in case of death who gets the kids etc.

[thaiboxerken]

thats not a solution i think.

its not only about taxes, there are more important things, like who will get money and property in case of death who gets the kids etc.

That could be part of the contract, perhaps, a requirement to be addressed.

[Toke]

Polygamy is normaly accociated with muslims, mormons, and african tribal law, and have gotten a bad reputation from it.

The equality bit is less of a problem in a "hippi commune" but the law will apply equaly to all.

We got a law in denmark specificaly aimed at muslim immigrants, you have to be 24 years old to marry a forenger. That is to prevent the import and forced marrige of somebodys cousin from the home village.
It is a mayor annoyance to other couples where family preassure is not a issue.

I am not sure what other problems it could cause, but it has been out of use in europe for millenia, there must be a reason.

I wonder what it is.

[DC]

That could be part of the contract, perhaps, a requirement to be addressed.

sure but still involves government, and we still need some guidelines we as a community set ourself i guess. Like parents cant marry their kids etc.

[DC]

Polygamy is normaly accociated with muslims, mormons, and african tribal law, and have gotten a bad reputation from it.

The equality bit is less of a problem in a "hippi commune" but the law will apply equaly to all.

We got a law in denmark specificaly aimed at muslim immigrants, you have to be 24 years old to marry a forenger. That is to prevent the import and forced marrige of somebodys cousin from the home village.
It is a mayor annoyance to other couples where family preassure is not a issue.

I am not sure what other problems it could cause, but it has been out of use in europe for millenia, there must be a reason.

I wonder what it is.

Stress :D

[ziztur]

[quote]
I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.
[\quote]

Yup. Ours didn't either.

I think there are several reasons they don't work:

1. difficulties from within the triad
2. difficulties external to the triad. If you're in a triad and it's not going perfectly, pretty much everyone (who knows) will do their part to convince you that you should leave rather than work things out. Even the slightest bit of difficulty of no degree higher than the difficulty with a typical relationship was met with, "well, maybe you should leave the triad. You're obviously not happy"

Being in the triad was the only time in my life that I felt the need to see a psychologist on a weekly basis though. A few weeks out of the triad and I told her I'd skip a week to get moved into my new apartment, and did not feel the need to return.

But I digress.

Even the marriage thing was an issue, because the other two of the triad were in a relationship and I joined. They had been thinking of getting married, and were considered having the two of them get married legally. So they'd be recognized as husband/wife by law, and I would be....what?

[shadron]

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...

So you feel you were dissed because you made an assumption that didn't pan out? How does your hurt feelings cause a problem in society in general?

Heinlein's Time Enough for Love describes a family of multiple disparate persons who come together to enjoy each other's company. The only rules they have is that the load must be shared, and that you need to have responsibility for raising the children you create. He very much glosses over the problems such a group would have internally, but his point is that there are more ways in heaven and on earth than just two-by-two. He also makes the point that they had to move from one planet to an unsettled new planet in order to do it without being bugged to death.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your argument as germane. Your disappointment in the way society has grown away from the tradition you hold dear is not an excuse to keep it from growing. Go cry in your soup, if that's necessary. Come back with a rational reason.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[BenBurch]

Polyamory is dangerous. My wife would KILL me. ;)

[El_Spectre]

I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.

That said, couple marriages seem to be almost as fragile any more, so why not?

Depends on your definition of "work", I suppose. Most relationships don't result in marriage, and the majority of marriages don't last "'til death do us part". Relationships are tough, and the more complex variations can be even tougher.

That said, there is an argument to be made that (healthy) polyamorous arrangements require open and honest communication on all parts. This can lead to very strong (and happy, and healthy) relationships.

(Not, of course, saying such situations are better than monogamy. "Better" is rather meaningless. Communication is the key, however you choose to go.)

[Fnord]

More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?

("I am having such a rough time in my marriage. I know what will fix it! We'll take on another person! That will make things better! I just know it!")

And if both partners are already getting along, the best that they possibly can, how will bringing another person into the mix improve things?

("We get along so perfectly, so let's bring someone else into our perfection and make it even more perfect!")

Either way, it's like two people having a baby in an effort to make things better - it will either result in a bad situation becoming worse, or a good relationship between two people becoming all muddled up in the needs of the third.

Although I suppose it could work if there were a heirarchy of some kind in place, with the founding couple at the top, and every subsequent marriage partner taking on a progressively subservient role.

No thank you.

[Furcifer]

More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?

("I am having such a rough time in my marriage. I know what will fix it! We'll take on another person! That will make things better! I just know it!")

And if both partners are already getting along, the best that they possibly can, how will bringing another person into the mix improve things?

("We get along so perfectly, so let's bring someone else into our perfection and make it even more perfect!")

Either way, it's like two people having a baby in an effort to make things better - it will either result in a bad situation becoming worse, or a good relationship between two people becoming all muddled up in the needs of the third.

Although I suppose it could work if there were a heirarchy of some kind in place, with the founding couple at the top, and every subsequent marriage partner taking on a progressively subservient role.

No thank you.

I know what you are saying, but so be it. I'm not about to begin telling anyone they should or shouldn't do something like get married to multiple people or out of their race or within their own gender. People should be free to make their own mistakes/choices etc. As long as they are nice to me and love their family more power to them.

[El_Spectre]

More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

Short answer: It works for some people, and it's their business.

[Meadmaker]

Certainly polyagamy is coming. Why wouldn’t it? Of course, it’s already here, but I mean that it will eventually receive some sort of official recognition. I doubt that it will look exactly like “marriage” today, and it will probably go by a different name, but I think there will be, within 20 years, some sort of official recognition of such a relationship.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Imagine a man who lives with two women. One of them is his legal wife, but all three of them are in a “triad” relationship. The three of them think of themselves as one big happy family. None of the parents of the officially married couple approve of their living conditions. The triad family is raising two children. One of them is the biological child of the man and his legal wife. The other is the biological child of the man and his “other wife”. The grandparents are concerned about the way their grandchild is being raised. The man and his wives are approximately 30. The children are approximately 6 years old. The parents of the man and wife are all between 50 and 60 years old. Other than their unorthodox lifestyle, they live normal lives, with no exceptional characteristics.

One day, a tragic automobile accident takes the life of the man and his legal wife. The “other wife” and the two children are unharmed. Assume that they were all happy, well adjusted people prior to the accident, and that the “other wife” is a perfectly capable mother who is also financially able to provide for two children.

Who ought to get custody of the child who was the biological child of the man and his legal wife?

[ziztur]

The assumptions as to why you (3bodyproblem) think people who enter into a polyamorous relationships are not typical reasons people enter into one, though I am sure some people might do it for those reasons.

[Toke]

Who ought to get custody of the child who was the biological child of the man and his legal wife?
Will/contract?

[shuize]

Are you kidding? They'll gang up on you.


Not if I tell one of them the other thinks she looks fat in those clothes before I slip out the back door.

[Furcifer]

The assumptions as to why you (3bodyproblem) think people who enter into a polyamorous relationships are not typical reasons people enter into one, though I am sure some people might do it for those reasons.

Sorry ziz, I'm having trouble translating what you mean here? I think you're saying people enter into these relations for the wrong reasons, so maybe they should be stopped? (that's the general idea right?, I'm presenting a utopian ideal of why they do it?)

If I read you right, I guess my response is people enter into unions for various reasons. I'm not prepared to judge every single one on a case by case basis. If you want to publically declare your love for someone, fine, do it. All I expect is for you to keep to your promise and continue to do so. Don't expect special treatment from me, AFAIK you're expected to do this no matter what your preferences are.

[Typicallucas]

thats not a solution i think.

its not only about taxes, there are more important things, like who will get money and property in case of death who gets the kids etc.

People who have property and kids can figure out a way to distribute it/them. It's not that hard, everybody should have a will. Property laws are already unfair polygamy doesn't do much either way in terms of fairness.

I don't think there is any good reason why polygamy should be illegal. To me it seems totally absurd that someone would go to jail for a life-style choice like this.

Tax benefits and property laws are not that difficult to apply to polygamous marriages.

If anyone wished they had further fuel to flame me, I don't think we should throw people in jail that have sex with animals or for marrying any one or any thing. :)

[Typicallucas]

More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?...

People do all kinds of things I don't understand. But I consider other peoples' relationships none of my business. I wish everybody had the freedom to make lifestyle choices that fit them without having to worry about getting thrown in prison.

[BenBurch]

Will/contract?

Children cannot be passed on by contract. Not sure of the standing of a Will.

[Ferguson]

If polyamory is allowed, the only logical next step will be marrying babies and animals! :D

[slingblade]

What would be a reasonable course of action in a country where, through selective abortion and infanticide, the men disproportionately outnumbered the women? Or women, the men?

If the best option is for a woman to take 2 or 3 husbands, because there simply aren't enough women to go around, would that make polyandry/gamy more acceptable?

[Ferguson]

What would be a reasonable course of action in a country where, through selective abortion and infanticide, the men disproportionately outnumbered the women? Or women, the men?

If the best option is for a woman to take 2 or 3 husbands, because there simply aren't enough women to go around, would that make polyandry/gamy more acceptable?

This is a good point, aren't China and Thailand on the verge of serious demographic crises?

I think it might be a better solution than alternatives (massive emigration etc), as long as the culture can adjust to a change like that.

[slingblade]

Who ought to get custody of the child who was the biological child of the man and his legal wife?

Everyone in the relationship, regardless of biological-parent status, adopts all the children. They are everyone's children, and so the remaining spouse is left with his or her children, as it would be in any marriage.

What if the husband dies? Do the women find another mutual husband, or each take her own, splitting up the half-siblings?

If they all die, will the grandparents of each mother take that mother's child? Will one set of the three sets of grandparents take all the children? Will the kids go into the system and foster homes be found, or other relatives?

[Meadmaker]

Will/contract?

In a will, you can appoint a guardian, but you can't make it stick.

The grandparents would contest, and the "other wife" would have a hard case to make to say that she should be the guardian, as opposed to a relative.

Unless of course, she were a relative, but the only way to achieve that is some sort of marriage-like arrangement.

It's one of the major arguments for why same sex marriage is necessary. Two people raise a kid. One dies, and suddenly the kid doesn't pass to his "other mom", but to grandparents who never approved of the child's mother's lifestyle in the first place.

Polyamorous groups will start raising children together more frequently. As that happens, they'll need the protections associated with marriage.

[luchog]

Aside from, of course... "It's squicky and perverse and amoral and WEIRD", which strikes me as the overt sentiment of Skeptic's "arguments".
Nothing "strikes me" about it, to me. Skeptic is probably the most openly anti-homosexual bigot in the board who hasn't yet been banned as a troll.

[DC]

People who have property and kids can figure out a way to distribute it/them. It's not that hard, everybody should have a will. Property laws are already unfair polygamy doesn't do much either way in terms of fairness.

I don't think there is any good reason why polygamy should be illegal. To me it seems totally absurd that someone would go to jail for a life-style choice like this.

Tax benefits and property laws are not that difficult to apply to polygamous marriages.

If anyone wished they had further fuel to flame me, I don't think we should throw people in jail that have sex with animals or for marrying any one or any thing. :)

I didnt flame at all :D

i dont think it should be illegal, i just think that marriages shoud be handled by the government. But there are sure other ways.

sex with animals, sure jail, unless you can prove its the will of the animal, otherwise it was against the animals will. and its sick anyway :D that more a flame :D

[luchog]

[quote]
I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.
[\quote]

Yup. Ours didn't either.

I think there are several reasons they don't work:

Neither of those difficulties are unique to poly groups. They apply equally well to monogamous relationships as well. When my dad and mom married, all his family members were taking the exact same tack as in your second example, substituting "American" for "polyamourous relationship". I've seen friends go through similar grief from their relatives and social circles for interracial and inter-religious marriages. Some survived, some thrived despite the stress, some failed. The only problem unique to poly relationships is issues of "scheduling" relationship time with all partners involved.

I know a very large number of polyamourous people, triads, quartets, and various other groupings and extended relationship-webs. Some of them have been together for well over a decade at this point. When there have been failures, they have failed for pretty much the exact same reasons that monogamous relationships failed: infidelity, finances, lack of communication, incompatible goals, and just plain unwillingness to work through the difficulties and create compromises when the relationship doesn't end up matching their fantasy.

[Puppycow]

This is where the harm is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia

Some argue that the Criminal Code is sufficient to deal with the abusive (including child abuse) aspects of polygamy and that these abuses shouldn't stand in the way of a constitutional right to free marriage.

It's a harm vs. rights balancing issue. I'm not sure where I stand yet. The harm is real, but the means for dealing with it is the difficult part.

ETA: Some context:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/bustupinbountiful/video.html

Well, we allow people to own guns, even though some people abuse the privilege and use it for murder. Child abuse can and does happen in monogamous marriages too.

[Puppycow]

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that I never made that argument. I'm aware that it exists, but if I didn't make it I don't why I should need to defend it.

[ziztur]

My bad 3body, I attributed Fnord's quote to you.

[Puppycow]

More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?

("I am having such a rough time in my marriage. I know what will fix it! We'll take on another person! That will make things better! I just know it!")Because that's not the reason. Duh.

And if both partners are already getting along, the best that they possibly can, how will bringing another person into the mix improve things?

("We get along so perfectly, so let's bring someone else into our perfection and make it even more perfect!")Also not the reason. Duh.

Either way, it's like two people having a baby in an effort to make things better - it will either result in a bad situation becoming worse, or a good relationship between two people becoming all muddled up in the needs of the third.

Although I suppose it could work if there were a heirarchy of some kind in place, with the founding couple at the top, and every subsequent marriage partner taking on a progressively subservient role.

No thank you.You think that's why people have babies!? :rolleyes: Duh.

[BTMO]

Hey - if everyone is happy in the relationship, who cares, and why is it any business of the states?

[Puppycow]

sex with animals, sure jail, unless you can prove its the will of the animal, otherwise it was against the animals will. and its sick anyway :D that more a flame :D

But since we can kill animals and eat them, as well as own them as chattel, it seems odd to prohibit non-consensual sex with animals.

[Lonewulf]

Nothing "strikes me" about it, to me. Skeptic is probably the most openly anti-homosexual bigot in the board who hasn't yet been banned as a troll.

Really? Most openly? That doesn't feel right, but then again, I can't actually think of any counter examples.

Still, most of what I've seen was him using silly logic to justify silly laws, less than actually being an outright bigot towards homosexuals.

[Puppycow]

I think this is why the government should get out of the marriage business completely. I think consenting adults should be able to marry each other, in any number and in any gender. I don't think the government should be regulating marriages at all.

This is an interesting idea, although the consequences would be very significant.

Did you know, for example, that people in the military get paid more if they are married? They also get paid more for each legal dependent. They also are allowed to live in their own house instead of a military barracks. When I was single in the military, I didn't like this arrangement. Now I am married and the Japanese company I work for also discriminates in a similar way. I get an "allowance" on top of my salary for my wife and kids, which single employees do not get. There definitely seems to be a marriage subsidy as well as a procreation subsidy.

Perhaps these are justified to increase the birthrate, but if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, how would it encourage fertility among the population? Maybe it should not, but then we would also have to figure out another way to support ourselves in our old age, because social security depends on new people being born to pay for the retirements of the old folks.

[Typicallucas]

I didnt flame at all :D

i dont think it should be illegal, i just think that marriages shoud be handled by the government. But there are sure other ways.

sex with animals, sure jail, unless you can prove its the will of the animal, otherwise it was against the animals will. and its sick anyway :D that more a flame :D

I put my response to sex with animals in a new thread because I felt I was getting off-topic

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142296

[Skeptic]

Nothing "strikes me" about it, to me. Skeptic is probably the most openly anti-homosexual bigot in the board who hasn't yet been banned as a troll.

(Sigh)

Only if you redefine "doesn't think gay marriage is a constitutional right" as "bigotry", which is the usual thought-stopping progressive "reply" of trying to shut you up through intimidation: either agree with me or be called bad names, since it is so obvious I am correct, the only possible reason for you to disagree is that you are a heretic, I mean possessed by Satan, I mean a counterrevolutionary, I mean guilty of a thoughtcrime, I mean a homophobe.

Like with the inquisition (no, I am NOT comparing myself to those tortured by it -- the inquisition's flogs and stakes had a nasty tendency of not being able to be laughed off, like I can do with the "bigot!" claims) I was, generously, originally given a chance to repent and join the side of light and truth (supporters of gay marriages). Once it turned out that I am not convinced by the pro-gay-marriage arguments - and actually dare to unapologetically offer counter-arguments -- I was declared an irredeemable heretic, that is, a "homophobe".

Ah well. I guess I'll have to live with that.

No wonder I should be burned at the stake -- I mean, banned; my heresy might spread...

[Typicallucas]

Again, not to get too far OT, the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, gay or straight. Regulation is left to the states.

Maybe the Constitutional Rights of gay people should be a separate thread, but I don't think it is necessary to hate gays in order to oppose gay marriage.

[D'rok]

Well, we allow people to own guns, even though some people abuse the privilege and use it for murder. Child abuse can and does happen in monogamous marriages too.

The difference is that gun ownership is overwhelmingly lawful. Gun owners who commit crimes are the exception, not the rule. Precisely the opposite is true of polygamy. The actual practice of plural marriage, at least here in Canada, is Mormon fundamentalist polygamy with all the abuse that that practice entails. I don't think there are very many, if any, other social groups that want to exercise a right to plural marriage. If we end up with a constitutionally protected right to plural marriage, we would be protecting precisely the behaviour that we want to discourage.

[Typicallucas]

...Gun owners who commit crimes are the exception, not the rule. Precisely the opposite is true of polygamy...with all the abuse that that practice entails...

If someone is committing criminal abuses they should be punished. But not for having an alternative life-style.

[Wolfman]

The difference is that gun ownership is overwhelmingly lawful. Gun owners who commit crimes are the exception, not the rule. Precisely the opposite is true of polygamy. The actual practice of plural marriage, at least here in Canada, is Mormon fundamentalist polygamy with all the abuse that that practice entails. I don't think there are very many, if any, other social groups that want to exercise a right to plural marriage. If we end up with a constitutionally protected right to plural marriage, we would be protecting precisely the behaviour that we want to discourage.What unmitigated bull-feces.

My god. First we had the whole "gay marriage will destroy society" thing. To justify it, they singled out homosexuals who engaged in particularly undesirable activities -- pedophilia, unsafe sex in bathroom stalls, etc. -- and depicted this as somehow being the 'norm', or the inevitable result, or that it would "protect precisely the behavior that we want to discourage".

Fact. Much of the abuse in Bountiful has nothing to do with polygamy itself. The abuse lays in forcing young girls into arranged marriages in which they are sexually abused. It would be no less repulsive or immoral to do this if those arranged marriages were monogamous. Similarly, the strict religious control that their religious leaders exert over the community has nothing to do with polygamy; as is evidenced by the numerous cults that exercise the same (or even greater) control, within a monogamous context.

There should be laws (and those laws should be enforced regardless of 'religious beliefs') regarding forcing anyone (particularly minors) into arranged marriages (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous). There should be laws that grant women equal rights within a marriage with men (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous).

Saying that we'd allow polygamous marriages between consenting adults under a clearly established legal framework that grants equal rights to everyone in the relationship would in no shape, manner, or form vindicate, promote, or protect the kinds of abuses that take place in Bountiful. No more than allowing gay marriage in any manner, shape, or form vindicates, promotes, or protects pedophilia.

Personally, I can't see myself getting into a polygamous relationship. But if there are people who do...I say more power to them. And I say that those people should have the same protections under the law that any other such relationships have. That includes legal right to share property (and to be compensated proportionately in the case of divorce). That includes the right to be considered a family member, and have the right to visit them in the hospital as a family member, inherit property as a family member, etc.

[Typicallucas]

Ditto on everything Wolfman just said.

[D'rok]

What unmitigated bull-feces.

My god. First we had the whole "gay marriage will destroy society" thing. To justify it, they singled out homosexuals who engaged in particularly undesirable activities -- pedophilia, unsafe sex in bathroom stalls, etc. -- and depicted this as somehow being the 'norm', or the inevitable result, or that it would "protect precisely the behavior that we want to discourage".

