I support gay marriage. but what about group marriage?

[leftofthedial]

I've heard repeatedly from both sides of the debate that marriage is "one person marrying one other person."

Why shouldn't three people (or some other number) be permitted to join in the same personal, legal and financial bond as a pair of people?

To me the defining factors are commitment and ability to give consent, not the sex, gender, race, or number of the parties involved.

[CMT]

1. I think gay marriage is fine too

but can't support the idea of group marriage for gays or straights.

[el_gato]

2. i happen to think marriage is none of the governments business

and should not be subject to regulation at all

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[sujan]

3. what's wrong with polygamy or polyandry?

if it's consensual.

[veganwitch]

33. i know a lawyer that can help work around the system

she specialises in alternative family law.

i also have no probably with any relationship/family as long as it is consentual.

and weve already determined that minors and non-human animals can not consent.

[Snow]

4. Ya oughta take a look at the polygamy thread from a week or

two ago. Lotta multiple situations tend to be, ummmmmmm, weighted in favor the male gender. And can be nasty to young women, not necessarily willing. Not saying, of course, that those sorts of things are what you're asking about, but those sorts of things do happen in a culture that's okay with plural marriages.

[La_Serpiente]

5. The American matriomonial family

is already founded upon a two person couple - mother and father. What difference would it make to have a male and a male?

Also, when Utah entered the union, one of the preconditions was to outlaw Polygamy. I am not sure how it is in other states, but in a court in Utah, polygamy would be unconstitutional according to the state constitution.

[Maple]

6. As long as it's

'consenting adult humans' involved.....why not?

[La_Serpiente]

9. Honestly

I really don't care either. I am just putting it out there for people if someone brings up the issue of gay marriage. I agree though that both of the issues of polygamy and same-sex marraige should be seperate.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. I personally don't care one way or the other....

But we need to keep the issues separate.

I don't think either gay marriage or polygamy should be interdependent.

It's really excess baggage that adds nothing to the argument of why same-gender relationships cannot enter into the civil contract that heterosexual relationships can.

[truthseeker1]

8. Now see...this is just the sort of thing

that has the Republicans running scared in the other direction. They see it getting way out of control. Which, I feel polygamous (is that the right word?) marriages would be.(out of control, that is)

[Hammie]

39. So you're not against

deciding for other people what marriage is. As long as it is inside your "comfort zone" it is OK, but otherwise it is not? A homosexual married couple is just dandy, but a woman and two men married triple is offensive, or a man and two women?

How on earth did you make that determination?

[economic justice]

69. How on Earth did you NOT? <nt>

[truthseeker1]

71. Thank you Economic Justice

I was too stunned to respond to that insane post.

[Blue_Chill]

82. Ok so then let's scrap the whole of society

I mean why decide anything for other people. Let's all decide to wear nothing but our socks to work, sign clan agreements with the entire neighborhood so we can all fuck eachother whenever we want, the hell with PC behavior who are you to say I can't call the short guy a damn ugly midget.

I mean fuck it who are you to decide what I am doing is wrong. I can do whatever the hell I want as long as it doesn't physically harm anyone. I am you sure as hell don't care about emotional damage otherwise you wouldn't support such self serving notions as "it's ok no one can judge you"

[leftofthedial]

88. pretty extreme "interpretation"

no one has suggested that all societal norms should be abolished or that society has NO role in proscribing or regulating certain behaviors.

The discussion is about WHICH behaviors does society have a vested collective interest in proscribing or regulating. Is marriage one of those behaviors, and if so, what should be society's position.

[Blue_Chill]

94. But what gives you the right to set any norms?

??

[leftofthedial]

96. I don't have the right to set norms for anyone but me

But society has the right to set norms. It is one of the defining characteristics of a society. The more constructive elements of this discussion are focused on what those norms ought to be.

[Blue_Chill]

10. What you want is social justification for those that want to sleep around.

No thanks. I've had this conversation before and what it all boils down to is that some want society to justify their inability to commit. They claim to be faithful to eachother but that's goes out the window as soon as they find another willing sex freak to play with.

Sorry but gay marriage makes perfect sense to me, this other stuff is nonsense that I could never support. In a world where sexual self control is a life or death issue I find it hard to even consider redesigning society around those without any.

[leftofthedial]

51. not "Sleeping around."

I distinctly recall writing the word "committed"

[economic justice]

70. Well....

Does "committed" mean an entire neighborhood can get "married"?? A "group" with what....2?.....3?......13?.....23?.....137?.....2,134??....231,376? Hell, it's just "consenting adults!"

[leftofthedial]

99. Personally, I don't know if there is a numeric limit

or what that limit should be.

