In thisthread the point was brought up that if one legalizes gay marriage, how could one oppose multiple-partner marriage.
It was starting to hijack that thread and it’s an interesting topic. So lets do it here.
Can one suppose the idea of gay marriage but not polygamy (or vice versa)?
Is polygamy harmful?
One can certainly oppose one and not the other. It is a matter of opinion. In addition, it is not necessary that one’s opinions be logically consistent–although reasoning with a person who has logically consistent opinions is much easier.
In my opinion, I am supportive of the right to gay marriage and undecided on my stance on plygamy. I guess I see these two views as consistent because I support an institution which encourages two individuals to support each other together and the children they make together (if any). While I am not convinced that polygamy is not a supportive relationship, what I have personally seen and read hasn’t convinced me that the same is true of traditionaly polygamous relationships (no cites).
Although, to be honest, the polygamous family portrayed on Six Feet Under two weeks ago was rather compelling and sympathetic.
I’ve got no problem with legal contracts for gays or polygamists. Anyone who goes into it with their eyes open has a right to conduct their personal business as a family.
I asked this question somewhere around here a few days ago, and didn’t get an answer. Can gay people (or polygamists, for that matter) adopt adults and provide for their future and rights in that way? I’m thinking of those crazy dog people in San Francisco who adopted that dude in jail and were breeding fighting dogs with him. Can gays circumvent the system in this way until the laws change?
I’m not sure about adoption; I know that some poly-families have pursued incorporation as a means of handling some of their property and other issues.
Generally, I’d say to all people who aren’t monogamous heterosexuals that they should prepare wills and health care proxy forms essentially as soon as they wind up in a long-term relationship. Two of the primary (and most emotional) concerns that are commonly handled by marriage are property distribution in case someone dies and hospital visitation and decision-making power in case of an emergency.
As to the OP, polygamy is no more harmful in and of itself than monogamy. There are abusive polygamists; there are abusive monogamists, too. Poly relationships end; so do monogamous ones; sometimes they end messily. Some people flatly cannot handle being in poly relationships in a healthy way; some people flatly cannot handle being in monogamous relationships in a healthy way.
Resources about largely non-religiously-based multiple relationships, for the curious:
http://www.polyamory.org/ – a webpage largely dealing with the usenet group alt.polyamory. The “How to f*** up FAQ” is highly recommended. Two of my poems are in the “Classic Post Emporium”, which amuses me some.
http://www.polyamorysociety.org/ – a lot of general stuff. Several things I’ve written are reproduced there by my permission.
http://ourlittlequad.com/ – a largely practical outlook particular to one family, with miscellaneous commentary and things like recipes for feeding large families. Debunks a great deal of the mystery and mysticism that surrounds a lot of people, all to the better.
http://www.lovemore.com/ – I include this link for balance in discourse; this is the banner magazine of the New Age Woo-Woo Flake portion of the poly community. Personally, I happen to consider them at best a bit cracked. They’re perpetrators of a number of myths and attitudes I find distasteful to actually harmful, among them the idea that “lovestyle” is a palatable word that actually describes anything that I do.
It’s worth noting that not all polyamorous folk would take advantage of legalised polygamy if it were to exist; some only have one marriagelike relationship, by personal rules or by happenstance. Some have none. I’m a member of a four-person family, with two legal marriages and two bond that will likely become marriagelike with a little more maturing. (Both the legally married pairings are nearly a decade old; the younger bonds are two or three years old.)
Meh. I should update my health care proxy, shouldn’t I?
Since I might have been the aforementioned hijacker, let me throw this out for folks to chew on.
Looking at it from a purely scientific perspective, humans appear to be naturally polygamous in the same way they are naturally carnivorous-- ie, by looking at our anatomy.
Our teeth and intestinal tract tell us we’re carnivorous. Our sexual dimorphism (difference in body size between the sexes) tells us we’re polygamous. Mammals that are monogomous (of which there are very few) tend to have males and females of equivalent size. Mammals that are polygaomous tend to have males larger than females. And the degree to which they are polygamous is related to the amount of the difference (think elephant seals with huge harems as an extreme example).
One might argue that it’s promiscuity rather polygamy, since only Humans “marry”, but that’s is more of a technicality. Those “promiscuous” male animals don’t make a habit of hiding their sexual activities with one female from other females.
It would seem that polygamy (as practiced in many, many cultures) is most likely a part of human nature. Of course we don’t know this with 100% certainty, but it’s that best that science can tell us.
Also, as far as know, some humans are naturally gay. We don’t know this for sure, but it seems to be the most likely explanation. Therefore, one could argue on strictly scientific grounds that the two are similar indeed in terms of whether or not society should be accepting of the practice. Or, once could argue that the “polygamy” behavior is a charactistic of humans “as a species” and not just of individuals, but that being gay is not a characteristic of the species as a whole.
Just some thoughts.
I posted this in the other thread, but I’m going to repeat it here as being somewhat more relevant.
I disagree that a two-parent household is more “stable” or “productive” at raising a child than a three-parent (or more) household. Nor do I believe that is inherently confusing to children.
In a three-parent household, you have three caregivers, instead of two, meaning that caregivers get more opportunity for rest and diversion. In addition, it is much easier to support three adults and a child on two incomes than two adults and a child on one income, meaning that you’re much more likely to be able to have a stay-at-home parent, which is universally acknowledged as better for children than daycare. A multiple parent environment is also more able to absorb parental illness or a loss of income.
It is widely regarded that multipartner relationships are less stable than two-partner relationships, but I do not believe there is any evidence to support this assertion. I do not believe that there have been any systematic studies of polygamous relationships other than the form practiced by separatist Mormons. Also, in a three-parent family, if one should choose to leave the relationship, the child still has two remaining parents, which is probably better for the child than the sole custodial parent that would remain in a standard monogamous divorce.
Nor will children be confused about their family situation. What will happen is that the children will run into intolerance from others who insist that their family has to have one mommy and one daddy. This same problem already occurs in children raised single-parent families and in same-sex partnerships. The solution to this is to stamp out the intolerance, not to stamp out the situations that narrow-minded people refuse to tolerate.
So I challenge elJeffe’s claim that a monogamous relationship is more stable, more productive, and less confusing, for the purpose of childrearing, as lacking either rational basis or supporting empirical evidence.
I will address the polygamy issue only because i dont think there is any scientific or sociological reason to prevent same sex marriages. Anyone who disagrees can say so and I will address that later.
Polygamy has serious problems tho. It is actually immaterial whether or not a pair of parents is more stabilizing than a multiple number of parents. Anyone watching primitive cultures where several families take care of each others children know that the number of parents isnt as important as the care and love they get from the entire group. It is forcing a child to interact with children of alien groups that screws him/her up. Yeah but thats the school system for ya (and quite a topic for a different thread) I mean to say that the law doesnt really care one way or another when something is doing fine. Its when it has to take care of the mess when it goes wrong that it starts looking deeper into things.
Divorce from a Polygamy is a legal nightmare. The law is already pretty messed up trying to figure out custody and redistribution of assets between 2 adverserial ex-partners and their lawyers I dont think it is capable of handling a breakup of multiple partners at the same time. Lets say one wife leaves a husband with 3 wives. If the other three says something against the departing wife is that majority rule or matrimonial influence? Is suing the husband for alimony and child support discrimanatory against the other wives? Does the wife only get one fifth of all assets or just a quarter of half the assets?
To allow multiple partner marriages is to write up a whole new set of rules and laws that will not only address the issues of the polygamist but must also not adversely affect the ones who chose to have only one partner. Therefore, allowing polygamy would need an act of congress and a lot of legislation.
Although I, too, can see work being necessary to make polygamous marriages legal, I do support it. As long as a relationship is comprised of adults making their own choices (gay, hetero, monogomous, polygamous), who is to say what they can and cannot do? As long as they are not harming anyone, let it be, me thinks.
X~Slayer(ALE), I recognize that there are complexities with allowing plural marriage, but I believe that they are manageable. A lot of the dissolution questions already have answers in business partnership dissolution law, for example.
In any case, at this point all I want to see is a repeal of all laws that criminalize polyamory. Legal recognition for plural marriage can come later. At the present time, it is a crime to be in a poly relationship in at least one state (Illinois) and probably several others, whether or not the partners claim to be “married”.
There is also one state in which discussing polygamy (specifically polygamy, I believe) as a positive possible life-structure is a felony. (I think it’s Michigan.)
This is something of an interesting issue, given that the founder of the political (currently dis)organisation I’m somewhat affiliated with that’s working towards starting to formulate activism on this subject lives in Michigan.
In most states, at least, the charge of adultery must be brought by the aggrieved party; this means that if the party in question is not actually aggrieved, there isn’t a criminal risk.
