A lot of US law, especially marital law, differs from state to state. It makes conversations like these extra complicated.
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
Feral on
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.
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
A lot of US law, especially marital law, differs from state to state. It makes conversations like these extra complicated.
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
This has been a problem with the thread, too. I feel that you need to discuss cases differently to figure out what a plausible legal structure would look like.
A lot of US law, especially marital law, differs from state to state. It makes conversations like these extra complicated.
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
This has been a problem with the thread, too. I feel that you need to discuss cases differently to figure out what a plausible legal structure would look like.
But tons of people have been saying that this entire thread. It's one of the big reasons given for why poly marriage as a legal institution would be somewhere between difficult, weird and unworkable. There's nothing even close to a set definition for what poly marriage even is.
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"
Scenario: You’ve just done something physically and/or emotionally intimate with another consenting adult human being who is not your spouse/partner.
So, gonna tell your partner?
a) Yes.
b) Any other response.
If the answer is “b,” then there’s a really excellent chance you’re cheating.
Some relationships people are okay with it as long as they're not told.
I'm straining to understand how there could be a poly marriage under this arrangement or what it has to do with poly marriage in general?
although the idea of a couple going "my partner is possibly also married to someone else but i don't want to know anything about it." is really quite amusing to me.
Antinumeric on
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
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"
Scenario: You’ve just done something physically and/or emotionally intimate with another consenting adult human being who is not your spouse/partner.
So, gonna tell your partner?
a) Yes.
b) Any other response.
If the answer is “b,” then there’s a really excellent chance you’re cheating.
Some relationships people are okay with it as long as they're not told.
I'm straining to understand how there could be a poly marriage under this arrangement or what it has to do with poly marriage in general?
although the idea of a couple going "my partner is possibly also married to someone else but i don't want to know anything about it." is really quite amusing to me.
It isn't directly related to poly marriage, but it is tangentially related because it complicates research efforts.
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.
It isn't entirely different from asking men if they are "gay" vs asking them if they have had sex with men.
Not all men who have sex with men (MSM) identify as gay, because they want their dalliances to be discreet. Not all people in nonmonogamous relationships identify as open or poly, because they want their dalliances to be discreet.
Researchers have to be very careful about the way they phrase their research.
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.
A lot of US law, especially marital law, differs from state to state. It makes conversations like these extra complicated.
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
This has been a problem with the thread, too. I feel that you need to discuss cases differently to figure out what a plausible legal structure would look like.
But tons of people have been saying that this entire thread. It's one of the big reasons given for why poly marriage as a legal institution would be somewhere between difficult, weird and unworkable. There's nothing even close to a set definition for what poly marriage even is.
As I mentioned a few pages back, you basically have an individual marrying a group or an individual marrying an individual in that group. In theory you could have three people who are each married to the other two people separately or three people who are all married in a single unit.
For the sake of (relative) simplicity, you could stick to only having marriages between individuals, since everyone in a group can just get married to each individual in that group to the same effect as having the group marry, with the group-based details being handled by more standard legal means.
The internal structure of marriage (Group marriage vs. multi-marriage) doesn't necessarily have to be reflected by the legal structure, it's the rights that are of primary value.
A lot of US law, especially marital law, differs from state to state. It makes conversations like these extra complicated.
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
This has been a problem with the thread, too. I feel that you need to discuss cases differently to figure out what a plausible legal structure would look like.
But tons of people have been saying that this entire thread. It's one of the big reasons given for why poly marriage as a legal institution would be somewhere between difficult, weird and unworkable. There's nothing even close to a set definition for what poly marriage even is.
As I mentioned a few pages back, you basically have an individual marrying a group or an individual marrying an individual in that group. In theory you could have three people who are each married to the other two people separately or three people who are all married in a single unit.
For the sake of (relative) simplicity, you could stick to only having marriages between individuals, since everyone in a group can just get married to each individual in that group to the same effect as having the group marry, with the group-based details being handled by more standard legal means.