I'm just asking why that limit is two.

[Blue_Chill]

78. Committed? lol that's funny

A is committed to B they get married. One day C stops by to sell insurance, A and B like C's ass and C is down for some fun. A and B decide to marry C. Then D shows up D is fine, D is married into the group.

And all of this means what? That you never have to stop banging new people because you have justified your behavior thru marriage.

Oh and you've also destroyed the institution completely and caused society massive problem by making life more about getting yor rocks off then anything else.

Congrats.

[leftofthedial]

89. with all due respect, that is absurd.

you are defining "committed" as "promiscuous" and then using YOUR bogus definition in place of an actual argument.

Congratulations are premature. I haven't done anything except ask a question.

[Blue_Chill]

95. Actually I'm introducing human reality to your theory

Not all will behave this way, but justification for such behavior will make it so that what I described will be anything but rare. After all if society says it's ok, how long before majority views it is the norm?

[leftofthedial]

101. maybe you hadn't noticed

but married people act that way today.

Right now, right this very second, married people are committing adultery. I'm almost dead certain that my married neighbor two doors down is having sex with the married woman who lives next door to him at this very moment. The issue of whether they are part of a marriage of two or three or four people is irrelevant.

Primates are promiscuous. Some married people have promiscuous sex.

That is a totally different issue.

[Greyskye]

104. Not only that...

... but then there are the folks who hop from one committed monogamous relationship to another. Never staying with the same person for more than a timespan that can be measured comfortably in months, or simply marry, divorce, repeat. In the poly community, this behaviour is called 'serial monogamy'.

So which is healthier? Any of those options, or staying in a committed relationship with with 2 or 3 people?

[Blue_Chill]

112. I noticed

but unlike you I don't want society to justify some folks inability to thikn with the big brain.

[leftofthedial]

113. then you would argue that ALL marriage should be illegal

since some married people cheat?

You're being inconsistent.

[Greyskye]

102. As someone who has 'been there'...

...your description is quite the straw horse. In the 10 years or so that I've been involved directly or indirectly in the poly community, I have never seen anything close to the situation that you described.

[bearfartinthewoods]

108. i agree with you but there is a rub

i'm not even going to pretend to be able to explain this but i got it from some of my gay friends. there is an issue about the legal nature of marriage. once you move away from the man woman, fostering the care of children definition of marriage it opens it up to group marriage. maybe someone who understands the law can explain it. the discusion was the night of the sodemy ruling and i confess to being slightly distracted and more into celebrating than into the heavy conversations in the dining room.

[Nikia]

111. I've heard some problems with three parents

I don't think marriage would have to be involved in this, but I have heard that there are some issues of gay partners and the birth parent all wanting to be parents. For example, a lesbain couple has one of them impregnated (artifically or naturally) by a man that they know. The partner that isn't the birth mother, wants to be a parent too but they also want the father to be a parent too or he insists on his parental rights. I don't know if this triad would necessarily get married anyway and is it incest if the birth mother is pregnate with her partner's brother's child?. That is the only thing that I think that it could legitamately come from.

[pippin]

11. people should be able to marry whomever

or what ever they like if it doesn't hurt anyone. For all I care if someone wanted to marry their dog it's o.k. with me. As to multiple partners, why not, if you have the time (to be with all your various spouses) money, or inclination. It's no business of the government to legislate marriage. I am against the involvement of minors however, and exploitative or abusive situations.

[leftofthedial]

21. I can't go there

dogs can't consent.

[msmcghee]

12. The state should not have the responsibilty . .

. . of setting up a special legal status (like marriage) unless the conditions are fairly universal and they don't pose any tricky legal questions.

Onviously, a couple is a very common type of union that should have a common recognition in law. (And as far as I know there is no special difficulty in applying existing marriage laws to same sex couples.)

There should be no prohibition on any number of people getting together and forming a civil union (marriage) if they wish - but until it becomes fairly common I don't think the state should be required to set up a special legal status for that (as it does for couple marriage) - and then if it does become common (I can't imagine that except maybe in Utah) - and it doesn't pose any tricky legal questions - which I think it probably would.

[w4rma]

13. Unions between 2 people. Not groups. Not animals. Not furniture. 2 people.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

15. But what about . . . .

. . . marriage between, say, two men who are NOT homosexual? I mean, there shouldn't be a requirement that the two parties be sexually intimate, should there be?

[marshall]

17. nonintimate marriages

Speaking of which, lots of hetero marriages are nonsexual.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

20. That's right . . . .

So, I suppose that there would be no principled basis -- would there be? -- for precluding two heterosexual men from getting married during the time they were, say, college roommates, to the extent that being married was of a benefit to them. Or am I missing something?