As I recall, you did indeed get an answer from Sua Sponte and at least one other lawyer. The answer is that, in some jurisdictions but not others, it is indeed possible for a homosexual adult to adopt a partner. The legal benefits of doing so, however, are somewhat questionable. You’re generally better off just arranging your affairs (medical power of attorney, inheritance, etc.) by contract, even in those states that would recognize such an adoption.
As for the OP, I have a serious problem with gender discrimination, which underlies the prohibition on homosexual marriages. I have no little or no problem with discrimination based on math, e.g., 2<3. Shack up with however many people you feel like, but don’t come whining to the state when it tells you that you can only marry one person at a time.
Did I miss it? Did you address the scientific or sociological reason to prevent polygamy?
Oh, if only that were true.
And Minty, does that mean you would also be supportive of removing laws (legistlatively) that prohibit polyamorous living and family arrangements, provided no more than two adults seek the benefits (or lack thereof) of legal marriage?
I don’t think the state is obligated to endorse polygamy simply because they legalized gay marriages. The differences between the two are obvious upon close examination.
One is monogamous and would have the same basic structure as heterosexual marriage. It wouldn’t be too hard to rewrite the laws either.
The other concept (polygamy) involves multiple partners and raises lots of problems that a simple gay marriage wouldn’t have.
Polygamy is simply too problematical to implement. We have enough problems with divorces between two people over child custody and property disputes, imagine if you add some additional people into the equation. It would be a nightmare.
How would the procedure work? Do you need the first wifes permission to get married to a second one? How many partners can be in this legal relationship? Can you be married to a man and a woman at the same time? If there is a dispute between partners over medical care for an incapacitated spouse, which spouse gets to make the final decision? If you are in a polygamous relationships, and A B and C are all married to each other, can B remain married to A but get divorced from C, while A is still married to C?
Legalizing polygamy would be a hell of a lot more complicated.
I think polygamy could eventually be legalized, and I for one would be in full support of a movement organized to pass such legislation. I’d be happy to contribute to that movement in any way I could.
However, the idea that legalizing gay marriage would somehow automatically bring legitimacy to polyamorous unions is laughable. It’s comparable to saying that legalizing interracial marriage opened the door for legalizing gay marriage. Sure, it might have helped a bit. But it’s taken three decades worth of dedicated work on the part of millions of people to get even this close to gay marriage, and we’re still a long ways away from achieving that goal.
Legalizing polyamorous marriage is going to be just as difficult, if not more so. Years of building a foundation for the legislation will be necessary; research, social movements, political organization, lobbyists, funding, community building, public relations… all of these will be necessary, along with copious amounts of research on legal ramifications, if polyamourous marriage legislation is even going to be approached.
As I said, I’ll be happy to support this movement. But I don’t want the issue of polyamorous marriage magically conflated in people’s minds with the issue of gay marriage. One does not imply the other; as has been pointed out by numerous posters, the problems involved are very, very different. Yet somehow, the opponents of gay marriage want people to believe that legalizing same-sex marriage with very specific changes to the law will miraculously throw open the doors to the mystical marriage kingdom, and everybody’s going to be able to marry everybody.
I do support the idea that government should have the ability to place restrictions on marriage. There are some restrictions to marriage that I believe are unfair, however. I think that those should be opposed, and ultimately fixed. And I see no problem in addressing separate legislative challenges separately.
One last question; has anyone heard of any polyamorous organizations that are insisting that if same-sex couples try and get legislation passed to allow them to marry, that it should be inclusive of polyamorous people? I haven’t. All I’ve seen is the opponents of same-sex marriage waving the scary-boogeyman of polygamy about, because people aren’t scared enough of the gays anymore.
Yes, they can and have. Here in Minnesota, one of a gay couple adopted the other (back in 1971!), and have been together ever since.
But this only circumvents some of the laws. For just one example, if one of them were to die and the other inherit, they would have to pay estate taxes on the inheritance. If they were a married couple, the survivor could inherit without any estate taxes.
Yes, although I’m not sure those laws could be constitutionally enforced at all.
Ok, not really sure whether this belongs in the other thread or this one, but I’ve been wondering about this:
What is required (in the US, to simplify the question) to make gay marriage legal?
What is required (in the US) to make polygamy legal?
I’m definitely in favor of gay marriage, but I’m not sure where I sit on the issue of polygamy. Do I oppose the repeal of whatever laws that criminalize polygamy? Yup. But, I don’t think that polygamous relationships should receive the same benefits as 2 partner relationships (I’m thinking specifically of tax breaks, health care benefits, etc…). Why? I believe that if the laws criminalizing polygamy were repealed, then many of those collateral benefits(e.g. visitation at hospital, health care, ownership) could be resolved through alternate methods, such as incorporation.
Additionally, I agree with those posters who have said that trying to link the legalization of polygamy with gay marriage is inappropriate, and undermines at this point the efforts to legalize gay marriage.
blanx
BTW, since I wasn’t clear, I fully agree with this, but I struggle to understand the reasoning to not address both.
But disagree with this.
The “procedure” would work much as it does today. No, you do not need the first wife’s permission to get married to the second, although I would hope advanced notice must be provided, and the first wife would have the option to leave the union. I see no reason to limit the number of partners at all. Of course one could be married to a man and a woman at the same time (although I couldn’t predict how common such an arrangement may be). The medical care issue is the first to sound particularly complicated, but just notice that two spouses could today disagree over the medical care of a child - how is that currently resolved? I could expand on this answer, but I just hope for you to recognize that this situation is not entirely unique. And “yes” is the answer to your final question.
Where is the nightmare and the “hell of alot more” complications?
I don’t believe this either, however, I certainly acknowledge support for any such effort is nowhere close to the horizon (so debating it seems a bit pointless, strictly on a practical matter).
I agree with this sentiment, although I haven’t seen it. Perhaps this came up in the context of Vermont’s legistlative action, but if so, I am not aware of it.
If this is a reference to Santorum’s comments, I think the issue he was addressing was different (but unnecessarily conflated with polygamy). While Santorum later made clear that he would not support gay marriage legistlation, his original comments conflated sexual activity - “consensual gay sex within your home” with the marriage related issues of bigamy and polygamy. His reference to both adultery and incest were more on target, and he could have included group sex properly.
It would be helpful if we could keep these concepts separate. I can understand arguments against both gay marriage and polyamorous unions, but I struggle with understanding arguments that the government has an interest in regulating sexual activity among consenting adults within the privacy of ones home.
I think most homosexuals would agree that while gay marriage rights would be nice, removing sodomy laws is a higher priority. Much the same could be said for the polyamorous community, I suspect.
To answer MrVisible’s last question, I am unaware of any polyamorous organizations that have insisted that any gay marriage laws incorporate poly unions as well (but wouldn’t be surprised to find that there are).
blanx, remember that (monogamous) marriage today doesn’t necessarily yield tax benefits - heard of the “marriage penalty”? Hopefully, that will be fixed soon. Frankly, I think our tax code is way too complicated, but I don’t understand reasoning why marriage should be a basis for either tax benefits or tax penalties. The state should not be in the business of incenting or disincenting marriage through tax policy generally.
I can appreciate that incorporating poly unions with gay marriage legistlation would make that legistlation less likely to pass as a practical matter, and therefore, I can understand your position if this issue hits close to home. I cannot understand your position if you hold it on any sort of idealistic basis, such as a libertarian philosophy.
While I appreciate the “yes”, I don’t understand the constitutional issue. I asked about legistlative action that would remove laws that prohibit polyamorous living arrangements. Your answer would seem to imply that states (or the federal government) are under some constitutional obligation to prevent such arrangements, and I just don’t see it. More likely, I just failed to understand your point. I defer to your expertise in this area, but I would appreciate a further clarification.
To make my position clear, I am not an active advocate for legalizing polyamorous unions or gay marriage, although I would clearly support either or both. However, I do actively support the removal of any laws that prevent gay or polyamorous “activities”. I believe sufficient legal instruments exist to allow poly groups to function in an arrangement similar to marriage, and I don’t decry the extra hoops they would have to jump through to protect themselves.
While I think the “slippery slope” argument is valid, I also believe the laws regarding unions could easily differentiate between gay unions and poly unions. IOW, I’d support gay marriage legistlation that doesn’t also include some polygamy component as well.
Actually, I believe there are such studies. I have not read the studies themselves, and rely only on the accuracy of the interpretation excerpted below.
A few other myths are busted by studies referenced on that page, such as:
AZCowboy- I was oversimplyfying about the marriage benefits re taxation- I was thinking more about the joint ownership of property, etc, and conflated the issues.
I’m a straight white male. Pretty much “the Man” who is keeping people down. 
But, I can’t see how gay people should not be able to marry. My opposition to poly-marriages isn’t based in an opposition to poly-lifestyle, rather it’s pragmatic. Once the laws restricting poly-behavior are repealed, there are already structures in place in the law which could cover the collateral “stuff.” For instance, a poly-family could incorporate.
blanx
blanx, but couldn’t you make the same argument about gay marriage, or even monogamous marriage, for that matter? Why the distinction?