Marriage Poll

[Puppycow]

Should marriage and the legal status conferred thereby be limited only to that between one man and one woman, or should gay, and/or poly marriages also be given the same legal status. Or, should there be no special legal status at all for married couples?

 

[Rasmus]

Any two adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.

Because the state is not allowed to peek down my pants when deciding upon my rights, but it may very well count the number of people.

Also, thus far, nobody has been able to explain to me how exactly poly marriages should work. Marriage as it works now would easily work for same-sex couplings, but many changes would be required for marriages between more than two people.

 

[Puppycow]

Muslims have been practicing polygamy for a long time, right? Polygamy would seem to have more basis in tradition than gay marriage. How it would work in modern practice is another question, but surely a consistant set of rules could be established. Basically, rights are similar to the rights of marriage, but rights regarding children would primarily rest with biological parents in the first instance. So for example, in case of a divorce, biological parents would retain equal custody rights, unless they can be proven to be unfit parents. Just like with current divorce law.

 

[qayak]

Any two adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.

Because the state is not allowed to peek down my pants when deciding upon my rights, but it may very well count the number of people.

Also, thus far, nobody has been able to explain to me how exactly poly marriages should work. Marriage as it works now would easily work for same-sex couplings, but many changes would be required for marriages between more than two people.

Yeah right! We can figure out how to split the atom but we can't figure out how to add another person to a marriage!!

Marriage is simply a contract and there are many multi-partnered contracts already in existence.

 

[Puppycow]

Yeah right! We can figure out how to split the atom but we can't figure out how to add another person to a marriage!!

Marriage is simply a contract and there are many multi-partnered contracts already in existence.

Indeed. It might behoove partners in a poly marraige to do a pre-nup, or at least understand the law, because it would presumably be new and slightly more complicated, but certainly lawyers are up to the challenge. I think a simple version could probably fit on a page or two. Like any marriage, it behooves one to think before entering, although people in love tend not to be coolly rational about it in actual practice.

 

[Rasmus]

Muslims have been practicing polygamy for a long time, right?

Not in a way that treats all parties to the marriage the same, though. At least, it'd be news to me that one woman could chose several husbands.

Polygamy would seem to have more basis in tradition than gay marriage. How it would work in modern practice is another question, but surely a consistant set of rules could be established.

I am not denying that a set of rules could be estasblished. But I doubt that it would neccesarily resemble what we have now. And no such thing would be needed to allow same sex marriages - all one would have to do would be to allow them.

Basically, rights are similar to the rights of marriage, but rights regarding children would primarily rest with biological parents in the first instance.

And I just don't think that basicially similar cuts it. And right here you are describing a massive difference - as of now, marriage trumps biological parentage. If a child is born in a marriage the sposes are the parents. (At least, that is what it's like here by default.)

You would have to develop a whole new approach, then, as you'd have to ensure that all marriages would be treated the same.

So for example, in case of a divorce, biological parents would retain equal custody rights, unless they can be proven to be unfit parents. Just like with current divorce law.

But current divorce law is not like that, because it doesn't even address biological parentage. It simply assumes that the married couple are the parents.

Are you proposing mandatory DNA tests?

What if it turns out that a woman cheated on her three husbands? In fact, there's your next problem right there: If one spouse cheats on the other, currently, that is a possible reason for a divorce. And all of a sudden cheating would be allowed with some partners, so long as they are also married?

As of now, marriage is something exlusive. I can marry one partner and rely on their support. How can I do that any longer when my partner also has 4 other partners? Would I have to support my wife's other husbands now as well as my wife? Must I allow all of her husbands to live in my house?

Do I get a say in who she can marry?

(I am not neccesarily saying that all these things are right for marriages as they exist now - but it is what they are.)

 

[Rasmus]

Yeah right! We can figure out how to split the atom but we can't figure out how to add another person to a marriage!!

I didnt say that it's impossible or that it shouldn't be done.

I said that marriage as it is now doesn't give itself away to the idea.

If anyone can come up with a working concept: More power to them. But it is a) nothing I am concerend with and b) nothing I view as a right someone has.

Marriage is simply a contract and there are many multi-partnered contracts already in existence.

But it is a very specific contract, taylored for two parties. It has to change drasticially to allow more parties. Much more than it needs to be changed to allow same-sex marriages.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I didnt say that it's impossible or that it shouldn't be done.

I said that marriage as it is now doesn't give itself away to the idea.

If anyone can come up with a working concept: More power to them. But it is a) nothing I am concerend with and b) nothing I view as a right someone has.



But it is a very specific contract, taylored for two parties. It has to change drasticially to allow more parties. Much more than it needs to be changed to allow same-sex marriages.

As someone following the conversation, I now do not understand what you are arguing.

 

[Puppycow]

Not in a way that treats all parties to the marriage the same, though. At least, it'd be news to me that one woman could chose several husbands.

Granted, but with some changes it could be made gender-neutral.

I am not denying that a set of rules could be estasblished. But I doubt that it would neccesarily resemble what we have now. And no such thing would be needed to allow same sex marriages - all one would have to do would be to allow them.

This may true, but all it means is that this is a little easier to get to from where we are, not that it is the ideal system in the end. Is the real reason you are against poly marraiges because you find it an inconvenient distraction from your goal of legalizing gay marriage? I find that understandable, but I think you should admit that political expediency is the real reason.

And I just don't think that basicially similar cuts it. And right here you are describing a massive difference - as of now, marriage trumps biological parentage. If a child is born in a marriage the sposes are the parents. (At least, that is what it's like here by default.)

You would have to develop a whole new approach, then, as you'd have to ensure that all marriages would be treated the same.



But current divorce law is not like that, because it doesn't even address biological parentage. It simply assumes that the married couple are the parents.

Are you proposing mandatory DNA tests?

Only in cases where custody becomes a legal question. It is already used when paternity is in doubt for legal purposes. As long as the marraige remains intact, it is not really an issue, is it? It becomes an issue only if the paternity is unknown or in dispute. But that is true now, isn't it? If a man finds out that he is not the father of a child born to his wife, and he gets a divorce, is he responsible for child support under the current system? If he is, I would say that the current system is unfair.

What if it turns out that a woman cheated on her three husbands? In fact, there's your next problem right there: If one spouse cheats on the other, currently, that is a possible reason for a divorce. And all of a sudden cheating would be allowed with some partners, so long as they are also married?

As of now, marriage is something exlusive. I can marry one partner and rely on their support. How can I do that any longer when my partner also has 4 other partners? Would I have to support my wife's other husbands now as well as my wife? Must I allow all of her husbands to live in my house?

Do I get a say in who she can marry?

(I am not neccesarily saying that all these things are right for marriages as they exist now - but it is what they are.)

So again, your only argument is that it is a smaller step to get from the status quo to gay marriage than to poly marriage. You don't want polyamorists to try to hitch their wagon to your agenda of allowing gay marriage because it would be politically inconvenient, right?

OK, I would be happy if they allowed gay marriage first as an independent question. I support it, and I realise that it is more practical to take on one issue at a time. So I support gay marriage, but I also see it as the thin end of the wedge. I don't want monogamous gays to 'pull the rope up and lock the door behind them' once they get marriage rights.

 

[Rasmus]

As someone following the conversation, I now do not understand what you are arguing.

My mistake, I guess.

I am pro same sex marriage. Not only would it be dead simple to implement (it would just havbe to be allowed), I also view it from a right based on the premise that rights should not be granted or denied on one's sex. (Just as with colour or religion.)

I am neutral wrt to poly-marriages. But I don't see how they should work (which is not denying that they could; I am simply ignorant) and I don't think anyone can claim a right to marry several partners.

To make me be pro poly marriage I'd need to see

• how it is supposed to work precisely
• how these changes affect existing marriages
• how it would benefit society (something I do see with marriage as it exists now, but am ignorant about wrt to poly marriage. I see how it might benefit the spouses depending on the chosen model, but I don't think that's good enough.)

Yet, all I ever get to hear is "it would be simple", "there are other contracts for several people", and "it's unfair" or at least "i don't see why not."

I am not sure if I am even arguing anything yet. Does it help to view it as stating my current position and the reasons I have for assuming it?

 

[qayak]

To make me be pro poly marriage I'd need to see

• how it is supposed to work precisely
• how these changes affect existing marriages
• how it would benefit society (something I do see with marriage as it exists now, but am ignorant about wrt to poly marriage. I see how it might benefit the spouses depending on the chosen model, but I don't think that's good enough.)

Yet, all I ever get to hear is "it would be simple", "there are other contracts for several people", and "it's unfair" or at least "i don't see why not."

I am not sure if I am even arguing anything yet. Does it help to view it as stating my current position and the reasons I have for assuming it?

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down. So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

2- Nothing changes for any existing marriage. Why would it need to?

3- Why does there have to be a benefit to society? How would the benefit be any less for poly-marriages than it is for "traditional" marriages? You said you could see the benefit there, explain how the benefit would be different.

 

[Darat]

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down. So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

...snip...

To try and be a devil's advocate:

That's not correct for at least the UK. Marriage laws are primarily about what happens when the marriage exists. So they are about property rights, taxation, inheritance, next of kin and so on.

To take just one example from that list - "next of kin" or in effect the power of attorney, this is a simple matter with the current legalisation - each spouse is granted this right for the other spouse. So the current legislation regarding marriage could accommodate a change to allow same-sex marriage by just de-sexing the existing legalisation. However to accommodate a poly-marriage completely new legislation would be required, and then case law to develop how it is interpreted. This makes the adoption of poly-marriage a difference of type of contract than the current marriage contract (as it is in legislation).

 

[Rasmus]

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down.

No, I realize no such thing. Seeing how partners in a marriage have to suppoiert each other, gain rightrs and privlideges the moment they are married I don't see why anyone would claim such a thing? (Oh, and what Darat said.)

So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?

By "it" I did not mean the personal relationships between the involved parties but the entire legal framework that exists now and would have to be adopted.

The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

That assumes that a poly marriage is one entity with several parties, right? It also seems to assume that a divorce would resolve the entire marriage.

There are other possibilites, though, that need to be accounted for. Again, I am not saying it's impossible to do so.

What if in a marriage of 4 people just one of the 4 wants a divorce from 2 of the others, but would be quite happy to stay married to the remaining person, e.g.?

What if there is a marriage between 3 people, and only two of them want to marry a particular fourth person?

2- Nothing changes for any existing marriage. Why would it need to?

Because I was assuming there would be one type of marriage for n people, regardless of wether n would be 2, 3 or 11. I think it is very much possible that changes needed to accomodate 3 or more people would also change how things are handled between just 2 people. (Biological parentage and the required DNA testing being one possible example.)

For me to support poly marriage, i would like ot be shown that there is a proposed framework that simply accomodates these issues.

3- Why does there have to be a benefit to society?

Because there is a cost to society. And because I see no intrinsic right being violated when marriages are restricted to precisely 2 spouses and to precisely one marriage per person at a time.

How would the benefit be any less for poly-marriages than it is for "traditional" marriages? You said you could see the benefit there, explain how the benefit would be different.

I don't know if the benefits would be different. I want to be shown that they wouldn't. (Because, again, I think something is asked that is not a right. If it is a right, I wont ask how it benefits society.)

Society benefits, e.g., if two people agree to support each other in times of need, because society would have to step in less often.

Now, it is entirely possible that it could turn out that there's a net loss here for society under some circumstances. And I think that with marriages of 3 or more people it is possible that the dynamics (on average) are going to be very different.

One-on-one couplings do not change the dynamics of the non-married population, they introduce stability. AFAIK China has problems because more boys than girls are being born (quite artifically). What effects would poly-marriages have in that regard?

It might be a good thing - maybe China should consider it, too ... But: I don't know that it is a good thing, therfore I am not just going to support it.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

One day, I want to raise children. I'm not particular about those kids having my genetic information, either. But, I don't want to be put in the worrisome position of a single parent or someone in a small, temporary marriage where my death could have serious negative consqeuences for those children. I'd much prefer a line marriage where capital is accumulated over generations, and the stablity of a long-term group marraige provides more security for children than two married people can provide.

 

[Cain]

I am inclined to agree that polygamy should be allowed, but it's also something I would want to remain marginal and not widely practiced. It's easy to cast an anonymous vote on a meaningless Internet poll in favor of an abstract idea that will never gain public acceptance within our lifetimes.

 

[mr rosewater]

I voted option three, misery loves company and all.

 

[Loss Leader]

Marriage is simply a contract

No, it isn't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Any two adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of gender.

Because the state is not allowed to peek down my pants when deciding upon my rights, but it may very well count the number of people.

Also, thus far, nobody has been able to explain to me how exactly poly marriages should work. Marriage as it works now would easily work for same-sex couplings, but many changes would be required for marriages between more than two people.

I should point out that when working out the details I would also be surprised if you could easily find two people who could say how nonpolymarriage should work. The issue is that poly marriage requires a serious change in marriage law while homosexual marriage does not. So you get into far more issues of what marriage should legally be as opposed to what it is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

1- you do realize that marriage laws really only apply once the marriage breaks down. So who cares how it would work, how does any marriage work?The marital assests get split equally between all parties and custody is decided through mutual agreement or the courts, just like it is with "traditional" marriage.

This does involve a certain definition of what a poly marriage is. A group of people all members in the group the such and such marriage. If you viewed it as individual connections between the various participants so just because A is married to both B and C they are not necessarily married to each other, then it is different.

2- Nothing changes for any existing marriage. Why would it need to?

Well to an extent you are redefining marriage legally, because you are stating what you think marriage should be, not what it is and people have differing ideas on the should part.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I should point out that when working out the details I would also be surprised if you could easily find two people who could say how nonpolymarriage should work. The issue is that poly marriage requires a serious change in marriage law while homosexual marriage does not. So you get into far more issues of what marriage should legally be as opposed to what it is.

I've often wondered how effectively a line marriage can be created when the marriage consists of a not-for-profit corporation the various spouses join, with "shared" property being the property of the corporation, and decisions on that property being made by vote. The financial assets of the marriage persist in perpetuity, and can support for children much more reliably across generations than inheritance.

But, running a marriage like a democracy seems like a bad idea. Plus, hospitials often have that annoying policy of only allowing "family" in to see a patient, under an archaic definition of family.