Fact. Much of the abuse in Bountiful has nothing to do with polygamy itself. The abuse lays in forcing young girls into arranged marriages in which they are sexually abused. It would be no less repulsive or immoral to do this if those arranged marriages were monogamous. Similarly, the strict religious control that their religious leaders exert over the community has nothing to do with polygamy; as is evidenced by the numerous cults that exercise the same (or even greater) control, within a monogamous context.

There should be laws (and those laws should be enforced regardless of 'religious beliefs') regarding forcing anyone (particularly minors) into arranged marriages (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous). There should be laws that grant women equal rights within a marriage with men (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous).

Saying that we'd allow polygamous marriages between consenting adults under a clearly established legal framework that grants equal rights to everyone in the relationship would in no shape, manner, or form vindicate, promote, or protect the kinds of abuses that take place in Bountiful. No more than allowing gay marriage in any manner, shape, or form vindicates, promotes, or protects pedophilia.

Personally, I can't see myself getting into a polygamous relationship. But if there are people who do...I say more power to them. And I say that those people should have the same protections under the law that any other such relationships have. That includes legal right to share property (and to be compensated proportionately in the case of divorce). That includes the right to be considered a family member, and have the right to visit them in the hospital as a family member, inherit property as a family member, etc.

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful. Show me that I'm making a caricature of the issue. I'm basing my argument on the facts on the ground. You are basing your argument on an abstract principle. I don't disagree with the principle, but there is no reasonable comparison between the facts on the ground of same-sex relationships (which encompass a spectrum of behaviours, as you pointed out) and the facts on the ground of plural marriage (which, AFAIK, is Bountiful).

In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?

If you can show me that evidence, I'll change my mind. In your attack on me, you may have missed my earlier post where I said I am still undecided on how to deal with the real issue of harm in Bountiful.

[D'rok]

If someone is committing criminal abuses they should be punished. But not for having an alternative life-style.

As it stands, there is no separation of the two in Canada. The only actual practitioners of plural marriage to my knowledge are the child abusers in Bountiful. And they are ostensibly protected by the freedom of religion right in the Charter. This is the essence of the problem that we face here. All of the existing criminal laws against child abuse and against polygamy itself have not stopped the abuse, so far.

[Symbol]

The Western Christian-based model of marriage is not a biologically or socially "correct" model. It is merely a cultural construct that people who are used to Western norms have been most exposed to.

It's not a bad exercise to try and work out which of our beliefs we have chosen, and which we have merely absorbed from the dominant culture in which we operate.

Other models have worked very successfully in other times, other places. Polygamy was the obvious way to protect women in cultures such as those of bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, where an unmarried (never married or widowed) female needed to be taken into a family unit to ensure her survival. Marriage under a fair arrangement ensured that she could get equal teatment to the other wives in the unit.

Sure, in many societies survival is no longer the sole reason. Let's imagine Ahmed in Saudi Arabia who takes on a second wife today for other reasons - a new younger wife for sexual variety, perhaps. But then, let's compare him with his Western counterpart Allan who has the same desire for a younger sexual partner... the real difference is momogamy laws require Allan to dump his first older wife, divorce her, split their assets, share custody of the kids (or whatever), whereas Ahmed is encouraged to keep his first wife in exactly the same lifestyle, if she chooses to stay, as he provides for his new wife.

Who is living the more ethical life: Ahmed with two wives or divorced and remarried Allan?

There is no absolute right or wrong answer. It is so tied up with cultural mores and social realities.

Let's take another quick example. In about half of US states it is illegal to marry your first cousin. In most other countries it is legal. And in some countries it is positively encouraged. For an example of the latter, look only to the United Arab Emirates, a progressive Gulf Arab nation, where even today about 50% of first marriages are still between first cousins. This is encouraged by a combination of substantial financial payout from the Marriage Fund to Emiratis who marry other Emiratis, plus socially reduced opportunities to meet non-family members, plus a heritage of tribalism where cousin marriage was encouraged for wealth protection.

So is first cousin marriage right or wrong?

My point is that there is no marriage model that can be considered intrinsically more ethical. I may personally not like the idea of marrying two of my cousins in an "incestuous" polyamorous legal union, but I can't see why somebody who wants legal protection for that union shouldn't be granted it.

[Meadmaker]

only actual practitioners of plural marriage to my knowledge are the child abusers in Bountiful.


But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

[D'rok]

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

Possibly. I would consider that to be a valid argument to change our laws if it were the case. I need to be convinced that it is the case.

[Alt+F4]

Although not related to marriage licenses, this sort of case is ongoing as we speak in Canada. Some Mormon polygamists have been charged under the Criminal Code and are making arguments that the constitutionally protected right to same-sex marriage plus the right to freedom of religion gives them the right to practice polygamy.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/563546
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/08/bc-polygamy-winston-blackmore.html
http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/canada-prosecuting-polygamy-protecting-gay-marraige/

They might even win. The CC prohibitions against polygamy may be struck down as unconstitutional. In which case, the slippery slope argument is at least partially correct.

Thanks for the links. For some reason I thought all the polygamist Mormons lived in the U.S.

Yes, these men aren't try to obtain a polygamist marriage, but rather don't want to be charged criminally for polygamy, arguing that it's an issue of religious freedom. They aren't basing their right to practice polygamy on the legalization of gay marriage in Canada.

If there is any slippery slope here it's not about gay marriage leading to polygamy but rather it's religion leading to polygamy. Call something a religious practice then demand the government respect it.

[Alt+F4]

For an example of the latter, look only to the United Arab Emirates, a progressive Gulf Arab nation,...

Huh? Do you know how many people in the UAE are allowed to vote? They have had one election in the past 35 years.

[Cleon]

Thanks for the links. For some reason I thought all the polygamist Mormons lived in the U.S.


They established communities in Canada and Mexico, to give them places to run to if the law started chasing them.

Didn't work too well for Warren Jeffs, though.

[D'rok]

Thanks for the links. For some reason I thought all the polygamist Mormons lived in the U.S.

Yes, these men aren't try to obtain a polygamist marriage, but rather don't want to be charged criminally for polygamy, arguing that it's an issue of religious freedom. They aren't basing their right to practice polygamy on the legalization of gay marriage in Canada.

If there is any slippery slope here it's not about gay marriage leading to polygamy but rather it's religion leading to polygamy. Call something a religious practice then demand the government respect it.

You're basically right, I think. They're basing their legal argument on freedom of religion, but their public rhetoric on that and same-sex marriage. The wrinkle is that we have a reference case from the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The govt asked the Court if same-sex marriage was constitutional before legalising it. It's not exactly a slippery slope, but that whole exercise has been a trigger of sorts for debate on other constitutional reforms.

Also, I should clarify that I am firmly in favour of same-sex marriage and that I don't subscribe to the slippery-slope FUD. The issue of plural marriage is complicated by the presence of actual social harm from polygamists that really wasn't the case with gays and lesbians. Extending constitutional protection to plural marriage has to take this into account.

[Alt+F4]

Naturally, the pro-gay marriage folks first told me I'm crazy for saying gay marriage could possibly lead to this...

Those that seriously want a polygamist marriage base their argument on religious freedom, not gay marriage.

[Symbol]

Huh? Do you know how many people in the UAE are allowed to vote? They have had one election in the past 35 years.

Err, it's not a democracy. It's IMO a union of benevolent autocracies. Also, progress and democracy are not necessarly correlated, but that's another topic.

But point taken. I meant "progressive" relative to other Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

[Dorian Gray]

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...But you're already in a 'triad' - you, conservative talking points and fallacious logic.

It's just as accurate to claim that you want to limit gay marriage because it's unnatural, and then use your same 'slippery hill' argument to ban interracial marriage, and then suffrage, and then emancipation...

[Dorian Gray]

Oh, and polygamous marriages are acceptable, perfectly fine with Jebus and Gawd, and never get punished according to the Bible. They are not considered adulterous, immoral or wrong anywhere in the Bible, or even the Koran (I think). So the religious folks have absolutely no leg to stand on with arguing polygamous marriages are immoral on religious grounds.

It will be hilarious to see them forced into using secular arguments against polygamous marriage.

[Alt+F4]

It will be hilarious to see them forced into using secular arguments against polygamous marriage.

They are going to grasp on to gay marriage since, in the United States at least, the courts have struck down the right to polygamy for over a hundred years.

I wonder how they are going to frame their argument that the right of two consenting same sex adults to marry is comparable to marrying a bunch of 12-year old girls and keeping them as uneducated sexual slaves?

Mormon polygamy won't stand up to the secular test of the 14th Amendment either since what they practice is polygny.

[Typicallucas]

I'm not confident about how to express it, but I think there is something wrong with the way you are approaching this problem.

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful...In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?

As it stands, there is no separation of the two in Canada. The only actual practitioners of plural marriage to my knowledge are the child abusers in Bountiful. And they are ostensibly protected by the freedom of religion right in the Charter. This is the essence of the problem that we face here. All of the existing criminal laws against child abuse and against polygamy itself have not stopped the abuse, so far.

Just because the only polygamy you hear or read about in the news is associated with child abuse doesn't mean that they are the only polygamists out there. Regular old polygamy is boring and doesn't get the headlines like scandalous religious practices do, and regular people who are in polyamorous relationships don't get all married up because they don't want to go to jail.

If these people in Canada are really abusing children they need to be stopped and prosecuted, but I feel like the government should stay out of the relationships between consenting adults. All the way out, not "most of the way out but we still want to keep you from having a three-way marriage."

Having a relationship with two other people shouldn't mean you are a criminal... it is the abusing children that should land you in jail. The correlation between the two practices shouldn't make them both illegal.

Risking getting off track here, but let me make a comparison here... if we perceive all polygamists are child abusers and we feel entitled to make polygamy a crime should we make praying towards Mecca illegal if we perceive Islamists as intolerant terrorists?

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.

Possibly. I would consider that to be a valid argument to change our laws if it were the case. I need to be convinced that it is the case.
I don't think modern society should rely upon popularity of a practice to determine it's legality. How do you determine when the demand is great enough to change the law?

Should we take this approach when we look at the other laws on our books. Some places have laws against having sex with the lights on, against oral sex, anal sex, any position that isn't missionary, having sex with a virgin, the list of wacky laws goes on. How do you determine if you should repeal the law criminalizing anal sex? Do you put pollsters outside of supermarkets and take an opinion? Do you study the illegal sexual habits of consenting adults? If you find that tons and tons of people are breaking the anal sex law does that behoove you to repeal it? Or enforce is more strictly?

If you find that a small segment of the population practices anal sex and a large portion of those people engage in illegal activities like abusing controlled substances or breeding show dogs without a permit does that influence the decision to decriminalize?

Why do you need to see that there is a demand to repeal laws that inhibit people from choosing a lifestyle that suits them?

If the answer is "so that we can discriminate against a particular group that is most likely to choose that lifestye" I don't know how to reason with that. Except to say that we shouldn't use our laws to manipulate people we don't like. We should use our laws to protect people, children, and property.

...The issue of plural marriage is complicated by the presence of actual social harm from polygamists...

Well until polygamy isn't a crime, most of the practitioners will be criminals and I imagine that the numbers of potential polygamists are too low to make political change on their own like gays and pot smokers.

Bottom line: I think you're being unfair. You seem to feel entitled to declare personal lifestyle choices illegal. Enforcing social norms with the threat of imprisonment is wrong. Much of this has been rhetorical, I just hope I have inspired you to think about the issue differently.

[D'rok]

I'm not confident about how to express it, but I think there is something wrong with the way you are approaching this problem.

Thanks for the calm and well thought response. It is appreciated.


Just because the only polygamy you hear or read about in the news is associated with child abuse doesn't mean that they are the only polygamists out there. Regular old polygamy is boring and doesn't get the headlines like scandalous religious practices do, and regular people who are in polyamorous relationships don't get all married up because they don't want to go to jail.I would genuinely be interested to find out about "regular old polygamy". And I also acknowledge that polyamorous people unquestionably do get caught up in the "harmful polygamy" criminal law net. Or, more accurately, they would if they tried to get married here.

If these people in Canada are really abusing children they need to be stopped and prosecuted, but I feel like the government should stay out of the relationships between consenting adults. All the way out, not "most of the way out but we still want to keep you from having a three-way marriage."The problem is that it is very difficult to stop the abuse because of how connected it is to some really fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion. All of the laws against it bump up against the Canadian Charter of Rights, whether or not the laws prohibit polygamy generally or the specific practices of Mormon fundamentalists particularly.

Having a relationship with two other people shouldn't mean you are a criminal... it is the abusing children that should land you in jail. The correlation between the two practices shouldn't make them both illegal.I agree in principle. But, as I said, the pragmatic legal reality is that it is hard to separate the two.


I don't think modern society should rely upon popularity of a practice to determine it's legality. How do you determine when the demand is great enough to change the law?By popularity, do you mean popular acceptance of a practice or the proportion of the populace that practices it? Same-sex marriage is not proportionately popular - it is still very much a small minority life-style choice - but it does enjoy significant popular acceptance. The issue is harm. Is same-sex marriage a harmful practice? Clearly not. Is plural marriage a harmful practice? In some non-trivial instances, clearly yes. If there was a way to carve out constitutional protection for non-harmful plural marriage while denying such protection for the harmful variety, then I would be all for it. The pragmatic reality is that this will be difficult given the already difficult task of addressing the harms of polygamy in its current fully criminalised state. (The laws against polygamy have been on the books for a long time, but this has had essentially no effect on the practice in Bountiful).

Should we take this approach when we look at the other laws on our books. Some places have laws against having sex with the lights on, against oral sex, anal sex, any position that isn't missionary, having sex with a virgin, the list of wacky laws goes on. How do you determine if you should repeal the law criminalizing anal sex? Do you put pollsters outside of supermarkets and take an opinion? Do you study the illegal sexual habits of consenting adults? If you find that tons and tons of people are breaking the anal sex law does that behoove you to repeal it? Or enforce is more strictly?I don't think those are the same issues as the abuse that happens in forced polygamous marriages between girls and older men. The former are clearly matters of consensual sex; the latter is almost certainly sexual abuse.

If you find that a small segment of the population practices anal sex and a large portion of those people engage in illegal activities like abusing controlled substances or breeding show dogs without a permit does that influence the decision to decriminalize?Those illegal activities don't have explicit constitutional protection in the same way that religious practices like polygamy arguably do. There isn't the same issue with separating them.

Why do you need to see that there is a demand to repeal laws that inhibit people from choosing a lifestyle that suits them?I hope that what I've said above makes it clear that this is not what I am arguing.

If the answer is "so that we can discriminate against a particular group that is most likely to choose that lifestye" I don't know how to reason with that. Except to say that we shouldn't use our laws to manipulate people we don't like. We should use our laws to protect people, children, and property.Protecting people and children is very much part of the intent of laws prohibiting polygamy. The problem is that those laws may also abrogate the freedom of others. That's why there is a balancing issue. Can the abrogation be justified?

As an aside, there is a mechanism in the Canadian Charter of Rights to do just that. If the government can show that there is a pressing and substantial objective (e.g. protecting vulnerable children and women) and that the means chosen is proportional to the objective, then a protected right can be abrogated. Proportionately of the means to the objective is the core issue in Canada. Are our criminal law prohibitions against polygamy a means that is proportional to the objective of protecting the women and children in fundamentalist Mormon communities? This is about to be challenged, and I suspect there is a good chance that the answer is "no". Which means that constitutional protection will extend to religious practices of polygamy, and it will be that much harder to craft laws to protect those vulnerable women and children.



Bottom line: I think you're being unfair. You seem to feel entitled to declare personal lifestyle choices illegal. Enforcing social norms with the threat of imprisonment is wrong. Much of this has been rhetorical, I just hope I have inspired you to think about the issue differently.I think you've misunderstood me. But I appreciate the civilised manner in which you have expressed your disagreement.

[Typicallucas]

Thanks for the reply.

I guess I don't agree with your conclusion that polygamy is by it's nature connected to child abuse and we have some duty to prevent those marriages. My perspective on the connection is simply polygamy is currently a serious crime and anyone who isn't a criminal and/or religious nut wouldn't knowingly take part.

I guess keeping it illegal does help point out who doesn't give two shoots about their country's laws...

I think if polygamous marriage wasn't illegal we would have peace-loving, non-child-abusing triples who love each other enough to get married...

I sincerely doubt that if polygamous marriage were made legal today, we would see an increase in child abuse tomorrow. I would assume that any religious nut hell-bent on abusing children under the guise of religious freedom is going to do so anyway.

But I'm willing to bet that you have an awful lot more practictioners of plural cohabitation. If it were not illegal, some of those cohabiters would seek marriage licenses.Possibly. I would consider that to be a valid argument to change our laws if it were the case. I need to be convinced that it is the case.I don't think modern society should rely upon popularity of a practice to determine it's legality.By popularity, do you mean popular acceptance of a practice or the proportion of the populace that practices it?I used the word popularity because you seemed to tell Meadmaker that if there was a lot of people who would take advantage of the freedom to have polygamous marriages that you thought that would be a good argument supporting polygamy. My question was directed at your line of thinking. Did I misunderstand you? If not, I hope you'll still answer the question.

The issue is harm. Is same-sex marriage a harmful practice? Clearly not. Is plural marriage a harmful practice? In some non-trivial instances, clearly yes. I know that there are plenty of people who can give a passionate argument to the exact opposite of this statement. I don't think either are ultimately supportable.

Looking at polygamous marriage through this perspective (that it is linked with crime) is a limited view. And to restrict the rights of (and potentially imprison) otherwise law-abiding citizens is not a very fair policy.

[Typicallucas]

I made this for fun :) http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=191&pictureid=1022

[D'rok]

I used the word popularity because you seemed to tell Meadmaker that if there was a lot of people who would take advantage of the freedom to have polygamous marriages that you thought that would be a good argument supporting polygamy. My question was directed at your line of thinking. Did I misunderstand you? If not, I hope you'll still answer the question.

It goes to the proportionality of the objective to the means that I discussed above. If there are a lot of people who are not able to enter into consensual plural marriages because of the current state of the law, then that law is not proportional to the objective of protecting the vulnerable. In other words, if criminalizing polygamy in order to protect the vulnerable women and children in fundy Mormon communities really does lead to the wholesale trampling of the rights of a lot of other Canadians, then the law is bad and should be changed.

[Typicallucas]

Can you address my argument that there is not a causal link between crime and polygamy. If I am correct then this law doesn't really protect children.

If polygamy is against the law, but it is not enforced against Canadian Mormons, how can you argue that the intent of the law is to prevent Mormons from abusing their underage wives. Shouldn't Canada just enforce laws regarding sex with minors and marriage to minors?

How is it possible in the real world to protect children from sexual predators with anti-bigamy laws? Our governments need to be tracking down child molesters, arresting them at gunpoint, running them through the judicial system, and punishing the crap out of them. Not being concerned with marital status.

[Alex Libman]

Marriage should just be a contract between sovereign self-owning individuals, and the government has no right to get involved in any possible way. The quantities and genders of the individuals involved is outright irrelevant.

While natalism is functionally important for a healthy economy, government-enforced monogamy is nothing short of reproductive communism!

[D'rok]

Can you address my argument that there is not a causal link between crime and polygamy. If I am correct then this law doesn't really protect children.

There is not necessarily a casual connection between crime and polygamy per se, but as it is practiced in Bountiful, there is. Thus the laws against it.

If polygamy is against the law, but it is not enforced against Canadian Mormons, how can you argue that the intent of the law is to prevent Mormons from abusing their underage wives. Shouldn't Canada just enforce laws regarding sex with minors and marriage to minors?

How is it possible in the real world to protect children from sexual predators with anti-bigamy laws? Our governments need to be tracking down child molesters, arresting them at gunpoint, running them through the judicial system, and punishing the crap out of them. Not being concerned with marital status.

The Mormon polygamists in Bountiful use the Canadian Constitution as a shield. That is where the enforcement problem comes in. Also, there is a basic sensitivity to the problems of law enforcement vs. isolated religious communities. No one wants a Waco situation.

[Alt+F4]

While natalism is functionally important for a healthy economy, government-enforced monogamy is nothing short of reproductive communism!

While I like the term "reproductive communism", monogamy is not required for marriage.

[Alt+F4]

The Mormon polygamists in Bountiful use the Canadian Constitution as a shield. That is where the enforcement problem comes in. Also, there is a basic sensitivity to the problems of law enforcement vs. isolated religious communities. No one wants a Waco situation.

Or the mess at the YFZ Ranch in Texas last year.

Question though. In Canada is sexual relations with a minor protected as a method of religious expression?

[Cleon]

While natalism is functionally important for a healthy economy, government-enforced monogamy is nothing short of reproductive communism!

Nominated. That sentence is hilarious.

[D'rok]

Or the mess at the YFZ Ranch in Texas last year.

Question though. In Canada is sexual relations with a minor protected as a method of religious expression?

Of course not. But giving constitutional protection to polygamy on the grounds of religious freedom would make it more difficult to protect minors in those communities.

[Typicallucas]

There is not necessarily a casual connection between crime and polygamy per se, but as it is practiced in Bountiful, there is. Thus the laws against it.

The Mormon polygamists in Bountiful use the Canadian Constitution as a shield. That is where the enforcement problem comes in. Also, there is a basic sensitivity to the problems of law enforcement vs. isolated religious communities. No one wants a Waco situation.

Can you see that if the relationship between child abuse and polygamy is coincidental and circumstantial then enforcing anti-polygamy would only have a beneficial effect on the small group of minors abused in this cult? (but likely won't even help them... :()

The connection between crime & polygamy in Bountiful is specifically: Man has sex with 13 year old girl, she is now his wife. The crime and the marriage happen at the same time. Making the marriage invalid or illegal won't stop this kind of child molestation.

Can you agree that instead of upholding unnecessary restrictions on your population the Canadian government should take a direct approach to protecting it's children? Specifically tracking down predators including religious whack-jobs, arresting them at gun-point, and giving them the polyamorous shaft in prison?

Am I right?

[Alex Libman]

Nominated. That sentence is hilarious.

I don't really care for any nominations, but I hope you just meant the second half of that sentence. Natalism is... complicated (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=28831)...

Communism redistributes wealth from the competent to the incompetent (at least in theory, it just destroys wealth in practice). Government-enforced monogamy does the very same thing: keeps the most attractive / desirable individuals from having multiple spouses, as they naturally would, to appease everyone else.

[Bill Thompson]

Slippery slope!

Where DO we draw the line?
If we allow gay marrages (which, I think, is fair and I support) why not plural marrages.

There is more logical an argument for plural and multiple marrages than gay marrages because, (we refuse to admit in our modern societies) multiple marrages were here first and they are more natural than the legal system in the USA.

[Wolfman]

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful. Show me that I'm making a caricature of the issue. I'm basing my argument on the facts on the ground. You are basing your argument on an abstract principle. I don't disagree with the principle, but there is no reasonable comparison between the facts on the ground of same-sex relationships (which encompass a spectrum of behaviours, as you pointed out) and the facts on the ground of plural marriage (which, AFAIK, is Bountiful).Yes, let us ignore entirely the entirety of world history, and the experiences of people in other countries. Let us focus only on one isolated instance, and use that instance to draw all our conclusions. It worked for discriminating against blacks, against gays, against women...no reason it shouldn't work here.

As cited in the OP, there are people who willingly enter into polygamous relationships that are equal, and do not in any way involve things such as forced marriages, sexual abuse, religious fundamentalism, or any of those other things.

Historically, polygamy has been practiced in numerous cultures. In most cases, those were patriarchal cultures in which the women were subordinated to the men, and abuse did take place...but the true is same of pretty much every monogamous culture, as well, until legal measures were put in place to ensure equal rights for both parties in a marriage.

And there's the most important item -- monogamy, in and of itself, is in no way a 'protection' against any of the abuses we see in Bountiful. Not only can those abuses happen in monogamous relationships, but for the majority of history, they were the norm!

Hell, if I use your argument, then 500 years ago I could reasonably have argued that sexual abuse, religious fundamentalism, forced marriages, and many other such behaviors were the norm in monogamous relationships...and that therefore, monogamous marriage was wrong, and should be made illegal.

It wasn't the form of relationship, or the form of marriage, that determined those things. It was a combination of the societal norms (what was considered allowable, and what was not) and legal protections. It wasn't that long ago that Canadian law considered that rape within a marriage was not a crime...that it was a man's 'right' to demand sex from his wife. Those were universally monogamous marriages. The issue of marital rape had nothing to do with monogamy; as is evidenced by the fact that, when laws were created to criminalize it, women were able to seek legal recourse and protection if such abuse took place.
In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?Again, sadly lacking in anything approaching logical analyis.

1) Despite the criminal code prohibitions, those abuses are still taking place; primarily because it is seen as a religious issue, and sadly Canadian gov't officials seem unwilling to tackle the issue of religious freedom even when it involves such abuse.

2) It isn't the polygamy itself that is the problem. "Polygamy" is not defined as "forced marriages with underage girls under the guise of fundamentalist religion". As I said before, these things would be just as wrong, and just as illegal, if they were committed within monogamous marriages.

3) Granting consenting adults the right to marry each other in a polygamous relationship would have no bearing whatsoever on the legality of forcing underaged girls into marriage, or of using a fundamentalist dogmatism to enforce obedience.

4) I won't claim that there are huge numbers of people who want this kind of relationship; but they are out there. Criminalizing it has no benefit that I can see at all. I do have friends in Ontario who have a three-way 'polygamous' relationship (two men, and one woman, in fact). Two of them are legally married; the third one lives with them as an equal partner, but has no legal protections. When his 'wife' was hospitalized several years ago, he was not allowed in to visit her because he wasn't a family member. Despite the fact that they share money, resources, and property, if they were to separate later, he'd have no legal claim to any of that property.

Legalizing polygamous marriages would not mean legalizing what happens at Bountiful -- forcing girls into marriage would still be illegal. As would sexual abuse. These are entirely separate issues.
If you can show me that evidence, I'll change my mind. In your attack on me, you may have missed my earlier post where I said I am still undecided on how to deal with the real issue of harm in Bountiful.Then try actually taking a more global view, and not deriving your entire 'database' from one isolated case.

Would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing forced marriages to underage girls? No.

Would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing forcing adult women into marriages against their will? No.

Would legalizing polygamy mean legalizing sexual abuse within a marital relationship? No.

In other words, all those aspects of what happens at Bountiful that we find most repulsive would still be entirely illegal. And the gov't would still have the legal means to prosecute them for such abuses...if they had the balls and could get over this Canadian obsession with political-correctness-gone-crazy.

So go ahead...please tell me one single abuse that takes place at Bountiful that would become legal or defensible if polygamy were made legal, applying all the same legal requirements and constraints that we currently apply to monogamous marriages.

[Wolfman]

Let me try another direction on this.

If one is to argue that polygamy should not be legal, one must demonstrate that there are abuses within polygamy which A) are a direct result of polygamy, and B) would not happen in monogamous marriages under the same legal structure.

In regards to the first item, the abuses at Bountiful aren't "because of polygamy". They are because of a fundamentalist religion that exercises strict control over all its members. They could just as easily be monogamous, and still have all the same abuses.

In regards to the second item, there are absolutely no abuses that happen within polygamous marriages that do not or cannot happen within monogamous marriages. Girls forced into marriage. Sexual abuse. Religious domination. You name it...it happens on both sides of the fence. This is the reason we have laws to prevent such things. The fact that the B.C. gov't has been woefully inadequate in enforcing those laws in the Bountiful community has nothing to do with polygamy; it has to do with a wishy-washy gov't that doesn't have the balls to take a firm stand in a controversial issue. The laws are already in place to take action on sexual abuse, non-consensual marriages, and other such things.

I don't think that this is a huge, vital national issue -- the number of people who want polygamous relationships is, undoubtedly, quite small. However, it is simply stupid to criminalize such behavior. To tell three mature, consenting adults that if they seek to form a legal three-way union, not only will they be denied that right, but they can be prosecuted and imprisoned for trying to do so. And it is ridiculous, when three (or more) people do agree to such a relationship, to deny them the same legal rights and protections that are routinely extended to anyone who has a 'normal' monogamous marriage.

In essence, you are arguing that a woman who marries a single man, forming a monogamous marriage, has equal rights within that relationship -- equal rights in regards to property, legal protection, legal status, etc. But if a third woman (or man) enters that relationship, of their own free will, not only do they deserve no legal protection, but they should be prosecuted for seeking to do so.

How flippin' ridiculous.

[D'rok]

Never mind. I feel no need to defend myself against your distortions. Particularly outright lies like this:

In essence, you are arguing that a woman who marries a single man, forming a monogamous marriage, has equal rights within that relationship -- equal rights in regards to property, legal protection, legal status, etc. But if a third woman (or man) enters that relationship, of their own free will, not only do they deserve no legal protection, but they should be prosecuted for seeking to do so.

You are clearly not willing to engage with me based on what I actually say. I bid you good day.

Cheers.

D.

[Wolfman]

Never mind. I feel no need to defend myself against your distortions. You are clearly not willing to engage with me based on what I actually say. I bid you good day.

Cheers.

D."Distortions"?

I'll give you a simple chance to defend yourself. Simply demonstrate how A) there are abuses that are a direct result of polygamy, and B) that are unique to polygamy, and do not occur in monogamous relationships (under the same legal structure regarding rights and protections).

Or demonstrate how legalizing polygamy would mean that forcing girls at Bountiful into marriage, or committing acts of sexual abuse and exploitation, would suddenly become 'legal' or 'justifiable'.

Or argue why an adult who seeks to, of their own free will, enter into a polygamous relationship in which all parties are equal, should A) be deprived of any legal protections within that relationship, and/or B) have such an action criminalized, and face the prospect of prison for doing so.

My friend, it is you who is distorting things, trying to present the situation in Bountiful as some sort of 'norm' for polygamy; and trying to argue that somehow legalizing polygamy would also legalize or justify forcing underage girls into marriage, or sexual abuse. You make this case by focusing exclusively on the community at Bountiful, and ignoring entirely situations such as that described in the OP.

ETA: This is a skeptical forum. Generally speaking, taking one isolated instance, and using that as the sole basis for one's claims, is the very antithesis of skeptical or critical thinking. It is one of the most common methods of 'distorting' truth, or of making biased arguments...choose a case that supports your opinion, and ignore all others. You've not only failed to demonstrate that the abuses at Bountiful are an inevitable result of polygamy, but also failed entirely to address the several cases of consensual polygamy that have been raised by myself and others here -- including the OP. Hardly an attempt at 'honest' discussion or debate.

[Dorian Gray]

They are going to grasp on to gay marriage since, in the United States at least, the courts have struck down the right to polygamy for over a hundred years.

I wonder how they are going to frame their argument that the right of two consenting same sex adults to marry is comparable to marrying a bunch of 12-year old girls and keeping them as uneducated sexual slaves?

Mormon polygamy won't stand up to the secular test of the 14th Amendment either since what they practice is polygny.
Odd that someone who is so pedantic on definitions has somehow gotten the definition of polygamy completely wrong.

[Alex Libman]

The final frontier will be people trying to set a record for the largest marriage. I guess marriage contracts would define the procedures for taking in a new spouse (ex. do the existing spouses all have to consent, or do they agree ahead of time to abide by the will of the majority). Huge marriages could become like corporations, with mergers, splits, and so on. :boggled:

I'm sure most people will keep it within reason though, and weirdos can always be ostracized.

[BTMO]

The final frontier will be people trying to set a record for the largest marriage. I guess marriage contracts would define the procedures for taking in a new spouse (ex. do the existing spouses all have to consent, or do they agree ahead of time to abide by the will of the majority). Huge marriages could become like corporations, with mergers, splits, and so on. :boggled:

I'm sure most people will keep it within reason though, and weirdos can always be ostracized.

:)

I recommend the Robert Heinlein book "Friday". This sort of thing is explored in some detail.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Marriage should just be a contract between sovereign self-owning individuals, and the government has no right to get involved in any possible way. The quantities and genders of the individuals involved is outright irrelevant.

I say it shouldn't be.

As it is, marriage is more than a contract, it is a status. I can cite precedent.

[Alex Libman]

I recommend the Robert Heinlein book "Friday". This sort of thing is explored in some detail.

Yeah. I'm a Heinlein fan myself.


[...] more than a contract, it is a status [...]

A "status" that is voluntary, that involves more than one adult, and that is legally binding is called a "contract".


[...] I can cite precedent.

You mean some sort of a government-imposed cohabitation law? Humbug!

I am a rational individual. Your religious mumbo jumbo holds no weight with me! :p

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

Polygamy, in practice, means older men getting a younger trophy wife without the bother and expense of having to divorce the older one, keeping the latter as a sort of unpaid super-maid, to cook and clean and take care of the children.

Sure, in theory, the older wife may refuse to it. In pratice, it is not hard to convince the getting-on-in-years housewife that this is her best option, and preferable to divorce, which would be worse for the husband but also worse for her. ("If you don't agree to let me marry my secretary, I will make you tons of trouble in family court!").

Sure, in theory, polyandry -- two men and one woman -- would also be legal. But most men, especially younger men, are not willing to "share" a woman, let alone an older woman, with another man, while far more young women are willing to "catch" an older, richer guy, even if it means sharing it with his (first) wife.

Sure, men have had younger mistresses before. But the ability to legalize the mistress -- to put her legally on par with the wife -- gives both much more motivation to get one, and much more power to the mistress and the husband to discard the older wife to the dishes and laundry where she belongs at her advanced age of 42, than ever before.

Ah, polygamy. "Want to ditch your older wife and get that hot chick without consequences? No alimony! No divorce court! Oh, and as a bonus -- want to still have the ol' ball-and-chain do the dishes for you? Well, it's not just for the rich any more!".

But what do I care. No skin off my nose! And there's this younger hot girl I've been eyeing for a while, anyway. Time to give my wife the "oh, what's wrong with loving MORE than one person at a time?" schtick. The law, once polygamy is legalized, would be on my side. Heck, if she won't be satisfied with the super-maid position, let her fight me in divorce court. I'm sure she'll see the wisdom of consenting.

[Typicallucas]

(Shrug)

Well since you put it that way Skeptic. I am totally convinced.

That you are not exercising any skeptical thinking in this conversation.

Is your unimpressive collection of sentences supposed to convince us that polygamous marriage should be illegal?

[slingblade]

But what do I care. No skin off my nose! And there's this younger hot girl I've been eyeing for a while, anyway. Time to give my wife the "oh, what's wrong with loving MORE than one person at a time?" schtick. The law, once polygamy is legalized, would be on my side. Heck, if she won't be satisfied with the super-maid position, let her fight me in divorce court. I'm sure she'll see the wisdom of consenting.

So, for the sake of argument, you pretend to be contemplating a plural marriage that you know your current and only spouse wouldn't accept, and pretend to callous indifference of her feelings, and this emotional display is supposed to be an argument against allowing mutually consenting adults to form the kind of family structure they want?

You care to rethink that position, even a little?



I had rather an epiphany when Libman mentioned "corporate families." You know, one of those "ah-ha!" moments? Maybe it's an American or Capitalist POV, but I have no problem imagining such a structure. A really, really simplified look at economic progression shows us moving from two-adult families in which work was what you did at home to stay alive, to Dad going off to work, to the kids going, mom going when society allowed her to work, then back to just Dad....then Mom again, and then kids down to maybe 14.

Today, two-income families are the norm and usually a necessity. Since nothing remains static, this dynamic will change. I can see people consolidating families to combine incomes, living accommodations, transportation, child care--heck, that alone makes it sound a little more reasonable: having three or four working parents and one parent who stays home full time to do the child care.

Who says everyone has to have sex? Who says a large marriage has to be about sex at all, but about finances and support and a microcosmic social system instead? Shoot, I'd marry another family or two right now, combine households, and do all the housewifey child care-y stuff for everyone, you bet!

Why can't there be households where some members are polyamorous, and others share the chores, finances, parenting, and so-forth? Why couldn't two gay gentlemen marry a hetero couple, donate sperm to their wife, and all share the children as co-parents? Or, of course, any other imaginable combination of sexual orientations, who get together to accomplish mutual goals?

Why can't marriage evolve?

[Typicallucas]

Because little housewives might get their feelings hurt :(

Isn't that how we make all our laws? So that people will be protected from getting their feelings hurt?

[Meadmaker]

I can't help but notice that so much of the discussion has been all about whether or not to give people what they want. Three people want to live together as a family. All are adults. Surely there's nothing wrong with giving people what they want, is there?

This whole view is a bit self indulgent if you ask me. I'm all for letting people have the freedom to do what they wish, but when it comes to "marriage" I see a state sponsored status that ought to serve the interests of society. Most importantly, it should serve the interests of those people who live in such a situation, but did not choose to do so. Children don't get to choose their parents' lifestyles.

I have to admit to much indecision on topics like this, but the basic principle isn't that difficult for me. Marriage should create conditions for raising families. Otherwise, it has no purpose. If you could convince me that there is harm to a child being raised in a polygamous situation, then I would not hesitate to say that polygamy should not be recognized by the state.

As it is, I can't say that with any confidence. It doesn't "seem" right to me. It "seems" that a kid is better off with a mom and a dad, and knowing who is who, and not having to wonder if he will shortly have to share his home with dad's new wife. However, that might be just my prejudice talking. Perhaps there's really nothing wrong with it at all. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I suppose I can't come up with a good reason to keep it illegal. If it's legal to raise children in such a fashion, then the state must provide some recognition of that situation, and provide some protection from abandonment for the children being raised in that fashion.

In the long run, I think that will happen. The rather indulgent view of, "They want it so they should get it.' will win out, and some sort of legal recognition of polygamy will come about.

However, I think Skeptic is right on the money about what polygamy means in practice. I've known a few triads, and there are patterns. Man and wife live together, perhaps in an "open relationship". Eventually, new girl moves in. At some point, wife divorces husband, and moves out. I have only known one case where they actually refer to each other as "co-wives", and have had a stable situation for many years, and, frankly, the "official wife", i.e. the first wife, has been practically abandoned in her own home.

[shadron]

I had rather an epiphany when Libman mentioned "corporate families." You know, one of those "ah-ha!" moments? Maybe it's an American or Capitalist POV, but I have no problem imagining such a structure. A really, really simplified look at economic progression shows us moving from two-adult families in which work was what you did at home to stay alive, to Dad going off to work, to the kids going, mom going when society allowed her to work, then back to just Dad....then Mom again, and then kids down to maybe 14.

Today, two-income families are the norm and usually a necessity. Since nothing remains static, this dynamic will change. I can see people consolidating families to combine incomes, living accommodations, transportation, child care--heck, that alone makes it sound a little more reasonable: having three or four working parents and one parent who stays home full time to do the child care.

Who says everyone has to have sex? Who says a large marriage has to be about sex at all, but about finances and support and a microcosmic social system instead? Shoot, I'd marry another family or two right now, combine households, and do all the housewifey child care-y stuff for everyone, you bet!

Why can't there be households where some members are polyamorous, and others share the chores, finances, parenting, and so-forth? Why couldn't two gay gentlemen marry a hetero couple, donate sperm to their wife, and all share the children as co-parents? Or, of course, any other imaginable combination of sexual orientations, who get together to accomplish mutual goals?

Why can't marriage evolve?

Absolutely. Like I said in post #22, I think it's entirely feasible that the reasons for the state sticking heir head into marriage (ie, how do we create, dissolve and handle this entity in equity with others) can be settled with corporate law. These problems have been handled with respect to your local Kiwanis club, and for Google as a legal entity, why not marriage? Sure, there will be lots of experimentation before the forms setle down, but that's just evolution (excuse the extrqapolation of science into socioology) and, of course, it does give lawyers even a more secure hold on society, but then, they've got that anyway with marriage laws being what they are.

As it is, marriage is more than a contract, it is a status. I can cite precedent.

