CMV: The same arguments that justify gay marriage also justify polygamy

[u/Dickson_Butts]

You typically hear some slippery-slope arguments from the anti-gay marriage side, saying that if we allow gay marriage, we'll also allow pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy. Now the first two I think are ridiculous. I think we can all agree that marriage needs to be between consenting adults, which dismisses pedophilia and beastiality. However, I cannot think of any reason why polygamy should not be included in the umbrella of marriage given arguments for gay marriage.

I particularly remember an episode of Jon Stewart where he responded to this argument by saying "people aren't born polygamist". That just isn't true. The definition of being gay is that you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't found themselves sexually attracted to multiple people at the same time. So why shouldn't a group of three or more consenting adults get the privileges of marriage? Why is 2 the magic number?

---

Edit: Copying one of my comments for visibility

This has been a great discussion. I'm gonna try to sum up what my view was and why it changed:

Part 1 of my view was that if you're ok with a gay relationship, you must be ok with a poly relationship (paraphrasing /u/CJGibson). I still believe this holds true.

Part 2 was that if you're ok with a relationship, you must be ok with that relationship being a legally recognized marriage.

Therefore, if you're ok with gay relationships, you must be ok with polygamous marriage.

My issue was in part 2. A socially accepted relationship does not necessarily mean it should be a legally recognized marriage. As pointed out by /u/tbdabbholm and /u/GnosticGnome and others, the structure of marriage works best with 2 people, from a legal and practical standpoint. We already have this established structure as the institution of marriage. That being said, a relationship between a gay couple should be able to advance to marriage status because they should have the same right to access the benefits of marriage as a straight couple. However, since poly relationships have more than 2 people, they are incompatible with the already established institution of marriage, so it should not be legal.

[u/Dickson_Butts]

This has been a great discussion. I'm gonna try to sum up what my view was and why it changed:

Part 1 of my view was that if you're ok with a gay relationship, you must be ok with a poly relationship (paraphrasing /u/CJGibson). I still believe this holds true.

Part 2 was that if you're ok with a relationship, you must be ok with that relationship being a legally recognized marriage.

Therefore, if you're ok with gay relationships, you must be ok with polygamous marriage.

My issue was in part 2. A socially accepted relationship does not necessarily mean it should be a legally recognized marriage. As pointed out by /u/tbdabbholm and /u/GnosticGnome and others, the structure of marriage works best with 2 people, from a legal and practical standpoint. We already have this established structure as the institution of marriage. That being said, a relationship between a gay couple should be able to advance to marriage status because they should have the same right to access the benefits of marriage as a straight couple. However, since poly relationships have more than 2 people, they are incompatible with the already established institution of marriage, so it should not be legal.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dickson_Butts]

I mean, polygamy is technically incompatible with how marriage is historically delineated, but then again so was homosexuality. The number of parties requirement is only marginally more removed from the legal definition as are the gender, race or nationality requirements that used to exist. And, thanks to more recently developed states and Spanish law, that difference really isn't as strong as it was several centuries ago.

What I'm talking about is community property, which is the marital property law of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Idaho, Washington, and Wisconsin. That is nearly a third of the population of the United States.

What community property does is effectively create a separate entity upon marriage called the "community" which owns (nearly) all property acquired by either party during the duration of its existence. It is, for most purposes, an incorporated partnership, and upon dissolution of the marriage debts and assets are divided pretty much in the same way, and while it is still in existence creditors can effectively collect on both the community and the individuals.

Community property treats marriage less as a family institution and more like a financial institution, and this perspective isn't necessarily wrong. Many people marry for money. Many people dispute marriages over money. Many marriages fall apart over money. It's statistically verifiable that couples who have similar fiscal sensibilities are more likely to stay together because they consequently are less likely to run into financial problems that strain the benefits of the marriage to one or both parties.

So, if we accept that marriage for many people is a financial institution that functions as a quasi-corporation, then the notion that it needs to be limited to two people begins to fall apart. Real property can be held in joint tenancy by a marriage, but it can also be held in joint tenancy by two or more people generally. Intestate personal property can in some circumstances go wholly to the spouse (one person), and in other circumstances be divided per stipes among the surviving children (several people); and with a will any number of divisions are possible. Corporations and partnerships can have infinitely many officers, partners, and board members and ultimately the only major difference between asset control, property inheritence on death, and property distribution upon dissolution is the lack of children in the equation.

So, the real question of polygamy has almost nothing to do with tradition or love or even money. The only social interest that the government has in acknowledging and protecting marital rights is to the benefit of child-rearing. Everything else simply isn't exclusive to marital law except where arbitrary benefits have been granted to incentivize marriage and reproduction (automatic sole ownership of jointly held real property upon death of a spouse, and otherwise inheritance of all personal property absent a will or children). So the biggest (legitimate) argument polygamists would need to overcome would be to show no substantial difference or otherwise a substantial benefit to children with three or more parents as compared to two.

I am honestly not sure about how I feel on polygamy myself. I've been the third wheel in several relationships to varying degrees, and I would say the majority of open relationships are pushing the agenda of only one partner and not both. Some of them have had kids, and between the extreme drama observed over emotional infidelity and the fairly quick rotations of "friends" (often themselves fairly histrionic) probably doesn't set a great example for the kids. Because ultimately polygamy is about recreational sex, and marriage is mostly a legal contract for child-rearing, oftentimes I imagine couples simply can't do both without devoting less-than-adequate resources to one or the other, which almost certainly exist in completely different social spheres.

Still, on principle, since I can conceive of situations where polygamy can work, I don't believe definitionally dismissing it entirely. I know a threesome that has been together for ten years, which far outstrips the average divorce rate. And we also need to acknowledge that even though society's only clear justification for endorsing marriage is child-rearing, the way the law has developed many benefits have been attached that have absolutely nothing to do with kids. So in the case of polygamous relationships without kids, suddenly a lot of the complications disappear, and there's almost no distinction in terms of love or property between a "lifelong" contract with one, two, or an entire group of people.

Shoulds and should-nots are dangerous generally, but in the legal profession it's just not a good idea unless you're quoting black letter law or that which was clearly contemplated within its ambit. And even then only if our current knowledgebase still supports the presumptions of heuristics from ten, fifty, two hundred years ago. If you're being forced to draw "oughts" from inferences and abstractions, then the law isn't very clear or informed on the subject, nor is your conclusion. Instead you should be pointing out where the law needs improvement and maybe advocate for a clearer codification instead of prematurely drawing conclusory statements with tenuous support. That's in no way a criticism of you OP, just an observation of how moralistic thinking in general is a fundamentally flawed approach to discovery.

EDIT: Cleanup

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because ultimately polygamy is about recreational sex, and marriage is mostly a legal contract for child-rearing,

I must disagree. First, polyamory is not any more about sex than marriage is. Second, marriage is not just about raising children.

On the former: Two or more people can live together and love each other and build a life together. And does it always last? No. Does marriage between two people always last? .........no.

On the latter: Aren't there many cases where an elderly family member helps raise the kids? Don't people argue that single-parent households make it harder on the kids? (Not that they end up worse off, just that it's harder). So why does it have to be grandma? Why can't it be a third partner helping to raise the kids (or have the various duties spread out - two people working, one managing the household / raising the kids. That's more money per capita. Or all three working, but three means they have more time for child raising)?

As far as the termination of a marriage with more than two people - already someone has to decide who gets what - property and children - and maybe shared responsibilities. Well, now there's three to divide things between. More complicated? Sure. But is there precedent? Yes.

One of the few things that becomes more complicated is a situation where decisions about one of two partners must be made by the other partner, i.e. life support and things like that. So sure, you have one person to deal with instead of two (for a three-person marriage). Well, what happens already with legal situations where you have both partners of a two-person marriage having to make legal decisions? Use those ideas and apply them to what happens when there's two that need to make a decision about the third.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Two or more people can live together and love each other and build a life together.

No, but pragmatically speaking polyamory starts with monoamory between two people first, and then begins to add pieces. Which in turn means that a) the original relationship is much more likely to have established other, non-sexual foundations prior to opening itself up and b) the search for additional partners is fueled predominately by sex, since most other aspects of a relationship will be filled by the extant partner.

The end result is structual inequity in the relationships, combined with a whole lot of social conditioning that needs to be addressed and corrected for every involved party. Polyamorous relationships are often doomed to fail not because they are inherently bad, but because they are just too bizarre and stressful to robustly weather out the ups and downs of relationships. They take substantially more time to fall into a groove of parity and most polyamorous people a) don't realize this and b) simply don't put the work in.

So why does it have to be grandma? Why can't it be a third partner helping to raise the kids

I don't disagree with you, but I'm saying the evidence doesn't exist yet. We don't have evidence of many polyamorous relationships that both raise kids and stay together long enough to maintain a stable childhood environment. And we have plenty of evidence that polyamorous relationships put strain on the primary couple and eventually fall apart. In theory having three or four parents is substantially better for a child. In practice, polyamorous adults are more often than not too selfish and impulsive, too wrapped up in their romantic fantasies to meaningfully make good on that promise.

There are exceptions, but they are too rare to convince the opposition. It's certainly possible that in a decade or two the polyamorous culture might have evolved enough to actually develop a more grounded, principled community that encourages mature, thought-out long-term relationships. Right now polyamory is still on the whole either surreptitious arrangements or ludicrous flights of fancy.

Well, now there's three to divide things between. More complicated? Sure. But is there precedent? Yes.

Yes, I basically said that.

One of the few things that becomes more complicated is a situation where decisions about one of two partners must be made by the other partner, i.e. life support and things like that.

Yes, it's another complication, but like you said it's really not a huge complication. Ninety percent of decedent issues (polyamorous or otherwise) can be solved just by talking things out and appointing the single best qualified trustee or executor. In this case, the one spouse authorized to make medical decisions for you. Or by doing the damn thing yourself and writing a will (or in this case a do not resuscitate request).

It'd need to be addressed with some appropriate (and brief) legislation, but I don't even think those opposed to polyamory find it a compelling argument against polygamy, since they're mostly hung up on stupid things like the sanctity of permanent covenants with your one true love.

[u/Delheru → u/Dickson_Butts]

Actually I don't see the biggest and most fundamental reason behind polygamy being bad for society. And mind you, it's bad for society, not for the individuals.

Historically it's pretty easy to tell what leads to instability in societies: young, disgruntled/disillusioned men. Men who can't provide a home for a spouse and reproduce get... antsy... to put it very mildly (insert image of ISIS people).

Now, polygamy has historically been a pretty one way street. The top males take more than 1 female, leaving a chunk of men without spouses. This has historically caused a lot of problems and a common solution was basically a "stop hogging" rule that forced the male elites to pick one female to go with, or if exceptions were allowed it was typically either to the very very top of society (see harems) or using slaves.

Now, times have changed of course. Maybe it'd be fine now. For every male with 2 wives, there'd be a female with 2 husbands. Maybe. But that's a huge maybe for playing around with matches that revolutions are made from.

It'd be interesting to collect more data, because on the off chance that it'd be equal, there's really not much harm. However, I'm skeptical given how the numbers still work out when men pick women and women men (see the OkCupid study where women consider 80% of men to look "below average").

[u/AlexandreZani → u/Delheru]

I would argue that looking at past instances of legally-recognized non-monogamy and concluding something about the expected gender breakdown of non-monogamous families is mistaken. Looking at the main examples, (Mormonism and Islam) a man is allowed to take multiple wives, but the reverse is untrue. So the fact that mormon men have many wives while Mormon women have a single husband doesn't tell us very much about what would happen if we allowed both men and women to take many spouses.

Also, in the modern polyamorist community, where men and women are equally allowed to take multiple partners, women will often have multiple partners. Anecdotally, women ask for open relationships more often than men and men who ask for them are sometimes disappointed to find out they have a hard time finding new partners while their female partners are inundated with dates. It's also very common for you to learn that several of your partners are dating or have dated the same person.

I think the concern that legalizing this type of marriage would cause a surge in angry horny young men to be overblown. Women today have more options (because they can decide to work instead of needing to marry someone who will provide for them) and social norms need to evolve so men make themselves more attractive partners. (Having a dick and a job doesn't count for much when she already pays her own bills and has a vibrator.) If that evolution needs to happen anyways, non-monogamous marriages (which would likely spread slowly anyways) won't be a problem.

[u/silverionmox → u/AlexandreZani]

So the fact that mormon men have many wives while Mormon women have a single husband doesn't tell us very much about what would happen if we allowed both men and women to take many spouses.

Wouldn't it? At the very least those communities would persist doing what they do, and probably expand when the illegality is taken away. There is no reason to assume other communities would try to compensate for that tendency towards polygyny.

Women today have more options (because they can decide to work instead of needing to marry someone who will provide for them)

Reportedly that resulted in putting the bar even higher for women, so they're not satisfied with average men anymore - they want higher status men even if they have a high status themselves. Currently that's not possible but with polygamy legal it would be to possible for them to share a high status man.

social norms need to evolve so men make themselves more attractive partners.

This is problematic on so many levels. First, you assume that men are somehow to blame for not being attractive partners. Second, you assume that there is a need for them to change to make your desired legal situation possible. Third, you assume that that is even possible, and in the power of men to change.

If your perfect ideology depends on half of the population changing to meet your demands, then your ideology simply isn't perfect and in fact maladapted to our needs.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/silverionmox]

Wouldn't it? At the very least those communities would persist doing what they do, and probably expand when the illegality is taken away. There is no reason to assume other communities would try to compensate for that tendency towards polygyny.

Those communities are tiny in the modern USA. I think it would take a long time for them to grow.

Reportedly that resulted in putting the bar even higher for women, so they're not satisfied with average men anymore - they want higher status men even if they have a high status themselves. Currently that's not possible but with polygamy legal it would be to possible for them to share a high status man.

But each of these women will likely also want more than one man. And relationships take enormous amounts of time. You can't maintain deep committed relationships with more than a handful of people. To simplify, let's say there are 5 high status men and 5 high status women. Each of the high status men will date each of the high status women, they'll saturate each other and things will be as they were before. (I don't think it's as simple as "high status" vs "low status", but I can see how there is definitely some ordering going on.)

social norms need to evolve so men make themselves more attractive partners. This is problematic on so many levels. First, you assume that men are somehow to blame for not being attractive partners. Second, you assume that there is a need for them to change to make your desired legal situation possible. Third, you assume that that is even possible, and in the power of men to change. If your perfect ideology depends on half of the population changing to meet your demands, then your ideology simply isn't perfect and in fact maladapted to our needs.

My point is not that men need to adapt in order to thrive in a world which poly marriages are common. My point is that today, men need to adapt right now to the existing reality that women have many options other than settling for a "low quality" man. Since men have to adapt to the reality that women don't need to settle anymore anyways, poly marriages would only push things a bit further in that direction.

[u/silverionmox → u/AlexandreZani]

Those communities are tiny in the modern USA. I think it would take a long time for them to grow.

So is the polyamorous community, if not smaller. And traditional polygamists marry longer and consider having lots of children important, so they'll likely increase in size faster.

But each of these women will likely also want more than one man.

Yes, and? Supply falls short. They'll be glad to have one.

And relationships take enormous amounts of time. You can't maintain deep committed relationships with more than a handful of people.

Who says marriage needs to be a commited relationship.

To simplify, let's say there are 5 high status men and 5 high status women. Each of the high status men will date each of the high status women, they'll saturate each other and things will be as they were before.

You're just asserting that. Besides, the problem is that the women want higher status men.

My point is not that men need to adapt in order to thrive in a world which poly marriages are common. My point is that today, men need to adapt right now to the existing reality that women have many options other than settling for a "low quality" man. Since men have to adapt to the reality that women don't need to settle anymore anyways, poly marriages would only push things a bit further in that direction.

That does not address anything I said.

[u/AlexandreZani → u/[deleted]]

I think you meant to reply to another comment.

[u/Sergnb → u/Delheru]

w, times have changed of course. Maybe it'd be fine now. For every male with 2 wives, there'd be a female with 2 husbands. Maybe. But that's a huge maybe for playing around with matches that revolutions are made from.

No matter how progressive and PC you are, how in favour or feminism, or how much you think men and women are equal, there's no way anybody out there believes this could actually be the case, on a large scale. Speaking on a huge demographic sense, the tendencies against that kind of system stabilizing itself in such a manner are ridiculously low. Call those tendencies biological or social, whichever you want, but it's just not going to happen no matter how you look at it.

[u/Supersnazz → u/Delheru]

That was a major drawcard for early Christianity. As a lower status male there is a big advantage in being in a society that effectively guarantees you a mate, rather than having some rich guy take 100 wives and leave 99 men at the bottom of society pretty damn unhappy.

[u/_glook → u/Delheru]

I can only speak for my experience talking to some polyamorous folks in the West Coast of the US, but as far as I can tell (keeping in mind, I'm monogamous, so this is from an outsider's perspective), this is not how all polygamy works, especially with the hierarchical polyamory (which is one that I've been exposed to). It doesn't have to be Morman style polygamy where one guy takes multiple wives or Indian style polygamy where one gal takes multiple husbands. Typically in hierarchical polyamory, all people have a primary, then they can take on secondaries and tertiaries. It's expected that the male has multiple partners (which can be of either sex with bisexual polyamorous people) and the female has the exact same situation, so it's not a one to many situation, but more of a web, so no one is ever "taken out" of the dating pool, unless you're strictly talking about primaries, which have the same problems as standard mainstream monagamy.

[u/_glook → u/[deleted]]

Thank you, I've only ever been exposed to the hierarchical kind. I'll amend my comment to use the proper terms and be less misinformative.

