Should marriage be privatized?

kkitkat79 · August 2015

hellosweetie1015 said:

kkitkat79 said:

@hellosweetie1015, Why can't I get married if I am married already? What if my husband and I want to marry Jane? Are we allowed?

FUCKING CHRIST. Are we back to this shit now?

Right now, NO. You are NOT ALLOWED. You and your husband are already married. Jane can come and live with you and fuck you and carry your husband's babies alongside you, but you cannot marry Jane without divorcing your husband, and your husband cannot marry Jane without divorcing you.

And there are reasons for that - some of them valid, some of them not so much. FLDS pastors are marrying little girls off to pervy old men. The power differential there is something to consider. It's significantly more than just "OMG A DUDE WANTS TO MARRY A DUDE GROSSSSSSSS" there are actual ramifications to consider with polygamy that are not there with monogamous couples of any sexuality.

I do hope they will be overcome in my lifetime, but right now those issues are not resolved, and there is no way I would vote for it right now.

I think you just conceded my point. State marriage is discriminatory. The only thing everyone is debating is toward who it is ok to be discriminatory. And that is a valid debate to have. There might be good reasons for it to be exclusionary toward some groups. But it is a different debate.

MyNameIsNot · August 2015

kkitkat79 said:

@hellosweetie1015, Why can't I get married if I am married already? What if my husband and I want to marry Jane? Are we allowed?

You are not, because bigamy is presently illegal in this country.

Even if/when marriage laws do change to allow for polyamorous marriage, they can't allow you (or your spouse) to marry Jane without the knowledge/consent of the your spouse. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that secret wives/husbands are bad.

kkitkat79 · August 2015

@MyNameIsNot, Of course with the knowledge of my spouse. My husband and I, and Jane want to come to the marriage office and say "We are all married now". Only, we cannot do it. The government will not give us permission to do that. For some good reason.

@hellosweetie1015, all of these are great examples of how government grants you a permission to do something using the qualifications you have acquired by learning how to drive, going to law school, and going to medical school. Words have meanings. License and qualification are not synonyms.

@AddieCake, I had no idea that the notion hat government should not be allowed to determine who can get married and who cannot would be so controversial. I totally expected people to agree with me. I mean, @hellosweetie1015 said that it might be ok to exclude a whole group of people just because some people in this group are bad. That was the argument against gay marriage. This same argument. I am so confused.

MyNameIsNot · August 2015

kkitkat79 said:

@MyNameIsNot, Of course with the knowledge of my spouse. My husband and I, and Jane want to come to the marriage office and say "We are all married now". Only, we cannot do it. The government will not give us permission to do that. For some good reason.

.

And if/when marriage laws are updated to include polyamorous units, you will be able to. At that point, the inquiry will shift from "are you already married?" to "are you already married to anyone that is not here?"

It doesn't change the fundamental principle that the clerk must determine whether you are eligible to marry before issuing the license.

chibiyui · August 2015

6 pages of this nonsense.

KKKat must have raging stiffie from all this.

kkitkat79 · August 2015

@MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

lyndausvi · August 2015

kkitkat79 said:

@MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

you know you can be denied a driver's license for having a DUI, right? Have had too many accidents, vehicular manslaughter. I wouldn't call those morally neutral.

TrixieJess · August 2015

lyndausvi said:

kkitkat79 said:

@MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

you know you can be denied a driver's license for having a DUI, right? Have had too many accidents, vehicular manslaughter. I wouldn't call those morally neutral.

Shhh...

kkitkat79 · August 2015

Look, I get that people don't like comments I have made in the past. And that's ok. It's fine to say "kkitat79, I think you are a racist, homophobic, sexist bigot, but I think you are right. As of now state marriage is exclusionary and marriage should include polyamorous relationships because if marriage is a right then it should be afforded to everyone". Some people did and there is no argument anymore.

And it is also ok to say "kkitkat79, I think you are racist, homophobic, sexist bigot and while you are right and legal marriage is exclusionary I think marriage should be between any two consenting adults at least for now because there is too much uncertainty re what effect legalized poly relationships will have on our society". And we can have this debate if anyone wants to have it. But until @hellosweetie1015 indirectly implied it no one would come out and say it. And that's why this lasted for 6 pages.

