Polygamy, Polyandry, Group Marriage

[Patine]

Weirdly I think Australia's peculiarly strong recognition of de facto relationships already provides for a fairly strong degree of recognition, largely for the tax and welfare implications. Basically, people can be considered to be in multiple relationships at once and for things like tax and welfare rates will be assessed accordingly.

There are, domestically, not many, if any, legal distinctions between de facto relationships and marriage in terms of rights, most of the differences are more in how relationships are recognised and proven. That means in practice, de facto couples have to document and prove stuff that marriage automatically proves, which makes things like IVF, migration, family law, wills, next of kin status, work differently. This is why achieving marriage equality was important to allowing more secure access to rights and recognition for same sex couples, it's a universally recognised shortcut to demonstrating your relationship status. Plus, recognition overseas sort of depends on having something formal and standardised like that marriage certificate.

Now, I don't think there's an in principle reason why multiple marriages shouldn't be permitted under law. Most of the objections around things like patriarchal power imbalances aren't specific to multiple marriage and can be dealt with under other parts of the law as any other violation of autonomy and free will. And tbh if we're trying to reshape the law to address patriarchal oppression, there's a lot of other places to start before gunning for multiple marriages.

A coerced marriage is in many places not a valid marriage to begin with (in Australia part of the responsibility of a civil celebrant is to ensure there is full and free consent before conducting a marriage). In a system with no fault divorce (ie, the correct and good divorce law), it shouldn't be a big issue to allow multiple marriages within the same framework as others. They would likely need to be considered as a simultaneous marriage between each person with each other person, and would get a bit more complex in things like family law, but I can't see how that would be a show stopper.

Didn't Australia's Aboriginal people's traditionally have effectively "informal relationships and cohabitations," from the view of Western (and Asian, and Middle-Eastern) law? Or am I mistaken there?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Did we not have this exact thread a few months ago?

 

[Arwon]

Yeah in traditional communities there's a lot of customary arrangements which don't necessarily cohere with how marriage and de facto relationships as defined under Commonwealth and common law. That's been a serious point of contention because in some groups it has involved arranged marriages, group marriages and under aged girls. And it's not as simple as saying "well that's the culture" because there's also resistance and advocacy for change within those communities themselves, and a lot of diversity between kinship systems, moiety systems, and customary practices in different groups.

Here's a description of the traditional practices: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication...marriage-in-traditional-aboriginal-societies/

And today: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication...ures/marriages-in-aboriginal-societies-today/

 

[EgonSpengler]

Whatever between consenting adults

This is the upshot for me, I think. It's why I campaigned for same-sex marriage, even though I'm not gay. It's why I'm pro-choice, for that matter, even though I'm not a woman. Other people's [consensual, adult] relationships aren't my business, and I don't think they're the government's, either.

Why do people generally approve of gay marriages but oppose polygamy and polyandry ones. Group marriages also.

Meh. It's just another hedge we can't see over. *shrug* One of the interesting things about the change in social acceptance of same-sex marriage is that it outpaced population turnover. That is, it isn't explained simply by older people passing away and being replaced by younger people. A lot of it was really just people changing their minds, as they saw the sky not falling. For example, opposition to same-sex marriage was often cast as a defense of traditional marriage. Of course it was absurd, it just took a moment for people to realize that.

Religion plays a big role too, of course. That's a tougher nut to crack. In the United States, polygamy is strongly associated with Mormonism and Islam, even though I'm not sure that it's common in either religion these days, if it ever was. There are still religious people who are opposed to same-sex marriage, and they're free to not enter into one, just as before, even if they're gay.

Polygamy is also sometimes presumed to be one man with several wives, but that's not an expression of polygamy, that's an expression of a patriarchal society. If you have polygamy in a patriarchal society, it's likely to be patriarchal, just like everything else. For example, the US Congress in the 2018 mid-terms set a record for the number of women serving as representatives and senators: One-quarter. Yippee, let's all pat ourselves on the back. Does that mean a congress of elected representatives is an innately misogynist institution? No, of course not. It just means we still have our heads pretty far up our own [back porches].

Anyway, "We aren't ready for it" has been used to resist just about every social change I can think of - same-sex marriage, school integration, giving women the vote, inter-racial marriages, integrating the military, allowing gay people to serve openly in the military, having a Catholic President, having a Black President, yadda, yadda, yadda - and I think it's been shown just about every time that none of these things brought civilization crashing down around our ears. Without having given the specifics of polygamy or polyamory a ton of thought, I don't see why they'd be any different. It seems like the sticks in the mud have been wrong pretty much every time.

 

[H4run]

I really don't understand this. In the West practically polygamy or polyandry are sexually accepted, people practicing multi-partner sexual behavior, open marriage are practiced, changing partner and what not but when it's recognized by law as polygamous relationship for instance people got rigid and timid. I will argue that agreeing with 2 or 3 partner is more healthier physically and emotionally than open marriage or engaging in risky sexual behavior by keep changing your partner with a person you barely know in a situation you barely able to control.

And accepting this as right between consent adult will not affected your current monogamous relationship, it just affected for those who want to do it willingly.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Anyway, "We aren't ready for it" has been used to resist just about every social change I can think of - same-sex marriage, school integration, giving women the vote, inter-racial marriages, integrating the military, allowing gay people to serve openly in the military, having a Catholic President, having a Black President, yadda, yadda, yadda - and I think it's been shown just about every time that none of these things brought civilization crashing down around our ears. Without having given the specifics of polygamy or polyamory a ton of thought, I don't see why they'd be any different. It seems like the sticks in the mud have been wrong pretty much every time.

Utah is currently trying to overturn polygamy laws, even though they adopted them to become a state in the 1st place.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/18/utah-senate-decriminalize-polygamy-bill

Opponents of decriminalization say the current law should not be changed because polygamy is inherently dangerous and harmful to women and children, particularly young girls, some of whom have been forced into marriages with older men.

Polygamy is a remnant of the early teachings of the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members fled persecution over the practice to settle the Utah territory in 1847. The church disavowed polygamy in 1890 as a condition of Utah statehood, and today members of the faith found to be practicing plural marriage are excommunicated.

Polyandry might be worth trying out.
Women are more sensible than men and could have more husbands for more security.

 

[Berzerker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Joseph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Water,_Utah

Basically people moved into a deserted 'town' and a few hundred people live there. Interesting man, Joseph.

Consenting adults can do as they please, how we define adulthood and consent is the fun part. Utah was told to ban polygamy in exchange for statehood back in the 1890s and there was a big kerfuffle when either the state or the Feds cracked down on polygamists maybe a century ago. But this seems to be a result of the slaughter of Mormons down in Mexico. The law drove them south so Utah is gonna lighten up and make it a ticket which I doubt will be enforced. Maybe they're feeling a bit guilty so they're inviting people back. Bout time.

I dont know why the courts didn't tell the Feds they cant violate the religious freedom of Mormons, much less do so in the name of Christianity. Congress cant pass laws that establish religion, its right there in the 1st Amendment, and there aint nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to decide who can marry.

 

[IglooDame]

I've seen a few successful poly relationships in the BDSM community, 1x Mff, 1x Ffm and 1x Fmm.

I have no objections to polyamory. It has more potential difficulties than couples do, that's for sure, but potentially more rewards, too. My only limit to establishing any state/commercially-recognized relationship is that all participants have to maintain informed consent. So no animals, no inanimate objects, no minors, no nonconsensual enslavement.

Yes, a lot of laws would need to be adjusted to accommodate it. But those poly relationship folk I think would settle for just removing the laws that are actually criminalizing it.

 

[Patine]

no nonconsensual enslavement.

And, while this brought up, it can be gotten rid of once and for all in many American correctional facilities. Completely end privatization in all forms, because that is the breach in the 14th Amendment, which only allows an exemption made for penal labour as "public works on infrastructure for the common good." The corporations running these prisons, the State government executives and lawmakers contracting them out, the correctional officers and staff, and the police and court officials who evidence oversentence to meet "corrupt quotas," are all guilty of being part of massive, unconstitutional, and criminal slave rings, and are just as vile and loathsome, by definition, as those human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants to the U.S., and then make them work unpaid in sweat shops, or even those groups that kidnap young women, men, and children for monstrous sex slave rings. It needs to end. This also why Kamala Harris' candidacy was so horribly tainted from my perspective. Just an aside, since you mentioned putting the foot down on nonconsensual enslavement.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

because that is the breach in the 14th Amendment, which only allows an exemption made for penal labour as "public works on infrastructure for the common good."

The 14th amendment does not have such a provision. Instead it says explicitly that life, liberty and property cannot be taken without due process of law. This implies those things can be taken after due process, and the 13th amendment before it set the stage for re-enslavement of freed African Americans and their children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The 13th amendment more or less allows enslavement of criminals. It was not intended to be interpreted that way - the relevant clause wasn't given much thought according to a podcast I listened - and therefore it was not really used to justifying new enslavement under the guise of punishment right when it passed. Pretty quickly, however, the South had figured out the loophole and used it to illegally grab up freed blacks and put them back on plantations and work gangs by criminalizing everything they did or just making up crimes. Even today this is the justification for forcing convicts to work for very little money. I don't know if any of them are forced to work for absolutely free anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[IglooDame]

And, while this brought up, it can be gotten rid of once and for all in many American correctional facilities. Completely end privatization in all forms, because that is the breach in the 14th Amendment, which only allows an exemption made for penal labour as "public works on infrastructure for the common good." The corporations running these prisons, the State government executives and lawmakers contracting them out, the correctional officers and staff, and the police and court officials who evidence oversentence to meet "corrupt quotas," are all guilty of being part of massive, unconstitutional, and criminal slave rings, and are just as vile and loathsome, by definition, as those human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants to the U.S., and then make them work unpaid in sweat shops, or even those groups that kidnap young women, men, and children for monstrous sex slave rings. It needs to end. This also why Kamala Harris' candidacy was so horribly tainted from my perspective. Just an aside, since you mentioned putting the foot down on nonconsensual enslavement.

Off-topic of the thread, so this will be my only reply, but while I agree with you in principle, I disagree about the parity. The prisoners in private prisons are certainly exploited, but, I don't see how they're significantly worse off than if they were in state-run prisons, unlike the other examples of nonconsensual enslavement you cite.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Polyandry might be worth trying out.
Women are more sensible than men and could have more husbands for more security.

As food for thought, if you are putting together a sled dog team you put in one...and only one...female.

 

[amadeus]

re: topic

I guess people can do what they want, but I’m not comfortable with it.

 

[Patine]

re: topic

I guess people can do what they want, but I’m not comfortable with it.

But you see, that can be reversed. People you aren't comfortable with doing these things have to accept you holding, or even speaking, typing, or printing, this very opinion. As long as people aren't actively removing each other's rights through force, coercion, legislation, extortion, etc., it's all part of the mix. This is why I oppose "deplatforming," on principal, even if I find those targeted for such's point of view, and what they're saying, to be repugnant.

 

[Narz]

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?

People are against it because of the heavy, heavy propaganda celebrating "normal" romantic love. People complain about "heteronormative" but almost every movie, book or play promotes the idea that there is 1 person for everyone and once you're in love having feelings or sex with someone else is sinful/bad.

As for me, of course I'm pro sexual-freedom. How's it my business who wants to be with who? I'm against marriage as a government institution with tax-breaks n whatnot regardless but if it continues to exist it shouldn't be discriminatory.

Group marriages have too many human->human relationships.

With the divorce rate standing at 67%, the odds of a group marriage being a disaster rapidly approach 100%.

Based on what data? You have data showing that societies that allow plural marriage have more divorce?

It would probably be a good idea to remove huge power differentials between individuals before allowing this.

Let's not make any progress until **** is perfect... sure.

For every guy with 10 wives, there are 9 more living jealous, single lives.

Plus, who wants to let some guy permanently hog all the chicks?

We must keep oppressing polygamy.

Rich mofos gonna hog all the chicks anyway. Allowing men legally to marry more than one woman will spur innovation. Most people cheat on their monogamous partner at least once anyway, why not drop the pretense?

 

[Narz]

re: topic

I guess people can do what they want, but I’m not comfortable with it.

That's how a lot of people feel about homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. Frankly I'm not comfortable with thinking about most people's sexuality (the 90% of the population who aren't hot females) but they should go for theirs however they like. Laws regarding consensual sex are nonsense & marriage shouldn't be the business of govt anyway.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Based on what data? You have data showing that societies that allow plural marriage have more divorce?

There are N*(N-1)/2 relationships between N people.
So with a group of 4, that is 6 relationships that need to function smoothly.

But now that you mention it, it might be as low as 3 if everything centers around 1 person.

And if one relationship does break and end in a divorce, that just destroys the whole, not the other relationships.

Ok, it seems I was wrong.

 

[Patine]

People are against it because of the heavy, heavy propaganda celebrating "normal" romantic love.

The institution of marriage has only been realistically, in practice, about "normal romantic love," of any sort since relatively recently in history. For the vast majority of recorded human history EVERYWHERE, marriage was about uniting families and creating offspring with a sense of legitimacy and consensus in communities and, for much more powerful people, preserving dynasties and large inheritances. Arranged marriages were by far the norm, not the exception, for most of recorded history around the world.

 

[H4run]

The institution of marriage has only been realistically, in practice, about "normal romantic love," of any sort since relatively recently in history. For the vast majority of recorded human history EVERYWHERE, marriage was about uniting families and creating offspring with a sense of legitimacy and consensus in communities and, for much more powerful people, preserving dynasties and large inheritances. Arranged marriages were by far the norm, not the exception, for most of recorded history around the world.

I think Narz is talking in the context of our contemporary situation, not for general human history, your view may true but its not contradicting his argument, his stance regarding this issue is nicely explained here:

I'm against marriage as a government institution with tax-breaks n whatnot regardless but if it continues to exist it shouldn't be discriminatory

Clear and fair point of view for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Creates problems with divorce law. Who gets what assets, and creates problems with alimony and custody with children and who's your daddy.

Some cultures do allow it but the second wife gets no protection from the law in western nation's.

For those cultures that allow it "when in Rome" applies.

From a pragmatic pov marriage should be illegal.

Outside marriage consenting adults don't care what people get up to.