Do you support legal recognition for polygamous/polyamorous relationships?

[lightningandsnow]

Poll question: Do you support legal recognition for polygamous/polyamorous relationships?

Inspired by an earlier thread.

Assume the laws regarding age and consent were the same as a two-person marriage.

[NeedleCast]

1. I'm assuming all the people who voted no are against gay marriage as well?

[LeftishBrit]

9. No - I am for gay marriage and against officially recognized polygamy.

[zipplewrath]

11. Nope

Context it everything. I support unigender marriages because we have a country which is organized around these kinds of relationships. As long as that it true, the homosexuals should be allowed to create such partnerships. There is no real purpose/need/functionality to polygamy in terms of the state. It creates more conflicts than it solves.

[NeedleCast]

14. Not the Point

You're essentially saying that you're willing to discriminate against who officially can be recognized as married. Its discrimination no matter how you slice and dice it. It doesn't have to have a purpse, need or functionality. If people with to enter such a relationship and wish to be officially recognized as married, they should be able to.

[zipplewrath]

23. "Officially recognized"

How? There is no law which particularly defines the relationships rights and priviliges. We have laws that recognize them for binary relationships. You can give them a piece of paper if you wish, but that's about all it will do for them. It won't define inheritance, paternity, powers of attorney, etc. We can "recognize" BFF and best yard of the month too, but it has no functionality. If you want to CREATE those things we can, but as I say, I'm not sure the states interest in doing so. To a great degree the state barely has an interest in marriages per se. It is merely a convenient short hand for a set of property laws that already exist.

[Raskolnik]

87. Yes, I absolutely am willing to discriminate with regard to who can officially be married

Some discrimination, such as that based upon the age, mental capacity, or *number* or the individuals seeking to be married is acceptable. Other forms of discrimination, such as race, religion, or sexual orientation, is not acceptable.

[NeedleCast]

106. Which part of consenting adults continues to elude you?

Why do people keep bringing up minors, or mentally incapacitated people? I haven't seen anyone, anywhere argue that it should be okay to marry people who can not legally consent.

[Raskolnik]

131. I use it as an example of "discrimination" that is both proper and necessary.

I do not believe that allowing polygamous/polyandrous marriages to be afforded the same status as two-person marriages is workable, or advisable.

And, just so you know, there isn't a need to be snotty with me. I tend to agree with many of the posts I've seen of yours on DU, but we seem to disagree about this issue.

[VelmaD]

145. why in the world...

did you lump number of people who can get married in with people who are too young or too mentally incapacitated to consent?

[Raskolnik]

156. Because they are all within the category of acceptable "discrimination"

I understand that it is not a 1-1 analogy, and society rejects them for different reasons. Good reasons, in my opinion.

[SteelPenguin]

117. What's the difference

What's the difference between saying our country is organized around monogamy and our country is organized against gay marraige?

Traditionally our country is organized around monogamous heterosexual marriage. That's not a reason to make gay marriage illegal though, and it shouldn't be one for polygamy either.

[zipplewrath]

123. It's a fact, not a declaration

When I say it is organized around monogamous relationships, I'm stating a fact, not a position. That is how it is arranged. The "difference" is that our system is not "organized against", it is merely illegal. Our country is not "organized against" pot, it's just illegal. They could legalize it tomorrow, merely choosing to treat it like alcohol, and the entire body of law and custom around alcohol, and tobacco could be brought to bear. You can say the same thing for unigender marriage. You CAN'T say the same thing for polygamy.

[CTyankee]

18. No. The state has a compelling interest in outawing polygamy, which it doesn't have

with gay marriage.

However, if consenting adults wish to have polyamorous relationships that is different.

[conscious evolution]

47. what compelling interest?

[LostinVA]

51. Look at the FLDS mess, icnluding "bleeding the beast"

[NeedleCast]

57. Look at lots of traditional marriages

They're just as abusive. Should we ban them?

[get the red out]

61. They are banned, abuse is illegal

What do you think fucking domestic violence laws are all about?

[VelmaD]

70. That would be the domestic violence laws...

that are so rarely enforced?

The solution is simple...enforce domestic violence and child abuse laws that are already on the books, and this would not be an issue. Enforce laws that guarantee equal rights under the law for women, and this wouldn't be an issue. There are already laws in place that should be used to deal with polygynous cults that abuse women. Those same laws should be used against any group that abuses women.

Polygamy is not the problem. In and of itself, with freely consenting adults, in an open environment where no one is forced and everyone can partner with whomever they choose...it can be lots of fun. Trust me. :-)

[get the red out]

78. You are wrong

The FLDS keeps women as captives. And if it is legalized then more cults would follow. Very few crimes are prosecuted against FLDS now, what about if polygamy is made legal? None would be prosecuted, women would never be allowed to escape. The right would use polygamy as a way of reducing women's rights, it wouldn't take long for us to be seen as nothing but property. We would see what domestic violence laws we have now become even less effective with women seen as property.

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home, as long as you know you had a choice in the matter. Please do some reading on the web, the women trapped in these cults never had a choice from birth. Do we make it easier under the law to keep women as captives for life? Do we pass laws that let more cults spring up ready to devour women's rights and lives?

No!

[NeedleCast]

75. No, they're not banned

Domestic violence may be illegal but it is pefectly legal for people in an abusive relationship to get married. The act of demostic violence is illegal. Marrying someone who treats you like shit is not.

[get the red out]

81. But it is illegal to do violence against your mate!

We don't prosecute FLDS for polygamy now, but if you made it legal the women in cults would have no hope.

We might not prosecute domestic violence enough, but there is recourse. You made your own argument.

And you are wrong, technically. I know a woman who was abused so badly by her husband that a court banned him from being around her. Their marriage was, in effect, banned by domestic violence laws.

[NeedleCast]

96. You're speaking again, of a very small minority of cases

Yes, you can have things like restraining orders issued that legally keep people apart. That's still beside the point. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn't allow polygamy because it leads to abuse and I've countered it by saying that, quite frequently, traditional marriages have abuse as well.

Believe what you want, but the outcome of polygamy is not alwasys the FLDS. You're basically using the one bad apple spoils the whole damn bunch argument.

[get the red out]

134. Islamic world, polygamous

How are they doing on womens' rights? gay rights?

Any polyandry there?

[NeedleCast]

160. Having lived in the "Islamic world" (whatever that is) for a solid amount of time

I can say with some degree of knowledge that there are relativly few polygamous marriages. The areas that do tend to be polygamous also tend towards religious fundamentalism. No doubt there is a connection there and yes, it's not usually a good one.

As a person who fought in Afghanistan, I know first hand how bad it was for women there in areas under Taliban control.

The thing is, you keep trying to make broad brush ties between the enslavement of women and polygamy. I'd say you're aiming at the wrong target. The tie between religious fundamentalism and the abuse of women is very real and very apparent.

[votingupstart]

176. correct about the number of poly marriages in the middle east

also - where i saw more poly marriages i also saw a less educated female population, there are some exceptions but there are exceptions to everything.

[LostinVA]

77. He asked why some people would think that, and I answered

teh LEGAL system isn't set up for this.

[conscious evolution]

91. Then change the legal system.

Laws are not set in stone for that very reason.

[LostinVA]

116. Why are you fighting with me? I answered a rhetorical question

[conscious evolution]

68. You think all poly families

do this?
Most poly families have as little to do with goverment as possible.The risk is too great.

[get the red out]

86. Because government interferes with rape and kidnapping

And raising women to be bred like cattle and not allowing them to leave.

Yea, government interferes with all that good poly family values stuff.

[VelmaD]

92. I'm going to give you a chance to edit...

because you really need to type out the entire word polygyny when that's what you mean. Because I'm "poly" - as in the generally accepted shorthand for those who are polyamorous, and we do not appreciate being lumped in with the FDLS.

[get the red out]

115. Polygamy is what I am talking about

Sorry to offend with shorthand.

Polygamy is all about rape, and holding women hostage.

If you aren't a part of FLDS or some other cult, you are too easily offended and shouldn't take up for them.

Leagalizing polygamy would lead to rampant abuse of women.

I don't care who you sleep with and would fight for your right to sleep with them.

[SteelPenguin]

119. No

Just because there are some kooks who practice both polygamy and rape and holding women hostage doesn't mean the two are the same.

That's like saying Hitler was a vegetarian, as an argument against vegetarianism.

[get the red out]

146. It always ends there for women

[SteelPenguin]

148. Sorry that's just not correct

What you think you know about it is very skewed based on reading your posts. I'd suggest you reeducate yourself, but somehow I doubt you will.

[VelmaD]

124. I would take you more seriously...

if you actually knew what words mean.

Polygamy = more than one spouse, gender unspecified

Polygyny = more than one wife

Polyandry = more than one husband

[get the red out]

143. Everyone doesn't live in your world

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NeedleCast]

142. I don't care who you sleep with and would fight for your right to sleep with them.

Sounds exactly like the argument made by neocons about gay marriage.

"I don't care who you sleep with, but marriage should be between a man and a woman."


You also need to educate yourself about what the word polygamy means. It does not define a marraige between a man and multiple woment. Polygamy is the marriage of more than two individuals and is not gender specific. FFS, if you're going to fight this fight, at least learn what the words mean.

[conscious evolution]

95. Did you just call me a rapist?A kidnapper?

Fuck you.

[anigbrowl]

179. Wow, you're very sure of yourself

I've known a few poly families who came together as consenting adults. No rape or kidnapping involved. Why do you assume that it only exists in a context of abuse?

[QueenOfCalifornia]

185. They marry off their kids

to the neanderthal cousin is more like why they stay clear of the government.

I grew up around this shit.

I have seen it.

Believe me... it is not all rainbows, ponies and a trip to Disneyland...

The women are uneducated and the children are home-schooled by the uneducated mothers... It's sick.

The men are sick monkeys.

Equating a loving gay marriage with what these people do is like comparing Bush to Obama... Oops...

[conscious evolution]

69. You think all poly families

do this?
Most poly families have as little to do with goverment as possible.The risk is too great.

[LostinVA]

76. Of course I don't -- you asked why people would think that, so I answered

[Lyric]

139. The state's compelling interest is in the preservation of how our economic

system is structured, at least in terms of benefits from the government.

We simply cannot afford to overhaul the entire Social Security, Medicare, and welfare system in order to accommodate multiple spouses. The cost would be astronomical, and it would also hurt those programs overall. What do we do when someone has fifty kids by twelve spouses and wants Food Stamps for them all? How do we divvy up the Social Security benefits of a particular spouse, and if we go with the "Everybody gets equal shares" solution, will $15 a month as a "share" really help anyone to survive? How do we determine which spouse has power of attorney if there's no will and the spouses disagree about a decision in the event of an illness or death? Do we really want to give credit card companies and mortgage companies the ability to pursue twenty different people for one debt, instead of just two? What if there are three happily-married polygamous people and one of them wants to marry a fourth person, but the other two don't? Would that be legal? Why or why not?

The questions, problems, and complexities are beyond the ability of the government to fiscally and fairly resolve without bankrupting the system and flooding the court with entirely too many cases for the system to handle. For better or for worse, our system is based on a two-person marriage. Polygamous religious marriage is perfectly legal already, but the state has a LOT of compelling interest in keeping the two-party civil marriage system in place.

[conscious evolution]

154. The welfare queen argument,huh?

Where have I heard that one before?

[Lyric]

157. You might want to try that on someone who isn't a current welfare recipient herself.

:hi:

If you have a counter-argument to ALL of the points I raised, feel free to contribute it. If all you can do is insult me for supposedly bashing...myself??...then I'll just assume you have no actual point.

[question everything]

19. Wow! Demagogy on DU!

Marriage is between two consenting adults. Remember the women of the sect? Do you really think that any of them consented? Do they even understand this concept? What about the under age girls that were married to dirty old men?

It is too bad that some have already "explained" to you that they do not oppose gay marriage. We should not have to explain to you anything... you owe us an apology.

[NeedleCast]

25. See #22 below

Edit: If we allow poly marriage, next think you know we'll have adults marrying little children, and cats, and volkswagons...

.I'm sure I've heard this argument somewhere before...

[dmallind]

30. Since when is an example of something the thing itself?

There are numerous examples of both hetero and homosexual relationships, even marriages, which are abusive. Does that mean neither should be allowed? Just because a notable example of polygamy is an unpleasant one does not mean it is impossible for polygamy (or polyandry for that matter) to be practical and enriching for others.

Incidentally what about bisexuals? Would they not be capable of having successful marriages with both genders? Is it right to say they (we technically although I have no interest in being married to both) can't have the chance?

[question everything]

37. You may beleive in this, but don't expect most people to accept this

and comparing this to gay marriage will just hurt the cause.

Most people who do support gay marriage do so because they recognize how commitment that two loving adults to each other enrich their lives and, yes, that of the community.

But once you start talking about more than two people in a relationship, you can forget about getting more states and the Federal government to approve gay marriage.

Yes, there will always be individuals who would have "open marriage" and would enjoy multiple partners, but for most of us, this will always be in the fringe.

[get the red out]

56. I will vote against anyone who even tacitly supports polygamy

And I will campaign against them, donate to their opponent, whatever it takes to keep polygamy illegal in this nation.

I don't care if I have to become a Republican to keep it illegal. I would do ANYTHING to prevent the legalization of polygamy.

Slavery has no place in this country. People aren't abstracts, in a patriarchical society like ours plural marriage means women become slaves.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. Why do you equate ALL polygamy to this one cult?

In the Muslim world it is still permissible to have as many as 4 wives. But only a small fraction of the Muslim world insists on burkhas and veiling. Do you think that is the same thing?

Of course, you do understand that plural marriage could also mean 3 men and 1 woman, or 2 and 2, or 5 and 11, or 1 bi and 2 straight, or any number of other combinations that include CONSENTING adults.

[get the red out]

121. Have you noticed women's rights in Islamic countries?

They are crap!

I do not want women in this country to live like property. Muslim countries tend to deny women rights, and are also polygamous. Funny how that stuff works isn't it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. So just as you judge all polygamous families by the example of FLDS

you judge all one billion Muslims by the example of the Wahabbists.

Broad brush painting.

[get the red out]

141. NO, I have a bit of a problem with much of the Islamic world also

Their human rights record for women isn't steller.

[get the red out]

52. Raised with no escape and no concept of their human rights

At least when a girl is raised interacting with the world around her she knows she has rights in this country. The women of this cult have no rights, they are prevented from escape, often by local law enforcement. They don't know they can leave. Is this freedom? Should people be alowed to be captives in this coutry? To not even know they have rights?

To support polygamy is to support slavery. If we support this then women will be in a worse situation in this country than before we got the vote. I don't know how we could fight our way back out of slavery if this country ever accepts polygamy. Women's rights effectively end that day, and we are then property.

[NeedleCast]

65. True, in the case of the FLDS

But you act as if this is the only end game of polygamy. In the case that you and QE keep siting, you're talking about a worst case scenario that has far more to do with religious indoctrination than polygamy. The argument I see over and over again is that polygamy leads to abuse...as if there isn't an near endless list of traditional marriages that involve abuse.

If you're going to say polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it leads to abuse, then we best get rid of marriage all together (a concept that I'm fine with, frankly).

[get the red out]

102. I am so not religious

You are in a fantasy world. You think because a few "enlightened" people can pull this off that the whole country can.

Hilarious! I am happy most people in this country would agree with me.

[VelmaD]

105. yeah...and most people in the South...

agreed with Jim Crow laws.

And a majority just voted in Cali against gay marriage. Don't make them right either.

[NeedleCast]

111. Yes, most poeple in this coutry are happy to discriminate, you're right

I mean, if they don't like it or agree with it, no one should be allowed to do it, right?

I don't believe I said you were religious so I don't know why you bring it up like that.

[KittyWampus]

31. Equating Gay Marriage with Polygamy is fucked up. Civil Marriage is a contract between 2 individuals

To equate that with a contract providing for an arrangement between multiple people is an entirely other issue.

[get the red out]

127. +1

[get the red out]

60. How do you get that?

I want all people to be free. Polygamy is slavery for women.

Gay marriage is about freedom for gay people.

What do you think happens to gay people if it becomes ok to make women into slaves? My guess is that the cult boys get their hunting rifles out for more than deer season.

[NeedleCast]

I think most polygamists, male and female

would disagree with your position that it is slavery for women.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

184. Yep...

If you do not support the right for a group of people to marry than it is obvious you do not want 2 people of the same gender to marry... :eyes:

How about this... I do not support some clusterfuck sect of wack-a-doodles to marry and have a hundred kids and then farm out their kids to be married to more wack-a-doodles when they are barely pubescent ---

I totally support gay marriage.

I do not support a man marrying 12 different women some of whom are his brothers daughters.

Not even close... but try again.

[SoCalNative]

2. As long as all parties involved are of legal age

and in agreement on the union.

[get the red out]

67. Even if the girl has been a cult captive all her life

And never permitted to leave the compound and brainwashed to believe if she doesn't become the 5th wife of some ugly old man then she burns in hell forever? Some barely 18 year old raised as a captive without any freedom, even TV, to know that she has the right to say "no"?

Is that ok with you? Raise women like cattle to be bred as soon as the law allows?

[Hippo_Tron]

194. Seems to me the problem there is child abuse and neglect

What difference does it make if her marriage at age 18 is legally sanctioned or not?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. It might cut down on divorce . . . .

[Kitty Herder]

50. By cutting down on marriage. n/t

[Mythsaje]

4. As long as they involve self-aware, consenting adults, why not?

I don't consider those polygamous LDS sects to fall into this category, nor any culture that uses it as a way to mine nubile children for sick old fucks.

Group marriages? Why not? It neither picks my pockets nor breaks my leg.

[Moondog]

112. +1

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I support the concept

but think it would be a nightmare in real life - at least for anti-social me. I can't maintain a successful relationship with one partner - never mind multiples.

[zipplewrath]

6. What's the point?

At this point many of us are questioning why the state "recognizes" marriages at all. We don't recognize baptisims. We'd do better just asking folks to sit down and define the legal nature of their partnerships. We could/should also recognize parental relationships, especially paternity. I just don't see the states interest in creating legal frame works for polygamy. You want five "wives", what the heck, have at it. Just don't expect the state to help you sort out the mess.

[LeftishBrit]

7. No.

Two main reasons:

(1) One may call it 'polyamorous' but in practice, in almost all societies that permit multiple spouses, it's the man who has multiple wives - usually resulting in lowered status for women.

(2) Officially recognized polygamy and a welfare state don't mix, as the burden on monogamous taxpayers would soon become very disproportionate. And I support a welfare state.

[redqueen]

"Officially recognized polygamy and a welfare state don't mix"

Exactly.

And furthermore, if one wants a realtionship with more than one person, what's the point of getting married anyway?

[NeedleCast]

24. In the US, i can name several

not the least of which is recognition of health care benefits, as sad a statement as that may be.

[redqueen]

29. Hope you have fun with this.

Good luck.

[MercutioATC]

8. "Other"...but it amounts to a "yes" for #2.

I believe that there should be "legal recognition" for whatever personal life a given person chooses to live.

I don't think there should be tax benefits...and the health care system would need to find a different qualifier...but I believe that every person should be permitted to legally designate any person they choose to act in any legally-recognized capacity they choose.

[VelmaD]

10. I am polyamorous...

and I do not support marriage for anyone. It's an outdated tool of the patriarchy that I do not consider worth trying to turn into something more egalitarian.

Plus the government shouldn't be involved in sanctioning people's relationships, and there sure as shit shouldn't be any tax breaks involved just for finding a sex partner.

[paulsby]

15. except marriage is not about

"finding a sex partner"

as you so cynically put it.

[VelmaD]

16. yeah...historically speaking, it is...

it's all about controlling people's (particularly women's) sexuality - who they can have sex with and when. Well, that and passing on family property.

[zipplewrath]

27. Nail on the head

The reality is that the vast majority of marriage law is about property rights. The connection with sex and women is merely because women were at one time considered and treated as property. We have morphed marriage law into a defacto partnership agreement. A pre-stated set of partnership rules that define joint ownership of property, including income, and some related parental rights and burdens.

[KittyWampus]

36. So how do you explain matriarchal societies? And how exactly SHOULD family property be passed on?

Whoever gets to the deceased relative's house first?

[VelmaD]

39. We have these neat things...

call Wills.

[KittyWampus]

42. And in the event one hasn't been written or there are disputes? It doesn't take much thought

to realize that a contract between two individuals is much different than one between several people.

And a Will doesn't delegate Power of Attorney, nor does it provide for care of minor children.

And you just helped point out another reason to not go down this route- it'd be too easy a way for multiple people to avoid Estate Taxes.

[TahitiNut]

165. That's strange. I was married twice and BOTH of them had sex with men other than me.

Gee... I must've found the ONLY two women who were exceptions to your "world view" huh?

:eyes:

I'm long-past tired of that simple-minded, sophomoric bullshit.

[KittyWampus]

35. So Marriage is all about sex. Your post says a lot about you.

[VelmaD]

38. read post 16...

and then get back to me. Marriage has historically been about sex.

And if you think you have figured out a lot about me from one post, that probably says even more about you. But thanks for playing.

[bullimiami]

12. i dont believe a sectarian govt has any business legislating moral issues.

there should be no laws concerning marriage except where it intersects civil issues.
there should be no laws concerning morality except to protect from exploitation or harm.
there should be no laws concerning drugs, personal or interpersonal behaviors save where there is no consent or to protect from victimization.

legislating morality grew out of religious dogmas or to suppress an undesired minorities behavior.

[the other one]

13. Just like any other business contract

How about we just get rid of marriage completely?

[CTyankee]

28. Wow, this is where I came in! Remember a few years ago that's what we were

saying with regard to gay marriage. And gays told us in no uncertain terms that they do not want to settle for second class citizenship.

However, I hardly think you can make the same case for polygamy. The state has a compelling interest in keeping it illegal for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with children...

[VelmaD]

41. marrying children is already illegal...

and I sincerely doubt more children are abused and sexually assulated in polygamous homes than in homes with "traditional" marriages.

You can aruge that some religious sects groom their girls to be subservient wives in polygamous marriages. But some religious sects groom their girls to be subservient wives in tradition 2 partner marriages. What's the difference?

[CTyankee]

54. Maybe I'm not getting this straight.

Where are people who are polyamourous being stripped of their rights? Rights to what? I really don't care what consenting adults do sexually in or out of their marriages. I just don't get the civil rights angle here. With gays, the rights are obvious: benefits, inheritance, the right to having your spouse in your hospital room as you lay dying. How do these apply in the case of polyamourous people? Can you give me a glaring case of inequality?

[VelmaD]

62. maybe poly people...

would like to enjoy those benefits you listed with their partners. You know, benefits, inheritence, the right to have your spouses in your hospital room as you lay dying.

[CTyankee]

72. Well, when I hear from one of those poly people about their hardship

I'll give it more thought. But right now...

Geez, why are we even HAVING this discussion...:crazy:

[VelmaD]

79. So I have to end up in the hospital...

come back to DU and post about how they wouldn't let all of my partners into my hospital room before you'll give a shit?

[CTyankee]

82. Are you giving each of them an equal voice in your treatment?

And what if they disagree?

Really, Velma, you have to think harder about this...

[VelmaD]

90. you do realize...

that you could have the exact same problem if your parents and your spouse disagreed about treatment for you? It has been known to happen...the Schiavo case comes to mind.

And really, I can do without your condescension. I don't need to think more about it...I'm living it every day.

[CTyankee]

101. No I do remember that and I do remember that the spouse was the victor.

You are posing a case where there may be 4 or 5 competing individuals. I don't know about you, but I would not want a committee of people who are more or less involved with me arguing about my care. I'm not trying to be condescending when I ask you to think this thing through. You can always specify who you wish to make those decisions for you and, since you are in a marriage with someone who is "poly" like you, he is likely to go along with your wishes. I just don't understand why you want legal recognition of what is a personal matter with you, your spouse and your various partners. I don't condemn you.

[VelmaD]

103. do you not understand...

that you sound just like some well-meaning straight people who tell gays they just don't understand why they want legal recognition? And you may think you're not being condescending, but how would you feel if someone told you "I don't condemn you"?

And btw, I'm not married. I don't believe in marriage. I think it's irredeemably sexist. But I'm really tired of watching the hypocrisy at work on this issue. If gay people don't like it when straight people define marriage to exclude them, why does it surprise anyone that poly people would take offense to not only being left out, but lumped in with incest and bestiality.

[zipplewrath]

144. Define "legal recognition"

You want the key to the city? It'd be about as meaningful. There is nothing to "recognize" in a polygamous "marriage" because marriage benefits are not configured in any way to apply to anything other than binary relationships. Property rights, power of attorney, parental rights, these are the core laws we are discussing and they just do not translate to polygamous marriages. Could the state "create" such a condition? Sure, it'd take a long time and a tremendous amount of case law to establish the common law behind it. Where's the states interest in doing so?

[VelmaD]

149. yeah...because things that are difficult...

or complicated or time-consuimg just aren't worth doing

[zipplewrath]

158. No

They aren't worth doing regardless of how long or complicated. It's dubious that it's "worth it" these days for the state to be involved in marriage AT ALL. We've got a society and culture organized around binary relationships so it is "handy". But it is becoming rapidly less and less useful to the state. Polygamy holds even less interest for the state.

[CTyankee]

153. Where do you get that I think polygamy is equal to incest and bestiality?

Incest and bestiality is abuse and are a world's difference from polygamy. I just can't see it working. I can certainly understand and I have never argued against gay marriage. I just think polygamy would be unworkable as a legal arrangement. As an unmarried individual you can certainly draw up papers that give your partners the right to be in your hospital room but I don't see how you can assign them more duties than that. In the law, one person can have Power of Attorney over your estate and health care wishes. You then assign successors in case the one you name can't perform as POA. I just don't see how you gain from a situation where you have several people arguing over your life or death decisions. It's utterly nonsensical to me, having gone thru this process with my mother and having to draw up my own will. The person who has been the steadiest, by your side, can be whomever you wish it to be. And if you really get down to it, isn't it what you really want, the person most committed to you? That is really what I meant when I asked you to think harder...I've been told this in my life and I have been grateful for the "kick in the pants" I received!

[VelmaD]

159. Oh good grief...

I didn't say you believed that. I was talking generally about how the right-wingers lump gay marriage, polygamy, incest and bestiality together whenever they talk about the slippery slope. And a lot of folks who support gay marriage come along and say in essence, "hey, don't lump the gays in with those weirdos".

[CTyankee]

162. So let's agree that polygamy (only on the condition that it is of consenting adults

and no abuse) is not in the same category as incest and bestiality.

I guess that is where our agreement ends, tho...

[get the red out]

89. Women are people, that's another interest

Polygamy makes women into property. Cults would be able to own women more openly. Rape with no recourse.

[VelmaD]

94. Bullshit...

patriarchal religions make women property, regardless of whether they support polygyny or not.

[get the red out]

104. Bullshit back at you, Ms La-La land

Polygamy would only make things much worse on that score. If we are ever to get out from under their yoke women need equality, in marriage and outside of it.

[VelmaD]

109. So you fucking decide...

which one of my MALE partners do you suggest I ditch?

For the last fucking time, there are plenty of free women who chose multiple partners of both genders. Stop trying to nullify my existence. I live this life and it is nothing like what you're portraying.

You are not ONE BIT more opposed to sexism and patriarchy and male-dominated religion than I am. Hell, I'm opposed to ALL marriage. But you are, at this point I think, missing the point on purpose. Not all poly relationships are like the FDLS. If the existence of that cult is reason enough to outlaw poly marriage...then the fact that so many women are abused in traditional, 2 person, hetero marriages should mean we outlaw that too.

[get the red out]

133. Don't ditch anyone

Just don't try to make legal a practice that would effectively eliminate women's rights!

If we legalize Polygamy, more women will become victims. I am happy you are happy, but we would sacrifice 100 years of women's rights advancement very quickly. And gay rights would be next.

I believe you that your relationships are good. But the majority of this country can't keep from putting women down without the added benefit of a man being able to get as many women as he likes and destroy lives. Women would be cattle, nothing more.

[question everything]

17. No. It is exploitation

Do you remember those women from last year? Lifeless, meek, with barely an audible voice, completely brain washed that this was "the will of god." And, of course, the under age girls who became "wives."

Polygamy - and so far we have seen only one husband several wives, not the reverse - is just another mode of exploiting women.

That some on DU fall into the "every marriage goes, as long as between consenting adults" is sad. Do people here really think that those women from the sect were consenting? Had any idea of this concept? What about the underage girls?

[VelmaD]

21. what you're talking about is polygyny...

where only men are allowed to have multiple wives.

I myself am part of a much more egalitarian polyamory community, where everyone can have multiple partners of whatever gender(s) they choose.

What you're talking about shouldn't be allowed. But the fact of the matter is that there are women in traditional marriages who were raised in fundamentalist households who had just as little real choice in their marital partners. Who are just as subjugated and beaten down. Are you arguing that their marriages should be invalid as well? I don't see anyone, anywhere really making that argument. (For the record, I would make that argument, but I don't believe in marriage at all. Mostly I just want people to stop talking about the poly community as if we're somehow the equivalent of people who have sex with animals.)

[get the red out]

71. You might be, but this country isn't

This country is completely patriarchial, your group is very much an exception. Do you expect that eveyone will be as forward thinking in this male-based culture as you are if polygamy is permitted?

My guess is that it would become very common in many cults, with girls being basically raised with no other purpose than to be bred by whatever man she is assigned to as soon as she is legal. She would have no rights and everyone would claim consent and our country would look the other way as females lives are completely wasted because of their bad luck in what cult they were born into.

[VelmaD]

84. By your logic...

since our country is completely patriarchal...ALL marriages between men and women should be ended. (Frankly, I would support this idea.)

And I'm not talking about one group. I'm part of a larger, nation-wide poly community. There are a lot more poly people than you'd think, since you obviously haven't done any research. Most just aren't out in the open about it because of the amount of shit we get from people who can't see past the FDLS.

[get the red out]

100. Have you looked at this country?

Women have enough trouble with our rights now?

You may live in a respectful poly community, I don't care.

You are twisting things so far, we are patriarchial, but marriage between two consenting adults is the norm. Right now we need to add gay people to that norm. I do not think that women's rights, and gay rights should be put under the bus in support of the few people who can live in a polygamous way without using societal norms to take advantage of someone. Once someone is in a cult, where most polygamy exists, it is easier to forget about them and claim they want to be there, severing their rights effectively.

My logic is sound. I have legal recourse against my husband should he abuse me. A woman trapped in a cult has no recourse, people look the other way. I was not raised in cult so I know I have legal recourse, you know you have recourse. Women in cults do not know they have rights, and have no access to anyone who can help them.

Polygamy is a threat to straight marriage and gay marriage alike. Once our country embraced polygamy, women's rights would end and the same patriarchal nuts that would take advantage of that would certainly make gay people's lives a living hell. We could forget gay marriage, permanently. Patriarchy would become even stronger.

[Mythsaje]

171. It's not all that uncommon in the pagan community

so I know several. Not my cup of tea--my Gawd, I have enough headaches dealing with ONE spouse most of the time. But I think discounting those who would be interested in such a thing being legally sanctioned is a bit... narrow-minded. As long as we recognize ANY marriage (setting aside the fact that I'm not sure government has any role in "marriage," as it were, though it's job is certainly to enforce contracts (which is what marriage has become).

Something I think is ironic is how much the divorce rate has skyrocketed over the past several decades, as women shook off the notion that they were obligated to put up with men's shit. I'd almost be willing to bet that more women than men file for divorce these days.

[NeedleCast]

22. Straw Man

No one mentioned underage girls. I believe we were talking about consenting adults. As to the Fundamentalist Mormon Church...yes, I believe that most of the women in those relationships are consenting because the few that have left have, usually, gone back. If you rescued most of those women, they would fight you and attempt to go back to those relationships as quickly as possible.

[get the red out]

74. If you are raised with no concept of your right to say "no"

Does it matter if a girl is 18? Does that magic number of legal age mean anything when someone has been isolated her entire life? She will be bred like a cow with no concept that she could have a different life (and not permitted to develop the faculties to make a choice, or even leave the compound).

So that's ok, just so long as the captive slave is 18?

Sick.

[NeedleCast]

88. Then you could argue (and I'd agree) that there was no consent

Again (and again, and again) the only argument you seem to be making is that because there's an abusive cult out there (FLDS) that anyone who supports polygamy must support the FLDS. That is, quite simply, bullshit.

The argument I'm making is pretty simple. That consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal marriage if they so desire and that this should apply to EVERYONE. As Delma stated above, if we enforced domestic violence laws already on the books, this wouldn't be an issue, or would be less of one, in any case.

I'd love to see further investigation and application of existing laws in reference to the FLDS.

[get the red out]

107. As I said before

Women get forgotten about when they are locked away in cults, so domestic violence laws cease to be a recourse for them. Especially when the whole community around them is the cult.

How big is the state of Utah? You think normal Mormons wouldn't go right back to enslavement of women if it were legalized? Scary stuff!

But some people only care for what gets their rocks off, not human rights.

[NeedleCast]

126. Then more focus should be put on these cults

and if they are found to be breaking laws, they should be stopped. I'm not naive on this subject, I assure you. I've done quite a bit of reading on it, including reading books and web sites from those that have escaped.

