Polyamory & polygamy

[fuelair]

Whatever floats your boat.


I'm not sure there's anything to cite, really. Whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business but their own. I could care less whom you ◊◊◊◊.

Kids need a nurturing environment. What difference if they have two moms, two dads, or five dads and three moms?

Re: S3P1: or, mostly, what.

 

[Z]

If society grants status to pairs of people, then I agree that any pair of people (as Z notes, speaking of adults) should logically be able to grab the same status. Does it necessarily follow, though, that a larger group than two should get the same status? It is not clear to me that it does (nor is it clear that it doesn't).

I believe that if the reasons involved are the same...

Let me personalize this a bit.

In our household, there is me, my wife, and our roommate (To call her a 'lover' or 'mistress' or something would be misleading at the moment). There are the three children between myself and my wife; two children from our roommate's former relationship (wherein she WAS the mistress); and a shared child between myself and our roommate, conceived originally as a child for her and her (now estranged) husband, who was impotent (Since his leaving, I have adopted, renamed, and claimed full responsibility for our child).

My wife and our roommate both work. My wife is assistant manager at a clothing retail, while our roommate is an assistant manager for the airport's food concessions vendor at CVG. Both earn decent pay, both have decent benefits.

Among the six children, one has high-functioning autism, one has sensory integration disorder, two suffer from a number of physical medical problems, one quite probably will be a midget, and one has a number of psychological problems. The oldest are eight, the youngest, almost three.

Since my wife and our roommate work odd hours, I'm the primary caretaker for all six kids. I do all the cooking, cleaning, child care, potty training, preschool-running, home-schooling our SID child, taking care of the numerous weekly medical appointments and therapies, etc. Day care is simply not an option, whatsoever. And my earning potential, based on my military service, wouldn't even cover the basic day-care needs of the family, so my financial contribution to the family is as the day-care and household manager.

That being said...

Because I am the primary caretaker of the kids - including my roommate's two sons by her prior relationship - I am the one who has to manage most of their appointments. Children's Hospital Medical Center is a wonderful place, but they have a strict policy that the parent or legal guardian must be present. Thanks to their father, I cannot get recognized as 'legal guardian', as the courts have decided that I would need HIS approval to become their guardian.

I've also fallen to a grey area on medical coverage, in part, because my wife's company is stupid, and in part because my relationship to our roommate is difficult to understand. At the moment, I am covered under our roommate's medical, on the basis that I am father to one of her kids and chief caregiver of all of her kids; but it's as a 'significant other'.

I think in our case, a legally recognizable social contract would be ideal.

I don't think our family is typical, though.

 

[Lonewulf]

None. At least it shouldn't. But there is a difference between the state allowing you to do whatever you like with your bits and the state granting any kind of status to you because of what you do with your bits. I don't see it as automatic that because relationship type x is recognised officially, relationship type y must necessarily be also so recognised. Again, though, I'm willing to hear you out.

Actually, it might be a better argument if you say your own opinion as to why it shouldn't be allowed, and then we can move from there.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Actually, it might be a better argument if you say your own opinion as to why it shouldn't be allowed, and then we can move from there.

I'm not looking for an argument. I don't have a strong opinion either way. As I said, my gut leans slightly to no. I try not to make it a habit to argue from my gut. As such, I am interested in hearing either side, hopefully both.

 

[clarsct]

Re: S3P1: or, mostly, what.

Erm. I have no idea what this comment means.

 

[clarsct]

MdC: After a bit of thought, I think I have already answered your question.

My position is based on why any one sexual relationship is preferred over another. Three or more is a sexual relationship. So long as all parties consent, then what matter is it of the state? If a man divorces one wife, then marries another, the state recognizes this. If a man does this several times, the state still recognizes his relationships, even though he has proven that he has all the decision making abilities of a particularly retarded ant. Now, if a man decides to have three wives at the same time, then we say no. It isn't that a man cannot have three wives, but he must piss off two of them so badly that they can no longer stand to be around him. A man can screw around on his wife, and still have a legal marriage. A man can beat his wife, and still have a legal marriage. But a man cannot bring another woman into the marriage with the trust and acceptance of his wife? THAT'S wrong, somehow?

I am using a man here, but you can use the words man and woman interchangeably without negating the argument.

To me, it appears that the state is making moral judgements about how people live, then legislating them into a law that everyone must follow. I am against that.

Now, insurance comapnies will still have their own rules regarding such activities, regardless of what the law states. This is a slightly different issue.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Speaking from first hand observations and my own experience, polyamory can be wonderful or a nightmarish drama fest, depending on the people involved and where they are at any given moment.

My husband and I are semi-poly, that is, our family unit comes first and is always a priority. We are open to intimate, loving friendships with others. We are not swingers, that's a hobby unto itself and just not our thing. It's been wonderful knowing that we can have those other relationships and remain so in love, and such good friends through it all.

Polygamy...well, that can fall under the umbrella of polyamory, too, really. Legal recognition for it? Hmmm, tough call. On principle I am for it, as I am for gay marriage, but it's quite a thing to tackle.

If anyone wants a Dawkins style look at monogamy via evolutionary animal behavior, The Myth of Monogamy by David Barash is very interesting.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

clar,

Since I haven't addressed this before, let me go ahead and say that I agree that it'd probably be for the best if the government got out of the business of giving special status to any kind of relationship at all. But they do. [shrug] That said...

Here is a list of typical benefits of marriage in the USA. Why is it necessarily so that larger partnerships should receive those same benefits?

Take the employment benefits (page 2 of the link), for instance. The Family and Medical Leave Act would probably need reworking if the government recognised poly relationships. In a three-person partnership, if one is sick, do both other spouses get the benefit of leave with continued medical coverage? If only one, how is the decision made as to which one? Let the family decide (probably best)?

This type of question would crop up all over for marriage benefits (who has burial arrangement rights?). The more partners allowed, the more complicated those questions (and their legislative answers) would get. Is it worth the trouble, then, to formalise the practice?

I agree with your stance in spirit--people should be able to do with their bits as they please--but opposition to recognition of polygamy need not be based on moral revulsion of the practice. It is practically more complex than a two person marriage. Is the fact that this type of relationship complicates the process enough of a reason not to give it status? [shrug] I dunno. Still pondering that one.

Again, yeah, it'd be easier if the government just backed off the whole issue.

 

[saizai]

polyspousaly (or whatever you want to call the general term)

Polygamy = multi-marriage <-- the term you meant
Polygyny = multi-female
Polyandry = multi-male
Polyamory = multi-love
Polyf*ckery = polyamory but mostly interested in the sex

 

[clarsct]

MdC, Miss Anthrope:

So, because it is difficult, we shouldn't tackle it?

I think not.

Complexity should not make second class citizens, nor be used as an excuse to do so. I'm sure that the changes to the constitution regarding civil rights f**ked up a lot of laws in several states. Not that I am comparing on a moral level, merely in this aspect of complexity.

Our legal definition of marriage is archaic and outdated, and needs to be changed. Not a popular platform, but it will happen either in the legislature or the courts. If it happens in the legislature, there will less of a legal mess, in my non-professional opinion.

I'd like to see AS or a real lawyer tackle this one.... Would be interesting.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

MdC, Miss Anthrope:

So, because it is difficult, we shouldn't tackle it?

I think not.

Complexity should not make second class citizens, nor be used as an excuse to do so. I'm sure that the changes to the constitution regarding civil rights f**ked up a lot of laws in several states. Not that I am comparing on a moral level, merely in this aspect of complexity.

Our legal definition of marriage is archaic and outdated, and needs to be changed. Not a popular platform, but it will happen either in the legislature or the courts. If it happens in the legislature, there will less of a legal mess, in my non-professional opinion.

I'd like to see AS or a real lawyer tackle this one.... Would be interesting.

Would I vote for it to be legal? Yes. But I would like to see the legal aspects hashed out properly. Child support and the like would be very complicated. Having been through a divorce and years of litigation over my eldest child, I see the legal aspect to be very, very messy in polygamy. So as I said, on principle, I am for it. However, I can't argue much beyond principle because I haven't seen anyone's ideas on how property division and child support would work when the legal marriage is terminated.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

MdC, Miss Anthrope:

So, because it is difficult, we shouldn't tackle it?

I think not.

Complexity should not make second class citizens, nor be used as an excuse to do so. I'm sure that the changes to the constitution regarding civil rights f**ked up a lot of laws in several states. Not that I am comparing on a moral level, merely in this aspect of complexity.

I am certainly not advocating not tackling it. I am just saying that from a practical standpoint, allowing legally recognised partnerships of more than a couple opens up a whole lot of issues that would need to be clarified. Can those issues be realistically resolved? It is certainly worth looking into.

I had considered the civil rights angle, and I think it is only marginally applicable here. The marriage benefits are a privilege, not a right. Should complexity bar a group from claiming basic civil rights? No. From privileges? Another question I haven't yet comfortably decided for myself.

Further complications that occur to me...

• The importing of spouses. Do we put a cap on it? I can easily imagine fairly well-to-do men importing themselves a harem of servants, indentured for citizenship. Are existing laws enough to curtail this sort of exploitation?
• Number of people in the partnership. A cap? Or do we create a system in which, theoretically, everyone in the country could be one big happy family? Yes, I know that wouldn't happen, but should there be a legal size limit?
• Separate living arrangements. Should one be allowed to have two (or more) families in separate cities, even states, assuming all parties agree?

I don't expect you to have ready-made answers to all (or any) of these. I just wonder if there is a workable model for recognised polygamy. As MA said, "I'd like to see the legal issues hashed out properly". I do hope we get one of our esteemed legal minds in on this one. It could prove interesting, maybe even fruitful.

And since MA brought up voting on the issue. I honestly couldn't say right now which way I would vote. Very likely, I would abstain, not feeling a good enough grasp of the issue to decide. I wouldn't be out campaigning for people to vote no, however.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Good gravy! I agree with the MdeC!

I really have no personal investment on the issue - Polyamory and the related topic of polygamy don't interest me. Monogamy works for me and mine. But, I'm quite sure that some people prefer to have these types of relationships, and I don't have any issue with it. People should always play safe tho, especially those with multiple partners - so wear your raincoats you polyamorous peoples!

However - when we look at the practical side of polygamy and how we handle a variety of logistical matters around looking after kids, wills, medical care and decisions when loved ones are disabled... well, the legal boondoggles are vast. And, it may not even be possible to create a set of guidelines that work for the majority of polygamous relationships. (If the relationship is one male and multiple females, and the male becomes incapacitated in a car wreck, then the longest-married female decides when to pull the feeding tube? A poll from all the wives? What if there were more than one male in the relationship?)

Perhaps the best way to handle this would be as MdeC (and I) have said - that the government stays out of the 'marriage' business. The government could and should be responsible for making sure that relationships have some guidelines around how they are handled as regards civil rights and privileges. And - if you find yourself in a love nest of a convoluted relationship, maybe you need to see a nuclear family lawyer.

 

[Roswell-Perseis]

What an interesting thread . . .

I do believe that it is hypocritical to legitimize one relationship over any other "alternative". Moral legislation leaves me bitter.

I agree that there are real problems that would need to be looked over, such as the Marquis' list. This would make for interesting tax returns, prenups, etc. Doesn't mean we shouldn't walk away from it, just that it would be best done cautiously.

That said, there are many people, mostly mormons still practicing polygamy, who live "off the grid". Men have more wives than they can afford (and these wives are not allowed to work), and so the women can apply for welfare as single mothers. Even though they are supposed to be married. Legalizing polygamy would make a dent in this.

There are also severe cases of child abuse, wife abuse, etc. It isn't that legalizing polygamy would solve this, per se. However, giving these people the chance to live in mainstream culture will get them into a system that may catch some of these abuses. Physicians or teachers, or whomever, for example, may recognize these things if people would be able to gain access.

My opinions are far from perfect, but if it makes child abuse and incest easier to detect and punish it would make more sense to me to deal with it instead of dragging our feet.

 

[saizai]

I find it interesting that nobody's yet posted the "one man one woman = one marriage" type argument yet.

What happened to the Focus on the Family set's scripturally based moral condemnation of anything other than the 1m1f family structure? What about the slippery slope arguments that have poly marriages as the Scary Potential Consequence of allowing gay marriage?

/me is suspicious when the Christians around here don't bash these ideas

 

[Meadmaker]

I find it interesting that nobody's yet posted the "one man one woman = one marriage" type argument yet.

What happened to the Focus on the Family set's scripturally based moral condemnation of anything other than the 1m1f family structure? What about the slippery slope arguments that have poly marriages as the Scary Potential Consequence of allowing gay marriage?

* saizai;2423838 is suspicious when the Christians around here don't bash these ideas

Actually, I was about to post the following comment:

Polygamy and polyamory are straw men. No one really wants them.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I had considered the civil rights angle, and I think it is only marginally applicable here. The marriage benefits are a privilege, not a right. Should complexity bar a group from claiming basic civil rights? No. From privileges? Another question I haven't yet comfortably decided for myself.

Of course, it's worth noting that as it currently stands, everyone is being treated equally. Any individual is entitled to marry another individual (as long as it's one of the opposite sex grrr) and reap the benefits thereof. Polyamorists are not being prevented from marrying.

In any odd-numbered relationship, obviously not everyone can get in on the benefits, and I have no doubt marriages within a poly relationship only protract problems of favoritism and jealousy, but it's not the government's job to make everyone's relationships easy.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Polygamy and polyamory are straw men. No one really wants them.

[sigh] I hate to do it, but...

Evidence?

 

[Davidjayjordan]

Except for all the creator/Bible stuff in his post, he's actually making a good point.

Jealousy is one of the key problems in polyamorous relationships - jealousy and control.

I'm aware at the moment of three polyamorous relationships. The first and oldest is an unhealthy polygyny, in which the male controls the two women with a nearly iron fist, has very strict rules, and in the past, has even attempted to disrupt the natural bonds between mother and child to assign those bonds artificially to his first wife.

The second is a polyandrous relationship which is non-sexual but very emotional, and while I won't say it's healthy - I sense heavy codependence - it's at least a happy relationship.

The third is only borderline polyamorous, on the grounds that one participant has been so psychologically scarred that she is largely unable at this time to show genuine affection. Otherwise, though, it's the healthiest of the three relationships, and shows genuine promise. All participants are considered equals, and all participants are also considered their own free agents.

Dave correctly points out that love is the key to a quality polyamorous relationship - if it's the hormones talking, go swinging. Sex is a hard enough basis to manage a one-on-one relationship; using it as a foundation for a multipartner relationship is a recipe for disaster.

Z ..... Tis true that love and wisdom and maturity is the key to multiple relationships, especially if under one roof. This is why in other countries where multiple marriages are legal, the vast majority of them are under two roofs, and in two or more houses.

Consider

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/TwoHousePolygamy.html


.

 

[Tricky]

Why is no one concerned about the gripping problem of autoamory?