Polygamy, Polyandry, Group Marriage

[red_elk]

He made a claim about how "most people" think about the issue.

I made a claim concerning polygamy and group marriage, which by most definitions include intimate relationships. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by multipartner social co-ops, but it's probably not exactly the same, since you used different term for it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Timsup2nothin How is support for poly marriage polling right now?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I suspect there is probably a more "widely" aspect to the "we sure don't want to have to deal with added beneficiaries having access to insurance benefits through employee coverage plans" in the insurance industry than there is even a "I've given it enough thought to identify a concern" in the general populace. You have the knee jerk "sexuality is always bad" crowd, but they're not concerned with specific specters.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You have the knee jerk "sexuality is always bad" crowd, but they're not concerned with specific specters.

This would in my opinion be due to the fact that this is such a remotely niche, non-mainstream issue. They don't have an opinion because they don't think about it because it's not 'a thing' yet. But if it becomes one, there will be a loud and vocal majority railing against it for a while, potentially even decades. And that's assuming these types of relationships continue to become more common in the first place, which I don't think is a given.

The earliest this can happen is 10 years after you have a Will & Grace & John & Gail.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I made a claim concerning polygamy and group marriage, which by most definitions include intimate relationships. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by multipartner social co-ops, but it's probably not exactly the same, since you used different term for it.

It's the legally recognizable term for the same thing. If a group of people want to enter into a social co-op that functions like a "group marriage" all they have to do is draw up a contract that lays out terms they all agree with and sign it. The only thing lacking is that if a member is covered by insurance through their employer they can't list all their partners as "spouses." In fact, without "actually" marrying one of them they can't even get the single spousal benefit that "regular" married people are entitled to. They also can't pay taxes at the "married" rates, or claim their partners as dependents even if one or more partners opts not to be employed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This would in my opinion be due to the fact that this is such a remotely niche, non-mainstream issue. They don't have an opinion because they don't think about it because it's not 'a thing' yet. But if it becomes one, there will be a loud and vocal majority railing against it for a while, potentially even decades. And that's assuming these types of relationships continue to become more common in the first place, which I don't think is a given.

The earliest this can happen is 10 years after you have a Will & Grace & Bill & Jill.

It certainly isn't a given. I expect that everyone who wants to be in such an arrangement already is.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In the US anyways. I don't know how common this is overseas.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In the US anyways. I don't know how common this is overseas.

I would guess that in any country with a reasonably firm rule of law the people who want to be in such relationships have sorted out how to go about it. In the US it may be a little more commonly recognized as accessible because of those baseball players. (can't find link quickly and have a pretty full plate just now so if you don't know what I'm talking about here you'll have to wait)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

can't find link quickly and have a pretty full plate just now so if you don't know what I'm talking about here you'll have to wait

This sounds interesting!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This sounds interesting!

They were minor league players who signed an agreement to share future earnings so that if any one of them "made the big leagues" they would all benefit together. Basically a social co-op of limited scope, but it did publicize the reality that such agreements are perfectly legal, and it did turn into religious zealots calling it a 'slippery slope' issue.

 

[shadowplay]

Theres a house nearby where a dude lives with his wife and ex-wife in the same house.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Timsup2nothin How is support for poly marriage polling right now?

Wild guess, not at all? Despite a very tiny sliver of genuinely interested parties I don't think anyone even remotely thinks that anyone of a candidate/elected or appointed official is going to do or say anything about it, so there's not really much point in polling about it.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Personally I think the whole concept of marriages is obsolete these days anyway. I mean, think about it. Just what is marriage there for?
1. An alliance between families to pool resources so that they don't starve. More hands on the farm and all that. Yea, that isn't happening any more. And it isn't needed either.
2. An alliance between individuals that ensures you always, absolutely always have someone to back you up. Again, not happening any more now that divorces are a thing.
3. A contract between you two and god that lets you have sex without being condemned by society due to stupid religious reasons. I'd hope we have grown beyond that.
4. A way of making sure your wife only carries your children and nobody elses. DNA tests are a thing these days so again no.
etc.

Maybe it's time we just let the whole institution drop.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personally I think the whole concept of marriages is obsolete these days anyway. I mean, think about it. Just what is marriage there for?
1. An alliance between families to pool resources so that they don't starve. More hands on the farm and all that. Yea, that isn't happening any more. And it isn't needed either.
2. An alliance between individuals that ensures you always, absolutely always have someone to back you up. Again, not happening any more now that divorces are a thing.
3. A contract between you two and god that lets you have sex without being condemned by society due to stupid religious reasons. I'd hope we have grown beyond that.
4. A way of making sure your wife only carries your children and nobody elses. DNA tests are a thing these days so again no.
etc.

Maybe it's time we just let the whole institution drop.

It's a sign of commitment as well and there's still a bit of stigma with bastards etc.

 

[Patine]

Well the devil's going to work on ice skates as I agree with Mary for once.

Legalizing this does nothing for women. And most of the time it's going to be the man taking multiple partner's. It's cheaper than a divorce if you're well off and it raises a lot of other questions such as consent.

By that say I want to marry XYZ she has to consent to that and vice versa. What about I want to marry ABC and she wants to marry me. Does XYZ need to consent.

How about XYZ has young children no job and the husband says if you don't consent you're out on your ass and fight me for the money and she can't afford lawyers?

Historically, marriages of multiple women to one man were much much more common than any other poly-marriages. This is a serious indication that if it was legalized, the mean gender imbalance would be heavily skewed, which would have negative effects on society. Therefore I would not risk it.

Gender equality under the law has never existed simultaneously with polyamorous marriages.

Of course, another factor you all, and Mary, are not taking into account is that virtually all previous cultures that practiced polygamy gave no say for the women involved being married (and often no say for the husband to at least his first wife). It was all arranged. Functional, legal polygamy (or any other form of plural marriage in any combination) in a society where people have full legal empowerment and choice in whom they marry, and laws against forced marriage and child bride trade and such still stand is actually an "undiscovered country," and the results cannot just automatically be defaulted in assumption to previous models, because key and vital elements (like lack of choice) would not be consistent between them, and thus the results would almost certainly be entirely different. Of course, new, unforeseen problems may, indeed arise that old cultures who practiced such had no conception of. Though, from my perspective, it's a sociological hypothetical I think is being dismissed too much on old precedent and not applied in rational thinking to modern context. That being said, I have no desire to be involved in a plural marriage (I have been seeing the same woman, with a few break-up periods, for 15 years, and we haven't gotten married, and might never, and neither of us feels any pressure or strong desire so to do), and it's legal existence would make my job as a social worker VERY, VERY difficult.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

It's a sign of commitment as well

I fail to see how given that it can be annulled at will by either party.

and there's still a bit of stigma with bastards etc.

In some places I guess. But you have to admit it's a stupid thing that should be rid of.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I fail to see how given that it can be annulled at will by either party.

Agreed. It's actually a "commitment" that if the agreement is ended we will use a particular set of rules (which generally neither side have even looked at) and a particular arbitrator (the family court system, which neither side has even looked at to decide if they want that and most likely wouldn't want) to sort out the dissolution.

 

[Zardnaar]

I fail to see how given that it can be annulled at will by either party.


In some places I guess. But you have to admit it's a stupid thing that should be rid of.

Well you're speaking to one. Didn't make my life any easier.

Ever been in a long term relationship? Might cost you a gold ring.

It's usually the women who wants marriage more.

It's also easier to get into relationships if the other person knows you're willing to be around long term.

 

[Berzerker]

This would in my opinion be due to the fact that this is such a remotely niche, non-mainstream issue. They don't have an opinion because they don't think about it because it's not 'a thing' yet. But if it becomes one, there will be a loud and vocal majority railing against it for a while, potentially even decades. And that's assuming these types of relationships continue to become more common in the first place, which I don't think is a given.

The earliest this can happen is 10 years after you have a Will & Grace & John & Gail.

there's irony in gays leaving the polygamists behind when the polygamists (many, most) opposed gay marriage

 

[Arwon]

I think if one is worried about abusive desert cult compounds maybe deal with those directly. Rather than deploy the overwhelming force of not letting them officially marry each other in the eyes of the state they generally despise anyway.