It is also fine to say "kkitkat79, you are racist, homophobic, sexist bigot and I don't want to talk to you anymore."

kkitkat79 · August 2015

lyndausvi said:

kkitkat79 said:

@MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

you know you can be denied a driver's license for having a DUI, right? Have had too many accidents, vehicular manslaughter. I wouldn't call those morally neutral.

Sure, but no one is denied a license the first time they step into the driving license office unless they failed to pass a driving test.

What you described is like me being denied a marriage license because I have too many divorces, or because I abused my ex-spouse. By the way, that NEVER happens. I wonder why.

hellosweetie1015 · August 2015

Stepped away, got some chocolate. Calmer now.

The government views polygamous marriages as a problem because there hasn't been enough social research outside of already-damaging belief systems that force women into those marriages. I think even you can agree that being forced into marriage is bad (since you said it yourself a few pages back about how my example "implied" that Joe had a right to any wife/husband, any one he wanted, with no consent from the other party).

Social research on polygamy as of right now is tied intrinsically to various religious sects that practice it, based on my (limited) research. In those cases, marriage is almost always in the context of property. Women are valued only by the dowry the man can receive, and by the boys they can beget. Women - girls, really, children - are being forced into marriage with men far older than them, and being forced to have sex with and carry children for those men. They are being told that this is the only thing they can do of value - marry a man, give the man children (please, God, let them be boys), and keep their house and household in a way that is pleasing to the man. Women have no place outside of the bedroom and kitchen, like the Duggars except with five or six Michelles. Can you imagine, living like that? Do you think you would have any rights at all to the benefits marriage is supposed to provide you, if we granted those rights to the men in that process? The man could leave you destitute with all the girls you failed to turn into boys in the womb. There would be no recourse - there's no joint property if the "joint" person is property.

Very little research appears to have been done outside of that context. Once the research is done on consenting adults wishing to enter into poly relationships outside of the context of fairly extremist religious sects, I think that will change. I hope that it will. But until that changes, I think we - as human beings, and as members of a society that is trying to protect the disadvantaged - we have a duty to protect those women and girls who are not being given the choice of marriage, but rather being forced into it.

TrixieJess · August 2015

kkitkat79 said:

lyndausvi said:

kkitkat79 said:

@MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

you know you can be denied a driver's license for having a DUI, right? Have had too many accidents, vehicular manslaughter. I wouldn't call those morally neutral.

Sure, but no one is denied a license the first time they step into the driving license office unless they failed to pass a driving test.

What you described is like me being denied a marriage license because I have too many divorces, or because I abused my ex-spouse. By the way, that NEVER happens. I wonder why.

So, I was just doing a wee bit of reading. In Ontario where we are from, you either need a marriage license or a banns which is provided by your place of worship. So there you go. After that then you just file for your registration and certificate, you don't even need a license as long as you get married by a properly affiliated officiant. Thanks Google.

I think marriage banns are done in parts of the UK and EU as well. I'm sure there are other members of the community who can speak to that. Is there anywhere in the States that has them?

lyndausvi · August 2015

Why do not not hear of poly-marriages of more than one man? It's always 1 man with many wives.

I would assume with all the reality TV shows out there someone would find at least one poly-family that has 1 wife with many husbands? Mixed gender couples? Nope, all you hear about is 1 man and many wives.

I think I would be more open to allowing more than 2 consenting adults marry if it wasn't always 1 dude having a shit ton of wives. Some very, very young at that. I have limited knowledge of poly-marriage world, but to me at least it's very one sided and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

hellosweetie1015 · August 2015

TrixieJess said:

kkitkat79 said:

lyndausvi said:

kkitkat79 said:

@MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

you know you can be denied a driver's license for having a DUI, right? Have had too many accidents, vehicular manslaughter. I wouldn't call those morally neutral.

Sure, but no one is denied a license the first time they step into the driving license office unless they failed to pass a driving test.

What you described is like me being denied a marriage license because I have too many divorces, or because I abused my ex-spouse. By the way, that NEVER happens. I wonder why.

So, I was just doing a wee bit of reading. In Ontario where we are from, you either need a marriage license or a banns which is provided by your place of worship. So there you go. After that then you just file for your registration and certificate, you don't even need a license as long as you get married by a properly affiliated officiant. Thanks Google.

I think marriage banns are done in parts of the UK and EU as well. I'm sure there are other members of the community who can speak to that. Is there anywhere in the States that has them?

The States do not have banns, per Wikipedia but it does provide this nice, succinct little tidbit:

Lord Hardwicke's Act did not extend outside England and Wales, and hence did not become law in the colonies that would later become the United States of America. For this reason, and as a consequence of the American separation of church and state, banns or equivalent notice by publication is not required before marriage in most U.S. states, although most U.S. states require that a marriage license, which establishes the freedom of the parties to marry, be issued before a valid marriage - often a certain number of days before the marriage ceremony. However, the license is merely a legal formality (as opposed to a form of public notice or opportunity for objection), as it is not required to be publicized in any significant way.

MyNameIsNot · August 2015

kkitkat79 said:

MyNameIsNot, here is the difference. A driving license is morally neutral. If you are denied a driving license it says nothing about you as a person. It just means you don't know how to drive. And as soon as everyone is allowed to get married marriage license will be morally neutral as well. As long as you are of legal age and everyone consents you're good to go.

However, this is not the case now, not as far as government is concerned. As of now the government deems monogamous relationships different and somehow better. It encourages legal monogamous relationships by providing them with all kinds of benefits, rights, and protections. My question is why the government is allowed to do that?

I didn't say anything about drivers' licensing, but that doesn't really matter. The whole point of marriage licensing is the bold. No one is making a moral judgment about whether you are a good enough person to be a spouse. The question is whether you are capable of entering into a marriage contract. Even people in jail and convicted felons can marry.

I don't understand why you insist on turning this into a poly marriage argument. That's a different debate for a different thread. No one is arguing with you about the virtues of poly marriage.

Pretty much everyone would argue that it was wrong to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses, even though that was the law in many places in the US just a few months ago. Still, none of us would have said that we should abolish marriage because it is unfair to some couples. Instead, we said that marriage rights should be expanded. If poly marriage is really your issue, then you should be pushing for expanding legal marriage even further.

*I deleted the @ from my name in the quote because I am sick of getting a notification every time you say something else.

kkitkat79 · August 2015

@hellosweetie1015 and @lyndausvi, I agree that that is a very legitimate concern.

@MyNameIsNot, I did not suggest to abolish marriage, I suggested separating marriage from state. The institution of marriage long predates the marriage license.

State marriage is all about moral judgements. Before gay marriage was legalized we* made moral judgments about ability of gay marriages to measure up to heterosexual marriages. Just look at arguments against gay marriage. They are full of moral judgments. The arguments were hypocritical because, as you pointed out, even convicted felons could marry as long as they were heterosexual and that is what made them so weak. No opponent of gay marriage could adequately explain why convicted heterosexual felons would make good marriages, but law abiding gays would not.

Now we make the same judgment about poly marriages. I am not disputing the very legitimate concerns expressed by PPs. But I have to ask, why don't we express the same legitimate concerns about serial abusers. The debate is never framed that way.

*By "we" I mean the society as represented by the government.

**I take poly marriages as an example of a group that is currently excluded from the institution of state marriage.

huskypuppy14 · August 2015

lyndausvi said:

Why do not not hear of poly-marriages of more than one man? It's always 1 man with many wives.

I would assume with all the reality TV shows out there someone would find at least one poly-family that has 1 wife with many husbands? Mixed gender couples? Nope, all you hear about is 1 man and many wives.

I think I would be more open to allowing more than 2 consenting adults marry if it wasn't always 1 dude having a shit ton of wives. Some very, very young at that. I have limited knowledge of poly-marriage world, but to me at least it's very one sided and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

True Life did an episode on polyamorous relationships. There was one woman and two men in one of their segments. I believe the woman was in a relationship with both men, but the men were not in a relationship with each other (IIRC). They all lived together.

The problem with legislating marriage of more than two people is there are so many different combinations. Cory might be in a relationship with Topanga and Shawn, but Topanga and Shawn are not in a relationship with each other. So a group marriage doesn't really work in that situation. Or maybe all three are in a relationship with each other, which would be fine for marriage. Or maybe there is a fourth person and two couples that all want to be married.

How would that work realistically? Honestly, I have no problem if 3 people want to get married, and they all agree. More than that and it get's super complicated, where does it end?

Separating marriage from the state is not going to happen, and most of here don't want it to happen.

lyndausvi · August 2015

huskypuppy14 said:

lyndausvi said:

Why do not not hear of poly-marriages of more than one man? It's always 1 man with many wives.

I would assume with all the reality TV shows out there someone would find at least one poly-family that has 1 wife with many husbands? Mixed gender couples? Nope, all you hear about is 1 man and many wives.

I think I would be more open to allowing more than 2 consenting adults marry if it wasn't always 1 dude having a shit ton of wives. Some very, very young at that. I have limited knowledge of poly-marriage world, but to me at least it's very one sided and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

True Life did an episode on polyamorous relationships. There was one woman and two men in one of their segments. I believe the woman was in a relationship with both men, but the men were not in a relationship with each other (IIRC). They all lived together.

The problem with legislating marriage of more than two people is there are so many different combinations. Cory might be in a relationship with Topanga and Shawn, but Topanga and Shawn are not in a relationship with each other. So a group marriage doesn't really work in that situation. Or maybe all three are in a relationship with each other, which would be fine for marriage. Or maybe there is a fourth person and two couples that all want to be married.

How would that work realistically? Honestly, I have no problem if 3 people want to get married, and they all agree. More than that and it get's super complicated, where does it end?

Separating marriage from the state is not going to happen, and most of here don't want it to happen.

good to know.

You make other good points.

kkitkat79 · August 2015

huskypuppy14 said:

The problem with legislating marriage of more than two people is there are so many different combinations. Cory might be in a relationship with Topanga and Shawn, but Topanga and Shawn are not in a relationship with each other. So a group marriage doesn't really work in that situation. Or maybe all three are in a relationship with each other, which would be fine for marriage. Or maybe there is a fourth person and two couples that all want to be married.

How would that work realistically? Honestly, I have no problem if 3 people want to get married, and they all agree. More than that and it get's super complicated, where does it end?

Separating marriage from the state is not going to happen, and most of here don't want it to happen.

It doesn't end, but everyone would have to agree to be married to each other. So in your example Cory would be married to Topanga and Cory would be married to Shawn, but Topanga and Shawn will not be married because they do not want to be married to each other. Just substitute relationship with marriage, exactly the same thing. The thing about separating state and marriage is that you no longer have to be concerned with how people make their marriages work.

lyndausvi · August 2015

Does Topanga or Shawn have a say in Cory adding another spouse?

kkitkat79 · August 2015

lyndausvi said:

Does Topanga or Shawn have a say in Cory adding another spouse?

Absolutely. Topanga and Shawn don't have to get married, but they have to be ok that their spouse is adding another spouse to themselves. I mean, already Topanga must be ok that Corry is in a relationship with Shawn, otherwise she would not be in a relationship with Corry.

lyndausvi · August 2015

What about if Shawn wants a new spouse? Does Topanga have to agree? She is not married to Shawn, but his actions might affect her too, no?

kkitkat79 · August 2015

lyndausvi said:

What about if Shawn wants a new spouse? Does Topanga have to agree? She is not married to Shawn, but his actions might affect her too, no?

Think of Topanga and Shawn as roommates. If Shawn wants another spouse and Corry is cool with it Shawn is free to have another spouse. Depending on their living situation they might want to get a bigger place.

Again, I don't need to figure out how their relationship is going to work. As long as no one is being forced to do something they don't want to do then it is up to them to figure out how to manage their relationship. But that is already true for any relationship. And marriage is first and foremost a relationship. People have been managing it on their own for a very long time now.

HeatherKat · August 2015

kkitkat79 said:

lyndausvi said:

What about if Shawn wants a new spouse? Does Topanga have to agree? She is not married to Shawn, but his actions might affect her too, no?

Think of Topanga and Shawn as roommates. If Shawn wants another spouse and Corry is cool with it Shawn is free to have another spouse. Depending on their living situation they might want to get a bigger place.

Again, I don't need to figure out how their relationship is going to work. As long as no one is being forced to do something they don't want to do then it is up to them to figure out how to manage their relationship. But that is already true for any relationship. And marriage is first and foremost a relationship. People have been managing it on their own for a very long time now.

Who makes end of life/medical decisions for Corey? What if Shawn and Topanga have differing beliefs on the subject. Which spouse gets to decide to pull the plug?

If Corey and Topanga have a kid, and Shawn decides to divorce Corey, does he have to pay child support? If Corey and Topanga both died in an accident, would Shawn automatically have custody?

When Corey passes away, are his SS benefits split evenly between Shawn and Topanga? What if Corey and Topanga have been married longer than Shawn and Corey have? Should his benefits still be split evenly?

lyndausvi · August 2015

HeatherKat said:

kkitkat79 said:

lyndausvi said:

What about if Shawn wants a new spouse? Does Topanga have to agree? She is not married to Shawn, but his actions might affect her too, no?

Think of Topanga and Shawn as roommates. If Shawn wants another spouse and Corry is cool with it Shawn is free to have another spouse. Depending on their living situation they might want to get a bigger place.

Again, I don't need to figure out how their relationship is going to work. As long as no one is being forced to do something they don't want to do then it is up to them to figure out how to manage their relationship. But that is already true for any relationship. And marriage is first and foremost a relationship. People have been managing it on their own for a very long time now.

Who makes end of life/medical decisions for Corey? What if Shawn and Topanga have differing beliefs on the subject. Which spouse gets to decide to pull the plug?

If Corey and Topanga have a kid, and Shawn decides to divorce Corey, does he have to pay child support? If Corey and Topanga both died in an accident, would Shawn automatically have custody?

When Corey passes away, are his SS benefits split evenly between Shawn and Topanga? What if Corey and Topanga have been married longer than Shawn and Corey have? Should his benefits still be split evenly?

well that is why she says marriage is discriminatory. Basically since the poly's can't have those benefits none of us should either.

kkitkat79 · August 2015

HeatherKat said:

Who makes end of life/medical decisions for Corey? What if Shawn and Topanga have differing beliefs on the subject. Which spouse gets to decide to pull the plug?

If Corey and Topanga have a kid, and Shawn decides to divorce Corey, does he have to pay child support? If Corey and Topanga both died in an accident, would Shawn automatically have custody?

When Corey passes away, are his SS benefits split evenly between Shawn and Topanga? What if Corey and Topanga have been married longer than Shawn and Corey have? Should his benefits still be split evenly?

This is great! Ideally Corry, Topanga, and Shawn will have contracts that deal with all of these issues. It is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Gays were thinking through these kinds of issues and writing these kinds of contracts (minus SS benefits) before they were allowed to legally married.

However, they probably will not and then it will be a mess. Without private contracts that deal with these types of situations will the court system be able to handle it? I imagine it will be very difficult and very expensive.

And this is the real issue. Forget possible abuse by cult leaders if polygamy is legalized, it happens already so it's a weak excuse. Besides, abuse happens in monogamous relationships as well so we hold no justifiable moral ground. However, economic burden on society is a real concern and the government has a legitimate role in minimizing it.

Unfortunately the way we define state marriage now we kind of painted us into a corner a little bit. We define state marriage as something moral. PPs claimed that it is a set of values. Can we legally exclude people from this noble institution just because it's too expensive for us to allow them in?

I was conflicted about it because practically speaking it can be a mess. A lot of very valid concerns were raised in this thread. On the other hand, it is very unfair.

I was reading quite a bit on this too and I found this article that I think presents a solution. What if we redefine state marriage not as something that "is", but as "its effects"? It's by a law professor so a bit intense for me and I am not sure I got it right, but I think what she proposes will make the marriage law morally neutral.

So in my mind we can separate between private marriage and legal marriage. Private marriage can be about anything one would choose it to be. It can be about love, companionship, commitment, etc. Private people can attach morality to their marriage. But on the state level we as a society don't define it as something at all, we look at it as a system.

Viczaesar · August 2015

lyndausvi said:

Why do not not hear of poly-marriages of more than one man? It's always 1 man with many wives.

I would assume with all the reality TV shows out there someone would find at least one poly-family that has 1 wife with many husbands? Mixed gender couples? Nope, all you hear about is 1 man and many wives.

I think I would be more open to allowing more than 2 consenting adults marry if it wasn't always 1 dude having a shit ton of wives. Some very, very young at that. I have limited knowledge of poly-marriage world, but to me at least it's very one sided and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

I know plenty of polyamorous relationships that have more than one male involved. Just because you see one type of polyamory (or polyerosy, for Classical language purists

) depicted in the media that has no reflection on actual polyamorous relationships. Same with the assumption that most polyamorous relationships are in religious sects and involve older men marrying younger women or children without their consent. That's no more an intrinsic aspect of polyamorous relationships than it is of monogamous relationships. There's nothing about older man/young girl relationships that indicate polyamorousness - that young girl could easily be his only wife, not his second or third. I find it really disturbing that that's being used to argue for why polyamorous marriages should be denied.

MyNameIsNot · August 2015

Viczaesar said:

lyndausvi said:

Why do not not hear of poly-marriages of more than one man? It's always 1 man with many wives.

I would assume with all the reality TV shows out there someone would find at least one poly-family that has 1 wife with many husbands? Mixed gender couples? Nope, all you hear about is 1 man and many wives.

I think I would be more open to allowing more than 2 consenting adults marry if it wasn't always 1 dude having a shit ton of wives. Some very, very young at that. I have limited knowledge of poly-marriage world, but to me at least it's very one sided and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

I know plenty of polyamorous relationships that have more than one male involved. Just because you see one type of polyamory (or polyerosy, for Classical language purists ) depicted in the media that has no reflection on actual polyamorous relationships. Same with the assumption that most polyamorous relationships are in religious sects and involve older men marrying younger women or children without their consent. That's no more an intrinsic aspect of polyamorous relationships than it is of monogamous relationships. There's nothing about older man/young girl relationships that indicate polyamorousness - that young girl could easily be his only wife, not his second or third. I find it really disturbing that that's being used to argue for why polyamorous marriages should be denied.

I think the concern is the religious groups that engage in abusive polygamist relationships. Ideally, this would be dealt with under the consent prong, but unfortunately, many women/girls are coerced to enter these marriages.

I don't think it's a legitimate reason to argue that polyamorous marriages should be denied, but more that it is one of the many issues that need to be addressed. Likewise, we have to figure out how you deal with end of life decisions if multiple spouses are not in agreement, how you address custody issues upon divorce/death, adoptions and step-parent adoptions, insurance/survivor benefits, and so on.

You can't just say that people have to make a contract. Marriage and divorce laws provide a "default" for what happens if you don't have a contract. Sure, you could address these issues with a multi-party pre-nup just as many pairs choose to have a pre-nup instead of relying on default laws, but there has to be a legal status to address these situations where there is no contract.

Viczaesar · August 2015

MyNameIsNot said:

Viczaesar said:

lyndausvi said:

Why do not not hear of poly-marriages of more than one man? It's always 1 man with many wives.

I would assume with all the reality TV shows out there someone would find at least one poly-family that has 1 wife with many husbands? Mixed gender couples? Nope, all you hear about is 1 man and many wives.

I think I would be more open to allowing more than 2 consenting adults marry if it wasn't always 1 dude having a shit ton of wives. Some very, very young at that. I have limited knowledge of poly-marriage world, but to me at least it's very one sided and I'm not sure that is a good thing.

I know plenty of polyamorous relationships that have more than one male involved. Just because you see one type of polyamory (or polyerosy, for Classical language purists ) depicted in the media that has no reflection on actual polyamorous relationships. Same with the assumption that most polyamorous relationships are in religious sects and involve older men marrying younger women or children without their consent. That's no more an intrinsic aspect of polyamorous relationships than it is of monogamous relationships. There's nothing about older man/young girl relationships that indicate polyamorousness - that young girl could easily be his only wife, not his second or third. I find it really disturbing that that's being used to argue for why polyamorous marriages should be denied.

I think the concern is the religious groups that engage in abusive polygamist relationships. Ideally, this would be dealt with under the consent prong, but unfortunately, many women/girls are coerced to enter these marriages.

I don't think it's a legitimate reason to argue that polyamorous marriages should be denied, but more that it is one of the many issues that need to be addressed. Likewise, we have to figure out how you deal with end of life decisions if multiple spouses are not in agreement, how you address custody issues upon divorce/death, adoptions and step-parent adoptions, insurance/survivor benefits, and so on.

You can't just say that people have to make a contract. Marriage and divorce laws provide a "default" for what happens if you don't have a contract. Sure, you could address these issues with a multi-party pre-nup just as many pairs choose to have a pre-nup instead of relying on default laws, but there has to be a legal status to address these situations where there is no contract.

But that's a red herring. There are just as many religious sects with abusive monogamist relationships, if not more.

Should marriage be privatized?

Re: Should marriage be privatized?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards