I agree. My point is that because we're the problem, this will either not be allowed for some time yet, not work out in practice, or both.
And while I think there is a solid case as to why this should be allowed as an extension of civil rights, no one has really made a case for how the politics on this closes. It took decades of activism for LGBTQ to become acceptable and there is no such movement in support of poly marriage, except from a handful of Mormon in Utah.
Yes, I think the political question is its own thing. That's, not infrequently, a source of contention among people who agree on the end goal. If you don't like the same-sex marriage debate as an example, the same thing was true for the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement of the 1960s. Black activists and anti-war activists and every other type of activist disagreed with each other over their approaches, their tactics, their timing, etc. I bet if I dove into the women's suffrage movement or the abolitionist movement, I'd find the same thing.
I also think there are fundamentally different dynamics at play in poly marriage than gay marriage. I think the former will bring a ton of baggage from our patriarchal society which opens the door for really bad outcomes. I don't think allowing gay marriage opened the door to the same kinds of abuses. Allowing Tom and Steve to get married does not create a situation where Tom can collect a harem that he has total financial control over and then abuses. It's a different thing and I don't think the comparisons between gay marriage and poly marriage are on point.
The comparison I was making wasn't about the marriages themselves, it was about the nature of the arguments against. Spousal abuse isn't about polygamy. We can see that because we don't have legal polygamy (and I think polyamory is still pretty unusual) and spousal abuse is a big problem. If spousal abuse is an argument against polygamous relationships, it would also have to be an argument against 2-person relationships, because those are so much more common. To my knowledge (which is limited, on this topic) there's no
greater risk of abuse in a multi-person relationship than in a two-person relationship (in fact, just "theory-crafting" it, I can imagine women might be safer in multi-person relationships). If you want to use Mormonism as a sample, even though they don't have legal polygamy anymore, they have plenty of abusive 2-person marriages, just like the rest of us. So if the risk of partner abuse is an argument against polygamous marriages, but
not against two-person marriages, I'd wonder what the difference is. At first glance, it reminds me of one of the arguments against same-sex marriages, that two people of the same gender can't produce a child. Meanwhile, opponents of same-sex marriage applied no such requirement that heterosexual couples be capable of producing children. It was a blatant double-standard, made up out of thin air. Like I say, I'm not even gay, but I helped campaign for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts because the opposition to it was so nakedly prejudiced it just made me angry.
And to reiterate, even if that outcome is totally invalid and won't actually happen in large numbers, the perception that it will be an outcome will stop society from allowing it, therefore it's not ready.
And yet there are some serious potential for horrific abuse. Consenting adults should usually be the default starting point, but in instances where the potential consequences of going that route are as horrific as child grooming, you should heavily consider that in your starting point.
I assume you're not talking about child marriage, per se, but rather the idea that someone could raise a child as a potential bride/groom, and then marry them once they're 18? In that instance, perhaps arranged marriages could be some kind of guide. Again, I don't know a lot about that subject.
