Personally, I'm in favor of marriage. The public declaration of fealty steers the focus of any marital problems onto resolution rather than dissolution. However, I don't think the question should be, "Should gay couples be allowed to marry?". It should be, "Why is the government involved, AT ALL, in how people wish to structure their households?".
We should be relying on government for assistance in enforcing contracts. But how these contracts are structured should be entirely up to the people involved. This, of course, includes people who wish to structure their households around participation by more than two individuals.
I guess there needs to be a set of default contracts (to protect children and establish ownership of chattels, etc.) which are deemed to be in effect when people share a household; but, other than that, the government should have no role.
I know that polygamy facilitates some injustices that never occur in "traditional" marriages <joke>, but is polygamy sufficiently evil by its nature to require the government to ban it?
A. I have been working through the thread and have found many of your posts enlightening. However this is Page 1. Does it really make sense to berate people on Page 1 for not having read through to Page 12?
B. South Africa is an example of a country with some legal acceptance of polygamy. Polygamy proper, as in the simultaneous marriage of multiple adults. You are arguing from the position of a participant in the polyamory community. That makes your input highly valuable. However, an aspect of the topic is about the effects (if any) of state-sanctioned polygamy.
Does your experience include legal, state-sanctioned polygamy?
And if not, does it make sense for you to claim or imply your experience addresses the same set of concerns as my example?
C. That you are bothered by the concept of considering people as a resource says nothing to the usefulness of the concept. If you want a child you need two fertile people of opposite sex. For any individual fertile person who'd like a child, another fertile person of opposite sex is a necessary resource. Want to field a baseball team? Want to build a GPS satellite? Want to start a university? In every instance you need certain resources, and among those resources are people.
No, we don't tend to refer to each other that way in everyday conversation, but we don't refer to each other according to our chemical make-up either. In both cases the utility of recognizing those alternative methods of accounting for people (sociological or chemical) is not diminished by the fact that colloquial terms of reference differ.
[As as aside: I assume you don't work in HR? :D]
D. You don't seem too concerned with the possibility that polyamorous relations might work differently than your experience when practiced by a much larger population and the diversity of practice that will invariably bring.
D2. You are quite insistent with the notion that removing religion will result in the elimination of negative relationship dynamics. Consider your post above. You don't hedge at all, rather you suggest that it's some sort of straight forward operation: If you remove religion, you remove power imbalances.
The problem is...religion is not the sole cause of such events. Even if you were granted the unlikely event of a religion-free society, the idea that there would be no power-structure or imbalance anywhere in human romantic relations is doubtful. More likely would be a diversity of power-structures and imbalances, with varying degrees of fairness among the instances.
D3. Also, you haven't addressed the issue that the polyamorous community is not analogous to the 'monoamorous' society in which it is embedded in a critical way - the polyamorous community is a relatively small, voluntary association of people.
The voluntary nature of the polyamorous community means that anyone who finds themselves strongly disliking something about the community can simply opt-out of it.
Furthermore, like all other small voluntary groups, the community itself has the luxury of casting out people who do not properly integrate its values and practices. In effect, leaving the broader society to handle the person who didn't cooperate well.
General society has no such privilege. At least not by as simple a means.
And this is why I don't think it makes sense to unambiguously claim that the practices of the polyamorous community will scale up to the national level free of common problems - even with the utopian 'no religion' caveat attached. Once you move a set of social practices to the national scale you lose the ability to easily 'purify' your practice by removing those who do it wrong. Once a set of social behaviours becomes common human practice, it will be subject to common human errors.
E. I actually agree with you that polygamy should be legal like other marriage arrangements of consenting adults.
The problems it will have at the family level (various sorts of interpersonal abuse and so forth) are not unique to it. Additionally, the current system of benefits that are granted to married couples could be adapted to a polygamy-permitting society.
Still, the best way to find whether there would be unique positive or negative effects at the societal level would be to test it at a broad scale. Of course I previously suggested the best way would be to test it, but...
Thanks for any and all clarifications.
Marriage being a civil contract can be done with more than one person. They would just need to put in some new provisions for it, or the people involved could draw up their own deal.
It could be five men and one women too..The boss is up to them not us....
Whom ever has the healthcare proxy would decide what would be done in medical decisions.
People deserve the right to do what they want in life...
Polygyny is more likely to occur than polyandry due to the imbalance of power between the genders. Polygyny will only contribute to the problem by lowering the status of women in general society--women as chattel, as harem girls, etc.
After women have elevated themselves and have gained equal legal status, financial parity, and social status to men, one would expect the gender make-up to be less skewed toward polygyny. At this point, polygamy would not be a significant threat to the well being of the women and children in such arrangements nor to women as a class.
While I agree we are no longer a culture entirely held hostage by Puritan sexual morals, we still have quite a bit of maturing to do before we can claim to have jettisoned all of their patriarchal values. Polygamy is not going to help the situation.
If the family consists of religious nuts, the women would be regarded as property and that is the same for tradition marriages.
We're not taking about cults or compound families, are we?
Women in a plural marriage are not automatically the submissive mate or mates.
They can be independent, work outside the home, and basically run the ship with the husband as the equal or submissive role.
Some women might find it better to have the other wives help with all the responsibilities of being a wife, mother and the list goes on and on...
Just because it's not for me, doesn't mean it's not for you.
To be able to have a choice is what it's all about
The governments should get off that latter and stop looking over my fence!
Bullshit. As @Robin said, women in plural marriages are not automatically submissive mates. You're talking about religiously-mandated polygyny. There is already a significant portion of the population engaging in egalitarian, consensual multi-partnerships and women are most certainly not chattel, harem girls, or have "lowered status".
In fact, the polyamorous movement is a female-driven movement. It is neither polygynous nor polyandrous. It is egalitarian, with individuals deciding how many partners they want, and of what gender, based on personal preference. An individual family may be made up of one man and several women, but there is no expectation that they *should* be that way, nor that anyone else should.
You are also assuming that one person, specifically the solo gender representative, will have relationships with each of the opposite gender partners, but no one will have a romantic relationship with anyone else. You do not take into account either sexual orientation, nor cross-partnering with members of all genders having multiple mates. This is far more common in polyamory than any polygyny or polyandry structure.
My concern is that the majority of the population is not as advanced in their understanding of gender relationships as people in the polyamorous community. I don't see the type of egalitarian relationships you describe happening outside of that group--instead I see men and women people conditioned in a patriarchal structure entering into inequitable relationships mirroring the power structures they already know.
If the majority of people in our culture were at the point of social evolution in which homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual relationships were equally valued and men and women stood on equal grounds in society, I would wholeheartedly support expanding marriage to include polyamorous relationships. Until then, I think we would simply be creating a new forum for the suppression of women.
And lastly, I didn't mean to imply that women are chattel and harem girls but rather that seeing women in abusive polyamorous relationships would contribute to the impression of women as being of lowered status in the mind of the general public.
When people do not play nice in the poly community, they quickly find themselves without anyone to play with.
If someone is not "as advanced in their understanding of gender relationships as people in the polyamorous community", they don't find partners until they learn.
Besides that, even if polygamy were legal, the majority of people in our culture will not be polygamous anyway.
Also, there *are* no reported cases of women in abusive polyamorous relationships. Not that this never ever has happened, but it is so rare as to be completely off the radar and certainly has never been reported. Abuse is rampant, however, in patriarchal, religious polygyny. And the point that I've been making over and over again is that if you remove the religious edict that dictates polygyny, you remove the basis of the abuse. Abuse is *also* present in monogamy, yet no one has tried to criminalize *that* ... because it's not the "gamy" that makes it abusive, it's the sexism and the cover of religion that perpetrates it. Get rid of the religious protection, make it legal so that people can be held accountable, and you have no *more* problems than you do with monogamy ... and a fair bit fewer, since loving multi-partner relationships actually takes a LOT more work than monogamy, because of the communication involved.
"Polygyny will only contribute to the problem by lowering the status of women in general society--women as chattel, as harem girls, etc."
Whether legalizing polygamy would have an overall positive or negative benefit on how society views women is not relevant. The point is that individuals should be given free choice and should not be constrained by how their society might view this choice. If a group of women desire to marry a single man that is fine, regardless of whether it would appear to reduce their status, as long as it is their decision. This is also true if a group of men wish to marry a single woman. How the culture of the day might view this choice is unimportant.
There was no "Blanket", I said some women...
That was my point, that not all women in any marriage are in that stereotypical role.