If does fit with Wrenchslinger’s question: what is marriage? However, behind that question was another: should civil marriages be issued for specified periods of time, say, six or seven years, at which time the marriage may be renewed or not… ?
What I was trying to say, rather badly, was that monogamy is a worthwhile form of relationship between loving adults. I didn’t take the time to point out the many religious and cultural pressures that distorted the notion of monogamous unions in the past. For instance, the priest telling the beaten wife to go back to her husband and obey. Monogamous unions improved in some ways since the sixities while suffering or failing to improve in others.
I disagree with the moral minority who are trying to hang on to their Ozzie and Harriet definition of marriage. I also disagree with Bush’s plan to ban gay/ lesbian marriages. And although I find it odd, it doesn’t bother me that a small number of couples may choose to invite another adult or two into their relationship. If it’s between consenting adults, no one is harmed and it doesn’t cost me anything, it’s none of my business.
Did I imply that? I didn’t mean to. I was asked to join a committed long-term relationship with a man who wanted me to seek men outside the relationship. It was not my cup of tea and I said no. We are still friends. It’s a shame that our ideals for a relationship clash. A few months later, I was asked to participate in a casual short term way to the same sort of thing by another man I was seeing casually. To which I also said no. (I’m a real party pooper!) Anyway it should be pretty clear to you that I grasp the nuances… So as I said above, yes, long-term commitment can occur between more than two adults or between two adults who wish to step out or whatever.
I wrote that last sentence without explaining the reasoning behind it all. Sorry about the lazy writing. I was thinking of civil marriage contracts with set times for renewal or dissolution. Vows would be renewed at the end of a specified date. It sounds horrid, but it may work for some couples. Those who marry young, as I did, or those who must travel a great deal for work, movie stars etc. might wish to choose this option.
kellyM,
A light just went on in my head. You are transgendered?
If so, my confusion is over. I agree that transgendered individuals do have a tough time in many ways that could be addressed with some open-mindedness in society and the law.
KellyM is transsexual. I am female and bisexual. I gave birth to my daughter the natural way, just as I conceived her, nothing so unusual about that.
No, we have not made a public declaration. There is a felony involved in doing so.
Well, it all makes sense now.
I didn’t ask if you made a public declaration. Felony? Not in Canada, unless it involves falsifying birth documents. Or being married to two people at once. The latter is rarely enforced but could lead to problems in a will or other legal matters where marital status is relevant.
Your saying you wanted a child conceived in love got me to thinking. Raised with love is more important than conceived in love. However your child’s conception gave two individuals who may not have otherwise become parents the chance to be parents.
I asked the question.
Even if you were to hold a small ceremony in front of friends and family whose discretion you could trust? (By the way, if even answering could get you in trouble, then tell me, and I’ll drop the line of questioning.)
The reason I ask is that I feel that publically stating your committment is also a very important element of marriage. And separate of the monogamy/polygamy discussion, I wonder whether you might feel similarly.
When my wife and I were married, the officiant made the point of telling everyone who was there that they weren’t just passive witnesses. They were charged with the responsibilty to “keep and eye on us” as it were. To offer help, support, and encouragement. I think that this is very important.
Given the legal repurcussions you might face should you do so, I’m certainly not about to tell you to grab a justice of the peace or anything. But I wonder if you (or anyone else) would agree that, making an open declaration of your commitment (even if it’s only in front of a couple of friends) to someone should be considered an important part of marriage?
Thank you for correcting me. My mistake in confusing my terms, I meant to use polygyny. (It’s been too long since I studied Greek)
Well, obviously you’re entitled to your opinion. But, FWIW, I not trying to say your relationships are null and void, nor have I ever tried to claim that any polygamous grouping is not a family unit. I have only tried to argue that your family situation has a different makeup than is referred to by the term marriage, according to my understand of both the dictionary definition and current cultural assumptions.
Of course not, but I forsee problems with current divorce laws not being capable of dealing with the distribution of property and custodial rights in the event of a polygamous divorce.
Thank you for pointing this out to me. I learned something I didn’t know. I will keep it in mind in the future.
Thank you for correcting me. My mistake in confusing my terms, I meant to use polygyny. (It’s been too long since I studied Greek)
Well, obviously you’re entitled to your opinion. But, FWIW, I not trying to say your relationships are null and void, nor have I ever tried to claim that any polygamous grouping is not a family unit. I have only tried to argue that your family situation has a different makeup than is referred to by the term marriage, according to my understand of both the dictionary definition and current cultural assumptions.
Of course not, but I forsee problems with current divorce laws not being capable of dealing with the distribution of property and custodial rights in the event of a polygamous divorce.
Thank you for pointing this out to me. I learned something I didn’t know. I will keep it in mind in the future.
Yes. Marriage is, in my book, a community (and community-building) ritual. It binds the family it forms to the surrounding community and the community to that family.
(I have a very difficult and painful time even with being closeted, so I don’t.)
I firmly believe that having partnerships that cannot be recognised by the community weakens those families, the community, and to a great extent, marriage itself. (My evidence for the last is anecdotal; however, I know a fair number of people who refuse to get married because they consider its limitation to heterosexuals with one declared partner has destroyed its value. Some of them will even argue with people who desire to get married; recently in one forum I read there was an outbreak of suggestions that people who were married should divorce rather than participate in such a discriminatory institution.)
When my husband and I got married, there was only one official witness, and the judge. No one that I would call a friend was there, and my family was too busy and his we had fled. We knew just as it had been from the start that we had no one but each other and no one else cared about our union at all. Most people I talked to were openly skeptical, telling me that I had made a mistake and it would not last.
In comparison, Kelly’s reception by my friends and family was warm. My parents welcomed her and our friends did to. Everyone accepts her, and then there is both Vernon and I to welcome her to the family. No one I personally talked t was dismissive as they were when I got married at 20. The most cautious thing that was said, was a stern warning by my mother to be nice to my husband and not ignore him.
I had a huge happy wedding and a good marriage for about 10 years. Can’t complain about that. And when it fell apart, my family and so many friends were there for me. I can’t describe the kindnesses after the break-up that have come my way and are still coming – without bursting into tears…
Your mum sounds cool and mum always knows best.
The reference to “Have you stopped beating your wife?” was not directed at you personally, it happens to be the most infamous of questions to demonstrate a basic logical fallacy. You’re still a newby here, and I would strongly recommend you read through the rest of this page and try to avoid fallacious arguments in your GD posts.
Your OP is just fine. The point being argued is whether monogamy plays a role in the definition of marriage. Your later question contained the fallacy of presuppostion. Understand?
And while you ponder logical fallacies, take a look at this:
All three of those statements represent “strawman” arguments. If anyone had suggested that John could marry Julie without Jane’s approval, you argument would be valid. But no one has, and it isn’t. In the second, you point to a New York law that forbids bigamy. You use it to support a supposition that monogamy is a criteria of marriage under the law. But one doesn’t have to be a bigamist to be non-monogamous. And while adultery may be basis for divorce, you won’t find any statute that states that marriages are null and void if either party commits adultery (which is the burden you would bear). And in the third, no one has argued that monogamists would be robbed of anything under the law. In facts, the arguments have been directly to the contrary.
Takes two to tango.
Funny, I said “if not more right”, but, if I wanted to make this argument, I’d quote Wrenchslinger:
(Emphasis added)
Sure you do, because you would not extend the same legal protections of “traditional” marriage to polygamists (or even polyamorists, for that matter).
Considering polygamy is illegal, it would go without saying. On the other hand, most estimates on marital fidelity would suggest that less than half of all marriages live up to your monogamous ideal. Which, again, suggests that your definition fails the common use test.
Well, no, that wouldn’t be my response. In my example, John and Jane agreed to a monogamous partnership initially. They mutually agreed to change the nature of their commitment. These are not two separate kinds of relationships. One simply permits more than one such relationship at the same time, while the other only permits one at a time (while permitting multiple relationships one after the other). John’s relationship to Jane could be identical to his relationship to Julie. Either would be considered marriage. Why call it something different if they happen to coincide?
Fair enough. It’s nice to have the choice, though, isn’t it? There are some that would have you penalized if you chose differently.
I realize you were addressing lee, but if I might: Sophisticated? No, I doubt it. Just different.
Which is one of the reasons why the marriage laws need to cover these issues, to protect the Jills of the world.
Interesting logic. Monogamy is protected by adultery laws, but such protection isn’t really necessary due to no-fault divorce (as you note). Also, note the dictionary definition would still work: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse”. So please clarify how the rights of those in monogamous marriages may be jeopardized in any way.
Let’s assume you are right. Would you support changes in the divorce laws to deal with polygamous marriage (and any associated dissolution thereof)?
AZCowboy,
I can only speak about Canadian laws. Adultery is one of three grounds for divorce. The other two are: Mental/physical cruelty and Irreconcilable differences. The latter represents what people refer to as ‘no fault divorce’. In other words, no witnesses or evidence is required, just a one year separation without co-habitation.
Adultery is still on the books as a legitimate grounds for divorce for good reason. It is there to protect monogamy.
Polygyny and monogamy are at odds in this area. However, one could cheat in a polygynous relationship if permission from the other partners were not sought (this would be either adultery or bigamy).
In my opinion, polygyny should not be illegal. However, I would be reluctant to grant mulitiple spouses the same protections under the law as monogamous spouses. Practically and logically it would be a nightmare to combine it with the legalease regarding monogamous marriages, which are far more common. And I would be reluctant to see gov’t bodies sanction such marriages by performing them. The reasons have been stated here by others. It is just too damn complicated to work out the rights and finances. In the event of divorce, death, illness: I think members of polygynous relationships would do far better with domestic contracts that are signed by all members.
I hope that clarifies. I really wish KellyM and Lee all the best. I do not think their relationship should be illegal.
And again, “polygyny” is a gendered term.
I have two male primary partners.
lee, as I understand it, has one male and one female primary partner.
Our relationship cannot be properly described by the term “polygyny”.
lilairian,
Sorry. Polygyny is more common in North America. I was referring to Lee. She has a polygynous family because there are two females and one male. Technically there is no term for Lee’s union because KellyM is transgendered and Lee is bisexual.
I really don’t want to get caught up in terminology.
Polylandry is more common in eastern cultures than here. It’s not my bag but I don’t think it should be illegal either.
Holy Cow KellyM!
Look at that stupid typo. The last sentence should read ‘should NOT be illegal’.
Yes, your family grouping is unique.
I shoulda quit while I was ahead. The dylexia is very bad today.
What do you call a union between two dyslexics?
No, it’s not. I know of another family which consists of a bisexual woman whose lovers are male-to-female transsexual and a man. Although they don’t have kids, yet, and I think that they’re a complete triad, rather than a vee.
For my family to be polygynous I would have to not be lee’s lover and, instead, be her husband’s lover. The relationship between myself and lee’s husband is not even remotely sexual; there is not even a semblance of a direct marital tie there. Polygyny refers only to the case of one man who has marital ties with multiple women, and there is no expectation that the women in such a relationship will have direct marital ties with one another. Using the term polygyny to refer to a complete triad or to a M-F-F vee where the pivot individual is female is inappropriate.
Why shouldn’t KellyM be eligible for the full rights of marriage just as my husband is? She is in it for long haul too.