Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

[ponderingturtle]

I am just shocked that this is even a question with such smart people.

What does it matter to anyone else when others want to be in relationships of their own choosing.

The matter is how does this effect the laws. If you rewrote all the marriage laws to work for an arbitrary number of people, you would likely end up with different laws than the current marriage laws.

I think that the laws matter to everyone. Remember this is about the legal status or marriage, not how someone chooses to structure their personal relationships.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, me too. I can't see why it is different from interracial, or gay marriage. But I'm approaching the subject from a somewhat... biased perspective.

The difference is that unlike gay marriage or interracial marriage, polygamous marriage does require a reevaluating and rewriting of the legal effects of the legal status of marriage.

Current marriage laws will likely become problematic if extended to polygamous groups. There are also questions society needs to answer, for example is there a maximum number of people that can get marriage visa's by being married to an individual?

As gay marriage and interracial marriage do/did not require changed in what the effects of being married mean they are much simpler than polygamy. This is not a trivial distinction.

 

[Rasmus]

These are merely practical difficulties, not fundamental logical differences. You said (and emphasised) that it was logically not possible.

Yes, and I stand by that: It is logicially not possible to give the same thing to polygamous groups that is currently being given to monogamous couples.

You can come up with something very similar and you could easily and with a lot of justification still call it marriage - but it would not be the same thing anymore.

I'm not saying that the practical difficulties are not significant. But they're far from being the fundamental difference you suggested.

Again, it is simply not possible to extend the marriages we have now to more than two people. (And in many areas it would not be practical, either.)

But I see ponderingturtle has answered this with lot more detail already. If the differences are not as fundamental as you claim then any proponent of polygamous marriages should find it fairly easy to suggest what the new lasw ought to look like, right?

 

[Rasmus]

I don't know about can not, it does not fit current marriage laws, but you could write marriage laws that were the same regardless of the number of people be it two or two thousand in a marriage. The latter would likely be some sort of cult but so what?

Legally they could be the same, but it is not necessarily something that is particularly close to current marriage.

Yes, you could rwrite the laws. But then you would give something different to all groups thn what married couples are currently having. Thats all I meant to say.

 

[Rasmus]

It wasn't hard for the laws to figure this one out. And this one wasn't a situation mutually agreed upon beforehand by all parties.

Again, if you tihnk its simply and important, feel free to suggest what the new laws should look right. I really see no compelling reason why the state ought to do all the work.

 

[sugarb]

Again, if you tihnk its simply and important, feel free to suggest what the new laws should look right. I really see no compelling reason why the state ought to do all the work.

But you think the state should do all the work when? When a woman has a child with a man she wasn't married to and needs support? When an adult is found to be mentally incompetent by the courts and a search for a relative to become guardian takes place? When a POA requires a notary's signature? When I want to sell a car?

My point is, the state "does all the work" already for married people. If you are married (as I am), did you have to go fill out a medical surrogate form for your spouse? Do you have to make a will specifying your spouse as the one entitled to your estate, or can your brother or sister or great aunt twice removed claim it? Does your spouse automatically assume responsibility for any debts the two of you incur? Or does your spouse have to sign a paper assuming that responsibility? Were you in an ICU, would you spouse automatically be allowed to visit you? Or do you have to sign a paper giving permission?

The state "did all the work" for me. All I had to do was pay a fee for a marriage license, and file it when the deed was done. What compelling reason did the state have to "do all the work" for me? I could do those things myself, right?

If you read back, my own position isn't wanting "marriage". It is wanting the laws to add one safeguard--eliminate contesting of wills/medical surrogates/appointed guardians. Allow everyone to have the same security that marriage gives in that regard. If you have a child, and lose your spouse, you'll still have your child. In a poly situation, or in homosexual relationships where marriage is not yet allowed, that isn't necessarily the case.

I'm not asking the state to "do all the work". What I'm asking is that, if we do it all, the state give us an assurance that we didn't do it all for nothing.

The one area that falls out of just wanting an assurance is health insurance. It would be nice if people could pay incrementally higher premiums to insure entire households under one plan...which would benefit more than just poly families, by the way. But I won't harp too much on insurance, because it is possible to buy individual policies.

Your phrasing is kind of odd to me. Probably because the state already does all the work for marriage, and I am not certain why you consider it fair for the state to offer more to certain individuals than it does to others, when in fact it is supposed to represent and serve us all equally. I mean, after all, I didn't make the laws regarding inheritance. The state did. I didn't make laws about medical surrogacy. The state did.

Marriage laws have evolved, by the way, as society has changed. In fact, divorce has been in my opinion, in many cases, overly simplified. Why? To again accomodate married people. Why do you think it is okay for the state to keep doing all of the work for married people, but if anyone else asks, we're pretty much demanding something "special"?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, and I stand by that: It is logicially not possible to give the same thing to polygamous groups that is currently being given to monogamous couples.

You can come up with something very similar and you could easily and with a lot of justification still call it marriage - but it would not be the same thing anymore.

And I repeat - why not? I with my four-person family get essentially the same thing that ordinary monogamous couples get. We get insurance, inheritance, morgage... um, everything that I can think of and probably quite a few that I can't think of because I'm not a lawyer. We just had to get someone to draw up official documentation.

And I'd like to address just one more thing here. People have been asking things like "what if a 6th person enters a 5-person relationship" and "how will this work in a 15-person marriage" and "what if it's 200 people".

In my experience, the vast majority of polyamorous relationships involve, at most, three or four people. Occasionally five, but I can't think of any of my poly friends who have an active six-person relationship. I just don't think it happens very often, or in fact at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, hello. I'll attempt to answer your question, ...How that benefits you? Well, were it to become the norm? And the same rights as marriage given to poly families? I'd bet there's be less people having to utilize public assistance, government assisted health care, food stamps, etc.....

This is exactly the sort of answer that I was wondering if anyone would come up with. You are putting forward a case that the desire for polygamy is based on something other than "me, me me, I want, I want, I want, not fair that he's got it and I don't" etc...

It seems that your basic contention is that with additional "parents" to share the load of child rearing, the children are more likely to thrive. (Hmmm...I can see a book title..."It Takes a Harem to Raise a Child")

Is that contention correct? I won't pretend to know the answer, although I will admit to being suspicious. I see a couple of problems with it. First, there is a certain degree of basic math involved. In the current, monogamous, normal marriage, the full efforts of the mother and father are focused on their children. In a poly marriage, the most common situation would be one father divided between the offspring of more than one woman. Of course, the reality of child rearing isn't like that. The reality of modern life is that there are two parents, plus a wide variety of teachers, day care providers, babysitters, and others all contributing in a variety of ways toward raising those children. Perhaps multiple parents could contribute enough economically to allow one parent to stay home and provide full time care to all the children, something that is much more difficult with just one mom and dad.

Second, I see an awful lot of potential for jealousies of all types to enter into the relationship and be extremely destructive for family life. In the pseudo-polygamous relationships I've observed, that always happens, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing from a small sample. Throw kids into the mix and I can't imaging how bad it might get. It's difficult enough when parents have a "favorite child". Just imagine if the "favorite child" of your husband wasn't even one of your own children.

Third, that whole subject of people coming in and out of the relationship gets very difficult to deal with. If we really treat all the married people as "parents" and all the children as brothers and sisters, then there is an awful lot of potential for disrupted families and truly ugly chid custody disputes.

So, I'm dubious that things would work out as well as your post suggests. My gut reaction is that Skeptic's characterization of polygamy in practice is much closer to reality. However, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that my view of the likely consequences of polygamy is based on prejudice and conditioning, and not on any sort of real data about real human beings.

On the other hand, I'm not even willing to consider any argument based on "It's not fair." or "I want it so I should be able to do it." If someone can't show how a proposed major change in law and custom benefits someone besides himself, I don't think that it ought to be considered at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you sure, Meadmaker? That is not the situation in Scotland



Children (Scotland) Act, 1995

Scottish law is somewhat more explicit than American law, apparently. I'm sure the situation varies slightly from state to state. In America, though, generally the guardianship provisions of a will are not considered invioble. The judge can consider "the best interests of the child". In the case I mentioned, if he doesn't approve of the polyamorous relationship, he's likely to award custody to the blood relative, i.e. a grandparent, instead of the "other mother".

 

[Meadmaker]

I am just shocked that this is even a question with such smart people.

What does it matter to anyone else when others want to be in relationships of their own choosing.

Any arguments against marriage of different sorts just all is the same as reefer madness hype to me.

To add to what others have said, no one participating in this thread thinks that anyone should prohibit their relationships. However, when they start saying that they ought to fill out their tax forms differently because of those relationships, we start to take notice and ask some questions.

And, to emphasize a previous point, it is the advocates of polygamy that are advocating state interference in the polyamorous relationships. Those of us who are inclined to oppose polygamy think that perhaps the state should continue to stay out of those relationships, just like they do today.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well...but...there is an equivalent. Person A is married to person B. Person A meets person C. Person A and person C produce person D, unbeknownst to person B.

Person A,B,C,and D are intertwined forever, legally...unless person B decides to bail (which does not always happen).

As an aside, I've often used this example when I insist that marriage is, indeed, very much about reproduction and, amazingly, people dispute that contention.

 

[Meadmaker]

You take a sociopathic view that there must be some benefit to you, I want to know how you resolve this with past civil rights issues. Of course I know that you will not answer.

I could attempt to answer, but the questions seems so thoroughly confused that I would inevitably answer something you weren't really asking. At any rate, I think you have hopelessly mangled the point of my original question. You seem to have run wild with assumptions.

Sugarb got it. If you are interested, read what she wrote.

 

[sugarb]

This is exactly the sort of answer that I was wondering if anyone would come up with. You are putting forward a case that the desire for polygamy is based on something other than "me, me me, I want, I want, I want, not fair that he's got it and I don't" etc...

It seems that your basic contention is that with additional "parents" to share the load of child rearing, the children are more likely to thrive. (Hmmm...I can see a book title..."It Takes a Harem to Raise a Child")

Is that contention correct? I won't pretend to know the answer, although I will admit to being suspicious. I see a couple of problems with it. First, there is a certain degree of basic math involved. In the current, monogamous, normal marriage, the full efforts of the mother and father are focused on their children. In a poly marriage, the most common situation would be one father divided between the offspring of more than one woman. Of course, the reality of child rearing isn't like that. The reality of modern life is that there are two parents, plus a wide variety of teachers, day care providers, babysitters, and others all contributing in a variety of ways toward raising those children. Perhaps multiple parents could contribute enough economically to allow one parent to stay home and provide full time care to all the children, something that is much more difficult with just one mom and dad.

Second, I see an awful lot of potential for jealousies of all types to enter into the relationship and be extremely destructive for family life. In the pseudo-polygamous relationships I've observed, that always happens, but perhaps I'm overgeneralizing from a small sample. Throw kids into the mix and I can't imaging how bad it might get. It's difficult enough when parents have a "favorite child". Just imagine if the "favorite child" of your husband wasn't even one of your own children.

Third, that whole subject of people coming in and out of the relationship gets very difficult to deal with. If we really treat all the married people as "parents" and all the children as brothers and sisters, then there is an awful lot of potential for disrupted families and truly ugly chid custody disputes.

So, I'm dubious that things would work out as well as your post suggests. My gut reaction is that Skeptic's characterization of polygamy in practice is much closer to reality. However, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that my view of the likely consequences of polygamy is based on prejudice and conditioning, and not on any sort of real data about real human beings.

On the other hand, I'm not even willing to consider any argument based on "It's not fair." or "I want it so I should be able to do it." If someone can't show how a proposed major change in law and custom benefits someone besides himself, I don't think that it ought to be considered at all.

I understand the problems you see. If you think about it, though, the problems you've mentioned already exist in traditional marriages. Jealousies? How many extra-marital affairs? How many step children being treated as less than their half-siblings? How many mother-in-laws jealous of their son's wife? How many father's get jealous of their child after it's been around a while and gets more attention? I mean, there are stereotypes in place for a reason...because all of those things DO happen. There's always an adjustment to having children, for anyone. Jealousies toward co-workers, friends, family...children are exposed to these each and every day. Jealousy because the neighbors have a bigger car--what's one of the main reasons given for divorce? Money? Why assume it would be worse in a poly setting? (You may be right...in some cases, that may be a huge problem, but my point is, I don't see why you would think it would be moreso a problem for poly people than it is for anyone else. People inclined to fits of jealousy are "me, me, me" people, regardless of their sexual preferences or marital status).

Disruption of families: I'm really not being sassy here, but since when would that be anything new? Would it somehow be worse than the mom married three times over the course of a child's public schooling? There's a child that's seen a lot of coming and going! Would it somehow be worse than a child moved around through the foster care system until adulthood? Seriously, I'm wondering what you foresee that could be worse than what traditional marriages have exposed children to. It's an honest question. I've thought about it, and I simply can't come up with anything that would be new or unusual to our society.

To your first concern, there was a time when I would have agreed with you...but the numbers of children in single parent households, and the numbers of children I've been involved with that live in households that involve multiple divorces and siblings from different daddies, have altered my ideas and opinions. All of the people involved in the upbringing of a child are still there, in poly families--teachers, day care providers (if they are needed, as with traditional marriages), relatives, neighbors, sitters (poly families do social things, too, ya know, lol)...

I know it seems a strange way to choose to live, but it really isn't all that different. Just add a few more people, and you get the same boring problems, the same silly arguments (although perhaps more often over things like ties on bread and unplugging the toaster, since there's more than one person to "train"), the same ups and downs of any other relationship. Personally, I think the reason it seems so strange is because a lot of poly people try to make it sound like they're somehow special or unique or more interesting or open -minded. There really isn't anything mysterious about it. Poly people are just more inclined to ACT on being able to love more than just that one special, perfect, meant to be with person. It's often confused with "swinging", which is absolutely NOT a realistic comparison. I myself am very bashful and it takes me a LOT of time to cultivate even a comfortable friendship, much less anything deeper.

True! Some people jump into poly relationships (because of the "special, unique, blah blah blah" ideas) and it ends up being not good for children involved. But MANY people jump into traditional marriages in the same exact way. Those people more than likely "seek" poly partners, instead of a relationship just evolving into what it will become, much like the people who jump into marriages seek "marriage" for the sake of "marriage", and any "suitable" partner will do. Let's face it, when it comes to pairing off and procreating, there's not always a whole lot of rational thought involved. But...we don't ban marriage, no matter how high the failure rate. We don't implement stricter requirements. Instead, we make it easier to get out of! So, the precedent has more than been set for allowing people to do dumb things that might be bad for kids already.

But I do understand where you're coming from, and in fact, I could add many more potential problems that *I* looked at for a very long time before coming to where I am today. The problems, as with traditional coupling, aren't so much in the institution/framework. The problems result from the people involved...but we can't legislate stupidity or arrogance or selfishness or any of those things. And we can't protect children from being thrown into bad situations. All we can do is make ways to get them OUT of them once they've been recognized. That is nothing new...sadly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And I repeat - why not? I with my four-person family get essentially the same thing that ordinary monogamous couples get. We get insurance, inheritance, morgage... um, everything that I can think of and probably quite a few that I can't think of because I'm not a lawyer. We just had to get someone to draw up official documentation.

And I'd like to address just one more thing here. People have been asking things like "what if a 6th person enters a 5-person relationship" and "how will this work in a 15-person marriage" and "what if it's 200 people".

In my experience, the vast majority of polyamorous relationships involve, at most, three or four people. Occasionally five, but I can't think of any of my poly friends who have an active six-person relationship. I just don't think it happens very often, or in fact at all.

Sure it happens, just not in the polyamorous comunity. Look at polygyny, there are people in african countries with a hundred pluss wives. Why shouldn't they get legal recognition of their situation? Yes I think that the ones most like to go into seriously large group marriage are more those seeking a more different lifestyle than the typical poly group.

And you have the basic assumption that everyone one person is married to is married to everyone else that person is married to, why are you trying to force people to conform to your view of marriage in that way?

Yes these do not need to be taken into consideration to meet what you want out of polygamy and what the people who want the same thing as you want out of marriage. But that is not everyone who would want the reality of their personal relationships recognised by giving them legal status.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is exactly the sort of answer that I was wondering if anyone would come up with. You are putting forward a case that the desire for polygamy is based on something other than "me, me me, I want, I want, I want, not fair that he's got it and I don't" etc...

Again this is a bad argument, see so much of civil rights history. How was this different from women trying to get the right to own property or vote?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I could attempt to answer, but the questions seems so thoroughly confused that I would inevitably answer something you weren't really asking. At any rate, I think you have hopelessly mangled the point of my original question. You seem to have run wild with assumptions.

Sugarb got it. If you are interested, read what she wrote.

Yes, that if it was 100 years ago, you would be arguing against giving women the vote. Because as a man there is nothing in it for you.

 

[Rasmus]

And I repeat - why not?

First of al, I didn't say it shouldn't happen.

Secondly, forthe same reason that I shouldn't be allowed to just dodge paying my taxes ...

You need to at least tell me what exactly it is you want. It's not marriage as it is currently defined, because marriage is currently defined as being between two people. Tell me what exactly you want changed and I miht very well agree that that's a good thing.

I with my four-person family get essentially the same thing that ordinary monogamous couples get. We get insurance, inheritance, morgage... um, everything that I can think of and probably quite a few that I can't think of because I'm not a lawyer. We just had to get someone to draw up official documentation.

I don't belive that.

Marriage is a legal stats that essentially forces third parties to accept the relationship between two people. You can get into private contracts with as many other people as you like til the cows come home: Neither the state nor third parties that aren't part to the contract will have to recognize your relationship in any way whatsoever.

And I'd like to address just one more thing here. People have been asking things like "what if a 6th person enters a 5-person relationship" and "how will this work in a 15-person marriage" and "what if it's 200 people".

In my experience, the vast majority of polyamorous relationships involve, at most, three or four people. Occasionally five, but I can't think of any of my poly friends who have an active six-person relationship. I just don't think it happens very often, or in fact at all.

Well, then frankly I don't think polyamorous relationships happen very often at all (at least according to my standards of what constitutes "often") and we just won't need to bother, right?

You claim it would only be fair to create a marriage for three or four people. And again: It might be. I don't know. You've failed to demonstrate it. But let's assume that it would be a good thing: Why shoud I then assume that one or two more extra people would not be neccesary or would turn it into a bad thing? That is the argument you are up against in the first place, isnt it? If you use the same argument for one or two more people than what you happen to be interested in I"ll have a hard time not rejecting the exact same argument for just a slightly different number of people.

I think the quetion stands: Where would you draw the line, and why? And how to those arguments differ from the ones against marriages with three or four people rather than two?

 

[sugarb]

As an aside, I've often used this example when I insist that marriage is, indeed, very much about reproduction and, amazingly, people dispute that contention.

Meadmaker, hi. Sorry I'd missed this the first time through, but it brought something to mind that I'd like to run by you. Just thinking in text here...so here goes: *note that I'm only discussing American (USian, whatever) society* I think, personally, it's about more than just reproduction. Now, I know this won't be a popular thought (and I don't expect it to be, really--my views are sometimes so antiquated even I'm ashamed of myself), but...I think marriage is also about order. Not "natural" order, but civilized order. For instance, in the framework of traditional marriage, historically (and even in modern times though we'd probably not admit it), marriage, as ponderingturtle keeps pointing out, put multiple people under the direct authority of one person. Generally, yes, the husband/father...although having a matriarch isn't really all that uncommon. But legally, marriage placed a lot of responsibility, and control, on the head of the family, usually the husband/father. It is, in our society, relatively recent that the same burdens (financial support of children, for example) legally fell to both spouses...just as it is relatively recent that women were as entitled to equity in marital property.

It is my position that marriage, while it may SEEM to be mostly about reproduction, was, in fact, constructed legally in a way that worked out to be a kind of authoritarian entity that reduced dependence on government and placed an unreasonable amount of power in the hands of husbands. This is why I say marriage has evolved. Because society has evolved, as I'm sure we'll agree. (We might disagree about that being good or bad, but that's another argument for another time).

Just as, in any society, there has to be order, the same holds true for any household. A group of people cannot function together without some kind of order, after all...and that's really not so far fetched. Even animals in the wild have orders within their individual "societies". Marriage, I think, is one of the primary building blocks of societal order--and it makes sense, historically. But it also produced some major problems, historically, since those who built the framework did so in the interest of their own authority.

I *do* think that our society is still struggling against "traditional" ideas...because those old ideas and moralities, if you will, are SO entrenched in our legal system and our upbringings, it is hard to fathom too many changes at once. While many folks make fun of the "religious right" regarding their seemingly irrational fears, it kind of makes sense, in an odd way, to me (not that I agree, but I can sort of see where the fears come from). Because our society was built on a pretty solid (and pretty oppressive, to most everyone but white men) foundation. Unfortunately, the bad parts of society, because there have been so many changes to the old ways of thinking over the past three or four decades, are all too easily related TO those changes, in the minds of people who fail to think very critically.

And can we really *blame* people, for not thinking all too critically, when, for the majority of the population, the historical ideas of what society was supposed to be didn't *expect* critical thought from anyone but the head of the household or family? In the overall scheme of things, we're only a generation and a half or so beyond the time when women were expected to be at home in the kitchen in a starched skirt with dinner in the oven. And that was, pretty much, the norm regardless of children being in the house or not! So, in my mind, it's more about structure, less about procreation. Procreation just falls naturally into that structure. Does any of that make sense?

 

[Meadmaker]

but...I think marriage is also about order. Not "natural" order, but civilized order. ...So, in my mind, it's more about structure, less about procreation. Procreation just falls naturally into that structure. Does any of that make sense?

Absolutely. In fact, it goes back to your previous post about noting that all of the potential problems in poly marriage can already be found in traditional marriage.

Marriage is, in fact, an attempt to bring "civilized order" to our world. Somewhere along the line, people noticed that men, left to their own devices, would impregnate women and then leave them with no means of support, which results in poor women and dead babies and all sorts of things that somebody decided were "bad". Marriage was invented to prevent men from doing that. In order to have sex, you first had to acknowledge that you were going to do it, so that everyone knew, or thought they knew, who the daddy was when the baby was born. Plus, you had to promise to stick with the woman instead of throwing her away when she wasn't so cute anymore, because some no good busybody government guy, in collaboration with his priestly friend, thought that a bunch of abandoned middle aged women who weren't dead yet was a bad thing.

Over the years, various cultures added various things onto marriage, and various priests have said that God is actually quite adamant about this bugaboo or that one, and that has confused a lot of people. Some people think that marriage has to enforce gender roles, or goodness knows what else, and other people think that that was its only purpose in the first place. It's no wonder there's lots of confusion about it, and it's no wonder that there is such a dearth of critical thinking on the subject, but that's no excuse for not thinking about it.

Marriage, at its best, forces people to behave in a bit more civilized fashion toward each other. Our no fault, no penalty, divorce proceedings have kind of watered down its protections, but it still serves that purpose. Even all those mean, nasty, things that imposed a sexist view actually served a purpose when they were invented. Today, we live in a different world. We have contraception. Our lives are longer. Brute strength is not the primary way in which we provide economic value. Famine is not lurking around every corner, and we know that famine and disease are not actually punishments from God. In light of all these changes, it makes sense to reevaluate our view of marriage, to change it to fit the modern world.

Also, we can afford to be a bit lax about even forcing people to get married in the first place. Sure 40% of American babies were born to unwed mothers last year, but not all of those babies are destined to lives of poverty, which was almost a certainty for such a baby in the old days. We can let people have relationships without a certificate if that's what they want.

However, if we are going to issue those certficates, then there has to be a purpose for them, and that purpose is, indeed, to impose "civilized order" on the world. If someone can show me how recognition of polyamorous relationships can help impose civilized order in a beneficial way, then count me in on polygamy. If not, then I would say keep doing what you're doing, but you'll have to pay for your own lawyers to work out the details.

 

[sugarb]

Absolutely. In fact, it goes back to your previous post about noting that all of the potential problems in poly marriage can already be found in traditional marriage.

Marriage is, in fact, an attempt to bring "civilized order" to our world. Somewhere along the line, people noticed that men, left to their own devices, would impregnate women and then leave them with no means of support, which results in poor women and dead babies and all sorts of things that somebody decided were "bad". Marriage was invented to prevent men from doing that. In order to have sex, you first had to acknowledge that you were going to do it, so that everyone knew, or thought they knew, who the daddy was when the baby was born. Plus, you had to promise to stick with the woman instead of throwing her away when she wasn't so cute anymore, because some no good busybody government guy, in collaboration with his priestly friend, thought that a bunch of abandoned middle aged women who weren't dead yet was a bad thing.

Over the years, various cultures added various things onto marriage, and various priests have said that God is actually quite adamant about this bugaboo or that one, and that has confused a lot of people. Some people think that marriage has to enforce gender roles, or goodness knows what else, and other people think that that was its only purpose in the first place. It's no wonder there's lots of confusion about it, and it's no wonder that there is such a dearth of critical thinking on the subject, but that's no excuse for not thinking about it.

Marriage, at its best, forces people to behave in a bit more civilized fashion toward each other. Our no fault, no penalty, divorce proceedings have kind of watered down its protections, but it still serves that purpose. Even all those mean, nasty, things that imposed a sexist view actually served a purpose when they were invented. Today, we live in a different world. We have contraception. Our lives are longer. Brute strength is not the primary way in which we provide economic value. Famine is not lurking around every corner, and we know that famine and disease are not actually punishments from God. In light of all these changes, it makes sense to reevaluate our view of marriage, to change it to fit the modern world.

Also, we can afford to be a bit lax about even forcing people to get married in the first place. Sure 40% of American babies were born to unwed mothers last year, but not all of those babies are destined to lives of poverty, which was almost a certainty for such a baby in the old days. We can let people have relationships without a certificate if that's what they want.

However, if we are going to issue those certficates, then there has to be a purpose for them, and that purpose is, indeed, to impose "civilized order" on the world. If someone can show me how recognition of polyamorous relationships can help impose civilized order in a beneficial way, then count me in on polygamy. If not, then I would say keep doing what you're doing, but you'll have to pay for your own lawyers to work out the details.

I do NOT know why, but the line about "abandoned middle age women who weren't dead yet" made me laugh...a lot. Good grief, that's sick humor, lol.

Eh, I don't know how else to show the benefits. As for helping impose civilized order, actually, I think poly families are a RESULT of the civilized orders that traditional marriage imposed, they've just expanded on them a bit. Actually, in most ways, it is a throwback to a time when extended families shared one household. The only real difference is sex, and the only thing that makes that different, really, is that people outside the poly family KNOW they aren't having "traditional, socially acceptable" sex. Same hangup people have with homosexuals, for the most part. The "ick" or taboo factor. However one wishes to word it.

All I know to say, really, is that the potential benefits strike me as being the same as the potential benefits of traditional marriage, were those allowed to enter into it to actually upholding the institution for reason of said benefits. Just as the problems would be the same, so would be the benefits.

I will grant you this, though--unlike traditional marriage, were poly "marriages" written into law, it very well could, and most likely would, be much more complicated upon the dissolution of the "marriage". But...Meadmaker, that's assuming failure before even making an attempt--and isn't that exactly what has weakened traditional marriage? The laws being reworked to assume failure?