# "Some marriages between consenting adults should be recognized, but not others" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988 "2014-11-18T19:06:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/41 "2014-11-18T20:50:28Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > I am morally fine with poly marriages (assuming no abuse, but then that applies to two person marriages also). Legally, I think it should be treated as a business partnership, with whatever rules there are for distributing the assets when a business with more than 2 people dissolves (similar to divorce). My only real concern is making sure the kids are treated fairly, but I believe family court gives wide latitude to judges in this matter anyway to allow for a case-by-base treatment. > > I think the big reason poly relationships don’t get the media traction is that the number of people wanting to enter a poly relationship is quite low and there’s not the groundswell of support to get the politicians to rewrite the laws for them. > > As far as incestuous marriages, the genetic thing with the offspring is the thing that worries me. I haven’t heard a good argument against that. What about gay incestuous marriage? No genetic problems there. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/42 "2014-11-18T20:53:13Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am not entirely sure what to make of incestuous marriages. In another thread I discovered that the birth defect issue isn’t nearly as large as I previously thought, so I’m still coming around to my new position (assuming I take one). A question : is marriage about being able to produce children, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/43 "2014-11-18T20:56:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Nice if you had bothered to read the rest of my post. “We don’t know how to do this” is not a good argument against if lots of other countries have done it. There are lots of better arguments against. It’s a perfectly good argument if we have not assessed how other countries have done it or if we share laws with those other countries. Marriage is contextual, not absolute. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/44 "2014-11-18T21:01:54Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > As far as incestuous marriages, the genetic thing with the offspring is the thing that worries me. I haven’t heard a good argument against that. What if they don’t have offspring? Should we ban non-incestuous marriages that are likely to produce genetically defunct offspring? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/45 "2014-11-18T21:02:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The power imbalance argument is much better - until we have a society where women are truly equal with respect to results it sounds like a bad idea. Does it sound like a bad idea to allow monogamous heterosexual marriages in a society where women aren’t truly equal, then? If it doesn’t, why? > [@](#): > > But it is even worse in terms of income inequality. It is bad enough that the 1% have most of the money - should we let them get most of the spouses also? And they would. And advertise their harems in the Style section. > No thanks. And what prevents wealthy people from having most of the sexual partners available, currently? Why do you think marriage would change a thing? And what gives you the right to decide that people shouldn’t be allowed to marry/fuck/whatever wealthy people just so that they would stay available for others? Can I also ask that women be banned from dating young, attractive and intelligent men so that I could have my chance? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/46 "2014-11-18T21:03:25Z")
I think the question boils down to this: We are in the process, as a society, of agreeing that dyadic marriage is still an important social construct, important enough to allow same-sex couples the privilege of marriage. We’re deciding that there is a social benefit to be gained by allowing SSM, and a social detriment to its continued prohibition. So: Is there a societal benefit to allowing or disallowing poly marriages or line marriages? Is there a societal detriment to allowing or disallowing them? And: Is there a societal benefit to reducing the incest taboo? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/47 "2014-11-18T21:10:27Z")
> [@andros](#): > > I think the question boils down to this: > > We are in the process, as a society, of agreeing that dyadic marriage is still an important social construct, important enough to allow same-sex couples the privilege of marriage. We’re deciding that there is a social benefit to be gained by allowing SSM, and a social detriment to its continued prohibition. > > So: Is there a societal benefit to allowing or disallowing poly marriages or line marriages? Is there a societal detriment to allowing or disallowing them? > > And: Is there a societal benefit to reducing the incest taboo? What is exactly the social benefit of allowing SSM, and the social detriment of not allowing it? If you can tell me that, and it can’t apply also to polygamous/incestuous marriage, then you have an argument against the latter two. ---
