Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[luchog]

Aside from, of course... "It's squicky and perverse and amoral and WEIRD", which strikes me as the overt sentiment of Skeptic's "arguments".

Nothing "strikes me" about it, to me. Skeptic is probably the most openly anti-homosexual bigot in the board who hasn't yet been banned as a troll.

 

[DC]

People who have property and kids can figure out a way to distribute it/them. It's not that hard, everybody should have a will. Property laws are already unfair polygamy doesn't do much either way in terms of fairness.

I don't think there is any good reason why polygamy should be illegal. To me it seems totally absurd that someone would go to jail for a life-style choice like this.

Tax benefits and property laws are not that difficult to apply to polygamous marriages.

If anyone wished they had further fuel to flame me, I don't think we should throw people in jail that have sex with animals or for marrying any one or any thing.

I didnt flame at all

i dont think it should be illegal, i just think that marriages shoud be handled by the government. But there are sure other ways.

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

 

[luchog]

I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.
[\quote]

Yup. Ours didn't either.

I think there are several reasons they don't work:

Neither of those difficulties are unique to poly groups. They apply equally well to monogamous relationships as well. When my dad and mom married, all his family members were taking the exact same tack as in your second example, substituting "American" for "polyamourous relationship". I've seen friends go through similar grief from their relatives and social circles for interracial and inter-religious marriages. Some survived, some thrived despite the stress, some failed. The only problem unique to poly relationships is issues of "scheduling" relationship time with all partners involved.

I know a very large number of polyamourous people, triads, quartets, and various other groupings and extended relationship-webs. Some of them have been together for well over a decade at this point. When there have been failures, they have failed for pretty much the exact same reasons that monogamous relationships failed: infidelity, finances, lack of communication, incompatible goals, and just plain unwillingness to work through the difficulties and create compromises when the relationship doesn't end up matching their fantasy.

 

[Puppycow]

This is where the harm is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia

Some argue that the Criminal Code is sufficient to deal with the abusive (including child abuse) aspects of polygamy and that these abuses shouldn't stand in the way of a constitutional right to free marriage.

It's a harm vs. rights balancing issue. I'm not sure where I stand yet. The harm is real, but the means for dealing with it is the difficult part.

ETA: Some context:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/bustupinbountiful/video.html

Well, we allow people to own guns, even though some people abuse the privilege and use it for murder. Child abuse can and does happen in monogamous marriages too.

 

[Puppycow]

The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that I never made that argument. I'm aware that it exists, but if I didn't make it I don't why I should need to defend it.

 

[ziztur]

My bad 3body, I attributed Fnord's quote to you.

 

[Puppycow]

More than two people in a marriage?

Why?

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?

("I am having such a rough time in my marriage. I know what will fix it! We'll take on another person! That will make things better! I just know it!")

Because that's not the reason. Duh.

And if both partners are already getting along, the best that they possibly can, how will bringing another person into the mix improve things?

("We get along so perfectly, so let's bring someone else into our perfection and make it even more perfect!")

Also not the reason. Duh.

Either way, it's like two people having a baby in an effort to make things better - it will either result in a bad situation becoming worse, or a good relationship between two people becoming all muddled up in the needs of the third.

Although I suppose it could work if there were a heirarchy of some kind in place, with the founding couple at the top, and every subsequent marriage partner taking on a progressively subservient role.

No thank you.

You think that's why people have babies!? Duh.

 

[BTMO]

Hey - if everyone is happy in the relationship, who cares, and why is it any business of the states?

 

[Puppycow]

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

But since we can kill animals and eat them, as well as own them as chattel, it seems odd to prohibit non-consensual sex with animals.

 

[Lonewulf]

Nothing "strikes me" about it, to me. Skeptic is probably the most openly anti-homosexual bigot in the board who hasn't yet been banned as a troll.

Really? Most openly? That doesn't feel right, but then again, I can't actually think of any counter examples.

Still, most of what I've seen was him using silly logic to justify silly laws, less than actually being an outright bigot towards homosexuals.

 

[Puppycow]

I think this is why the government should get out of the marriage business completely. I think consenting adults should be able to marry each other, in any number and in any gender. I don't think the government should be regulating marriages at all.

