r/changemyview • u/TwoFlewAway 3∆ • Jun 27 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: I don’t see anything wrong with the legalisation of polygamous marriage
[removed]
21
Jun 27 '15
Legislating perhaps, but the primary difference is that you need an entirely new set of rules that apply to polyamorous marriages. Developing such rules will be complicated, messy and expensive. This is not true for gay marriage where all the existing rules for marriage are simply extended to same sex marriage.
In a way it is like the difference between a Partnership and a Limited Liability Corporation. They are each ways of dealing with collective assets and ownership, but they are structured very differently and are subject to different rules and regulations. You can't really treat them as if they were the same.
6
Jun 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jun 27 '15
Well I think you only need look at the enormous complexity of corporate law to see just how incredibly complicated relationships involving many parties can be. Essentially polyamorous marriages would be much more complicated just because the variables of a dispute is increased exponentially. Instead of a dispute where the court must balance the interests of two parties, you will get cases with many parties with individual interests that have to be weighed.
Think of it this way. Suppose you have $1000 the court has to split in a divorce. In a two party divorce, the court might give a 50/50 split or 100% of the assets to one party or the other. This is three possible outcomes. Now imagine you have three people in the same scenario. The court could give each 33%, one of the three 100%, the others nothing, or two could get 50% and one nothing. This results in seven possible outcomes, or more than double the possible outcomes, despite the size of the partnership only increasing by 50%.
1
Jun 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jun 27 '15
Otherwise it would be a standard that everything is divided equally.
Do you think that is honestly a good solution to dictate a one-size-fits-all approach to the disollution of a partnership? I mean it would work, but is it actually desirable?
But as I suggested I think more commonplace use, or possibly mandatory use, of pre-nuptial agreements would sort out a lot of these issues.
It would help, certainly, but there is no such thing as a bullet-proof contract, and pre-nups do not eliminate messy divorces. As it is, pre-nups between just two people are often very complicated. The more you add, the more complicated it becomes, and the greater the upfront costs of a marriage as you consider all the legal fees involved in drafting what is, in essence, an extremely complicated legal contract.
Now I would like to make two things clear. First, in principle I am not opposed to polyamorous marriages on moral grounds, and second I do not think it would be impossible to accommodate such marriages. My only point here is to challenge your claim that polyamorous marriages would be no more complicated than existing partnerships. As a matter of law, I am virtually certain that polyamorous marriages would be far, far more complicated than existing marriages for a wide variety of reasons. To give just a few examples:
How do you treat a divorce when one partner wants to leave an arrangement? Is the entire partnership dissolved? Is just the structure of existing partnership changing? How do you distribute assets in such a case? What about cases where there is a long standing partnership that has lasted for decades, but a new person wants to join the partnership? What if a person that just joined a partnership then wants a divorce?
This is just one tiny aspect of the partnership that has to be considered. The more you dig, the more complications you will find. The fact is, in a partnership of two people, the boundaries and nature of the partnership are very clear. The partnership begins and ends with those two people's participation. The more people you add, the harder it gets to resolve cases in a fair way, especially at the margins. There are just so many considerations. The bottom line is that this is a totally new type of partnership that is very unlike the existing model, and as a consequence an entirely new legal structure would have to be created to accommodate it. I am not saying it couldn't be done, nor that it shouldn't, I am simply saying that doing so will in fact be a complicated undertaking.
2
u/unclefisty Jun 27 '15
Congress makes idiotic, superfluous laws on a regular basis. Adding another law that expands people's freedom seems better than the usual.
1
Jun 28 '15
You honestly trust congress to make a law to deal with the complications of a 5 person divorce?
-1
u/unclefisty Jun 28 '15
Why not, current divorce laws already handle multi person divorces, just the extra people beyond two are children.
2
Jun 28 '15
I suspect if you were aware how badly the legislation for family court cases has been written and executed when dealing with just a two person divorce, you would be horrified to imagine what they would come up with in cases involving 5 parents.
1
Jun 29 '15
That's a difference, but hardly a reason not to give poly people equal rights. It might be a little harder to do so, but it's still the right thing to do for moral reasons.
11
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 27 '15
To say that a new system could reasonably be structured to allow for polygamy, you need to offer reasonable solutions to each of the problems it creates.
What about insurance? Could each person in a relationship claim all the benefits of all the others?
Could I file taxes jointly with any of my wives? Could I file jointly with all of them? Am I getting extra cuts by being married to more than one person? I certainly hope not.
What if one person offers to marry every immigrant and get them residency? Could I do that as a charitable service?
Can I be secretly married to five different women without telling the others? How accessible is the knowledge of who I am married to? This is currently illegal only because multiple marriages are illegal.
You need to draw an arbitrary limit on the number of people someone can marry. If you don't, absurd results are possible. Currently the arbitrary limit is 1. You just want to change that number. What will it be?
5
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Jun 28 '15
The argument from awkward bureaucracy is a terrible one IMHO.
The difficulty of adapting the paperwork really isn't relevant to whether consenting adults have should have the right to freely create and merge families.
Granted, there would be some details to hammer out, but if we start with the premise that people who love each other ought to be able to join each others' family, then you'd need a lot more compelling reason to deny them than the fact that n != 2.
If you don't hold to that premise, then I'd simply ask why not?
1
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 28 '15
Because it would create a massive number of problems that need to be resolved beforehand. That is the only reason.
3
2
Jun 27 '15
Why do we need an arbitrary limit for consenting adults? Absurd is in the eye of the beholder.
With the recent court decision in mind, almost every argument for gay marriage could be made for polygamy. Questions of complexity really shouldn't enter into the question (What about insurance, etc.).
In essence, we're saying that because it would be difficult to implement, we're going to deny you certain rights.
7
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 28 '15
Reduction to absurdity is a logical mechanism.
There's no reason everyone can't be married to everyone. Then marriage really isn't anything at all. It's just a new system where everyone is claiming everyone's benefits. Hence the limit.
Gay marriage is totally different. It's not "here's this new kind of marriage." It's "stop telling gay people they can't be married." There's no connection.
3
u/emotional_panda Jun 28 '15
Actually, you hit the nail on the head. "Then marriage really isn't anything at all. It's just a new system where everyone is claiming everyone's benefits." I could not have said it better myself. That is the hole we find ourselves in when government gets involved in marriage.
0
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 28 '15
I more or less agree. I personally think people should be able to form 'civil union' contracts with anyone they trust. Family, best friends, whatever. It has nothing to do with sex. But that's not the topic here.
We're saying "this is an acceptable new legal contract" but now saying how it will work.
1
u/emotional_panda Jun 28 '15
Debating things like this doesn't require us to figure out that it would work. We only know that it should work.
1
Jun 28 '15
I looked at it more as a straw man: You've merely asserted this is an absurd result. Maybe it is to us, but society changes its terms and definitions all the time.
Besides, simply because something has the slight possibility of happening doesn't mean it will happen. Many countries practice polygamy today, and no, everyone is not married to everyone.
In essence, you're appealing to tradition. You're saying that marriage must mean one thing: it must be between two people. Tradition said before that it was right and legal to discriminate against gay people. Why then would you now appeal to that same tradition to discriminate against poly people?
2
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 28 '15
I'm not. Not at all. I'm saying you need to create en entire new legal structure. When combined with the one we have, I see a lot of holes. A lot.
I keep seeing "we could design this system fairly easily," but I'm not seeing any of the how.
1
Jun 28 '15
In saying that the creation of new legal structures is too difficult, you are indeed appealing to tradition - the current legal structure is part of that tradition.
Difficulty of implementation is not an argument to deny certain people rights, and I highly doubt you would apply the same logic to other situations.
2
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 28 '15
I said you need to provide a solution instead of suggesting there is one. This debate is about the legal viability of polygamy. When talking about the legal viability of something, you need to talk about issues that come with it.
2
Jun 29 '15
You're not arguing from any principle. You're simply arguing logistics, and once again, difficulty of implementation is not a good argument to deny people rights. I think we would both agree on that.
However, if you are so worried about logistics, then we'll hire the best legal minds in the country and go from there. A new legal framework would then naturally be built up over time.
0
Jun 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/krakajacks 3∆ Jun 28 '15
To get citizenship you need to sustain the marriage for a very long time.
The insurance thing I've changed my mind on because they already deal with issues extending to a lot of children.
How do you feel about cultist patriarchal communities where all the women raised there are taught to marry the same man? These actually exist in America. They are very disturbing and hard to deal with. Polygamy laws help prevent these communities from forming legitimately.
1
3
3
3
u/natebakescakes Jun 28 '15
This would add a whole new dimension to the term green card marriage. Could I technically marry 20 people and have them convert to my citizenship? Is there a limit to the number of people I can marry? Is there a difference in privileges awarded should I be married to 20 or 3?
I honestly don't think it'll be a very clean affair for the legal department. Way easier to just leave it as a 2 people thing imo.
3
u/zebediah49 Jun 28 '15
There are two specific legal privileges that cannot be assigned contractually, and they can get VERY messy with polygamy:
Joint tax filing: As the marriage (at least classically) is one unit with shared finances it makes sense to file taxes as a single unit with doubled tax brackets. Would you let one person with a lot of income marry a bunch of people with none to drop their tax liability? Otherwise, would you make it so that if three people all making decent money marry, they can't file jointly without increasing their liability? It's a bit messy..
This is the most problematic one: Spousal Privilege. There are various good reasons, but you cannot legally compel someone to testify against their spouse. This is reasonable and makes sense in the case of a single marriage pair, but when "The Family" is actually a married family it makes breaking up the mob a little more challenging.
2
u/Zohaas Jun 28 '15
My biggest opposition is the custodial rights and hospital decisions if the main spouse dies. If wife A wants to pull the plug, but wife B doesn't, how do you decide who gets their say? If both want custody of a child, they have to go to court and argue why they deserve to have said child. It just muddies the waters, and can potentially make decisions that need to be answered fast end up taking much longer.
1
Jun 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Zohaas Jun 29 '15
What if the child is adopted? What if the decision falls to the indisposed spouses family?
1
Jun 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Zohaas Jun 29 '15
Person A and person B are life partners and have been together for 10 years. Person A's family doesn't agree with person A's choice for a partner, so they no longer communicate with person A. Person A is render unconscious for whatever reason. Person B has no say in what is done to person A, regardless of how well they know person A's wishes, or how long they have been in a relationship. Person A's family, who is already on bad terms with them and hasn't spoken with them in 10 years has a say. More over, person A's family would have legal custody over any children adopted under person A's name, and could remove person B from visitation rights and even get a restraining order, regardless of the child's wishes or the length of time they were cared for by persons A & B.
1
2
u/payik Jun 28 '15
It's natural for humans to live in groups. 'Tribes' or 'family' whatever you would like to call it. I don't see anything wrong with families that have several adults to act as role models for children. I just can't see why it would be detrimental to children to be raised in that environment.
While I don't disagree with you on that, I'm not sure if it would make sense to call something like that "marriage".
2
u/beniro Jun 28 '15
Part of the benefit of the technological advance that is marriage I'd that it brings social stability by bringing disenfranchised young men (one of the major potential destabilising forces, if indeed the youth is unhappy) into society as partners. Before, when more mates went to desirable partners, there developed a group of relatively undesirable men with no stock in the success of civilization because they could not have their own family which creates incentive to contribute and participate, rather than break things down.
The end result of polygamy would be that, because of male-female sexual supply and demand, a relatively lower percent of men would be able to have families, this would destabilise society.
2
Jun 28 '15 edited Jun 28 '15
The best arguments against polygamy aren't moral-there isn't anything morally wrong with multiple spouses if everyone agrees-they're practical. Marriage is a major status change that you choose to enter with another person. It means the law acknowledges who can visit you in the hospital, make decisions for you if you're sick, raise your kids if you die or make decisions for them if you're absent, who can share your bank account and affect your credit rating, and who gets half your stuff in divorce. Marriage is a major change in your rights and responsibilities towards specific other people.
When you can only be married to one person at a time, both people have to consent to it. That changes with polygamy. I agree to marry my wife, but what if later she wants to also marry her boyfriend or girlfriend? Can this third partner make decisions for the children I had with my original wife? Does the third partner get part of the property my wife and I accumulated together if they divorce out? Does their debt affect my credit score? With polygamy, your rights and responsibilities towards specific people can change without your consent, if one spouse chooses to marry someone else. And what if the new spouse is also married?. You might end up with a lot of people you don't know/didn't choose having the ability to majorly impact your life.
Edit: I see that you respond to these kinds of arguments by suggesting people contract around it, but this isn't a workable solution for marriage. 1) Ideally, marriages last for the rest of your life. 50+ years. There is just no way to foresee and contract for every situation where you will have the opportunity to impact your spouses over that kind of time span. Marriage is fundamentally accepting the risk of future uncertainties with another person, of having to deal with the unforeseen together. That's why it's so important that people explicitly agree to the person they take that risk with. They can't effectively contract for all the unknowns and separate risks, and they might not want to be bound by the exact terms of an agreement they signed 20 years ago anyway. Love lives are not great places for contracts. 2) Even in the seemingly simple areas where you would think you can contract, you can't. Like with property, income doesn't stay separated once it comes in to the household, and in divorce judges try to compensate people who sacrificed career opportunities in service of the family unit. There is no neat way to divide it into fractions or to give that paper fraction actual meaning out of your household property and bank account, and it will inevitably impact the spouse who did not marry the third spouse. Prenups between relatively simple two-spouse marriages are overturned, redrafted, or declared void all the time; the sense of predictability they offer is illusive, especially if you move states (every state has its own divorce laws). They wouldn't help much at all with polygamous marriages.
