Polygamy

[Going Merry]

Is polygamy wrong? Should it be legal? Why?

Would it harm society?

Lead to abuse or treating people like property?

Would it harm the children?

What if they love each other and doesn't harm anyone?

(Asked in relation to people asking if it should be legal if same-sex marriage is)

Where I live it is a felony to have multiple wives.
It is therefore wrong, however the people here who practice it simply use loop holes to by pass the law.

But scripturally it is not condemned.

But I don't advocate breaking the law, so it is wrong, where I live.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I never use natural to mean good. You've dragged this tangental point on far too long.

Don't answer if you think my questions unreasonable. But, as long as you continue to reply, I will continue to ask, because I don't feel like I'm getting a straight answer.

If I misunderstood, then please explain to me what I was supposed to take from the phrase, "You are talking about using the law to attempt to deny people this natural role in their own life ..."

and this

It's 50 years later now, and people are approaching open relationships in a calmer, more thoughtful way.

Are you saying it was unreasonable for me to conclude from this statement that you think society has matured? Later on in your post you call the "free love" relationships of the 1960s a fad. Why is polygamy not a fad?

Your position so far has been that you find polygamy unwise because it's complicated ...

This understates what I'm saying. I think I've made it clear that the complications make it harmful in most cases - and it appeared you agreed with that. Since you cannot offer a way to determine who would be suitable for polygamy, am I wrong to be concerned about the people who would be hurt by it? Or am I unreasonable to say that if people who follow that lifestyle wish to stay in society, they need to pay a higher premium for a higher risk lifestyle?

Again, as an analogy, I expect there is a small percentage of people who can drink heavily and handle it. But that hasn't led to an alcohol awareness campaign that says, "Try it and see if it works for you."

Why do those descriptions sound casual to you?

Are you saying barbeques are formal ceremonies for establishing committed relationships? The new wedding ceremony?

What about that standard makes you think it excludes monogamy? There are plenty of people who look at their monogamous relationships and say, "Yup, this is working well for us. We both like who we are and what we have." That passes the "edifying and consensual" test. Why would you think it wouldn't?

What about when it gets hard? Do you like it when a relationship gets hard? I don't. But the commitment is for better and for worse.

I very carefully avoided any reference to sex and deliberately spelled out that negotiating the nature of.the relationship is a part of the process ...

But you also carefully avoided answering my question. This doesn't tell me anything about what distinguishes a marriage relationship from other relationships. If a father and (adult) daughter negotiate the nature of their relationship, does that make it a marriage?

While I dont generally support the.fundamentalist Mormon approach to polygamy, the way they are prosecuted is disgusting. One couple is legally married. The other wives have no legal bond to their husband. So you'd.think there wouldn't be any problem with this, legally, right? No. The police declare that because they all live together, they are common-law married, and then charge.them with bigamy.

I bet you wouldn't find it disgusting that the law does this for other crimes, i.e. finds ways to charge those who are living in the loopholes. For example, Al Capone was not convicted for all his bootlegging, theft, murder, extortion, etc. He was convicted of tax evasion.

As long as polygamy is illegal, the government has the right to prosecute those who violate the law.

Why is it selfish to base the rules of.a.relationship on how well it meets the needs of the people involved?

Because a healthy relationship is not based on someone saying, "OK, this is how I'm going to use you to meet my needs." A healthy relationship is based on, "Because I love you, this is how I want to serve you."

Why do.you think that being bounced among different families is comparable.to being a part of one, large family?

The kids won't get bounced around as all these "relationships" are forming and dissolving?

But that's not what I meant. Note that I said "even if they are placed in a stable monogamous household at a very young age." i.e. even if they remain with the same family for a very long time. Just because they know they are not with their biological parents it causes problems. It leaves them feeling insecure: if my biological parents abandoned me, will you do it to? I think that would be analogous to knowing that your parents feel it's OK to dissolve a relationship anytime it doesn't meet their needs: sorry kid, this isn't working for me.

The insurance industry is far too screwed up to have a meaningful conversation about it.

That's just an excuse. If so, push to make it better.

Would you be willing to pay a higher insurance rate if it turned out monogamy was more associated with those things than non-monogamy?

Yes, because that's the commitment I've made - to take care of my family. Remember that 16-year-old kid I mentioned? He just got his driver's license. That's not cheap.

 

[Glas Ridire]

You have children? This makes the fact that you see nothing wrong with underaged marriages all the more worrying.

I am pretty sure you are not reading what I am writting. I don't condone underage marriage. When underage marriages(which, once again, I don't condone) do occur (just because I don't condone underage marriage doesn't mean it doesn't happen) I believe it would be more humane for us to recognize those marriages (even though I don't condone them happening). Once the underage marriages have occured (even though I don't support them) the brides thereof, are frequently disposed of inhumanely . . . if it proves necessary to getting the rest of the family into a Western World country. It is a bummer. It is NOT right that underage marriages occur, however, once they do . .. I believe the girl is still a human and THAT seems to be where we disagree (for starters).

First of all yes, many people support intervention from forgein nations if they suspect human rights violations are taking place. Clearly you only think harming others is wrong if it's one nation against another - when they are harming people in their own nation you couldn't care less.

I don't know about you, but I have spent time with my feetsies in Africa and Asia working for human rights . . . Just because I don't support military intervention and empire building, doesn't mean I like the status quo.

Obviously all those charities campaigning to stop underaged marriage are a bunch of culturally-insensitive bigots ...

Seems like, you are going to paint me as a culturally insensitive bigot or you are going to paint me . . I don't know. . . Why is it wrong to treat the brides of underage marriages like they are people? I am trying to understand. I have actually taken part in non-military solutions to the problem, I guess that makes me bad enough I shouldn't breed:o

Second, if you think that it is wrong for one nation to impose its own sense of morality on another - that it's "wrong" for us to impose our Western ideals of marriage onto foreign nations - then I argue it is wrong for them to impose their ideals on us. If we cannot force them to make underage marriage illegal, then they cannot force us to make it legal to suit them.

Misses the point. I am not advocating lowering our marriage age, but rather recognizing marriages from elsewhere. If it was legally done somewhere, then it should be good to go. Just because you don't approve of the age at which some girl was married, doesn't give her her virginity back . . . doesn't make her less married in her own country when she gets left behind . . .doesn't keep her husband's extended family from shrugging their shoulders and saying "well we paid the dowery" and using her as a slave when the husband leaves her behind (because he can't bring her to the U.S. as a second wife). By recognizing all out of country marriages, legal where they were conducted as "real" these girls have a shot at being treated as people. I think they should. . . ya know . . . be treated as people.

Frankly if you are more concerned about offending people who support pedophilia than you are about the welfare of girls too young to consent to sex then yes, you are sick in the head. A father should know better.

I am hoping we have this cleared up. Declaring another culture's ideas of marriage null and void does nothing to help girls who have been married and whose husbands then choose to come to a Western country. I do not believe we should use violence to force other cultures to adopt our standards. I do believe that charities can gain more ground in changing other cultures. I recognize that change takes generations sometimes and while we are waiting (and some of us are working), we need to come up with some humane intermediate alternatives . . . to blocking the entry of 2nd and/or underage brides. Not agreeing with the fact that they became child brides does not make them less than human. To believe that childbrides are less than human is sick in the head . . .

 

[Mling]

Don't answer if you think my questions unreasonable. But, as long as you continue to reply, I will continue to ask, because I don't feel like I'm getting a straight answer.

I can't control how you feel. Every answer i've given you has been "straight." You just arent getting what I'm saying, and I've pretty much run out of ways to say the same thing over annd over again in different words. And have you read my posts in other threads? That's quite a feat. I'm not known for brevity. Just drop it.

If I misunderstood, then please explain to me what I was supposed to take from the phrase, "You are talking about using the law to attempt to deny people this natural role in their own life ..."

I was expressing a specific way of a government and society overstepping its bounds by invading the people's personal lives. I'm not going to explain in any more detail, because--see above.

Are you saying it was unreasonable for me to conclude from this statement that you think society has matured?

Later on in your post you call the "free love" relationships of the 1960s a fad. Why is polygamy not a fad?

Because a fad is something that is widely popular for a short amount of time. Committed, multiple relationships are not widely popular right now, and have existed for thousands of years. And as i said before, it's not that we're so much better as a society now. It's that the shine's off this thing.

This understates what I'm saying. I think I've made it clear that the complications make it harmful in most cases - and it appeared you agreed with that.

I've said that the stakes are higher than in monogamous relationships, and that I'd expect it to remain a minority because it wouldn't be desirable for most people. I have *not* agreed that it is harmful to most.

Since you cannot offer a way to determine who would be suitable for polygamy, am I wrong to be concerned about the people who would be hurt by it?

Not cannot. Will not. I will not dictate how other people conduct their personal relationships, except to make sure that everything is consensual. How do we determine who is allowed to date? We don't. As a culture, we tell people that if you like somebody, you should ask them out. If you get turned down, or if you form a relationship but later break up, then *ouch.* sucks. But that's life and sometimes it hurts. Do you worry this much about all those poor monogamous couples who get hurt by breakups or rejections every day?

Or am I unreasonable to say that if people who follow that lifestyle wish to stay in society, they need to pay a higher premium for a higher risk lifestyle?

Possibly. I'm not sure about that. You're certainly wrong to assume.that a lifestyle is high-risk for everybody because you wouldn't want to do it yourself. Working as an accountant would make me a *much* less healthy person, but I don't go around suggesting that all accountants should pay higher insurance premiums because of their high-risk lifestyle.

[/quote]Again, as an analogy, I expect there is a small percentage of people who can drink heavily and handle it. But that hasn't led to an alcohol awareness campaign that says, "Try it and see if it works for you."[/quote]

Um...outside of party colleges, adults are generally assumed to be aware of their own alcohol tolerance and able to stay within it, unless they show signs of losing control. The awareness campaign for alcohol is "please drink responsibly," not "drink no more than the legal maximum."

That's exactly the approach to relationships that I'm advocating: make your own decisions, use your better judgement, and your right to do so won't be infringed unless you start violating people.

Are you saying barbeques are formal ceremonies for establishing committed relationships? The new wedding ceremony?

You're the one who initiated writing dialogues for people who are *just starting up* their romantic relationships. Are you really casting judgement on all non-monogamous people because my hypothetical people didn't meet at their own wedding?

What about when it gets hard? Do you like it when a relationship gets hard? I don't. But the commitment is for better and for worse.

Do you understand what the word edifying means? It doesn't mean easy and fun. It carries the sense of building up, of construction--things that take labor. If something is edifying, it might be nice during easy times, but it shows most during hard times. Something that is edifying makes you a better person, and becoming a better person is hard and painful. My use of that word is careful and deliberate.

But you also carefully avoided answering my question. This doesn't tell me anything about what distinguishes a marriage relationship from other relationships. If a father and (adult) daughter negotiate the nature of their relationship, does that make it a marriage?

"What is marraige." There are how many books on this subject? I could answer.the question in *any* way and it would be possible to find an angle I haven't addressed. Fun game im sure. At any rate, I've already addressed this. Marriage is a legal relationship and in my mind, it requires the people to identify as being married. As i said earlier. So, have this father and daughter filled out a marriage license, been lawfully wed, and identify themselves as married? If so, then yes,.they are. If not,.then no. they aren't.

I bet you wouldn't find it disgusting that the law does this for other crimes, i.e. finds ways to charge those who are living in the loopholes. For example, Al Capone was not convicted for all his bootlegging, theft, murder, extortion, etc. He was convicted of tax evasion.

As long as polygamy is illegal, the government has the right to prosecute those who violate the law.

Did al capone commit tax evasion? If so, then fine. Read the description again. Among the group of people living together, only two were lawfully married to.each other. They didn't commit bigamy.

Because a healthy relationship is not based on someone saying, "OK, this is how I'm going to use you to meet my needs." A healthy relationship is based on, "Because I love you, this is how I want to serve you."

And if they don't get their own needs met, that service isn't going to last very long. You need to be a.functional person if you're going to be of any use to anybody else. That means a committed relationship has to he based on a careful balance of "here's.what you need, and here's what I need. Here's what i can give, and here's.what you can give, and here's the best way to make the most of what we have and who we are, in order to create the best situation possible." Because, if you don't know this yourself, take my word.for.it, you are of *no* use to anybody if you're breaking down in tears over your sick or injured partner, sobbing that you can't handle the constant terror.that they're going to die or worse. And in that moment, you may be very, very grateful that their other partner is a phone-call away and up for.giving you a weekend off.

The kids won't get bounced around as all these "relationships" are forming and dissolving?

The people I've known who have had kids in poly relationships have either done it once their relationships have reached a stable state--so there *is* no "forming and dissolving," or have a stable core relationship of some small number of people and then extra-curriculars may come over sometimes, but they don't have a family-style relationship with the kids. Young kids.would interpret them as their parents' friends, and as they get old.enough to understand more,.they would see.that it's something honest and open, and everybody is on board with it.

But that's not what I meant. Note that I said "even if they are placed in a stable monogamous household at a very young age." i.e. even if they remain with the same family for a very long time. Just because they know they are not with their biological parents it causes problems. It leaves them feeling insecure: if my biological parents abandoned me, will you do it to? I think that would be analogous to knowing that your parents feel it's OK to dissolve a relationship anytime it doesn't meet their needs: sorry kid, this isn't working for me.

That would be true of a mongamous parent who dissolved relationships any time they got hard, too. And there's no reason to.think that poly parents would be less aware of that fact than monogamous single or divorced parents, and I've certainly never said nothing to.suggest this nebulous ebb and flow of relationships that you're imagining, so I guess there's no more reason to be concerned about poly people handling this badly than single or divorced parents. Possibly less, even, since navigating multiple relationships develops your sense of people's needs, and poly people have to.think a lot harder about how to demonstrate what relationships.look like.

That's just an excuse. If so, push to make it better.

K. I'll just drop my career and get a quick law degree. Brb.

Yes, because that's the commitment I've made - to take care of my family. Remember that 16-year-old kid I mentioned? He just got his driver's license. That's not cheap.

Really? If somebody told you that they'd run the numbers, and you being monogamous put you at high risk for depression, alcoholism, etc., you wouldn't have a problem with that?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, you think you've stated your case and that I'm just being difficult. OK. Here's what I understand from what you've said:

1) You want the freedom to do whatever you want with a consenting adult.
2) You think it is an unwarranted intrusion of the government to put any limits on #1.
3) You think it is an unwarranted intrusion for anyone outside your social circle to put any limits on #1.
4) Yes, you've seen this go bad, but you don't think it's any different than when a legally recognized monogamous relationship goes bad.

Here are the replies I've tried to give to each of those points:

1) History has lessons to teach us ... and they extend far beyond the last 50 years. The lesson I take from history is that this is a very bad idea. It opens the door to all kinds of abuse, and the idea that "I can handle it" is a special pleading fallacy.
2) The government intrudes because the people who made the laws agree with me about #1. They think #1 is harmful. If you disagree, prove it - or at least support the efforts to prove it. If you're not going to do that, then don't expect the government to do anything to help your poly relationships. In fact, expect that they will continue in their obligation to prosecute the law.
3) I happen to somewhat agree with you on #3, but we still see it differently. I don't want an impersonal Federal agency messing up my life either ... and they have a track record of doing that. The difference is that I support putting a structure in place where there will be a caring local community who will teach young people about #1 - and not sugar coat it. They'll make the hard decisions when they need to be made, and not stick their head in the sand and pretend like everything is OK, or that everyone making "personal decisions" is a good idea.
4) You haven't given me a definition of marriage that I can use, haven't given me any way for people to make these decisions (in fact, you said it's not that you can't, but that you won't), and haven't shown any desire to help your community by investigating the matter. What am I supposed to do with that? All I can do is stay with the information I have, which leaves my opinion unchanged.

K. I'll just drop my career and get a quick law degree. Brb.

Another excuse. I didn't tell you to change careers. If this issue is important to you, get involved with your community. Get to know the people who could make a case for polygamy, who could study it and gather the statistics, and support them. Otherwise, all you're saying to me is that this really isn't that important to you.

Really? If somebody told you that they'd run the numbers, and you being monogamous put you at high risk for depression, alcoholism, etc., you wouldn't have a problem with that?

Yes, really. I'm not looking for a free ride. Are you suggesting I should try to manipulate the statistics so they come out in my favor? Not gonna do that. I pay my share.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So, you think you've stated your case and that I'm just being difficult. OK. Here's what I understand from what you've said:

1) You want the freedom to do whatever you want with a consenting adult.
2) You think it is an unwarranted intrusion of the government to put any limits on #1.
3) You think it is an unwarranted intrusion for anyone outside your social circle to put any limits on #1.
4) Yes, you've seen this go bad, but you don't think it's any different than when a legally recognized monogamous relationship goes bad.

Here are the replies I've tried to give to each of those points:

1) History has lessons to teach us ... and they extend far beyond the last 50 years. The lesson I take from history is that this is a very bad idea. It opens the door to all kinds of abuse, and the idea that "I can handle it" is a special pleading fallacy.
2) The government intrudes because the people who made the laws agree with me about #1. They think #1 is harmful. If you disagree, prove it - or at least support the efforts to prove it. If you're not going to do that, then don't expect the government to do anything to help your poly relationships. In fact, expect that they will continue in their obligation to prosecute the law.
3) I happen to somewhat agree with you on #3, but we still see it differently. I don't want an impersonal Federal agency messing up my life either ... and they have a track record of doing that. The difference is that I support putting a structure in place where there will be a caring local community who will teach young people about #1 - and not sugar coat it. They'll make the hard decisions when they need to be made, and not stick their head in the sand and pretend like everything is OK, or that everyone making "personal decisions" is a good idea.
4) You haven't given me a definition of marriage that I can use, haven't given me any way for people to make these decisions (in fact, you said it's not that you can't, but that you won't), and haven't shown any desire to help your community by investigating the matter. What am I supposed to do with that? All I can do is stay with the information I have, which leaves my opinion unchanged.

1) History also shows marriage in general tended to be more abusive 50 years ago. Once upon a time hitting your wife for not having dinner made wasn't uncommon, or even frowned upon. Polygamy in and of itself opens the door no less for abuse than a regular marriage does.... it all depends on the people involved.

Limiting the freedoms of someone who would be in a completely abuse free polygamous situation, because someone else is getting abused is silly. Using that same justification we should outlaw marriage in general, as there are plenty of abusive marriages out there still today.

 

[Mling]

So, you think you've stated your case and that I'm just being difficult. OK. Here's what I understand from what you've said:

1) You want the freedom to do whatever you want with a consenting adult.

I am a real person. My positions are more nuanced than the 2-dimensional stereotype you keep trying to force me, and this conversation, into.

I'm not set on the "whatever" aspect. For example, I think most addictive drugs should be illegal, (exception being the obvious--drugs that are prescribed to treat medical problems). I'm always hesitant to say "always," but I think the attitude that people are free to make their own personal decisions should be the default, unless a strong case is made for a particular exception.

2) You think it is an unwarranted intrusion of the government to put any limits on #1.

I think the limits should be few and far between, and always for exceedingly good reasons.

3) You think it is an unwarranted intrusion for anyone outside your social circle to put any limits on #1.

This is just an extension of 2. The only way people I don't know could limit my personal life is by either assaulting me or establishing the laws in #2.

4) Yes, you've seen this go bad, but you don't think it's any different than when a legally recognized monogamous relationship goes bad.

Or career pursuits, or hobbies, or any other kind of relationship You don't think romantic relationships are the only things that go bad, do you? It's legal to hunt and eat wild mushrooms, despite the fact that it carries the potential to be much more harmful than a second partner is likely to be. It's legal to quit your lucrative job and move to Bollywood to try to become a move-star. It's even legal to do that if you're supporting a family. It's legal to befriend a manipulative person and try to reform them. There are varying levels of risk in all of these, and I'd say that each either has more potential to "go bad" than a negotiated multiple-partner relationship, or, if less likely to go bad, has the potential to go much, much worse on the off-chance that it does.

Everything worth doing carries a risk, but, in the cost/benefit analysis, I think that this scores much better than encouraging the idea that the common folk are too foolish to know how to handle their lives and need people above them to keep them from making mistakes.

Here are the replies I've tried to give to each of those points:

1) History has lessons to teach us ... and they extend far beyond the last 50 years. The lesson I take from history is that this is a very bad idea. It opens the door to all kinds of abuse, and the idea that "I can handle it" is a special pleading fallacy.

If you have any examples of these horrendous outcomes of letting a small minority have consensually plural marriages if they like, in a culture than generally promotes monogamy, you have yet to demonstrate them.

2) The government intrudes because the people who made the laws agree with me about #1. They think #1 is harmful. If you disagree, prove it - or at least support the efforts to prove it. If you're not going to do that, then don't expect the government to do anything to help your poly relationships. In fact, expect that they will continue in their obligation to prosecute the law.

If the problem is that people shouldn't be allowed to do risky things that might hurt them, then where do you draw the line between prohibiting relationships that might be painful (like...any relationship ever) and prohibiting things like eating wild mushrooms, neglecting "safe" job opportunities in favor of questionable ones, or taking out loans?

3) I happen to somewhat agree with you on #3, but we still see it differently. I don't want an impersonal Federal agency messing up my life either ... and they have a track record of doing that. The difference is that I support putting a structure in place where there will be a caring local community who will teach young people about #1 - and not sugar coat it. They'll make the hard decisions when they need to be made, and not stick their head in the sand and pretend like everything is OK, or that everyone making "personal decisions" is a good idea.

If I make the decision that, say, my children will never do drugs, how, exactly, do I go about ensuring that? I mean, I can make rules; I can take any number of measures to ensure that they don't come in contact with them; I can have lots of conversations about it with them; I can even threaten them with all sorts of punishments if they do. But if, at 20, my kid's roommate has drugs and offers them some, my "decision," isn't going to mean squat, because I'm not there to make it. It will be my kid's decision at that point. That doesn't mean I'll shrug and approve of it. It means that my best bet of either preventing them from using drugs or minimizing the harm of it will come from approaching the matter as another human being making a decision I don't like, but have limited control over, rather than from trying to pretend that this is my decision. If I were to approach it as "here is why I believe this is a bad idea" then I'm still respecting my kid's autonomy as a person, and thus have a chance of actually convincing them of something. If I approach it as if it was my decision--as if my arm was just going off and doing stuff without my permission-- like, "Don't you ever do this. Period." then I'm just going to be perceived as an overly controlling jerk.

Recognizing other people's autonomy doesn't mean you sugar coat anything. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It means you listen to the reasons why they want to do what they're doing, and you offer your own insight, and you have conversations about it, but eventually you acknowledge the limited reach of your own arm. I know, at the very least, I appreciated the people who told me things like, "If you take anything with THC, like pot or hashish, be aware that it can make you very paranoid--it had that effect on me (blood relative), and if you're prone to anxiety at the best of times, it may have that effect on you, too." I gave their advice a lot more consideration than the people who said, "Don't do drugs," as if the decision was theirs and not mine. As it stands, I've never taken any kind of drugs, but if I ever decide to, I have useful information that may make it that much less risky.

This is what I'm talking about, in respecting people's right to make personal decisions. It doesn't mean that you automatically support every decision they make. It means that you treat other people like people, and not like extensions of yourself.

4) You haven't given me a definition of marriage that I can use,

A: "What's a rock, to you?"

B: "A solid foundation for buildings and minimally useful weapon."

A: "But what is it?"

B: "A hard chunk of Earth."

A: "But what is it?"

B: "Minerals bonded with a molecular structure that may or may not repeat in perfect, simple patterns."

A: "Come'on, give me a definition!"

B: "See this? This is a rock. You can tell it's a rock because it's hard, it's not alive and it's made of the same stuff the ground is. That isn't a rock, because it lacks those traits."

A: "A definition I can use!!!"



Use for what?

So far, I've described marriage as a way that adults entwine their lives together by getting a license that enters them into a legally recognized relationship that gives them partial legal control over their partners life and a significant amount of influence in their personal development.

If you can't deduce what marriage is from that, maybe you need to start asking better questions, because the constant, "But what iiiis it? Give me a definition!" clearly isn't getting you whatever kind of answer you're looking for.

haven't given me any way for people to make these decisions (in fact, you said it's not that you can't, but that you won't),

"How do people make these decisions," is not even close to the question you asked. I gave that answer to the question of how I would arbitrate what types of people are allowed to be poly. My answer is that I won't make those decisions for other people. If you were interested, I could describe what sorts of people tend to enjoy poly relationships, but that is not at all a binding arbitration.

and haven't shown any desire to help your community by investigating the matter.

You are too far from the community to be able to declare what is actually helpful.

What am I supposed to do with that?

Ask questions that aren't leading, and actually care about the answers. So far, you've done everything possible to twist every answer I give into, "Poly people are selfish and don't care about committed relationships."

You've taken random descriptions of a conversation happening at a barbeque and extrapolated from that that barbeques are as formal as poly people ever get (do monogamous people never have their friends over for dinner?) You've taken phrases like "does this relationship meet the needs of the people in it?" and chosen to interpret that as "a poly person only cares about using their partner to meet their own needs." You've chosen to utterly disregard the real meaning of a key word in the conversation (edify--"to instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement") and pretend that it means something entirely different (fun and easy).

In short, you put information in front of your eyes, and then utterly lied to yourself about what it means, so that you didn't have to rethink your view.

So, what could you do with what you have? Well....you could stop doing that.

Another excuse. I didn't tell you to change careers. If this issue is important to you, get involved with your community. Get to know the people who could make a case for polygamy, who could study it and gather the statistics, and support them. Otherwise, all you're saying to me is that this really isn't that important to you.

To my knowledge, no polyamorous groups or individuals are pushing hard for legalized polygamy, and there is, you know...a gray area between "things that I feel strongly enough to construct an argument for" and "things I'm into enough to try to initiate and lead a nation-wide movement for."

And again, you're mixing together a response with something different than what provoked the response. I joked about getting a law degree in response to you suggesting I should fight insurance companies about the entirety of how they do business.

Yes, really. I'm not looking for a free ride. Are you suggesting I should try to manipulate the statistics so they come out in my favor? Not gonna do that. I pay my share.

No. I'm suggesting that somebody saying, "Yeah, this thing that you experience as being really healthy and a major factor in your personal growth--we ran the numbers, and it turns out you're actually really depressed about it and you're probably doing some really risky things because of how much it depresses you, so you need to give us more money" might be...bothersome. Probably not something that the average person would respond to with, "Well, you're the experts on my mind, so sure, I'll just take your word for that! Certainly, if you've decided I'm so risky, take as much as you like!"

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I am pretty sure you are not reading what I am writting. I don't condone underage marriage. When underage marriages(which, once again, I don't condone) do occur (just because I don't condone underage marriage doesn't mean it doesn't happen) I believe it would be more humane for us to recognize those marriages (even though I don't condone them happening). Once the underage marriages have occured (even though I don't support them) the brides thereof, are frequently disposed of inhumanely . . . if it proves necessary to getting the rest of the family into a Western World country. It is a bummer. It is NOT right that underage marriages occur, however, once they do . .. I believe the girl is still a human and THAT seems to be where we disagree (for starters).

Your solutions to the problem of underage marriage seem to be either:

a) Recognising their marriages as valid (which would mean essentially legalizing pedophilia) or ...
b) An even worse option - having a set of rules for one group and a different set of rules for another, based on their nationality, ethnicity or religion: it's acceptable for African or Middle Eastern men to marry young girls but it's wrong for a Western man to do so.

We oppose underaged marriages because we consider pedophilia - a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor - morally wrong, not because we're imperialists. There's a limit to respecting other people's cultures, especially when it involves violence. That's why honour killings are not legal either. It's ridiculous to say that we're saving them from a miserable life while turning a blind eye towards sexual abuse.

Misses the point. I am not advocating lowering our marriage age, but rather recognizing marriages from elsewhere. If it was legally done somewhere, then it should be good to go. Just because you don't approve of the age at which some girl was married, doesn't give her her virginity back . . . doesn't make her less married in her own country when she gets left behind . . .doesn't keep her husband's extended family from shrugging their shoulders and saying "well we paid the dowery" and using her as a slave when the husband leaves her behind (because he can't bring her to the U.S. as a second wife). By recognizing all out of country marriages, legal where they were conducted as "real" these girls have a shot at being treated as people. I think they should. . . ya know . . . be treated as people.

I highly doubt that refusing to condone pedophilia means we are not treating young girls as people. One idea currently being proposed here in the UK is that girls from underaged marriages who come to our countries will be taken into care. It's a much better option than either leaving her without a family overseas or ignoring the sexual abuse she faces in her so-called marriage.

Declaring another culture's ideas of marriage null and void does nothing to help girls who have been married and whose husbands then choose to come to a Western country. I do not believe we should use violence to force other cultures to adopt our standards.

Refusing to condone pedophilia is not an act of violence either.

 

[quatona]

Hi Mling, and sorry for the late response.

The fact that I perceive most of your post as not addressing my arguments tells me that either I haven´t been clear in my points or I am not understanding your objections (or both, even).

Adultery has been legal for quite a while now (I have no idea, but was it ever illegal in the 20th century?) and since couples stopped needing grounds for divorce, there has been no law that penalizes having extra-marital partners in any way. And yet, the vast majority of people either don't have them or consider it cheating. What's holding them back, if it isn't the law? Lack of desire. Not lack of sexual desire, but lack of desire to be in open relationships.

Again, I am not sure what this has to do with anything I said, but I´ll address some points nonetheless.
1. Despite the broadly held concept of "cheating", extra-marital sex is not as rare as you picture it. I don´t have the statistics at hand (and I suspect it´s hard to get reliable data, anyway).
2. I think there are a lot of possible factors that may "hold people back". The law and lack of desire are not the only possible explanations. Upbringing, condition, social norms, practical considerations are just the first that come to mind.

Even among openly poly people, you very often see people forming strong couples and then having a few other partners on the side. The types of networks you're talking about do happen, but they're limited. They involve maybe 5-20 people, not hundreds. And even then, not everybody involved considers themselves spouses. It's not "here's my husband, my wife, my other wife, my other husband, my first wife's other husband, my second wife's wife...etc," it's, "this is my husband, my boyfriend, his wife and her girlfriend."

Again, I am not sure I understand what you are arguing against.
I am glad there are all these different ways to form friendships and relationships.
What, however, is the topic of this thread: The legal construct "marriage".

Basically, there doesn't have to be a "point," to the social structure, because it wouldn't be a social structure.

I guess I misspoke: While all sorts of poly-relationships are already existing as social structures, I meant to address the question for a legal construct.
And, of course, legal constructs do and should have points.

Not enough people want it at all, and the ones who do don't want it the way you're describing.
It's the same reason why we don't have to worry about everybody in the country going on an ice-cream binge all at once. There's no laws to prevent it, and it could easily cause riots if it happened, but we trust that people just aren't that uniform in their desires.

Point taken. In reality it´s not to be expected to be that frequently chosen an option as my scenario made it out to be.

Still complicated enough, though. The very purpose of marriage as we know is exclusivity. A two party contract that emphasizes exclusivity (and its legal acknowledgement) is by its very nature a very simple issue to handle.

Interestingly, I don´t know of any culture with polygyny and polyandry at the same time.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Your solutions to the problem of underage marriage seem to be either:

a) Recognising their marriages as valid (which would mean essentially legalizing pedophilia)

well, they were legally married where they came from. How would it look if Britain outlawed interracial marriages? What of people from the U.S. coming to England in a mixed race marriage? Suddenly unmarrird? Sounds ridiculous right?

b) An even worse option - having a set of rules for one group and a different set of rules for another, based on their nationality, ethnicity or religion: it's acceptable for African or Middle Eastern men to marry young girls but it's wrong for a Western man to do so.

How is that different from the current state of affairs? Incidentally western men aren't banned from taking young wives in foreign lands. How is it really two sets of rules?

We oppose underaged marriages because we consider pedophilia - a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor - morally wrong, not because we're imperialists.

Of course, opposing is an expression of feeling. We all have a right to our feelings. Actually enforcing a rule on foreign soil woul make us imperialists.

I highly doubt that refusing to condone pedophilia means we are not treating girls as people.

That wasnt what was said. When they are left behind they get treated as non-persons, and policies which encourage them to be left behind generates complicity in dehumanizing them.

One idea currently being proposed here in the UK is that girls from underaged marriages who come to our countries will be taken into care. It's a much better option than either leaving her without a family overseas or ignoring the sexual abuse she faces in her so-called marriage.

Well, that is stellar! Girl comes to a foreign country and gets kidnapped, put in a state home where she can practice for life in the brothel! Excellent, cut her off from her culture and any family supports, that should ensure that English pedophiles get their turn and not just her husband. Amazing!

 

[Mling]

Hi Mling, and sorry for the late response.

The fact that I perceive most of your post as not addressing my arguments tells me that either I haven´t been clear in my points or I am not understanding your objections (or both, even).


Again, I am not sure what this has to do with anything I said, but I´ll address some points nonetheless.
1. Despite the broadly held concept of "cheating", extra-marital sex is not as rare as you picture it. I don´t have the statistics at hand (and I suspect it´s hard to get reliable data, anyway).
2. I think there are a lot of possible factors that may "hold people back". The law and lack of desire are not the only possible explanations. Upbringing, condition, social norms, practical considerations are just the first that come to mind.

That's why I divided "wanting lots of sex" from "wanting multiple relationships." There are probably a fair number of people who find *some* aspects of poly appealing, but ultimately don't want to deal with some of the complications that they can create. Under "upbringing and social norms," for example, you might find somebody who doesn't want to hide some people they love from other people they love, and also wouldn't want to deal with introducing their parents to their boyfriend and their *other* boyfriend. If the cons outweigh the pro's, then ultimately, they don't want to do multiple relationships. If the idea of having sex with lots of people seems kinda cool, but they don't feel like they'd be able to navigate all the emotions it would bring up, then they don't want multiple relationships.

Again, I am not sure I understand what you are arguing against.
I am glad there are all these different ways to form friendships and relationships.
What, however, is the topic of this thread: The legal construct "marriage".


I guess I misspoke: While all sorts of poly-relationships are already existing as social structures, I meant to address the question for a legal construct.
And, of course, legal constructs do and should have points.

Point taken. In reality it´s not to be expected to be that frequently chosen an option as my scenario made it out to be.

This is what all the stuff you weren't sure about was getting at. You were describing a society in which everybody was legally tangled together in a web of legally recognized marriages. My point was that, if that were a real danger, we'd already be seeing the same basic structure in a sort of proto-type form. The same way that, in places where same-sex marriage isn't legal, people stitch together quasi-marriages using whatever resources.they can, like living together and sharing finances, naming each other their powers of attorney, willing their estates to each other, etc. You can tell that these people want to be married because they are doing everything they can to affect it with what they have, and you can also tell that legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't result in a sudden wide-spread orgy of same-sex marriage because most people *aren't*doing it.

Likewise, most people aren't having open relations--they consider it cheating--and among the people who *do* most don't construct proto-marriages between multiple people.

An example of what this would look like: in Massachusetts, if two women are married to each other and one gives birth, her wife can be named as the father on the birth certificate without the biological father losing any parental rights. And if you live with your wife and boyfriend, and the child will be raised with three parents, having a way to legally recognize that is awfully convenient. But again, few people do.things like this, despite having the legal option, which is how we can tell that introducing a new legal option-- multiple marriages-- wouldn't result in a flood of people all getting married to each other every which way.

Instead, what we'd see would be a more formally recognized version of what already exists: the vast majority of people having monogamous relationships (or trying to), a small number marrying one partner but also having outside relationships, and an even smaller number practicing true polygamy.

Still complicated enough, though. The very purpose of marriage as we know is exclusivity. A two party contract that emphasizes exclusivity (and its legal acknowledgement) is by its very nature a very simple issue to handle.

Legalizing polygamy would certainly change marriage more than, say, allowing same-sex and interracial marriage did. But I'm not convinced that it would change it more than allowing married women to hold jobs and own and inherit property did. It was certainly *simpler* for each marriage to be defined as having a single income with all.the property in one person's name, with inheritances following predictable paths, but we've found that the complications associated with allowing wives to have jobs are manageable and worth it.

Interestingly, I don´t know of any culture with polygyny and polyandry at the same time.

Neither do I, at least on a widespread and committed level. Almost certainly because widespread, committed polygamy going both ways really *would* result in the tangled web of marriages you describe. In order to be feasible, it would probably have to be a small tribe, and it would ultimately result in everybody having a level of responsibilty for everybody else, and a sort of "free love" approach to sex, and I believe that *does* exist in some small tribes, either instead of or alongside marriages.

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, I doubt that I would marry more than one person, particularly since I have never strived to be married to even only one person.
Would you like me to clarify my question?

My point was that your hypothetical scenario of everyone being married only works if the majority switch over to polygamy, which is unlikely given the various cultural and religious taboos surrounding it.

 

[quatona]

Mling, thanks for your response.
While I agree that there´s little chance that a great percentage of persons will make use of this option (and, thus, my scenario was hyperbolic), I think the scenario nonetheless illustrates the problems that might make legal polygamy unreasonable.

Firstly, I am not sure that our typical approach to legal issues is this "We legalize it - hardly anyone wants it anyway." Gay marriage, for example, would not lead to such problems even if a greater number of persons would make use of it.

Legalizing polygamy would certainly change marriage more than, say, allowing same-sex and interracial marriage did.

Yes, and on top it would (unlike these changes) potentially affect marriages of persons who are not poly. Imagine a lady who is married to a guy and under the impression that this is a traditional marriage (with its defining emphasis on exclusivity). Now this lady suddenly is introduced to her husbands to-be other wife.

But I'm not convinced that it would change it more than allowing married women to hold jobs and own and inherit property did. It was certainly *simpler* for each marriage to be defined as having a single income with all.the property in one person's name, with inheritances following predictable paths, but we've found that the complications associated with allowing wives to have jobs are manageable and worth it.

Yes, because the increasingly valued paradigm *equal rights* suggested/dictated it. And thus, these changes soon found broad acceptance.
As far as I can see there´s neither such a societal paradigm shift at the core of the quest for poly-marriage, nor will there be - as your "hardly anyone will do it, anyway" argument concedes, a broad acceptance.

Neither do I, at least on a widespread and committed level. Almost certainly because widespread, committed polygamy going both ways really *would* result in the tangled web of marriages you describe. In order to be feasible, it would probably have to be a small tribe, and it would ultimately result in everybody having a level of responsibilty for everybody else, and a sort of "free love" approach to sex, and I believe that *does* exist in some small tribes, either instead of or alongside marriages.

Well, that sounds like a beautiful idea to me.

Anyway, I still would like to see an answer to my question:
What is the point (or are the points) of poly-marriage (and in particular: what does it have in common with a two-person marriage)?
As far as I can tell, two-person marriage is mainly about mutual exclusivity (in various respects - not only in sexual matters). Again, I am not a great fan of this idea of exclusivity, but I think I understand why people want it. It´s about narrowing down options, about the feeling of safety, of things being simple and settled.
Poly-marriage, in contrast, seems to be about opening new options, about being adventurous, exploring the complexity of human feelings and interactions etc. Again: I am not saying this is wrong - au contraire, I am highly sympathetic of this approach.
I just don´t seem to understand what about that needs legalization.
I have a rough idea which vows married couples (be they gay or straight) make to each other, and what legal rights grants them and which duties society demands from them, and what interest society has in this legal construct so that it offers particular protection and privileges.
Now I would like to learn the same about poly- marriage.

 

[quatona]

My point was that your hypothetical scenario of everyone being married only works if the majority switch over to polygamy, which is unlikely given the various cultural and religious taboos surrounding it.

Point taken.
For details, may I kindly ask you to read my last post to Mling?

 

[Mling]

Yes, and on top it would (unlike these changes) potentially affect marriages of persons who are not poly. Imagine a lady who is married to a guy and under the impression that this is a traditional marriage (with its defining emphasis on exclusivity). Now this lady suddenly is introduced to her husbands to-be other wife.

And then the guy finds himself back with just one partner, because his first wife has gone and divorced him! It's not polyamory if your partner thinks you're monogamous. That's just cheating.

The fundamental point does remain that it would change a basic essence of all marriages, in that they have the legal option of being added to.

In a way, I actually think that makes monogamy more meaningful. It means you aren't doing it just because you assumed it was how relationships had to work--you're doing it because you actually want to and you've made a deliberate decision to establish your relationship that way.

Yes, because the increasingly valued paradigm *equal rights* suggested/dictated it. And thus, these changes soon found broad acceptance.
As far as I can see there´s neither such a societal paradigm shift at the core of the quest for poly-marriage, nor will there be - as your "hardly anyone will do it, anyway" argument concedes, a broad acceptance.

And that's where this stops being an online conversation about a hypothetical possibility, and starts touching more on reality. At the moment, there really isn't any major push for legalized polygamy, and I'm not sure where one would come from if it developed. It's possible that some people might try to push for legalizing it from a religious standpoint, but the religions which practice it are pretty unpopular in America, and the country has too much fear of non-Christians taking over for much ground to be gained on that point.

The secular variety, though...I mean, there are problems associated with situations like if one party in a three-person relationship can't get a job or health insurance, and the other two members of the relationship are married to each other, then they're sort of out of luck. And that's the type of problem that would inspire people to try to make a case for legalizing polygamy, because a possible solution is so obvious, but isn't legal: Partner A has a great job and B is on their health insurance plan...A probably feels like crap now that they can't provide for C the same way. If only there was a way.....

The issue is that it doesn't happen often enough to inspire a social movement.

And that issue would also be solved with universal health care, which is at least on most people's radar, so if that situation became grating enough to enough people to try to push for laws to change it, they'd likely start petitioning for that instead of polygamy.

Well, that sounds like a beautiful idea to me.

Anyway, I still would like to see an answer to my question:
What is the point (or are the points) of poly-marriage (and in particular: what does it have in common with a two-person marriage)?

I assume you mean what is the point of legally recognizing it, as opposed to what is the point of individuals doing it?

Assuming that's the case...actually, the fact that people are doing it is a significant case right there. A major purpose of legally recognized marriage is that it provides ways for people to materially care for their partner and legally meld their lives together. To some degree or another, a married couple function in the legal and business world as if they were one person.

If it's assumed that people caring for their partners is a good thing, then that requires the law to be written so that the relationships it functions for are the relationships people are actually having (imagine how useless a marriage law in America would be, for hyperbolic example, if it only recognized relationships between people who were both Native American, or only between members of the House of Lords.) That means that, if a previously unrecognized style of relationship becomes common enough that people want it recognized as marriage, the relevant question isn't, "what's the point?" but rather, "Is there a reason not to?" After all, the point of forming relationships is instinctively felt by almost everybody, and the point of legally protecting them is already codified. After all, every individual relationship has its own unique quirks that somebody else might look at and say, "That's not my idea of a marriage," or "what's the point of that?"-- but they're allowed to exist with legal recognition, without the couple having to prove that there's an extra benefit to, say, living in separate apartments, or working opposite schedules, or having a woman work full-time while her husband raises the kids, or whatever other uncommon thing they're doing. That's because it's pretty well understood that people are diverse and relationships are unique things--so there's no reason to prove that your relationship has a point. It's sufficient that it exists.

Polyamorous relationships exist, sometimes taking a form that would be more stable and more functional if they were allowed legal recognition, and occasionally suffering outright for the lack of such recognition (such as my example with the triad above). I don't think it's relevant to ask what the point of the relationship is--as the point of forming relationships and having them legally recognized is already felt by anybody who is or wants to be married-- the question is, "is there a reason not to recognize these relationships?"

There are reasons not to legally recognize marriages to children--they're harmful to the children. And there are very different reasons not to recognize marriages to objects or animals--all other concerns aside, objects and animals don't contribute to society in any way that would approximate personhood. The only reason to hesitate to recognize polygamous relationships is that they make things more complicated, and I don't think that's a good enough reason to ban them. It's good enough to want to take things slowly and work out the kinks before it's implemented, but not enough to ban them outright.

That would require, of course, that enough people actually wanted to push for this to be more than a hypothetical question. At the moment, that's not happening. But if this actually became a "thing," if people were actually trying to legalize polygamy, I don't think there is a good argument against it.

As far as I can tell, two-person marriage is mainly about mutual exclusivity (in various respects - not only in sexual matters). Again, I am not a great fan of this idea of exclusivity, but I think I understand why people want it. It´s about narrowing down options, about the feeling of safety, of things being simple and settled.
Poly-marriage, in contrast, seems to be about opening new options, about being adventurous, exploring the complexity of human feelings and interactions etc. Again: I am not saying this is wrong - au contraire, I am highly sympathetic of this approach.

For some people, that is it. For others it's very different. It's a recognition that sometimes people can fit perfectly together and be very good for each other...partway. That is, parts of their lives, values, goals and personalities can be complimentary--and it can be such significant portions of each person that fit that it's worth building a partnership and shared life on those commonalities--but that each person might still be unfulfilled in ways that they can't handle.

It is often about recognizing that a single 100% perfect partner doesn't exist for everybody--especially not for people who are particularly eccentric-- and so, if you establish a relationship that is very good, it would be foolish to abandon it in favor of seeking absolute perfection that might never come; but it would also be foolish to ignore real needs you or the other person have, causing resentment or anxiety to fester on both sides, and eventually destroy this very good relationship. And so, by finding multiple people who fit together in different ways, everybody involved can function better than if they were either alone or monogamous.

I just don´t seem to understand what about that needs legalization.
I have a rough idea which vows married couples (be they gay or straight) make to each other, and what legal rights grants them and which duties society demands from them, and what interest society has in this legal construct so that it offers particular protection and privileges.
Now I would like to learn the same about poly- marriage.

Society has an interest in every individual being as functional as they can be. It's a difficult goal to achieve, but if people are making it work, it's worth acknowledging.

 

[tulc]

Anyone who believes in Biblical marriage has to accept polygamy.
tulc(is just sayn')

 

[Resha Caner]

I suppose our discussion has been poisoned. If it seems to you that what I said was personally directed at you, then I will apologize for whatever hurt it caused.

But also understand that we quite clearly disagree, and will probably continue to do so. When people are coming from different viewpoints, it is easy to misunderstand, and for those misunderstandings to spin out of control. I often test the views of others against my own. If I am off the mark, please just clarify, and I will do the same when you are off the mark. But if you don't want me to test your views against mine, then maybe we should stop now.

I am a real person. My positions are more nuanced than the 2-dimensional stereotype you keep trying to force me, and this conversation, into.

I'm not set on the "whatever" aspect. For example, I think most addictive drugs should be illegal, (exception being the obvious--drugs that are prescribed to treat medical problems). I'm always hesitant to say "always," but I think the attitude that people are free to make their own personal decisions should be the default, unless a strong case is made for a particular exception.

The "whatever" was not meant to be derogatory. The "you" meant you specifically, Mling. It was not a general "you." And, as I said, it is my view of what you said. Given that explanation, does it fit better if said as:

1) You want the freedom to do what you want with a consenting adult.

To me that seems to fit with what you said above, that people be "free to make their own personal choices."

This is just an extension of 2. The only way people I don't know could limit my personal life is by either assaulting me or establishing the laws in #2.

Again, this was my impression of your view. So, this is an important distinction for me since I see government and community (or social circle) as two different things.

This can't help but be a personal question (and somewhat of a digression from polygamy), so ignore it if you choose, but I find this interesting. It seems that you always express the intervention of others in this way - that they can't do anything unless they "assault" you. Do you really see it that way? Is there someone to whom you are not "married" that has influence over you? Your mother? A friend? Someone who, if they said, "I disapprove of that," you would think twice just because you respect them, not because you feel put upon?

If you have any examples of these horrendous outcomes of letting a small minority have consensually plural marriages if they like, in a culture than generally promotes monogamy, you have yet to demonstrate them.

Because it took some time for us to even understand what the other was talking about. Considering what I think polgamy is (the topic of the thread), you're not talking about polygamy. I'm not saying your definition is invalid, it just isn't what I was thinking about. You, yourself said that what you're describing would be better called "polyamory." Even then you didn't answer all my questions about where your boundaries for polyamory reside. OK, so you won't set other people's idea of "marriage." What is your idea? To give you an idea of what I'm looking for, what is the difference between a guy who is your friend and one whom you consider part of your poly relationship? If you're in a book club together? If you mention that your fridge isn't working and he drops by to fix it? If you encounter an emotional trauma and he supports you through that? Are there relationships that make you uncomfortable? I think you said you were against adult/child, but if it's not about sex, why would an adult/child marriage be wrong? What about incestuous ones (for adults)? Sadistic/masochistic? Beastiality? If so, should those be legally restricted, or is it just that you wouldn't do it? Do you think any of those would be harmful? Why?

Plus, you previously rejected an example that someone did provide because you were saying that studies on polygamous societies do not apply to single polyamory relationships. I think you're demanding some very narrowly applied evidence that isn't quite fair. Sorry, but I do. One can always slice a situation so thin that it goes the way one wants.

Again, this isn't meant to be personal, but I'm really struggling to make anything of your idea of "legal." You, yourself said that you're not the one to spell out the details of financial, political, etc. agreements, and that does seem to be getting in our way.

You may think I'm hammering details too much, but I have to ask: have you ever dealt with lawyers as an adult? It's all in the details, and if you're not careful, the opposing lawyer will rip you to shreds.

So, the impression I get is that (even though you've used the word "legal" a few times), what you're describing doesn't really involve legal, financial, political, or business aspects. It is just an "open relationship." Each time I ask if you would set some legal bounds, it seems you say yes. Then when I ask for details, I feel that you answer, "I don't make those decisions for other people." Well, government is all about making decisions for other people. It has nothing to do with how smart they are. It's just that letting everybody do their own thing becomes very chaotic. It doesn't work as the basis of a society.

So, given that we're not talking about polygamy, but polyamory, I could cite information that shows its problems. But to be honest, due to the poisoned nature of our conversation mentioned earlier, I don't know that we could easily discuss it.

Closing the book on open marriage - Guest Voices - The Washington Post

If the problem is that people shouldn't be allowed to do risky things that might hurt them, then where do you draw the line between prohibiting relationships that might be painful (like...any relationship ever) and prohibiting things like eating wild mushrooms, neglecting "safe" job opportunities in favor of questionable ones, or taking out loans?

Again, that's the nature of government - to negotiate those boundaries. But, as Lincoln said, you can't please all the people all the time. No matter what law you write, someone will be unhappy about it.

One thing I have mentioned several times, and to which I am unclear about your position, is the proper response for those who don't get what they want. Can they expect benefits for what is against current laws? Should they continue in civil disobedience forever, even if they never win? Should they leave?

I understand (I think) your view of "personal choice." But how far does that go? Doing meth could be claimed as a personal choice. But as soon as they start a house fire that spreads into the neighborhood it's no longer personal. You may think relationships are a personal choice. You say I don't understand, but one of my neighbors once had 2 boyfriends. The boyfriends got into an argument that spilled into the front yard, and one boyfriend shot the other to death. I didn't know about the 2nd boyfriend, and it just so happened all the neighborhood kids played basketball in that same yard with the 1st boyfriend. My kids could have been at the house when that happened.

It's not personal.

Again, you can say, "That happens in monogamous relationships, too." Yes, it does, but it's a matter of managing risk. I'm an engineer, so, for me, propagation of error seems a fitting way to look at this. If there is some risk, x, that a woman with one husband will create a violent argument, the risk that a woman with two husbands will create a violent argument is sqrt(2)*x. The risk is higher. Since enforcing women to have no husbands is silly, the minimal risk is monogamy.

No. I'm suggesting that somebody saying, "Yeah, this thing that you experience as being really healthy and a major factor in your personal growth--we ran the numbers, and it turns out you're actually really depressed about it and you're probably doing some really risky things because of how much it depresses you, so you need to give us more money" might be...bothersome. Probably not something that the average person would respond to with, "Well, you're the experts on my mind, so sure, I'll just take your word for that! Certainly, if you've decided I'm so risky, take as much as you like!"

Do you pay for insurance? If so, then that's exactly what you're doing. But it's not as willy-nilly as you make it sound. Insurance actuaries use statistics, i.e. science. Disliking the answer is not part of science.

Actuarial science shows that a married man and woman are a lower risk. As such, I pay lower insurance rates. It also shows teenage drivers to be a very high risk. As such, I pay higher rates for that. As new as other civil unions are, they probably haven't determined the risk of those arrangements yet. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I'm sure there are people who don't like it. I don't happen to be one of those people. If you want to challenge actuarial science, then let's have that discussion. Otherwise, I don't see the point.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

well, they were legally married where they came from. How would it look if Britain outlawed interracial marriages? What of people from the U.S. coming to England in a mixed race marriage? Suddenly unmarrird? Sounds ridiculous right?

No because even if it were illegal, interracial marriage is not morally wrong. Or can you not tell the difference between legality and morality? In many countries people still keep slaves. If an immigrant were to bring a slave over to a developed nation would we simply accept it as part of their culture? Or if you and your family were to move to another country and someone sexually abused your children, would you simply shrug it off and accept it as part of their culture?

... Actually don't other replying to that. I suspect I already know your answer.

Well, that is stellar! Girl comes to a foreign country and gets kidnapped, put in a state home where she can practice for life in the brothel! Excellent, cut her off from her culture and any family supports, that should ensure that English pedophiles get their turn and not just her husband. Amazing!

So you're worried that if she is taken into care she'll be the targeted by pedophiles - and staying in her underaged marriage will protect her from this? Absurd.

Of course, opposing is an expression of feeling. We all have a right to our feelings. Actually enforcing a rule on foreign soil woul make us imperialists.

Good grief - you think opposition to pedophilia is about how we "feel" and has nothing to do with the fact that sex with minors is morally wrong? You you have any concept of higher morality or do you think being legal automatically makes it acceptable?

Nobody is forcing other nations to adopt our practices (although when it comes to underaged marriage they absolutely should). And if you think asking immigrants to follow out own laws when they come to our own country is "imperialism" then obviously you have no cluewhat imperialism actually is:

Imperialism:
The policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

Imperialism:
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Imperialism:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
​

If you follow those definitions, then an immigrant who expects us to change our laws so they they are the same as the country he comes from is the imperialist - not us.

You're the perfect example of what happens when tolerance is taken too far: it circles all the way back round to bigotry.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What is the point (or are the points) of poly-marriage (and in particular: what does it have in common with a two-person marriage)?

It's exactly the same, just with more than two people. If done "properly" (if such a word can really be used in the case of something as subjective as marriage), it would merely become a contract with multiple signatories. Having multiple individual contracts is a mess, but polygamy doesn't need to work that way.

As far as I can tell, two-person marriage is mainly about mutual exclusivity (in various respects - not only in sexual matters). Again, I am not a great fan of this idea of exclusivity, but I think I understand why people want it. It´s about narrowing down options, about the feeling of safety, of things being simple and settled.

It's not necessarily about being exclusive, that's just the way things are set up. The amount of adulterers in the world should be ample evidence that not all people marry for exclusivity.

Poly-marriage, in contrast, seems to be about opening new options, about being adventurous, exploring the complexity of human feelings and interactions etc.

Not really, it's just marriage but with more people involved. It can remain completely exclusive itself, just within a larger group.

I just don´t seem to understand what about that needs legalization.

Honestly, right now, nothing particularly needs to be done. There isn't a large enough demand to spend the money and time needed to change all the legislation. Should the demand ever reach levels seen for gay and interracial marriage, though, then there is no reason not to legalise it.

Now I would like to learn the same about poly- marriage.

Pretty much exactly the same thing. Personally, what I'd really like to see is marriage become something similar to the French PACS, where anyone can form a contractual union with anyone else, regardless of relationship, sex or even number. Perhaps some differentiation between romantic and platonic union would be necessary, but I doubt it. That way, anyone who wants the rights given under these unions can get them with anyone, even if they're just a group of friends who perhaps want hospital visitation rights.

The only potential issue I can see is with children, but even then all you have to do is legally differentiate between parents and married couples/groups. Within one group, for example, you could have one father, one mother (presumably the actual mother and father) and another person they are both married too. Or an alternative is to give everyone in the group the status of parenthood, although that could lead to more complications.

 

[Glas Ridire]

No because even if it were illegal, interracial marriage is not morally wrong. Or can you not tell the difference between legality and morality? In many countries people still keep slaves. If an immigrant were to bring a slave over to a developed nation would we simply accept it as part of their culture? Or if you and your family were to move to another country and someone sexually abused your children, would you simply shrug it off and accept it as part of their culture?

While I can tell the difference between legality and morality, God also granted me more than a casual aquaintance with reality. I know that there are different laws in different countries and see education and raising standards of living as better tools than the brute force of State, for creating changes where I feel some country's laws allow immorality. In short - you can't legislate morality. If you accept that you can't legislate morality, you are free to pursue more effective means of helping people morally and you won't get caught up lobbying for silly ineffectual laws.

... Actually don't other replying to that. I suspect I already know your answer.

Really? If someone were to victimize my children, I would stake them out in the sun, give them a good going over with a cheese grater, dump iso-alcohol on them, light it, put it out with lemon juice, and then gut them with a snake whip and BBQ tongs. Was that what you were expecting? There is a difference between parents who sell their daughters (accept a dowry) and parents of a child who is sexually assaulted by a pedo. It may be subtle enough that it is difficult to grasp. On the one hand, you have a culturally accepted means of conducting marriage (wherein the bride is taken into and accepted by another family and all those good things that come from marriage despite it happening at an age you are uncomfortable with) on the other you have a predatory criminal who does what they do and moves on to the next victim with no thought other than feeding a sick need. You really can't tell the difference?

So you're worried that if she is taken into care she'll be the targeted by pedophiles - and staying in her underaged marriage will protect her from this? Absurd.

Well yeah, if that was what I was saying. Staying in the underage marriage gives the girl family support from her own culture (which is important, especially if you are in a foreign country) and yes, she may have sex while she is under age. What are the stats for virginity in England as a whole? When are your good little English girls giving it up? I susspect that in reality, your child marriage ages and your virginity stats are alarmingly the same. the difference being, the foreigner childbride is in a committed relationship with whatever civil protections are afforded to a wife as opposed to British girls just being. . .. open, as it were. Same is true of American girls BTW.

Good grief - you think opposition to pedophilia is about how we "feel" and has nothing to do with the fact that sex with minors is morally wrong? You you have any concept of higher morality or do you think being legal automatically makes it acceptable?

No. As I have said, you can't legislate morality. Look at prohibition in the US for a good example of legislating morality and how it works out. Making law based on how you feel is. . . not good. Laws should only prevent one person from victimizing (an unwilling person) where the people involved aren't willing to take personal responsibility for protecting themselves (and others). To put it another way: I don't need any laws to protect my children from pedophiles. I have open and honest relationships with my children and they talk to me. My children will not "friend" anybody online that they don't know in the real world and who they know in the real world is something I am constantly updated on. If someone was able to get inside "the wire" or gain a position of trust, they would also be aware that I would hunt them to the ends of the earth and they would watch anybody they cared about die slowly before taking alot longer than you'd think a person could, to die themselves. I have never said I was a nice guy. I have invested more than a decade in pennance. Nobody gets close to my children without knowing (deeply, on a soul level) that victimizing them is praying for hell, 'cause that'll be a relief. I can keep a person alive a LOT longer than they want to be. I have no fear of pedophiles and I don't need laws.

You're the perfect example of what happens when tolerance is taken too far: it circles all the way back round to bigotry.

Am I a bigot or a realist? That is the question. You have already proved your bigotry by your remarks about Roman Catholics. I have, without pause, talked about treating girls as humans regardless of the age that they are married. I have stated and restated a desire to end child marriage by effective means. I have stated and restated a desire to avoid laws with unintended consequences which result in dehumanizing at best, the people they were writen to protect. Am I really a bigot? Me, with my 3 out of 5 "brown" children, me with my years of work in the third world, me . . . really? You really want to condemn me for my tolerance and then call me a bigot? Wow. Make up your mind. You should know that I was on the streets helping male prostitutes out of their addictions and their lifestyle in Chicago when Barrack Obama was "community organizing" in those same 'hoods. You should know that I have years of experience helping the homeless. You should know that my views on abortion changed when I cleaned the bloody mess out of a homless shelter bathroom sink after a coat hanger abortion. My sleeves have been rolled up and I have been working a LONG time. If you want to call me a bigot, make sure it is appropriate. I have been called a lot of things. I have never been called something that makes me stop making the world a better place by actually being in the filth and DOING something about it. Waz yo resume? You been doing something? Just ask'n.