# "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:** 4
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/61 "2014-11-18T22:01:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > IMO that’s a terrible reason to oppose polygamy, inasmuch as it suggests men are entitled to wives. Not necessarily that men are entitled to wives; but it suggests the danger (which could be literally dangerous) of a society in which large numbers of men do not have, and have little hope of having, wives and families. ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/62 "2014-11-18T22:02:36Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were asking me the question. My questions were rhetorical, I assumed yours was the same. > [@](#): > > What is the societal benefit of SSM that wouldn’t exist for incestuous marriage? I don’t think there are any. OTOH, I do think there \*could \*be societal detriments to minimizing the incest taboo, detriments which would not exist for SSM. ---
**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, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/63 "2014-11-18T22:04:43Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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. No there doesn’t. That case law already exists. ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/64 "2014-11-18T22:06:17Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Not necessarily that men are entitled to wives; but it suggests the danger (which could be literally dangerous) of a society in which large numbers of men do not have, and have little hope of having, wives and families. I suspect some people would consider it a form of social Darwinism. ---
**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, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/65 "2014-11-18T22:06:24Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Not necessarily that men are entitled to wives; but it suggests the danger (which could be literally dangerous) of a society in which large numbers of men do not have, and have little hope of having, wives and families. It suggests that women as a whole don’t care about such danger, too. We cannot force someone to marry, or prevent them from getting married, out of some fear that all the chicks will dig the guys with fat wallets or whatever exactly the fear is. It’d be akin to banning SSM because it takes women out of circulation and if everyone got gay married there’d be no future generations: it’s not a legitimate danger. ---
**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, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/66 "2014-11-18T22:10:34Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Not necessarily that men are entitled to wives; but it suggests the danger (which could be literally dangerous) of a society in which large numbers of men do not have, and have little hope of having, wives and families. I’m not sure I can get behind that level of social engineering. “We won’t allow you to form the marriage you want because that means someone else doesn’t get to marry you.” ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/67 "2014-11-18T22:12:07Z")
I supported SSM when the local LBGT community was all about partner benefits not marriage. I made one lesbian with a petition a partner benefits petition rather irate at my support of SSM… but refusal to sign her petition. Their proposed legal changes didn’t seem fair or well thought out. That really speaks to my only issue with polygamy. There’s no law on the the table that we’re considering. It would take a whole body of law to create a structure with all the varying legal nuances behind it. In my mind it should be robust enough to handle mixes of genders not just M and multiple Fs or F and multiple Ms so it’s not unfair to say a MMM group marriage or a MMFF group marriage. SSM marriage was relatively easy since the legal change was largely to just ignore the distribution of genitalia within the couple getting married. Incest I’d probably restrict to those without a direct line of descendance. The power issues at play from before hitting age of consent make that seem problematic. For the small numbers who might feel their rights are impinged that seems worth protecting the children that are being groomed for it before they can consent. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/68 "2014-11-18T22:15:15Z")
Personally, and some have disagreed with this stance before, I believe being gay is a state of sexual orientation that one is born with, just as being straight is. Limiting someone because of how they are born, something they have no power over, should be done very very sparingly. But here’s where I differ in polygamy: I don’t think anyone is ever born polygamously amorous. You can desire a man as a man, but I don’t believe sexuality is as specific where a person can only be happy desiring X number of people. Even if it is somehow in-born, we do limit some birth conditions. Alcoholism has been linked to genes, so some people are more susceptible. We can help them by treating it as such, but we’re not going so far as to say all drunks aren’t responsible because they have a predisposition. In the real world, pretty much all polygamy has been linked to harmful cults. There is actually real harm when it comes to polygamy unlike gays. There is absolutely zero harm that comes from being gay, acting gay, or allowing gays to marry. So until polygamy becomes more mundane and less harmful, I’m fine banning it ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/69 "2014-11-18T22:16:29Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > We cannot … prevent them from getting married… We already _do_ prevent people from marrying more than one person at a time. It seems odd to say we cannot do something we’re already doing. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/70 "2014-11-18T22:27:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. They can choose to be in polygynous relationships right now, they just aren’t allowed to call themselves ‘married’ or enjoy the legal benefits thereof. I’m not paternalistically telling the women that ‘ooh, polygamy is patriarchal and evil, don’t let yourself be exploited’. My concerns are entirely about how polygamy would affect the broader society. (N.B. I’m not a great foe of polygamy- it doesn’t particularly bother me at the individual level. At the social level, though, I think there is a serious problem that might be raised by polygamy, and that problem needs to be addressed). ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/71 "2014-11-18T23:45:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No there doesn’t. That case law already exists. That’s exactly what I meant. That’s not really an issue. Just use the same principle. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/72 "2014-11-19T00:14:19Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Personally, and some have disagreed with this stance before, I believe being gay is a state of sexual orientation that one is born with, just as being straight is. Limiting someone because of how they are born, something they have no power over, should be done very very sparingly. But here’s where I differ in polygamy: I don’t think anyone is ever born polygamously amorous. You can desire a man as a man, but I don’t believe sexuality is as specific where a person can only be happy desiring X number of people. The problem from my point of view is that I don’t think that “homosexual sex and homosexual marriage should be legal because people are born that way” is a good line of reasonning. I think they should be legal because it’s nobody’s else business with whom you fuck, or how you fuck. If tomorrow it was discovered that in fact homosexuality isn’t at all innate, but really a mother issue, and a reliable way of reeducating homosexuals was discovered by the Baptist church, do you think all homosexuals should be converted and homosexuality made unlawful again? So, from my point of view, “they prefer it this way” is as good a reason as any. Besides, let’s assume a trio is perfectly happy this way. Is the fact that theorically they could have been happy too in some monogamous combination if their lives had been different a good enough reason to tell them to split? And if we think it’s perfectly legitimate to live in whatever combination you like better, is there any theoretical (I’m not discussing the practicality of the thing, here) reason why their combination of choice shouldn’t get recognition too? I’m talking about that because in thes debates, people objecting to polygamous/incestuous marriage might come up with objections, but I can’t help but wonder every time if they aren’t actively seeking objections because they dislike the idea rather than because they would be perfectly OK with it in theory but actually see practical issues. Or if they don’t actively dislike it, simply for the same reason many people objected to SSM : that’s weird, that’s not done culturally, so I’m uncomfortable with the idea, can’t I find some objection? ---
**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 19, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/73 "2014-11-19T00:43:04Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s exactly what I meant. That’s not really an issue. Just use the same principle. 😕 “The same principle” is not the same thing as “currently-existing case law.” There’s already case law suggesting that the surviving spouse is the one who makes the decision. WHen there’s multiple spouses, there’s gonna be lawsuits. And this is one of the easier questions. When you get into custody and child support is where it gets super-tricky. Turning it around, do you genuinely believe that legalizing polygamy in its many forms is as trivially easy as legalizing SSM? > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > We already _do_ prevent people from marrying more than one person at a time. It seems odd to say we cannot do something we’re already doing. Sorry–this was poorly phrased. I meant something like “cannot justifiably.” Of course we CAN do it. We shouldn’t. ---
**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:** [November 19, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/74 "2014-11-19T00:46:33Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 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? This point was in response to the claim that women could have multiple husbands also. Yes they could, but not to the same extent because of the imbalance of incomes. There are plenty of arguments against the gender income gap - can you come up with one involving monogamous marriage? I can’t think of any myself. > [@](#): > > 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? Well in France I suppose they do … Statistics I’ve seen indicate we’re not all that monogamous, but there is no expectation of exclusivity in the long term for affairs. Here’s an example of the problem from the tour guide we had in Egypt. She was married to a guy, who tired of her and married someone else. In that culture especially she was frozen out of the relationship. Divorce at least is relatively simple there, but it was very costly to her to get out of the marriage. Her husband could get everything he wanted with the blessing of society, and she couldn’t. There was no reason for him to initiate a divorce and pay for it. If he were seeing something else, as opposed to being married to someone else, she would have been able to get her dowry back no doubt. ---
**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 19, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/75 "2014-11-19T00:50:31Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’m talking about that because in thes debates, people objecting to polygamous/incestuous marriage might come up with objections, but I can’t help but wonder every time if they aren’t actively seeking objections because they dislike the idea rather than because they would be perfectly OK with it in theory but actually see practical issues. I can’t speak for others, but I absolutely think poly marriages should be legalized. My main objection in these cases is that sometimes folks seem to try to link SSM to poly marriage, and I worry (much less now than in the past) that too heavy a link between them will postpone legalization of SSM, since SSM is legitimately much easier to legalize than poly marriage is. Let’s get SSM taken care of, and then I’m totally on board with word toward legalizing poly marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/76 "2014-11-19T00:51:13Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > The problem from my point of view is that I don’t think that “homosexual sex and homosexual marriage should be legal because people are born that way” is a good line of reasonning. I think they should be legal because it’s nobody’s else business with whom you fuck, or how you fuck. Who a person can legally have sex with and who a person can legally marry are two separate issues. Why are you conflating them? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/77 "2014-11-19T00:52:45Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s exactly what I meant. That’s not really an issue. Just use the same principle. Not really sure that the cases can be overlaid onto a common template that way. Five sons didn’t have the choice of whom to have as a father. Five wives DID have a choice of whom to have as a husband. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/78 "2014-11-19T01:11:08Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Unless those causes share similarity. Except that your cases don’t share similarity. To take just the most obvious example, polygamy introduces a fundamental complication (a married person can leave while leaving the marriage still in existence) that by definition cannot occur in monogamous marriage. ---
**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 19, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/79 "2014-11-19T01:15:26Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Not really sure that the cases can be overlaid onto a common template that way. > > Five sons didn’t have the choice of whom to have as a father. Five wives DID have a choice of whom to have as a husband. And even if the cases can be overlaid on a common template that way, the fact that it’s arguable means that there’s gonna be a lot of very ugly drawn-out lawsuits around the subject unless the law is clarified first. This’ll take more than the red crayon approach. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988/80 "2014-11-19T01:36:09Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > 1. “Incestuous or polygamous marriage is disgusting” - isn’t that exactly what people have said about gay marriage? > > 2. “Incestuous or polygamous marriage is immoral” - isn’t that exactly what people have said about gay marriage? > > 3. “People could fraudulently claim multiple spouses for tax benefits” - what if a law allowed people to claim only 1 spouse for tax deductions, no matter how many spouses they actually had? > > 4. “Incestuous marriage would cause inbreeding and genetic problems” - what if they don’t have children? And even if so, is that the government’s business? > > 5. “Society isn’t ready for incestuous or polygamous marriage” - isn’t that exactly what people have said about gay marriage? I’m sure people said all of these (except 3, I guess) about interracial marriage, too. Some are still saying it. Well, before you could legalize incestuous marriage, I guess you’d have to legalize incest, at least in places where lack of consummation or consort is grounds for annulment/divorce. Good luck with that. Meantime, my country’s had gay marriage for almost a decade now, with no breakdown in the social order I’m aware of, nor a growing demand for incest/poly marriages, so forget all that slippery slope bullshit. Personally, I think polygamous marriage, if we’re to have it at all, should be based on legal partnerships and not legal marriage as it currently exists, just as a matter of practicality. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-marriages-between-consenting-adults-should-be-recognized-but-not-others/704988.md?page=5)