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/48 "2014-11-18T21:12:22Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What if they don’t have offspring? > > Should we ban non-incestuous marriages that are likely to produce genetically defunct offspring? What if they do? Surely you agree that it would be absolutely better for society if we could reduce genetic defects among the population. The question is whether that concern for society outweighs the burden placed on an incestuous couple. Of course, you could argue that they might go ahead have have their two-headed children out of wedlock anyway, but you could also argue that we don’t want to encourage that. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/49 "2014-11-18T21:16:56Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > What is exactly the social benefit of allowing SSM, and the social detriment of not allowing it? If you can tell me that, and it can’t apply also to polygamous/incestuous marriage, then you have an argument against the latter two. Not necessarily. I can see how a society might decide that dyads are superior and should be encouraged, while multiple marriages are inferior and should be discouraged. In a broad sense. Ditto for incest; I can understand an argument that the incest taboo is directly beneficial to society for reasons unrelated to marriage issues. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/50 "2014-11-18T21:17:52Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > As far as incestuous marriages, the genetic thing with the offspring is the thing that worries me. I haven’t heard a good argument against that. Some arguments : -Marriage isn’t about producing children. Not anymore, at least. -People carrying genetical defects with a high or even certain risk of being inherited by children are allowed to marry and reproduce. _Even_ if their spouse carry the same defective gene, so rising the likelihood that potential children will inherit it. If marrying is allowed when there’s a _known_ risk, why isn’t it when there’s simply an higher than normal risk? -If siblings or whatever marry and have sex, presumably they still would have sex even if they weren’t married. Getting married or not doesn’t change the slightest bit the likelihood of sex resulting in children. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/51 "2014-11-18T21:20:47Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > What if they do? Surely you agree that it would be absolutely better for society if we could reduce genetic defects among the population. The question is whether that concern for society outweighs the burden placed on an incestuous couple. Of course, you could argue that they might go ahead have have their two-headed children out of wedlock anyway, but you could also argue that we don’t want to encourage that. That entire argument is tainted, IMHO, by a pervasive overestimation of the risk of defect. We have it in our heads that offspring of filial unions are guaranteed to be malformed or defective, or have two heads. But the actual genetic risk is awfully small. At least in a single generation. As **Hector** points out, the real risk comes from inbreeding among successive generations. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/52 "2014-11-18T21:23:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Possibly, but if it’s consenting adults, then the wives entered into it voluntarily, just like there are spouses who enter into traditional marriages voluntarily. If only you hadn’t cut my quote off, you would have seen my very next sentence: > [@me](#): > > That is not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason to oppose polygamy, since there are also non-abusive polygamous relationships. Why you would cut my quote off only to rebut me by saying almost exactly the thing I said is mysterious. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The basic social problem with polygamy is that in a society with even gender ratios, if some men have many wives that means other men won’t be able to find sexual / romantic partners. In a society like Paraguay after the War of the Triple Alliance (where something like 50% of women and 90% of men had been killed, leaving five women alive for every man), polygamy could work excellently. Not here and now, though. IMO that’s a terrible reason to oppose polygamy, inasmuch as it suggests men are entitled to wives. No, they’re not. Women get to choose the relationships they want, with whom they want, when they want, in the structure they want. If it turns out that a lot of women really want to be in polygynous relationships, that’s not the business of anyone except those women and the man whom they marry. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Regarding the ‘legal complexity’ thing, you could simply borrow from the legal countries of other countries (including former British colonies, which presumably share some of our legal tradition) that allow polygamy. Whereas **Velocity** erred in cutting off the quote too soon, you err in starting the quote too late. If you’d quoted the sentence right before the part you actually quoted, you would have seen a rebuttal to this proposed solution: > [@me](#): > > polygamous marriages are fundamentally different both from one another and from binary marriages: the people in them have so many different structures to their relationships that it’s very difficult to figure out a one-size-fits-all model for them. In other words, the polygamous legal structures existing in, say, India (where Muslim men may take multiple wives) is not going to work for a hippie commune where three men and three women want to join all together in a multiple marriage. I am entirely unconvinced that if we’re going to have just one strucutre, the India model is the one we want. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/53 "2014-11-18T21:23:30Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Not necessarily. I can see how a society might decide that dyads are superior and should be encouraged, while multiple marriages are inferior and should be discouraged. In a broad sense. And society might decide that dyads of the opposite sex are superior and should encouraged, while same sex marriages are inferior and should be discouraged. In a broad sense. I think you need an argument as for why they’re superior. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/54 "2014-11-18T21:29:55Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > What if they do? Surely you agree that it would be absolutely better for society if we could reduce genetic defects among the population. The question is whether that concern for society outweighs the burden placed on an incestuous couple. Of course, you could argue that they might go ahead have have their two-headed children out of wedlock anyway, but you could also argue that we don’t want to encourage that. So you would prohibit incestuous marriage because they \*might \*have children, and the children \*might \*be defective? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/55 "2014-11-18T21:32:42Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > A question : is marriage about being able to produce children, in your opinion? No, not at all. But a marriage is more likely to produce children than most relationships, _ceteris paribus_. This is more of a child-prevention thing than a child-encouragement thing. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/56 "2014-11-18T21:36:28Z")
First, I think that in very special circumstances, consanguineous marriages are actually allowed. If two people who are closely related by blood-- it will usually be people who share one biological parent-- but don’t realize it, because they are not legally relatives, due to adoption, sperm donation, undisclosed adultery, rape, or something else I haven’t thought of, happen to meet and marry, and then later discover they are related, there is no legal requirement that they dissolve their marriage. Of course, they are not _legally_ related. These instances are going to be very small in number, that they are probably statistically negligible. However, I am not a lawyer nor an actuary. Polygamous marriages I think, open up some opportunities for fraud. There’s a limit to the number of green card marriages that happen, because you can be married to only one person at a time, and someone who wants to be with a genuine romantic partner isn’t available for a green card marriage. If you could be married to as many people as you wanted at once, there’d be more marriages for green cards, or cheap health insurance. Also, there’d be a question about who is someone’s next of kin in a polygamous relationship. If a guy with five wives arrives unconscious at a hospital, and someone needs to make decisions, there needs to be new law. It is very easy to legislate SSM under current laws. It’s not possible to do that with polygamy. Incest is legal, I think, if the people who are biologically related are not legally related. If they are “regular” family under typical circumstances, it isn’t legal, but it’s questionable for other reasons than just the fact that it’s incest. As someone else said upthread, can we be sure the relation really began when both people were consenting adults, and absolutely not at all before. If we allow incestuous marriages, I think they are going to have to stand up to some scrutiny, and someone has to do the scrutinizing, which means again, new law. I’m glad you didn’t mention inter-species marriages. They have consent issues, and again, you’d need new law. You can’t just say “More kinds of couples, under existing laws.” When miscegenation laws were struck down, the situation was the same as it is for gay couples-- there was no need for revision of current marriage laws to allow interracial couples. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/57 "2014-11-18T21:39:07Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And society might decide that dyads of the opposite sex are superior and should encouraged, while same sex marriages are inferior and should be discouraged. In a broad sense. > > I think you need an argument as for why they’re superior. 😕 Apparently I appear to be making some sort of argument, but for the life of me I have no idea what you think that is. Yes, we are deciding in the US that same-sex dyads are no longer considered a societal ill, and the taboo against homosexuality is not benefiting us. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/58 "2014-11-18T21:50:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, not at all. But a marriage is more likely to produce children than most relationships, _ceteris paribus_. This is more of a child-prevention thing than a child-encouragement thing. I don’t think so. I think that people marry when they decide to have children, rather than have children because they’re married. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/59 "2014-11-18T21:55:29Z")
> [@andros](#): > > 😕 > > Apparently I appear to be making some sort of argument, but for the life of me I have no idea what you think that is. > > Yes, we are deciding in the US that same-sex dyads are no longer considered a societal ill, and the taboo against homosexuality is not benefiting us. Ok, so I asked you : why exactly? And how does it not apply also to for instance incestuous marriage? You answered roughly : society can decide to prefer monogamous marriage. Yes, sure, but it can also decide to prefer heterosexual marriage. You didn’t respond at all to my question. What is the societal benefit of SSM that wouldn’t exist for incestuous marriage? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/60 "2014-11-18T21:58:28Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Also, there’d be a question about who is someone’s next of kin in a polygamous relationship. If a guy with five wives arrives unconscious at a hospital, and someone needs to make decisions, there needs to be new law. > . And there also need to be a new law urgently for cases when a guy with five children arrives unconscious at a hospital, and someone needs to make decisions because this problem is stil unsolved. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988.md?page=4)