Are there really any valid reasons to prevent consenting adults from being able to enter into marriage? The video is an interview with an anthropologist who has studied modern American polygamy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know enough about it, to be honest, but I think on the face of it, one of the biggest problems/questions people would have is whether or not multi-family families produce well-adjusted kids. It was a major argument in the gay marriage case in the Supreme Court.
I think this is going to be a harder sell than gay marriage.
I'll watch the video later. I'm curious.
On the other hand, we're still a ways away from finishing THIS battle. Be awhile before we start the next.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Are there really any valid reasons to prevent consenting adults from being able to enter into marriage?
I'm all in favour of polyamory, but speaking as a programmer, 1-1 and many-to-many relationships are different. You require a significant modification of the API when a change like that occurs.
Similarly, the legal framework in most western countries already largely didn't give a damn about gender in any legal issue, so making it also not give a damn about gender in the case of marriage is relatively EASY from a complexity perpective.
But tax issues/divorce/child custody/visitation rights/etc aren't as easy to adapt when you scale marriage from a coupling of 2 to a coupling of 3, 4,8 or indeed a hundred.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, I thought about that too.
If a man has three wives, can one of them divorce him and get half? Or does she only get a fourth? How about child support? Are the wages of the other wives to be included in child support payments? Is the net worth of the household to be determined based on the net worth of every wife and husband, or in sets of two? How would taxation work? If the single gender dies and leaves multiple widows and widowers, do they each get an even split, or would length of marriage determine how much? Would a 50 year wife get the same as someone who just joined the group? What about federal survivor benefits? Would they be split multiple ways or would the government have to pay out larger sums?
The legal issues alone would be a nightmare, at least in part because you'd have a tangled web between various federal and state standards. There are no common law standards for something like this I'd imagine, which means you'd either have to make them up from scratch, or codify traditions that aren't mainstream into mainstream law, which I think a lot of people would have a problem with.
It's just much more difficult than making marriage gender neutral.
The arguments regarding child rearing I think would be just as strong as those regarding how enormously difficult it would be legally. Could someone make an argument that it limits the gene pool? That kids in multi-family homes are mal-adjusted or suffer other developmental problems? At the very least, the Supreme Court would expect a long, long time for the situation to sort itself out if it ever got close to the critical mass the gay marriage movement is at.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Lyrhawn, if people enter into polygamy then all the legal system would have to do is treat it as any other Corporate model. If a man is married to three women then either set up a pre-nuptual agreement stating who owns what. As new women enter, or as the economic situation Changes, modify the agreement as needed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry in theory. In practice, it has almost always been a model where women have been less than equal partners or where young girls are groomed to be sexual fodder for a patriarch.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: Lyrhawn, if people enter into polygamy then all the legal system would have to do is treat it as any other Corporate model. If a man is married to three women then either set up a pre-nuptual agreement stating who owns what.
That already is a pretty huge difference compared to current marital law which doesn't require people to enter into pre-nuptual agreements when they get married.
And if you're saying "make pre-nuptual agreements obligatory only from the second marriage onwards", the law still needs make a decision about whether the first spouse needs to consent about the second marriage, or if it's fully up to the liberty of the person to marry for the second time.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That already is a pretty huge difference compared to current marital law which doesn't require people to enter into pre-nuptual agreements when they get married.
And prenups are routinely challenged, sometimes causing a reversion to the default marriage rights. So even for the people that use a prenup the situation would be substantially different for a polygamist marriage compared to a 2-person marriage. There is no default framework of rights and responsibilities to fall back on.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry in theory. In practice, it has almost always been a model where women have been less than equal partners or where young girls are groomed to be sexual fodder for a patriarch.
This would be a women's rights issue or a child exploitation issue though. Those aren't specific to polygamy.
I've often thought that some of the reasons why people are for and against polygamy and gay marriage aren't related to marriage at all. A man or woman not being able to see their partner in the hospital for example is an argument for patient's rights more than marriage. Likewise, the taxation argument for married couples is a tax issue, not a marriage issue.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I know several polyamorous people, who are living out pretty healthy lives, and I'm fairly comfortable with it becoming a mainstream thing. But I DO think that giving it any kind of legal framework is going to be extraordinarily complicated, and probably not worth it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry in theory. In practice, it has almost always been a model where women have been less than equal partners or where young girls are groomed to be sexual fodder for a patriarch.
This would be a women's rights issue or a child exploitation issue though. Those aren't specific to polygamy.
They don't, in theory, have to be, but they generally are. It is a bit like being okay with capitol punishment as long our justice system works perfectly. You could say that executing the wrong people is a justice system problem, not a capitol punishment problem but it doesn't matter.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry in theory. In practice, it has almost always been a model where women have been less than equal partners or where young girls are groomed to be sexual fodder for a patriarch.
Polygamy has yet to be legally and openly practiced in a modern democratized country with an equitable, functional justice system. No past or current instances of polygamy are comprable to what polygamy in the US could be were it legalized today.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When we get women's rights and consent issues right - and we are a long way from that - it should be possible to do polygamy well.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When we get women's rights and consent issues right - and we are a long way from that - it should be possible to do polygamy well.
I understand the consent issues, but what specific rights do women not currently have that they should?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am speaking more of culture than of laws. I should have made that clearer.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And prenups are routinely challenged, sometimes causing a reversion to the default marriage rights.
Oh!
That's good to know. I didn't realize prenups were that vulnerable. I hope it's rare they are discarded, otherwise what's the point?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am speaking more of culture than of laws. I should have made that clearer.
In culture then. I assume you are referring to the difference in pay versus men in the workplace as one of them. I am an HR Consultant so I know some of the differences from a business perspective, but I'd like to read up on more areas.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:When we get women's rights and consent issues right - and we are a long way from that - it should be possible to do polygamy well.
This all seems rather abstract on me. Do you have data on current polyamorous relationship being any worse in regards to these two issues (women's rights and consent) than monogamous relationships are?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, you all also realize that it works both ways, and a woman could have multiple husbands?
Laws would have to remain gender neutral.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Well, you all also realize that it works both ways, and a woman could have multiple husbands?"
She could also have some wives and some husbands. Yes, we do realize.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I say that only because the assumption throughout this thread seems to be that all multi spouse marriages would be a man with many wives.
I'd also be curious about insurance. If I marry four wives, do they and all my kids get access to employer provided insurance? I suppose that's more of a company decision, but it'd be a thorny issue.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And prenups are routinely challenged, sometimes causing a reversion to the default marriage rights.
Oh!
That's good to know. I didn't realize prenups were that vulnerable. I hope it's rare they are discarded, otherwise what's the point?
It partially depends on the quality of the lawyer who wrote the prenuptial agreement vs the quality of the lawyer fighting the agreement. It also depends on whether both sides were honest in the signing of the agreement. Finally, depending on the judge if the agreement is to lopsided, or one person was coerced (ie: right before the wedding you say sign or we call it off) it can be overturned.
Basically, don't marry someone if you don't have a level of trust in them. You can stay somewhat protected if you keep your finances separate, and don't mix premarital assets with marital assets.
Btw, I'm not a lawyer myself, but I'm friend with quite a few (both prosecutors and a divorce lawyer).
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Again the anthropologist deals mostly with modern-minded polygamists and how polygamy actually can empower women:
Freedom of choice is pretty important, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am speaking more of culture than of laws. I should have made that clearer.
In culture then. I assume you are referring to the difference in pay versus men in the workplace as one of them. I am an HR Consultant so I know some of the differences from a business perspective, but I'd like to read up on more areas.
Not just that. I am also talking about things like a culture where a woman's body sovereignty is not an absolute. Not just abortion but date rape, for example. Where "provocative clothes" can still be considered by many to be a valid excuse for violating a woman. Where even I, a stout, middle aged woman who dresses like a nun, gets followed and intimidated by strangers and am grateful that they didn't do worse. Where people express anger towards an actress who has surgury that could save her life and express sympathy for her husband because she is so selfish.
I could go on.
SSM makes sense. Gay people already live in committed relationships and have families. They do it as well as anyone; all that they lack is legal sanction. We don't, now, do that well with polygamy.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I don't know. There are negative statistics concerning straight couples and gay couples as well. I read that 95% of child molesters are straight and married.
A study done by the American Journal of Public Health shows that physical and sexual abuse is higher among gay couples than heterosexual couples.
Not all Polygamist couples are going to exploit children or treat their spouse(s) badly.
My mother knows the family that was on the reality show "Sister Wives." She speaks to Janelle probably once a week. For them, polygamy works. They have some issues that couples don't have, such as wives getting into arguments with each other, but for the most part they are pretty normal.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I've always thought Polygamy was interesting. It would be harder to argue against it than, say, homosexual marriage, at least from a religious standpoint. I say this because the bible has countless examples of men marrying multiple wives at a time.
I don't think it's a good idea, personally, because you'd have to rewrite marriage law just to be able to do it. After all, if a man starts dating a woman that isn't his wife, is it considered adultery?
Eh, it probably won't ever happen anyway.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:"Well, you all also realize that it works both ways, and a woman could have multiple husbands?"
She could also have some wives and some husbands. Yes, we do realize.
Only in states that allow gay marriage! Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm up for this, as long as ALL the partners are partners with each other.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
The video points out that sometimes women become intimate with each other.
One might note the Old Testament did not condemn female-female sexual relations and polygamy may have been the reason I suppose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Every couple of years you swing through here and have this conversation, michaele8. You're like the Johnny Appleseed of polygamy.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think for the metaphor to be complete, he'd have to be the Johnny Appleseed of polygamy discussions. Which sounds a bit less impressive, if more likely to be effective.
Hobbes Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I don't see why not.
I many countries where polygamy is common (men with multiple wives) it's actually harmful for males in general. Because when a man marries 4 wives, there are going to be 3 men who will never get a wife, or children.
Typically in such countries, it's the men with money and power who get multiple wives, and it's the poor men who will never have any wives at all.
This obviously leads to a lot of problems. There are many very angry men, who will eventually vent out their frustration somewhere.
But in the USA, you would be seeing also marriages with one wife, and multiple husbands. At least when the men would be bi, it could work great.
I think this in general works the best for people with bi tendencies.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: One might note the Old Testament did not condemn female-female sexual relations and polygamy may have been the reason I suppose.
Actually, grammar is more likely the reason.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I'm up for this, as long as ALL the partners are partners with each other.
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: I think this in general works the best for people with bi tendencies.
These posts bring up an interesting legal point. For people in favor of polygamy, is the change you wish to see that a single marriage could have more than 2 people, or that a person could be in more than one marriage at a time?
In other words, are A,B,C,&D all married to each other, or could A be married to B & C while C is married to A & D, and there is no legal relationship between B&C, B&D, or A&D?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Polygamy is pernicious.
Civilization owes much to insuring a one-to-one mating ratio.
If some guy monopolizes three women, two men won't be able to find wives and form families.
What do you do with the excess males?
Also, it's already hard enough for a lot of us guys to get dates, don't make it harder for us.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Unless most of the males died due to war or oddly specific targeting spread of plague.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I think polygyny might be too fitting with human nature, which is why we forbid it. It's a disruptive, darwinian nightmare and will incentivize the men who are screwed over by it to band together and to tear down the order that has left them sexually frustrated and unable to form families. I think that's a pretty strong incentive to engage in political violence.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Morally I couldn't care less. Let people marry whom they see fit (outside of their blood family and of appropriate consent age). Doesn't bug me a bit.
Legally, it would be a mess. But hey, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It just means we have to have enough people who think it's a great idea to make it worth the work of figuring out the legal kerfuffle which would ensue.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: In other words, are A,B,C,&D all married to each other, or could A be married to B & C while C is married to A & D, and there is no legal relationship between B&C, B&D, or A&D?
From the little that I know of it (mostly watching Lisa Ling's "Our America" episode on polygamy (and polyamory) I think that not everyone is necessarily married to each other, so you could indeed have non involved people in the middle of a huge marriage group.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I think polygyny might be too fitting with human nature, which is why we forbid it. It's a disruptive, darwinian nightmare and will incentivize the men who are screwed over by it to band together and to tear down the order that has left them sexually frustrated and unable to form families. I think that's a pretty strong incentive to engage in political violence.
Yet in China there is a huge surplus of males and ther society is more stable than our's.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, that's an interesting huge theory offered with no support at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
They asked Blayne Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Interesting discussion.
First of all, in a fully open poly society (meaning most any marriage combination would be legal), I don't think a shortage of women would be a major problem. This assumes that only single male with multiple females would be engaged in it and while it may be true that that has been the most common in the past, I think it would be much more balanced if open to all combinations. Single female with multiple males (or multiple females with a higher multiple of males) have occurred in areas with a shortage of females before. Think of Alaska in the gold rush days. I strongly suspect things would balance out, especially since it's probable that only a small percentage of the population would enter into such arrangements. Admittedly, I could be totally wrong about that as this is not a subject I have studied before.
I also disagree that such arrangements would only work for bi partners. Sure that might simplify many things but I could see it working without it. I'm a straight guy and I have no desire to be in a marriage with a woman (or multiple women) and multiple men but I could see doing it in special circumstances. For instance, in the case of a female shortage. If my only choices were no marriage at all or sharing a woman with other men, I would do it. I would have to like and get along with the other men but I definitely would NOT engage in sexual activity with them. Well, maybe one activity but how graphic do you want this get? Let's just say that if she was into DP, I might be willing to oblige.
Still, I think I will stick with the good old 1 to 1. It works for me.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: I think polygyny might be too fitting with human nature, which is why we forbid it. It's a disruptive, darwinian nightmare and will incentivize the men who are screwed over by it to band together and to tear down the order that has left them sexually frustrated and unable to form families. I think that's a pretty strong incentive to engage in political violence.
Yet in China there is a huge surplus of males and ther society is more stable than our's.
Yes, a harsh authoritarian government can effectively suppress the men who lose out. Let us become an authoritarian society so that some men can take many wives.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Interesting discussion.
First of all, in a fully open poly society (meaning most any marriage combination would be legal), I don't think a shortage of women would be a major problem. This assumes that only single male with multiple females would be engaged in it and while it may be true that that has been the most common in the past, I think it would be much more balanced if open to all combinations. Single female with multiple males (or multiple females with a higher multiple of males) have occurred in areas with a shortage of females before. Think of Alaska in the gold rush days. I strongly suspect things would balance out, especially since it's probable that only a small percentage of the population would enter into such arrangements. Admittedly, I could be totally wrong about that as this is not a subject I have studied before.
I'm pretty sure you're talking about prostitution with the Alaska thing. Sure, prostitution is one way multiple men may "share" a woman. But come on.
Look, other than the above scenario, multiple men peacefully sharing a wife goes against human nature...period.
Thinking about polygamy and entirely ignoring the legal aspect, it seems like the only people who would be okay with it are those at the bottom of society and those at the top. And maybe some religious groups a la Big Love. But the cumulative effect will be the same: A whole lot of men won't be able to form families. Polygamy should remain illegal out of simple fairness.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Arguments that any given type of marriage is against human nature are very suspect. Anthropology tells us differently. This is essentially the argument many people used against same sex marriage for so long.
Consenting adults in groups are able to form contracts with each other now. Marriage is a contract. I expect this will work out eventually one form at a time. Polygyny and polyandry may be first, but next will come lineal marriages, perhaps, and then group marriages, and other types. The rules will be worked out for each type in turn, with good old monogamy being the most popular type, probably, for the foreseeable future. Different marriage types have different strengths and weaknesses under various circumstances. Yet families are forever.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
How is your registration date "A Long Time Ago!"?
Also: Civilizations have settled on monogamy for a reason: It is a form of sexual socialism. Strictly enforced monogamy benefits the average man to the detriment of lotharios. The deterioration of monogamy favors lotharios over the average man.
It is not in your interest as a heterosexual male to champion other forms of heterosexual unions, unless you're rich or hot or something.
A society in which monogamy is not the norm cannot be stable and successful over the long run.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I registered in the paleolithic age when this forum software was new. At some point they upgraded and moved over everyone in alphabetical order. Had I used AK instead of ak, I would have been member number 2 or something. It's just one of those things that happens to history in antiquity. Information is lost. I'm 14,000 some odd years old. This happens to me a lot.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by ak: I'm 14,000 some odd years old. This happens to me a lot.
Both David Lee Smith (John Oldman on The Man from Earth) and AK are from Birmingham, Alabama!
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:How is your registration date "A Long Time Ago!"?
She registered a long time ago. Seriously.
Ask a silly question...
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I am not a religious figure associated with any of the major religions. I learned better than to do that in my first few hundred years of life. People want to give up their agency to you, and though it's oh so tempting to try to guide them well with my longer view, that's always a bad idea in the long run. People do best overall when they make their own choices after freely choosing which advice to listen to or reject from others. As an eldermother, I tend to see everyone as my descendants, and so I freely dish out advice to them which they are then free to ignore because I'm obviously too ancient to understand.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)