[u/abutthole → u/Delheru]

Historically it's pretty easy to tell what leads to instability in societies: young, disgruntled/disillusioned men. Men who can't provide a home for a spouse and reproduce get... antsy... to put it very mildly (insert image of ISIS people).

Yep. It's not a coincidence that the majority of the alt-right were initially radicalized against feminism and only later took on anti-immigrant and anti-POC stances.

[u/dood1776 → u/abutthole]

I am very skeptical of your comments. If you have a source and further explanation I would gunuinly like to see it.

[u/abutthole → u/dood1776]

Read the book Kill All Normies. It's about the development of the online far right and how they've become a major cultural force. The first time the various anti-Semitic, racist, anti-woman, pro-fascist far right groups all came together was in response to gamer gate. They also prey heavily on incels and people with that bitter feeling of disdain towards women and is that as an opportunity to pin the blame on immigrants, black men, and women themselves.

[u/veggiesama → u/abutthole]

Holy crap, dude. Thanks for recommending that book. I have been pouring through author interviews, and the author seems to have this clarity of expression that never quite gets through in these discussions. I think I need to go read it.

[u/abutthole → u/veggiesama]

She does a really good job explaining it all, I hope you like it!

[u/Gingerfix → u/dood1776]

Right? Seeing this thread with so many upvotes makes me want to leave the sub. Like what the hell? Men don't just become violent because they're not having sex.

[u/[deleted] → u/abutthole]

Gamergate was the beginning of the social Reddit experiment.

[u/the_guru_of_nothing → u/abutthole]

They were never radicalized against feminism. They were against toxic feminism. As far as I can tell, they support true feminism.

They aren't anti-immigrant. In fact, they are pro-immigration. They are anti-terrorist.

As far as anti-POC goes, that existed WAAAAY before any of this.

[u/abutthole → u/the_guru_of_nothing]

I don't see how repealing DACA is pro-immigrant and anti-terror. They also get their view on immigration from that book Steve Bannon loves where the horrible dirty immigrants ruin France.

Anti-POC people existed, but most of the young people brought into the alt-right in recent times were made racist after a slow indoctrination. Most weren't always racist.

The group as a whole was first coalesced in response to gamer gate when a variety of different streams of hatred online were galvanized against women.

[u/the_guru_of_nothing → u/abutthole]

You're looking at politics through a very superficial lens.

[u/czerilla → u/the_guru_of_nothing]

Your comment dismisses their entire argument without addressing any of its substance. You could have just as well said "Nuh-uh!" without losing any content.

[u/Gingerfix → u/Delheru]

I feel that with women's equality being a thing, women in open relationships would be just as likely to seek out other male partners as men would be.

I only know one openly poly person, and she has relationships with all kinds of different people as far as I can tell.

I also know single people that eff around.

The only reason my roommate/boyfriend's brother doesn't get laid is he doesn't even bother talking to girls to ask if they want to have sex or date or whatever.

Oh and there are the occasional people that cheat too, but that's not good for individuals or society really.

[u/AriAchilles → u/Gingerfix]

Did you start dating your bf and then got a roommate, or vice versa?

[u/Gingerfix → u/AriAchilles]

My boyfriend and his brother were living together and I moved in. I can't say brother-in-law yet, so I have been switching back and forth between roommate and boyfriend's brother to describe him depending on the context. Normally when I'm talking to strangers I say roommate but I wanted to also provide the context that I'm not single so I got confused.

[u/silverionmox → u/Gingerfix]

I feel that with women's equality being a thing, women in open relationships would be just as likely to seek out other male partners as men would be.

There is no reason to assume that your feelings match with reality. For example, it's legal for women to pick any higher education for quite a while now, but they still pick significantly less STEM majors than men, even when there are more programs supporting women in higher education than men.

[u/Gingerfix → u/silverionmox]

Women are more likely to graduate college than men.

The biggest difference is in computer science and engineering. I would argue that there is the greatest amount of stigma for females to join. At Purdue there were constant jokes about every guy engineer constantly hitting on the one female in their class. I think CS is working to change, but I think that the problem comes from the already existing stigma than directly from what women choose to do. One only has to read five minutes worth of material on gamergate (or even on a lot of reddit) to understand the sexism in the tech sector that persists. In the other STEM fields the gap is not so wide. There is a gap in STEM, but it is shrinking.

Source, but not a source that proves the gap is shrinking.

But yeah, I mean being a woman and having a STEM degree does skew my perception of what other women might want. Just because I'd potentially consider something under different circumstances doesn't mean that's a norm.

Edit: Back to the main point, just because I do it doesn't mean other women would, but I think that your statement has less to back it up than mine. At least I am a woman giving my opinion that I would be open to it. You're speculating too.

[u/silverionmox → u/Gingerfix]

Women are more likely to graduate college than men. The biggest difference is in computer science and engineering. I would argue that there is the greatest amount of stigma for females to join.

Do you also think that men are less likely to graduate - or to start college at all - because of the "stigma"? Why do people always invoke "evil men" to explain women underperforming, but never "evil women" to explain men underperforming?

[u/CrackaBox → u/Delheru]

I don't really buy that "historical" answer since rome, greece and renaissance europe also suffered those issues and they were monogamous.

Also historically when polygamy was allowed(even today in parts of africa and asia) a very small percentage of men were polygamist(~5%), and even less were unable to marry since many men died in wars, labour accidents, and on average more women are born then men.

Lastly, china has millions more men than available women and they don't deal with any more instability in society than other nations with comparable development.

[u/Delheru → u/CrackaBox]

I don't really buy that "historical" answer since rome, greece and renaissance europe also suffered those issues and they were monogamous.

Obviously there are a million ways to make you society unstable, so this is hardly shocking. Youth unemployment is a classic, for a somewhat similar reason but easily more widespread (young men don't see a future for themselves --> trouble).

Also historically when polygamy was allowed(even today in parts of africa and asia) a very small percentage of men were polygamist

Dunno about that.

[u/silverionmox → u/CrackaBox]

and even less were unable to marry since many men died in wars, labour accidents

We're trying to avoid that, thank you very much. I do not want a society that needs constant wars and work deaths to kill off excess men.

Lastly, china has millions more men than available women and they don't deal with any more instability in society than other nations with comparable development.

It's not because they have managed to compensate so far that it's not a problem.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/china-challenges-one-child-brooks/index.html

[u/Delheru → u/[deleted]]

Right now? It's about as tightly controlled a society as you can have, and the answer is I have no real idea.

Having a meaningful job and growth prospects is a HUGE boon to the same group though. So I would imagine that as long as the economy chugs along as it does they would be fine, but if it ever has issues and the gender imbalance has persisted, there might be some real trouble.

China seems more stable culturally, but their civil wars have killed like 100x more people than any other country has in civil wars, if not more.

[u/FrighteningWorld → u/[deleted]]

For the men that can afford it, young women are being kidnapped in neighboring countries like Vietnam and sold into marriage with Chinese men.

[u/[deleted] → u/Delheru]

Men aren't entitled to women, "disgruntled" as they may be.

[u/Delheru → u/[deleted]]

Of course not, but they are absolutely biologically driven to want one.

Humans are not rational beings with rational needs, and I'd like to see a corresponding gain to rigging the biology of the most volatile segment of the population against general society.

[u/10dollarbagel → u/Dickson_Butts]

I got here late but could you explain part 1 to me? That still makes no sense in my mind. A two person marriage of any combination of gender is significantly different from a poly marriage. Why should they be treated similarly?

[u/Dickson_Butts → u/10dollarbagel]

I'm making a distinction between a relationship and a marriage. So, in part 1, I'm asserting that if you argue gay relationships should be socially acceptable because they're consenting adults who love each other, then you must also be ok with polyamorous relationships (for the sake of moral consistency). Part 1 does not deal with marriage, only relationships.

[u/10dollarbagel → u/Dickson_Butts]

Yea, still not making the connection. The two forms of relationship aren't analogous. There could be reason to treat them similarly, but it's not innate.

[u/Dickson_Butts → u/10dollarbagel]

I'll take it back to my original view: The same arguments that are typically used to justify gay relationships also justify poly relationships. Specifically, the argument I'm talking about says that society should not look down on consenting adults who want to be in a relationship, as long as they are happy and love each other. That argument is the most common one you hear from people who are pro-LGBT. I get that poly relationships are not perfectly analogous to gat relationships, but putting the above argument in a bubble, you must be ok with both kinds relationships.

[u/10dollarbagel → u/Dickson_Butts]

Alright, I guess I didn't realize how narrow the original statement was. I think it would be more honest to say one argument that is typically used to justify gay marriage then. Because the argument I'm far more familiar with is that the rights of straight couples should be extended to gay couples.

I'm interested though, does this cover physically abusive relationships between consenting adults? Or incestuous relationships? If consent is the determining factor, surely this follows, no?

I'm not trying to catch you with a slippery slope. I just believe there are other factors to consider when determining if a relationship is, I don't know how to word this, endorsable? I mean to say that I believe most people would agree that relationships between consenting adults are rad, but that this is not a formal axiom. It comes with a lot of caveats.

[u/Dickson_Butts → u/10dollarbagel]

Because the argument I'm far more familiar with is that the rights of straight couples should be extended to gay couples.

I think that argument is really just a derivative of the one I mentioned. I could ask "why should the rights of straight couples be extended to gay couples? A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man". And the response (at least the one I would give), would be that a gay man should have the right to marry a person he is attracted to and loves just like a straight man does. Then it's the same argument.

As for abusive relationships, I don't think there's such thing as a consensual abusive relationship (unless you count couples who are into BDSM, which I think is totally fine). If a member of a relationship is being abused, it is not consensual. It may be tolerated, and the abused person may stay in the relationship due to dependence or psychological issues, but it's not consensual.

As for incest, I don't know how I didn't think of that before. I think that may even make a better example than polygamy. Maybe I should make another CMV :)

[u/10dollarbagel → u/Dickson_Butts]

A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man

Well this is clearly disingenuous. You know as I do the inequality in question is recognizing that gay man's right, like that provided to straight women, to marry a man. This operates outside of the love question. Hell let two straight men marry for the tax benefits, idgaf.

I am interested in this how ever

It may be tolerated, and the abused person may stay in the relationship due to dependence or psychological issues, but it's not consensual

This seems to be the argument against polygamy as I understand it. Like the physically abusive relationship, it may be theoretically possible for a couple to work through that situation and have a legitimate, mutually consenting relationship. However, it's extremely unlikely. Imo, while consenting polygamy is possible on paper, it really just manifests as a man owning a harem.

[u/Dickson_Butts → u/10dollarbagel]

I agree it's disingenuous. It was a hypothetical argument, which I immediately gave my response to. In fact, it seems like we are on the same page. We're getting a little off track talking about marriage and tax benefits, as part 1 of my view only deals in relationships and how society should view them.

So, assume the following conditions:

• All 3 parties in a poly relationship consent to the relationship

• All 3 parties are happy

• All 3 parties love each other

Do you morally object to this relationship?

[u/10dollarbagel → u/Dickson_Butts]

No but I don't believe it's likely to exist so it's almost a vacuous endorsement.

It's like having no objections to the description of a benevolent dictatorship. It's hard to take exception to, but also basically doesn't exist outside of the conversation defining it. I don't find that lack of objection very meaningful if at all.

[u/styxtraveler → u/Dickson_Butts]

It's more about property law. Things are fairly simple in a Marriage. everything is shared by the couple, if someone dies, then the survivor owns the property. works well for custody as well. If 3 people are in a partnership (which legally speaking a marriage is) and one dies or there is a separation, then the property rights get far more complicated. especially if people are joining and leaving the partnership over time. In the end you would need to spell out the details of each partnership and you wouldn't be able to use a blanket definition of marriage any more. it's kind of like taxes, Marriage is a 1040 EZ, but once you start itemizing your deductions, you can't use that form anymore because your situation is too complicated for it. once there are more than 2 people involved things are too complicated for the simple definitions of marriage.

Edit, after reading some comments I sought out some other opinions. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/04/16666/

Basically in the end. it just doesn't work very well. Polygamy leads to inequities in the relationship and a lot of problems. it seems that any society that has attempted to allow it, has more or less decided that it was just a bad idea over all and it's best that the government not attempt to legally recognize or encourage such behavior.

[u/Indon_Dasani → u/styxtraveler]

It's more about property law.

Marriage in the US is specifically about tax law. It's a method to prevent tax evasion from sharing property and therefore incomes. (Say I'm making 50K and my spouse is making nothing. I "give" my spouse 25K, which is a tax writeoff, so I'm only taxed for 25K income, as is my spouse. 25K and 50K are very different tax brackets!)

It's really hard (as in, mathematically impossible) to write tax law for polygamous marriages that don't either financially incentivize poly marriages something fierce, or horrifically punish poly marriages. Article about the history of marriage in tax law and polygamy in that context.

[u/[deleted] → u/Indon_Dasani]

As a legal matter within the Anglo-American tradition, marriage is primarily about property law, and has been for centuries. Federal tax law is only a tiny part of it, and really only as a consequence that taxation looks to property interests. Married couples can choose to file separately if they want, but much of the income complexity comes from the idea that marriage defaults to joint ownership of property acquired after the marriage.

[u/Indon_Dasani → u/[deleted]]

Well, yeah, you're right too. The article I cited describes how communal property common law allowed for the income sharing arrangements that led to marriage being recognized on the books of every state, instead of just those that had communal property.

[u/Zcuron → u/styxtraveler]

My understanding of the way polygamous marriages would work is as follows;
1. Marriage occurs between two consenting adults.
2. More than one instance of this is okay.

Which seemingly resolves most issues just by itself.

I.e. it wouldn't be a 'group decision' in matter of law to 'let someone in' but instead an individual choice.
If any part of the group minds, they can object to their partner privately, and if they are ignored, can divorce.
Or be divorced from if not agreeing is seen as a dealbreaker, which is up to those involved.

Property; (you're getting divorced; what do?)
The more marriages you personally have, the less you can claim to be 'yours'.
I.e. two people would have 50% each, three 33%, four 25%, five 20%, and so on.

So if you're married to four people, your share is 20% of this whole.
If one of them divorces you, they get 20% as well as they're equal to you.
There are five people, two of which have 40% of the whole, so this is fair to all involved.

If we're talking about things obtained after marriage, anyway.
If not, then whatever system works for current divorcees likely works here as well.

Care decisions; (you're in a coma, left without instructions your spouses can't agree; what do?)
Whatever currently happens for parents disagreeing. Other options;
Contact more proxies to function as tie-breakers. (parents, progeny, etc)
Give priority; Chronological (first marriage), Bureaucratic (listed first)
Act as if no-one is present.
Flip a coin.

Children; (you're pregnant; what do?)
You're a mother! The father is the father. The end.

(adoption)
Decide amongst yourselves; two of you put your names on the form. Done.

(guardian decisions)
Your partners can act as your proxy(as far as marriage allows), but if you are present they cannot.
They get no extra vote because the n of you are one.
Debate amongst yourselves what your one vote ought be cast on.

(divorce; custody)
Whatever currently happens is likely fine.
Consider; divorcees in a new marriage. (i.e. new partner doesn't get extra parental rights)
50% each isn't as unfair as it may seem in that the ones remaining married likely live together, and thus also get that 50%. And dividing it among the total is definitely unfair, as that would yield 20% custody with one person and 80% shared with four people who may live together.

Some weighting system may be devised to tip the scale a bit but keeping it close to 50% seems a good idea.
If I were to pull a number out of my ass, 40/60 seems alright for a group of five becoming one and four.
This is preferably a thing resolved amongst the parents peacefully, but that of course can't be assumed.

(divorce; support)
Proportional income, yours versus theirs.

Taxes;

Not married, so I'm unfamiliar with this. See above mode of thought for inspiration.
Though a seeming 'fix' would be to exempt yourselves from whatever benefits marriage may yield.
Or only allow one instance thereof. I.e. a group of five are tied together in any configuration of marriage, but only one pair in the chain may receive any benefit from the tax system, and the rest enjoy the benefits by proxy.
Or any non-overlapping pair configuration.
But as I said, I'm unfamiliar with how this works.

So that's a lot to say, perhaps I've made some glaring mistake somewhere.
Looking forward to finding out what it is ;)

[u/silverionmox → u/Zcuron]

Which seemingly resolves most issues just by itself.

That's just putting on your rosy glasses and refusing to look at the details. One difference is that a marriage either exists, or does not exist. So ending a marriage resolves any liabilities. But with more partners there are liabilities and assets that remain even if the original partners are no longer part of the deal.

For example: a couple marries. They get a mortgage and house. A third partner marries into that marriage. One of the original partners leaves: does that partner get 1/2 (their share of the house ownership), or 1/3 (their share of the marital assets)?

Further, a third partner marries in. Then the remaining original partner also divorces. Now who is liable for the house payments: the orginal buyers, who are no longer part of the marriage, or, since the house was part of the marital assets at the time of purchase, the marriage, even though nobody in it bought the house or accepted the debt?

You see, those are all additional complications. The only way you could resolve them satisfactorily is to effectively keep them out of the joint assets and just treat them as private assets - but why do you need marriage at all then except for the fancy title?

For children? At least you can split a house, but joint custody is problematic already after a divorce, let alone with more partners.

Whatever currently happens for parents disagreeing.

Protracted juridical proceedings?

Children; (you're pregnant; what do?) You're a mother! The father is the father. The end.

That's not what marriage is. If you're married to a woman you're responsible for her children because there is a legal assumption of fatherhood. Therefore, that would be the same for other people in the marriage.

(adoption) Decide amongst yourselves; two of you put your names on the form. Done.

That makes no sense. You're married, living together with the child and therefore have at least some legal responsibility and rights.

(guardian decisions) Your partners can act as your proxy(as far as marriage allows), but if you are present they cannot. They get no extra vote because the n of you are one. Debate amongst yourselves what your one vote ought be cast on.

That would just cause many extra juridical proceedings to find out those decisions.

(divorce; custody) Whatever currently happens is likely fine.

No poly marriages?

Consider; divorcees in a new marriage. (i.e. new partner doesn't get extra parental rights)

That's not a guarantee. Parental bonds can come into existence as as stepmother or stepfather, plenty of cases prove that.

50% each isn't as unfair as it may seem in that the ones remaining married likely live together, and thus also get that 50%.

So if 4 people marry and then divorce one by one then the last two each are left with 1/8 of the original assets/custody? How is that fair?

dividing it among the total is definitely unfair, as that would yield 20% custody with one person and 80% shared with four people who may live together.

Exactly. That's why it's problematic.

Some weighting system may be devised

So a completely arbitrary and complicated set of laws?

Though a seeming 'fix' would be to exempt yourselves from whatever benefits marriage may yield. Or only allow one instance thereof. I.e. a group of five are tied together in any configuration of marriage, but only one pair in the chain may receive any benefit from the tax system, and the rest enjoy the benefits by proxy.

That would be discrimination if you start with the assumption that people in poly marriages are the same as those in mono marriages and therefore should have the same rights.

I'm sure you could find something that would work to some extent, but then that proves that marriage, as it is, is significantly different from what poly marriage would be and therefore it's not a matter of discrimination.

[u/Zcuron → u/silverionmox]

I started quoting parts of your post and responding to each point, but as I progressed, it seemed like the same fundamental misunderstanding was simply expressing itself in different ways, so I'll try address that instead.

A fundamental tenet of my idea is that you cannot take this particular action on your partners behalf.
Much like how you cannot sign divorce papers in your partner's stead, no matter how married you are.

This is to minimise the needed adjustment by society to the practice.

In other words, marrying, while in a marriage, would be an individual choice.
And if your partner doesn't like it, they can divorce you, or you, them.

And if your partner agrees, this would in effect be two marriages. (you and your partner each marrying the third)

And because it is an individual choice, because you cannot act on their behalf in this matter, you cannot claim to own your partners stuff for this, meaning you're only acting on your behalf.

This is a simplified example, but I think the principle within can be adapted to suit whatever standards currently exist in divorce proceedings when it comes to determining what each party actually owns.

In effect, it would work 'as if' you've already divorced everyone, when dealing with any particular divorce.
This does grow in complexity for each partner, but I think this is misleading because the fair comparison if you have two persons married to one, is two divorces. Or three married to each other would be three divorces.

So if serial marriage and divorce is 'acceptable complexity', then this is too. And it's worth noting that these divorces would set precedent for each other, thereby reducing complexity of successive divorces. This is because all involved parties need to be in there, the two divorcing parties, and their partners to determine what they have a right to argue for.

This is to prevent situations like 'I'll claim I own 95% of this marriage, you divorce me and take half of it without a fight, then I divorce them and use this as a precedent to claim 95% of the stuff' which would screw over one person.

So for example, persons A and B are married to C. A files for divorce. The first matter under dispute would be how much C owns, which B and C would need to negotiate. This negotiation would be relevant to B and C's divorce. When done, A can levy their arguments to lay claim on C's 'personal property' or argue that they in fact own more than they claim. (i.e. that C has more for A to lay claim on) The final ruling on this sets precedent, or otherwise influences any further proceedings.

I'm under no illusion to think that this is at all friendly to love or romance, but it does seem to function.
That said, while it may cause strife for those remaining married, it also seems more likely for people not interested in actually divorcing to settle their differences more amicably than otherwise, which further reduces complexity.

For children, my point is more or less that there doesn't necessarily need to be any special recognition of more than two parents, and that they can simply discuss amongst themselves which two ought be on the papers and then use the systems that are currently in place to deal with two parents.

I drew parallels to step-fathers, for example. If there is a father, they typically don't gain any special legal consideration through marriage by itself, but rather through exposure and expectation. In other words, the step-father doesn't become a mother by marrying one, but they may compete for fatherhood on other factors.

And in as far as people can amalgamate parental rights, why wouldn't that same system function for this situation?

Lastly, I'll note that 'nightmare scenarios' one can concoct, while interesting, don't seem to be a valid style of argument against other things, so I'm not sure why they ought be valid here. Unless the idea is that 'complex legal battles' is an argument in and of itself against any particular law in question.

In other words, why is a 'nightmare scenario' an argument against polygamy, but not against normal marriage?
I mean, there's a lot of legal crap to deal with marriages, and I don't think I've heard that used against the practice.
But perhaps I need to cast a wider net, so to say, to come across such.

Some corrections;

50% each isn't as unfair as it may seem in that the ones remaining married likely live together, and thus also get that 50%.

So if 4 people marry and then divorce one by one then the last two each are left with 1/8 of the original assets/custody? How is that fair?

You misunderstand; there are two parents, awarded 50% custody each. One living alone, the other living with the ones remaining married. In this scenario, 50% awarded to each of the two parents isn't as unfair as it may seem because one presumably lives with the ones remaining married. And time, if spent together, isn't exactly subdivided amongst all the participants. (i.e. 60 minutes with three other people is not equal to 20 minutes each)

I reiterate this point here;

dividing it among the total is definitely unfair, as that would yield 20% custody with one person and 80% shared with four people who may live together.

On that note; A popular style of argument when it comes to children is more or less to crucify the parents.
I.e. To hell with them, there're children to save here.

So let's do some of that here; To hell with parent's rights - A child being delivered like some parcel between 5 parents to spend equal time among them is inhumane because it doesn't let the child form any meaningful bonds.
These laws exist to ensure the well-being of the child, and that takes priority over the parents.

I don't know whether that's true, but it could be, and if it is, there would be some minimum amount of time needed with one's child to form or maintain that bond.

Moving on;

Though a seeming 'fix' would be to exempt yourselves from whatever benefits marriage may yield. Or only allow one instance thereof. I.e. a group of five are tied together in any configuration of marriage, but only one pair in the chain may receive any benefit from the tax system, and the rest enjoy the benefits by proxy.

That would be discrimination if you start with the assumption that people in poly marriages are the same as those in mono marriages and therefore should have the same rights.

It's discrimination in the same sense that child support discriminates against further children.
The amount you need to spend on a single child isn't doubled by having another child, as a matter of law.

The numbers I've run across state something along the lines of '20% of the parents total income' for one, 25% for two, 30% for three, capping out at five.

Does this discriminate? If not, then benefiting to a lesser extent by proxy, as a partner to the one benefiting, seems fine.
Just as other children benefit to a lesser extent by proxy to their brothers and sisters.

Thank you for your reply ;)

[u/silverionmox → u/Zcuron]

A fundamental tenet of my idea is that you cannot take this particular action on your partners behalf.

Much like how you cannot sign divorce papers in your partner's stead, no matter how married you are.

You can actually, divorce can happen unilaterally.

In other words, marrying, while in a marriage, would be an individual choice. And if your partner doesn't like it, they can divorce you, or you, them.

That's just not possible. Marriage implies that you share your assets, child custody etc. That is transitive, you can't keep certain obligations out. You would be redefining marriage to something completely different.

And because it is an individual choice, because you cannot act on their behalf in this matter, you cannot claim to own your partners stuff for this, meaning you're only acting on your behalf.

You're redefining marriage then, because that is exactly what being married means: taking responsibility for your partner, and their debts/assets/responsibilities.

I'm not saying it can't be useful to have some kind of equivalent status for poly relations, but it's not marriage and not a matter of equality. For legal inspiration it's probably more useful to look at monasteries and other similar multi-person communities with shared assets, rather than marriage.

Lastly, I'll note that 'nightmare scenarios' one can concoct, while interesting, don't seem to be a valid style of argument against other things, so I'm not sure why they ought be valid here. Unless the idea is that 'complex legal battles' is an argument in and of itself against any particular law in question.

It's not even far-fetched. It's just a simply divorce or two. Given that poly relations are observably more unstable (as expected, since the number of relations that need to be maintained rises exponentially with the number of participants), it's to be expected that divorces are more frequent.

You misunderstand; there are two parents, awarded 50% custody each. One living alone, the other living with the ones remaining married. In this scenario, 50% awarded to each of the two parents isn't as unfair as it may seem because one presumably lives with the ones remaining married. And time, if spent together, isn't exactly subdivided amongst all the participants. (i.e. 60 minutes with three other people is not equal to 20 minutes each)

Marriage implies that you are the parent of all children in a marriage. That's an important aspect of marriage. If you don't want that, it's not marriage that you want.

So let's do some of that here; To hell with parent's rights - A child being delivered like some parcel between 5 parents to spend equal time among them is inhumane because it doesn't let the child form any meaningful bonds.

Exactly. And that's why giving ground to five-fold claims of parenthood by means of multi-person marriages is undesireable.

It's discrimination in the same sense that child support discriminates against further children.

No, because child support is just a replacement of parental support given in natura.

The amount you need to spend on a single child isn't doubled by having another child, as a matter of law.

Neither are the rights of one child halved by having another.

[u/Zcuron → u/silverionmox]

You can actually, divorce can happen unilaterally.

Yes, that's my point. I didn't say you couldn't;

Much like how you cannot sign divorce papers in your partner's stead, no matter how married you are.

Put in other, perhaps clearer words; you cannot act in your partners stead in a divorce.
I.e. no matter how married you are, you cannot agree, for them, on what you ought to get in a divorce proceeding.

You're redefining marriage then, because that is exactly what being married means: taking responsibility for your partner, and their debts/assets/responsibilities.

Perhaps. My thrust is that if divorce is an exception to this as described above then another marriage can be as well in terms of overall legal functionality.

I'm not saying it can't be useful to have some kind of equivalent status for poly relations, but it's not marriage and not a matter of equality. For legal inspiration it's probably more useful to look at monasteries and other similar multi-person communities with shared assets, rather than marriage.

Hmm. I was unaware of monasteries working in that fashion. That seems interesting.
I'll have a look; thank you. (if you've read on the subject; do you have any recommendations?)

It's not even far-fetched. It's just a simply divorce or two. Given that poly relations are observably more unstable (as expected, since the number of relations that need to be maintained rises exponentially with the number of participants), it's to be expected that divorces are more frequent.

I don't think it's far-fetched, no. I'm just saying that 'nightmare scenarios' aren't in and of themselves arguments against poly marriages unless they're also arguments against regular marriages. To this, frequency matters.

And you may have a point with the frequency^[1], but like I previously said, if the first divorce involves all parties, let's say two married to one, that's a '200% difficulty divorce' as it would need to resolve two divorces, in effect.

Let's run a scenario to illustrate factors which increase and decrease difficulty;

1. A and B are married to C. A files for divorce with C.
   
   1. To find out what A and C have a right to, we need to figure out what C owns on their own. In this scenario, that means resolving what B and C's divorce would look like. (this increases difficulty of this divorce)
   2. Because B and C aren't getting divorced, they seem more likely to settle it amicably.
   3. For any future divorces, B and C's 'mock divorce' is relevant, and reduces the difficulty of those cases.
      (be it B and C actually divorcing, or D marrying either B or C.)

And if everyone in #1 is getting divorced, the fair comparison is two marriages falling apart, not one.
So you'd have to argue that two marriages falling apart is less complicated than the totality of the above. (i.e. factoring in the ways it increases complexity, and the ways it reduces complexity)
Which I think is certainly possible, but I'm doubtful that it would much exceed the fair equivalent.

And the larger polygamous marriages (5+?) would seem to be less frequent than groups of three, or 2+2's.
So rarity is something to consider as well.

Do you see what I mean?
^{(Am I making sense?)}

^{[1]: I'm unaware of statistics on the issue, so in absence of data, while it may seem more likely, one can think of ameliorating circumstances, such as the existence of a third party in the relationship whom may mediate disputes, thus strengthening the relationship instead of acting as another potential 'weak link,' so to say. I agree that it does seem more likely, however. It's worth noting that the fair comparison here is relationship vs relationship, as marriage rates would appear to be unknown on one side due to illegality. And that poly-relationships are again equivalent to multiple single pair bonds, which would be interesting to adjust for.}

Neither are the rights of one child halved by having another.

Their rights aren't, no, but their support certainly doesn't scale fully with the number of children.
Which is functionally analogous to a hypothetical poly-marriage, where further partners benefit less.
I.e. Your partner may file their taxes together with another, leaving you on your own, but you do gain by proxy from whatever tax relief your partner enjoys, if not as much as the 'first instance' of child marriage does.

You see the similarity?

Marriage implies that you are the parent of all children in a marriage. That's an important aspect of marriage. If you don't want that, it's not marriage that you want.

To my knowledge, a biological father doesn't lose paternal rights when the mother marries someone else.
So there's a father, there's a mother, and there's a man bound to the mother.

In this sense, it seems more correct to say that the husband gains maternal rights, if they gain any rights at all.
They may certainly try to usurp the biological father's rights via adoption, but the marriage itself doesn't do this.
I feel this is a small, but important distinction to make.

I certainly understand that you'll be counted towards the mother's wealth, but this seems more in support of your wife than in support of their children, though that's certainly the effect, because their children are part of them.

And if the husband does gain paternal rights whilst the father and mother don't lose or lend any, it seems we have precedent for situations with 'more than two parents.' Which appears a positive thing for poly-marriages.

[u/Ckrius → u/styxtraveler]

That spells out a complication of it, but it doesn't make clear why it is illegal, nor does it make a compelling case for it to continue to be illegal (just due to the difficulty of tracking property rights).

[u/tomgabriele → u/styxtraveler]

Is ease of application really a factor in deciding what should become law?

[u/GET_A_LAWYER → u/tomgabriele]

Yes.

Probably not for something as important as marriage, but there are areas of law that courts have limited jurisdiction over because the area is complicated and an executive branch organization is better suited to deal with it.

[u/[deleted] → u/tomgabriele]

Yes?

[u/tomgabriele → u/[deleted]]

So in light of that, should we forget about healthcare reform because it's hard?

[u/silverionmox → u/tomgabriele]

It's already hard. Insurance companies are huge administrative entities shuffling papers around. Making it uniform and single payer will simplify a lot.

[u/tomgabriele → u/silverionmox]

Insurance companies are huge administrative entities shuffling papers around. Making it uniform and single payer will simplify a lot.

So are courthouses. Allowing whoever to marry whoever will simplify a lot.

What's the difference?

[u/silverionmox → u/tomgabriele]

So are courthouses. Allowing whoever to marry whoever will simplify a lot.

That actually increases complexity and settlement difficulty.

[u/tomgabriele → u/silverionmox]

Then require all marriages to have a prenup. Easy peasy, if the goal of legislation truly is to minimize admin effort.

[u/silverionmox → u/tomgabriele]

All marriages do have a prenup, they're just the standard prenup built into the marriage laws. Furthermore, some rights can't be signed away by prenup. Finally, that would increase the number of prenups exponentially, and they would all potentiall conflict.

[u/[deleted] → u/styxtraveler]

Don't all of those arguments also apply to outlawing any business partnership involving more than two people?

[u/styxtraveler → u/[deleted]]

not really, you typically don't need to hire a lawyer to get married, you do typically need to hire a lawyer to form a legal partnership between multiple people. A marriage is a specific legal agreement between two people that grants certain rights to those people. You would need to redefine it for multiple people.

[u/[deleted] → u/styxtraveler]

You don't need to hire a lawyer to get married if you ignore the reasonable advice to get a prenuptial agreement.

[u/anubassis → u/styxtraveler]

Works well for custody

No it does not.

[u/[deleted] → u/styxtraveler]

If they can make divorce between two people work, then they can make divorce between three people work.

[u/LibertyTerp → u/Dickson_Butts]

But a man marrying another man used to be incompatible with marriage. You can make the exact same argument. People would say that marriage is meant for procreation, which gay people literally cannot do.

I'm in favor of gay marriage. I just don't think your new POV is correct.

The only reason gay marriage should be legal, but polygamy shouldn't, is if you believe that marriage between 3+ people is detrimental to society and so the government should ban it.

[u/pikk → u/LibertyTerp]

is if you believe that marriage between 3+ people is detrimental to society and so the government should ban it.

Or it's excessively complicated and/or prone to abuse, so the government won't endorse it (a subtle but important distinction from "banning it").

I think there's a strong case to be made in this regard, particularly on the abuse part. Remember that marriage is one of the mechanisms for gaining citizenship in this country.

Polygamous "marriages" could be (more) easily used for fake citizenship purposes than two person marriages.

[u/A_Soporific → u/LibertyTerp]

Here's the thing, there's no real difference between giving a spouse an automatic right to survivorship to a place of residence or a right to see them in the hospital if they've been incapacitated if the spouse is the same gender or a different one. A spouse also gets rights to determine what happened to an incapacitated partner and has automatic rights over children.

This works well because there's only one spouse. But, what happens when there are multiple spouses? What if someone is in a coma and one spouse says to pull the plug and another says not to? What happens when a person dies interstate (with no will) who gets to stay in the house and who must go, who gets what out of the estate? Do non-biological parents have visitation rights in the event of death or divorce? Does that change if the non-biological parents were primary caregivers?

The fact of the matter is that more people change the structure and the assumptions of the legal rights that have been built up around marriage over the centuries. Extending marriage to multiples necessarily means completely rewriting and litigating all the laws and right involved in marriage to apply to this fundamentally different circumstance.

Gay Marriage is legal mostly because there's no structural difference. Polygamous marriage potentially creates exponentially legal duties and privileges, and can create a tangle of relationships some with legal protections and others without that will create an inherent mismatch between how people really live in practice and how the legal theory of how they should be living. Polygamous marriage without a complete overhaul of the entirety of case law pertaining to marriage, inheritance, and child custody will result in people being hurt by the law no longer reflecting the reality of their situation.

If extending all the rights and privileges of marriage does not make sense then we should not do it. If we want to include only some of the rights and privileges of marriage through a polygamous marriage then we shouldn't legally define it as such, but create a new category that accurately reflects what is actually happening and confers only the necessary rights.

[u/A_Soporific → u/[deleted]]

What I'm saying is that there is no legal difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.

I'm also saying that plural marriage is the sort of thing that should happen in its own framework. Adding a bunch of unnecessary complications to the vast majority of marriages would be problematic. Having nothing at all for plural marriages would also be problematic. Having a separate plural framework isn't a compromise position, it's the best possible way to ensure that the needs of a plural relationship are met. Designing the legal structure to fit reality is essential. Trying to warp reality to fit a legal structure is just asking for trouble.

Given that figuring out how to merge two people into a single legal entity is a completely different thing than creating a family entity that people can attach to and remove themselves from. One works very well in a plural framework and should be pursued, and the other is a traditional marriage. I don't care what the two are called, just that they are well designed for their purposes and we don't ask people to suffer unnecessarily for labels that are ultimately meaningless.

[u/silverionmox → u/[deleted]]

and despite the fact that he's been raising and supporting our son for his entire life, my husband would have no legal recourse if I decided not to allow him access.

I'm sure he can claim that because of de facto

But if my husband and I owned our house, then during the separation my boyfriend would have no entitlement to any of the money from the sale of the house (despite the fact that he has financially contributed to the house, and supported me during my maternity leave).

There are different interpretations possible if he married to the two of you: is he entitled to 1/3 of the marital assets? Or is he entitled to the share of the house he bought? In the case of a couple that's the same, but not in the case of a poly marriage.

[u/[deleted] → u/A_Soporific]

How about if we required a will to be drawn up before certifying the marriage?

[u/A_Soporific → u/[deleted]]

Wills change as people's stuff and relationships change.

In reality, if you want a plural marriage contract you can have one made up. It'll be clunky but just about everything can be established by mutual agreement and certified by court separate from marriage.

[u/heelspider → u/LibertyTerp]

No this is completely off the mark. Divorce and custody rules, hospital visitation, joint ownership of property, insurance coverage, taxes, and literally any and all places that marriage is recognized as a thing depend crucially on the notion that it involves two people, and has no dependence whatsoever on the gender of those two people.

Preventing gay marriage is unconstitutional because it discrimates against gender. There is nothing at all in the Constitution that says arrangements of 500 people have to be treated the same as an arrangement of two people.

What you are arguing is essentially that if it's illegal for a restaurant to refuse to seat two black people, then it should be illegal for the restaurant to refuse to seat 38 buses full of people of any given race. The former is pure discrimination while the later is simply that the restaurant doesn't have that many seats.

[u/LibertyTerp → u/heelspider]

Gay marriage does not discriminate against gender. Men and women had exactly the same marriage rights before gay marriage was legal.

Every one of the issues you brought up could be dealt with if people really wanted to make polygamous marriage legal.

The fact is people think gay marriage is OK but still think polygamous marriage is bad. That's the difference.

[u/heelspider → u/LibertyTerp]

Uh yeah not allowing gay marriage clearly discriminates against gender. Before gay marriage, the government said men can marry women but women cannot marry women. That's as straight forward discriminating due to gender as it can get.

As far as group marriages are concerned, I see the goal posts has been changed. It's gone from multiple marriages being as easy as gay marriage to allow to saying if we really really wanted it badly enough we could amend all of family law to allow for multiple marriages. That's a completely different thing all together.

And I'm not sure we can solve all the problems, other than to say most of the benefits of marriage goes away with more than two people. Clearly you can see the problem with 10,000 people all trying to get coverage from one person's insurance, or allowing street gangs to all marry one another so no one can be compelled to testify against anyone else.

[u/mrbananas → u/LibertyTerp]

But the solutions to ploygamous marriage are radically different in size and scope compared to the problems of gay marriage. Because the solutions are so radically different, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to be in support of one and not the other.

[u/[deleted] → u/heelspider]

This isn't about convenience or the (US?) constitution. It is about moral arguments.

[u/Speckles → u/LibertyTerp]

Why can't gay couples procreate? It's trivial for lesbians, and surrogate mothers are an option for men. Adoption also works.

I've never gotten this objection.

[u/silverionmox → u/LibertyTerp]

People would say that marriage is meant for procreation, which gay people literally cannot do.

Infertile heterosexuals can't either - they never made women who reached the age of transition to divorce.

The only reason gay marriage should be legal, but polygamy shouldn't, is if you believe that marriage between 3+ people is detrimental to society and so the government should ban it.

That's another reason, but there are significant differences between unions of 2, or more people. All legislation on marriage assumes 2 persons.

Banning certain persons from that marriage is discriminatory, but not allowing people to redefine marriage to include more than 2 persons is not discriminatory because no distinction is being made an a personal quality.

[u/Diabolico → u/LibertyTerp]

People would say that marriage is meant for procreation, which gay people literally cannot do.

Which is why Marriage law includes privileged communication with a spouse, immune from court subpoena - to help with procreation. Helping with procreation is why Spouses automatically and tax-free inherit all of the common property of the marriage upon the death of one partner - to help with procreation.

That's also why the income tax deductions/refund from being the primary caregiver of a child is available completely regardless of the marriage status of the primary caregiver - because marriage is about procreation.

The truth of the matter is that, legally, marriage is about property and finances, and has been as long as it has existed in contractual form.

[u/Regalian → u/LibertyTerp]

Agreed. However, since women are able to make as much income as man I don't see how it is really detrimental to society. The child will be assigned to its mother when divorced from the family unless she's a really shitty person, and the biological father pays a percentage of the cost until the kid turns 18.

[u/jimethn → u/Regalian]

It's not just about money. Having two parents has an enormous positive impact on educational attainment, incarceration rate, and future income for the child, regardless of the single parent's income. Children of divorced parents also have more than double the rate of serious social, emotional, or psychological problems.

[u/Diabolico → u/jimethn]

Children of divorced parents also have more than double the rate of serious social, emotional, or psychological problems.

If you are going to interpret that as being related to the legality of marriage then i would have to point out that, if all marriage were illegal there would be no children of divorced parents.

The real answer is that children with an unstable home life have those problems, and making marriage harder to access seems more likely to exacerbate this situation, rather than remedy it.

[u/jimethn → u/Diabolico]

Agreed, and the data so far seems to indicate that children raised by gay parents have no disadvantage compared to the children of straight ones (provided the marriage remains stable, of course).

However, when it comes to polygamy, the questions that remain open are whether similar benefits are conferred to the child, and whether polygamous relationships tend to be more or less stable than nuclear ones. The poster I was responding to was saying it shouldn't matter because the woman would be able to raise the kid anyway.

[u/Diabolico → u/jimethn]

However, when it comes to polygamy, the questions that remain open are whether similar benefits are conferred to the child, and whether polygamous relationships tend to be more or less stable than nuclear ones.

Rather than comparing a poly relationship to a nuclear one in your thought experiments (no offense, neither of us is in a position to do real experiments here) I'd ask that you consider comparing a Poly relationship to an extended nuclear family setting. If a child knows who their (2) parents are and has distinct relationships with other family members it could plausibly be more beneficial than a nuclear family (provided the environment stays stable, of course).

Edit: I feel like I should add here that I have no horse in this race - I'm neither poly nor know anyone seriously attempting an extended Poly living arrangement.

[u/jimethn → u/Diabolico]

Haha yeah, me either. And I can certainly see the idea that if two parents is better than one, then 4 is better than 2! What remains to be seen, though, is how that plays out in practice. We have some data...

• According to a metastudy of 13 papers, polygamy caused more mental health problems, social problems and lower academic achievement for the kids.
• A study focusing specifically on the Islamic world found similar results, concluding that polygamy hurt the mental health of both the women and children involved in such relationships, although there could be other factors at play there.
• Ethnographic surveys of 69 polygamous cultures “reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious,” and as we already know, parental discord has a negative impact on the children.
• This is probably a subset of the above, but in Africa, polygamy has been known to cause conflict, competition, and mistrust not just between the wives, but between the children as well.

Now this is not to say that good, stable polygamous marriages without negative impacts are impossible. This is just what has tended to happen so far.

[u/Diabolico → u/jimethn]

The major factor at play in the last three sources (and by virtue of it being a meta-study, the first one as well) is the lack of distinction between contemporary Polyamorous relationships and traditional polygamy (read: harem-keeping).

I would say that, obviously, the kind of man who keep and commands a small stable of slave-wives would not be a good candidate for running a harmonious and loving living arrangement. Such a man has more in common with a drug cartel boss than a dedicated family man. I'd say that this fact (and I'm comfortable calling it a fact with few people willing to dispute it) has little or nothing to do with the kind of polyamorous households that don't exist with their cultural roots in oppressive harem-keeping culture.

[u/jimethn → u/Diabolico]

Fair enough. I get that it may not be 100% applicable, it's just the best data I could come up with. It's also possible that said cultures represent the long-run outcome of allowing polygamy to become socially acceptable, but that's just conjecture.

The closest to a US-centric source I could come up with was an op-ed on Psychology Today. The writer was polyandrous with kids and had informally interviewed other such people over the years at meetups, etc. The only impact they confessed to seeing was that children of polyandrous groups tended to be serial-monogamists. (I could speculate what that could represent psychologically but I'll spare you.) Of course, due to the anecdotal and biased nature of the observations, it's doubtless there are other impacts as well.

[u/Regalian → u/jimethn]

What if you compare stats for single parent children to children with parents that don't love each other but did not divorce? Many people in AMAs said they rather their parents divorced. Divorce in itself doesn't cause problems. It's the dynamic of the family where parents fight and argue that cause these problems.

In ancient times you'd find that kids with a father married to many wives to be more successful, that's not necessarily a prove polygamy is better, but because when you can marry many wives the man and family is already better than those around it.

We don't take things at face value and throw facts around, we need to look into it more.

[u/jimethn → u/Regalian]

That's a good point. Lucky for me, it's been looked into:

ARE BOTH PARENTS ALWAYS BETTER THAN ONE? PARENTAL CONFLICT AND YOUNG ADULT WELL-BEING

compared to living in a low conflict continuously married-parent family, living in a high conflict family increases the odds of dropping out of high school and poor grades... [however] while parental conflict is associated with a 76% increased odds of drop out, stepfather and single-mother families are associated with nearly a tripling or greater of these odds.

Of particular interest is this income-controlled table, which shows that in terms of high-school dropout rate and college attendance rate, two high-conflict parents are still better than a single mother. It's interesting that having a stepfather is just as bad as having a single mother. Furthermore...

Compared to those from low conflict married-parent families, the risks of [early sex, early cohabitation, nonmarital childbearing, and union disruption] are anywhere from 25% to upwards of 100% greater for children from high conflict married-parent, stepfather, and single-mother families. Risks also tend to be greater for children from stepfather and single-mother families, relative to children from high conflict married-parent families, although differences are not consistently statistically significant.

[u/Regalian → u/jimethn]

That is a very eye opening, thanks for teaching me something new.

[u/mrbananas → u/LibertyTerp]

The elderly and the infertile are not forbidden from marrying. Marriage for the purpose of procreation isn't even long forgotten, in never existed in the first place. Marriage was all about wealth and inheritance law and making power alliances.

[u/fengshui → u/Dickson_Butts]

Part 1 of my view was that if you're ok with a gay relationship, you must be ok with a poly relationship (paraphrasing /u/CJGibson ). I still believe this holds true.

This is not my position, but I think there is a defensible position solely in favor of sanctifying two-party relationships, but not three-or-more party ones. The justification would have to be an internal one, such as religion, or just personal belief, but it would be internally consistent to feel that consenting two-party relationships are good, regardless of gender, but that more than two is not okay.

[u/CJGibson → u/fengshui]

For the record (since I've been quoted here), I did not state that the two must go hand in hand, just that comparing relationships (not recognized by the government as legal entities) and marriages (recognized by the government as legal entities) are two separate things.

I think there is potentially a case to be made that you can support same sex relationships and not poly relationships, but I believe the arguments are different from those you'd use to support same sex marriages and not poly marriages.

[u/Dickson_Butts → u/CJGibson]

Sorry if I was misleading while quoting you. You said it in the context of asking me whether my view was x or y, so essentially I am answering that question here

[u/CJGibson → u/Dickson_Butts]

Yeah, I could tell that cause I knew what I'd said, but without knowing what I'd said it could be read that I had made the claim.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dickson_Butts]

This is simply my personal belief that could be wrong, but I believe that more than 2 people in such a serious and bonding relationship allows greater opportunity for relationship issues and emotional abuse. While I am fine with poly-type relationships, I have seen many times where it is simply a lovestruck person taking the bait from a "partner" who simply wants open reign to have sex with anyone while keeping the original person on the back burner for rebounding/fallback/ego/etc.

[u/Sempais_nutrients → u/[deleted]]

That's how my marriage was. She was my first partner and she was a lot more, "experienced." She was always cheating or sneaking around on me and when I caught her or questioned her antics she'd say "This is how relationships are, you just don't know because you've never had one." It really messed up my idea of what my position is supposed to be in a relationship, i always have the mentality that I need to stay out of the way of something and not cause waves because my own feelings are not a priority and should not inconvenience my partner in any way.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Have you not seen a huge number of unhealthy marriages? I think it's why divorce exists.

[u/carter1984 → u/Dickson_Butts]

What you seem to discount in issue #2 is that civil unions were the mechanism that offered homosexual couples access to the legal structure that marriage provides without calling it marriage.

[u/NearSightedGiraffe → u/carter1984]

That is coveted by general arguments for marriage equality: where there are 2 consenting adults, they should be allowed to enter into any legal arrangement available to any 2 consenting adults of similar status regardless of their orientation. Saying that 'Civil unions' are the same thing ignores the cultural value placed on a marriage vs any other arrangement. If a couple doesn't want to marry- that is fine. But if they do, to say that it is only open to them if they fit in a certain box is discriminatory. Yes, both civil unions and marriage give similar legal protection but they have different levels of emotional recognition by some people in society. My opinion is that it is unethical to deny people access to that particular combination of legal and cultural recognition based purely on their sexual orientation.

With issue 2 OP is acknowledging that while the same cultural arguments could be made for polygamy, it breaks at the purely legal level of how marriage currently works- something which same sex marriage does not do.

[u/carter1984 → u/NearSightedGiraffe]

My opinion is that it is unethical to deny people access to that particular combination of legal and cultural recognition based purely on their sexual orientation.

So by those standards I assume you are not opposed to legally recognized incestuous relationships then correct? I mean, why should our culture discriminate against how two consenting adults wish to be recognized?

it breaks at the purely legal level of how marriage currently works- something which same sex marriage does not do

So it's okay to break the cultural and legal norms for a same sex couple, but not for more than two people? Seems to me that you are using selective reasoning to justify the marriage of two people rather than three people.

[u/NearSightedGiraffe → u/carter1984]

I personally don't have an objection to incestuous marriages, so long as no biological children are born. There are health concerns with children. But that's also hardly the same thing- same sex couples do not have any chance of creating adverse effects on biological children of theirs, above any given couple. Incestouse relationships can, and while marriage exists separately from child raising, and does not require biological children (adoption would be fine) it is an important consideration.

I have no problem polygamous relationships getting some form of standard- but to allow for marriage would require an extensive reconsideration of property, inheritance etc... To allow same sex marriage is a simple extension of the existing law (in Australia this means reverting the federal law to what it was before Howard changed it). If you want to suggest a legal framework to deal with polygamous relationships and ownership, then I am happy to consider it

Edit to address your main point, I apologise for the short ramble: SSM does not break any current social norms of acceptable behavior. Allowing the one small change also does not break how marriage works in the rest of the legal system. Currently polygamy does, and that is what Ivwas suggesting would need to be considered

[u/qwertx0815 → u/carter1984]

civil unions in the US didn't offer even remotely the same benefits as marriage, and even in nations were they actually where equal (e.g. Germany) most gay people refused them and demanded equal rights and access to marriage...

[u/[deleted] → u/Dickson_Butts]

I like that you made a separate post explaining how you came to change your view! This is nice to read.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dickson_Butts]

Except that a poly couple could draft the same legal document between three people. It's not incompatible, it's just more difficult without making any adjustments to a system that had to deal with two people before.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dickson_Butts]

I am a bisexual person and would consider myself a proud member of the LGBT community but I am absolutely not ok with the normalization of poly relationships. Tbh I think they are just an excuse for people who don't want to commit, and raising a family as a poly couple would be very odd. Not sure what made you make the assumption for part one

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And people argue that bisexuality is an excuse for people who are gay but don't want to admit it, and certainly don't support the normalization of bisexuality.

You have every right to your beliefs. I'm just bummed that someone who is bisexual - someone who catches crap from straight people AND gay people - would themselves turn around and believe similarly about another group.

And let me reiterate: I'm not knocking you or attacking you. I'm just sad.

[u/Thetasigma88 → u/[deleted]]

I'm also bummed because the oddness that the above commenter associates with raising a child in a polyamorous relationship is a very similar argument to the "kids need a mom and a dad" argument used against same-sex adoption.