[w4rma]

23. The same could be said about

1 homosexual man and 1 homosexual woman.

Should we do away with marriage altogether because of this loophole? Heck no.

[leftofthedial]

52. I could have told you that!

LOL

[ScreamingMeemie]

44. I have always thought about this in the case of two widows/widowers or

even take a group like the "golden girls". When you set up house and intertwine lives, even non intimately, I have often wondered why the government would not recognize that as a legal relationship of some sort.

[leftofthedial]

106. many people choose to marry or not to marry

based on tax laws and other societal regulations. Especially seniors who stand to lose pension benefits.

They have whatever relationship they want have, but make the "marriage" choice on purely legal or financial bases.

[Selwynn]

18. Sounds kind of hypocritical to me...

Its NOT ok for conservatives to stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it IS ok for you to stipulate that it is between two people? What makes one wrong and the other right?


PS - I am for gay marriages, actually I am against the state having anything to do with "marriage" at all, and I am pro gay rights and anti-discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[TrogL]

73. aaaaawwww, why not furniture?

http://www.furnitureporn.com/

[redqueen]

14. No way.

If it's not a commitment then what's the point?

What's the ceremony of commitment in this kind of situation supposed to indicate? Would they be comitting to the group, as it is now? Or until someone else new and exciting shows up?

[leftofthedial]

22. why couldn't three people commit to one another?

It happens in the real world all the time. Long-term friendships, partnerships, etc.

[Blue_Chill]

79. Why couldn't 130 people commit?

I mean you would only sleeping with and helping the 70 women in your little love clan? Why cap it 130 how about just getting a whole neighborhood hitched so that you won't need to worry about getting caught running out of the neighbors back door at night?

[leftofthedial]

91. that's right. why?

Why do you keep characterizing this as just a ploy to "get your rocks off"?

Choosing one's sexual partners, either within or outsicde of marriage, is one's own personal choice, not yours or mine. Why is this confused with the legal status of "marriage"?

Some married partners agree to have exclusive sexual relationships. Some agree to have NON-exclusive sexual relationships. Some marriages are completely nonsexual. IMHO, those decisions are none of your (or society's) business.

As long as the parties are committed to the marriage (however they define it) and are able to consent.

[Blue_Chill]

100. Because this issue is about social justification for lack of self control

This isn't about ones personal business, if that's the case it wouldn't be a issue at all. This is about the goverment WHICH REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE saying we will legally grant you the right (and thus say it is ok!) to do whatever the hell you want and call it marriage.

[leftofthedial]

103. so you believe society has the right and the responsibility

to either approve or disapprove of your choice of sexual partner?

What other aspects of your sex life are society's to control?

[MrPrax]

16. Seems when ever GM comes up, Polygamy is sure to follow

The clever folks that try to insinuate that the two are somehow 'analogous' get the part wrong about the 'marriage contract' as written is between TWO people and ONLY two people. It has just been understood to be between one man and one woman. Some have said that the LAW AS WRITTEN is discriminatory upon the basis of it BEING a contract involving TWO persons...

There is nothing stopping those in favor of 'polygamy' from challenging the LAW and it has nothing to do with GAY MARRIAGE.

In fact those in favor of POLGAMY should have a separate thread without reference to GM with compelling arguments if they wish

But this is really just the 'fundies' tactic of trying to suggest that the 'institution' of marriage is being transformed and what NEXT?--polygamy!,minors!,inanimate objects like trees!, sisters and brothers!
When in fact the institution of civil marriage isn't being transformed at all...religious nonsense aside of course

[Blue_Chill]

35. I agree

this thread is a right wing talking point.

[leftofthedial]

53. you are wrong

I posted this thread and it is no such thing.

[tkmorris]

87. Certain POSTS in this thread are.......................

I would agree that there are posts in this thread that serve as right wing talking points. I have to wonder why some people have posted them.

[OldCurmudgeon]

65. why should fundies object to polygamy?

After all, aren't there all kinds of examples of polygamy in the Old Testament?

So if the argument is that gay marriage is horrible for biblical reasons, then why shouldn't polygamy be okay as biblically sanctioned?

;-) Just being a troublemaker, I know.

[neebob]

19. Where does this group marriage thing come from?

To me it's just not a natural extension of the discussion. The issue is whether two men or two women should be able to marry and have the same rights as a man and a woman. Two adults - not three or four, or an adult and a child or whatever. Why do people think this is the next question? Nevermind, I know the answer.

[leftofthedial]

24. don't think of it as an extension of anything

FWIW, I don't advocate polygamy. I've been monogamous for 30 years. I could barely find one person to put up with me, much less two or more.

It seems that if there is real commitment and ability to consent, it is no one's business but the people involvedl, whoever (or however many) are getting married.

Now, if it's coercive (as many religious-polygamous marriages are) that's a bad thing. But that's a bad thing even if only two people are getting married.

[LinkingRings]

27. See post #26

See post #26

[ArkDem]

25. Why even keep it to the same species?

.

[Silverhair]

36. Other species can't communicate consent. n/t

[ArkDem]

64. Sure they can.

They don't attack you.

[Dr Fate]

74. Duel-species marriage is not an issue with any voters I know-that is why

DO you KNOW ANYONE who pracitces beastiality, or wants to "marry" an animal???

I do not. I do know MANY gay couples though.

It boils down to reality vs. fiction.

There are perhaps millions of gay couples who would like to have marriage as an option...

Cross species marriage is not a REAL issue at all- it is a narcotics-induced fantasy analogy created by Rush the Heroin Addict, designed to dehumanize gay folks...

[leftofthedial]

92. Have you read some of the cat threads in the Lounge?

I think some of those folks are IN LOVE!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[funkyflathead]

29. No problems here

Only fundamentalist x-tians would have problems with group marriage.

Real open minded progressives wouldn't

[Kitsune]

30. My philosophy:

As long as everyone involved is capable of giving informed consent, agrees to support anyone else involved in the relationship (including any children that may come as a result) to the best of their ability, is not impaired in any way by participating in the relationship (see excessively patriarchal polygamy, etc), and most importantly love each other, what the hell are we getting all flustered about?

I'm aware that most people probably don't think having more than one significant other/spouse/whatever is okay, but if they're happy with it that way and nobody is being harmed, what business is it of ours?

[htuttle]

31. Marriage is where Church and State butt heads

There is Marriage as a religious institution, found in nearly every religion on earth.

Then there's marriage, as defined by a marriage license granted by the state.

The two concepts are quite seperable: People get married at the courthouse, and others sometimes get 'married' by clergy but don't go get a marriage certificate (rare, but not completely unknown -- Mormon polygamists do this, for example).

The State sets limits on what constitutes a legal marriage, since certain benefits, privileges, and responsibilities are granted by a marriage license, and might become a mess if you could buy them like postage stamps (at least it'd be an accounting nightmare).

On the other hand, whether a particular church will marry a particular group (whether of 2 or of more), is pretty much up to that church. Whether or not it's 'legal', meaning grants marriage rights and responsibilities, depends on the state.

I think that those against gay marriage are confusing the two definitions of 'marriage' (and if not, why aren't they against courthouse marriages, if marriage is 'too sacred').

As far as legal group marriage (ie., with a marriage license), I'd have to think about the various economic implications of that (since that is essentially what you're talking about when you talk about marriage licenses -- economics).

[adamblast]

32. Libertarians and Conservatives both...

Libertarians and Conservatives both seek to link gay marriage with polygamy...

Conservatives (of course) because it's a good solid scare tactic.

Libertarians because they'd like to dissolve civil marriage altogether.

I see no reason why one has any bearing on the other. Being for gay marriage doesn't mean "anything goes." It means that 2 people shouldn't be prohibited from getting a marriage liscence strictly because of their gender.

[Mattforclark]

34. Fine with me in principle

But it would probably create huge practical problems with how to sort out new tax returns, and all of those sorts of things...................................

It would probably be easier to just get rid of or standardize throughout the population some of the rights gained in marriage.

[Nikia]

43. I think there would be too many practical problems too

I suppose that these could be solved in some ways but there would have to be a lot of law written to cover everything. Who is actually married, for example? Provided that same sex marriage was also legal a man and three women could be a man married to three women or a man and three women all married to one another or some of them married and some of them not. The difference would be important legally. Would there be some limits on the definitions of marriage, who can marry, and what informed consent really is. What if people did business this way? Could a small business make marriage a condition of employment? What if your marriage group wanted to take a new spouse that you didn't want? Could you divorce some of your spouses but not all of them? What if your spouses you wanted to keep were still married to those you wanted to divorce? What about custody and visitation if all ten partners decided to go their separate ways? I just don't know how all this could legally work? Then there is the issue of insurnce.

[leftofthedial]

50. I assure you I am neither libertarian nor conservative

I should have ommitted my statement of support for gay marriage from my post. I don't see that it is related to group marriage.

[TomNickell]

37. Interesting point, actually.

Not many people wanting 'group marriage' but Polygamy would be popular with many males if it were socially acceptable.

I think there is an answer to the legal question: Marriage is a union of -two- persons.

It does not discriminate against any group if a -three- or more persons wish to marry.

[Silverhair]

38. Why not indeed?

Why can't three people, or more, love and commit to each other? There are some great advantages. Suppose six people intermarry. (We shall omit who is sexy with whom at that is theirs to work out, as long as it is consenting.) The economic advantages are huge. One person can stay home and take care of the home & kids, and the others can have outside the house employment. All contribute toward the living expenses. Many items, that every home has but is used only occasionally, (Lawn mower for example.) would only be purchased once instead of three times. When a member dies there would be strong emotional support the rest of the family. Family violence should be reduced as the others in the family would take preventive steps if things somebody started getting too upset.

The line would be drawn at informed consent. That would stop the silliness of some nutcase wanting to marry a dog, a child, etc.

I suppose that there should be some upper number. And there is the possibility of a such a marriage taking on a live of it's own, like a corporation. New members marry in as older members die?

For medical reasons, you may want to have the children DNA typed to see whose sperm & egg combined.

The Mormons were forced by the U.S. to abandon their group marriages.

In some countries a man can have several wives, and if he tried to come to the U.S., only one is recgonized as his wife.

However, is the U.S. ready for something like this?

[adamblast]

41. Of course not...

>>>However, is the U.S. ready for something like this?

Of course not...

...which is exactly why Republicans try to bring up polygamy every single time gay marriage is mentioned. It's a red herring.

Gay marriage does not lead to polygamy any more than inter-racial marriage did. Those of you interested in defending polygamy are welcome to it, but it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

[Silverhair]

47. Yes & No. Gay marriage does bring up the question of other

forbidden marriages, and gov't punishment of those marriages. About fifteen years ago, in Houston Texas there was a case of a brother & sister, (full blood) who took each other a spouse. Since they couldn't be legally married they lived together & had kids. The kids were totally normal. (Yes, they were lucky. Because of the genetic risk I don't approve.) The gov't found out and arrested and jailed them and put the kids somewhere. WHAT GOOD DID THAT DO?

My own marriage, legal in my state, would be illegal in some states. (We married after both being sterilized so there is no genetic issue.)

It is part of the larger landscape. If the gays are able to get the issue to be looked at, there are others that are going to say, "What about us?" It is like when the blacks fought for their civil rights, they also won them for a lot of other groups too.

[Solomon]

56. Well

said.

[rbnyc]

40. Good Question

There was a forum on polyamorous relationships where a work just the other night, but I couldn't make it. Honestly, I think it's fine. All adults should be allowed to enter into any contractual agreements that don't cause harm to others, IMO.

[T Bone]

42. Sort of what Rev Moon and the moonies do anyway

with those cluster**** weddings they have in Madison Sq Garden.
Sort of.

moonie moonie moonie

[Sterling]

45. I am for it.

As long as I can still make fun of it.

[bloom]

46. Seems like it begs the question -

What is marriage and what is it's purpose?


In the old days - there was the ingredient of protecting the children and the women who stayed home to raise them (for 20-30 years).


If there are other considerations - such as visitation / decisions made in hospitals and that sort of thing - that could be addressed without marriage laws.


I'm not sure what the advantage or reason would be to have a marriage of more than two people. Seems like any issues could be addressed with the same sort of provisions that could be addressed for any single people wanting certain priviledges.

And I agree with the people who think that if people make an issue of this now - it will be detrimental to the gay marriage initiatives - and send some people screaming.

[mvd]

48. My view

I think gay marriage is fine. Why should marriage limits be determined by a church's beliefs? It's not very respectful of the country's separation of church and state.

As for the group question, I am against it, but you bring up an interesting point.

[mvd]

55. Reason

I think someone should find one person and commit to that person only - I know with all the divorces that it's hard, but it makes marriage special. Just my opinion.

[wickerwoman]

49. I think three or more people should be able to get married

but you have to think about the implications in terms of benefits and immigration.
Say I'm a veteran and I'm disabled. My spouse is entitled to medical benefits, education credits, etc. worth thousands of dollars a year. Now say I'm allowed to marry as many people as I like. Will the government pay the same benefits to all thirty of my spouses? And what if one of my spouses marries another vet with bennies but I don't marry them. Am I entitled to the benefits as well?
Think about it in terms of immigration as well. Why couldn't I set up a little business charging foreigners $50,000 a head to marry me for the green card? If I could marry as many people as I liked and extend my benefits to all of them (say with a 25% cut for me), I could make a tidy sum of cash doing this.
Legally sanctioned polygamy opens up a huge can of worms which have virtually nothing to do with gay marriage.
I would say the government can limit your legally entitled partners to 1 but does not have a right to say who that partner can be (apart from excluding minors who don't have the ability to enter legally binding contracts.)

[Terwilliger]

54. How about a group 'this is America...let them do what they want to do'?

how bout?

[quaker bill]

57. It poses a challenge to human nature

I don't know that many people could do it successfully. But as far as I am concerned the State has no business deciding matters of personal relationships between consenting adults.

So I am not for it per se. Mostly because having one woman upset with me at any one time is quite sufficient.

However, I do not believe regulating relationships between consenting adults should fall within the pervue of government.

[Silverhair]

61. They would all have PMS at the same time.

It is a known phenomenon that when fetile women live together, their periods tend to become syncronized. In a group marriage of say 4 guys and five women, the guys may have a once a month business trip to take together.

This has interesting implications for small tribes in hunter-gather situations. Maybe strong PMS was a natural selective way of getting the guys off their butts and out hunting.

Ladies, don't get mad at me. We have to sometimes see the lighter side of things.

[leftofthedial]

63. remember that in some primitive cultures

the women had to leave during menstruation.

[Yupster]

58. If three people are committed to marriage

I don't really see how you could morally disapprove other than saying that it insults my morals and therefore shouldn't be allowed. That sure doesn't sound like a good argument and neither does "that's the way it's always been."

It does bring up an interesting mess though If there are four group marriages locally and three of the eight in my group are also married to group B and two of the same of my group plus three more of my group are also married to group C, and three others of my group and one of my group who's also in group B and one who's also in group A are all married to group D, you'd need a flow chart of subsets to figure out who is where.

A, B, C, D are all married
E is married to B and C but not A or E.
F is married to A, B, and C but not D
If G is married to A, B, E, and F, but not C, then,

how many hours will it take for the train to reach St. Louis?

[Greyskye]

83. Nail on the Head!

I was involved in a committed polyamorous relationship in the past (actually a dotted line triad, but a "V" for all intents and purposes for any of you who know the terminology).

We started a local support group for Poly folk in our area. We typically had between 1 and 2 dozen people at our monthly public get-togethers. And yes, with some of the relationships, you did need flow charts to keep everything straight. :evilgrin:

And if it wasn't for the social pressures to 'conform' to what the rest of the 'herd' does, we would probably still be a family. Which is what we were.

Do a Google of "polyamory", you'll find a wealth of information out there.

[foo_bar]

59. inertia

Why shouldn't three people (or some other number) be permitted to join in the same personal, legal and financial bond as a pair of people?

...inertia. Gay marriage is an easy one, because no laws have to change to accomodate it (other than latter day "Defense of Marriage" stuff). Most of our common-law makes no distinction with regard to spousal gender (besides "child support guidelines"), so a gay divorce (for instance) wouldn't take a new realm of legal doctrine.

Polygamy doesn't have much precedence in English common-law. For that we'd have to turn to Sharia, which we can't for obvious reasons, or make it up as we go along. Even if moral approbation weren't an issue, the sheer amount of "what if?" scenarios could fill ten Talmuds.

On edit: basically what Yupster said. The reason Islamic law isn't a train wreck in this area is the 1 man to many woman ratio, with custody always going to paternal relatives.

[shimmergal]

60. Here's why group marriage or polyamory is such a no-no.

People who sleep together--or even who live together--tend to share resources. Not only does the presence of several competent adults in a household lead to a lot of savings, but the more people you have as an economic support group, the less vulnerable you are to the whims of employers, layoffs, etc. Which is a valuable thing for the individuals and society, but a terrible thing for capitalists who need a somewhat cowed work force.

Modern capitalism made short work of the extended family, which offered many of the same benefits. I personally think these economic implications are the real reason polyamory is beyond the pale, whether people consciously realize it or not.

[leftofthedial]

62. By jove

I think you've got it.

the man is keeping us down.

[ArkDem]

66. This may be the most brilliant analysis that I have ever

read.

[Blue Adept]

75. And this is why it'll start coming up more now...

"People who sleep together--or even who live together--tend to share resources. Not only does the presence of several competent adults in a household lead to a lot of savings, but the more people you have as an economic support group, the less vulnerable you are to the whims of employers, layoffs, etc. Which is a valuable thing for the individuals and society, but a terrible thing for capitalists who need a somewhat cowed work force."

This comes up in a number of discussions with friends of mine from around the country. With the continuing shift of the economic burden on the family, especially with the two parents now working, there's a fear of basic breakdown in the family unit. What usually ends up coming across is that like many things, the family unit is something that's going to change (once again - it's not like what we have now or have had in the past fifty years is what humanity has had for all eternity).

The family unit will end up changing to meet the needs of the family and survival in the changing world. Polyamory is one of the possibilities and it's one that's intrigued me greatly since reading it in Heinlein's novels of Lazarus Long oh so many years ago. While that also dealt with the SF-inbreeding issue for a specific purpose, what generally came down was that these families were HAPPY and able to cope with whatever was thrown at them because there was always support for them.

For those that say you can't love more than one person, that's hogwash. If you couldn't, then how could you love your mother and your wife, or you wife and your children. Each person you love you love in a different way. Like the snowflake analogy, no two loves are identical.

It pains me that while I am happilly married to a wonderful woman, another woman that we BOTH love, we cannot formally or even publically have in our life the way we want, because it would be scorned upon. And all it would take would be one person to say, "Hey, that's unhealthy for the children!" and you've got social services taking the children away.

I'd recommend folks heading over to livejournal and reading through the polyamory group to get a feel for what's going on. Don't continue to base it on the Moonie's or 60's/70's free love material from pop culture. Polyamory is something that's relatively recent from the mid 90's and is trying to reshape the argument slowly and quietly. It's definitely worth reading and expanding your horizons on, even if you don't agree with it.

[ArkDem]

80. ??????????????????

.

[ArkDem]

81. Apparently, you don't recognize scarcasm when you see it

.

[Greyskye]

85. Shimmergal and Blue Adept - YES

As a particiant in a polyamorous relationship in the past, I agree that your comments on the economics of a shared household are right on the mark. We had two excellent incomes in a 3 adult household, which worked out outstandingly well for all involved.

Bringing up kids in such an environment is fantastic - there is almost always someone around to help with homework, socialize with, or just be available when needed.

Totally agree with Shimmergals comments above. And please, please, don't equate polygamy with polyamory. For the most part, these are two complete different beasts.

[Hamlette]

67. polygamy is not economically viable as practiced

Here in Utah we have, by some estimates, 40,000 people living in polygamous families. Besides all of the legal questions (what happens when one wants out etc.) there is an economic question. Most of the women stay home. In Tom Green's case (I can talk about it because it is public record) you the taxpayers paid his family $60,000 per year in assistance. He had a total of 10 wives in two different sets. 5 years ago and his current 5. He has 30 kids by just these 5 wives. Most (all?) were underage when he married them. He never earned more than $20,000 per year. The "poverty line" for a family that size is $96,000 per year. The medical bills alone are astronomical for a family of 36.

Sure, if all 6 of them work it could work economically. But who is going to care for 30 kids? Not just one mother. You'd need 3 or 4 to stay home with the kids. With six mothers producing kids, all of Tom's kids are quite young. And how do the mothers work when they are pregnant and nursing all the time? And you can't withhold support for the kids just because the parents were too stupid/selfish to support them.

You'd need a whole new set of laws to decide what is fair in families with more than one wife/husband.

My answer when they say "gay marriage, why not polygamy?" is "that is a different question with a different set of problems. Gay marriage can work under our current legal system without adjustment. Polygamy is a separate debate."

[leftofthedial]

93. again, I apologize for inadvertently linking the two

I did not intend, IF gay marriage THEN WHY NOT polygamy.

In fact, I wasn't even thinking about polygamy at all. I was thinking of three people all in love with one another (I happen to know a trio like that).

The problem you describe above is a social services problem, not a marriage problem. He could keep 6 women pregnant with or without marriage.

[economic justice]

68. Why don't we start calling football, "basketball"???

And we wonder why the left is mocked. This is just plain WACKY from FAR, FAR, FAR "left of the dial."

[leftofthedial]

105. nice argument

I'm convinced

FYI, the left is mocked by the neocons NO MATTER WHAT THE FUCK WE DO OR SAY--not because of our ideas, but because we are the enemy and they are engaged in a one-sided, no-holds-barred PR war against us.

Try this again. A couple of days ago on NPR, I heard a spokesperson (an attorney I believe) for one of the couples who brought the Massachusetts lawsuit. She made a compelling, logical argument why the state has no right to require that "marriage" be between differently sexed people. Then she added "...as long as it is two people."

My question is why two? The only arguments I can come up with in support of two as the magic number all boil down to the fact that it (traditionally) takes two to reproduce. Yet, the crux of her articulate argument was that marriage is, in fact, NOT about reproduction.

So why two, you completely unWACKY economic justice person you?

[Dr Fate]

72. I know many gay couples, but no would be polygimists...

That is why your analogy is bad- there is no demand for polygamy in this country.

It's just like saying "what's next- marriage to a horse?" No one wants to marry a fucking horse- people want to marry EACH OTHER.

There is no demand from voters for polygamy or beastiality, yet people still want to erroneously liken homosexuality to these rare practices...

[Beaker]

77. It's not the same as marrying a horse-

An animal cannot give consent, informed or otherwise.
As for the demand, or rather the lack of demand- that's something that could very easily change as population demographics and social mores change(just like with Gay Marriage). I don't see any reason why 3 people cannot be involved in a committed relationship, and in fact there are probably more people living with just such an arrangement than you might realize.
Like the song in Multiplication Rock said: "Three is a Magic Number"...
And although I support the idea of "triple unions" I don't think that it should go beyond 3 as an allowable number in a legally recognized and binding relationship.

[Greyskye]

97. Why three?

The dynamics of a quad are sometimes more stable than a triad or V relationship. Why limit it to 3 people only?

[lapislzi]

76. That would be called a "corporation"

or a syndicate.

The legal privileges and responsibilities of marriage differ little from those of a partnership, and can be dissolved as easily. It's when you get into the messy emotional, religious, and sexual mores that people become squeamish.

I have no problem with whatever consenting adults want to do with each other. And I don't understand people who do.

[Shyriath]

84. That gives me an idea!

Not necessarily a serious one, but one that, if polygamous marriages were permitted, could conceivably occur...

Suppose you had a whole town consisting of one married group? Perhaps they could all have the same last name and everything!

I dunno, it just strikes me as a neat thought.

[adamblast]

90. From "Blazing Saddles"---

Dr. Samuel Johnson: Olson Johnson is right. What kind of people are we anyhow? I say we stay and fight it out!

Gabby Johnson: Hmrufnm Hmfjrn!

Howard Johnson: Dr. Samuel Johnson's right about Olson Johnson being right.

Sam Johnson: Howard Johnson is right!

Van Johnson: Right!

Howard Johnson: Thank you, Van!

[MadHound]

86. If all of the parties involved were of age and consenting, why not

Polygamy and other forms of group marriage have been around since the dawn of mankind. And while some cultures were paternalistic groups(one male, multiple females), others were maternalistic(one female, multiple males). Even the Bible mentions group marriages, and didn't consider it a sin.

It is really only in the past two hundred years that Western Europeans and Americans have come to look down on this form of commitment. Perhaps that reaction is due to our Victorian/Puritan heritage. Or perhaps it is simple jealousy. Whatever the motivation, we need to give it up and realize that there are many more possible and rewarding combinations than the traditional male-female relationship.

[bigrootcanal]

98. One thing at a time

Group sex is too much for most people to appreciate yet alone understand. We'll hit this after we get marriage for same sex.

[Nikia]

107. Isn't this just a chosen extended family?

In the past and in some cultures, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and children live together or very close to one another. In the past, this was a good way to raise children and share resources especially if they were scarce. Some poor immigrant families do this in my community as well. With American culture as it is, people have gotten more autonomous. Many extended families are split across the country or even world. Every nuclear family is suppose to be their own unit, doing their own thing. Friends used to be more important in the past and a type of family. Now you are criticized if you are too close to your friends. Instead of having an extensive family living nearby and a best friend or a few that were your friends for life and effectively your family, you are only suppose to have one other person help you raise your children and be committted to. Your sexually committed partner, even if you are not married, is suppose to be much more important than your friends or even siblings. It is no wonder that some people think that they are suppose to be sexual with their friends in order to be close to them and think that marriage is the only legitamate way to be closely linked with other people. They are lonely with only one other person as they should be. We were meant to have lots of family, both genetic and close friends who were considered brothers and sisters to us. Why can't we go back to making extended family and friends important again? If you want to live with your friends, live with your friends. There is no reason that should be looked down on. If you want to be sexual with them, be sexual with them if it is for the right reasons. Don't be sexual with them though because that's the only way that you think that you can be close to them or think that because you are close to them that you are suppose to have sex. Sex can wreck perfectly good committed nonsexual relationships that are not inferior emotionally to sexual ones especially if other partners are involved. It is our instinct to be sexually jealous (male didn't want to raise another man's children and women didn't want less resources to be shared with her and her young child). If you want emotional committments and support networks, that can be done without marriage and sex. Perhaps, we should simply elevate the social status of "best friend" and other types of adopted, chosen family.

[leftofthedial]

110. it's like an extended family

I guess, but in the extended family, the "marriages" are all between two people.

I'm just asking why two. Why not three? Or five?

I think extended families are natural for primates.

[leesa]

109. As long as the children are protected legally and ethically

what does it have to do with the government?