Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[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.

 

[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 that more a flame

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?