This is an interesting idea, although the consequences would be very significant.

Did you know, for example, that people in the military get paid more if they are married? They also get paid more for each legal dependent. They also are allowed to live in their own house instead of a military barracks. When I was single in the military, I didn't like this arrangement. Now I am married and the Japanese company I work for also discriminates in a similar way. I get an "allowance" on top of my salary for my wife and kids, which single employees do not get. There definitely seems to be a marriage subsidy as well as a procreation subsidy.

Perhaps these are justified to increase the birthrate, but if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, how would it encourage fertility among the population? Maybe it should not, but then we would also have to figure out another way to support ourselves in our old age, because social security depends on new people being born to pay for the retirements of the old folks.

 

[Typicallucas]

I didnt flame at all

i dont think it should be illegal, i just think that marriages shoud be handled by the government. But there are sure other ways.

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

I put my response to sex with animals in a new thread because I felt I was getting off-topic

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142296

 

[Skeptic]

Nothing "strikes me" about it, to me. Skeptic is probably the most openly anti-homosexual bigot in the board who hasn't yet been banned as a troll.

(Sigh)

Only if you redefine "doesn't think gay marriage is a constitutional right" as "bigotry", which is the usual thought-stopping progressive "reply" of trying to shut you up through intimidation: either agree with me or be called bad names, since it is so obvious I am correct, the only possible reason for you to disagree is that you are a heretic, I mean possessed by Satan, I mean a counterrevolutionary, I mean guilty of a thoughtcrime, I mean a homophobe.

Like with the inquisition (no, I am NOT comparing myself to those tortured by it -- the inquisition's flogs and stakes had a nasty tendency of not being able to be laughed off, like I can do with the "bigot!" claims) I was, generously, originally given a chance to repent and join the side of light and truth (supporters of gay marriages). Once it turned out that I am not convinced by the pro-gay-marriage arguments - and actually dare to unapologetically offer counter-arguments -- I was declared an irredeemable heretic, that is, a "homophobe".

Ah well. I guess I'll have to live with that.

No wonder I should be burned at the stake -- I mean, banned; my heresy might spread...

 

[Typicallucas]

Again, not to get too far OT, the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, gay or straight. Regulation is left to the states.

Maybe the Constitutional Rights of gay people should be a separate thread, but I don't think it is necessary to hate gays in order to oppose gay marriage.

 

[D'rok]

Well, we allow people to own guns, even though some people abuse the privilege and use it for murder. Child abuse can and does happen in monogamous marriages too.

The difference is that gun ownership is overwhelmingly lawful. Gun owners who commit crimes are the exception, not the rule. Precisely the opposite is true of polygamy. The actual practice of plural marriage, at least here in Canada, is Mormon fundamentalist polygamy with all the abuse that that practice entails. I don't think there are very many, if any, other social groups that want to exercise a right to plural marriage. If we end up with a constitutionally protected right to plural marriage, we would be protecting precisely the behaviour that we want to discourage.

 

[Typicallucas]

...Gun owners who commit crimes are the exception, not the rule. Precisely the opposite is true of polygamy...with all the abuse that that practice entails...

If someone is committing criminal abuses they should be punished. But not for having an alternative life-style.

 

[Wolfman]

The difference is that gun ownership is overwhelmingly lawful. Gun owners who commit crimes are the exception, not the rule. Precisely the opposite is true of polygamy. The actual practice of plural marriage, at least here in Canada, is Mormon fundamentalist polygamy with all the abuse that that practice entails. I don't think there are very many, if any, other social groups that want to exercise a right to plural marriage. If we end up with a constitutionally protected right to plural marriage, we would be protecting precisely the behaviour that we want to discourage.

What unmitigated bull-feces.

My god. First we had the whole "gay marriage will destroy society" thing. To justify it, they singled out homosexuals who engaged in particularly undesirable activities -- pedophilia, unsafe sex in bathroom stalls, etc. -- and depicted this as somehow being the 'norm', or the inevitable result, or that it would "protect precisely the behavior that we want to discourage".

Fact. Much of the abuse in Bountiful has nothing to do with polygamy itself. The abuse lays in forcing young girls into arranged marriages in which they are sexually abused. It would be no less repulsive or immoral to do this if those arranged marriages were monogamous. Similarly, the strict religious control that their religious leaders exert over the community has nothing to do with polygamy; as is evidenced by the numerous cults that exercise the same (or even greater) control, within a monogamous context.

There should be laws (and those laws should be enforced regardless of 'religious beliefs') regarding forcing anyone (particularly minors) into arranged marriages (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous). There should be laws that grant women equal rights within a marriage with men (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous).

Saying that we'd allow polygamous marriages between consenting adults under a clearly established legal framework that grants equal rights to everyone in the relationship would in no shape, manner, or form vindicate, promote, or protect the kinds of abuses that take place in Bountiful. No more than allowing gay marriage in any manner, shape, or form vindicates, promotes, or protects pedophilia.

Personally, I can't see myself getting into a polygamous relationship. But if there are people who do...I say more power to them. And I say that those people should have the same protections under the law that any other such relationships have. That includes legal right to share property (and to be compensated proportionately in the case of divorce). That includes the right to be considered a family member, and have the right to visit them in the hospital as a family member, inherit property as a family member, etc.

 

[Typicallucas]

Ditto on everything Wolfman just said.

 

[D'rok]

What unmitigated bull-feces.

My god. First we had the whole "gay marriage will destroy society" thing. To justify it, they singled out homosexuals who engaged in particularly undesirable activities -- pedophilia, unsafe sex in bathroom stalls, etc. -- and depicted this as somehow being the 'norm', or the inevitable result, or that it would "protect precisely the behavior that we want to discourage".

Fact. Much of the abuse in Bountiful has nothing to do with polygamy itself. The abuse lays in forcing young girls into arranged marriages in which they are sexually abused. It would be no less repulsive or immoral to do this if those arranged marriages were monogamous. Similarly, the strict religious control that their religious leaders exert over the community has nothing to do with polygamy; as is evidenced by the numerous cults that exercise the same (or even greater) control, within a monogamous context.

There should be laws (and those laws should be enforced regardless of 'religious beliefs') regarding forcing anyone (particularly minors) into arranged marriages (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous). There should be laws that grant women equal rights within a marriage with men (regardless of whether they are monogamous or polygamous).

Saying that we'd allow polygamous marriages between consenting adults under a clearly established legal framework that grants equal rights to everyone in the relationship would in no shape, manner, or form vindicate, promote, or protect the kinds of abuses that take place in Bountiful. No more than allowing gay marriage in any manner, shape, or form vindicates, promotes, or protects pedophilia.

Personally, I can't see myself getting into a polygamous relationship. But if there are people who do...I say more power to them. And I say that those people should have the same protections under the law that any other such relationships have. That includes legal right to share property (and to be compensated proportionately in the case of divorce). That includes the right to be considered a family member, and have the right to visit them in the hospital as a family member, inherit property as a family member, etc.

You missed my point entirely. Show me that the "norm" of plural marriage in Canada isn't Bountiful. Show me that I'm making a caricature of the issue. I'm basing my argument on the facts on the ground. You are basing your argument on an abstract principle. I don't disagree with the principle, but there is no reasonable comparison between the facts on the ground of same-sex relationships (which encompass a spectrum of behaviours, as you pointed out) and the facts on the ground of plural marriage (which, AFAIK, is Bountiful).

In other words, where is the evidence that the undesirable behaviour isn't the norm? Who, besides the Blackmore clan, are we actually discriminating against by retaining the Criminal Crode prohibitions on polygamy?

If you can show me that evidence, I'll change my mind. In your attack on me, you may have missed my earlier post where I said I am still undecided on how to deal with the real issue of harm in Bountiful.

 

[D'rok]

If someone is committing criminal abuses they should be punished. But not for having an alternative life-style.

As it stands, there is no separation of the two in Canada. The only actual practitioners of plural marriage to my knowledge are the child abusers in Bountiful. And they are ostensibly protected by the freedom of religion right in the Charter. This is the essence of the problem that we face here. All of the existing criminal laws against child abuse and against polygamy itself have not stopped the abuse, so far.