# Is the argument that approving gay marriage opens the door to plural marriage illogical or not? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2011, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801 "2011-06-25T04:37:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/141 "2011-06-29T20:48:51Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > So what? Do you see a single moral argument in this thread? > [@chowrunner](#): > > Any marriage is to be between one man and one woman. ( genesis 1:27-28)(1 Timothy 3:2) I guess I should not have thrown down the gauntlet on that one. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > You don’t have to change any laws except those that ban plural marriages. > > Simple. > > And rights are a moral issue. There are two separate issues. You want to get the laws that make living with multiple partners illegal? That is simple, just repeal the law. That would be similar to the way Lawrence v. Texas struck down anti-sodomy laws. But if you want the government to license multiple partner marriages and grant privileges similar to current marriages, more will need to be determined. Answer the questions in 116 and 120 for a start, and I hope you answers match **CitizenPained** ’s, otherwise you two(and by extension everyone else asking for poly marriage recognition) will need to compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/142 "2011-06-29T21:18:06Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > You can’t even talk about divorce yet, you haven’t addressed who might be getting divorced. Or what property might be considered community when any given player may have more than one spouse, none of which are necessarily in common. I already said that a proper poly marriage needs to have all partners consenting. That eliminates your problem. > [@](#): > > The flippancy of this statement, talking as it is about (at the bottom line) the disposition of children and custody foremost, is incredibly callous. Wouldn’t be any different than any other two-bio-children-agreement. > [@](#): > > Look, when you’ve got \*\*Dio \*\*and I arguing the same side of a polyamory issue with you on the other, you might want to consider that your position is lacking in merit. **Dio** is against poly marriage for moral reasons. I don’t take much of what he says in that regard to heart. He thinks that those who don’t wish to participate in mono marriages are immature and immoral. That kind of thinking is, sorry, rooted in bigotry and ethnocentricism. And sometimes anti-religious sentiment. > [@CurtC](#): > > That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Laws need to be crafted to provide guidelines of what needs to happen. The courts take the laws and apply them to specific situations. You can’t just expect thousands of courts across the country to handle something this complex without any precedents or even a legal framework of what poly marriage should look like. If poly marriages were allowed, states would define terms (eg, number of wives) and the courts would have to figure out what happens if/when those marriages have problems. > [@](#): > > Opening up those two-person marriage laws to any sexes doesn’t require any changes to the framework we already have in place. We can do it with the stroke of a pen. Again, if you want to put children into the issue and then say it was no problem for ss couples, I’d suggest you pause and look at [glbt family law](http://www.law4kids.com/law-center-madison/practice-areas/lgbt-lesbian-gay-bisexual-family-law/). Children used to go to the hetero partner. Now it is not always the case. Reproductive technology has also put forth questions regarding responsibility, child support, whatever. Or how about men who care for children their whole lives only to find that they are not the biological fathers? Family law is always messy. Yet it can be done. > [@Strassia](#): > > Not wanting to throw a huge mess to the judicial to try and clean up is probably enough rational basis right there to defeat a equal protection argument. No. The courts exist for a reason, and sometimes figuring out the messes of what the law entails is part of it. There are many cases where the courts dealt with messy situations. The Fourteenth Amendment comes to mind: Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, etc. > [@](#): > > SSM offers no new scenarios that do not also apply to OSM in the courts. If you think otherwise, please provide an example as I have asked twice before. What about domestic partnerships? Do you think it is okay to allow domestic partnerships and not marriage? 1. Adoption 2. Assisted reproduction 3. [Custody](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/24/us/split-gay-couples-face-custody-hurdles.html) [INDENT] > [@](#): > > ‘‘The world had known us as Mom and Mom,’’ said K, an executive with a nonprofit educational organization, who like E asked to be identified by an initial. ‘‘I’m asking that my daughters have access to both moms.’’ > > E, a medical administrator who declined to be interviewed, said in a statement, ‘‘I made it clear to her from the beginning that I wanted to be a single parent, and that I would accept her ovum donation only if it was truly a donation and I would be the sole legal parent.’’ > > The judge agreed, reluctantly, that although K was the genetic mother, E, the birth mother, was entitled to sole custody. [/INDENT] and [other kinds of custody](http://www.heraldextra.com/news/article_a94f9548-468b-52cc-a715-808ad20f48cf.html) 4. [Divorce](http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/13/the-right-to-love-and-loss.html) 5. End of life issues and [estate planning](http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12111465). (Come on, we all saw _If These Walls Could Talk_). > [@](#): > > I will state it again, I am all for decriminalizing multiple partner relationships, but if you want me to support a specific form of government recognition you have to meet some requirements: > > 1. Make it workable. Define the limits and the general exceptions. Something new will always come up, but you can’t just tell me the courts will figure it out latter. I don’t know exactly what more you want me to define. > [@](#): > > 1. Make it relevant. If only you and two other sets of potential spouses want the specific form you propose, then don’t bother. If 1% of the population wants poly marriages and you proposal would satisfy 75% of them, then I can get behind it. If only 1% of that 1% can use it, then it is not worth the hassle. Sorry, but not all movements have had people that were 100 per cent in agreement. Suffrage and Civil Rights come to mind. > [@](#): > > 1. Don’t damage current marriages. _That_ sounds familiar. How does what I do affect what you do? > [@](#): > > And \*\*you \*\*need to do this, not me. I don’t want to be married _at all_, **ever**. I don’t need to do anything. I answered the question of the OP, which was basically, “Is this a slippery slope?” It depends on what the courts say. If the Court rules for ssm based on _this_, then possibly. If the Court rules for ssm based on _that_, maybe not. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > There are plenty of men who have the right to marry more than one woman. That right exists in countries that have not been dominated by Christian or Buddhist morals. You know, the same morality basis opposed to SSM. > > And that right has predominantly existed for millenia throughout the world prior to the existence or introduction of Christianity. Thank you, **Dutchman**. SSM is more foreign to the world than polygamy, but it does not make either more or less worthy. > [@Strassia](#): > > So what? Do you see a single moral argument in this thread? The point is not that poly marriages are recognized because they are immoral. It is that there is a significant difference in the change to the law required to allow poly marriages. Pointing to history is not a reason that someone with no interest should advocate for anything. > > You have an interest? Take up the challenge I set to **CitizenPained**. Lay out what law should be changed to address all the aspects that marriage impacts on. You sound just like any one else opposed to a change you can’t understand, **Strassia**. The arguments for (and against) ssm and polygamy are quite alike. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/143 "2011-06-29T21:24:53Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > First tell me which law you are refering to. How does spousal privilege work in a poly relationship? How does equitably splitting the assets work when one person leaves (divorces) in a poly relationship? Who can make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse in a poly relationship? How does child custody work in a poly relationship is someone leaves? Who do Social Security Survivor benefits go to? Do employers have to offer medical insurance to all spouses in a poly relationship? In the absence of a will how does inheritance work (e.g. if someone was in the relationship for ten years and the “new” spouse was in for six months are assets split evenly of weighted)? Does an employer have to grant family leave every time a baby is born to a poly couple (say the guy has four wives…they could pop a baby out every 3 months in rotation…does dad get leave every time)? When wrongful death benefits apply are the benefits multiplied because there are more spouses? I am sure I could think of more but that is a start. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/144 "2011-06-29T21:30:12Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > _That_ sounds familiar. How does what I do affect what you do? When, in order to accommodate a new class of partnership, you make an across-the-board change that affects existing partnerships. In the debate over SSM, the argument that we should do away with all legal marriages and only have civil unions, with ‘marriage’ relegated to religion only, is an example of this. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/145 "2011-06-29T21:35:13Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > When, in order to accommodate a new class of partnership, you make an across-the-board change that affects existing partnerships. In the debate over SSM, the argument that we should do away with all legal marriages and only have civil unions, with ‘marriage’ relegated to religion only, is an example of this. While I’d like to see a world full of civil marriages, I wouldn’t actually advocate for the government to butt out of all marriages (much as I’d like) as it does serve a common good. The state has an interest in promoting marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/146 "2011-06-29T21:40:01Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > There are plenty of men who have the right to marry more than one woman. That right exists in countries that have not been dominated by Christian or Buddhist morals. You know, the same morality basis opposed to SSM. > > And that right has predominantly existed for millenia throughout the world prior to the existence or introduction of Christianity. Monogamy