# The slippery slope in action: re-redefining marraige **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [July 3, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143 "2015-07-03T16:20:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/101 "2015-07-06T22:49:00Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I’m not sure what this has to do with my post, which was about the potential problem of a new co-spouse being added to a marriage and gaining rights regarding the existing property and children of that marriage without the consent of the first spouse. The whole point of legally recognizing polygamous marriage would be to grant the rights of marriage to multiple spouses at the same time. If it were just about having sex with different partners then that’s something people can already legally do. > > Legal polygamy in the rest of the world already unmagically allows a man to bring home a new wife without the consent of his previous wife or wives. Polygamous marriage in the US _could_ be different and more equitable, but if polygamous marriage advocates want to win over the general public then they’re going to have to explain exactly how this would work. You were replying to a question I had intended for **puzzlegal.** Most of my comments in reply to yours were aimed mainly at her. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/102 "2015-07-06T22:55:35Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Exactly. There are a lot of i’s to dot and t’s to cross to get there. > > No, it doesn’t automatically make my marriage polygamous. But it does automatically open the question. > > As for the vows we took, hmm, I think they were something along the lines of “according to the laws of the people of Israel”, so maybe my husband didn’t vow monogamy… Well, not formally, anyway. > > I’m certainly not claiming that every monogamous marriage would instantly become polygamous. I assume most wouldn’t. But it would change the legal nature of every marriage, even if it didn’t retroactively change the moral nature. > > By the way, I once attended a marriage of two polyamorous folks. They explicitly avoided vowing monogamy. They vowed “to put you ahead of all others”, or something like that. The current laws don’t, by any means, prevent consensual polyamory. They do affect the legal status of such relationships. Right. So put another way: Your marriage with your spouse is assumed monogamous as the vast majority are. If legal polygamy opened the question with your spouse, you’re looking at a fundamentally different contract\* than the one you signed up for. \*I don’t necessarily mean that in the legal sense. The legal questions of polygamy would be myriad, but the fact remains, marriage in practice is something you honor, respect and understand the ground rules on a basic, human level between you and your partner before you even slip on the rings. ---
**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:** [July 7, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/103 "2015-07-07T04:25:19Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Polygamy as it is practiced in other countries today generally does not require a wife to consent to her husband marrying another woman. (AFAIK no country currently allows a woman to have multiple husbands.) I think a lot of Americans would have a big problem with the idea that their spouse could unilaterally decide to legally add a third party to their marriage. Divorce would of course be an option in the US, but property division and custody arrangements in a divorce with three parties involved would presumably be even more complicated than a divorce between two people, so an after-the-fact divorce doesn’t seem like the best solution in cases where one spouse never wanted to be in a polygamous marriage in the first place. > > If the US legalized polygamy then we wouldn’t have to do it the same way other countries have – at the very least we’d presumably allow multiple husbands as well as multiple wives – and I can imagine several ways that polygamy could be implemented that would protect people from having new co-spouses sprung on them without their prior agreement. But this is something advocates for polygamous marriage are going to need to address if they want the idea to gain mainstream acceptance. These are far better reasons against it than that “it is too complicated.” Case in point. Our tour guide in Egypt’s husband took a second wife when he was tired of her. The second wife of course had the benefits of being married. The situation became intolerable, and our guide asked for, and got, a divorce. This wasn’t hard to get, but she lost out on her dowry and the kinds of benefits divorced spouses in the US get. Here the husband would have had to divorce her, and give her a settlement, before being married to the second wife, there he did not. So I agree - the reason for polygamy not to be legalized is that it is inherently unfair to the partner who is one of several partners. Even if we allowed one women with multiple husbands here, the same could happen with a man being at a disadvantage. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/104 "2015-07-09T10:43:17Z")
Yes, in most places where polygamy is practiced, existing spouses have little to no rights prevent their partner taking additional spouses. I don’t think that would fly in the US, though. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/105 "2015-07-09T11:37:27Z")
I refuse to accept “I don’t like that things are changing” as an argument against change, whether it’s forms of marriage, family structures or the dilution of the particular “race” (seriously, those White Genocide people are insane). Things are always changing. Show an actual demonstrable harm or GTFO. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/106 "2015-07-09T13:42:52Z")
In the modern era, the definition of marriage has been changed from “two consenting adults of the opposite sex” to “two consenting adults.” PERIOD. I’ll never forget one anti SSM protestor telling me “Someone in Australia married his dog.” I shot back “That’s strange. Australia doesn’t have GAY marriage yet.” Another protestor said “They’ll be having sex in the streets. I told him to show me where in the decision it said that, because I must have missed it.” ---
**Author:** ![OffByOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/45deac/32.png) [@OffByOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OffByOne)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/107 "2015-07-09T15:10:03Z")
Am I wrong in thinking that those who support the right of any person to marry whomever they chose, should stop using terms like “same sex marriage” and “gay marriage”? When you use those terms, it sounds like it supposed to be something different than “regular” marriage. It is not! What’s wrong with “marriage equality”? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/108 "2015-07-09T15:14:59Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > Am I wrong in thinking that those who support the right of any person to marry whomever they chose, should stop using terms like “same sex marriage” and “gay marriage”? When you use those terms, it sounds like it supposed to be something different than “regular” marriage. It is not! > > What’s wrong with “marriage equality”? “Same-sex marriage” is marriage, but in a conversation specifically about same-sex marriage it adds a certain amount of clarity to be specific. In other contexts, “marriage” is fine. I wouldn’t say “my friends Pat and Chris just got same-sex-married”; I’d just say they got “married”. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/109 "2015-07-09T17:00:08Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Well, except for all [those cultures throughout history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#Classical_Europe.2C_Middle_East.2C_and_China)where [it wasn’t](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit). While I’m in favor of legal, state-sanctioned same-sex marriage (and in fact took an active, if small, role in bringing it about in my state), I’m pretty sure that it is in fact a new thing. Your cites are questionable. From your own cites: > [@](#): > > At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy’s military training. While the relationship was generally lifelong and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture, and the relationship continued even after participants reached age 20 and married women, as was expected in the culture. > [@](#): > > It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases). And, in the case of the “two-spirit” phenomenon in indigenous American cultures, one party to the relationship did not identify as a male. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/110 "2015-07-09T17:15:44Z")
I sometimes look into these thread hoping I’ll spot the way in which someone is affected by someone else’s marriage. I really don’t understand some people’s militant stance against SSM. And the thing about someone marrying their dog- don’t marriage licenses require the signatures of the participants? AFAIK, paw print’s aren’t allowed on legal documents. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/111 "2015-07-10T14:59:08Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > The link in the OP is regarding a former Mormon man now unaffiliated with any religion. In the Mormon or former Mormon community that practices polygamy, does the first wife have consent over bringing further wives home? I know that there have been some Mormon cults that practiced polygamy where the wives had practically no say, but I don’t know if that’s an outlier or not. I guess it might be hard to get data since many would try to fly under the radar. Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet produced a purported revelation with a commandment from God to practice polygamy. This revelation is still part of the Mormon canonized scriptures as Section 132 in the LDS _Doctrine and Covenants_. In Section 132, Joseph’s first wife, Emma, is commanded to accept the other wives or be destroyed, something she didn’t agree with, so she threw away the copy shown to her by Joseph’s brother, Hyrum. Within that section, the right of the first wife to accept or refuse other wives is called the Law of Sarah, from Abraham’s wive. However, there is a loophole what if the first wife disagrees, the husband is exempt from the Law of Sarah, and can take other wives without his first wife’s consent. Consequently, that rule is pretty meaningless. Any of the Mormon (using the term generically for followers of people who believe in the Book of Mormon, and not specifically that of the LDS faith) followers who believe in polygamy, believe it comes from that revelation, and hence that there really isn’t a need for consent from the first wife. In practice, the independent polygamists are much more likely to obtain consent than members of fundamentalist groups such as the FLDS. ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/112 "2015-07-11T20:57:15Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > What’s wrong with “marriage equality”? I think Evan Wolfson used “same-sex marriage.” Personally I use “same-sex marriage” when I need to refer to that specific subcatgory because it’s strictly accurate – it includes bisexual people who are marrying someone of the same sex (and even straight people if any choose to do so). “Gay marriage” and to a lesser extent “marriage equality” open the arguer up to someone raising the fact that even in jurisdictions that don’t recognize marriages between people of the same sex, all people, gay, straight, bi, and anything else, have an equal right to marry if you don’t take their feelings into account; no one would stand in the way of an asexual man marrying a lesbian if they both wanted that. The fight is not for the right of gay people to marry, but for the right of gay people, and everyone else, to marry their respective partners (within reason). > [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > I sometimes look into these thread hoping I’ll spot the way in which someone is affected by someone else’s marriage. I really don’t understand some people’s militant stance against SSM. And the thing about someone marrying their dog- don’t marriage licenses require the signatures of the participants? AFAIK, paw print’s aren’t allowed on legal documents. Best I can tell, there are three arguments: [ol] [li]The circular “now I have to live in a place where same-sex couples can get married”[/li][li]Slippery-slope arguments[/li][li]Moral/religious arguments along the lines of “if we allow this the country will no longer be under divine protection and I’ll be eaten by locusts”[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143/113 "2015-07-13T05:23:38Z")
The only other reason I’ve seen is that “redefining” marriage to also include same sex couples somehow lessens the meaning of the word “marriage.” That also have never been explained. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-slippery-slope-in-action-re-redefining-marraige/724143.md?page=5)