Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[martu]

Yes we lack fidelity, so what? Not being exclusive in a pair bond is not unique to pair bonding species.

Hmmm I'll have to re read that section tonight, my recollection is that it suggests we are monogamous.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmmm I'll have to re read that section tonight, my recollection is that it suggests we are monogamous.

We are between Chimps and Gorillias, so more monogamous than chimps but less than Gorillias.

 

[martu]

We are between Chimps and Gorillias, so more monogamous than chimps but less than Gorillias.

Thanks. Doesn't suggest harems are the norm anyway.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks. Doesn't suggest harems are the norm anyway.

You have to read a lot into evolutionary psychology to think that.

 

[martu]

You have to read a lot into evolutionary psychology to think that.

Agreed.

 

[luchog]

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.

There are plenty of examples in other thread, but I can't be arsed to dig them up, since it's not really that important to me.

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

Not to mention one of our most flaming drama queens.

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?

I can't speak to Canada, but here in the US, there's myself, at least half of my friends and aquaintances, and numerous other long-term (as in, over a decade) polyamourous relationships that I'm familiar with through the varous polyamoury mailing lists and webboards. There are also several other Americans, Australians, and IIRC at least one Canadian on this board involved in stable, long-term polyamourous relationships.

The fact that there aren't more is due to the intense prejudice against them due to ignorance such as yours, and the difficulty of maintaining such a relationship in the face of legal antipathy. I've known more than one group who was forced to deal with substantial legal difficulties due to the law refusing to recognize the validity of their relationship. The legal opposition is so strict, that the only groups who will blatantly engage in such practice de novo, instead of merely defacto as many subcultures do, are the fanatics. Remove the opposition and the fanatics are no longer unique, or even unusual.

Your argumentum ad ignorantiam just shows your own prejudice, not a desire to know the truth.

 

[slingblade]

I think enough people will be living in poly-style relationships that issues of child custody and support will arise, and that will provide the compelling reason. I expect it within a few decades. However, I doubt it will go by the name "marriage". I expect some sort of lightweight partnership/kinship agreement, less restrictive than marriage.

Of course, I've been wrong before, but that's what I expect.

I can see that. Like "cohabitation contracts" or some such.

I have always been intrigued by the ideas promoted by some sci-fi: marriage contracts, which the members renew, or not, periodically. That "til death do us part" won't be standard anymore, or even considered. You "marry" or sign a contract for 5 or 10 years, and at the end of it, you either renew, or you part. The contract already contains the "what-ifs" for kids and property, so no haggling over that.

 

[luchog]

...and I haven't yet mentions the most horrific, evil, consequence of polygamy.

TWO mothers-in-law.

Some people really need to realize that we no longer live in the 1950s.

 

[luchog]

Marriage law should take in the reality of what really happens to real people, not some idealistic view of everyone as perfect decision makers who are fully capable of looking out for their own interests, now and for the rest of their lives. One of the reasons I waffle on this, and gay marriage, and other proposals that affect marriage law, is that I have a hard time balancing the right of people to choose their own path, with the knowledge that letting people choose their own path will inevitably lead to the strong taking advantage of the weak. It is true in every other area of human endeavor. I can't see how it cannot be true for sex and marriage as well.

The problem is that you cannot protect people from all the consequences of their actions. In the first place, if you do, they'll never learn anything from them. Second, there is simply no possible way to do that. Even the most oppressive totalitarian, "that which is not compulsory is forbidden" states cannot do so; so how can any state with even a pretense at personal freedom do so more effectively?

People are not perfect. The institutions they create cannot be perfect, and even at their best, not all the decisions they make will be perfect. As much as we would like to, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. The more we try, the more potential for abuse we create.

The system with the least potential for abuse is to create one with the maximum possible freedom for those who are ostensibly able to make their own decisions; seek to mitigate the likelihood of bad decisions by providing sound education at the earlierst possible opportunity; and provide programs which assist people in resolving problems created by, and recovering from, bad decisions. Absolving them of the consequences of their decisions, or attempting to prevent any possibility of making bad decisions, will not prevent bad decisions and the consequences thereof to any significant degree; but it will create entirely new potentials for abuse.

 

[Meadmaker]

While it can't be determined how the average human being would behave "naturally", one thing is certain. People will choose a wide variety of lifestyles if given the chance. So, the question arises. Should they be given the chance?

I can't think of a reason not to. On the other hand, suppose it could be shown, with reasonable certainty, that some lifestyles really are more likely to produce happiness than others? This happiness bonus might be for the people involved, their children, or even their neighbors. If so, I think it is ok for the government to promote one sort of lifestyle by giving it some sort of special recognition. Is monogamy such a condition? I know that when I look at the people I know who have engaged in polyamorous situations, I wouldn't point to them as the people who really seem to be happy.

Meanwhile, is there any evidence at all that could claim to be scientific that compares child development in monogamous versus polygamous situations?

 

[El_Spectre]

I can't think of a reason not to. On the other hand, suppose it could be shown, with reasonable certainty, that some lifestyles really are more likely to produce happiness than others?

That's great, but it is not a matter for the government to be involved in. People are allowed to make sub-optimal decisions, or great ones. This whole freedom thing is kinda big... People are (or should) be allowed to live however they want, if they are not hurting other people.

Is monogamy such a condition? I know that when I look at the people I know who have engaged in polyamorous situations, I wouldn't point to them as the people who really seem to be happy.

Eh, depends on the particular anecdote you chose. Some [insert relationship structure here] relationships are happy, some aren't. I know happy poly people, I know sad ones. Same as monogamous people.

 

[sugarb]

Well you would become the responcibility of his nearest male relative.


Traditionaly women can't sign such things. What is next letting them own property? See this whole problems started when women got rights. When they were property instead of being able to own property so many marriage issues were simpler. Homosexual marriage just didn't make sense for one.



Nope, I am not claiming to make them, I just want the deductions. You were suggesting fraud as well, letting people deduct children regardless of their actualy being financialy responcible for them. So if you can deduct children you are not caring for, why can't I deduct donations I don't make?


The idea behind that is that you represent an increase in nessacary costs, while not bringing in money. So that as more money must be spent on nessesities and less on luxuries. So it is considered fair by many people to factor this into the ammount paid in tax in some fashion.



And they still had the same responcibilities and rights as any other married person. How is a system less abuseable when you get to seperate out each individual right? And there are at least some mechanisms in place to try to verify if a marriage is real or just for specific rights(generaly immigration)


Good because that is not my argument. It is that bundeling these rights and responcibilities makes for a better system than having lawyers write up contracts with them freely selectable or ignoreable. You would then see strange checklists "we will consider you sufficiently married if you have 4 or more rights from collum A two more responcibilities from collum B, and at least 6 entries in collum C".


There thing is that no matter how you argue it, marrige is not presently a contract, but it is a status, and that status is set up for two people. By breaking it down into a simple contract, you are makeing a massive change. The main intent of this would be to include far more lawyers in everyones lives, both to write these contracts, but also to read them to determine if they qualify for being considered married or not by the standards of the institution.


You do realize that is a reducto ad absurdem of the traditionalism argument right?


Yes.


How threatenable are the current versions of health care proxy and wills if contested by relatives?


And this is because your mother failed to involve lawyers in every facet of her life, something that you seem to be argueing for.


You seem to prefer spending many bucks on lawyers to that though.

I'm sorry it took so long to respond to this. Yes, I realized what you were doing...and found it humorous, until I started thinking more about the subject and realized that I know far too many people in my personal life still clinging to "traditional values". I apologize. I worried that I had strayed all over the place in my response, and it seems that I did more than that--I lost focus.

You're right, it seems that I prefer spending much money on lawyers, but that's not at all what I mean. I hope you know that. I do see, though, how contracts made between individuals, without going through an attorney, would open up a whole other can of worms whenever someone becames disenchanted with the arrangement and wanted out.

 

[arthwollipot]

There are also several other Americans, Australians, and IIRC at least one Canadian on this board involved in stable, long-term polyamourous relationships.

Still lurking.

 

[martu]

There are plenty of examples in other thread, but I can't be arsed to dig them up, since it's not really that important to me.

Not to mention one of our most flaming drama queens.

I can't speak to Canada, but here in the US, there's myself, at least half of my friends and aquaintances, and numerous other long-term (as in, over a decade) polyamourous relationships that I'm familiar with through the varous polyamoury mailing lists and webboards. There are also several other Americans, Australians, and IIRC at least one Canadian on this board involved in stable, long-term polyamourous relationships.

The fact that there aren't more is due to the intense prejudice against them due to ignorance such as yours, and the difficulty of maintaining such a relationship in the face of legal antipathy. I've known more than one group who was forced to deal with substantial legal difficulties due to the law refusing to recognize the validity of their relationship. The legal opposition is so strict, that the only groups who will blatantly engage in such practice de novo, instead of merely defacto as many subcultures do, are the fanatics. Remove the opposition and the fanatics are no longer unique, or even unusual.

Your argumentum ad ignorantiam just shows your own prejudice, not a desire to know the truth.

Well put. Do you know how most poly-whatever relationships handle the next of kin problem?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry it took so long to respond to this. Yes, I realized what you were doing...and found it humorous, until I started thinking more about the subject and realized that I know far too many people in my personal life still clinging to "traditional values". I apologize. I worried that I had strayed all over the place in my response, and it seems that I did more than that--I lost focus.

You're right, it seems that I prefer spending much money on lawyers, but that's not at all what I mean. I hope you know that. I do see, though, how contracts made between individuals, without going through an attorney, would open up a whole other can of worms whenever someone becames disenchanted with the arrangement and wanted out.

I just see no way of implementing individualized marriage contracts with out a whole lot of lawers being involved constantly. The only way to avoid that would be turn marriage contracts into a check list. Then you get the you must have X of these other boxes checked to check this box and such. Even with this you then have to consider not if someone is married or not, but in every situation that marriage is recognized, does their marriage meet the criteria for recognition there.

Having more than one way to give people recognition might well be a good thing, but I am not sure that such individualized marriage contracts would be a workable solution.

 

[Meadmaker]

I just see no way of implementing individualized marriage contracts with out a whole lot of lawers being involved constantly.

What would happen, in practice, is that there would rapidly be a few pretty standard contracts. For example, the major churches would publish versions of the contract that would mimic the old fashioned understanding of marriage.

More progressive groups would create more liberal versions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What would happen, in practice, is that there would rapidly be a few pretty standard contracts. For example, the major churches would publish versions of the contract that would mimic the old fashioned understanding of marriage.

More progressive groups would create more liberal versions.

Maybe, but there would still likely be clauses added or removed as a common change from those standard contracts. So the individual contracts would still need to be evaluated. You are at the least talking of thousands of different versions of marriage, any any institution that recognizes marriage would need to evaluate which specific contracts meet their standards for recognised marriage vs unrecognised social contract.

 

[sugarb]

I just see no way of implementing individualized marriage contracts with out a whole lot of lawers being involved constantly. The only way to avoid that would be turn marriage contracts into a check list. Then you get the you must have X of these other boxes checked to check this box and such. Even with this you then have to consider not if someone is married or not, but in every situation that marriage is recognized, does their marriage meet the criteria for recognition there.

Having more than one way to give people recognition might well be a good thing, but I am not sure that such individualized marriage contracts would be a workable solution.

Yes, and with further thought, I came up with a good example of how, if it became an issue of contracts, and were those contracts disputed through the legal system upon a death, for example, the resolution to the dispute would probably end up not being ideal. Just to throw an example out there for thought, if I may, I'll bring up the issue of my home.

I own my home. Outright it's mine, on paper it's mine, and we all, whomever may get involved in our relationship, understand that it is mine. I can add names to the deed, of course, but my primary partner is the one I wish to have my home, were I to die. (Which I will some day, lol).

Recognizing that even adults are prone to whims of emotional reaction, you have very valid points that I had not considered. Were there to be a legal recognition of a multiple marriage partners type situation, by the time all was said and done, could I be so certain that my primary partner would, indeed, be entitled to my home, solely? As the laws exist now, for the "norm" of marriage, things are pretty simple...unless minor children are involved, or children from previous marriages--people entitled to make claims against an estate, or challenge a will. Then things can get volatile, of course. But, in our case, even though there's no law involved beyond my primary partner (now spouse), it really isn't so simple. When we make commitments to other adults, and mutual understandings or even contracts are made, are we really thinking clearly--and this has made me think. If I were to die, would there be an issue that might cause my spouse to not get full ownership of my home? As it stands now, probably not. If the laws are changed? Likely, very likely, that such a situation could arise.

Realistically, I'm now looking at things Meadmaker has said in a different light. Not the part about old chicks not being "hot", but about who the most vulnerable in these types of situations would be. I still feel that protections should be in place so that wills and medical wishes and designated guardians of minors couldn't be challenged by relatives by blood or marriage, but perhaps that could be done for everyone, across the board (single people should have their wishes respected, as well...I get what you were saying about my mom's situation, now--sorry I was a bit dense there), and then there would be little need to push for recognition as "marriage".

Eh, said most of that poorly.

 

[shadron]

Maybe, but there would still likely be clauses added or removed as a common change from those standard contracts. So the individual contracts would still need to be evaluated. You are at the least talking of thousands of different versions of marriage, any any institution that recognizes marriage would need to evaluate which specific contracts meet their standards for recognised marriage vs unrecognised social contract.

How come it works for business, but wouln't for marriage?

 

[Lonewulf]

Businesses tend to be able to hire better lawyers.