had nothing to do with Christianity. That’s not a Christian doctrine. The Bible endorses polygamy and nowhere says that men can have only one wife. In the Biblical conception of marriage, women are simply chattel property. Men don’t even have to be faithful to their wives, their wives just have to be faithful to them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/147 "2011-06-29T21:46:12Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > **Dio** is against poly marriage for moral reasons. I’m not against poly marriage at all. Please don’t make up things I’ve never said > [@](#): > > He thinks that those who don’t wish to participate in mono marriages are immature and immoral. I’ve never said this either. You are fabricating this shit. I’ve never shit about the “morality” of it. I don’t have any moral opinion about it at all. I HAVE said that polyamorous people are immature, and I’ll stand by that, but that’s not the same as saying they’re “immoral,” and I’ve never said a thing about people not wanting to be in monogamous marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/148 "2011-06-29T22:07:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m not against poly marriage at all. Please don’t make up things I’ve never said > > I’ve never said this either. You are fabricating this shit. I’ve never shit about the “morality” of it. I don’t have any moral opinion about it at all. I HAVE said that polyamorous people are immature, and I’ll stand by that, but that’s not the same as saying they’re “immoral,” and I’ve never said a thing about people not wanting to be in monogamous marriage. Oh, good, glad to see you have no objection to poly marriage. Since you argued about it for several pages in more than one thread, I was all kinds of confused. Let this post be your cite! **Dio** doesn’t think that poly marriages are ones of love or religious duty (as we know what he thinks about that), but rather a convenient [fucking arrangement](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924967&postcount=43). He also thinks that marriage is not a fundamental right and polys are being denied anything, so maybe not all of the anti-polys here are in agreement. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/149 "2011-06-29T22:19:22Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Oh, good, glad to see you have no objection to poly marriage. Since you argued about it for several pages in more than one thread, I was all kinds of confused. Let this post be your cite! I have never argued against it at all. That’s an absolute falsehood. I’ve only argued that it’s not a civil right, and that restricting federal marriage benenfits to two people does not raise any equal protection issues, since nobody is being discriminated against. That is not the same thing as saying I think it should be illegal. I’ve never said that. I am consistently on record on this board as saying I’m not opposed to legalizing plural marriage. I’ve said it repeatedly in this thread. You have a pernicious, obnoxious dishonest habit of making up things people never said. > [@](#): > > **Dio** doesn’t think that poly marriages are ones of love or religious duty (as we know what he thinks about that), but rather a convenient [fucking arrangement](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13924967&postcount=43). This is true. I don’t respect it. I think it’s selfish and immature, but so are a lot of relationships. I have never, ever said I think it should be _illegal_, though. > [@](#): > > He also thinks that marriage is not a fundamental right Federal recognition and benefits are not a fundamental right, that’s correct. Where did you get the idea that they are? Show me where the Constitution says marriage is a right. > [@](#): > > and polys are being denied anything, so maybe not all of the anti-polys here are in agreement. 😉 What is a “poly?” How are you defining that word? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/150 "2011-06-29T22:44:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Monogamy had nothing to do with Christianity. That’s not a Christian doctrine. The Bible endorses polygamy… That is simply false. No where does the bible say that God is in favour of it. It is true that the practice occured without sanction prior to Christianity, but it was certainly not lauded as a preferred practice. > [@](#): > > and nowhere says that men can have only one wife. In the Biblical conception of marriage, women are simply chattel property. Men don’t even have to be faithful to their wives, their wives just have to be faithful to them. "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband " I remember that quote of Paul’s from somewhere in the new bible. Neither Buddhism or Christianity endorse polygamy in their fundamental writings and both of their fundamental writings frown upon it. ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/151 "2011-06-29T22:54:50Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I already said that a proper poly marriage needs to have all partners consenting. That eliminates your problem. There is a difference between consenting and participating. I am married. Should I be able to, **with my wife’s consent** , enter into a second marriage that does not include my wife? If I marry A and B, both with full knowledge of the other and consent to the arrangement by all, can they be two distinct marriages with no carry over from A to B? I would be married to A and B, but they would have no legal relationship to each other. If not, why not? > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t be any different than any other two-bio-children-agreement. In most states paternity is assumed by the father unless he contests it at the time of birth, even if he is not the biological father. If there are two husbands, does paternity attach to both? > [@](#): > > If poly marriages were allowed, states would define terms (eg, number of wives) and the courts would have to figure out what happens if/when those marriages have problems. The problem is that states have defined and the number is currently 1 wife (or in some states two total spouses of whatever sex). > [@](#): > > Again, if you want to put children into the issue and then say it was no problem for ss couples, I’d suggest you pause and look at [glbt family law](http://www.law4kids.com/law-center-madison/practice-areas/lgbt-lesbian-gay-bisexual-family-law/). > > Children used to go to the hetero partner. Now it is not always the case. Reproductive technology has also put forth questions regarding responsibility, child support, whatever. What hetero partner? > [@](#): > > Or how about men who care for children their whole lives only to find that they are not the biological fathers? What does this have to do with SSM? > [@](#): > > Family law is always messy. Yet it can be done. Of course it can be done. It is just significantly different than either the status quo prior to SSM being recognized or how it will be when SSM is universally recognized. > [@](#): > > No. The courts exist for a reason, and sometimes figuring out the messes of what the law entails is part of it. There are many cases where the courts dealt with messy situations. The Fourteenth Amendment comes to mind: Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination, etc. I think you misunderstand what the courts will do. They can strike down laws and statutes. They can interpret laws and statutes, but only to a certain degree. They could strike down all laws making it illegal to live in a polygamous relationship as they struck down sodomy laws. That would be simple, and I completely support such an outcome (I would need to see the decision to see if I support the legal reasoning, but that doesn’t matter here). [quote] What about domestic partnerships? Do you think it is okay to allow domestic partnerships and not marriage? [quote] I don’t care. I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with poly marriages as long as the law is sound. > [@](#): > > I don’t know exactly what more you want me to define. Here are three simple and basic ones: 1. How about how many partners can be in a marriage? 2. Can three, informed, consenting adults enter into two separate marriages (A marries B, and with A’s consent, B also marries C. A and C have no direct relationship)? 3. Can new spouses enter an existing marriage? Once you figure those answers out you need to figure how those answers will affect property and custody. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but not all movements have had people that were 100 per cent in agreement. Suffrage and Civil Rights come to mind. I set my limit at .75%, not 100%. What is you limit? Should the government spend hundreds of legislative hours for the concerns of 1 person? > [@](#): > > _That_ sounds familiar. How does what I do affect what you do? If you rewrite the marriage laws badly enough they can all be stricken down. The government does not have to provide any of the privileges and protections of marriages. It could just stay silent on the subject leaving millions of people to scramble to write up the type of halfway to marriage contracts that SSM opponents recommend to to gays. > [@](#): > > You sound just like any one else opposed to a change you can’t understand, **Strassia**. The arguments for (and against) ssm and polygamy are quite alike. Some are, and some aren’t. The problem is the only arguments against SSM come down to “it’s icky” and “God said it is bad”. That is not the case with poly marriages. Much more importantly, the only thing that SSM changes is a gender requirement. That is it. Nothing else need change. If poly marriages where that easy we would not be having this debate. Here is an analogy I think fits: If a ski slope only allowed wooden skis for years, then under pressure started allowing fiberglass skis, that would not be a slippery slope to allowing snow boards. I have nothing against snow boards. I don’t care if people ride snow boards down a slope, but I can see that fiber glass skis create no new requirements for slope where snow boards do. That is all I, and most of us in this thread are saying. Poly marriages require significantly more changes to the law than SSM. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/152 "2011-06-29T23:08:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How does spousal privilege work in a poly relationship? All spouses get spousal privelege > [@](#): > > How does equitably splitting the assets work when one person leaves (divorces) in a poly relationship? Judges usually decide that don’t they ? Thats why we have divorce lawyers > [@](#): > > Who can make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse in a poly relationship? The spousal committee. > [@](#): > > How does child custody work in a poly relationship is someone leaves? The Family Court Judge decides just like always. > [@](#): > > Who do Social Security Survivor benefits go to? The Spousal committee of the family corporation, a legal entity. > [@](#): > > Do employers have to offer medical insurance to all spouses in a poly relationship? Is that the case now? Well yes, for a price. > [@](#): > > In the absence of a will how does inheritance work (e.g. if someone was in the relationship for ten years and the “new” spouse was in for six months are assets split evenly of weighted)? Why must assets be split. The marital assets belong to the marital corporation. If a bunch of wives want to dissolve or divorce from the marital corporation after the death of the patriarch, The can go to the family court judge if neccessary. > [@](#): > > .Does an employer have to grant family leave every time a baby is born to a poly couple (say the guy has four wives…they could pop a baby out every 3 months in rotation…does dad get leave every time)? every baby has the right to a parent on family leave. > [@](#): > > When wrongful death benefits apply are the benefits multiplied because there are more spouses? What is so difficult ? Now that we have same sex marriage, the sex of the partner or partners is simply irrelevant. All the laws applicable to marriage can be amended by replacing “spouse” with “spousal committee” Just how hard is that. > [@](#): > > I am sure I could think of more but that is a start. And I could come up with answers, but I’ve given this issue enough of my attention. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/153 "2011-06-29T23:32:53Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > I already said that a proper poly marriage needs to have all partners consenting. That eliminates your problem. I’m going to address just this: You’ve just shut my wife and I out of poly marriage entirely. She has her partners of choice. I have my partners of choice. Not once have we ever both liked a partner enough that we would BOTH want to enter into a marriage-type arrangement with them. So thanks, but no thanks–your proposed “solution” is bigoted against the (in my experience) majority of poly people, if we’re expected to form a single large group marriage. ETA: This also goes for Dutchman. Sorry, guys–not every poly situation is a “giant equally-partnered group”, and it’d serve a relatively small proportion (and, in my experience, the most immature and abuse-prone portion at that–that is, the religious polygamists (one man many wives)) of polyamorous folk. The most common poly arrangement in my experience is a V or N, not a triangle or square. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/154 "2011-06-29T23:45:06Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m going to address just this: > > You’ve just shut my wife and I out of poly marriage entirely. She has her partners of choice. I have my partners of choice. Not once have we ever both liked a partner enough that we would BOTH want to enter into a marriage-type arrangement with them. > > So thanks, but no thanks–your proposed “solution” is bigoted against the (in my experience) majority of poly people, if we’re expected to form a single large group marriage. > > ETA: This also goes for Dutchman. Sorry, guys–not every poly situation is a “giant equally-partnered group”, and it’d serve a relatively small proportion (and, in my experience, the most immature and abuse-prone portion at that–that is, the religious polygamists (one man many wives)) of polyamorous folk. > > The most common poly arrangement in my experience is a V or N, not a triangle or square. What are you looking for? A group marriage for unconsenting partners to accomodate you and your wife? That will never happen period. Group marrige isn’t for everyone. Neither is SSM or SSM, singe spouse marriage. ---
**Author:** ![markdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@markdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markdash)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/155 "2011-06-29T23:54:00Z")
If you require all partners in a PM to give consent before adding a new spouse, you’re either going to have vanishingly few PMs, or a bunch of wives browbeaten to sign on the dotted line to add another wife to the pot. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/156 "2011-06-30T02:29:28Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > That is simply false. No where does the bible say that God is in favour of it. It is true that the practice occured without sanction prior to Christianity, but it was certainly not lauded as a preferred practice. > "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband " > > I remember that quote of Paul’s from somewhere in the new bible. I Corinthians, but Paul wasn’t talking about how many spouses a person should have, he was saying they shouldn’t fornicate outside of marriage, and he was speaking with a cultural context (the Roman Empire) in which monogamy was the norm. > [@](#): > > Neither Buddhism or Christianity endorse polygamy in their fundamental writings and both of their fundamental writings frown upon it. Legal monogamy predates both Christianity and Judaism by thousands of years, and sexual monogamy probably predates human evolution. Solomon had 700 wives. Nowhere does the Bible condemn polygamy, and nowhere does it mandate monogamy. Moreover, it says that if a man’s brother dies without offspring, the living brother is supposed to fuck his widow and knock her up. The Bible says a lot of other fucked up shit about sex and marriage, but nowhere does it mandate monogamy. That was a pagan thing. Buddhism has no real doctrine on marriage at all, except that it often advises against it. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/157 "2011-06-30T02:59:48Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > What are you looking for? A group marriage for unconsenting partners to accomodate you and your wife? No, that’d be wildly stupid. I’m looking for an answer to why you think “legalizing poly marriage” is as simple as “legalize equal-status group marriage” when that’s a vanishingly uncommon form of poly attachment. Where the hell did you get “unconsenting” from? The most common form of poly attachment is of the form of a V, N, or longer singly-connected line. For example, Alice is married to Bob, who’s married to Alice and Carol, who is married to Dan. Dan doesn’t want to be married to Bob or Alice, and he doesn’t have to be. Carol wants to be married to both Bob and Dan, but not Alice. Consider the following diagram with - representing the above “marriage” relationship. A-B-C-D. When your interpretation of the law can determine what happens to Carol’s teenage, paternity-test-refusing kids when she and Bob (and ONLY she and Bob) divorce, when your interpretation of the law can determine what happens to Bob’s assets when he dies, then it might be ready for prime time. For that matter, when your interpretation of the law can determine what happens when Carol announces she’s going to also marry Edward–with Bob saying “OK” and Dan saying “No way!”–then it might be useful to legalize poly marriage. > [@](#): > > That will never happen period. Group marrige isn’t for everyone. Neither is SSM or SSM, singe spouse marriage. Who was saying it was for everyone, again? I’m saying “we’re all a happy family” is not a common poly commitment model in the active, current poly community–it is pretty much only common with the multiple-wives-one-husband types who are most prone to abuses of their spouse(s). Therefore your proposed solution is, at best, naive. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/158 "2011-06-30T03:37:01Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > And I could come up with answers, but I’ve given this issue enough of my attention. Your answers are so thin on detail as to barely merit the term “answers”. Ever seen the difficulty in many divorces of splitting marital assets? The cases can go on for years. You think saying everyone is part of a martial corporation answers any of the difficulties involved? A marriage and a home can not be equated to a corporation. John had four wives, one wants to leave, how does she take her share of the house? Assume John cannot pay her in cash. Can she force the sale of the house? Can John stop it because that would leave him, his three wives and numerous kids homeless because they will not have the money to buy a new home? Spousal privilege…Mary, Sue, Jane and Liz are married to John. They are not married to each other. Is what Mary says to Sue privileged? Custody is hard enough in monogamous marriages that break up. What if one poly marriage wants one spouse to be supreme for making things like medical decisions. Another poly marriage wants all the spouses to be a part of medical decisions. Which one should be mandated by law? If all the spouses vote what happens if one spouse is not available to vote? What if the spouses split evenly on what should be done? If the dad can get parental leave from work and rotates spouses having babies he can be out of work for a year or more straight and still have a job. The employer has to suck that up. For health insurance I have a scam where I will let anyone marry me, with an ironclad pre-nup, so they can be on my healthcare policy. They will agree to pay me $10/month. I figure with 1000 wives that is easy money. Or are you going to arbitrarily limit how many people a person can marry? The devil is in the details and just saying the courts will work it out is no answer. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/159 "2011-06-30T04:11:28Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > All spouses get spousal privelege So if I marry all my fellow gang members or Enron executives, spousal privilege attaches? Sweet! ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801/160 "2011-06-30T04:16:59Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’m going to address just this: > > You’ve just shut my wife and I out of poly marriage entirely. She has her partners of choice. I have my partners of choice. Not once have we ever both liked a partner enough that we would BOTH want to enter into a marriage-type arrangement with them. > > So thanks, but no thanks–your proposed “solution” is bigoted against the (in my experience) majority of poly people, if we’re expected to form a single large group marriage. > > ETA: This also goes for Dutchman. Sorry, guys–not every poly situation is a “giant equally-partnered group”, and it’d serve a relatively small proportion (and, in my experience, the most immature and abuse-prone portion at that–that is, the religious polygamists (one man many wives)) of polyamorous folk. > > The most common poly arrangement in my experience is a V or N, not a triangle or square. Zeriel, I really don’t care about your wife and her partners, but the question was in regards to legal spousal rights. I don’t mind or care who cohabitates with whom, but some states do and they can prosecute you for it. As far as legalities go, the ‘square’ arrangement works best. As you pointed out, that, to you, is the most widely ‘abused’ form of marriage, so why not give those women some legal protections? For decriminalization, your model works just fine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-argument-that-approving-gay-marriage-opens-the-door-to-plural-marriage-illogical-or-not/586801.md?page=9)