I've been to Salt Lake many times and yes, there are a good number of people in polygamous marriages there who seem to be perfectly happy. I can't say for sure, I don't know any of them well, but I know they exist and probably in numbers far greater than you'd expect.

You seem to only be able to related ploygamy and polyamourous relationships to Mormons/FLDS. I see this as a grave flaw in your argument. If our society lived by the system you seem to wish upon us (that no one should be allowed to do anything if someone out there is abusing it), no one would be able to do much of anything.

[Iggo]

20. Can you imagine the inside-out divorce settlements?

Yikes!

Still, I'm in favor of consenting adults, current law, modified to plural.

Like I said, though, the divorce proceedings would be...wow! What if seven people were married, 3 of them wanted to get divorced, and only 2 of the remaining 4 were contesting the divorce? Factor in alimony, child support, custody, division of community property...you get the picture.

I guess "unwieldy" would be a good word to start with...lol.

[conscious evolution]

53. pre nuptial agreements

Thats how its handled in my family.

[Iggo]

177. I'm guessing prenups would have to be mandatory(?)

[KittyWampus]

26. My comment- discussion of polygamy has NO PLACE in same breath as Civil Marriage Rights.

[VelmaD]

33. So all those marriage rights...

that straight people enjoy and gay people are fighting so hard to get...I shouldn't get them for my partners of choice?

[KittyWampus]

40. No, you and your multiple sex partners (you stated elsewhere marriage=sex) can work out

some sort of contract if you want to. But for modern society, Marriage is about a lot more than who you have sex with.

And since you are having sex with more than one person, your legal contract would be much more involved by several orders of magnitude.

[VelmaD]

45. And would anyone be required...

to honor that contract in the outside world? Would the hospital be required to let all of my partners into my room?

[DireStrike]

93. I'm sick of this hospital thing

No offense to anyone who has been affected by it but...

Can't hospitals come up with a fucking workaround for this? ONLY direct relatives are allowed? What the fuck, why? What if my best friend wants to come in?

[bkkyosemite]

32. Consenting adults can do what they want but not make it a law. On the other hand

if I find my husband wanting to marry another women to have more than one to choose from in the bedroom he can go to hell. I'm not a piece of pie and I am the whole pie just as he is..geeze louise..women are always on the underside of the beating drum.

[VelmaD]

34. ya know...

a lot of poly people are women with multiple male partners. I would be one of them. :-) I'm not on the underside of this particular drum.

[Kitty Herder]

43. Polygamy usually leads to oppression of women.

And in the polyamorous relationships I've observed, the same dynamic is present. Granted, I haven't observed very many polyamorous relationships.

I knew this one poor woman stuck in a polyamorous relationship with a so-called male rights activist who was so traumatized and lacking in self-esteem that she barely spoke.

[VelmaD]

49. Given that he was an MRA asshole...

do you think her marriage would have been any different had he not been polyamorous?

Should we just outlaw marriage for misogynists?

[Kitty Herder]

155. It was the polyamory and the intense pressure that was put on her to accept it

that traumatized her. But you're right that she probably would have been mistreated by this asshole in some other way without that additional problem.

Outlawing marriage for misogynists would be a great thing, if only it were possible.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. yes, i am. even though i think its full of pitfalls. however ownership of your body

is a big issue for me

[Political Tiger]

46. To each their own. n/t

[get the red out]

48. Women would be nothing but slaves

Like with the cults (FLDS), women raised with no contact with the outside world and married off young so that they have several children before they get any information and are able to "wake up", then they can't leave because of the kids. Often they couldn't leave anyway because they would be brought back by local law enforcement to the compound.

Yea, we need to legalize this. If that FLDS shit gets legalized we would be better off living in Saudi Arabia, it would be cult city and you can bet there wouldn't be any women with two husbands. Slavery for women, that is what it would bring.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, which I support. People that would support polygamy, as we see it in these cults, would shoot gay people on site if they got a chance.

Get real DU! This crazy crap will hurt the cause of gay people and women's rights both. Would you sink those two causes just to feel so incredibly "tolerant"? Would you feel that way about an uneducated 18 year old girl being raped as the 5th wife of an old man and forced to produce a baby every year with no hope of escaping her prison? Oh what a tolerant group we are!!!! Rape lovers.

:grr:

[VelmaD]

59. Did you bother to read...

anything I've posted? I am poly. I have multiple MALE partners. Not all polygamy is the FLDS.

I wish I saw half this much ire directed at sects that preach the same sort of wifely submission crap within traditional 2 person marriages. I don't see anyone arguing that traditional hetero marriages shouldn't be allowed because some women are subjugated/beaten down/treated like shit in them.

[get the red out]

110. Everything isn't about you!

I am talking about what most people would do in this country! You aren't most people.

[VelmaD]

118. No...you're talking about...

what you think most people would do. You've made the assertion repeatedly, but you haven't shown one iota of evidence that you are right. You've stated over and over that polygamy = slavery as if that is written in stone. I have shown you repeatedly that this is not always the case. If you are wrong about that, consider what else you might be wrong about.

[get the red out]

122. Try most of the Muslim world?

How about those women's right? Gay right?

They practice polygamy also.

Funny thing!

What evidence do you have other than your own personal happy sex life? You are trying to speak for everyone and pretend problems don't exist with polygamy in patriarchial societies.

[VelmaD]

132. I am merely pointing out...

that your huge generalizations are just that. You're extrapolating from the behavior of one, marginalized cult, what our entire society would do. Not everyone is a fundy whack-job and you can't assume that legalizing multiple marriage would all of a sudden turn everyone into one. You've flatly stated that all polygamy is the same as slavery despite evidence to the contrary. And you still haven't addressed how your arguments against multiple marriage could also be used as reasons why ALL hetero marriage should be ended.

All you can do is yell the same thing over and over hoping that if you repeat it enough it will magically become true.

I'm done.

[get the red out]

137. Saudi Arabia

Like those rights?

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. No and this is a HUGE STRAWMAN to distract from marriage equality

Yes, let's play into the RW's hands by equating LGBT marriage equality with polygamy. :eyes:

This is offensive.

[VelmaD]

63. No...what is offensive...

is when the right-wingers equate polyamory with bestiality and incest.

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. I don't really give a damn about polyamory to be blunt

I do give a damn about marriage equality, though. And bringing polygamy into the debate is a distraction that does nothing but benefit the rightwing.

[get the red out]

136. +1

[VelmaD]

138. a whole lot of people said the same thing...

about gay marriage

[conscious evolution]

108. Even more so when lefties do so

Especially ones who are fighting to get their marriages recognized.
Talk about WTF!!

[DireStrike]

85. Agreed.

Philosophical debate is one thing... we're talking about political support here.

[NashVegas]

164. Agreed

I can't believe 58 "yes" answers. Makes me wonder how many sock puppets are still running around.

[lightningandsnow]

173. I've actually been in polyamorous relationships...

They tended to be more relationships with one primary partner and some other people on the side, but I would not rule out having more than one serious partner.

I'm bi, as well.

Seriously, if I want, at some point in the future, to have two serious partners, how is that wrong?

Gah. I mean, I do see your point, I just hate having to act like a "model minority" all the time.

[snooper2]

58. Only for polygamous if at least one NARWHAL is involved

NARWHALS know how to keep the fucking peace and if you have 6 ladies, 1 guy and 1 NARWHAL all is fucking cool!


:rofl:

[KamaAina]

64. Nice post, Bill-O!

:P

[KamaAina]

66. Polyamorous, yes

i.e. at least two people of each gender.

Polygamy (one man, many women) and polyandry (one woman, many men; for whatever reason, this is much rarer :eyes: ) is what gave us the FLDS.

[DireStrike]

80. I don't think there's a point in doing so.

How many people even want to be in this kind of relationship?

I also think it's a just plain Bad Idea. I'm sure there are at least as many closed-minded couples/triplets/whatever you wish you call them as open-minded ones. I really don't wish to promote that sort of property-like state for humans in any official capacity.

If people want to draw up a contract to do this themselves, fine.

[cherish44]

83. Fuck it, just ban ALL MARRIAGE

That's the only fair way to do it

[zipplewrath]

130. Not the only

I tend to agree to some extent that marriage has resulted in a confused hodge podge of property laws, amongst others, that doesn't serve the state nearly to the extent it may need or want. It would probably have to be replaced with something, but it could look alot different. Truth is, other that the issue of common property, the most important thing the government probably would be interested in establishing is parental rights and responsibilities.

[TheKentuckian]

97. Other: either do away with non-equitable arrangement or give everyone the freedom to do as they wish

[Canuckistanian]

98. ONLY if the women involved can demonstrate genuine free will

And I don't know how that could be done.

[Tim01]

113. Polygamy causes people to become religious extremists?

Well, this is news to me. And not at all the attitude I would expect from this board.

My poly friends didn't get the word about how barbaric their happy lifestyle is.

[MrSlayer]

114. Yes. As long as everyone involved are consenting adults.

None of that sick shit where old men marry 13 year-olds against their will and drive the young men out into the street.

[Tim01]

128. Violation of U.S. laws. The religion doesn't matter.

[Mari333]

120. you always forget polyandry. nt

[get the red out]

125. Almost non-esistent

[Mari333]

147. doesnt matter...should still be a part of the discussion nt

[DefenseLawyer]

129. I would say it shouldn't be illegal to live in a polygamous relationship

but applying the laws of marriage to multiple people seems a bit problematic. I don't have any kind of moral objection, but applying marriage rules for division of property in a divorce or guardianship of children would be very complicated with numerous spouses. However, I don't think it would be the end of the world if it was considered a legal marriage.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

150. yes, i think it might be a logistical nightmare

[conscious evolution]

151. Laws and legal concepts evolve.

Why should poly marriage be any different in that regard?

You are a lawyer?Can you explain how copyright law worked before Guttenberg invented the printing press?How aviation laws worked before 1903?How wiretapping laws were handled before Mr. Bell spilled acid on himself?

[zipplewrath]

161. What you're getting at

You're stating basically that we could create a legal institution of polygamy. Yes, it is true. What is the state interest in doing so? It is dubious in this day and age that it has an interest in marriage at all. We could create a whole set of laws for the hobby horse too, but what would be the purpose?

[DefenseLawyer]

166. Of course they do.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I'm saying that civil marriage is essentially a contract and multi-party contracts are complicated.

[conscious evolution]

190. Think of the billable hours involved

Win win for for lawyers.

[dusmcj]

152. If I want to form a civil union with a goat, a glass of water and a toaster

I should be able to, as long as the goat doesn't think it's a baaaaaaad deal

(seriously, I find that such unions should be restricted to sentient beings capable of consent, but otherwise, go with it)

[NashVegas]

163. Man, The Freaks Sure Do Come Out For These Things, Don't They?

How about a compelling argument in favor of polygamy, you got one?

Maybe a few points on societies that benefit from it, and how that would be paralleled in the US?

A few reasons why there's a need for it?

[dusmcj]

175. why try this ? cause the monogamous love delusion usually sucks ?

Lucky if you find someone who you want to spend all your time with including forming a household, and it lasts once the confusion and delusion parts are cleared up. And let's face it, sexual exclusivity just ain't "natural". Again, you're lucky if it works for you in the long run.

The monogamous pair bond, larded over with cultural slop about fairy tales and princes and picket fences and promises, is a construct and a contrivance designed to optimize the economic viability of the tribe (with 'economy' starting at the level of survival and proceeding to gain and perpetuation, i.e. offspring). Free individuals who have personal power in the material and also spiritual realms, don't need to wrap themselves in those chains, and many notice when they're doing it and are dissatisfied. No, I don't believe.

[anonymous171]

182. Yes it's all about YOU isn't it? nt

[dusmcj]

192. yup /nt

[NashVegas]

189. That's Not Exactly Compelling

Nor do I see any examples of societies that have benefited from polygamy.

[sohndrsmith]

167. I believe polygamous relationships are illegal, no? Homosexual relationships are not illegal,

(and denying the right to marriage to same sex couples is, in my understanding, discrimination, violates equal protection under the law, and more). Therefore I don't see a correlation between the two as far as making a point (I'm not even sure what the point would be, actually). My apologies if polygamy is not illegal, I guess I need to go look that up. I get confused easily.

[MrScorpio]

168. Come on, how many WOMEN are going to have two or more husbands in this country?

Especially, if they're straight men... Not a whole lot.

Polygamous/polyamorous is pretty much a male fantasy.

And the religious types who engage in it are for the most part practicing a form of mysogynistic domination.


I'm sorry, but it's not equitable or fair to both genders.


However, rather than legal recognition, I'm all for leaving CONSENTING ADULTS alone to show their love to each other without legal objection.

And I, for one, don't equate it with same sex marriage either, which I wholeheartedly support.

[krabigirl]

170. I couldn't imagine dealing with TWO husbands. One is plenty.

[Mythsaje]

172. Oh, I don't know. I'm sure my wife wouldn't mind.

If it weren't for the fact that I don't generally like other men that much.

[Chovexani]

178. With all due respect

You are pretty much full of shit.

Consensual, responsible non-monogamy is no more "only a male fantasy" than lesbianism is.

I am a polyamorous bisexual woman, and in my lifetime, I have been in poly relationships in the following configurations: 3 women, 4 women, 2 men + 1 woman, 1 man + 2 women, and others where there were varying degrees of involvement between the parties involved (like when I dated a bisexual man who had a gay boyfriend). And I know many, many poly women with two male partners. I don't say this to "flaunt my lifestyle" or show what a free spirit I am. I'm saying this to point out that people live this way and have lived this way for a very long time.

Really, seriously, this is not unusual. You may never hear about it, because the poly community is insular in no small part due to the fucked up attitudes and prejudices we face from people like you and every other judgmental, ignorant asshole in this thread. There are ENTIRE COMMUNITIES and support groups, both online and meatspace, devoted to such relationships. None of which have anything to do with oppressing anyone. They're about building mutual respect and serving the needs of everyone involved, in a safe, sane and loving manner.

But thanks for proving once again how fucking ridiculous people are about relationships, and how utterly prone they are to project their own fucked up ideas and neuroses about sex and romance onto all other 6 billion humans on Earth.

[anigbrowl]

183. +1

Well said and well put. I live in a monogamous relationship now, by choice, but I've been in poly relationships and had a lot of poly friends. It's a lot more common than people think, and nothing to do with stereotypes like 'inability to commit' or 'excuse for an orgy' etc. If all parties enter into such a relationship voluntarily then it can work as well as any other.

[elshiva]

186. Well said!

[MrScorpio]

187. The operative word being "legal"... (I have questions)

Meaning state recognition, am I correct? Also, meaning that the state has an obligation in resolution of disputes; property, financial, custody, probate and otherwise.

You've list the number of relationships that you were in over time, which I may say is a considerable number. But let's say for the sake of argument, that in each of those circumstances, you were all bonded legally by the state in a manner which is defined by both name and practice as "Marriage." Just as you wish it to be.

Depending on the number is circumstances where any of you are legally bonded, where does one person's rights, privileges and responsibilities begin and the others end in the case of what would be technically termed a "divorce", or "legal separation"?

Would each bonded person require legal representation in such an event? What about custody rights for those "married" persons NOT biologically related to any of the children of those who've filed for "divorce"?

If a divorce is granted, and alimony and or child support is awarded, is every other person in the marriage legally liable to pay it? Is the non-biological "parent"/"spouse" legally liable for providing a standard of living to which the divorced party and children were accustomed to during the marriage?

In the case of inheritance, how would the money or property be divided between the surviving spouses in case there were no will? Would it be determined based on the length of of time that that person was married to the deceased?

I'm not even going to get into what, if any, rights all the in-laws would or wouldn't have.

Is Child Protective services expected to develop separate protocols from those of binary couples?

Let's say one of you out of many has a poor credit history. Would it be fair that all of you are adversely affected once you're all married? Wouldn't that make it more difficult to set up an extended household?

Perhaps, one or more of you are sued by a creditor for failure to pay a just debt. How fair is it that the others in the marriage become liable to pay that debt. Whose wages, if any, would be garnisheed? What liens are placed on whose property? Whose property gets repossessed?

Now I can go on and on and on with this, if you get my point.

But really, doesn't it seem much better that you were free in engage in all of your polyamorous configurations without any of the legal difficulties, restrictions or consequences that all of the married people have to deal with? Because, once you get the state is involved, let me tell you, you would lose a sizable amount of control that you had without their involvement.

Legal precedent is key. Those who have been "legally married" before you would have an indirect say in the resolution of any issue for which all of you would have to stand in front of a judge to resolve or would be redressed via a state agency. All because of precedent.

And really, why in God's name would any state want to deal with all of this? It's hard enough for states to deal with the problems of binary marriages. Of course, the states would want no part of it.

I know you're angry at me, but please, be practical here.

As all of the relationships that you've mentioned were all fine and dandy, I hope that you realize that if anyone had to resolve any issues in court, it would be nothing less than bloody murder.

Currently, you're free to do as you want. Even call the others in your unions "husband" or "wife", as you will.

On the other hand, no one is keeping you from separating or altering the relationships as all you see fit, due to a piece of paper that involves tedious court proceedings and expensive lawyers.

As you can see, none of which I have mentioned has anything to do oppression, or prejudice, or anything that diminishes any value that you place on your preferred lifestyle choice.

Frankly, I think that the best advantage that non-legally binding poly-relationships have over their legally-bound binary counterparts is a matter of better flexibility and the ability for the relationship to meet the needs of all of those bonded without any convention or preconceived restrictions.

But I will say this: If you can find a way resolve in a safe and sane manner all of the issues I've mentioned, I will support your cause whole heartedly.

I'm anything, if fair.

[SeattleGirl]

188. So who is stopping you from being with who you want to be with?

From your post, you have been in a number of poly relationships. I don't think MrScorpio was condemning you for them. He was talking about legalities, not judging you for your lifestyle.

[krabigirl]

169. Yep.

[Dorian Gray]

174. Nope.

[anonymous171]

180. No. Can you imagine how complicated the divorces would be? nt

[burrowowl]

181. I am all for Polyandry

ONLY!


;-)

[BlooInBloo]

191. LOUD NOISES!!!!!

[alarimer]

193. It is not equivalent to gay marriage at all.

Polygamous relationships are most often exploitative, especially of the women.

[northzax]

195. no. and this is why

frankly, and group of consenting adults can do anything and enter into any legal contracts they wish to with each other. I don't care, and the State shouldn't care. BUT the legal rights, benefits and obligations conferred upon marriage (and by marriage upon the State and the community) are bilateral in nature.

let's assume, for the sake of this post, we are discussing a three person relationship. Person A, Person B and Person C. all are legally married to eachother in the eyes of the State.

Person A dies without a will. their spouse, of course, inherits all their property tax free. great. sadly, person B wants the beach house and person C wants the condo. neither can afford one without the proceeds of selling the other. as they are a married couple and own them jointly after the inheritance, they cannot sell either without the consent of both. How does the court rule?

Person A specifies Person C as the recipient of their life insurance policy. However, the policy is paid automatically to the spouse of the decedent (not uncommon) as many couples do, B and C have separate financial accounts. where do you write the check?

voila, all are alive again.

Person A has an affair. B and C decide to divorce A and remain married to each other. since this is a community property state, do they get half of A's assets and earnings? what if they decided to not be married to each other anymore either? does A get half of B and C's assets and earnings, B get half of A and C's, and C get half of A and B's? who gets custody of the children? the biological mother of the oldest (A) the biological mother of the youngest (C) or the father, (B). does the benefit of having the children stay together mean one of the mothers gets custody of both? or would there be a 30% sharing system in place? Who is legally responsible for the child, the two biological parents, or all three?

A, as has been established, is the breadwinner, making more than B and C combined. Sadly, C causes a wreck while driving drunk, and is sued by the victims' family. the judgement is for $600k. (remember, they keep their finances separate.) is the judgement split $200 each, or does A pay more (as the breadwinner?)

this could go on and on. things established by law to cover bilateral agreements don't work when you get to multilateral ones. it would require a whole new set of caselaw.