"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[megaresp]

I'm currently in a MFf poly relationship, the chances of me having a serious two-person relationship are slim to none

Over the course of the rest of your life?

...of course, you mean my right to pay alimony in the event of a divorce

If you have children with another person and then split, those children are entitled to alimony. The state steps in if necessary. What's wrong with that?

But I wasn't referring to children, or even marriage as such. My point was about the role of the state when a relationship goes south.

I suspect it would be better to depersonalise this. An example of a legitimate intervention by the State occurs when one person in a relationship provides unpaid services that enable the other to pursue his/her career. This may or may not involve children, a course of study, and/or taking care of day-to-day matters. Anything that frees up time and/or opportunity for the other person.

In the event of a split that person is suddently highly vulnerable. In my view it is right and proper that the legal system be available should it become necessary.

so you're alleging that I'll have more rights if I get divorced and you're telling me this on Valentines day because you either have terrible sense of timing or because you didn't realise it was valentines day, if I were you, I'd be worried about my impending divorce

Lol - yes, I did realise it was Valentines Day. But as you have 200% more women to think of (birthdays, anniversaries, god-knows-what-else) I am half as likely to find myself in hot water

 

[ponderingturtle]

Despite the theories of equality between the sexes and even anecdotal examples of cases of polygamy with one wife and multiple husbands, in practice polygamy always ends up being dominated by cases of one man with multiple women. And the effects of polygamy when practiced widely are incredibly damaging to society. Men at the top of the social pyramid get multiple women, men at the bottom get nobody. And that leads to all sorts of social pathology, including widespread misogyny. It's no coincidence that polygamy is widespread in so many terribly screwed up societies (like Afghanistan, for example) but absent from basically every first-world country.

Of course outside very modern marriage there is clear sexism inherent in it. Remember spousal rape was legal in the US 20 years ago. So if an institution that made rape legal can be reformed why not polygamy?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sexual status will always been unequal: women (eggs) are biologically more valuable than men (sperm). Supply and demand. Generally speaking. Super-high status men will always be more valuable than women. The main effect of monogamy is to equalize men: You only get one mate at a time (officially anyway).

Polygamy -- or, a free-market in marriage -- arguably benefits the majority of females, but harms the most desirable women in that now they have to share a partner. It undeniably benefits the studs but hurts a lot of men further down the totem pole. .

Letting women own property has rather changed many of the dynamics you assume here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course outside very modern marriage there is clear sexism inherent in it. Remember spousal rape was legal in the US 20 years ago. So if an institution that made rape legal can be reformed why not polygamy?

Because there's an inherent asymmetry based on biology that no amount of social progress or changes to the legal code are ever going to change. Women can only be pregnant by one man at a time, but a man can get multiple women pregnant at the same time. That's why polygamy is always going to be dominated by one man with many women, with the reverse scenario being a rarity.

 

[Marduk]

Any special meaning behind the mixed cases in "MFf"?

its standard grammar to describe the type of relationship I'm in
M - Dominant male
F - Dominant female
f - submissive female

another way to explain it would be as a delta poly group, or if that still doesn't gel with you, simply Master, Mistress and slave

Over the course of the rest of your life?

Thats unknowable, but again, unlikely, as I engage in a specific lifestyle (M/s) with protocols that ensure I am responsible for my actions, its not about having lots of sex with a girl twenty years my junior, though that might be seen as one of the many benefits , the largest benefit I know exists is that as our lifestyle is based mainly on trust, we as a result know where we stand with each other, if one of my partners is unhappy, she has two others who love her trying to rectify that, thats an advantage over a normal coupling which usually runs, when one partner is unhappy, the most common cause is usually the other partner, so theres no succour at all and only the divorce rate benefits

If you have children with another person and then split, those children are entitled to alimony. The state steps in if necessary. What's wrong with that?

I don't have any children, my F partner has two kids from a previous relationship, they are often being catered to at my expense as their father is unemployed. This october I'm paying to take them both to florida with us. Their father isn't paying a penny towards it and hasn't taken them on holiday for years. Who wants my Alimony, as a responsible adult, I place childrens welfare way above my financial well being, as a childhood abuse survivor, that won't change either, this is the reason that people work, to provide for their loved ones, there'd be little point in working if the money was going to an ex who I no longer have any contact with. She's and adult, I'm an adult, why do we need to pay each other for breaking up. Worse than that, why would I need to pay her if we split up, thats what I'm getting from you, that the divorced man is somehow more responsible post break up than the woman, its that kind of inequality that holds a darkened mirror up to equality of the sexes and makes a mockery of the whole thing. People should have equal rights, no matter what their financial or social situation and irregardless of their sex or sexuality.

But I wasn't referring to children, or even marriage as such. My point was about the role of the state when a relationship goes south.

But again, that may be ok for the vast majority of normal vanilla couples, but my relationship is strong, there is no state interference and I wouldn't stand for any, I have a right to privacy. Take a look at my country right now, theyre incompetant to keep their own relationship with the rest of the world going and you want me to let them spin that magic in my personal life too, are you mad or a bitter divorcee

fact is, that I was previously pursued for a decade by the child support agency for money for a child I knew wasn't mine, when the C.S.A. finally accepted the truth they ended up paying me compensation, who did the ten years of harassment with people thinking I was an absentee father benefit, it wasn't me, I lost good friends over that who because they trust government thought I was a despicable person, thats people in my life I cared about, who had things gone south for them I would have helped, but the government did their best to blacken my social standing in order to gain revenue. In the end everyone lost, the mother of the child, because she used the system to target an innocent person lost the respect of everyone who knew her when her lies became apparent, the kid because while she was getting paid, she didn't bother looking for a father for him, my friends who thought I was a waster, in the end they awarded me £150 and admitted culpability, I was in a strong position to sue for a lot more, but again, who would benefit from my enrichment, luckily for them my moral centre is held higher than my need for cash. I think thats the main area where government fails, as it is generally exists to raise revenue, it assumes that everyone else wants the same thing. Government in human form would be an absent father with self control issues and shocking low self esteem. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be criminal too, there was no difference between what they tried to do to me and what the mafia does in a protection racket.

All I've ever wanted was to be happy and to enable those I care about to be happy, What's wrong with that, I understand that may make me morally unsound on a religious basis according to some peoples views, but I don't care about religion and imo if people have to resort to religious idealism to score points, then I fear for their own relationships

I suspect it would be better to depersonalise this. An example of a legitimate intervention by the State occurs when one person in a relationship provides unpaid services that enable the other to pursue his/her career. This may or may not involve children, a course of study, and/or taking care of day-to-day matters. Anything that frees up time and/or opportunity for the other person.

I'm already paying all the rent and all the bills, now you appear to be telling me that I also need to put her through University, her employers won't give her the time off anyway and she doesn't need another degree

In the event of a split that person is suddently highly vulnerable. In my view it is right and proper that the legal system be available should it become necessary.

I think I could agree with you but for one thing, when it comes to peoples private relationships the government is an ass. I don't need an extra ass in my affairs, counting my own, I have three to choose from all ready

Lol - yes, I did realise it was Valentines Day. But as you have 200% more women to think of (birthdays, anniversaries, god-knows-what-else) I am half as likely to find myself in hot water

The way I have it set up, its self correcting, we have protocol that prevents me from suffering from any personal attacks from my secondary partner as long as I treat her well, she has no recourse to emotional abuse and in the two years I've owned her I've taught her that there are better ways to sort out her issues than arguing. In effect I am playing the role of governmemt in my relationship already, I pay for their accomodation, I cook all their food (I like cooking), if one of them becomes sick, its me who has the free time to devote to nursing them back to health. I still havent had swine flu, they did. My f is currently having a lot of problems with a ruptured vertebra, so far I have petitioned the Chief Executive of her multi national company to get her more pay and better working conditions, I have helped her to buy a car to enable her to travel more easily and I am entirely responsible for ensuring she has a healthy diet. I do everything its humanly possible to do to care for my girls already, I love them both equally.

what more do you want me to do ?

for valentines day I got the usual, chocolates, cards and a small red hand bell that has "ring for sex" written on it, I tried it today when they were both at work, nothing happened, it must be broken, but its the thought that counts

 

[bookitty]

Marduk, I don't know if your poly relationship is a fair representation of most (not enough info to compare) but I certainly hope it is. It sounds like a lovely and loving set up.

 

[bookitty]

Because there's an inherent asymmetry based on biology that no amount of social progress or changes to the legal code are ever going to change. Women can only be pregnant by one man at a time, but a man can get multiple women pregnant at the same time. That's why polygamy is always going to be dominated by one man with many women, with the reverse scenario being a rarity.

I'm not sure about that. IRL, I only know two LT poly relationships. One is a married couple with a boyfriend (which is how they describe themselves) and the other is two couples who started off married to each other and now have an umbrella marriage (again, their phrasing.)

In the first, the married couple owns all property. Were one of them to die, the boyfriend would have no legal recourse to inheritance. In the second, each original couple has their own property.

 

[Mark6]

Lol - yes, I did realise it was Valentines Day. But as you have 200% more women to think of (birthdays, anniversaries, god-knows-what-else) I am half as likely to find myself in hot water

It should be "100% more women to think of"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because there's an inherent asymmetry based on biology that no amount of social progress or changes to the legal code are ever going to change. Women can only be pregnant by one man at a time, but a man can get multiple women pregnant at the same time. That's why polygamy is always going to be dominated by one man with many women, with the reverse scenario being a rarity.

So only polygamy after menopause then?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure about that. IRL, I only know two LT poly relationships. One is a married couple with a boyfriend (which is how they describe themselves) and the other is two couples who started off married to each other and now have an umbrella marriage (again, their phrasing.)

In the first, the married couple owns all property. Were one of them to die, the boyfriend would have no legal recourse to inheritance. In the second, each original couple has their own property.

Your sample is not representative. Look at the world at large.

 

[Ziggurat]

So only polygamy after menopause then?

By then it doesn't matter. Marriage as an institution has much less significance at that age and in the absence of fertility, and you can do what you want with or without it. So there's not really any point to legalizing polygamy just to cover the few cases of people who can do fine even without it.

 

[Marduk]

Marduk, I don't know if your poly relationship is a fair representation of most (not enough info to compare) but I certainly hope it is. It sounds like a lovely and loving set up.

thankyou for your kindness, in my experience there are two types of poly relationships, ones populated by people who care about each others needs and those that don't. This I think is the same no matter what type of relationship it is. Those who care have happy lives supporting each other and opening doors for each other, those that don't split up.

 

[Marduk]

By then it doesn't matter. Marriage as an institution has much less significance at that age and in the absence of fertility, and you can do what you want with or without it. So there's not really any point to legalizing polygamy just to cover the few cases of people who can do fine even without it.

what you just said there, is that there's no point legalising poly relationships because those relationships arent as important as normal ones. Notably, you didn't say, when two people get old together they shouldn't be allowed to marry, So there's not really any point to legalizing old person weddings

 

[bookitty]

Your sample is not representative. Look at the world at large.

Oh, definitely not representative. Especially because I live in a city that is fairly relaxed about bucking cultural "norms." In more conservative areas of the US, the man, wife and boyfriend might be called something like man, wife and roommate. Plus, it's only two and I'm well aware that makes me no expert.

But still, I'm not sure that children are a motivating factor in all poly-relationships. Within the patriarchal model, especially those based on religious fundamentalism, there is a dominant male and an emphasis on large families. Outside of that, LT polyamory relationships are formed in the same way that monogamous relationships are. People meet, fall in love and want that person(s) in their life. Within that model, there is no primary reason to form the relationship around a dominant male.

 

[Marduk]

Your sample is not representative. Look at the world at large.

yup, how many people do you know who've had a secret sexual affair, who've cheated on their partners or who have abused them. Thats the world at large my friend

Within that model, there is no primary reason to form the relationship around a dominant male.

most of the poly groups I know are D Female led,

 

[crimresearch]

Strawberry.

Beerina is, actually, on the right track. If you accept the notion that the legal status of marriage is predicated on tax and immigration law then marriage becomes just another government privilege and not a right. Why? Because the government, not the principals of the relationship, end up defining the relationship.

I find nothing in Article I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution that enumerates the power of the Federal Government to intercede and arbitrarily define what a marriage is. Believe it or not, the Constitution is not a "living and breathing document" subject to the whim of changing times, politics and opinions. If that were the case there would be no need for Article 5 or the 18 enumerated powers in Article 1, Sec.8. We could simply rename the document from "The Constitution" to "The Suggestion of the Church of What's Happenin' Now". Elect a new government every 2, 4 and 6 years and wait to see what your rights are by about April (Congress can act quickly when properly motivated). Your "guaranteed" rights would not be quite so guaranteed.

I do, on the other hand, find that the 9th Amendment instructs the Federal Government not to enact laws in such a manner as to deny the people of other non-enumerated rights. Though not a part of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence states that we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That statement indicates that we have other unalienable rights in addition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 9th Amendment, which is rarely called upon, clarifies that phraes in the Declaration. The 10th Amendment further supports the position. If the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a power to the Federal Government or deny it to the State government is it the sole power of the State or The People to decide. If the recent New York marriage law is correct in stating that marriage is a fundamental right then neither the Federal or State government has authority to deny or abridge the right of the people.

Does polygamous marriage create problems? Of course it does. As a strictly moral position I'm opposed to it. My moral position does not trump the Constitution. People make choices and have to live with the expected or even unexpected results. You want to contract for a polygamous marriage, go fo it.

All that I ask is that if it doesn't work out as planned please don't ask me to pony up and pay the cab fair to make it right. It's not my problem and it's not the government's problem. In general, asking the government to step in and solve a problem is similar to using an atomic bomb to rid your house of mice. Effective but somewhat messy - not to mention that it might cause a problem or two for your neighbors. But that's how government generally "solves" problems.

Ahhh, I wondered how long it would be before you were reduced to ignoring the actual Constitution, and citing the imaginary one so beloved of SC types.

Article III exists in the real world, whether you can 'find' it or not.
Loving v. Virginia defined the right to marriage under the 14th Amendment whether you can handle that or not.
Lawrence v Texas shredded the notion that the government can discriminate on the basis of sexuality, no matter how much that goes against your opinions.

Your 'analysis' is simply a poorly constructed flight of fantasy propped up with appeals to ignorance and fallacies.

Pardon me if I'm more impressed with the real Constitution than your cherry picked and spun one.

 

[bookitty]

Does polygamous marriage create problems? Of course it does. As a strictly moral position I'm opposed to it. My moral position does not trump the Constitution. People make choices and have to live with the expected or even unexpected results. You want to contract for a polygamous marriage, go fo it.

All that I ask is that if it doesn't work out as planned please don't ask me to pony up and pay the cab fair to make it right. It's not my problem and it's not the government's problem. In general, asking the government to step in and solve a problem is similar to using an atomic bomb to rid your house of mice. Effective but somewhat messy - not to mention that it might cause a problem or two for your neighbors. But that's how government generally "solves" problems.

Quick question, how would divorce from a poly-marriage incur more expense to society than a divorce from a monogamous marriage?

 

[ponderingturtle]

By then it doesn't matter. Marriage as an institution has much less significance at that age and in the absence of fertility, and you can do what you want with or without it. So there's not really any point to legalizing polygamy just to cover the few cases of people who can do fine even without it.

Of course as I will not have kids it also means I should not be considered married.

 

[Mark6]

Quick question, how would divorce from a poly-marriage incur more expense to society than a divorce from a monogamous marriage?

A, B and C are married. C wants to divorce A, but not B. How is that going to work?

The cost to society is in legal complexities which would need to be unraveled, and in paying all the lawyers to do so.

Bookitty, what does LT stand for?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Quick question, how would divorce from a poly-marriage incur more expense to society than a divorce from a monogamous marriage?

It would be more complex and could involve more lawyers. I am not sure that translates into a cost to society though. Of course the individuals involved and how acrimonious it is is the most important part.