Polygamy, Polyandry, Group Marriage

[IglooDame]

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

By 'polygamists' here, you mean Mormons, I assume?

 

[Farm Boy]

People usually do, specifically presumed child fornicating cults unacceptable to the mainstream members. I mean, do we even have examples of bad behavior in the argument that aren't either that, or illegal already, or indistinguishable from fault practiced under monogamy, or are in fact entirely speculative*?

I think monogamy is superior, I also think monogamy is, generally speaking, good for the kids. But if I were to use the rigor there that gets used for the arguments here I'd be doing a PPQ tangent argument, crappy people can't handle nice things, so they're obsolete - just make it all bout the money. I mean, money is a measurable and a quantifiable. So it makes for a pretty good Liberal god to chase.

*Like a legit question to IglooDude if he's read any arguments in this thread that he feels aren't one of those things.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think if one is worried about abusive desert cult compounds maybe deal with those directly

It's the underlying culture that is the issue, which is difficult to address. While it's easy to point out that these compounds are cults, overall Mormon are pretty average. They often get picked on for being uber-American. That places the cult firmly in the American cultural tradition - it's not some weird imported phenomenon. What was especially troubling is that some of these compounds have (and continue AFAIK) operated quite out in the open, supported and even protected by non-cult members in the surrounding areas. All of this is to say that we at least have evidence that our society is capable of producing these outcomes and that adding legal sanctions may see this model become more prevalent.

Their are less outrageous versions of the compounds, there have even been reality TV shows around polygamous families. I have not seen the equivalent for non-polygamous marriages, which isn't to say that they don't exist. Just that the culture seems to gravitate toward one model rather than the other. And even if this is all bunk - and I readily concede my argument rests on hard to prove notions - I think our society perceives a growth in abusive polygamy as a valid, even likely, outcome of legalizing poly marriage and will therefore continue to oppose it.

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.

Oh ok I thought you meant there was some group of baseball player that are all in a group marriage! I have posted about the earnings pool thing before.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh ok I thought you meant there was some group of baseball player that are all in a group marriage! I have posted about the earnings pool thing before.

That is a group marriage.

 

[Arwon]

It's the underlying culture that is the issue, which is difficult to address. While it's easy to point out that these compounds are cults, overall Mormon are pretty average. They often get picked on for being uber-American. That places the cult firmly in the American cultural tradition - it's not some weird imported phenomenon. What was especially troubling is that some of these compounds have (and continue AFAIK) operated quite out in the open, supported and even protected by non-cult members in the surrounding areas. All of this is to say that we at least have evidence that our society is capable of producing these outcomes and that adding legal sanctions may see this model become more prevalent.

Their are less outrageous versions of the compounds, there have even been reality TV shows around polygamous families. I have not seen the equivalent for non-polygamous marriages, which isn't to say that they don't exist. Just that the culture seems to gravitate toward one model rather than the other. And even if this is all bunk - and I readily concede my argument rests on hard to prove notions - I think our society perceives a growth in abusive polygamy as a valid, even likely, outcome of legalizing poly marriage and will therefore continue to oppose it.

See I find this all a bit fanciful because the only poly people I know are three dudes where two are a long term couple and eventually they both took a liking to another guy. Whereas mormons aren't really a thing!

I also tend to suspect patriarchal cults like that might object to the bit where everyone in a group marriage is married to everyone else? Like they are pretty against same sex marriage

 

[Berzerker]

By 'polygamists' here, you mean Mormons, I assume?

Not entirely, obviously polygamists in the USA are primarily Mormons but as my link to Alex Joseph and his wives showed other people can be polygamists. But there's still irony in that too as supporters of gay marriage are stuck arguing for that while opposing the freedom of polygamists. But its also true the LDS or Mormon Church funded anti-gay marriage efforts in California.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Whereas mormons aren't really a thing!

Well, Australia and the US aren't identical.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Female poster here, is it safe to have an opinion about this stuff? I've heard this thread is more than a bit contentious...

I think the acceptance of gay marriage was helped by the die off of the greatest generation. I don't think boomers were fully on board with it when it came to pass, but enough of them were that coupled with Gen X/millenials/Gen Z, it had enough support to go over the top once enough of the greatest generation was gone (as they were absolutely against it I assume).

By "greatest generation" are you referring to people who remember World War I or World War II?

This is not something I ever discussed with my grandfather (his view of marriage was that when I married, my opinions would become whatever my husband's opinions were, and up to that time, I had no right to my own opinions). But I will note that he used to read a lot of my science fiction books, including some Heinlein. Anyone familiar with his "Lazarus Long" series (Methuselah's Children, Time Enough for Love, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, and related novels include The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, The Rolling Stones, and Stranger in a Strange Land) will remember that Heinlein had some very definite views of group marriage (he was in favor of it). One thing Heinlein had his characters stress was that the most important part of group marriage was to always ensure the well-being of any children born to any of the co-spouses - no matter who the biological parents were. But that was fiction, and real life is very different.

I won't say my grandfather endorsed that sort of marriage after having read the novels, but he didn't voice the disapproval he normally did if he found a book in my collection he thought was inappropriate. If he found the idea of group marriage disgusting, it evidently wasn't disgusting enough to mention (or throw my books out, as he did a couple of times before I told him I was capable of censoring my own reading list, thankyouverymuch).*

*My grandfather was born in 1901 and therefore lived through both World Wars though he was too young to serve in the first and too old for the second.

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.

Back when same-sex marriage became legal in Canada (almost 15 years ago now), there were plenty of right-wing/faith-based objections that were voiced everywhere. There are still people objecting to it, and desperately hoping that whoever the next right-wing Prime Minister is, (s)he will repeal it and save the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. Even my dad - not a religious person and not someone who ever voted right-wing - kept muttering that he was okay with living together, but "why do they have to call it marriage?" (this is one of the only two things about which he and I were in fundamental disagreement).

My response: Did their marriage documents and wedding photos spontaneously combust when a same-sex marriage happened in their neighborhood? Did their children suddenly become illegitimate? No? Then they should mind their own business.

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

I think it's reasonable to assume that at least at the time of the wedding ceremony, both halves of the couple do intend to commit to one another. In most weddings, I should think that they go into it with the best of intentions, but of course if best intentions counted, this planet would be much better off than it is.

Divorce isn't always a bad thing. I was very relieved when my own parents' divorce was finally done, because it meant I wouldn't have to hide under the furniture when my mother started throwing breakables at my dad. I was physically safer after getting out of that situation.

 

[Patine]

Female poster here, is it safe to have an opinion about this stuff? I've heard this thread is more than a bit contentious...


By "greatest generation" are you referring to people who remember World War I or World War II?

This is not something I ever discussed with my grandfather (his view of marriage was that when I married, my opinions would become whatever my husband's opinions were, and up to that time, I had no right to my own opinions). But I will note that he used to read a lot of my science fiction books, including some Heinlein. Anyone familiar with his "Lazarus Long" series (Methuselah's Children, Time Enough for Love, To Sail Beyond the Sunset, and related novels include The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, The Rolling Stones, and Stranger in a Strange Land) will remember that Heinlein had some very definite views of group marriage (he was in favor of it). One thing Heinlein had his characters stress was that the most important part of group marriage was to always ensure the well-being of any children born to any of the co-spouses - no matter who the biological parents were. But that was fiction, and real life is very different.

I won't say my grandfather endorsed that sort of marriage after having read the novels, but he didn't voice the disapproval he normally did if he found a book in my collection he thought was inappropriate. If he found the idea of group marriage disgusting, it evidently wasn't disgusting enough to mention (or throw my books out, as he did a couple of times before I told him I was capable of censoring my own reading list, thankyouverymuch).*

*My grandfather was born in 1901 and therefore lived through both World Wars though he was too young to serve in the first and too old for the second.


Back when same-sex marriage became legal in Canada (almost 15 years ago now), there were plenty of right-wing/faith-based objections that were voiced everywhere. There are still people objecting to it, and desperately hoping that whoever the next right-wing Prime Minister is, (s)he will repeal it and save the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. Even my dad - not a religious person and not someone who ever voted right-wing - kept muttering that he was okay with living together, but "why do they have to call it marriage?" (this is one of the only two things about which he and I were in fundamental disagreement).

My response: Did their marriage documents and wedding photos spontaneously combust when a same-sex marriage happened in their neighborhood? Did their children suddenly become illegitimate? No? Then they should mind their own business.


I think it's reasonable to assume that at least at the time of the wedding ceremony, both halves of the couple do intend to commit to one another. In most weddings, I should think that they go into it with the best of intentions, but of course if best intentions counted, this planet would be much better off than it is.

Divorce isn't always a bad thing. I was very relieved when my own parents' divorce was finally done, because it meant I wouldn't have to hide under the furniture when my mother started throwing breakables at my dad. I was physically safer after getting out of that situation.

Several of the posters here seem absolutely convinced (and keep carrying on about it, even after several posts I've made saying it's ludicrous to assume the same the same social standards and models would automatically apply - completely ignoring my common sense posts as though they don't exist and are not speedbumps in their ill-thought-out rants) that multiple marriage, if legalized, would instantly take on the exact same barbaric, elitist, and misogynist character of many traditional Middle-Eastern, Asian, and Southern African cultures, and many others in Antiquity and Medieval/Pre-Colonial times. That somehow, the assumption is made by these posters (again, ignoring my attempt at common sense posts, which are utterly ignored), that much more progressive rights for women and family law - including the full criminalization of domestic abuse, legal demand for consent, and the very differing dynamic of gender roles and economic standards, would magically no longer apply or be annulled instantly, like a switch, to return to a harem social model. I have no idea the logic behind that reasoning of certain other posters here.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

By "greatest generation" are you referring to people who remember World War I or World War II?

The generation that lived through the great depression and fought in world war II.

Back when same-sex marriage became legal in Canada (almost 15 years ago now), there were plenty of right-wing/faith-based objections that were voiced everywhere.

Gay marriage is not poly marriage. Analogies between the two will only get you so far.

Several of the posters here seem absolutely convinced

I don't know how many times I have to say I don't think the worst case outcome is very likely. If you're going to refer to the arguments people are making, at least @ them so they have a chance to assess your mischaracterizations.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I was thinking over the weekend that there could be a meaningful difference between a marriage of multiple partners and a person having multiple, two-person marriages, what we currently call bigamy. When I think 'polygamy/polyamory' I don't envision one person in multiple, two-person relationships, but rather a single relationship of multiple people. I think 'bigamy' may technically refer to the crime and not to the architecture of the relationship, but maybe it could be useful to differentiate the models (the word 'harem' makes me itchy outside of a fantasy novel, but I guess I'm not sure 'bigamy' is any better ).

I was also thinking about 'traditional' marriages. I once knew a woman who'd been recently divorced, and her finances were a shambles. She had no credit, no job, no bank account of her own. Her ex-husband had to co-sign a car loan for her. afaik, she wasn't in an abusive relationship. It was just kind of old-fashioned, I guess? I suppose I can imagine a stay-at-home mom thinking it's a load off her shoulders if her husband just takes care of all the bills, and then, boom, it's 22 years later.

 

[Kyriakos]

So what do you think? Whatever between consenting adults, the argument to support gay marriages.
When I was younger it seemed easy to condemn it but now with all the sexual freedoms and gender differences, it doesn't seem so clear. Why is polygamy any different? The main argument I seem to hear is about the power dynamics of the relationships, while seemingly ignoring that many regular single male-female marriages have the same issue.
Not all poly relationships are abusive or based on power. Why do people generally approve of gay marriages but oppose polygamy and polyandry ones. Group marriages also. Shouldn't everyone have the freedom to seek out the sexual partnership they prefer?

Let me point out, very significantly, that "polyandry" does not refer to marriage. That is just polygamy (which afaik can either mean a person having multiple marriages concurrently, in time, or just have many partners without having to marry). Polyandry simply means to have a lot of men (as sexual partners, I suppose...).

 

[Farm Boy]

It was just kind of old-fashioned, I guess? I suppose I can imagine a stay-at-home mom thinking it's a load off her shoulders if her husband just takes care of all the bills, and then, boom, it's 22 years later.

You'd be surprised. Those shoulders in question carry a lot of non-remunerated work. If there's a kid or kids to raise and healthy food prep to be had, that's a significant amount of work. If it's not enough, people tend to get bored. Then they do things like join the PTA, run Scouting troops, join the summer sports league, run school parties, and so forth. Working for health insurance does the "and then, boom" thing, too. Like, we need people to do this work, or it doesn't get done. It not getting done makes everything work, quality wise, a bit crappier.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You'd be surprised. Those shoulders in question carry a lot of non-remunerated work. If there's a kid or kids to raise and healthy food prep to be had, that's a significant amount of work. If it's not enough, people tend to get bored. Then they do things like join the PTA, run Scouting troops, join the summer sports league, run school parties, and so forth. Working for health insurance does the "and then, boom" thing, too. Like, we need people to do this work, or it doesn't get done. It not getting done makes everything work, quality wise, a bit crappier.

Well, no, my point was that I wouldn't be surprised. I was just trying to point out that until relatively recently the norms for traditional marriages could leave a partner (usually a woman) reliant on it in unplanned ways. I don't know how many people can afford to be a stay-at-home parent these days, and it seems like it's no longer the norm for one partner (the husband) to have total control of the family finances.

 

[Farm Boy]

Fair nuff. It's usually more a flexible or part time job with lower wages and low/no advancement/skills maintenance.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, no, my point was that I wouldn't be surprised. I was just trying to point out that until relatively recently the norms for traditional marriages could leave a partner (usually a woman) reliant on it in unplanned ways. I don't know how many people can afford to be a stay-at-home parent these days, and it seems like it's no longer the norm for one partner (the husband) to have total control of the family finances.

Yeah, it's not the norm, but it does happen. I remember an incident from about 30+ years ago at a science fiction convention. There were four of us who usually took a hotel suite together (even in the '80s and early '90s hotel rooms in Calgary were expensive), and three of us were talking about attending some upcoming event. The fourth person in the group said, "I'll have to ask my husband," and promptly got three flabbergasted looks from the rest of us (two single women and one married woman). Well, that's the situation she married into, and since the marriage has lasted for nearly 35 years (I was at the wedding) and she's a grandmother now, it seems to be an arrangement that's made her happy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Gay marriage is not poly marriage. Analogies between the two will only get you so far.

I did refer to the year when it became law across the country. Your country still has a lot of catching up to do. IF group marriage ever becomes something that North American societies decide is a good thing, I expect Canada would probably adopt it long before the U.S. would.

But I doubt it would happen any time soon... even any decade soon. We just finally managed to deal with that quasi-Mormon offshoot group in Bountiful, British Columbia that was engaged in trafficking underage teenage girls over the border to a similar group in Washington. The Canadian group was able to hold the RCMP off for an insanely long time by citing the Charter of Rights (specifically the freedom of religion clause) and accusing the RCMP of violating those rights.

Thankfully a judge finally found some common sense and a way to rule that their Charter rights weren't being violated, sent in the cops, and the ringleaders were charged, tried, and jailed.

 

[uppi]

I was thinking over the weekend that there could be a meaningful difference between a marriage of multiple partners and a person having multiple, two-person marriages, what we currently call bigamy. When I think 'polygamy/polyamory' I don't envision one person in multiple, two-person relationships, but rather a single relationship of multiple people. I think 'bigamy' may technically refer to the crime and not to the architecture of the relationship, but maybe it could be useful to differentiate the models (the word 'harem' makes me itchy outside of a fantasy novel, but I guess I'm not sure 'bigamy' is any better ).

There certainly is a difference. The problem with bigamy is shared property. So if person A is married to person B and C in different marriages and has shared property with each, B and C effectively have shared property as well although they might never have consented to that. In case of a divorce this would get really messy. And on top of that B and C could have their own marriages as well, there might be "marriage loops" and a whole topology of marriages for which you would need math grad students to figure out who owns what. There is a reason this is illegal.

In a closed marriage of multiple partners you could just assign equal shares of property to each member and this would be much easier to figure out. You could also demand consent of all members* to set such a thing up. I do not think it is a good idea to have legal support for this, but I can at least see how it could work in theory.

* of course, there is still the matter how free that consent really is when an existing marriage is expanded.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, it'd be messy like an inheritance trust where the inheritors are antagonistic. Generally speaking, the angriest member can force communal assets to auction at any point so long as they're willing to dissolve the agreement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do not think it is a good idea to have legal support for this, but I can at least see how it could work in theory.

There already is, so long as you leave the word "marriage" out of it.

The "problem," which I've never heard anyone who is actually affected really complain about, is that the people involved can't get the external benefits of being married, such as spousal coverage by insurance, etc.