The internal structure of marriage (Group marriage vs. multi-marriage) doesn't necessarily have to be reflected by the legal structure, it's the rights that are of primary value.
But that doesn't actually solve the issue because it's not representative of all sorts of poly arrangements.
A lot of US law, especially marital law, differs from state to state. It makes conversations like these extra complicated.
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
This has been a problem with the thread, too. I feel that you need to discuss cases differently to figure out what a plausible legal structure would look like.
But tons of people have been saying that this entire thread. It's one of the big reasons given for why poly marriage as a legal institution would be somewhere between difficult, weird and unworkable. There's nothing even close to a set definition for what poly marriage even is.
As I mentioned a few pages back, you basically have an individual marrying a group or an individual marrying an individual in that group. In theory you could have three people who are each married to the other two people separately or three people who are all married in a single unit.
For the sake of (relative) simplicity, you could stick to only having marriages between individuals, since everyone in a group can just get married to each individual in that group to the same effect as having the group marry, with the group-based details being handled by more standard legal means.
The internal structure of marriage (Group marriage vs. multi-marriage) doesn't necessarily have to be reflected by the legal structure, it's the rights that are of primary value.
But that doesn't actually solve the issue because it's not representative of all sorts of poly arrangements.
It isn't entirely different from asking men if they are "gay" vs asking them if they have had sex with men.
Not all men who have sex with men (MSM) identify as gay, because they want their dalliances to be discreet. Not all people in nonmonogamous relationships identify as open or poly, because they want their dalliances to be discreet.
Researchers have to be very careful about the way they phrase their research.
I understand that but the nature of marriage makes it somewhat incompatible with this. And I think the number of poly peeps who are uninterested in marriage with their partners is of little interest regarding the legalisation of poly marriage.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.
It isn't entirely different from asking men if they are "gay" vs asking them if they have had sex with men.
Not all men who have sex with men (MSM) identify as gay, because they want their dalliances to be discreet. Not all people in nonmonogamous relationships identify as open or poly, because they want their dalliances to be discreet.
Researchers have to be very careful about the way they phrase their research.
I understand that but the nature of marriage makes it somewhat incompatible with this. And I think the number of poly peeps who are uninterested in marriage with their partners is of little interest regarding the legalisation of poly marriage.
It isn't entirely different from asking men if they are "gay" vs asking them if they have had sex with men.
Not all men who have sex with men (MSM) identify as gay, because they want their dalliances to be discreet. Not all people in nonmonogamous relationships identify as open or poly, because they want their dalliances to be discreet.
Researchers have to be very careful about the way they phrase their research.
Just as a minor quibble, "gay" is a social identity and people might not identify as it for reasons beyond just discretion. Homosocial sexual relationships such as in the military or prisons, compensated, forced, or coerced sex like male prostitution, or any of a mixture of other ways in which men might prefer women in some way while still sucking a dick now and then (or even more often than they have sex with women).
Similarly, just because* a woman has given up on her marriage but tells her husband that well, she at least doesn't want his mistresses to become public does not necessarily make her "discreetly poly" in her personal consideration. Her husband, for that matter, MIGHT be poly or he might just be a jerk.
It's one of the tricky bits about talking about poly relationships especially, there's going to be a very wide range of scenarios, and there's no simple way to decide whether we should be looking at people who engage in poly behaviors (a larger population) or people who identify as poly (a smaller population with a variety of reasons not to honestly self-report).
We could, for example, classify some marriages with attached step-parents as a sort of poly relationship based not around a couple but around a child or children. And then there's casual dating, which is usually discounted but certainly has its own set of socially defined yet rarely spoken aloud rules about who can have sex with who and different differentiations of expected intimacy and monogamy.
*choosing this example as an obvious case, not as some sort of implication about all people who're in poly relationships.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.
I bolded the two parts that are usually violated in real-world not-on-paper poly marriages and that are why poly marriages should continue to be banned.
Because arranged monogamous marriages are things no child was ever forced into, amirite?
Simply because something can happen doesn't mean it will. If lesbians were found to have high rates of domestic violence the banning gay marriage wouldn't be the answer.
Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.
I bolded the two parts that are usually violated in real-world not-on-paper poly marriages and that are why poly marriages should continue to be banned.
Because arranged monogamous marriages are things no child was ever forced into, amirite?
Simply because something can happen doesn't mean it will. If lesbians were found to have high rates of domestic violence the banning gay marriage wouldn't be the answer.
I completely disagree as a matter of principle.
We have to create laws for the world that we have, not the world we wish we had. The only reason we do not allow an adult and an underage minor to marry is because such relationships are more likely to be exploitative than relationships involving only adults.
An easy counter to this is to say "but minors can't consent!" But that is a legal decision. Outside of a legal structure, clearly, minors can consent; they consent to things all the time. We just pick and choose, legally, the types of consent we respect. A teenage minor, for instance, can legally consent (or choose not to consent) to a medical procedure. In states with R&J laws (which I think are an awesome legal innovation), a 16-year-old can legally consent to a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old but not a 20-year-old.
There were decades of research establishing that adult homosexual relationships were no more likely to be abusive or exploitative than adult heterosexual relationships. Without that empirical finding, homosexuality wouldn't have the blessing of the mainstream psych and medical community, and I doubt we'd have gay marriage today. If, in an alternate universe, that finding were the inverse - that homosexual relationships were commonly damaging to the well-being of the participants - then alternate-universe-me would be arguing that we should ban gay marriage.
Feral on
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.
There still remains the fact that "An adult can't do horrible things to 2+ young people" doesn't mean "An adult can't do horrible things to 1 young person."
It's important that the abuse issues are addressed directly.
A few posts have been skirting up to it, so it bears repeating: no one has a fundamental "right" to a spouse. Humans have agency and the ability to consent or reject marriage proposals (among many other things); saying "but what if one man marries all the women and then there are men who can't find wives" is a very goosey argument. If Woman A isn't going to marry Man A, but possess both the ability and desire to marry Man B, it doesn't follow that she would necessarily marry Man A if she lacked the ability to marry Man B (or that she would lack the desire, if she lacked the ability).
It's also a bit telling that this scenario is presented as "one man marries multiple women, and then other men are left out," and not "one woman marries multiple men and then other women are left out," as though men have a unique right to marry a woman, but not the other way around, or as though all poly-marriages are necessarily heterosexual. What if Bill and Steve and Jim all marry each other? Or Elizabeth and Jennifer and Sarah? Do you suppose that because Bill and Steve can now get married, Elizabeth is necessarily deprived of the ability to marry either of them?
To be extremely Lockean about it: there's little to "marriage" which necessarily exists in the state of nature. It can be argued to be an invention of society and of the state, meant to eg. clarify inheritance, designate a clear individual for certain decisions or situations (next of kin, power of attorney, etc), and in the incomplete-welfare state it creates a way for certain restricted benefits (health insurance, for example) to be dispersed. Marriage exists not because it needs to exist, but because it makes life a lot easier if it does exist, simply because we live in a society which respects property. On the other hand, the emotional aspects of marriage (which can exist in any union in the state of nature) are not within the legitimate boundaries of the liberal state (ie. we do not believe that the state can tell you who to love, how to feel, etc.), nor is it within the power of the state to restrict the celebration/recognition of any type of union by a purely social organization (because we retain, in the liberal state, the right to free association)...
[good but long post snipped]
Yes, nobody has a right to a spouse. But nobody also has a right to satisfactory resolution in the other matching problem of infamous social concern, viz., finding a source of stable and remunerative employment. Nonetheless there is a valid role for a state to put its finger on the scales, as it were, so as to encourage low unemployment, as an aggregate social goal that is both abstracted from any basis in individual rights and additionally cognizant of perverse outcomes emerging from collective behaviour, free association be damned.
This goes further. Not everyone wants stable employment. Some people actively prefer an itinerant lifestyle! And their way of life is actively rendered much worse if governments pursue, with the threat of force, certain policies that favour the bureaucratic (private or public) pursuit of mass employment (e.g., enclosure, compulsory mass education, mandated social insurance, etc.). Their individual life may be too rendered much worse; the skills that earn one respect, status, loyalty, and friendship in a bohemian ethic are not necessarily the skills that earn these things in a staid post-industrial existence. Perhaps your particular gifts in life are prestidigitation and charm rather than balancing a chequebook. Nonetheless, here we are.
Marriage is a creature of society and states; in a time when family planning policy - on the solemn and decidedly cynical basis of demographic transition and the affordability of food imports or the welfare state - has been in place amongst both government and international institutions since the 1950s, it's a bit late to insist on classical liberalism. We tell parents to be emotionally satisfied with three or two children (or, more recently, to desire children at all). It does not seem a stretch to tell the married to be satisfied with one spouse. Decency does not of course call for sending in jackbooted thugs to sterilize the excessively fertile or coerce the insufficiently fertile, but child benefit may legitimately level off, paternity/maternity leave policy constructed with an explicit mandate on its impact on childbirth rates, state messaging advocate or admonish, and so forth. The bureaucratic regulatory welfare state does not exist in Locke, because aggregate social goals to be achieved by this state do not exist in Locke.
I'm 100% for legalizing polygamy only because it would tear the modern day mormon church apart at the seam
How do you figure that
Polygamy is still part of the Mormon doctrine and beliefs, but they don't practice it anymore (since the Gov. threatened to sieze all of their buildings, assets, everything in the 1880s over it)
For years people still secretly practiced polygamy. Currently, if you are a member of the LDS church and engage in plural marriage, you will be excommunicated (more because they want to save face in the public eye).
Even though they deny practicing it, they still do practice 'spiritual polygamy'. (When mormons get married in the temple, they believe it is for eternity. If a man's wife dies, he can get remarried in the temple to another woman and then be sealed to more than one woman. Women can't get sealed/married in the temple to more than one man)
That being said, the majority of rank and file members of the church generally look back at polygamy with a mixture of disgust/embarrassment.
However, there are some very strong orthodox mormons in the church who are willing to go the extra mile.
If polygamy were legalalized, I think it would create a rift in the church between the ultra orthodox and the rank and file who like to pretend that polygamy never existed. The leaders of the church tend to fall on the ultra orthodox side as well, so if it were legalized, i can see the church eventually practicing it again or considering practicing it which would alienate the modern members because despite how brainwashed the general membership is, I think there is a breaking point that would push enough people away. And this could be it.
I'm 100% for legalizing polygamy only because it would tear the modern day mormon church apart at the seam
How do you figure that
Polygamy is still part of the Mormon doctrine and beliefs, but they don't practice it anymore (since the Gov. threatened to sieze all of their buildings, assets, everything in the 1880s over it)
For years people still secretly practiced polygamy. Currently, if you are a member of the LDS church and engage in plural marriage, you will be excommunicated (more because they want to save face in the public eye).
Even though they deny practicing it, they still do practice 'spiritual polygamy'. (When mormons get married in the temple, they believe it is for eternity. If a man's wife dies, he can get remarried in the temple to another woman and then be sealed to more than one woman. Women can't get sealed/married in the temple to more than one man)
That being said, the majority of rank and file members of the church generally look back at polygamy with a mixture of disgust/embarrassment.
However, there are some very strong orthodox mormons in the church who are willing to go the extra mile.
If polygamy were legalalized, I think it would create a rift in the church between the ultra orthodox and the rank and file who like to pretend that polygamy never existed. The leaders of the church tend to fall on the ultra orthodox side as well, so if it were legalized, i can see the church eventually practicing it again or considering practicing it which would alienate the modern members because despite how brainwashed the general membership is, I think there is a breaking point that would push enough people away. And this could be it.
See I think most of the current mainstream, non-FLDS Mormons will probably say that the 1890 Manifesto was divinely inspired and polygamy as a Mormon practice is forbidden. I don't think legalizing polygamy would actually result in any kind of substantial church schism.
In any case, being torn apart at the seams is how religions reproduce
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think outside FLDS circles modern Mormons are basically right in line with the rest of society. I've never actually met a Mormon who really longs to marry multiple people.
of the Mormons that you've met, how many are rich enough to tempt a middle-class daughter into a life of concubinage?
as far as alarming trends that are not actually polygamy go, the direction of alimony law reform suggests a movement toward protecting the wealth of spouses who marry down the class ladder; protection of inequity in family law is obviously highly favourable toward unequal marriages
I'm 100% for legalizing polygamy only because it would tear the modern day mormon church apart at the seam
How do you figure that
Polygamy is still part of the Mormon doctrine and beliefs, but they don't practice it anymore (since the Gov. threatened to sieze all of their buildings, assets, everything in the 1880s over it)
For years people still secretly practiced polygamy. Currently, if you are a member of the LDS church and engage in plural marriage, you will be excommunicated (more because they want to save face in the public eye).
Even though they deny practicing it, they still do practice 'spiritual polygamy'. (When mormons get married in the temple, they believe it is for eternity. If a man's wife dies, he can get remarried in the temple to another woman and then be sealed to more than one woman. Women can't get sealed/married in the temple to more than one man)
That being said, the majority of rank and file members of the church generally look back at polygamy with a mixture of disgust/embarrassment.
However, there are some very strong orthodox mormons in the church who are willing to go the extra mile.
If polygamy were legalalized, I think it would create a rift in the church between the ultra orthodox and the rank and file who like to pretend that polygamy never existed. The leaders of the church tend to fall on the ultra orthodox side as well, so if it were legalized, i can see the church eventually practicing it again or considering practicing it which would alienate the modern members because despite how brainwashed the general membership is, I think there is a breaking point that would push enough people away. And this could be it.
See I think most of the current mainstream, non-FLDS Mormons will probably say that the 1890 Manifesto was divinely inspired and polygamy as a Mormon practice is forbidden. I don't think legalizing polygamy would actually result in any kind of substantial church schism.
A point here; there's a difference between "mainstream" mormons and "True Believing" mormons (i.e. orthodox).
Mainstream mormons, yes, look back at all the dirty laundry of the churches history and chalk it up to growing pains. They can (for reasons that are a whole different discussion) rationalize in their mind that a Prophet who "can't lead the church astray" can also say, do, and implement doctrine that is fundamentally wrong and misguided. No, that doesn't make sense. Yes, it requires a fleet from rationality. But it is what it is. These members tend to be converts or descendants of converts, or somewhat ironically, members who are generational mormons but have been sheltered from actual history and doctrine of the church due to the level of control and influence the church has in the culture of the church, primarily in Utah.
Re-implementing polygamy would be disastrous for this type of mormon; not because they don't have the cognative dissonance skills to brush the contradiction aside, but because it would be one twist too far. For many, polygamy in the past is only ok because it is in the past. Much like animal sacrifice, stoning, and so on, past practices are explained away by the march of time and further 'revelations' from God.
True Believing Mormons? Nah, they'd be all in. You'd be surprised at the number of members who, either in private, or in public (i.e. at church) voice ideas to the effect that the halting of polygamy was simply a necessity of the time and not a divine ending of the practice. Just a pause button on eternal exaltation, if you will. They tend to think it will come back, at some point or another (either during the millennium, beforehand, or whenever), just that we can't now. Not because it's wrong, dangerous, or damaging, but because it needed to take a break to 'protect' the church.
These mormons, while much smaller in number, also tend to be the ones higher up in status, heritage, and often financial and business influence.
Also, keep in mind, that polygamy is still practiced regularly in the LDS church; it just happens to only occur in temples, for the deceased, or for men who want to remarry in mortality but don't want to (or for some reason can't) cancel a previous sealing to a previous spouse. Russel M Nelson, for instance, remarried after his previous wife died; theologically he is in a polygamous marriage, one wife just happens to have left mortality.
In any case, being torn apart at the seams is how religions reproduce
The LDS church has already produced dozens (if not more, I've seen estimates as high as 200) of offshoots; many have faded away but others continue to exist to this day, just often under different names and sometimes drastically different doctrines.
I think outside FLDS circles modern Mormons are basically right in line with the rest of society. I've never actually met a Mormon who really longs to marry multiple people.
Yes and no. Yes, you're unlikely to find many mormons who are hankering for another wife. No, you'd be surprised at the level of malleability many members, even seemingly intelligent and rational, are in their faiths and beliefs. If Monson showed up on TV this afternoon and say "Yo, marry all the womens!", you would likely find that most people wouldn't be lining up at their local chapel to get their Bishops approval however you would also likely find that most members would simply accept the practice among their neighbors without any (at least outward) problem, chalking it up to just another change in doctrine, another "revelation", one more "gospel truth restored"
Posts
In some states (I'm not clear how many) the mother's husband is presumed to be the legal father.
Depending on the state, there may be procedures to get around that (that were set up for situations of estrangement) but I'm not at all clear on what those are outside of the state of California (where I used to live).
As for poly lifestyles, I'm happy discussing what I do as it relates to the thread, with two caveats 1) I'm very cautious that threads like these can devolve into "poly megathread!" if we don't keep the convo focused specifically on marriage and 2) nonmonogamy is indeterminably diverse and what I do should not be taken as representative of anybody else's relationships.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This has been a problem with the thread, too. I feel that you need to discuss cases differently to figure out what a plausible legal structure would look like.
But tons of people have been saying that this entire thread. It's one of the big reasons given for why poly marriage as a legal institution would be somewhere between difficult, weird and unworkable. There's nothing even close to a set definition for what poly marriage even is.
although the idea of a couple going "my partner is possibly also married to someone else but i don't want to know anything about it." is really quite amusing to me.
It isn't directly related to poly marriage, but it is tangentially related because it complicates research efforts.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Not all men who have sex with men (MSM) identify as gay, because they want their dalliances to be discreet. Not all people in nonmonogamous relationships identify as open or poly, because they want their dalliances to be discreet.
Researchers have to be very careful about the way they phrase their research.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
As I mentioned a few pages back, you basically have an individual marrying a group or an individual marrying an individual in that group. In theory you could have three people who are each married to the other two people separately or three people who are all married in a single unit.
For the sake of (relative) simplicity, you could stick to only having marriages between individuals, since everyone in a group can just get married to each individual in that group to the same effect as having the group marry, with the group-based details being handled by more standard legal means.
The internal structure of marriage (Group marriage vs. multi-marriage) doesn't necessarily have to be reflected by the legal structure, it's the rights that are of primary value.
But that doesn't actually solve the issue because it's not representative of all sorts of poly arrangements.
Please explain?
Right.
Questions like "how prevalent are open relationships?" have to take it into account.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just as a minor quibble, "gay" is a social identity and people might not identify as it for reasons beyond just discretion. Homosocial sexual relationships such as in the military or prisons, compensated, forced, or coerced sex like male prostitution, or any of a mixture of other ways in which men might prefer women in some way while still sucking a dick now and then (or even more often than they have sex with women).
Similarly, just because* a woman has given up on her marriage but tells her husband that well, she at least doesn't want his mistresses to become public does not necessarily make her "discreetly poly" in her personal consideration. Her husband, for that matter, MIGHT be poly or he might just be a jerk.
It's one of the tricky bits about talking about poly relationships especially, there's going to be a very wide range of scenarios, and there's no simple way to decide whether we should be looking at people who engage in poly behaviors (a larger population) or people who identify as poly (a smaller population with a variety of reasons not to honestly self-report).
We could, for example, classify some marriages with attached step-parents as a sort of poly relationship based not around a couple but around a child or children. And then there's casual dating, which is usually discounted but certainly has its own set of socially defined yet rarely spoken aloud rules about who can have sex with who and different differentiations of expected intimacy and monogamy.
*choosing this example as an obvious case, not as some sort of implication about all people who're in poly relationships.
Because arranged monogamous marriages are things no child was ever forced into, amirite?
Simply because something can happen doesn't mean it will. If lesbians were found to have high rates of domestic violence the banning gay marriage wouldn't be the answer.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I completely disagree as a matter of principle.
We have to create laws for the world that we have, not the world we wish we had. The only reason we do not allow an adult and an underage minor to marry is because such relationships are more likely to be exploitative than relationships involving only adults.
An easy counter to this is to say "but minors can't consent!" But that is a legal decision. Outside of a legal structure, clearly, minors can consent; they consent to things all the time. We just pick and choose, legally, the types of consent we respect. A teenage minor, for instance, can legally consent (or choose not to consent) to a medical procedure. In states with R&J laws (which I think are an awesome legal innovation), a 16-year-old can legally consent to a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old but not a 20-year-old.
There were decades of research establishing that adult homosexual relationships were no more likely to be abusive or exploitative than adult heterosexual relationships. Without that empirical finding, homosexuality wouldn't have the blessing of the mainstream psych and medical community, and I doubt we'd have gay marriage today. If, in an alternate universe, that finding were the inverse - that homosexual relationships were commonly damaging to the well-being of the participants - then alternate-universe-me would be arguing that we should ban gay marriage.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's important that the abuse issues are addressed directly.
Yes, nobody has a right to a spouse. But nobody also has a right to satisfactory resolution in the other matching problem of infamous social concern, viz., finding a source of stable and remunerative employment. Nonetheless there is a valid role for a state to put its finger on the scales, as it were, so as to encourage low unemployment, as an aggregate social goal that is both abstracted from any basis in individual rights and additionally cognizant of perverse outcomes emerging from collective behaviour, free association be damned.
This goes further. Not everyone wants stable employment. Some people actively prefer an itinerant lifestyle! And their way of life is actively rendered much worse if governments pursue, with the threat of force, certain policies that favour the bureaucratic (private or public) pursuit of mass employment (e.g., enclosure, compulsory mass education, mandated social insurance, etc.). Their individual life may be too rendered much worse; the skills that earn one respect, status, loyalty, and friendship in a bohemian ethic are not necessarily the skills that earn these things in a staid post-industrial existence. Perhaps your particular gifts in life are prestidigitation and charm rather than balancing a chequebook. Nonetheless, here we are.
Marriage is a creature of society and states; in a time when family planning policy - on the solemn and decidedly cynical basis of demographic transition and the affordability of food imports or the welfare state - has been in place amongst both government and international institutions since the 1950s, it's a bit late to insist on classical liberalism. We tell parents to be emotionally satisfied with three or two children (or, more recently, to desire children at all). It does not seem a stretch to tell the married to be satisfied with one spouse. Decency does not of course call for sending in jackbooted thugs to sterilize the excessively fertile or coerce the insufficiently fertile, but child benefit may legitimately level off, paternity/maternity leave policy constructed with an explicit mandate on its impact on childbirth rates, state messaging advocate or admonish, and so forth. The bureaucratic regulatory welfare state does not exist in Locke, because aggregate social goals to be achieved by this state do not exist in Locke.
Pretty much just restates positions in this thread.
I'm kind of baffled that so many people think that marriage is some magical barrier against rich men hogging all the women.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
How do you figure that
Polygamy is still part of the Mormon doctrine and beliefs, but they don't practice it anymore (since the Gov. threatened to sieze all of their buildings, assets, everything in the 1880s over it)
For years people still secretly practiced polygamy. Currently, if you are a member of the LDS church and engage in plural marriage, you will be excommunicated (more because they want to save face in the public eye).
Even though they deny practicing it, they still do practice 'spiritual polygamy'. (When mormons get married in the temple, they believe it is for eternity. If a man's wife dies, he can get remarried in the temple to another woman and then be sealed to more than one woman. Women can't get sealed/married in the temple to more than one man)
That being said, the majority of rank and file members of the church generally look back at polygamy with a mixture of disgust/embarrassment.
However, there are some very strong orthodox mormons in the church who are willing to go the extra mile.
If polygamy were legalalized, I think it would create a rift in the church between the ultra orthodox and the rank and file who like to pretend that polygamy never existed. The leaders of the church tend to fall on the ultra orthodox side as well, so if it were legalized, i can see the church eventually practicing it again or considering practicing it which would alienate the modern members because despite how brainwashed the general membership is, I think there is a breaking point that would push enough people away. And this could be it.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
See I think most of the current mainstream, non-FLDS Mormons will probably say that the 1890 Manifesto was divinely inspired and polygamy as a Mormon practice is forbidden. I don't think legalizing polygamy would actually result in any kind of substantial church schism.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
as far as alarming trends that are not actually polygamy go, the direction of alimony law reform suggests a movement toward protecting the wealth of spouses who marry down the class ladder; protection of inequity in family law is obviously highly favourable toward unequal marriages
A point here; there's a difference between "mainstream" mormons and "True Believing" mormons (i.e. orthodox).
Mainstream mormons, yes, look back at all the dirty laundry of the churches history and chalk it up to growing pains. They can (for reasons that are a whole different discussion) rationalize in their mind that a Prophet who "can't lead the church astray" can also say, do, and implement doctrine that is fundamentally wrong and misguided. No, that doesn't make sense. Yes, it requires a fleet from rationality. But it is what it is. These members tend to be converts or descendants of converts, or somewhat ironically, members who are generational mormons but have been sheltered from actual history and doctrine of the church due to the level of control and influence the church has in the culture of the church, primarily in Utah.
Re-implementing polygamy would be disastrous for this type of mormon; not because they don't have the cognative dissonance skills to brush the contradiction aside, but because it would be one twist too far. For many, polygamy in the past is only ok because it is in the past. Much like animal sacrifice, stoning, and so on, past practices are explained away by the march of time and further 'revelations' from God.
True Believing Mormons? Nah, they'd be all in. You'd be surprised at the number of members who, either in private, or in public (i.e. at church) voice ideas to the effect that the halting of polygamy was simply a necessity of the time and not a divine ending of the practice. Just a pause button on eternal exaltation, if you will. They tend to think it will come back, at some point or another (either during the millennium, beforehand, or whenever), just that we can't now. Not because it's wrong, dangerous, or damaging, but because it needed to take a break to 'protect' the church.
These mormons, while much smaller in number, also tend to be the ones higher up in status, heritage, and often financial and business influence.
Also, keep in mind, that polygamy is still practiced regularly in the LDS church; it just happens to only occur in temples, for the deceased, or for men who want to remarry in mortality but don't want to (or for some reason can't) cancel a previous sealing to a previous spouse. Russel M Nelson, for instance, remarried after his previous wife died; theologically he is in a polygamous marriage, one wife just happens to have left mortality.
The LDS church has already produced dozens (if not more, I've seen estimates as high as 200) of offshoots; many have faded away but others continue to exist to this day, just often under different names and sometimes drastically different doctrines.
Yes and no. Yes, you're unlikely to find many mormons who are hankering for another wife. No, you'd be surprised at the level of malleability many members, even seemingly intelligent and rational, are in their faiths and beliefs. If Monson showed up on TV this afternoon and say "Yo, marry all the womens!", you would likely find that most people wouldn't be lining up at their local chapel to get their Bishops approval however you would also likely find that most members would simply accept the practice among their neighbors without any (at least outward) problem, chalking it up to just another change in doctrine, another "revelation", one more "gospel truth restored"
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand