LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
Not sure if this has been brought up in the thread, but are there any studies or statistics on how big the percentage of people that actually do want to live in a poly relationship are?
I am talking about the true poly lifestyle of several equal partners, not the negative examples that were already brought up, like religious polygamy or a rich guy/woman marrying a bunch of trophy wives/husbands.
My issue with the topic, apart from all the legal headaches it could cause, is that unlike LGBT people, whose causes I fully support, I often have the impression that being poly is actually more of a choice or lifestyle.
Maybe this is my limited annecdotal evidence and the few cases I have read about in serious media over the last couple of years, but I am under the impression that poly relationships are a thing of a certain class, mostly young liberal social progressives and it feels more like a revival of the "free love" concept of the 70s to me, than an inherent sexual orientation.
You usually don't hear about some middleaged working class people coming out as poly all of a sudden.
It also does not help, that in many cases I had the impression that one person was the driving force behind initiating such a relationship and that I felt that this one person was getting what they truly wanted, while the others kinda tagged along, probably for not wanting to lose that person as a romantic partner.
I am willing to be proven wrong, if there are some studies out there that clearly say otherwise.
I would say that you're wrong in general, and that attacking poly itself is unlikely to produce a good debate on the stated topic, which accepts that poly is and will continue to be an existing lifestyle, and asks about what marriage provisions should be extended to account for that.
What is this I don't even.
+4
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
I am not attacking anyone, I am fine with people having a poly relationship, since I don't see any harm. I am just saying that I am not sure if I would agree to legalize poly marriages.
0
Options
LibrarianThe face of liberal fascismRegistered Userregular
And if we agree that it is a lifestyle and not something people are born with, like LGBT, then I find it really hard to argue for it.
Which raises any number of questions, not the least of which is: yeah, and? If poly-marriage has the potential to shift sex demographics so much that it has an impact on crime, wouldn't that suggest that there are a whole lot of people who want to enter plural marriages? Or if there aren't that enough poly people to shift the demographics, why or how do the above findings even matter?
What we definitely do not want is the widespread legitimization of religious fundamentalist polygynous sects such as the FLDS.
The unanswered empirical question is: given the legalization of plural marriage, what sorts of plural arrangements would we see? My gut tells me that we would see quite a bit of fundamentalist Mormon and fundamentalist Islamic polygyny and not a whole lot of poly-married libertine secularists.
However we may feel about them, the liberal state must remain blind to religion. The FLDS, Raliens, etc. will do their polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/free-love-society stuff no matter what the state says; denying them government benefits solely because their belief system may be goosey in the majority opinion is illiberal, full stop. The same could be said if the argument was to deny the right to poly libertine secularists on religious/anti-libertine grounds: the state function is civil, not religious, and it is not contracted to make moral claims on the actions of citizens.
Apologies if I missed it, but did anyone ever describe the social problems poly marriage alleviates, other than making poly people who want to be married happier?
The more parents a child has, the less likely they are to become Batmen.
best argument against, imho
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So by "alleviate social problems," you mean problems that poly folks currently have, and not problems faced by society in general, correct? Just to clarify.
Exactly. It helps the group that prefers poly relationships. This is unsurprising! What it doesn't seem to do is provide broader societal benefits. Given the potentially great societal costs it imposes (as in my tax examples) I think it would need to bring more to the table for it to be a net positive for society.
Personally, I think that marriage is not the right approach, but that certain legal protections should be made available outside of marriage. Poly groups can have religious or secular weddings, of course, but I don't see how the state can recognize marriages like this without diluting them so much from what we normally think of as a legal marriage as to render them marriages in name only.
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Which raises any number of questions, not the least of which is: yeah, and? If poly-marriage has the potential to shift sex demographics so much that it has an impact on crime, wouldn't that suggest that there are a whole lot of people who want to enter plural marriages? Or if there aren't that enough poly people to shift the demographics, why or how do the above findings even matter?
What we definitely do not want is the widespread legitimization of religious fundamentalist polygynous sects such as the FLDS.
The unanswered empirical question is: given the legalization of plural marriage, what sorts of plural arrangements would we see? My gut tells me that we would see quite a bit of fundamentalist Mormon and fundamentalist Islamic polygyny and not a whole lot of poly-married libertine secularists.
However we may feel about them, the liberal state must remain blind to religion. The FLDS, Raliens, etc. will do their polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/free-love-society stuff no matter what the state says; denying them government benefits solely because their belief system may be goosey in the majority opinion is illiberal, full stop.
Their belief system is not just goosey, it is abusive.
I am more than fine with the government not legitimizing practices that are abusive, and I would argue that a government has a responsibility to do so.
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Which raises any number of questions, not the least of which is: yeah, and? If poly-marriage has the potential to shift sex demographics so much that it has an impact on crime, wouldn't that suggest that there are a whole lot of people who want to enter plural marriages? Or if there aren't that enough poly people to shift the demographics, why or how do the above findings even matter?
What we definitely do not want is the widespread legitimization of religious fundamentalist polygynous sects such as the FLDS.
The unanswered empirical question is: given the legalization of plural marriage, what sorts of plural arrangements would we see? My gut tells me that we would see quite a bit of fundamentalist Mormon and fundamentalist Islamic polygyny and not a whole lot of poly-married libertine secularists.
However we may feel about them, the liberal state must remain blind to religion. The FLDS, Raliens, etc. will do their polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/free-love-society stuff no matter what the state says; denying them government benefits solely because their belief system may be goosey in the majority opinion is illiberal, full stop. The same could be said if the argument was to deny the right to poly libertine secularists on religious/anti-libertine grounds: the state function is civil, not religious, and it is not contracted to make moral claims on the actions of citizens.
While the liberal state must (arguably) be blind to religion, it does not have to be blind to the consequences of an action that may or may not be associated with religion. Impact on religious beliefs can, and should, be a consideration when creating public policy, and in many cases it doesn't run counter to liberal philosophy to create carve-outs and exceptions in law that benefit certain religious practices.
I'll agree that creating policy that restricts an individual's rights based entirely on religion is bad. If polygamy / bigamy was legalized nationwide for everyone but FLDS members, that would definitely be illiberal. But making polygamy / bigamy illegal or not recognized because the practices of FLDS, Raliens, or other sub-groups result in harm to society as a whole - such as the 'lost boys' phenomenon, the rampant sexual abuse and coercive practices in many polygamous cults, or other reasons is not making a moral statement.
Basically, the government isn't saying it's moral or not. It's saying that conscientious objection or whaling or refusing to provide your identity for religious reasons or using hallucinogenic drugs or human sacrifice for religious reasons is / isn't harmful to society. And, for example, with whaling, the size of the subgroup that is willing to engage in that practice (for religious / cultural reasons or not) should be considered in that decision.
Apologies if I missed it, but did anyone ever describe the social problems poly marriage alleviates, other than making poly people who want to be married happier?
The more parents a child has, the less likely they are to become Batmen.
best argument against, imho
So wait - if we forbid marriage altogether, we'll have a nation of Batmen? Hm...
There was an old party of Lyme
Who married three wives at one time.
When asked: "Why the third?"
He replied: "One’s absurd,
And bigamy, sir, is a crime."
Which raises any number of questions, not the least of which is: yeah, and? If poly-marriage has the potential to shift sex demographics so much that it has an impact on crime, wouldn't that suggest that there are a whole lot of people who want to enter plural marriages? Or if there aren't that enough poly people to shift the demographics, why or how do the above findings even matter?
What we definitely do not want is the widespread legitimization of religious fundamentalist polygynous sects such as the FLDS.
The unanswered empirical question is: given the legalization of plural marriage, what sorts of plural arrangements would we see? My gut tells me that we would see quite a bit of fundamentalist Mormon and fundamentalist Islamic polygyny and not a whole lot of poly-married libertine secularists.
However we may feel about them, the liberal state must remain blind to religion. The FLDS, Raliens, etc. will do their polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/free-love-society stuff no matter what the state says; denying them government benefits solely because their belief system may be goosey in the majority opinion is illiberal, full stop. The same could be said if the argument was to deny the right to poly libertine secularists on religious/anti-libertine grounds: the state function is civil, not religious, and it is not contracted to make moral claims on the actions of citizens.
While the liberal state must (arguably) be blind to religion, it does not have to be blind to the consequences of an action that may or may not be associated with religion. Impact on religious beliefs can, and should, be a consideration when creating public policy, and in many cases it doesn't run counter to liberal philosophy to create carve-outs and exceptions in law that benefit certain religious practices.
I'll agree that creating policy that restricts an individual's rights based entirely on religion is bad. If polygamy / bigamy was legalized nationwide for everyone but FLDS members, that would definitely be illiberal. But making polygamy / bigamy illegal or not recognized because the practices of FLDS, Raliens, or other sub-groups result in harm to society as a whole - such as the 'lost boys' phenomenon, the rampant sexual abuse and coercive practices in many polygamous cults, or other reasons is not making a moral statement.
Basically, the government isn't saying it's moral or not. It's saying that conscientious objection or whaling or refusing to provide your identity for religious reasons or using hallucinogenic drugs or human sacrifice for religious reasons is / isn't harmful to society. And, for example, with whaling, the size of the subgroup that is willing to engage in that practice (for religious / cultural reasons or not) should be considered in that decision.
Apologies if I missed it, but did anyone ever describe the social problems poly marriage alleviates, other than making poly people who want to be married happier?
The more parents a child has, the less likely they are to become Batmen.
best argument against, imho
So wait - if we forbid marriage altogether, we'll have a nation of Batmen? Hm...
We must force obscenely rich people with poor street-sense to get married, have one child, and then attend movies in bad neighborhoods!
But the question about the FLDS et al. isn't about creating something which does not already exist for them; their non-civil marriages already happen, and can already be abusive (or not). Creating a "carve-out" in the law to benefit one belief group over another, or in this case apparently to suppress one belief group over all others, is creating a moral judgement about one religion and then passing it into law, which is certainly illiberal.
Again to the Lockean state of nature argument: we give up certain rights when we form the state because the benefit of entering the state outweighs the benefit of having those rights; ie. we agree to a government because it is convenient, expeditious, etc. whereas the state of nature is not. We form a society where we no longer have, for example, the right to shoot anyone we want for no reason, because it useful to us for other people to not be able to shoot us for no reason.
The fact that we have given up certain rights to, or conferred specific benefit on, one group (the monogamously married) is detrimental to those who are not (or do not envision themselves in the future to be) monogamously married. Some of these benefits make a certain amount of sense due to the structure of our society (poly-marriage, as noted a number of times already, would probably require a different method of health insurance), and some do not (why restrict hospital visitation?). People who imagine that they will never marry, in any arrangement, also miss some benefits.
Would it be as contentious to extend some benefit to the never-married (although I can't imagine what benefit, exactly, they'd agitate for) as it would be to extend the same benefits to people in plural marriages? That is: is it the plural quality of the marriage which is most troubling, all things being equal, or only the possibility that there are groups which may abuse that quality? If it is the former, then it seems like an issue of opinion (which the liberal state does not enforce); if it is the latter, it seems like an issue which can be addressed with policy. Negative externalities introduced by one policy can be remedied with another if they prove so onerous as to actively and particularly harmful to society. (Assuming that the state has the will and capacity to create functional policy to address a given problem...)
I don't think it's specifically impossible to create a law which allows poly-marriage but disallows some theoretical abusive arrangement (abusive either to the people in the marriage, or abusive to the law eg. by marrying to transfer property). We already can/do require witnesses to a marriage for example, albeit mostly as a formality, so there is precedent to the notion that the state can ask for character investigation before issuing or legitimating a marriage civilly. Of course, SKFM's argument:
Personally, I think that marriage is not the right approach, but that certain legal protections should be made available outside of marriage. Poly groups can have religious or secular weddings, of course, but I don't see how the state can recognize marriages like this without diluting them so much from what we normally think of as a legal marriage as to render them marriages in name only.
also works, to the extent that it passes those certain legal protections on to plural arrangements. I'd take some issue with the latter part, because at this point I suppose we'd be arguing over words (in the same sense as "civil union" vs. "marriage," and we know how that turned out), but the argument that I've made is for equality under the law in a liberal state, not words, so I've got little room to argue there anyway.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
And if we agree that it is a lifestyle and not something people are born with, like LGBT, then I find it really hard to argue for it.
Eh religion is a lifestyle choice too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reasonably accommodate religion when it does no harm.
True enough (well, I think we ought tell religion to go screw always regardless of harm) but under that metric aren't we already accomodating polygamy?
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Which raises any number of questions, not the least of which is: yeah, and? If poly-marriage has the potential to shift sex demographics so much that it has an impact on crime, wouldn't that suggest that there are a whole lot of people who want to enter plural marriages? Or if there aren't that enough poly people to shift the demographics, why or how do the above findings even matter?
What we definitely do not want is the widespread legitimization of religious fundamentalist polygynous sects such as the FLDS.
The unanswered empirical question is: given the legalization of plural marriage, what sorts of plural arrangements would we see? My gut tells me that we would see quite a bit of fundamentalist Mormon and fundamentalist Islamic polygyny and not a whole lot of poly-married libertine secularists.
However we may feel about them, the liberal state must remain blind to religion. The FLDS, Raliens, etc. will do their polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/free-love-society stuff no matter what the state says; denying them government benefits solely because their belief system may be goosey in the majority opinion is illiberal, full stop. The same could be said if the argument was to deny the right to poly libertine secularists on religious/anti-libertine grounds: the state function is civil, not religious, and it is not contracted to make moral claims on the actions of citizens.
While the liberal state must (arguably) be blind to religion, it does not have to be blind to the consequences of an action that may or may not be associated with religion. Impact on religious beliefs can, and should, be a consideration when creating public policy, and in many cases it doesn't run counter to liberal philosophy to create carve-outs and exceptions in law that benefit certain religious practices.
I'll agree that creating policy that restricts an individual's rights based entirely on religion is bad. If polygamy / bigamy was legalized nationwide for everyone but FLDS members, that would definitely be illiberal. But making polygamy / bigamy illegal or not recognized because the practices of FLDS, Raliens, or other sub-groups result in harm to society as a whole - such as the 'lost boys' phenomenon, the rampant sexual abuse and coercive practices in many polygamous cults, or other reasons is not making a moral statement.
Basically, the government isn't saying it's moral or not. It's saying that conscientious objection or whaling or refusing to provide your identity for religious reasons or using hallucinogenic drugs or human sacrifice for religious reasons is / isn't harmful to society. And, for example, with whaling, the size of the subgroup that is willing to engage in that practice (for religious / cultural reasons or not) should be considered in that decision.
Apologies if I missed it, but did anyone ever describe the social problems poly marriage alleviates, other than making poly people who want to be married happier?
The more parents a child has, the less likely they are to become Batmen.
best argument against, imho
So wait - if we forbid marriage altogether, we'll have a nation of Batmen? Hm...
We must force obscenely rich people with poor street-sense to get married, have one child, and then attend movies in bad neighborhoods!
But the question about the FLDS et al. isn't about creating something which does not already exist for them; their non-civil marriages already happen, and can already be abusive (or not). Creating a "carve-out" in the law to benefit one belief group over another, or in this case apparently to suppress one belief group over all others, is creating a moral judgement about one religion and then passing it into law, which is certainly illiberal.
Again to the Lockean state of nature argument: we give up certain rights when we form the state because the benefit of entering the state outweighs the benefit of having those rights; ie. we agree to a government because it is convenient, expeditious, etc. whereas the state of nature is not. We form a society where we no longer have, for example, the right to shoot anyone we want for no reason, because it useful to us for other people to not be able to shoot us for no reason.
The fact that we have given up certain rights to, or conferred specific benefit on, one group (the monogamously married) is detrimental to those who are not (or do not envision themselves in the future to be) monogamously married. Some of these benefits make a certain amount of sense due to the structure of our society (poly-marriage, as noted a number of times already, would probably require a different method of health insurance), and some do not (why restrict hospital visitation?). People who imagine that they will never marry, in any arrangement, also miss some benefits.
Would it be as contentious to extend some benefit to the never-married (although I can't imagine what benefit, exactly, they'd agitate for) as it would be to extend the same benefits to people in plural marriages? That is: is it the plural quality of the marriage which is most troubling, all things being equal, or only the possibility that there are groups which may abuse that quality? If it is the former, then it seems like an issue of opinion (which the liberal state does not enforce); if it is the latter, it seems like an issue which can be addressed with policy. Negative externalities introduced by one policy can be remedied with another if they prove so onerous as to actively and particularly harmful to society. (Assuming that the state has the will and capacity to create functional policy to address a given problem...)
I don't think it's specifically impossible to create a law which allows poly-marriage but disallows some theoretical abusive arrangement (abusive either to the people in the marriage, or abusive to the law eg. by marrying to transfer property). We already can/do require witnesses to a marriage for example, albeit mostly as a formality, so there is precedent to the notion that the state can ask for character investigation before issuing or legitimating a marriage civilly. Of course, SKFM's argument:
Personally, I think that marriage is not the right approach, but that certain legal protections should be made available outside of marriage. Poly groups can have religious or secular weddings, of course, but I don't see how the state can recognize marriages like this without diluting them so much from what we normally think of as a legal marriage as to render them marriages in name only.
also works, to the extent that it passes those certain legal protections on to plural arrangements. I'd take some issue with the latter part, because at this point I suppose we'd be arguing over words (in the same sense as "civil union" vs. "marriage," and we know how that turned out), but the argument that I've made is for equality under the law in a liberal state, not words, so I've got little room to argue there anyway.
I don't think that equality can happen though. I think that what you'd really end up with is mostly expanded hospital visitation rights, etc., but not the joint property rights. LLC that holds all assets jointly is the best solution for poly groups on the economic end, I think.
Alimony, as it relates specifically to California family law, considers the following for an alimony award:
The present and future earning capacities of each spouse and the ability to maintain the established standard of living;
The contribution of each party to the marriage;
The ability of the spouse to pay alimony;
The financial needs of each party based on the established standard set forth;
The number of years or month of the marriage;
The roles and responsibilities of each party;
The health and age of each party;
Any domestic violence history;
The tax consequences;
The balance of hardships;
The period of time it will take for the supported spouse to become self-supported
And if we agree that it is a lifestyle and not something people are born with, like LGBT, then I find it really hard to argue for it.
Eh religion is a lifestyle choice too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reasonably accommodate religion when it does no harm.
Accommodating someone's lifestyle choice, including their religion of choice, isn't the same as legally recognizing and altering laws due to those lifestyle choices.
As I was typing that, I realized that a monogamous marriage is also just a lifestyle choice. And that's definitely legally recognized by the government and many many laws have been created/altered due to that lifestyle choice.
On the one hand, I still don't know if I think poly marriage should be legally recognized, mostly due to the vast changes to existing law (fundamental changes, not the cosmetic changes required for same sex marriage). If there was a concrete definition of what a poly marriage would look like that could be easily codified, many of the abuse of the system worries could be alleviated. On the other hand, it feels dirty to make an argument against it that basically boils down to "because it's hard".
So by "alleviate social problems," you mean problems that poly folks currently have, and not problems faced by society in general, correct? Just to clarify.
Exactly. It helps the group that prefers poly relationships. This is unsurprising! What it doesn't seem to do is provide broader societal benefits. Given the potentially great societal costs it imposes (as in my tax examples) I think it would need to bring more to the table for it to be a net positive for society.
Personally, I think that marriage is not the right approach, but that certain legal protections should be made available outside of marriage. Poly groups can have religious or secular weddings, of course, but I don't see how the state can recognize marriages like this without diluting them so much from what we normally think of as a legal marriage as to render them marriages in name only.
I personally would be fine with just giving people more non-marital options, ideally with a structure that can be easily ported between states. All of the money-hoarding benefits of marriage are kind of sideways to the important stuff like hospital visitation.
There are people who feel very strongly about the word "marriage," of course, but I don't think poly people are numerous enough or angry enough to affect change like that unless there's a massive change in culture.
It would be really nice, I guess, if they could throw the word "marriage" into the arrangement, but the practical needs are more vital than the emotional needs.
--
Regarding "Born with it," I personally find it problematic to require an individual to be "born" with a position. If someone decided somehow that they wanted to be bisexual out of an emotional desire rather than some sort of forced situation or trauma I don't see a reason to support them any less than someone who was born that way. People are who they are regardless of how they got there.
So by "alleviate social problems," you mean problems that poly folks currently have, and not problems faced by society in general, correct? Just to clarify.
Exactly. It helps the group that prefers poly relationships. This is unsurprising! What it doesn't seem to do is provide broader societal benefits. Given the potentially great societal costs it imposes (as in my tax examples) I think it would need to bring more to the table for it to be a net positive for society.
Personally, I think that marriage is not the right approach, but that certain legal protections should be made available outside of marriage. Poly groups can have religious or secular weddings, of course, but I don't see how the state can recognize marriages like this without diluting them so much from what we normally think of as a legal marriage as to render them marriages in name only.
I personally would be fine with just giving people more non-marital options, ideally with a structure that can be easily ported between states. All of the money-hoarding benefits of marriage are kind of sideways to the important stuff like hospital visitation.
There are people who feel very strongly about the word "marriage," of course, but I don't think poly people are numerous enough or angry enough to affect change like that unless there's a massive change in culture.
It would be really nice, I guess, if they could throw the word "marriage" into the arrangement, but the practical needs are more vital than the emotional needs.
--
Regarding "Born with it," I personally find it problematic to require an individual to be "born" with a position. If someone decided somehow that they wanted to be bisexual out of an emotional desire rather than some sort of forced situation or trauma I don't see a reason to support them any less than someone who was born that way. People are who they are regardless of how they got there.
Yeah, the more I think about it I think there is probably an innate 'monogomy - polygamy' spectrum, kinda like the 'hetero - homo' spectrum. Social pressures and all that can be overwhelming, just like with homosexuals in some cases, but I think people are the way they are.
If there wasn't some sort of spectrum, how could you account for the large percentage of people in 'monogamous' relationships cheating?
But either way...it really shouldn't matter. If it's a fetish, if it's something a person is born with, if it's just a choice...consenting and non-coercive relationships between adults, whose business is it but their own?
I think most everyone in here is fine with poly relationships being perfectly legal, it's only when we start trying to define marriage or other legal constructs that there is any disagreement. Devil is in the details and all that.
I can say my attitudes have changed quite a bit in the discussion throughout this thread as I've thought about it more...I wouldn't say it's equivalent to the gay marriage movement (as has been detailed before) but I'm not entirely opposed to it as I was a few days ago.
Conveniently, Ethical-Slut-style polyamory reduces mate competition by eliminating the need to have a 1:1 gender ratio within sexual orientation subgroups.
As complex as poly can be sometimes, there really are a lot of social problems that magically disappear when you stop treating romantic attention as a zero-sum game.
Sure, if everyone is an ethical slut type polyamorist
I was talking about gender imbalances within a mating pool. Polygyny exacerbates gender imbalances by denying full poly-rights to one gender. Gender imbalances within libertine polyamorous communities tend to be somewhat self-correcting, in my experience.
I didn't mean for that comment to refer to the effects of a poly subpopulation on the population at large.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Not sure if this has been brought up in the thread, but are there any studies or statistics on how big the percentage of people that actually do want to live in a poly relationship are?
It depends mostly on your definitions, but if you define it as a relationship where:
1) Two partners mutually agree that dating other people is okay
2) Both partners inform the other about their other relationships
Due to issues with sample bias, self-reporting, etc., that might be a high estimate.
If you eliminate the second criterion, the numbers spike enormously, up to as much as 30%. But then it becomes hard to differentiate between cheating vs discreet nonmonogamy (eg, "I don't care if you sleep around. I just don't want to know about it.") Discreet nonmonogamy is a surprisingly common arrangement across countries and cultures, but because it is based explicitly on "don't ask, don't tell," it is very hard to study.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm not sure I understand the drive behind poly-marriages.
The way marriage is defined, from a legal standpoint, cannot fit the potentially infinite scenarios brought in by the plurality of partners.
This implies that poly-marriages would have to be entirely different constructs compared to what marriage is.
When same-sex marriages were being debated (and boy is it awesome to be able to write this in the past sense! Yay Supreme Court!), creating a whole different type of unions for same-sex couple was one of the proposals brought up by some anti-gay proponents (i.e: just call it something else!), and that was perceived as being bigoted as marriage is perfectly applicable in a gender-agnostic form. Marriage, on top of granting the same rights to same-sex couples, was seen as granting recognition and acceptance.
I don't see acceptance being granted by poly-marriage, as it requires the definition of a separate kind of union as stated above. As far as rights go, thsee can already be obtained, to my understanding, through various legal contracts. So, in short, what does poly-marriage bring to the table?
The 'recognition and acceptance' argument against civil unions is important, but I think it was less important than the fact that civil unions simply aren't equal. In the US, states are legally required to respect marriages from other states (though, in practice, this has never been well-enforced for gay marriages or interracial marriages). They're not required to respect civil unions from other states. In addition, a lot of the marriage federal tax benefits (and possibly other benefits that I'm unaware of) aren't available for civil unions or domestic partnerships.
If in an alternative universe, if SCOTUS had ruled that civil unions have to be treated equally to marriages in all cases then I think most (but not all) of the resistance against civil unions would go away.
As for the other question: "I'm not sure I understand the drive behind poly-marriages," I'd be lying if I said that poly-marriage would not benefit me at all. At the very least, my household would qualify for a mortgage easier than we would as joint tenants. But the benefits aren't substantial enough for me to agitate for it, and I'm just as concerned as everybody else about the potential for abuse.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I thought that cheating was wholly separate from polygamy/polyamory. Isn't lying about sexual exclusivity at direct odds with a lifestyle based on non-exclusivity?
I thought that cheating was wholly separate from polygamy/polyamory. Isn't lying about sexual exclusivity at direct odds with a lifestyle based on non-exclusivity?
They're separate things but it's entirely possible to cheat in a poly relationship; some groups are closed, some are OK with outside sexual activity but only with notice, etc. Same as a mono relationship.
+2
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
I'm perfectly happy to concede that probably everyone is poly to a point, in the sense that they sometimes wish they could bang someone else while in an ostensibly monogamous relationship. The hard part of being poly is being okay with it when your mate also wants to bang someone else. (Yes, I know there's more to it than sex, I'm being colloquial.)
I think being successfully poly requires a level of emotional sophistication that even most people who declare themselves poly seem to lack, in my observation. People are jealous and possessive and really like to be the most important thing in someone's life, and that's just something incompatible with the poly lifestyle.
As to the "born with it" question, I don't find that terribly relevant. It seems to mostly be something used to combat prejudice in an apologetic way, and implicitly concedes the idea that there's something wrong with the behavior. "Yeah, being gay is inferior to being straight, but they're born with it, so we can't hold them responsible."
I don't much care if poly is a choice or something ingrained. It doesn't change anything regarding whether we should try to figure out a way to implement poly marriage.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+5
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"
Agreed, with the caveat that the rules are emotional and sexual. You can't "cheat" on someone by breaking the deal you made with each other on not using drugs, or on breaking a deal on how to manage money, for example.
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what the proper distinctive terms should be. Does a monogamous couple that has a threesome once no longer qualify as monogamous? *shrug*
There remain the existence of couples who are free to have one-night stands but not form actual relationships with sexual partners and poly groups that are absolutely exclusive to the group, whatever you want to call any of them.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
Mono-romantic.
Ok, true. I'd say "socially monogamous" and people would be all "oh that makes sense" and I would never mention that I know it because it's the best way to describe prairie voles.
I think being successfully poly requires a level of emotional sophistication that even most people who declare themselves poly seem to lack, in my observation. People are jealous and possessive and really like to be the most important thing in someone's life, and that's just something incompatible with the poly lifestyle.
As to the "born with it" question, I don't find that terribly relevant. It seems to mostly be something used to combat prejudice in an apologetic way, and implicitly concedes the idea that there's something wrong with the behavior. "Yeah, being gay is inferior to being straight, but they're born with it, so we can't hold them responsible."
I think expecting people to never be jealous is a bit much. Jealousy is human. I get jealous of cats. Those motherfuckers just get to sit around all day in sunbeams! I can say I've only ever met one person who'd self identify as poly that wasn't extremely emotionally sophisticated, out of... a whole lot. But yeah, jealousy isn't incompatible with the poly lifestyle, any more than it is for monogamous people*. It's something which isn't particularly pleasant, but it's just a thing you deal with. We all have needs and wants and desires that are counterproductive to our relationships, but we normally don't treat those as incompatibilities, just things to work through. Jealousy is no different.
As for the latter thing, yes. "Born this way" is a narrative that is sometimes politically useful for some subset of people, but it holds back progress as a whole. People really should be thinking along the lines "oh this hurts no one, whatever do what you want, Freedom, America, USA USA," rather than "well I guess if you can't help it," since it's both demeaning and not ideal in terms of creating a society full of people free to choose their own paths. Not to mention the fact that things are good or bad (or neutral or variable), regardless of their etiology.
*Actually, research shows that monogamous people experience higher levels of jealousy
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"
Agreed, with the caveat that the rules are emotional and sexual. You can't "cheat" on someone by breaking the deal you made with each other on not using drugs, or on breaking a deal on how to manage money, for example.
Some people consider that cheating! And I don't think there's a ton of use in distinguishing at the point of someone slipping into heavy drug use - especially if it's kept secret, you feel the exact same mix of angry and hurt and betrayed and scared that someone who finds out their SO has been having an affair would.
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what the proper distinctive terms should be. Does a monogamous couple that has a threesome once no longer qualify as monogamous? *shrug*
There remain the existence of couples who are free to have one-night stands but not form actual relationships with sexual partners and poly groups that are absolutely exclusive to the group, whatever you want to call any of them.
That's why I won't argue (and also, when things get to fuzzy border cases, I just say "FUZZY BORDER CASE" rather than going "well ACTUALLY IF WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SUFFIX -GAMY MEANS MARRIAGE SO TECHNICALLY SLEEPING WITH LITERALLY EVERYONE IS STILL MONOGAMOUS"). Normally you'd say that a couple like that has a sexually open relationship, or just lump them into "consensually non-monogamous" couples. The field of research on this isn't super advanced, though.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"
Agreed, with the caveat that the rules are emotional and sexual. You can't "cheat" on someone by breaking the deal you made with each other on not using drugs, or on breaking a deal on how to manage money, for example.
Some people consider that cheating! And I don't think there's a ton of use in distinguishing at the point of someone slipping into heavy drug use - especially if it's kept secret, you feel the exact same mix of angry and hurt and betrayed and scared that someone who finds out their SO has been having an affair would.
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what the proper distinctive terms should be. Does a monogamous couple that has a threesome once no longer qualify as monogamous? *shrug*
There remain the existence of couples who are free to have one-night stands but not form actual relationships with sexual partners and poly groups that are absolutely exclusive to the group, whatever you want to call any of them.
That's why I won't argue (and also, when things get to fuzzy border cases, I just say "FUZZY BORDER CASE" rather than going "well ACTUALLY IF WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SUFFIX -GAMY MEANS MARRIAGE SO TECHNICALLY SLEEPING WITH LITERALLY EVERYONE IS STILL MONOGAMOUS"). Normally you'd say that a couple like that has a sexually open relationship, or just lump them into "consensually non-monogamous" couples. The field of research on this isn't super advanced, though.
I personally think that sex is unique in this respect. I would rather find out that my wife had done just about anything than cheated on me. This could be my own hang up, but it kind of seems inherent to monogamy to place a very high important on this specific aspect of a relationship over other.
Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"
Agreed, with the caveat that the rules are emotional and sexual. You can't "cheat" on someone by breaking the deal you made with each other on not using drugs, or on breaking a deal on how to manage money, for example.
Some people consider that cheating! And I don't think there's a ton of use in distinguishing at the point of someone slipping into heavy drug use - especially if it's kept secret, you feel the exact same mix of angry and hurt and betrayed and scared that someone who finds out their SO has been having an affair would.
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what the proper distinctive terms should be. Does a monogamous couple that has a threesome once no longer qualify as monogamous? *shrug*
There remain the existence of couples who are free to have one-night stands but not form actual relationships with sexual partners and poly groups that are absolutely exclusive to the group, whatever you want to call any of them.
That's why I won't argue (and also, when things get to fuzzy border cases, I just say "FUZZY BORDER CASE" rather than going "well ACTUALLY IF WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SUFFIX -GAMY MEANS MARRIAGE SO TECHNICALLY SLEEPING WITH LITERALLY EVERYONE IS STILL MONOGAMOUS"). Normally you'd say that a couple like that has a sexually open relationship, or just lump them into "consensually non-monogamous" couples. The field of research on this isn't super advanced, though.
I personally think that sex is unique in this respect. I would rather find out that my wife had done just about anything than cheated on me. This could be my own hang up, but it kind of seems inherent to monogamy to place a very high important on this specific aspect of a relationship over other.
This is at least partly cultural. In other cultures they encourage men to sleep with a pregnant woman in order to give the baby extra man-strength, and plenty of women have been friends with their husband's acknowledged mistress. Consented cuckolding is a thing, even. Human variety!
Mind you, that doesn't make it an invalid concern, it just makes it something that can't be assumed for all people.
Certainly in contemporary Western culture, particularly in the US, bodily fidelity is a big-effing-deal for a likely majority of the culture.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Monogamous people do tend to... want monogamy to remain the status in their relationships. Your hangups are certainly higher in magnitude than many other people, but they aren't unique.
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
Emotional cheating is certainly a thing, and can sneak up on all involved parties. Things get extra messy when your relationship is policed by your peers.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Monogamous people do tend to... want monogamy to remain the status in their relationships. Your hangups are certainly higher in magnitude than many other people, but they aren't unique.
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
I am not sure what the benefit is of making cheating synonymous with betrayal.
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
? How is betrayal not the whole of cheating? I think it's very selfish of someone to cheat, because they're essentially having their cake (a monogamous partner) and eating it too (whoever they're cheating with), not to mention that if they're married it's breaking the contract they agreed to on their wedding day. If you want to cheat, if you just gotta bang someone who isn't your partner, then get a divorce or break up.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Monogamous people do tend to... want monogamy to remain the status in their relationships. Your hangups are certainly higher in magnitude than many other people, but they aren't unique.
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
I am not sure what the benefit is of making cheating synonymous with betrayal.
The fact that it wraps emotional cheating in, for one thing. It also makes it easier to grasp what cheating would be in a non-monogamous context.
It's good for the generalized understanding of the phenomenon.
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
? How is betrayal not the whole of cheating? I think it's very selfish of someone to cheat, because they're essentially having their cake (a monogamous partner) and eating it too (whoever they're cheating with), not to mention that if they're married it's breaking the contract they agreed to on their wedding day. If you want to cheat, if you just gotta bang someone who isn't your partner, then get a divorce or break up.
Betrayal is, I was saying that sex isn't the whole of cheating.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
? How is betrayal not the whole of cheating? I think it's very selfish of someone to cheat, because they're essentially having their cake (a monogamous partner) and eating it too (whoever they're cheating with), not to mention that if they're married it's breaking the contract they agreed to on their wedding day. If you want to cheat, if you just gotta bang someone who isn't your partner, then get a divorce or break up.
Betrayal is, I was saying that sex isn't the whole of cheating.
To me, cheating is a breach of an agreement re: exclusivity. So sexual and emotional make sense in mono and poly contexts (you are breaching the deal to be as exclusive as you have agreed with your partner(s)) but other issues are just betrayals of trust, but not exclusivity.
Posts
I am talking about the true poly lifestyle of several equal partners, not the negative examples that were already brought up, like religious polygamy or a rich guy/woman marrying a bunch of trophy wives/husbands.
My issue with the topic, apart from all the legal headaches it could cause, is that unlike LGBT people, whose causes I fully support, I often have the impression that being poly is actually more of a choice or lifestyle.
Maybe this is my limited annecdotal evidence and the few cases I have read about in serious media over the last couple of years, but I am under the impression that poly relationships are a thing of a certain class, mostly young liberal social progressives and it feels more like a revival of the "free love" concept of the 70s to me, than an inherent sexual orientation.
You usually don't hear about some middleaged working class people coming out as poly all of a sudden.
It also does not help, that in many cases I had the impression that one person was the driving force behind initiating such a relationship and that I felt that this one person was getting what they truly wanted, while the others kinda tagged along, probably for not wanting to lose that person as a romantic partner.
I am willing to be proven wrong, if there are some studies out there that clearly say otherwise.
However we may feel about them, the liberal state must remain blind to religion. The FLDS, Raliens, etc. will do their polygyny/polyandry/polyamory/free-love-society stuff no matter what the state says; denying them government benefits solely because their belief system may be goosey in the majority opinion is illiberal, full stop. The same could be said if the argument was to deny the right to poly libertine secularists on religious/anti-libertine grounds: the state function is civil, not religious, and it is not contracted to make moral claims on the actions of citizens.
best argument against, imho
Exactly. It helps the group that prefers poly relationships. This is unsurprising! What it doesn't seem to do is provide broader societal benefits. Given the potentially great societal costs it imposes (as in my tax examples) I think it would need to bring more to the table for it to be a net positive for society.
Personally, I think that marriage is not the right approach, but that certain legal protections should be made available outside of marriage. Poly groups can have religious or secular weddings, of course, but I don't see how the state can recognize marriages like this without diluting them so much from what we normally think of as a legal marriage as to render them marriages in name only.
Their belief system is not just goosey, it is abusive.
I am more than fine with the government not legitimizing practices that are abusive, and I would argue that a government has a responsibility to do so.
Eh religion is a lifestyle choice too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reasonably accommodate religion when it does no harm.
While the liberal state must (arguably) be blind to religion, it does not have to be blind to the consequences of an action that may or may not be associated with religion. Impact on religious beliefs can, and should, be a consideration when creating public policy, and in many cases it doesn't run counter to liberal philosophy to create carve-outs and exceptions in law that benefit certain religious practices.
I'll agree that creating policy that restricts an individual's rights based entirely on religion is bad. If polygamy / bigamy was legalized nationwide for everyone but FLDS members, that would definitely be illiberal. But making polygamy / bigamy illegal or not recognized because the practices of FLDS, Raliens, or other sub-groups result in harm to society as a whole - such as the 'lost boys' phenomenon, the rampant sexual abuse and coercive practices in many polygamous cults, or other reasons is not making a moral statement.
Basically, the government isn't saying it's moral or not. It's saying that conscientious objection or whaling or refusing to provide your identity for religious reasons or using hallucinogenic drugs or human sacrifice for religious reasons is / isn't harmful to society. And, for example, with whaling, the size of the subgroup that is willing to engage in that practice (for religious / cultural reasons or not) should be considered in that decision.
So wait - if we forbid marriage altogether, we'll have a nation of Batmen? Hm...
There was an old party of Lyme
Who married three wives at one time.
When asked: "Why the third?"
He replied: "One’s absurd,
And bigamy, sir, is a crime."
We must force obscenely rich people with poor street-sense to get married, have one child, and then attend movies in bad neighborhoods!
But the question about the FLDS et al. isn't about creating something which does not already exist for them; their non-civil marriages already happen, and can already be abusive (or not). Creating a "carve-out" in the law to benefit one belief group over another, or in this case apparently to suppress one belief group over all others, is creating a moral judgement about one religion and then passing it into law, which is certainly illiberal.
Again to the Lockean state of nature argument: we give up certain rights when we form the state because the benefit of entering the state outweighs the benefit of having those rights; ie. we agree to a government because it is convenient, expeditious, etc. whereas the state of nature is not. We form a society where we no longer have, for example, the right to shoot anyone we want for no reason, because it useful to us for other people to not be able to shoot us for no reason.
The fact that we have given up certain rights to, or conferred specific benefit on, one group (the monogamously married) is detrimental to those who are not (or do not envision themselves in the future to be) monogamously married. Some of these benefits make a certain amount of sense due to the structure of our society (poly-marriage, as noted a number of times already, would probably require a different method of health insurance), and some do not (why restrict hospital visitation?). People who imagine that they will never marry, in any arrangement, also miss some benefits.
Would it be as contentious to extend some benefit to the never-married (although I can't imagine what benefit, exactly, they'd agitate for) as it would be to extend the same benefits to people in plural marriages? That is: is it the plural quality of the marriage which is most troubling, all things being equal, or only the possibility that there are groups which may abuse that quality? If it is the former, then it seems like an issue of opinion (which the liberal state does not enforce); if it is the latter, it seems like an issue which can be addressed with policy. Negative externalities introduced by one policy can be remedied with another if they prove so onerous as to actively and particularly harmful to society. (Assuming that the state has the will and capacity to create functional policy to address a given problem...)
I don't think it's specifically impossible to create a law which allows poly-marriage but disallows some theoretical abusive arrangement (abusive either to the people in the marriage, or abusive to the law eg. by marrying to transfer property). We already can/do require witnesses to a marriage for example, albeit mostly as a formality, so there is precedent to the notion that the state can ask for character investigation before issuing or legitimating a marriage civilly. Of course, SKFM's argument:
also works, to the extent that it passes those certain legal protections on to plural arrangements. I'd take some issue with the latter part, because at this point I suppose we'd be arguing over words (in the same sense as "civil union" vs. "marriage," and we know how that turned out), but the argument that I've made is for equality under the law in a liberal state, not words, so I've got little room to argue there anyway.
True enough (well, I think we ought tell religion to go screw always regardless of harm) but under that metric aren't we already accomodating polygamy?
I don't think that equality can happen though. I think that what you'd really end up with is mostly expanded hospital visitation rights, etc., but not the joint property rights. LLC that holds all assets jointly is the best solution for poly groups on the economic end, I think.
How would alimony work?
Alimony, as it relates specifically to California family law, considers the following for an alimony award:
The present and future earning capacities of each spouse and the ability to maintain the established standard of living;
The contribution of each party to the marriage;
The ability of the spouse to pay alimony;
The financial needs of each party based on the established standard set forth;
The number of years or month of the marriage;
The roles and responsibilities of each party;
The health and age of each party;
Any domestic violence history;
The tax consequences;
The balance of hardships;
The period of time it will take for the supported spouse to become self-supported
Accommodating someone's lifestyle choice, including their religion of choice, isn't the same as legally recognizing and altering laws due to those lifestyle choices.
As I was typing that, I realized that a monogamous marriage is also just a lifestyle choice. And that's definitely legally recognized by the government and many many laws have been created/altered due to that lifestyle choice.
On the one hand, I still don't know if I think poly marriage should be legally recognized, mostly due to the vast changes to existing law (fundamental changes, not the cosmetic changes required for same sex marriage). If there was a concrete definition of what a poly marriage would look like that could be easily codified, many of the abuse of the system worries could be alleviated. On the other hand, it feels dirty to make an argument against it that basically boils down to "because it's hard".
I personally would be fine with just giving people more non-marital options, ideally with a structure that can be easily ported between states. All of the money-hoarding benefits of marriage are kind of sideways to the important stuff like hospital visitation.
There are people who feel very strongly about the word "marriage," of course, but I don't think poly people are numerous enough or angry enough to affect change like that unless there's a massive change in culture.
It would be really nice, I guess, if they could throw the word "marriage" into the arrangement, but the practical needs are more vital than the emotional needs.
--
Regarding "Born with it," I personally find it problematic to require an individual to be "born" with a position. If someone decided somehow that they wanted to be bisexual out of an emotional desire rather than some sort of forced situation or trauma I don't see a reason to support them any less than someone who was born that way. People are who they are regardless of how they got there.
Yeah, the more I think about it I think there is probably an innate 'monogomy - polygamy' spectrum, kinda like the 'hetero - homo' spectrum. Social pressures and all that can be overwhelming, just like with homosexuals in some cases, but I think people are the way they are.
If there wasn't some sort of spectrum, how could you account for the large percentage of people in 'monogamous' relationships cheating?
But either way...it really shouldn't matter. If it's a fetish, if it's something a person is born with, if it's just a choice...consenting and non-coercive relationships between adults, whose business is it but their own?
I think most everyone in here is fine with poly relationships being perfectly legal, it's only when we start trying to define marriage or other legal constructs that there is any disagreement. Devil is in the details and all that.
I can say my attitudes have changed quite a bit in the discussion throughout this thread as I've thought about it more...I wouldn't say it's equivalent to the gay marriage movement (as has been detailed before) but I'm not entirely opposed to it as I was a few days ago.
I was talking about gender imbalances within a mating pool. Polygyny exacerbates gender imbalances by denying full poly-rights to one gender. Gender imbalances within libertine polyamorous communities tend to be somewhat self-correcting, in my experience.
I didn't mean for that comment to refer to the effects of a poly subpopulation on the population at large.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It depends mostly on your definitions, but if you define it as a relationship where:
1) Two partners mutually agree that dating other people is okay
2) Both partners inform the other about their other relationships
Then it's up to 5% in the US at any given time. (http://www.academia.edu/7327565/On_the_Margins_Consensual_Non-Monogamy_and_Identity)
Due to issues with sample bias, self-reporting, etc., that might be a high estimate.
If you eliminate the second criterion, the numbers spike enormously, up to as much as 30%. But then it becomes hard to differentiate between cheating vs discreet nonmonogamy (eg, "I don't care if you sleep around. I just don't want to know about it.") Discreet nonmonogamy is a surprisingly common arrangement across countries and cultures, but because it is based explicitly on "don't ask, don't tell," it is very hard to study.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The 'recognition and acceptance' argument against civil unions is important, but I think it was less important than the fact that civil unions simply aren't equal. In the US, states are legally required to respect marriages from other states (though, in practice, this has never been well-enforced for gay marriages or interracial marriages). They're not required to respect civil unions from other states. In addition, a lot of the marriage federal tax benefits (and possibly other benefits that I'm unaware of) aren't available for civil unions or domestic partnerships.
If in an alternative universe, if SCOTUS had ruled that civil unions have to be treated equally to marriages in all cases then I think most (but not all) of the resistance against civil unions would go away.
As for the other question: "I'm not sure I understand the drive behind poly-marriages," I'd be lying if I said that poly-marriage would not benefit me at all. At the very least, my household would qualify for a mortgage easier than we would as joint tenants. But the benefits aren't substantial enough for me to agitate for it, and I'm just as concerned as everybody else about the potential for abuse.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They're separate things but it's entirely possible to cheat in a poly relationship; some groups are closed, some are OK with outside sexual activity but only with notice, etc. Same as a mono relationship.
You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
Mono-romantic.
I think being successfully poly requires a level of emotional sophistication that even most people who declare themselves poly seem to lack, in my observation. People are jealous and possessive and really like to be the most important thing in someone's life, and that's just something incompatible with the poly lifestyle.
As to the "born with it" question, I don't find that terribly relevant. It seems to mostly be something used to combat prejudice in an apologetic way, and implicitly concedes the idea that there's something wrong with the behavior. "Yeah, being gay is inferior to being straight, but they're born with it, so we can't hold them responsible."
I don't much care if poly is a choice or something ingrained. It doesn't change anything regarding whether we should try to figure out a way to implement poly marriage.
Agreed, with the caveat that the rules are emotional and sexual. You can't "cheat" on someone by breaking the deal you made with each other on not using drugs, or on breaking a deal on how to manage money, for example.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what the proper distinctive terms should be. Does a monogamous couple that has a threesome once no longer qualify as monogamous? *shrug*
There remain the existence of couples who are free to have one-night stands but not form actual relationships with sexual partners and poly groups that are absolutely exclusive to the group, whatever you want to call any of them.
Ok, true. I'd say "socially monogamous" and people would be all "oh that makes sense" and I would never mention that I know it because it's the best way to describe prairie voles.
I think expecting people to never be jealous is a bit much. Jealousy is human. I get jealous of cats. Those motherfuckers just get to sit around all day in sunbeams! I can say I've only ever met one person who'd self identify as poly that wasn't extremely emotionally sophisticated, out of... a whole lot. But yeah, jealousy isn't incompatible with the poly lifestyle, any more than it is for monogamous people*. It's something which isn't particularly pleasant, but it's just a thing you deal with. We all have needs and wants and desires that are counterproductive to our relationships, but we normally don't treat those as incompatibilities, just things to work through. Jealousy is no different.
As for the latter thing, yes. "Born this way" is a narrative that is sometimes politically useful for some subset of people, but it holds back progress as a whole. People really should be thinking along the lines "oh this hurts no one, whatever do what you want, Freedom, America, USA USA," rather than "well I guess if you can't help it," since it's both demeaning and not ideal in terms of creating a society full of people free to choose their own paths. Not to mention the fact that things are good or bad (or neutral or variable), regardless of their etiology.
*Actually, research shows that monogamous people experience higher levels of jealousy
Some people consider that cheating! And I don't think there's a ton of use in distinguishing at the point of someone slipping into heavy drug use - especially if it's kept secret, you feel the exact same mix of angry and hurt and betrayed and scared that someone who finds out their SO has been having an affair would.
That's why I won't argue (and also, when things get to fuzzy border cases, I just say "FUZZY BORDER CASE" rather than going "well ACTUALLY IF WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SUFFIX -GAMY MEANS MARRIAGE SO TECHNICALLY SLEEPING WITH LITERALLY EVERYONE IS STILL MONOGAMOUS"). Normally you'd say that a couple like that has a sexually open relationship, or just lump them into "consensually non-monogamous" couples. The field of research on this isn't super advanced, though.
I personally think that sex is unique in this respect. I would rather find out that my wife had done just about anything than cheated on me. This could be my own hang up, but it kind of seems inherent to monogamy to place a very high important on this specific aspect of a relationship over other.
This is at least partly cultural. In other cultures they encourage men to sleep with a pregnant woman in order to give the baby extra man-strength, and plenty of women have been friends with their husband's acknowledged mistress. Consented cuckolding is a thing, even. Human variety!
Mind you, that doesn't make it an invalid concern, it just makes it something that can't be assumed for all people.
Certainly in contemporary Western culture, particularly in the US, bodily fidelity is a big-effing-deal for a likely majority of the culture.
I'm just saying that isn't the whole of cheating. I think it's useful to think about cheating as a betrayal, because that is the primary feeling people have in most cases.
I am not sure what the benefit is of making cheating synonymous with betrayal.
The fact that it wraps emotional cheating in, for one thing. It also makes it easier to grasp what cheating would be in a non-monogamous context.
It's good for the generalized understanding of the phenomenon.
Betrayal is, I was saying that sex isn't the whole of cheating.
To me, cheating is a breach of an agreement re: exclusivity. So sexual and emotional make sense in mono and poly contexts (you are breaching the deal to be as exclusive as you have agreed with your partner(s)) but other issues are just betrayals of trust, but not exclusivity.