Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

Meadmaker said:
So, if you are so inclined to answer, why do you want the government sticking its nose into polyamorous relationships? That is, after all, what you are asking for if you want polygamy.
Click to expand...
Only insofar as the government already sticks its nose into monogamous relationships. We just want what they already get.
 
ponderingturtle said:
As you reject fairness, and refuse to have any personal empathy for their situation I don't see the point in continueing this debate/
Click to expand...

Did you start?

All I noticed were some off topic discussion about voting rights and such. As I noted, I think that I benefited from those developments, but they aren't the topic of this thread.
 
arthwollipot said:
Only insofar as the government already sticks its nose into monogamous relationships. We just want what they already get.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I actually "get" a net gain from the government's involvement in my relationship, but that's beside the point. They certainly do treat my wife and I differently than they would if we were two single people who happened to live in the same house. You want the same.

Fine.

I'm prepared to discuss why society benefits from government's involvement in my relationship. Are you prepared to do the same for polyamorous relationships?
 
arthwollipot said:
Only insofar as the government already sticks its nose into monogamous relationships. We just want what they already get.
Click to expand...

No, you want something different.

Numbers make a relevant difference to a construct. There is a significant difference to the relationship between two people and that between 3 or 5 or 10 people. (You can draw a nice graph demonstrating that with dots as people and lines for their individual relationships.)

Polygamy cannot be treated the same as monogamy. (Not should not or is not, but cannot. It is logically not possible. They are fundamentally different)

So, I can easily see why a government that allows one white man to marry one white woman should allow the same white man to marry

a) another white man
b) a black man
c) a black woman
d) a catholic woman
e) an atheist woman
d) .... you get the point.

I do not see why it should follow that he ought to be allowed to marry all of them at the same time, though. It's not asking for the same thing. Not nearly, even.

And since it cannot be the same, it would really be up to you to at least let us know what exactly it is you're asking for. Then - and only then - will I happily debate whether you ought to get it. (And my answer might even be yes, but as long as I don't even know what you want ...)
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm not sure I actually "get" a net gain from the government's involvement in my relationship, but that's beside the point. They certainly do treat my wife and I differently than they would if we were two single people who happened to live in the same house. You want the same.

Fine.

I'm prepared to discuss why society benefits from government's involvement in my relationship. Are you prepared to do the same for polyamorous relationships?
Click to expand...


Meadmaker, hello. I'll attempt to answer your question, because I think it's valid--very valid--and in fact goes to the heart of how society benefits from marriage in general.

Now, many people don't get married, or enter into relationships, to "help" society. But, as has been pointed out regarding heterosexual, or "traditional" marriage, there are benefits to society. One of those is increasing the odds of NOT living in poverty. Married people tend to have a higher standard of living than single parents. Why that is may be up for debate, but certainly a huge part of it is the potential for two incomes, having a sense of responsibility to more than just one's self, and, in terms of wanting what is best for a family situation, they tend to demand better schools, safer communities, cleaner parks, and the list goes on.

I just read your question, and the replies, so forgive me for this not being a well thought out response, please. I can only offer my own personal observations, and honestly, the current economic situation in and of itself, in my mind, only strengthens the positive aspects of having multiple partners (not talking emotions, here, just the non-emotional realities of relationships in general). In multiple-partnered relationships, households can actually function more successfully, in traditional ways, than "traditional" marriage, believe it or not. There can be multiple incomes, and still be someone home with children, or someone handling the home and personal business. There is increased buying power, for more than just essentials.

How that benefits you? Well, were it to become the norm? And the same rights as marriage given to poly families? I'd bet there's be less people having to utilize public assistance, government assisted health care, food stamps, etc. I'd venture to say we'd see, in the long run, reduced truancy--which is a very serious problem. Children really do benefit from having a parent there, and problem children really need closer supervision. Yet many single parents cannot do what some school districts are demanding they do...and are in danger of being considered criminals because of it. True, a single parent and child can live with another couple, and consider themselves "married"...but...wouldn't the situation be better for the child if the law would recognize the other adults as parents, too? We do for step-parents. And we call that good. Why can't a child have three parents in an in-tact family, and that be considered good as well?

Society benefits from marriage. You said it yourself--you believe you do benefit from your neighbor's marriage. Well, what are those benefits? And can you not see how some of those, if not all, would also exist in a poly situation? Perhaps moreso, given the potential for even greater household income? Poly families, after all, want the same things for their kids that you want for your own.
 
sugarb said:
Meadmaker, hello. I'll attempt to answer your question, because I think it's valid--very valid--and in fact goes to the heart of how society benefits from marriage in general.
....
Click to expand...

Good answer. I don't have time for a reply, as I am leaving and will be out of town, and off the internet, for a couple of days, but it's a good answer.
 
sugarb said:
Meadmaker, hello. I'll attempt to answer your question, because I think it's valid--very valid--and in fact goes to the heart of how society benefits from marriage in general.

Now, many people don't get married, or enter into relationships, to "help" society. But, as has been pointed out regarding heterosexual, or "traditional" marriage, there are benefits to society. One of those is increasing the odds of NOT living in poverty. Married people tend to have a higher standard of living than single parents. Why that is may be up for debate, but certainly a huge part of it is the potential for two incomes, having a sense of responsibility to more than just one's self, and, in terms of wanting what is best for a family situation, they tend to demand better schools, safer communities, cleaner parks, and the list goes on.

I just read your question, and the replies, so forgive me for this not being a well thought out response, please. I can only offer my own personal observations, and honestly, the current economic situation in and of itself, in my mind, only strengthens the positive aspects of having multiple partners (not talking emotions, here, just the non-emotional realities of relationships in general). In multiple-partnered relationships, households can actually function more successfully, in traditional ways, than "traditional" marriage, believe it or not. There can be multiple incomes, and still be someone home with children, or someone handling the home and personal business. There is increased buying power, for more than just essentials.

How that benefits you? Well, were it to become the norm? And the same rights as marriage given to poly families? I'd bet there's be less people having to utilize public assistance, government assisted health care, food stamps, etc. I'd venture to say we'd see, in the long run, reduced truancy--which is a very serious problem. Children really do benefit from having a parent there, and problem children really need closer supervision. Yet many single parents cannot do what some school districts are demanding they do...and are in danger of being considered criminals because of it. True, a single parent and child can live with another couple, and consider themselves "married"...but...wouldn't the situation be better for the child if the law would recognize the other adults as parents, too? We do for step-parents. And we call that good. Why can't a child have three parents in an in-tact family, and that be considered good as well?

Society benefits from marriage. You said it yourself--you believe you do benefit from your neighbor's marriage. Well, what are those benefits? And can you not see how some of those, if not all, would also exist in a poly situation? Perhaps moreso, given the potential for even greater household income? Poly families, after all, want the same things for their kids that you want for your own.
Click to expand...

A very nice response.
 
Meadmaker said:
In a will, you can appoint a guardian, but you can't make it stick.
Click to expand...

Are you sure, Meadmaker? That is not the situation in Scotland

Guardianship
7Appointment of guardians
(1)A child’s parent may appoint a person to be guardian of the child in the event of the parent’s death; but—
(a)such appointment shall be of no effect unless—
(i)in writing and signed by the parent; and
(ii)the parent, at the time of death, was entitled to act as legal representative of the child (or would have been so entitled if he had survived until after the birth of the child); and
(b)any parental responsibilities or parental rights (or the right to appoint a further guardian under this section) which a surviving parent has in relation to the child shall subsist with those which, by, under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, the appointee so has.
(2)A guardian of a child may appoint a person to take his place as guardian in the event of the guardian’s death; but such appointment shall be of no effect unless in writing and signed by the person making it.
(3)An appointment as guardian shall not take effect until accepted, either expressly or impliedly by acts which are not consistent with any other intention.
(4)If two or more persons are appointed as guardians, any one or more of them shall, unless the appointment expressly provides otherwise, be entitled to accept office even if both or all of them do not accept office.
(5)Subject to any order under section 11 or 86 of this Act, a person appointed as a child’s guardian under this section shall have, in respect of the child, the responsibilities imposed, and the rights conferred, on a parent by sections 1 and 2 of this Act respectively; and sections 1 and 2 of this Act shall apply in relation to a guardian as they apply in relation to a parent.
(6)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of section 6 of this Act, a decision as to the appointment of a guardian under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be regarded for the purposes of that section (or of that section as applied by subsection (5) above) as a major decision which involves exercising a parental right.
Click to expand...

Children (Scotland) Act, 1995
 
I am just shocked that this is even a question with such smart people.

What does it matter to anyone else when others want to be in relationships of their own choosing.

Any arguments against marriage of different sorts just all is the same as reefer madness hype to me.
 
Rasmus said:
Polygamy cannot be treated the same as monogamy. (Not should not or is not, but cannot. It is logically not possible. They are fundamentally different)
Click to expand...
Why not, and why? Why logically not possible? How fundamentally different?

ETA: And BTW, I completely agree with sugarb's response.
 
Last edited:
skepticality said:
I am just shocked that this is even a question with such smart people.

What does it matter to anyone else when others want to be in relationships of their own choosing.

Any arguments against marriage of different sorts just all is the same as reefer madness hype to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, me too. I can't see why it is different from interracial, or gay marriage. But I'm approaching the subject from a somewhat... biased perspective.
 
arthwollipot said:
Why not, and why? Why logically not possible? How fundamentally different?
Click to expand...

Suppose 5 people are married together. Who gets to decide if and how a 6th person can enter that relationship?

How will partial divorces be handled?

Suppose one of the 5 people wants to divorce three of the others, yet stay with the one remaing partner?

Is it really so difficult to see that there is nothing equivalent to these and many other issues in a simple, one-dimensional two-person relationship?

A is married to B. The end of it. What A is to B, B is to A. This is no longer possible if you enter C, D and E into the equasions, because you are building a multi-dimensional network of relations that the laws will have to take into account.
 
skepticality said:
I am just shocked that this is even a question with such smart people.

What does it matter to anyone else when others want to be in relationships of their own choosing.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are simply confusing a personal relationship with a marriage recognized and sanctioned by the state?

Or can you point where in this thread anyone suggested you couldn't ave as many relationships with as many people as you chose?

Any arguments against marriage of different sorts just all is the same as reefer madness hype to me.
Click to expand...

So maybe you can tell me just how exactly a marriage between 10 different people should be organized as opposed to one between just two people? I am all ears!
 
Rasmus said:
Suppose 5 people are married together. Who gets to decide if and how a 6th person can enter that relationship?

How will partial divorces be handled?

Suppose one of the 5 people wants to divorce three of the others, yet stay with the one remaing partner?

Is it really so difficult to see that there is nothing equivalent to these and many other issues in a simple, one-dimensional two-person relationship?

A is married to B. The end of it. What A is to B, B is to A. This is no longer possible if you enter C, D and E into the equasions, because you are building a multi-dimensional network of relations that the laws will have to take into account.
Click to expand...
These are merely practical difficulties, not fundamental logical differences. You said (and emphasised) that it was logically not possible.

I'm not saying that the practical difficulties are not significant. But they're far from being the fundamental difference you suggested.
 
Rasmus said:
Suppose 5 people are married together. Who gets to decide if and how a 6th person can enter that relationship?

How will partial divorces be handled?

Suppose one of the 5 people wants to divorce three of the others, yet stay with the one remaing partner?

Is it really so difficult to see that there is nothing equivalent to these and many other issues in a simple, one-dimensional two-person relationship?

A is married to B. The end of it. What A is to B, B is to A. This is no longer possible if you enter C, D and E into the equasions, because you are building a multi-dimensional network of relations that the laws will have to take into account.
Click to expand...

Well...but...there is an equivalent. Person A is married to person B. Person A meets person C. Person A and person C produce person D, unbeknownst to person B.

Person A,B,C,and D are intertwined forever, legally...unless person B decides to bail (which does not always happen). The law gives person D rights to Person A's estate and income, which obviously affects person B, but also serves to protect a fair portion of the estate for person B. The law gives person A rights to important decisons for person D. The law entitles person C to collect from person A, which in turn affects person B...who, over the normal course of such a family will also be making important decisions for person D. Though person C may not be entitled to any estate, she most certainly will be the one seeking part of it if person A kicks the bucket before person B, if person D is still a minor...and ALL parties who are adults (assuming person B stays in the relationship, which is as likely to happen as not) become responsible in many ways for person D.

It wasn't hard for the laws to figure this one out. And this one wasn't a situation mutually agreed upon beforehand by all parties.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Did you start?

All I noticed were some off topic discussion about voting rights and such. As I noted, I think that I benefited from those developments, but they aren't the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

You take a sociopathic view that there must be some benefit to you, I want to know how you resolve this with past civil rights issues. Of course I know that you will not answer.
 
Rasmus said:
Polygamy cannot be treated the same as monogamy. (Not should not or is not, but cannot. It is logically not possible. They are fundamentally different)
Click to expand...

I don't know about can not, it does not fit current marriage laws, but you could write marriage laws that were the same regardless of the number of people be it two or two thousand in a marriage. The latter would likely be some sort of cult but so what?

Legally they could be the same, but it is not necessarily something that is particularly close to current marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom