# Let's Talk Marriages **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2013, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515 "2013-04-23T18:22:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/21 "2013-04-23T22:14:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > States with DP laws have them as a step to equality. They were established when SSM was impossible, and had the advantage of being open to hetero couples also. Given that SSM is now possible in many states, it seems a better alternative. And I’m unaware of anyone in a position of power who opposes SSM to keep the term marriage referring to OSM proposing fully equal DPs as mentioned in the OP. > > As for marriages with more than two partners, we have plenty of examples of this in Islamic countries. It is not like we’d be starting from scratch. That’s not to support them, but we needn’t be so insular. Sure, Islamic societies (and for that matter, some more home-grown religions) have multiple marriages. It isn’t like we can’t even conceive of the possibility. However, our laws and institutions are not set up for that, and it would create significant problems to change this - for example, handling insurance and pension benefits, conducting support payments and equalization of family property, and the status of children in terms of custody and access, would all have to be worked out, at considerable cost. It isn’t as if we could just adopt Islamic law or something. Now, if there was some public pressure or serious inequity to address, maybe the cost would be worth it. But it isn’t like gay marriage, in which the sole difficulty in impementation is rubbing out “marriage is between a man and a woman” and substituting “marriage is between two adults” in the “definition” section of the relevant statutes. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/22 "2013-04-23T22:23:32Z")
> [@Enright3](#): > > Are you saying I’m a same sex opponent? I’m not sure where that is coming from. What’s even funnier is that my wife and I have been asked by a close friend of mine and her girlfriend to stand up with them as best man & bride’s maid at their union ceremony. I guess you weren’t as perceptive as you thought. Because rather than saying something like “Big ups to France for legalizing gay marriage!” after your link, you went straight into “what if we dont call it marriage but its basically the same?” and “what about 3 people getting married?” which are the go-to “I’m not a bigot I am just against SSM” moves. You were one step away from asking if it would then be OK to marry your dog. If you don’t want to be labelled as an opponent, maybe you should stop parroting them. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/23 "2013-04-23T22:57:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > In countries that have legalized gay marriages have their been any large follow-up campaigns to legalize marriages of more than two people? The only country I am aware of in which both same-sex marriage and any kind of polygamy are legal is South Africa, in which polygynous marriages under the customary law of indigenous groups now have civil recognition. Although I have seen one attempt to use this as evidence for a slippery-slope argument, it was somewhat undermined by the fact that the customary marriages law was passed 8 years _before_ the same-sex marriage law. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/24 "2013-04-23T23:20:58Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > The only country I am aware of in which both same-sex marriage and any kind of polygamy are legal is South Africa, in which polygynous marriages under the customary law of indigenous groups now have civil recognition. Although I have seen one attempt to use this as evidence for a slippery-slope argument, it was somewhat undermined by the fact that the customary marriages law was passed 8 years _before_ the same-sex marriage law. 😃 The evil of same sex marriage is so immense that it _shatters time itself_, resonating back along the time-stream to corrupt the past!! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/25 "2013-04-24T00:45:26Z")
> [@Enright3](#): > > My state (Georgia) doesn’t have DP laws (as far as I know); but my company is one that offers DP benefits. I was recently surprised to find that while two non-married adults can be on a health insurance policy; it’s still not the same. Evidently you get screwed in taxes. Still, for the two couples I know who are taking advantage of the benefit; it’s still a better deal. 1 a hetero couple where the girlfriend’s job is contract labor, thus really expensive benefits, and 2 a gay couple where one is going to school full time. In both cases DP benefits are helpful; but definitely not equal. Yeah, they were only a step. Besides no benefit at all at the federal level, it was often the case that DPs were allowed but not necessary. (I’m not sure if there is a state where companies are required to make them an option.) Before my daughter and her husband got married they took advantage of this in Oregon. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/26 "2013-04-24T00:52:20Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > I don’t think that helps much. The various forms of polygamy in Islamic majority countries based on Islamic law would not pass muster in the U.S. Whereas SSM assumes that gender is not as important as the nature of the relationship, Islamic (and fundamentalist Mormon) polygamy assumes that marriage is the subjugation of the woman to the man. The number of women subjugated is not that vital. If we did it we’d want to allow one woman multiple men, which I suspect is not allowed in polygamous cultures. What we could do is to see how they handled the various issues that arise. For instance, in Egypt it is very easy for a woman to get a divorce - far easier than in New York when I was a kid and up until recently. But there is a big financial impact on the woman. But it doesn’t have to be anti-woman, even though that is the way it has been implemented. I’m more against it on income inequality grounds - rich people have all the money already, why let them have all the men/women too? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/27 "2013-04-24T00:56:11Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Sure, Islamic societies (and for that matter, some more home-grown religions) have multiple marriages. It isn’t like we can’t even conceive of the possibility. > > However, our laws and institutions are not set up for that, and it would create significant problems to change this - for example, handling insurance and pension benefits, conducting support payments and equalization of family property, and the status of children in terms of custody and access, would all have to be worked out, at considerable cost. It isn’t as if we could just adopt Islamic law or something. > > Now, if there was some public pressure or serious inequity to address, maybe the cost would be worth it. But it isn’t like gay marriage, in which the sole difficulty in impementation is rubbing out “marriage is between a man and a woman” and substituting “marriage is between two adults” in the “definition” section of the relevant statutes. I agree - it would be a lot more disruptive than allowing SSM. But a lot of the issues you discuss probably have already been addressed. Egypt, when I was there anyhow, had a legal system influenced by Islamic Law but didn’t appear to be purely Islamic Law - it wasn’t an Islamic Republic. But there are a lot better reasons to reject this than not being able to figure out how to do insurance. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/28 "2013-04-24T01:16:52Z")
Only equal is equal. It’s got to be ‘marriage’, I believe. Any attempt to call it something else is just to comfort the homophobes. Screw 'em, I say. There is no widespread shift in public opinion regarding changing marriage to include more partners. This is just a red hearing. A disingenuous argument, always. I often find myself thinking about how hard it must be to be on the ‘vehemently opposed’ side of this issue. If you consider that it was not all that long ago that everybody seemed either on your side, or disinclined to really care. Even the former defacto state religion was with you, your position so enshrined so as to be considered carved in stone. To see that all so radically shift, in what was really not that long a time must sting. I can kind of feel for how hard it must be when you were once but one of a forest then suddenly find yourself the only tree in a vast meadow. It must suck. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/29 "2013-04-24T14:02:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I agree - it would be a lot more disruptive than allowing SSM. But a lot of the issues you discuss probably have already been addressed. Egypt, when I was there anyhow, had a legal system influenced by Islamic Law but didn’t appear to be purely Islamic Law - it wasn’t an Islamic Republic. > But there are a lot better reasons to reject this than not being able to figure out how to do insurance. I think you have ahold of the wrong end of the stick. Certainly, we could figure out all of these issues, if we wanted to. But there is simply no case for it. Unlike gay marriage, there is no _significant_ population which finds being excluded from the benefits of marriage (because multiple marriage isn’t available) unequitable. The issues is not ‘we can’t figure out how to do this, so let’s not, despite the evident injustice of inaction on this burning issue’. It is ‘doing this carries significant costs in terms of changing a whole society’s worth or laws and contracts - and there is no, or very little, actual push from the public that wants it done’. In sum, there are two significant differences between gay marriage and multiple marriage: (1) Gay marriage has a sizable number or proponents who are suffering a significant inequity in lacking access to the institution, and hence a significant sector of the public is pushing for it - multiple marriage at least so far does not; and (2) It is institutionally easy to adopt gay marriage, as all it takes is a change of a couple of words in the definition. Adoption of multiple marriage would take radical surgery to all of the various statutory and contractual rights that are defined by the status. Granted, point (2) could be overcome, but why bother if point (1) isn’t there? ---
**Author:** ![Enright3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/enright3/32/2897_2.png) [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/30 "2013-04-24T14:41:36Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > Because rather than saying something like “Big ups to France for legalizing gay marriage!” after your link, you went straight into “what if we dont call it marriage but its basically the same?” and “what about 3 people getting married?” which are the go-to “I’m not a bigot I am just against SSM” moves. You were one step away from asking if it would then be OK to marry your dog. If you don’t want to be labelled as an opponent, maybe you should stop parroting them. So, if I don’t open write a sentence supporting gay marriage, I must be opposed to it? Wow, it sounds like you’re pre-judging the situation. And you’re right, I’m parroting questions that I’ve heard asked, but I don’t really know what the response is. I know you’re disappointed that you didn’t correctly label me; but asking a question can be simply about learning; and not just about confrontation. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/31 "2013-04-24T17:29:06Z")
So you admit you didnt bother doing any research, came out firing the tired anti-SSM cliches (that you have heard others ask), and now are climbing up on the cross when people assume you are yet another in that group? Color me unimpressed. “Sheesh, all I did was ask what people thought about Samuel George Morton’s theory of African’s smaller cranial capacity as an indicator of inferior intelligence, and people jump all over me as a racist. I’m just asking questions here!” ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515/32 "2013-04-24T17:34:40Z")
HoboStew, knock it off. Your attacks on Enright3 have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-marriages/656515.md?page=1)