That sounds suspiciously like a soul to me. How is it that "status" cannot be handled by contract? The status of a corporation is managed by law (say, tax status). Do we have something magical here?

[shadron]

I can't help but notice that so much of the discussion has been all about whether or not to give people what they want. Three people want to live together as a family. All are adults. Surely there's nothing wrong with giving people what they want, is there?

This whole view is a bit self indulgent if you ask me. I'm all for letting people have the freedom to do what they wish, but when it comes to "marriage" I see a state sponsored status that ought to serve the interests of society. Most importantly, it should serve the interests of those people who live in such a situation, but did not choose to do so. Children don't get to choose their parents' lifestyles.

I have to admit to much indecision on topics like this, but the basic principle isn't that difficult for me. Marriage should create conditions for raising families. Otherwise, it has no purpose. If you could convince me that there is harm to a child being raised in a polygamous situation, then I would not hesitate to say that polygamy should not be recognized by the state.

As it is, I can't say that with any confidence. It doesn't "seem" right to me. It "seems" that a kid is better off with a mom and a dad, and knowing who is who, and not having to wonder if he will shortly have to share his home with dad's new wife. However, that might be just my prejudice talking. Perhaps there's really nothing wrong with it at all. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I suppose I can't come up with a good reason to keep it illegal. If it's legal to raise children in such a fashion, then the state must provide some recognition of that situation, and provide some protection from abandonment for the children being raised in that fashion.

In the long run, I think that will happen. The rather indulgent view of, "They want it so they should get it.' will win out, and some sort of legal recognition of polygamy will come about.

However, I think Skeptic is right on the money about what polygamy means in practice. I've known a few triads, and there are patterns. Man and wife live together, perhaps in an "open relationship". Eventually, new girl moves in. At some point, wife divorces husband, and moves out. I have only known one case where they actually refer to each other as "co-wives", and have had a stable situation for many years, and, frankly, the "official wife", i.e. the first wife, has been practically abandoned in her own home.

Two things about these arguments. First, you'll never find the sort of "ability to raise children" data until it is tried. Are there any studies about the sociology of the children raised in the 60's hippy communes? Even if there are, I think that data would be rather biased by the parent's express need to be non-conformists in the first place. How would it turn out in, say, a family with four or six normally conservative/liberal, mainline sorts of people living together? That's data you won't find until it is really tried.

The second point you make about the "practical result" of multiple people in family settings is biased by the fact that since society is so not forthcoming with acceptance, then creation of such a family is always a sub-rosa affair, rather than one entered into with eyes open and rights/privileges/obligations out on the table. It sort of requires some amount of rationality on the part of all involved, which presupposes some level of education and a level playing field. Normal pre-marital counselling attempts to do that, but it is far too litle, too late. As it is right now it is certainly just as easy to build a lopsided pair arrangement as it is a triad or other; your argument would argue against any marriage if we did not have the current style so deeply ingrained into us and our society. Perhaps the use of some contract law brought to bear there would resul in less strife in all families, from two partners on up.

[Skeptic]

Polygamy would be, in effect, a legal reward for infidelity and cheating. Now cheating is a cause for divorce... if polygamy is legalized, it would be a way for the cheater to give the new flame the same legal status the person he cheats on.

Sure, in theory, only with her consent... but in practice, epecially if the husband is the party that makes the money in the marriage, it would be possible, and indeed often will be the case, to make the wife consent to the humiliating new status, as preferable to poverty.

To be sure, now, too, some women close their eyes and prefer not to know what their husband is doing, in preference to exposing him and risking the economic consequences. But to legalize such second-class treatment by allowing a second wife would be an outrage.

Polygamy makes cheating on one's wife, not punished by law as it is today, but rewarded by it. Consequently, the wife's role would be to make damn sure her husband doesn't cheat even when the law and nature are both pushing him to it... and there's no better way to do that than to be sweet as honey and without any other thought except for making his life comfortable. Its the enshrinement of women as 2nd class citizens.

But again, upon repflection, why not? I, as a man, have an obvious interest in pushing back women's legal status to that of the Islamic world in the 18th century. Heck, they had too many rights in the last 200 years anyway. If, by some insanity, polygamy is how a "progressive" idea about "rights" (of men), what do I care?

[Lonewulf]

LOL! "Pushing back women's legal status to the Islamic world in the 18th century".

Wow. Talk about fear mongering.

And you don't consider that just a tad exaggerated? No? Well, when you got your dogma, you got it, I guess.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This comment is stand alone and not based on anyone's previous comment.

I am still not on board with same-sex marriage for any other reason than I think civil/domestic partnerships shoud fill a sufficient legal role. I'm also not opposed to same-sex marriage because I think the arguments the religious right are making are absurd* and because the equal protection clause means that if two people can marry, two people should be able to marry as long as other mitigating circumstances come into play.

Which brings me back to their rediculous "what about polygamy/marry your dog" B.S. they spew. Polygamy and, I assume, other forms of plural marriage are already outlawed by the various states and, I further assume, federal statutes. There are plenty of recent historical examples of why plural marriage does't lead to a stable society - see the FLDS "lost boys" and where do you think Janissaries come from?

Anyway, back to "polyamorous marriages", I suggest the sexual libertines amongst us check out the documentary Sex With Strangers for what sort of effect swinging and "polyamory" has on actual relationships as opposed to sexual fantasy.

[Symbol]

Polygamy makes cheating on one's wife, not punished by law as it is today, but rewarded by it. Consequently, the wife's role would be to make damn sure her husband doesn't cheat even when the law and nature are both pushing him to it... and there's no better way to do that than to be sweet as honey and without any other thought except for making his life comfortable. Its the enshrinement of women as 2nd class citizens.

But again, upon repflection, why not? I, as a man, have an obvious interest in pushing back women's legal status to that of the Islamic world in the 18th century. Heck, they had too many rights in the last 200 years anyway. If, by some insanity, polygamy is how a "progressive" idea about "rights" (of men), what do I care?


To get back on track, this discussion is about polyamory, not polygamy. Polyamory also allows for a women to take on an additional partner, with her husband's consent.

That evens the playing fields a bit, doesn't it?

:)

[Meadmaker]

To get back on track, this discussion is about polyamory, not polygamy. Polyamory also allows for a women to take on an additional partner, with her husband's consent.

That evens the playing fields a bit, doesn't it?

:)

It is about "polyamorous marriages". Linguistically, it's hard to see exactly what he meant by that. If everyone involved is married, then it's polygamy.

If a woman takes on an addition partner, but only the original man and woman remain married in the legal sense of the word, then it's already allowed, and the question from the OP is moot.

Some people think that "polygamy" means "multiple wives", but there is no gender connotation to the word.

po·lyg·a·my (pə-lĭg'ə-mē)
n.
The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.


polyamory
n
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

(Taken from dictionary.com)

The latter is perfectly legal in the United States today. However, one member of the triad in the OP said:

“I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship. But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.”

If he wants the legal rights, that would require polygamy, not polyamory.

The reason people think of polygamy as multiple wives, as opposed to multiple spouses, is that, in practice, that's what happens. Men don't share women.

[slingblade]

Anyway, back to "polyamorous marriages", I suggest the sexual libertines amongst us check out the documentary Sex With Strangers for what sort of effect swinging and "polyamory" has on actual relationships as opposed to sexual fantasy.

I already know from experience what effect it had on my marriage, thanks.

Want to talk to my husband of almost 20 years? He was there, too. :D

[Skeptic]

To get back on track, this discussion is about polyamory, not polygamy. Polyamory also allows for a women to take on an additional partner, with her husband's consent.

That evens the playing fields a bit, doesn't it?

:)

Not really. As Voltaire said in another context, the law, in its imperial equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging for alms, and stealing a loaf of bread. I guess that "leveled the playing field" between rich and poor, didn't it?

In THEORY both women and men would be allowed to do this. In PRACTICE it would be, nine times out of ten, the succesful career man who discards his aging housewife-of-a-spouse for a newer model... only now, he doesn't have to actually discard her, he can just pressure her into "consenting" to the newer model having the exact same rights as she does.

But as I said, heck, *I'm* all for it. I'd love to have the option to pressume *my* wife into the super-maid role as I have fun with my young secretary -- all legal and recognized! No more divorce court! Cooooooool.

Oh yeah, there's all this BS mumbo-jumbo about being "polyamorous", "different kind of family", "being able to love more than one person at one time"... but if you believe THAT, I've got a bridge to sell you. Perhaps there are some, rare, people for whom that is really the case. For 99% of people, no.

[slingblade]

But as I said, heck, *I'm* all for it. I'd love to have the option to pressume *my* wife into the super-maid role as I have fun with my young secretary -- all legal and recognized! No more divorce court! Cooooooool.



Yeah, we know. You think an extended family of this sort is all about abusing certain spouses, adultery, and coercion. And you're apparently married to a stupid woman who would go along with whatever you decide, no matter how unhappy it made her. She wouldn't have the brains to tell you that if you both don't agree to such a change, it won't be workable. She wouldn't have the sense to tell you that if you try it, she'll be gone so fast, you won't be able to tell she was ever there to start with. Why'd you marry such a moron, anyway?

Yes, if we amended the law to allow multiple spouses, scores of women are going to be forced into them against their wills. Of course, no woman would ever want to bring a second or third husband into the marriage, so the only concern is for the poor, stupid cows you're married to who can't speak their own minds.

Well, calm down. It hasn't happened yet, and if it ever does, no one is going to come to your house with weapons and force you into it against your will, okay?

Perhaps you can try to imagine circumstances in which multiple spouses might actually be feasable? No? Okay, then. We'll put you down for a "no."

[Meadmaker]

It sort of requires some amount of rationality on the part of all involved, which presupposes some level of education and a level playing field.

Which is why I go back and forth on this and similar issues. The problem is that the playing field is most definitely NOT level.

Just what is it that a typical 45 year old woman brings to the contract negotiations?

[slingblade]

Which is why I go back and forth on this and similar issues. The problem is that the playing field is most definitely NOT level.

Just what is it that a typical 45 year old woman brings to the contract negotiations?

That depends, really, on the type of family you're trying to build: romantic, practical, financial...something else?

A 45-year-old woman...you're postulating she's not child-bearing, is that it?
Okay, let's say she's not (and if I have it wrong, you can correct me).

If it's a love marriage, the first thing she brings is herself, and her love, romantic attachment, perhaps sex-appeal cuz lots of 45-year-olds are hella sexy thanks, and all the usual things one brings to a love relationship.

On top of that, she might also bring her previous child-rearing experience, her income, her property, her education, her own children, her philosophy...and whatever else a person might bring to any relationship.

What I'm thinking about here, you see, is contract law, and emotional bonds. I am not thinking about whether some god would approve. This eliminates certain concerns right off the bat, for me. I view it largely as a type of family contract law. YMMV.

[Typicallucas]

...Now cheating is a cause for divorce...

...Polygamy makes cheating on one's wife, not punished by law as it is today, but rewarded by it...

In the US we have adopted no-fault divorce laws. Nobody needs cause anymore. Anybody can leave any marriage they want to, for any reason.

What country are you from that cheating punishable by law?

[Skeptic]

Infidelity is punishable in the sense that if you want to give your younger girlfriend a legal status, you must first divorce your wife, which means you have to split the joint property with her, you have to pay her alimony, you risk having the children live with her, you have to (sometimes) move, etc., etc.

If polygamy is allowed, all that goes out the window: you can eat your cake and have it, too. You can have the younger model as a trophy wife AND keep all the property AND the children AND no alimony to the older wife. And she'll still do the housework!

[Skeptic]

...and I haven't yet mentions the most horrific, evil, consequence of polygamy.

TWO mothers-in-law.

[Alt+F4]

In the US we have adopted no-fault divorce laws. Nobody needs cause anymore. Anybody can leave any marriage they want to, for any reason.

New York State still requires fault.

[ponderingturtle]

Polygamy is wrong because if some other people form a triad, my marriage will obviously suffer, by....um, by....


It all depends on how the marriage laws are rewritten to fit multi partner marriage. Gay marriage changes no laws or regulations that create and define the legal status of marriage. Multiple marriage does require rewriting them. So we can not say that there will not be changes in the legal status of binary marriage until we see the proposed rewritten laws.

[ponderingturtle]

I think the government should butt-out of people's relationships.

Stupid tax benefits...

And those horribly unfair immigration laws.

[ponderingturtle]

sex with animals, sure jail, unless you can prove its the will of the animal, otherwise it was against the animals will. and its sick anyway :D that more a flame :D

You know that the bulls don't consent the the electric anal probes commonly used in animal husbandry. Do we need to regulate animal husbandry or not?

[ponderingturtle]

Neither of those difficulties are unique to poly groups. They apply equally well to monogamous relationships as well. When my dad and mom married, all his family members were taking the exact same tack as in your second example, substituting "American" for "polyamourous relationship". I've seen friends go through similar grief from their relatives and social circles for interracial and inter-religious marriages. Some survived, some thrived despite the stress, some failed. The only problem unique to poly relationships is issues of "scheduling" relationship time with all partners involved.

That and that instead of having a single relationship in the group, you get many many more, that all need to be functioning for the total to work.

[Alt+F4]

It all depends on how the marriage laws are rewritten to fit multi partner marriage. Gay marriage changes no laws or regulations that create and define the legal status of marriage. Multiple marriage does require rewriting them. So we can not say that there will not be changes in the legal status of binary marriage until we see the proposed rewritten laws.

Imagine if one person were married to nine others who were each married to twenty others. How would that divorce law be written!?

[ponderingturtle]

Hey - if everyone is happy in the relationship, who cares, and why is it any business of the states?

Because there are points when people want state recognition of their relationship. There are many points when this recognition is important, often when the relationship has either internal or external problems.

[ponderingturtle]

But since we can kill animals and eat them, as well as own them as chattel, it seems odd to prohibit non-consensual sex with animals.

You forget all the the non consensual sex involved in the farming of animals, but it is only wrong if you are enjoying it, if you are doing it for a check it is all good.

[ponderingturtle]

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful.

Show me the average catholic priest isn't a child molester. There are just ones who haven't been caught yet.

[ponderingturtle]

=Just because the only polygamy you hear or read about in the news is associated with child abuse doesn't mean that they are the only polygamists out there. Regular old polygamy is boring and doesn't get the headlines like scandalous religious practices do, and regular people who are in polyamorous relationships don't get all married up because they don't want to go to jail.

Wait you are suggesting that not all catholic priests molest children is it just that "Priest molests child" is a bigger story than "Priest doesn't molest child"?

[Meadmaker]

A 45-year-old woman...you're postulating she's not child-bearing, is that it?


No, I'm postulating she's not hot.


, perhaps sex-appeal cuz lots of 45-year-olds are hella sexy thanks,

Well....sort of. I think my wife is hella sexy, but when we were younger, guys hit on her a lot. Now, not so much.

Nature is cruel. It really does discriminate based on sex and age. Of course, there are plenty of 45, and 50, and for all I know 60 year old hot chicks, but I would still encourage people to gather their rosebuds while they may, if you take my meaning.

Moreover, there are plenty of not so sexy 45 year old women, and these are the women Skeptic is talking about. At some point, the middle aged man, who might be very attractive if he happens to be rich and thin, might be tempted to dump the more usual sort of 45 year old woman.

Or, maybe we can let that guy just add a new, younger, addition to the family. I'm sure his existing wife won't mind, and they will all exist as equal members of the family, in true love and trust, as a happy triad.

It could happen.

[ponderingturtle]

Why can't there be households where some members are polyamorous, and others share the chores, finances, parenting, and so-forth? Why couldn't two gay gentlemen marry a hetero couple, donate sperm to their wife, and all share the children as co-parents? Or, of course, any other imaginable combination of sexual orientations, who get together to accomplish mutual goals?

Why can't marriage evolve?

It can, but we would need to see legal changes to the laws that define marriage that would create that. Also by and large it can happen, it does have problems as it lacks legal recognition.

[ponderingturtle]

I can't help but notice that so much of the discussion has been all about whether or not to give people what they want. Three people want to live together as a family. All are adults. Surely there's nothing wrong with giving people what they want, is there?

I don't see many saying that they can't. The problem here is how to legally recognize it and how those changes will effect established marriages.

[ponderingturtle]

I am still not on board with same-sex marriage for any other reason than I think civil/domestic partnerships shoud fill a sufficient legal role.

Because it is always best to have two separate but equal institutions, that is truly fair.

[ponderingturtle]

To get back on track, this discussion is about polyamory, not polygamy. Polyamory also allows for a women to take on an additional partner, with her husband's consent.

That evens the playing fields a bit, doesn't it?

:)

Polygamy does too, the term for male exclusive multiple marriage is polygyny.

No one is suggesting legalizing only polygyny and not polyandry.

[sugarb]

Which is why I go back and forth on this and similar issues. The problem is that the playing field is most definitely NOT level.

Just what is it that a typical 45 year old woman brings to the contract negotiations?


Okay, I feel a need to comment here. What does the typical 45 year old woman bring to the negotiations? Well, in the world I live in, which, granted, is pretty small (semi-rural), the 45 year old woman brings as much as the 45 year old man...and sometimes more. Where I live, the 45 year old woman is MORE likely to have an education beyond high school and more likely to have been working in the same job for a longer number of years than a 45 year old man. Of the people I know, a 45 year old woman is just as likely to have health insurance and a retirement plan as a 45 year old man. In fact, a 45 year old woman is MORE likely to own her own home as opposed to a 45 year old man.

She is more likely to have an inheritance coming from her parents, by default, since she's more likely to have an education (which indicates that her parents encouraged education and so were probably more responsible with their own finances).

But that is just where I live. It may differ where you are, but...the typical 45 year old woman doesn't live the life I, at almost 40, live. I stay at home. Very, very few of my female friends do so, even if they can--and the ones who do generally only do so temporarily. The "housewife" everyone still talks about just isn't very common anymore. Most women that "stay home" are either for some reason unable to work or they have aging parents they care for, along with children, making it tough to both have a job and be available for the time required to effectively do both. To the typical 45 year old woman, her career is more than "just a job", it is something that she was told for years would ensure her ability to "take care of herself". She wasn't told to snag a man and hold on tight, like maybe her mother had been. She was told to get an education or training and be able to take care of herself.

I don't think the playing field is as unlevel as it is being portrayed. I think (though I may be wrong, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if so) that women actually file for divorce more often than men. Women are JUST AS LIKELY to trade in the old husband for a newer or improved model. In time, the old stereotypes will probably seem silly, as more and more women are in fact marrying men younger than themselves. So...it seems to me that the typical 45 year old woman has a lot to bring to the table. At least from where I'm sitting.

[ponderingturtle]

In THEORY both women and men would be allowed to do this. In PRACTICE it would be, nine times out of ten, the succesful career man who discards his aging housewife-of-a-spouse for a newer model... only now, he doesn't have to actually discard her, he can just pressure her into "consenting" to the newer model having the exact same rights as she does.

And why can't she divorce him and take lots of his stuff?

[ponderingturtle]

Imagine if one person were married to nine others who were each married to twenty others. How would that divorce law be written!?

I would like to see the answer.

In some comunities you might well end up with interconnected marriages. These are legal issues that do need to be addressed, and attempting to make it absurd does not change that.

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, I feel a need to comment here. What does the typical 45 year old woman bring to the negotiations? Well, in the world I live in, which, granted, is pretty small (semi-rural), the 45 year old woman brings as much as the 45 year old man...and sometimes more. Where I live, the 45 year old woman is MORE likely to have an education beyond high school and more likely to have been working in the same job for a longer number of years than a 45 year old man. Of the people I know, a 45 year old woman is just as likely to have health insurance and a retirement plan as a 45 year old man. In fact, a 45 year old woman is MORE likely to own her own home as opposed to a 45 year old man.

You are missing his point, women are only as useful as how hot they are.

[Skeptic]

You are missing his point, women are only as useful as how hot they are.

That's not his point, and you know it. This is either an attempt at humor or sheer dishonesty on your part.

[sugarb]

You are missing his point, women are only as useful as how hot they are.


Lol, okay, then, I'll approach it from the "hotness" perspective.

Where I live, 45 year old women are MORE likely to be WAY "hotter" than 45 year old men. They've been educated and therefore are less likely to have toiled away their "youthful rosebud" (or whatever) years working in factories, mines, and labor intensive jobs. They are major consumers of products designed to enhance attractiveness (which old men obviously like since they go after the young chicks that buy the same goop). They are also more likely to be healthier, which, by default, enhances the "hotness" factor, unlike the 45 year old "old" guys, with questionable endurance.

There. Is that better? :)

[shadron]

Which is why I go back and forth on this and similar issues. The problem is that the playing field is most definitely NOT level.

Just what is it that a typical 45 year old woman brings to the contract negotiations?

It is not as if this were on the legislative table, up for a vote this afternoon. I'd like to presume that by the time it may be, that we'll have squared away the implied problem of your hypothetical "typical 45 year old woman" with her implied weak position vis-a-vis marriage. After all, if she is that weak today, we have a much more pressing problem, don't we? Marriage as it is now constituted isn't going to solve that for her for long.


But as I said, heck, *I'm* all for it. I'd love to have the option to pressume *my* wife into the super-maid role as I have fun with my young secretary -- all legal and recognized! No more divorce court! Cooooooool.

What - we abolished all laws about marriage? Will no body think of the lawyers?

What have we postulated here (at least Slingblade and myself)? Replacement of existing marraige / civil entanglement with some sort of incorporation law. If you don't tow the line of the agreement, then your weak-kneed super-maid need only seek out a lawyer to cut you off at the ankles. If she can't muster up that amount of courage, then there is no hope for her, most particularly under the laws that exist for marriage today. Any other dumb assertions?

It can, but we would need to see legal changes to the laws that define marriage that would create that. Also by and large it can happen, it does have problems as it lacks legal recognition.

Yes, you are absolutely right. That is why we are here pleading this case.

You are missing his point, women are only as useful as how hot they are.

Perhaps, but hottness is in the eyes of the beholder. I am no paragon of prime male; if I were "available" and had the option of joining with a "45 year old woman" who knew how to keep me comfortable while I stared at the monitor screen 16 hours a day, I'd probably be blissful, as long as I lasted. That would be hot enough for me. Different strokes for ...you get the idea. In my case, women are only as hot as to how useful thay are. Sex? Occasionally, if I can find the time.

[Typicallucas]

Polygamy makes cheating on one's wife, not punished by law as it is today,
Infidelity is punishable in the sense that if you want to give your younger girlfriend a legal status, you must first divorce your wife, which means you have to split the joint property with her... etc., etc.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong. Cheating isn't punished by law. Dissolution of a incorporation and the distribution of assets isn't a punishment, it is enforcement of the laws related to marriage. Just ask any woman who cheated on her husband and got half of her husband's property on the way out of the marriage.

If polygamy is allowed, all that goes out the window: you can eat your cake and have it, too. You can have the younger model as a trophy wife AND keep all the property AND the children AND no alimony to the older wife. And she'll still do the housework!
Where do you live where women are mindless dopes who are manipulated by greedy evil men who force them into slavery? If a man is this cruel why would he wait until polygamy is legalized to abuse his wife? Either you know some seriously effed up people or you have a sick twisted mind filled with slippery slopes.

New York State still require fault.
A spouse is still free to leave the marriage or kick their spouse out of the house. After a year they can get divorce if for no other reason.

If a man took a second wife without the consent of the first wife that would easily be considered cruel treatment. Forget forcing the first wife into sexual slavery and making her stay home and scrub the floors all day...

[ponderingturtle]

That's not his point, and you know it. This is either an attempt at humor or sheer dishonesty on your part.

It is the only criteria that he is considering for women. He discounts other possible criteria.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, you are absolutely right. That is why we are here pleading this case.


You need to do more though, you need to provide a framework for how to change the laws and regulations around marriage so that they would fit poly marriage. Some rules that work well for couples and might work passibly for triads could create more incentive for marriages that are only for immigration or tax purposes. Binary marriage limits this potential complication.


Perhaps, but hottness is in the eyes of the beholder. I am no paragon of prime male; if I were "available" and had the option of joining with a "45 year old woman" who knew how to keep me comfortable while I stared at the monitor screen 16 hours a day, I'd probably be blissful, as long as I lasted. That would be hot enough for me. Different strokes for ...you get the idea. In my case, women are only as hot as to how useful thay are. Sex? Occasionally, if I can find the time.

Maybe, but I wasn't the one disparaging the marrying potential of all 45 year old women, with the clear idea that 25 year old women are more marriageable. Now the fertility issue is possible, but it seems the physical attractiveness is at the core of most of his position.

[shadron]

Postulating that a state uses a pseudo-corporate law to manage marriage just as they do business corporations. I think that has several advantages.

For one, it puts the responsibility for a successful marriage where it belongs - in the hands of the partners. No longer would the state apparatus have to make judgments about infidelity, abandonment and "irreconcilable differences" - just, did the person act up to the spirit/letter of the agreement? The partners would be liable to make agreement workable, and then to live up to it. Instead of buying a rock, they would spend a couple of thou on getting heir relaionship defined. Right now the agreement is buried in the marriage laws and in tradition; almost no knowledge is required to exercise it today, and the result is stunning divorce statistics. There's an odd mix of strictness in the existing laws, and an alarming loosy-goosiness to them at the same time because the agreement is inflexible and inherent in the law, and grew like Topsy starting with Moses.

It should make it very explicit what is an offense against the marriage, and what the penalties are. If the partners agree to strengthen divorce practice, then they'll have to stick it out. If otherwise, then their partner will have to keep an eye on his manners so as not to give sufficient offense. Middle of the road will win out in most agreements, of course. Where will the children go upon divorce? What will the arrangements be? Read the small text. Studying contract law so as not to be a naif at he negotiating table wouldn't hurt anyone; one might learn how to interact with others better for it.

What is one party changes their mind? Well, it should be there in the contract how changes are to be made. Perhaps the change will be so fundamental that the contract has to end; it's all there in the fine print, and it's always possible to include ways to keep the agreement alive (through later re-negotiaion and rewriting of parts of the contract) as time goes on. Like all contracts, this is an agreement between the parties; the government, beyond guaranteeing the contract, has no part in it.

The nice thing about contract law is that it assumes equality of the individuals agreeing to the contract; marriage law, as it is now, does not.

[ponderingturtle]

Postulating that a state uses a pseudo-corporate law to manage marriage just as they do business corporations. I think that has several advantages.

So we permit corporations all the rights that are now limited only to marriage?

[Meadmaker]

After all, if she is that weak today, we have a much more pressing problem, don't we?


What? Mortality? It's a big problem, but no solution seems to be in the works.



What have we postulated here (at least Slingblade and myself)? Replacement of existing marraige / civil entanglement with some sort of incorporation law. If you don't tow the line of the agreement, then your weak-kneed super-maid need only seek out a lawyer to cut you off at the ankles.


I actually agree with this line of argument. I used to argue on these boards that the marriage vows themselves were a contract, and should be considered so. They are uttered in public, in front of witnesses, for exactly that reason. However, enough people told me that I was full of it, and that those things were just cheap sentiment with no legal value whatsoever, that I had to admit they were right.

In that case, they ought to be upgraded to a more modern sort of agreement.

We, the undersigned, being fully aware, agree to form an economic partnership contingent on participation in an exclusive sexual relationship....blah, blah, blah.....Failure to accept these terms will result in forfeiture of any right to any jointly held property.....blah, blah, blah.

It would take a few pages, and would mean exactly the same as the wedding vows, but everyone would undestand that, no, really, you meant it. I think making that agreement binding in court is an excellent idea. Then, if everyone was really ok with modifying the terms to add another person, who am I to argue?




Re: Relative hotness of middle aged people of different genders.

45 year old men aren't, on average, great catches either. However, if they are rich and thin, they can find a mate much more easily than similarly situated women of the same age. Just nature at work.

[BTMO]

45 year old men aren't, on average, great catches either. However, if they are rich and thin, they can find a mate much more easily than similarly situated women of the same age. Just nature at work.


Never heard of cougars, huh?

;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

It all depends on how the marriage laws are rewritten to fit multi partner marriage. Gay marriage changes no laws or regulations that create and define the legal status of marriage. Multiple marriage does require rewriting them. So we can not say that there will not be changes in the legal status of binary marriage until we see the proposed rewritten laws.

Agree completely...

Because it is always best to have two separate but equal institutions, that is truly fair.

...awww, and then you had to snip what I posted about equal protection and set me up as a straw man. :(

[UnrepentantSinner]

To get back on track, this discussion is about polyamory, not polygamy. Polyamory also allows for a women to take on an additional partner, with her husband's consent.

That evens the playing fields a bit, doesn't it?

In the mythical, magical sexual libertine world that some want to live in, but reality and things like jealousy and romantic propriety unfortunately intrude upon. Why is it that swinging is considered a product of the 70s - a time of social malaise? Have you ever seen the documentary I noted earlier Sex with strangers? Why is it that, not to divert back to polygamy, it's strongly religious groups like Muslims and Mormons that have, ostensibly, polyamorous relationships that last (though within the context of marriage) while "free love" tends to descend into chaos?

There are numerous examples of long term, committed couples where one partner accepts and often accedes to the infidelity of the other, but they tend to be the exception, not the rule.

[Lonewulf]

So thus, the only solution is to force your idea of ideal relationships onto others? Because they can't possibly ever function in any other way than the way you imagine it to?

I mean, with such a high divorce rate between "normal" couples, you'd think that you would put the same standards onto marriage. Hey, people that are younger divorce far more often than people that are older -- considering your logic, we should ban everyone beneath the ages of 30 to 35 from marrying, right?

How dare you use magical sexual libertine world-logic instead of real-world logics? Marriages fail constantly, so we should get rid of them altogether.

[arthwollipot]

Wow. The conflation of polyamory with polygamy is only the beginning of the problem with this discussion.

[shadron]

So we permit corporations all the rights that are now limited only to marriage?

OK, I used "pseudo-corporate" where I should have used "contract". No, the laws don't have to be identical (for one, the different sorts of contract entities, like S Corps, LLCs and partnerships aren't necessarily useful), but one in which the laws aren't saddled with divorces, child support and the like because these issues are handled by the contract.


After all, if she is that weak today, we have a much more pressing problem, don't we?
What? Mortality? It's a big problem, but no solution seems to be in the works.
Let's start with plain old abuse of women. You wouldn't have used a 45 year old man as an example of a weak partner, now, would you have? I think we can work on that, and I think a contract solution to marriage might be a step in the right direction.

We, the undersigned, being fully aware, agree to form an economic partnership contingent on participation in an exclusive sexual relationship....blah, blah, blah.....Failure to accept these terms will result in forfeiture of any right to any jointly held property.....blah, blah, blah.

Yeah, except that it would be wider ranging than just economic - it would be a marriage partnership, in the traditional meaning of the word (minus religious overtones): how to dissolve (including, of course, disbursement of chattels and offspring - sounds cold in these terms, but look at what we have today), how to increment, major agreements about raising children, remedies of breach of contract, how top handle major changes of status (breadwinner cannot find a job), etc. How money is to be handled. How to handle disagreements - binding arbitration, perhaps. Yup, perhaps more than just a few pages, but not more than a will might contain, and certainly after a short period some of it will become boilerplate or parameterized.

Now all he courts have to worry about is, is the contract being fulfilled, and are all the actions speciied in it legal (the legality of the provisions of any contract is assumed in business law; any illegality makes the contract null and void), something they do now with great regularity.

[Symbol]

Polygamy does too, the term for male exclusive multiple marriage is polygyny.

No one is suggesting legalizing only polygyny and not polyandry.

Thanks ponderingturtle, I was confusing polygamy with polygyny, and trying to recall the word polyandry.

All clear now.

All this discussion about the relative hotness of 45 year old men and women may be fun but it's certainly adding nothing to the debate.

I think what's being missed is that in the proposed triad (for example) Person A is married to Person B and to Person C, And Person B is also married to Person C. It's a contract entered into by every party.

So the silly example of one person married to nine who are each married to twenty, well, that couldn't happen in the sort of scenario proposed in the OP.

[shadron]

Wow. The conflation of polyamory with polygamy is only the beginning of the problem with this discussion.

Got a comment, Arth? Join in.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Wow. The conflation of polyamory with polygamy is only the beginning of the problem with this discussion.

Why? Do the issues that come up in a polygamous marriage never come up in a polyamorous relationship? Wouldn't a polygamous marriage enforced by religious tradition be more likely to stay intact than a loose and consentual polyamorous "relationship"?

I state again, watch Sex with strangers.

[arthwollipot]

Got a comment, Arth? Join in.No, I think I won't. The only things that I could contribute are from my own experience in a legally-recognised four-person relationship, which is pretty nonstandard to begin with. There are a lot of legal issues that I'm not qualified to talk about and to which my experience does not apply.

One thing I will say however:

Why? Do the issues that come up in a polygamous marriage never come up in a polyamorous relationship? Wouldn't a polygamous marriage enforced by religious tradition be more likely to stay intact than a loose and consentual polyamorous "relationship"?

I state again, watch Sex with strangers.Poly <> Swinging.

Polyamory has absolutely nothing to do with having sex with strangers. In fact, the very idea is repugnant to me.

Like I said. My experience only. May not generalise very well into the rest of the world. I'll return to lurking now.

[ponderingturtle]

...awww, and then you had to snip what I posted about equal protection and set me up as a straw man. :(

Because I don't see the point in "A is not B, but A must always be the same as B". And if you get rid of sex and gender concerns you make marriage and its rights more available to people who do not want to define themselves as either male or female legaly. With marriage and the indistinguishable but always seperate civil unions you need to make those distinctions.

[ponderingturtle]

OK, I used "pseudo-corporate" where I should have used "contract". No, the laws don't have to be identical (for one, the different sorts of contract entities, like S Corps, LLCs and partnerships aren't necessarily useful), but one in which the laws aren't saddled with divorces, child support and the like because these issues are handled by the contract.


Except that child support has nothing to do with marriage. So you want parents to be able to remove rights from their children by contract. Again you are opening up issues that are limited to marriage for good reasons, and permitting them from being in contracts. I want no personal entanglement with this person, but I would like to give them the right to immigrate to this country as if we were married.

The fact that these rights and responcibilities are bundled together is a feature not a bug.

[ponderingturtle]

I think what's being missed is that in the proposed triad (for example) Person A is married to Person B and to Person C, And Person B is also married to Person C. It's a contract entered into by every party.

Why are you interested in forcing that model of marriage onto people who might not want to be married? Should people who want to practice religious polygyny be forced to use marriages designed for polyamourous groups or not? Why should one get their view of marriage written into law and not the other?

So the silly example of one person married to nine who are each married to twenty, well, that couldn't happen in the sort of scenario proposed in the OP.
Yes it is a discriminatory view of marriage, limiting it to only forms that fit what they want.

[Meadmaker]

All this discussion about the relative hotness of 45 year old men and women may be fun but it's certainly adding nothing to the debate.


Certainly not. And yet, I think there might be a closely related point that might be worth discussing.

One of my biggest problems with proposed marriage liberalizations is that the proponents seem to be nearly oblivious to certan basic traits of human nature. One of those traits is that men and women behave differently, including choosing mates differently.

In the idealistic fantasyland where some people seem to dwell, men and women approach the marriage process by contemplating what would be in their best interests in forming a long term partnership, and seeking out appropriate partners and/or situations in which the needs of they and their partners will be met. By contrast, in the real world, men often seek mates with nice hooters.

It's not something to be proud of, but it is the way real people really behave. There are plenty of exceptions, to be sure, but people really do behave that way.

Meanwhile, in the real world, youth and beauty really do fade away, and while this is true for both men and women, it doesn't affect us identically, and, due to this and other differencs between men and women, what happens is that people enter middle age, and a man dumps his wife, who then has limited financial support, few prospects of finding a mate, and, possibly, still has a great deal of responsibility for raising children. Of course, the now absent father will still have to help financially on that account by sending his child support payments, but the presence of children will hinder the woman's efforts both to become financially secure, and to seek a mate.

In my opinion, any view of marriage that fails to take into account this basic reality is a lousy view of marriage. Skeptic's point was that polygamy, in practice, could allow a man to dump his wife without really dumping his wife. He's right, and anyone who thinks this won't happen hasn't been watching real world human beings long enough.

[Rasmus]

In my opinion, any view of marriage that fails to take into account this basic reality is a lousy view of marriage. Skeptic's point was that polygamy, in practice, could allow a man to dump his wife without really dumping his wife. He's right, and anyone who thinks this won't happen hasn't been watching real world human beings long enough.

Yes, this could happen.

How this should be dealt with is a question that needs to be answered by the proponents of polygamous marriages, regardless of their specific form.

But I don't see this as much of an argument against it - the woman would not be worse off, would she? Her husband could just leaver her now, too. Why is it worse for her if he stays technicially married to her? (And, if so, what's stopping her from getting a divorce?)

[martu]

One of my biggest problems with proposed marriage liberalizations is that the proponents seem to be nearly oblivious to certan basic traits of human nature. One of those traits is that men and women behave differently, including choosing mates differently.

Can I see a cite for this please? My bold.

[BenBurch]

:)

I recommend the Robert Heinlein book "Friday". This sort of thing is explored in some detail.

Damn book doesn't have an ending. It just ends. Bah.

[ponderingturtle]

Meanwhile, in the real world, youth and beauty really do fade away, and while this is true for both men and women, it doesn't affect us identically, and, due to this and other differencs between men and women, what happens is that people enter middle age, and a man dumps his wife, who then has limited financial support, few prospects of finding a mate, and, possibly, still has a great deal of responsibility for raising children. Of course, the now absent father will still have to help financially on that account by sending his child support payments, but the presence of children will hinder the woman's efforts both to become financially secure, and to seek a mate.


This does not seem to be particularly relevant to the topic at hand though. Why is serial marriage better than poly marriage?


In my opinion, any view of marriage that fails to take into account this basic reality is a lousy view of marriage. Skeptic's point was that polygamy, in practice, could allow a man to dump his wife without really dumping his wife. He's right, and anyone who thinks this won't happen hasn't been watching real world human beings long enough.

And why doesn't she seek a divorce before or after the second marriage? Why did she agree to it?

Protecting people from decisions that they voluntarily make does not generally seem to be something that society needs to worry about.

[Meadmaker]

Yes, this could happen.

How this should be dealt with is a question that needs to be answered by the proponents of polygamous marriages, regardless of their specific form.

But I don't see this as much of an argument against it - the woman would not be worse off, would she? Her husband could just leaver her now, too. Why is it worse for her if he stays technicially married to her? (And, if so, what's stopping her from getting a divorce?)

True. The real problem started with no-fault divorce, and the general erosion of protection from abandonment that came from traditional marriage law and custom. Polygamy doesn't necessarily make it any worse.

On the other hand, it strikes me that these questions that need to be answered by proponents of polygamous marriages generally aren't answered.

I think Skeptic's concern, which I share, is that the various forms of suggested liberalization of marriage all tend to give credence to the view of marriage that it is a convenience created for the benefits of two (or more) adults who want to get state recognition, and perhaps some sort of benefits, for their relationship, so long as it lasts, and without any imposition of societal standards on the nature of that relationship. I believe that in doing so, the proposed reforms tend to weaken further the ability of the institution of marriage to provide protection to those who need it.

[Rasmus]

True. The real problem started with no-fault divorce, and the general erosion of protection from abandonment that came from traditional marriage law and custom. Polygamy doesn't necessarily make it any worse.

Should have nevr stopped treating women as property .... :duck:

On the other hand, it strikes me that these questions that need to be answered by proponents of polygamous marriages generally aren't answered.

Indeed.

I am not a proponent of polygamous marriages. As soon as a proper case in favour of it can be made I'll be all for it. But I think the case hasn't been made, much less so in a way that's analogous to same-sex-marriages.

[ponderingturtle]

On the other hand, it strikes me that these questions that need to be answered by proponents of polygamous marriages generally aren't answered.

I have to agree with this, but this is not one of the issues that polygamy raises in any real fashion. It is an issue with divorce law.

[ponderingturtle]

I am not a proponent of polygamous marriages. As soon as a proper case in favour of it can be made I'll be all for it. But I think the case hasn't been made, much less so in a way that's analogous to same-sex-marriages.

The thing with same sex marriage is that the legal changes are so simple. You just let them marry. Polygamous marriage you need to redefine what married means so that more than two people can be in one marriage, or one person can have multiple marriages.

[Delvo]

One of my biggest problems with proposed marriage liberalizations is that the proponents seem to be nearly oblivious to certan basic traits of human nature.Without some kind of traditions/restrictions compelling most women to settle for guys they don't really want, what would happen is that they'd all naturally cluster themselves into harems (even if smaller ones than that word might make them sound; it's just the word wildlife biologists use when other critters like horses do this) around relatively few men, leaving a substantial fraction of the male population with nothing. That's bad for society overall because unattached men are significantly more likely to behave destructively than attached ones. And as long as women's natural inclinations are what they currently are, the only ways to avoid generating more unattached males without a 1:1 pairing system are to either kill a lot of boys at or before puberty, or else engineer a significantly higher girl:boy birth ratio.

[Lonewulf]

The thing with same sex marriage is that the legal changes are so simple. You just let them marry. Polygamous marriage you need to redefine what married means so that more than two people can be in one marriage, or one person can have multiple marriages.

That's true enough. Homosexual marriage isn't very difficult to accomplish, after all. Polygamous/polyamorous/polywhatever marriages would definitely be very complicated to handle legally.

[Meadmaker]

Protecting people from decisions that they voluntarily make does not generally seem to be something that society needs to worry about.

I know it sounds harsh, but I disagree, at least partially.

On a philosophical level, the problem comes down to a question of informed consent. Consider this. We don't allow children to make legal decisions. The reason for this is rather simple. When they are small, their minds are not fully developed. As teenagers, their intellectual capacity may be complete, but they do not have the life experience to truly understand the impact of their decisions.

Such wisdom doesn't magically occur on their 18th, or 21st, birthday. Trying to convince a 25 year old that he won't be 25 forever is a tough sell. Sure, you can get him to mouth the words, but true comprehension is much more difficult. Given an opportunity, many people will make truly awful decisions, and do so in predictable patterns. For example, young lovers will assume that they have found true love that will last forever, unlike what appears to be the case for almost everyone in the generation that preceded them. This time, these young people will not make the mistakes that their ancestors have made for millenia.

Marriage law should take in the reality of what really happens to real people, not some idealistic view of everyone as perfect decision makers who are fully capable of looking out for their own interests, now and for the rest of their lives. One of the reasons I waffle on this, and gay marriage, and other proposals that affect marriage law, is that I have a hard time balancing the right of people to choose their own path, with the knowledge that letting people choose their own path will inevitably lead to the strong taking advantage of the weak. It is true in every other area of human endeavor. I can't see how it cannot be true for sex and marriage as well.

[siddhigyrl]

Having acquired my current BF in a previously poly relationship, I speak from personal experience when I say the divorce can be messy. His then wife had allowed him to date at will, as did she. I came into the picture. His ideal was to share a household, which we did for a few months (horror story ensues, but I'll leave it at the fact that wife was a cognitively delayed schizophrenic hoarder). When I'd had enough, I moved out, with his daughter and him in tow. Two year divorce/custody battle ensues, with me branded as an adulterer (Va) even though I set the judge straight with e-mails of wife granting me full access to him and testimony that I had slept with both consenting parties. Whatever.

Now, bf is looking for a man to include in our relationship. I've personally found it difficult enough to handle work, kids (one gimpy, the other with significant LD/ED issues), cooking and cleaning, and care of BF (who is a gimp like me, but unlike me needs part-time assistance with daily living activities). Criminy, who has TIME for a third person?

How do people do it? I mean, the idea is sound, but...

[ponderingturtle]

Without some kind of traditions/restrictions compelling most women to settle for guys they don't really want, what would happen is that they'd all naturally cluster themselves into harems

Evidence?

[Meadmaker]

Can I see a cite for this please? My bold.

Pick up the most recent issues of "Maxim" and "Cosmopolitan".

In all seriousness, before looking for a cite, can I ask what you are looking for? Is it that you have never seen the scientific evidence that backs up this common sense view of things, or are you asking for evidence that backs up something you consider a suspect claim?

If you can elaborate, I can provide something more relevant than just random citations of differences in male and female behavior.

[ponderingturtle]

I know it sounds harsh, but I disagree, at least partially.

On a philosophical level, the problem comes down to a question of informed consent.

If they are not capable or informed consent they shouldn't be married in the first place.

Marriage law should take in the reality of what really happens to real people, not some idealistic view of everyone as perfect decision makers who are fully capable of looking out for their own interests, now and for the rest of their lives.

And the same applies to any kind of law, financial law and so on.

One of the reasons I waffle on this, and gay marriage, and other proposals that affect marriage law,

Gay marriage does not effect marriage law, only who can be married.

[martu]

Pick up the most recent issues of "Maxim" and "Cosmopolitan".

In all seriousness, before looking for a cite, can I ask what you are looking for? Is it that you have never seen the scientific evidence that backs up this common sense view of things, or are you asking for evidence that backs up something you consider a suspect claim?

If you can elaborate, I can provide something more relevant than just random citations of differences in male and female behavior.

Heh I'd rather not.

Yes the scientific evidence that women choose mates differently to men. Common sense is often wrong after all.

[martu]

Without some kind of traditions/restrictions compelling most women to settle for guys they don't really want, what would happen is that they'd all naturally cluster themselves into harems (even if smaller ones than that word might make them sound; it's just the word wildlife biologists use when other critters like horses do this) around relatively few men, leaving a substantial fraction of the male population with nothing. That's bad for society overall because unattached men are significantly more likely to behave destructively than attached ones. And as long as women's natural inclinations are what they currently are, the only ways to avoid generating more unattached males without a 1:1 pairing system are to either kill a lot of boys at or before puberty, or else engineer a significantly higher girl:boy birth ratio.

Erm no.

Or rather cite?

[ZirconBlue]

Now, bf is looking for a man to include in our relationship. I've personally found it difficult enough to handle work, kids (one gimpy, the other with significant LD/ED issues), cooking and cleaning, and care of BF (who is a gimp like me, but unlike me needs part-time assistance with daily living activities). Criminy, who has TIME for a third person?

How do people do it? I mean, the idea is sound, but...

Ideally, the third person would reduce the workload rather than add to it.

[Rasmus]

Without some kind of traditions/restrictions compelling most women to settle for guys they don't really want, what would happen is that they'd all naturally cluster themselves into harems

I have to ask for evidence here, too.

Not all animals do that, after all. And I can't say I see a tendency like that within humans, either. (Admittedly, most societies have a tradition for 1-1-bondings, but it is getting increasingly easy to not follow these traditions and there should be an increasing trends of males with harems, right?)

[sugarb]

Certainly not. And yet, I think there might be a closely related point that might be worth discussing.

One of my biggest problems with proposed marriage liberalizations is that the proponents seem to be nearly oblivious to certan basic traits of human nature. One of those traits is that men and women behave differently, including choosing mates differently.

In the idealistic fantasyland where some people seem to dwell, men and women approach the marriage process by contemplating what would be in their best interests in forming a long term partnership, and seeking out appropriate partners and/or situations in which the needs of they and their partners will be met. By contrast, in the real world, men often seek mates with nice hooters.

It's not something to be proud of, but it is the way real people really behave. There are plenty of exceptions, to be sure, but people really do behave that way.

Meanwhile, in the real world, youth and beauty really do fade away, and while this is true for both men and women, it doesn't affect us identically, and, due to this and other differencs between men and women, what happens is that people enter middle age, and a man dumps his wife, who then has limited financial support, few prospects of finding a mate, and, possibly, still has a great deal of responsibility for raising children. Of course, the now absent father will still have to help financially on that account by sending his child support payments, but the presence of children will hinder the woman's efforts both to become financially secure, and to seek a mate.

In my opinion, any view of marriage that fails to take into account this basic reality is a lousy view of marriage. Skeptic's point was that polygamy, in practice, could allow a man to dump his wife without really dumping his wife. He's right, and anyone who thinks this won't happen hasn't been watching real world human beings long enough.


Good post, and to elaborate on my stance a little bit (since I haven't really taken one), I can't say that I favor making the status of married include more than two people. However, I think, taking the real world into consideration, there definitely has to be some kind of change made with regards to the word "family". We choose our marital partner, after all. We don't get that same luxury when it comes to "family", and there are certain instances where this gets in the way of someone's legal rights.

For example...when my mother was ill, she had nothing in place in terms of medical surrogates or Power of Attorney. I am the second daughter, therefore, legally, my sisters had to approve me as her medical surrogate. All well and good in a family on good terms, but real people in real life know that it sometimes doesn't work out that way. And it didn't, and there had to be a fight for what was best for my mother.

Considering what happens in the real world is exactly why many, many people are having to fight for the same legal rights as blood or marital relatives have.

If adults want to share a household and be a family, even though they are not related by blood or marriage, there should be some kind of construct that allows them to be treated as a family. Many of us do our best to work out potential problems through wills and power of attorneys and such...but if there were something simple, that could be recognized legally, in place to protect our decisions and wishes from being sideswiped later on by blood relatives, I think it would be a good thing.

To be honest, I think that everyone should be held equally accountable for the decisions they make in life. I think the easiest solution would be to require all people to have household contracts if the household involves more than one adult, and get the government out of the business of marriage altogether. If you live together under one roof, you've obviously decided to be a family, unless you're only doing so temporarily (such as through college) or for convenience (such as sharing expenses). Why should you not be treated as such? Tax wise? Adopt the head of household as the standard, instead of single or married. In fact, eliminate those categories altogether...they're discriminatory. Should single people be penalized simply because they chose to not marry? Should married people be rewarded for their personal choice? If we're aiming for "fair", the current structure ain't it. Allow a set number of deductions for everyone...say, five, including one's self. Then claim a spouse and three children, or a spouse, another adult, and two children, however you wish to do it. Or eliminate deductions altogether. We're already rewarding people for having children or being married. Take that reward away, or expand it for others, and "level the playing field", for everyone.

Health insurance, same thing. We already pay more for family policies. If we want more people in our family, then simply increase the premium in the same way. Like our premium will go up if we later have a child to add to our policy. Insure household, which is family. Let individuals decide what they wish "family" to include.

To me, this isn't really an issue of "marriage", although it's framed as such. It's more an issue of building families, which, really, we're in pretty desperate need of in this country, as far as I can tell.

Marriage doesn't need to be redefined. It's really quite simple. But family has been in the process of being redefined for a very long time, and I really don't see anything wrong with that. The laws need to catch up to the real world. It really doesn't always work out best for people when the laws only allow relatives by blood or marriage to make crucial decisions for them, or when relatives by blood or marriage can legally make their final wishes null and void.

[Meadmaker]

Heh I'd rather not.

Yes the scientific evidence that women choose mates differently to men. Common sense is often wrong after all.

I had to ask because I wondered if anyone seriously doubted this. Of course, I know that they do. I find it a bit stunning, but if I think back to my youth in the early '80s I can recall conversations with intelligent people about sex differences and discrimination, and these intelligent people insisted that all behavioral differences between men and women are actually conformance to societal expectations.

Having lived a lot longer now, I am extraordinarily confident that that is not the case.

In addtion to first hand observation, over the years, though, I have also heard a variety of reports from scientific studies. One of the most interesting involved simply asking men and women to look at pictures of the opposite sex, with short descriptions of the people, and asked people to rate which ones they found sexiest. The interesting thing is that of course the researchers didn't show the same descriptions to all the subjects. Among the information included in the short descriptions was annual income. Women consistently rated high earners as sexier. (i.e. they mixed up descriptions and pictures. When a man was paired with a "high income" biography, women rated the same picture sexier than with a "low income" biography.) It made no difference to men. Men liked women who were young and pretty.

Without a link, though, I suppose that's anecdotal evidence.

Here's a book on the subject. The "search inside" feature will allow plenty of browsing for those interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Desire-Strategies-Human-Mating/dp/0465021433#

[BTMO]

Damn book doesn't have an ending. It just ends. Bah.


Which is an ending of sorts...

;)

[ponderingturtle]

Considering what happens in the real world is exactly why many, many people are having to fight for the same legal rights as blood or marital relatives have.

And sometimes they should have them and sometimes they shouldn't. Families should be together, our immigration policy supports this. Now with out some way to categorize family vs not family how do you make this differentiation?

If adults want to share a household and be a family, even though they are not related by blood or marriage, there should be some kind of construct that allows them to be treated as a family.

So no one can be just roommates anymore? How do you suggest differentiating people who are living together from a family? Not all couples or multiple sexual unions who are cohabitating want to be considered a family legaly.

Many of us do our best to work out potential problems through wills and power of attorneys and such...but if there were something simple, that could be recognized legally, in place to protect our decisions and wishes from being sideswiped later on by blood relatives, I think it would be a good thing.

Sure people should be able to determine who they want to decide for them. The thing is that you can not do this with out legal action, be it marriage or having various papers drawn up.

To be honest, I think that everyone should be held equally accountable for the decisions they make in life. I think the easiest solution would be to require all people to have household contracts if the household involves more than one adult, and get the government out of the business of marriage altogether.

And marriages that have practical reasons that they can't live in the same place? And how do you differentiate again between family and not family? IT seems that you would give equal status to someone who has a roommate in this country as someone who has spouse.

If you live together under one roof, you've obviously decided to be a family, unless you're only doing so temporarily (such as through college) or for convenience (such as sharing expenses).

The problem here is that even if they are important to someone, you are now forcing them to spend a lot of money in legal fees. What is the advantage here over the power of attorney and proxies? If you need to have legal documents drawn up anyway, I don't see why this changes things.
In fact, eliminate those categories altogether...they're discriminatory.

Family is a discriminatory concept, why should you and your siblings choose for your mother instead of someone else? Unless you were living with her by your definitions here, you were not actually in her family, except by a discriminatory means.

Should single people be penalized simply because they chose to not marry?
Again single people are not penalized because of this, as long as they have the option to marry. The bundling of recognition with various rights and responsibilities makes a lot of sense.

Should married people be rewarded for their personal choice?

How are they? You seem to be against things like spousal visa's and the like, so be clear, those people are cheating the system right?

If we're aiming for "fair", the current structure ain't it. Allow a set number of deductions for everyone...say, five, including one's self. Then claim a spouse and three children, or a spouse, another adult, and two children, however you wish to do it.

Finally someone who will support my right to make deductions for charitable donations I don't make.


Marriage doesn't need to be redefined. It's really quite simple.
Yep it is and always will be about the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.

[El_Spectre]

In THEORY both women and men would be allowed to do this. In PRACTICE it would be, nine times out of ten, the succesful career man who discards his aging housewife-of-a-spouse for a newer model... only now, he doesn't have to actually discard her, he can just pressure her into "consenting" to the newer model having the exact same rights as she does.

Yup, it's all about pressuring people into doing things they don't want. Oh, and scare quotes. In THEORY.

Surely there is nothing about communication, or getting peoples' needs met, or anything like that. Perish the thought.

I dunno whether you're just looking for a fight, or honestly believe your claims. If the latter, you should probably, I dunno... LEARN what you're talking about. You clearly don't know.

(P.S. It's not Poly if the 'other man' is a strawman, so you're good)


Added: This is kinda a personal attack, I guess. I don't know how to say "you're making false statements out of ignorance" without it coming off as personal.

[Lonewulf]

Skeptic really is good with the scare quotes.

[sugarb]

And sometimes they should have them and sometimes they shouldn't. Families should be together, our immigration policy supports this. Now with out some way to categorize family vs not family how do you make this differentiation?


So no one can be just roommates anymore? How do you suggest differentiating people who are living together from a family? Not all couples or multiple sexual unions who are cohabitating want to be considered a family legaly.


Sure people should be able to determine who they want to decide for them. The thing is that you can not do this with out legal action, be it marriage or having various papers drawn up.


And marriages that have practical reasons that they can't live in the same place? And how do you differentiate again between family and not family? IT seems that you would give equal status to someone who has a roommate in this country as someone who has spouse.


The problem here is that even if they are important to someone, you are now forcing them to spend a lot of money in legal fees. What is the advantage here over the power of attorney and proxies? If you need to have legal documents drawn up anyway, I don't see why this changes things.


Family is a discriminatory concept, why should you and your siblings choose for your mother instead of someone else? Unless you were living with her by your definitions here, you were not actually in her family, except by a discriminatory means.

Again single people are not penalized because of this, as long as they have the option to marry. The bundling of recognition with various rights and responsibilities makes a lot of sense.


How are they? You seem to be against things like spousal visa's and the like, so be clear, those people are cheating the system right?


Finally someone who will support my right to make deductions for charitable donations I don't make.


Yep it is and always will be about the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.


I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see where you get the notion that marriage is about the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. I didn't have a father around, so how in the world did I get married?

Oh, I know! I decided to, and filled out the papers, which required my signature, paid the fee, and showed up at the ceremony. No father involved. And oddly enough, no one demanded to speak to him before the deed was done, either.

I got divorced, too. We handled it like adults, which granted, may have been easier since we had no children, but as a woman, I can tell you that the law was as fair to me as it was to him. In fact, it required my signature, too...so he couldn't just abandon me. I wasn't a victim in marriage, nor in divorce. No one forced me to sign anything, and no one "transfered" ownership of me. I'm really confused as to how this is being made out to be that somehow women...grown women with minds of their own...are victimized in marriage, and would be by default in situations where they chose to sign agreements involving multiple partners. Are we going on the assumption that women aren't as smart as men? If so, I take issue with that.

Donations you don't make. That's based on fraud. However, why would it be comparable to someone using as deductions people they support financially? If that would be fraud, then surely claiming children would be as well. Or a non-working spouse. I'm uncertain as to what you're implying there.

And obviously, no, those people aren't "cheating the system". The system is what recognizes spouses in those ways to begin with. It gives preferred status to a marriage partner. Which is exactly why homosexuals have fought for those same rights. I'm simply saying that, if marriage is based on anything other than preferred status, level the playing field for everyone else and eliminate the preferred status. For example, I don't work. Were I not a deduction, this household would pay more in income tax. Why shouldn't it? Because we decided to get married? You don't consider that unfair to single earners? Or two income households? The income tax is supposed to be based on earnings, not personal choices. Make it so. Why all of the exceptions?

And of course people can be room mates. If they don't want to be anything more, then so what? But if they do? What? They should be required to get married?

Do you not think that the legal status of marriage is as abused as other social institutions? I know people who got married simply for the tax benefits. I know people who got married simply for insurance. I know people who DON'T get married because it would reduce benefits they receive...though they live together as if they were married. Sadly, I've known people who got married, ran up incredible amounts of debt, then abandoned the spouse to deal with it. And yeah, in my opinion, some of those are cheating the system, and I'd be hard pressed to understand how anyone could disagree.

If we're going to argue that marriage is somehow special and that everyone in it is happy and in love and working only to build a family, then we've got a tough hill to climb, because that simply isn't so.

Of course there are practical reasons spouses cannot always live together. Jobs, military, one spouse taking care of elderly relatives, one living away to complete school, any number of reasons. But there are no laws against that, so I don't see why that is an issue. What I thought we were talking about was unrelated people who want to be considered "married" or "in a marriage" or at the very least, get that same preferred status as the word "spouse" implies.

And so yeah, if we can choose our spouse (which we can, even if we don't have a father to transfer our ownership, as if women were puppies), that means we can indeed choose our family. Right? We can choose a spouse, therefore we do get to decide who is family, regardless of blood relation. Although for most of the country, choosing a spouse requires choosing someone of the opposite gender, even though we don't strip away marriage from men and women who choose to not have children.

As I said, I don't think polygamy should become a marital status. But I do think that, if adults wish to be entitled to property and medical rights, as spouses, they should be allowed to do so without that being threatened by other relatives.

In the case of my mother, the LAW said that it had to be us, her children, first. My mother was, to my way of thinking, young. She had no reason to believe that she would die so young...so she never made her own designations. Had she done so, she would have chosen her own mother to make her decisions. But...at the hospital, my grandmother was refused that responsibility, because there were children. The only way to circumvent that? Fight one of my sisters, so that I could be designated, and carry out my grandmother's, and my mother's, wishes.

At the time, I didn't realize it could be so difficult to have your wishes carried out, without the proper paperwork. I was not married then, to the person I lived with, but I knew that he is who I would want to make those decisons for me. I have no children, so that would have meant, apparently, my sisters would have been making those choices were it to be me. We talked about different ways to handle that, and decided it was just easier to go ahead and get married. And what is the cost of that? Well, it's much cheaper for us both to be insured. The tax burden on this household is lightened. But who took the risk, in getting married?

Not me. My property is secure, as I had it before getting married. But my husband is still building a retirement and, were the marriage to not work out, would stand to lose much more than I would, materially. The laws would favor me. Fortunately, I'm more fair than the laws, and so, like with my prior marriage, he would not lose what he has worked for. The stupid part of it is, the only difference now in our relationship is that he'll automatically get my property if I die, and me his, only because none of our relative can challenge it. We have the security that we shouldn't have had to pay a county clerk a few bucks to get.

Oh, and we pay less in taxes. So yeah, either marriage is rewarded, or being single is penalized, because for the life of me, I don't understand why a change in status should mean our contribution should be less. It's a personal choice. It has nothing to do with the income earned.

[martu]

I had to ask because I wondered if anyone seriously doubted this. Of course, I know that they do. I find it a bit stunning, but if I think back to my youth in the early '80s I can recall conversations with intelligent people about sex differences and discrimination, and these intelligent people insisted that all behavioral differences between men and women are actually conformance to societal expectations.

Having lived a lot longer now, I am extraordinarily confident that that is not the case.

In addtion to first hand observation, over the years, though, I have also heard a variety of reports from scientific studies. One of the most interesting involved simply asking men and women to look at pictures of the opposite sex, with short descriptions of the people, and asked people to rate which ones they found sexiest. The interesting thing is that of course the researchers didn't show the same descriptions to all the subjects. Among the information included in the short descriptions was annual income. Women consistently rated high earners as sexier. (i.e. they mixed up descriptions and pictures. When a man was paired with a "high income" biography, women rated the same picture sexier than with a "low income" biography.) It made no difference to men. Men liked women who were young and pretty.

Without a link, though, I suppose that's anecdotal evidence.

Here's a book on the subject. The "search inside" feature will allow plenty of browsing for those interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Desire-Strategies-Human-Mating/dp/0465021433#

Thanks. I can’t say that book helps much relying on only questionnaires but that study sounds more interesting, I’ll see if I can find it.

Yes I doubt men and women are that different when it some to selecting mates, frankly I do not think the differences between the sexes are as marked as a lot of people make out. Social mores have obviously played a huge role here as, until recently, women relied on men for their income and (thankfully) this is no longer the case. I work with a few rich women and I am very sure that the income of their partners had little to do with how they selected them, why would it their incomes are more than enough for both of them?

This also raises the question of how this applies to gay and lesbian couples, how do old gay men get partners or poor lesbian women? I have probably committed some terrible fallacy there.

I would think any innate difference in mate selection would also be prevalent in all cultures around the world and I am quite sure this is not the case, the rather interesting example of the Trobriand Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobriand_Islands) comes to mind.

[Typicallucas]

Aww just forget it. It's never going to happen. The group that would lobby for this right is far too small of a minority and nobody does anything for free on capitol hill.

[slingblade]

No, I see there's the possiblity of multi-spouse marriages, but I see them being far in the future, and needing a compelling reason behind them. Not because the act needs a reason, but because people will need one--probably several--to consider it.

I mean, really, if you'd suggested a hundred years ago that men might start staying home to raise the family and women might become major bread-winners, you'd have been laughed out of the Gentlemen's Club. Never mind suggesting that people would one day vote on men (or women) marrying other men (women). Preposterous! :D

[ponderingturtle]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see where you get the notion that marriage is about the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. I didn't have a father around, so how in the world did I get married?

Well you would become the responcibility of his nearest male relative.

Oh, I know! I decided to, and filled out the papers, which required my signature, paid the fee, and showed up at the ceremony.

Traditionaly women can't sign such things. What is next letting them own property? See this whole problems started when women got rights. When they were property instead of being able to own property so many marriage issues were simpler. Homosexual marriage just didn't make sense for one.


Donations you don't make. That's based on fraud.

Nope, I am not claiming to make them, I just want the deductions. You were suggesting fraud as well, letting people deduct children regardless of their actualy being financialy responcible for them. So if you can deduct children you are not caring for, why can't I deduct donations I don't make?

And obviously, no, those people aren't "cheating the system". The system is what recognizes spouses in those ways to begin with. It gives preferred status to a marriage partner. Which is exactly why homosexuals have fought for those same rights. I'm simply saying that, if marriage is based on anything other than preferred status, level the playing field for everyone else and eliminate the preferred status. For example, I don't work. Were I not a deduction, this household would pay more in income tax. Why shouldn't it? Because we decided to get married? You don't consider that unfair to single earners? Or two income households? The income tax is supposed to be based on earnings, not personal choices. Make it so. Why all of the exceptions?

The idea behind that is that you represent an increase in nessacary costs, while not bringing in money. So that as more money must be spent on nessesities and less on luxuries. So it is considered fair by many people to factor this into the ammount paid in tax in some fashion.

Do you not think that the legal status of marriage is as abused as other social institutions? I know people who got married simply for the tax benefits. I know people who got married simply for insurance. I know people who DON'T get married because it would reduce benefits they receive...though they live together as if they were married. Sadly, I've known people who got married, ran up incredible amounts of debt, then abandoned the spouse to deal with it. And yeah, in my opinion, some of those are cheating the system, and I'd be hard pressed to understand how anyone could disagree.

And they still had the same responcibilities and rights as any other married person. How is a system less abuseable when you get to seperate out each individual right? And there are at least some mechanisms in place to try to verify if a marriage is real or just for specific rights(generaly immigration)

If we're going to argue that marriage is somehow special and that everyone in it is happy and in love and working only to build a family, then we've got a tough hill to climb, because that simply isn't so.

Good because that is not my argument. It is that bundeling these rights and responcibilities makes for a better system than having lawyers write up contracts with them freely selectable or ignoreable. You would then see strange checklists "we will consider you sufficiently married if you have 4 or more rights from collum A two more responcibilities from collum B, and at least 6 entries in collum C".

Of course there are practical reasons spouses cannot always live together. Jobs, military, one spouse taking care of elderly relatives, one living away to complete school, any number of reasons. But there are no laws against that, so I don't see why that is an issue. What I thought we were talking about was unrelated people who want to be considered "married" or "in a marriage" or at the very least, get that same preferred status as the word "spouse" implies.

There thing is that no matter how you argue it, marrige is not presently a contract, but it is a status, and that status is set up for two people. By breaking it down into a simple contract, you are makeing a massive change. The main intent of this would be to include far more lawyers in everyones lives, both to write these contracts, but also to read them to determine if they qualify for being considered married or not by the standards of the institution.

And so yeah, if we can choose our spouse (which we can, even if we don't have a father to transfer our ownership, as if women were puppies),

You do realize that is a reducto ad absurdem of the traditionalism argument right?

that means we can indeed choose our family. Right? We can choose a spouse, therefore we do get to decide who is family, regardless of blood relation. Although for most of the country, choosing a spouse requires choosing someone of the opposite gender, even though we don't strip away marriage from men and women who choose to not have children.

Yes.

As I said, I don't think polygamy should become a marital status. But I do think that, if adults wish to be entitled to property and medical rights, as spouses, they should be allowed to do so without that being threatened by other relatives.

How threatenable are the current versions of health care proxy and wills if contested by relatives?

In the case of my mother, the LAW said that it had to be us, her children, first. My mother was, to my way of thinking, young. She had no reason to believe that she would die so young...so she never made her own designations. Had she done so, she would have chosen her own mother to make her decisions. But...at the hospital, my grandmother was refused that responsibility, because there were children. The only way to circumvent that? Fight one of my sisters, so that I could be designated, and carry out my grandmother's, and my mother's, wishes.

And this is because your mother failed to involve lawyers in every facet of her life, something that you seem to be argueing for.

Not me. My property is secure, as I had it before getting married. But my husband is still building a retirement and, were the marriage to not work out, would stand to lose much more than I would, materially. The laws would favor me. Fortunately, I'm more fair than the laws, and so, like with my prior marriage, he would not lose what he has worked for. The stupid part of it is, the only difference now in our relationship is that he'll automatically get my property if I die, and me his, only because none of our relative can challenge it. We have the security that we shouldn't have had to pay a county clerk a few bucks to get.

You seem to prefer spending many bucks on lawyers to that though.

[Meadmaker]

As I said, I don't think polygamy should become a marital status. But I do think that, if adults wish to be entitled to property and medical rights, as spouses, they should be allowed to do so without that being threatened by other relatives.


I think some variation of this reasoning will eventually carry the day, and that's how we will end up with polygamy, even if it doesn't go by that name.



Oh, and we pay less in taxes. So yeah, either marriage is rewarded, or being single is penalized, because for the life of me, I don't understand why a change in status should mean our contribution should be less. It's a personal choice. It has nothing to do with the income earned.

Until recently, married people with two incomes paid more taxes than single people. The tax laws were set up on purpose that way, recognizing that two people sharing a domicile had a higher standard of living for a given income level than two people who maintained two domiciles.

The laws were changed to eliminate the "marriage penalty" because right wing politicians observed that the tax laws encouraged cohabitation without marriage.

[Meadmaker]

No, I see there's the possiblity of multi-spouse marriages, but I see them being far in the future, and needing a compelling reason behind them.

I think enough people will be living in poly-style relationships that issues of child custody and support will arise, and that will provide the compelling reason. I expect it within a few decades. However, I doubt it will go by the name "marriage". I expect some sort of lightweight partnership/kinship agreement, less restrictive than marriage.

Of course, I've been wrong before, but that's what I expect.

[Symbol]

45 year old men aren't, on average, great catches either. However, if they are rich and thin, they can find a mate much more easily than similarly situated women of the same age. Just nature at work.

Still mulling over this.

Maybe it behooves a new thread:

40 something men, or 50 something men...

How hot are you really?

[martu]

I think enough people will be living in poly-style relationships that issues of child custody and support will arise, and that will provide the compelling reason. I expect it within a few decades. However, I doubt it will go by the name "marriage". I expect some sort of lightweight partnership/kinship agreement, less restrictive than marriage.

Of course, I've been wrong before, but that's what I expect.

I think the biggest problem will be what if the multiple partners disagree? At the moment if I am incapacitated my wife speaks for me how does this work in a triad, say, if the other two partners disagree on a course of action? To resolve this maybe you could specify one person in the triad as next of kin but then how would the other feel?

I see nothing wrong with poly-anything marriages but I do see a lot of obstacles to overcome.

[Delvo]

Without some kind of traditions/restrictions compelling most women to settle for guys they don't really want, what would happen is that they'd all naturally cluster themselves into harems around relatively few men, leaving a substantial fraction of the male population with nothing.Evidence?Erm no.

Or rather cite?I have to ask for evidence here, too.I know of no research project in which researchers even attempted to come up with a way to test that conclusion itself, but it emerges from a handful of otherwise unrelated observations & experiments addressing smaller, lower-level points independently...

1. Geneticists have found less variation in the Y chromosome than in the rest of our nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, indicating that the number of past males we're descended from is smaller than the number of past females we're descended from and/or Y-chromosome lineages more easily and frequently get discontinued. This means that failure to reproduce has been significantly higher among males than among females. I believe the article I first read about it even gave it a number, that 40% or 60% of males overall have failed to reproduce or have no living descendants. But I can't find the article again right now to get the precise wording.

2. Among human cultures, 1:1 pairs and harms are by far the two most common social structures. Since humans invented all of our cultures, anything that's so nearly universal must be driven by human instincts. Keep in mind that I didn't say we couldn't have the instinctive behaviors which lead to both social structures even though they contradict each other; it wouldn't be the only case in which we had self-conflicting instincts pointing in two directions, the classic other category of examples being selfishness and altruism. But even the average of the two (some guys having one woman, some having more) would still not be very close to 1:1, so it still has the same mathematical effect I described above: many men getting left out.

3. Even in our officially pair-bonding-based society, there are common, normal, everyday behaviors that only make sense in terms of people subconsciously trying to unofficially form harems anyway, or acting out behaviors that would lead to harem formation if left unchecked. In other words, if you think about what instincts and feelings members of a harem-forming species would need to have in order to form harems naturally, they are all things you find in human behavior. Of course, in males, that would mostly just look like plain promiscuity or infidelity, so there isn't much to say there (except to point out that women have been found to be more tolerant of being cheated on than men, and females in animal harems obviously need not to mind sharing the males or there wouldn't be harems). The more instructive side of this issue is female behavior, since the females of any naturally harem-forming species are the ones who make it that way by excluding most of the males. I'll split this one into pieces because it's longer.

3A. First, there's the evidence of the importance of wealth to women; that alone implies that they'd voluntarily group up around wealthy men if the difference between them and the unwealthy were great enough for each woman's share of the divided wealth in such a group to still be more than she'd get with an unwealthy man, which it often is. Then, there's the rock star groupie phenomenon, which has no counterpart among male fans of female celebrities, and the fact that they will engage in groupie'ish behavior in front of other men means they don't mind introducing an element of competition and openly pushing away and discouraging the non-rock-stars as losers who could never hope to measure up. Third, there are the signs, pretty well established in psychology, that homosexuality and bisexuality are both more common in women than in men, which makes perfect sense in harems (because most of the other individuals a harem member comes into contact with most of the time would be other females) but not for pair-bonding.

3B. Also, there's what women say themselves and how they say it, as we all go about our routines in life day after day. They often give, as a reason why they want a guy, the fact that they believe he's already popular among other women (or give his unpopularity as a reason why they don't want him), which is a reaction you'd expect females in a naturally harem-forming species to instinctively have because tending to like the same male that the other females around like would contribute to keeping the harem structure what it is. And the way they tend to carry on and on with each other about certain guys they want not only shares that same role of reinforcing their mutual agreement on men and how much they enjoy agreeing with each other on men (which itself only makes sense for harems, not for 1:1 pairing), but also gets explained by them in a way that reveals something else. They describe it as merely "noticing" those guys and present not noticing them at all as the only alternative, without any concept that it would even be possible to "notice" without compulsively carrying on so excitedly about it... which indicates that, to them, sexual attraction is, and even automaticly has to be, a social experience to share with other females, rather than just an internal individual motivator for themselves.

4. Wildlife populations which form harems tend to have more females than males. To a lesser extent, so do we. Having a birth ratio that fits a certain social structure only makes sense for a species whose natural behaviors tend to result in that social structure.

5. In response to this:Not all animals do that {forming harems}, after all.It is the norm among great apes and other primates, though, so to me, that puts the burden of proof on someone who says that we have yet completely left that initial (or "basal") condition behind. Remember, it's not an either-or dichotomy, so even a fractional influence toward harem formation in our natural instincts would still move us away from 1:1, which still leads back to my original point about a significant supply of unattached/rejected males. For example, let's say that our behavior (or more importantly, women's) is guided 20% by harem instincts and 80% by 1:1 pairing instincts. Population-wide, that means 10% of the male population could have 2 women apiece. With 80% of the population then pairing up 1:1, that leaves 10% of the male population out.

And I can't say I see a tendency like that within humans, either. (Admittedly, most societies have a tradition for 1-1-bondings, but it is getting increasingly easy to not follow these traditions and there should be an increasing trends of males with harems, right?)There have been surveys showing that two or more women sharing the same man is far more common than two or more men sharing the same woman, in countries where neither is the norm.

[ponderingturtle]

1. Geneticists have found less variation in the Y chromosome than in the rest of our nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, indicating that the number of past males we're descended from is smaller than the number of past females we're descended from and/or Y-chromosome lineages more easily and frequently get discontinued. This means that failure to reproduce has been significantly higher among males than among females. I believe the article I first read about it even gave it a number, that 40% or 60% of males overall have failed to reproduce or have no living descendants. But I can't find the article again right now to get the precise wording.

A significant percentage of the human population seems to be decended from Ghengis Kahn, but that is not particularly good evidence that women choose to be one of a thousand mates. So this can be accounted for by recent culture and not genetic preference.


3. Even in our officially pair-bonding-based society, there are common, normal, everyday behaviors that only make sense in terms of people subconsciously trying to unofficially form harems anyway, or acting out behaviors that would lead to harem formation if left unchecked. In other words, if you think about what instincts and feelings members of a harem-forming species would need to have in order to form harems naturally, they are all things you find in human behavior. Of course, in males, that would mostly just look like plain promiscuity or infidelity, so there isn't much to say there (except to point out that women have been found to be more tolerant of being cheated on than men, and females in animal harems obviously need not to mind sharing the males or there wouldn't be harems). The more instructive side of this issue is female behavior, since the females of any naturally harem-forming species are the ones who make it that way by excluding most of the males. I'll split this one into pieces because it's longer.

You are mixing things here, there is always a evolutionary explanation for infidelity, but that does not support harems, and evolutionary psychology is very very sketchy.

3A. First, there's the evidence of the importance of wealth to women; that alone implies that they'd voluntarily group up around wealthy men if the difference between them and the unwealthy were great enough for each woman's share of the divided wealth in such a group to still be more than she'd get with an unwealthy man, which it often is. Then, there's the rock star groupie phenomenon, which has no counterpart among male fans of female celebrities,

I think there is though, at least when the female celebrities choose to induldge in groupies.
Third, there are the signs, pretty well established in psychology, that homosexuality and bisexuality are both more common in women than in men, which makes perfect sense in harems (because most of the other individuals a harem member comes into contact with most of the time would be other females) but not for pair-bonding.

Again differences in male and female sexuality do not really support your theory.


5. In response to this:It is the norm among great apes and other primates,

Well except Bonobo's, one of our closest relatives. They don't have harems so much as orgies.
There have been surveys showing that two or more women sharing the same man is far more common than two or more men sharing the same woman, in countries where neither is the norm.

And this would be the first real piece of data that supports your arguement, so please provide a source.

You also don't seem to care about how for most of recorded history women had no choice at all in who they married, so looking at such societies and using them to show that women choose X is a bad argument.

[Meadmaker]

I think Delvo has overstated the case toward harem formation, but his points are not without merit. I think there is a tendency toward harem formation in humans, but it is a lot less than in other apes.

It is enough, though, that there would be some influence I believe if we were to allow it. I think there are a measurable number of women who would prefer harem life with a rich good looking guy, versus traditional marriage with a rather ordinary fellow, enough so that if we removed the legal restrictions and social stigma associated with polygamy, we would end up with the unattached males that he was talking about. I just don't think the numbers would be quite as high as his initial post on the subject suggested.

[ponderingturtle]

I think Delvo has overstated the case toward harem formation, but his points are not without merit. I think there is a tendency toward harem formation in humans, but it is a lot less than in other apes.

It is enough, though, that there would be some influence I believe if we were to allow it. I think there are a measurable number of women who would prefer harem life with a rich good looking guy, versus traditional marriage with a rather ordinary fellow, enough so that if we removed the legal restrictions and social stigma associated with polygamy, we would end up with the unattached males that he was talking about. I just don't think the numbers would be quite as high as his initial post on the subject suggested.

The thing is with a wealthy good looking guy, what is his motivation to marry many women? Why to use the vernacular "Buy the Cow"?

Sure good looking wealthy guys will get their pick of the women, but that is the case now with out polygamy.

[martu]

3A. First, there's the evidence of the importance of wealth to women; that alone implies that they'd voluntarily group up around wealthy men if the difference between them and the unwealthy were great enough for each woman's share of the divided wealth in such a group to still be more than she'd get with an unwealthy man, which it often is. Then, there's the rock star groupie phenomenon, which has no counterpart among male fans of female celebrities, and the fact that they will engage in groupie'ish behavior in front of other men means they don't mind introducing an element of competition and openly pushing away and discouraging the non-rock-stars as losers who could never hope to measure up. Third, there are the signs, pretty well established in psychology, that homosexuality and bisexuality are both more common in women than in men, which makes perfect sense in harems (because most of the other individuals a harem member comes into contact with most of the time would be other females) but not for pair-bonding.

There is a lot wrong with your post but I’ll concentrate on this one factual error, my bold. Read any decent biography (is that the correct word for a band??) of the The Go-Go's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Go's) and get back to me.

Evolutionary Psychology has some wonderful ideas unfortunately most of it is bunk.

[martu]

I think Delvo has overstated the case toward harem formation, but his points are not without merit. I think there is a tendency toward harem formation in humans, but it is a lot less than in other apes.

It is enough, though, that there would be some influence I believe if we were to allow it. I think there are a measurable number of women who would prefer harem life with a rich good looking guy, versus traditional marriage with a rather ordinary fellow, enough so that if we removed the legal restrictions and social stigma associated with polygamy, we would end up with the unattached males that he was talking about. I just don't think the numbers would be quite as high as his initial post on the subject suggested.

Have you read The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins specifically when he discusses relative testicle size and what that suggests for our mating behaviour?

[Meadmaker]

The thing is with a wealthy good looking guy, what is his motivation to marry many women? Why to use the vernacular "Buy the Cow"?

Sure good looking wealthy guys will get their pick of the women, but that is the case now with out polygamy.

Admittedly, I'm guilty of conflating two different uses of the term "marry". There's the legally defined thing called marriage, and there's the use of the term that involves cohabitation and general economic/sexual partnership.



As to what people would really do, it might depend on what the law actually ended up looking like.

[ponderingturtle]

Have you read The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins specifically when he discusses relative testicle size and what that suggests for our mating behaviour?

Yes we lack fidelity, so what? Not being exclusive in a pair bond is not unique to pair bonding species.

[martu]

Yes we lack fidelity, so what? Not being exclusive in a pair bond is not unique to pair bonding species.

Hmmm I'll have to re read that section tonight, my recollection is that it suggests we are monogamous.

[ponderingturtle]

Hmmm I'll have to re read that section tonight, my recollection is that it suggests we are monogamous.

We are between Chimps and Gorillias, so more monogamous than chimps but less than Gorillias.

[martu]

We are between Chimps and Gorillias, so more monogamous than chimps but less than Gorillias.

Thanks. Doesn't suggest harems are the norm anyway.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks. Doesn't suggest harems are the norm anyway.

You have to read a lot into evolutionary psychology to think that.

[martu]

You have to read a lot into evolutionary psychology to think that.

Agreed.

[luchog]

Really? Most openly? That doesn't feel right, but then again, I can't actually think of any counter examples.

Still, most of what I've seen was him using silly logic to justify silly laws, less than actually being an outright bigot towards homosexuals.
There are plenty of examples in other thread, but I can't be arsed to dig them up, since it's not really that important to me.

No wonder I should be burned at the stake -- I mean, banned; my heresy might spread...
Not to mention one of our most flaming drama queens.
In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?
I can't speak to Canada, but here in the US, there's myself, at least half of my friends and aquaintances, and numerous other long-term (as in, over a decade) polyamourous relationships that I'm familiar with through the varous polyamoury mailing lists and webboards. There are also several other Americans, Australians, and IIRC at least one Canadian on this board involved in stable, long-term polyamourous relationships.

The fact that there aren't more is due to the intense prejudice against them due to ignorance such as yours, and the difficulty of maintaining such a relationship in the face of legal antipathy. I've known more than one group who was forced to deal with substantial legal difficulties due to the law refusing to recognize the validity of their relationship. The legal opposition is so strict, that the only groups who will blatantly engage in such practice de novo, instead of merely defacto as many subcultures do, are the fanatics. Remove the opposition and the fanatics are no longer unique, or even unusual.

Your argumentum ad ignorantiam just shows your own prejudice, not a desire to know the truth.

[slingblade]

I think enough people will be living in poly-style relationships that issues of child custody and support will arise, and that will provide the compelling reason. I expect it within a few decades. However, I doubt it will go by the name "marriage". I expect some sort of lightweight partnership/kinship agreement, less restrictive than marriage.

Of course, I've been wrong before, but that's what I expect.

I can see that. Like "cohabitation contracts" or some such.

I have always been intrigued by the ideas promoted by some sci-fi: marriage contracts, which the members renew, or not, periodically. That "til death do us part" won't be standard anymore, or even considered. You "marry" or sign a contract for 5 or 10 years, and at the end of it, you either renew, or you part. The contract already contains the "what-ifs" for kids and property, so no haggling over that.

[luchog]

...and I haven't yet mentions the most horrific, evil, consequence of polygamy.

TWO mothers-in-law.

Some people really need to realize that we no longer live in the 1950s.

[luchog]

Marriage law should take in the reality of what really happens to real people, not some idealistic view of everyone as perfect decision makers who are fully capable of looking out for their own interests, now and for the rest of their lives. One of the reasons I waffle on this, and gay marriage, and other proposals that affect marriage law, is that I have a hard time balancing the right of people to choose their own path, with the knowledge that letting people choose their own path will inevitably lead to the strong taking advantage of the weak. It is true in every other area of human endeavor. I can't see how it cannot be true for sex and marriage as well.

The problem is that you cannot protect people from all the consequences of their actions. In the first place, if you do, they'll never learn anything from them. Second, there is simply no possible way to do that. Even the most oppressive totalitarian, "that which is not compulsory is forbidden" states cannot do so; so how can any state with even a pretense at personal freedom do so more effectively?

People are not perfect. The institutions they create cannot be perfect, and even at their best, not all the decisions they make will be perfect. As much as we would like to, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. The more we try, the more potential for abuse we create.

The system with the least potential for abuse is to create one with the maximum possible freedom for those who are ostensibly able to make their own decisions; seek to mitigate the likelihood of bad decisions by providing sound education at the earlierst possible opportunity; and provide programs which assist people in resolving problems created by, and recovering from, bad decisions. Absolving them of the consequences of their decisions, or attempting to prevent any possibility of making bad decisions, will not prevent bad decisions and the consequences thereof to any significant degree; but it will create entirely new potentials for abuse.

[Meadmaker]

While it can't be determined how the average human being would behave "naturally", one thing is certain. People will choose a wide variety of lifestyles if given the chance. So, the question arises. Should they be given the chance?

I can't think of a reason not to. On the other hand, suppose it could be shown, with reasonable certainty, that some lifestyles really are more likely to produce happiness than others? This happiness bonus might be for the people involved, their children, or even their neighbors. If so, I think it is ok for the government to promote one sort of lifestyle by giving it some sort of special recognition. Is monogamy such a condition? I know that when I look at the people I know who have engaged in polyamorous situations, I wouldn't point to them as the people who really seem to be happy.

Meanwhile, is there any evidence at all that could claim to be scientific that compares child development in monogamous versus polygamous situations?

[El_Spectre]

I can't think of a reason not to. On the other hand, suppose it could be shown, with reasonable certainty, that some lifestyles really are more likely to produce happiness than others?

That's great, but it is not a matter for the government to be involved in. People are allowed to make sub-optimal decisions, or great ones. This whole freedom thing is kinda big... People are (or should) be allowed to live however they want, if they are not hurting other people.


Is monogamy such a condition? I know that when I look at the people I know who have engaged in polyamorous situations, I wouldn't point to them as the people who really seem to be happy.

Eh, depends on the particular anecdote you chose. Some [insert relationship structure here] relationships are happy, some aren't. I know happy poly people, I know sad ones. Same as monogamous people.

[sugarb]

Well you would become the responcibility of his nearest male relative.


Traditionaly women can't sign such things. What is next letting them own property? See this whole problems started when women got rights. When they were property instead of being able to own property so many marriage issues were simpler. Homosexual marriage just didn't make sense for one.



Nope, I am not claiming to make them, I just want the deductions. You were suggesting fraud as well, letting people deduct children regardless of their actualy being financialy responcible for them. So if you can deduct children you are not caring for, why can't I deduct donations I don't make?


The idea behind that is that you represent an increase in nessacary costs, while not bringing in money. So that as more money must be spent on nessesities and less on luxuries. So it is considered fair by many people to factor this into the ammount paid in tax in some fashion.



And they still had the same responcibilities and rights as any other married person. How is a system less abuseable when you get to seperate out each individual right? And there are at least some mechanisms in place to try to verify if a marriage is real or just for specific rights(generaly immigration)


Good because that is not my argument. It is that bundeling these rights and responcibilities makes for a better system than having lawyers write up contracts with them freely selectable or ignoreable. You would then see strange checklists "we will consider you sufficiently married if you have 4 or more rights from collum A two more responcibilities from collum B, and at least 6 entries in collum C".


There thing is that no matter how you argue it, marrige is not presently a contract, but it is a status, and that status is set up for two people. By breaking it down into a simple contract, you are makeing a massive change. The main intent of this would be to include far more lawyers in everyones lives, both to write these contracts, but also to read them to determine if they qualify for being considered married or not by the standards of the institution.


You do realize that is a reducto ad absurdem of the traditionalism argument right?


Yes.


How threatenable are the current versions of health care proxy and wills if contested by relatives?


And this is because your mother failed to involve lawyers in every facet of her life, something that you seem to be argueing for.


You seem to prefer spending many bucks on lawyers to that though.



I'm sorry it took so long to respond to this. Yes, I realized what you were doing...and found it humorous, until I started thinking more about the subject and realized that I know far too many people in my personal life still clinging to "traditional values". I apologize. I worried that I had strayed all over the place in my response, and it seems that I did more than that--I lost focus.

You're right, it seems that I prefer spending much money on lawyers, but that's not at all what I mean. I hope you know that. I do see, though, how contracts made between individuals, without going through an attorney, would open up a whole other can of worms whenever someone becames disenchanted with the arrangement and wanted out.

[arthwollipot]

There are also several other Americans, Australians, and IIRC at least one Canadian on this board involved in stable, long-term polyamourous relationships.Still lurking.

[martu]

There are plenty of examples in other thread, but I can't be arsed to dig them up, since it's not really that important to me.

Not to mention one of our most flaming drama queens.

I can't speak to Canada, but here in the US, there's myself, at least half of my friends and aquaintances, and numerous other long-term (as in, over a decade) polyamourous relationships that I'm familiar with through the varous polyamoury mailing lists and webboards. There are also several other Americans, Australians, and IIRC at least one Canadian on this board involved in stable, long-term polyamourous relationships.

The fact that there aren't more is due to the intense prejudice against them due to ignorance such as yours, and the difficulty of maintaining such a relationship in the face of legal antipathy. I've known more than one group who was forced to deal with substantial legal difficulties due to the law refusing to recognize the validity of their relationship. The legal opposition is so strict, that the only groups who will blatantly engage in such practice de novo, instead of merely defacto as many subcultures do, are the fanatics. Remove the opposition and the fanatics are no longer unique, or even unusual.

Your argumentum ad ignorantiam just shows your own prejudice, not a desire to know the truth.

Well put. Do you know how most poly-whatever relationships handle the next of kin problem?

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry it took so long to respond to this. Yes, I realized what you were doing...and found it humorous, until I started thinking more about the subject and realized that I know far too many people in my personal life still clinging to "traditional values". I apologize. I worried that I had strayed all over the place in my response, and it seems that I did more than that--I lost focus.

You're right, it seems that I prefer spending much money on lawyers, but that's not at all what I mean. I hope you know that. I do see, though, how contracts made between individuals, without going through an attorney, would open up a whole other can of worms whenever someone becames disenchanted with the arrangement and wanted out.

I just see no way of implementing individualized marriage contracts with out a whole lot of lawers being involved constantly. The only way to avoid that would be turn marriage contracts into a check list. Then you get the you must have X of these other boxes checked to check this box and such. Even with this you then have to consider not if someone is married or not, but in every situation that marriage is recognized, does their marriage meet the criteria for recognition there.

Having more than one way to give people recognition might well be a good thing, but I am not sure that such individualized marriage contracts would be a workable solution.

[Meadmaker]

I just see no way of implementing individualized marriage contracts with out a whole lot of lawers being involved constantly.

What would happen, in practice, is that there would rapidly be a few pretty standard contracts. For example, the major churches would publish versions of the contract that would mimic the old fashioned understanding of marriage.

More progressive groups would create more liberal versions.

[ponderingturtle]

What would happen, in practice, is that there would rapidly be a few pretty standard contracts. For example, the major churches would publish versions of the contract that would mimic the old fashioned understanding of marriage.

More progressive groups would create more liberal versions.

Maybe, but there would still likely be clauses added or removed as a common change from those standard contracts. So the individual contracts would still need to be evaluated. You are at the least talking of thousands of different versions of marriage, any any institution that recognizes marriage would need to evaluate which specific contracts meet their standards for recognised marriage vs unrecognised social contract.

[sugarb]

I just see no way of implementing individualized marriage contracts with out a whole lot of lawers being involved constantly. The only way to avoid that would be turn marriage contracts into a check list. Then you get the you must have X of these other boxes checked to check this box and such. Even with this you then have to consider not if someone is married or not, but in every situation that marriage is recognized, does their marriage meet the criteria for recognition there.

Having more than one way to give people recognition might well be a good thing, but I am not sure that such individualized marriage contracts would be a workable solution.


Yes, and with further thought, I came up with a good example of how, if it became an issue of contracts, and were those contracts disputed through the legal system upon a death, for example, the resolution to the dispute would probably end up not being ideal. Just to throw an example out there for thought, if I may, I'll bring up the issue of my home.

I own my home. Outright it's mine, on paper it's mine, and we all, whomever may get involved in our relationship, understand that it is mine. I can add names to the deed, of course, but my primary partner is the one I wish to have my home, were I to die. (Which I will some day, lol).

Recognizing that even adults are prone to whims of emotional reaction, you have very valid points that I had not considered. Were there to be a legal recognition of a multiple marriage partners type situation, by the time all was said and done, could I be so certain that my primary partner would, indeed, be entitled to my home, solely? As the laws exist now, for the "norm" of marriage, things are pretty simple...unless minor children are involved, or children from previous marriages--people entitled to make claims against an estate, or challenge a will. Then things can get volatile, of course. But, in our case, even though there's no law involved beyond my primary partner (now spouse), it really isn't so simple. When we make commitments to other adults, and mutual understandings or even contracts are made, are we really thinking clearly--and this has made me think. If I were to die, would there be an issue that might cause my spouse to not get full ownership of my home? As it stands now, probably not. If the laws are changed? Likely, very likely, that such a situation could arise.

Realistically, I'm now looking at things Meadmaker has said in a different light. Not the part about old chicks not being "hot", but about who the most vulnerable in these types of situations would be. I still feel that protections should be in place so that wills and medical wishes and designated guardians of minors couldn't be challenged by relatives by blood or marriage, but perhaps that could be done for everyone, across the board (single people should have their wishes respected, as well...I get what you were saying about my mom's situation, now--sorry I was a bit dense there), and then there would be little need to push for recognition as "marriage".

Eh, said most of that poorly.

[shadron]

Maybe, but there would still likely be clauses added or removed as a common change from those standard contracts. So the individual contracts would still need to be evaluated. You are at the least talking of thousands of different versions of marriage, any any institution that recognizes marriage would need to evaluate which specific contracts meet their standards for recognised marriage vs unrecognised social contract.

How come it works for business, but wouln't for marriage?

[Lonewulf]

Businesses tend to be able to hire better lawyers.

[ponderingturtle]

How come it works for business, but wouln't for marriage?

Lawyers are an expense of doing business, but moving that expense into the personal realm will mean that many people simply can not afford the rights that marriage grants them.

Also with a business you do not have many specific and exclusive rights that marriage does have.

Assebely lines work well for building things, why don't more people take this approach to reproduction, as it works so well?

[Meadmaker]

Of course, we already have individualized marriage contracts. They're call prenuptual agreements.

[ponderingturtle]

Of course, we already have individualized marriage contracts. They're call prenuptual agreements.

Yes and no. The deal with property only not what rights someone does or does not have.

There are certainly ways to sheild assets in a marriage, for example making sure that your children inherrit your house regardless of what your second wife/husband or their children choose.

[INRM]

I honestly think polyamorous marriages are going too far...

[Lonewulf]

See, here's the thing -- relating back to "gay marriage leads to polygamy" you see at the beginning, and related to Skeptic's whole take on this thing.

The argument has always been, that if we allow gay marriage, we must allow for polygamy. Of course, this argument is based around the idea that allowing polygamy is bad/worse than gay marriage, and thus, we should not allow gay marriage. Here's my problem with the argument; I'll break it down to its base premises once more.

1) Allowing gay marriage in itself is not necessarily harmful (or else polygamy would not be brought up).

2) Polygamy in itself is necessarily harmful, and something we don't want.

3) Allowing gay marriage must necessarily allow polygamy, because if gay marriage is seen as harmless, then so would polygamy.


Does anyone spot the contradiction?

[Skeptic]

See, here's the thing -- relating back to "gay marriage leads to polygamy" you see at the beginning, and related to Skeptic's whole take on this thing.

My take is that if allowing gay marriage is something the PEOPLE or the STATES do, then that is not necessarily something that will lead to polygamy, but if it's something the COURTS do by inventing a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, then it will necessarily lead to polygamy.

[Lonewulf]

My take is that if allowing gay marriage is something the PEOPLE or the STATES do, then that is not necessarily something that will lead to polygamy, but if it's something the COURTS do by inventing a "constitutional right" to gay marriage, then it will necessarily lead to polygamy.

Um . . . .

Okay, I'm speechless. I can't even hope to use logic here, because there is none to begin with.

And why, exactly, are you comparing gay marriage to "marrying two bricks, a dog, and a Chevy", again?

[Skeptic]

Um . . . .

Okay, I'm speechless. I can't even hope to use logic here, because there is none to begin with.

I'm sorry you can't follow my argument, but really, claiming you don't understand it is not the same as saying there's no logic to it. I repeatedly explained myself, despite the fact that some people do not wish to understand: if it is in the hand of the legistlature to determine what marriage is, then it may accept gay marriage and not polygamy. If, however, it is a constitutional right to marry, then if it applies to gay marriage it must apply to polygamy (or incest) as well.

And why, exactly, are you comparing gay marriage to "marrying two bricks, a dog, and a Chevy", again?

For the same reason I compared gay marriage to incest in other threads. The point is not that they are morally and practically the same, but that CERTAIN ARGUMENTS of the pro-gay-marriage folks would apply to them as well.

The point, naturally, is to show the weakness of the ARGUMENT that are used to support the recognition of gay marriage, not to claim gay marriage is the same as these other arrangements in all, or for that matter in any, other respect except the one used in the argument.

To repeat both arguments: if marriage is a constitutional right, then if there is a "right" to gay marriage there is also a "right" to incestual marriage. Therefore, the claim that gay marriage is supported because it is a "right" cannot logically be advanced without agreeing that incestual marriages should be supported, too.

Similarly, if the fact that gay marriage does not lower the number of regular marriages is an argument to allow gay marriage, then the fact that someone marrying two bricks, a dog, and a chevy would also certainly not lower regular marriages (if only because virtually nobody would want to do it, except perhaps as a joke) should be a reason to legally recognize that as marriage, too.

[GreNME]

Similarly, if the fact that gay marriage does not lower the number of regular marriages is an argument to allow gay marriage, then the fact that someone marrying two bricks, a dog, and a chevy would also certainly not lower regular marriages (if only because virtually nobody would want to do it, except perhaps as a joke) should be a reason to legally recognize that as marriage, too.

Only if you could prove that the two bricks, the dog, and the Chevy are capable of entering into the agreement with knowledge of what they're entering and express consent to the agreement being entered (and that whole being a "person" thing). But since you're ignoring those parts I'll let you get back to your ridiculous red herrings.

[Lonewulf]

I have yet to see someone argue that we should allow gay marriage for the sole premise that "it doesn't hurt heterosexual marriages".