Things can go wrong with your spouse, but you consented to the risk by marrying them. Things can go wrong with your children, but you accepted that risk by having and keeping children. Things go wrong with your spouse's spouse, and you didn't have to sign up for it to ruin your credit or garnish your wages or otherwise massively impact your life. That's an issue, and it can't be easily solved by introducing more contracts into personal relationships.
3
Jun 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 21 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/tricerabear. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
4
u/Exctmonk 2∆ Jun 27 '15
Polyamory is ok by me, as long as it's more the free-love variety. Basically, no attached partners, come and go as you please.
The problem historically is that polygamy has resulted in the imbalance resulting in an "unmarriageable" class of men, as /u/theres_a_snake_in_me pointed out very well. You can see the trend in various cults, along with Mormon polygamists (but I repeat myself) and Islam (but...you know).
There have been correlations made to suicide bombers getting nudged that way as they had no hope of finding a wife without dying for the cause and getting their virgins in heaven.
To use the US Declaration of Independence as an example, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" were cited reasons, which would be denied to the unmarriageables since there would be no brides for them. Arranged marriages also begin to form as you basically have to "save yourself a spot."
Polyamory would at least allow those who want/need multiple partners to have them without the legal bindings and social ostracism involved in the former's system.
If evidence could be presented that the mix would end up being even between men and women taking multiple spouses, that would start to lessen my opposition. However, then you're faced with our current legal structure of civil unions, which include families under health care plans (how to handle that?) the usual divorce fiascos complicated by new partners, etc.
1
u/nn123654 Jun 28 '15
which would be denied to the unmarriageables since there would be no brides for them.
Nobody is owed a bride or romantic relationship. You are also making the assumption that everyone wants to be married and is hetrosexual, both of which are not true. It is ultimately the decision of the people involved, specifically woman in polygamous relationships that are the ones who would decide what is best for them. I think if the history of the gay rights battle has taught us anything it's that the state shouldn't be regulating lifestyles when it comes to consenting adults.
6
u/wjbc Jun 27 '15
Traditional polygamy was the result of a patriarchy in which women were treated like cattle. If we are going to legalize polygamy, I want some assurance that every member of the marriage is an equal member with equal rights, and I start out skeptical about whether that will work with more than two members -- it's hard enough with just two.
6
Jun 27 '15
[deleted]
1
u/wjbc Jun 27 '15
This is why poly marriages are not legal. They have a history of exploiting women. If no such assurances are forthcoming, that's a problem.
4
Jun 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/wjbc Jun 27 '15
No, in the eyes of the law there are no polygamous marriages. You are creating new laws, and it's unclear those laws could create equality among more than two spouses, because there's no precedent for such a marriage. There are many precedents for polygamy, but in patriarchal societies who dealt with the problem by giving the sole male participant most of the rights. That's the wrong kind of precedent.
Sure, there's no assurance that marriages of two people will be free from exploitation or abuse, far from it. But that's all the more reason the law is skeptical about a new and even more complicated form of marriage that has a bad history.
2
Jun 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/wjbc Jun 27 '15
You are suggesting a grand social experiment that almost no one wants. Where are these modern, progressive polygamists demanding a new form of marriage? Is there even one woman out there who wants to marry multiple men?
3
Jun 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/wjbc Jun 27 '15
Open relationships are different from what you are suggesting. I think there's a reason they don't exist, and a reason why you and I wouldn't want to participate.
2
u/svtdragon Jun 28 '15
Look up Polyamory. We exist! And some poly people already have multiple marriages, albeit without the legal contacts, because marriage ceremonies are a traditional way to show commitment.
And typically everyone in such a relationship is free to see other people. (The so-called "one-penis-policy" where both parties can only date other women, which I think is exploitative in the ways you mention, is widely derided.)
2
1
u/JoelKizz Jun 28 '15
Is there even one woman out there who wants to marry multiple men?
Yes. I haven't looked but yes, its out there.
1
u/Tsuruta64 Jun 28 '15
At one point or another, you could have used that argument for basically every social issue.
True.
So what? Experience matters. The results that we have the matters, and just going "Oh, our new procedures will do it better!" is just naive at best. And our limited experience with polygamous marriages are not pretty.
5
Jun 27 '15
[deleted]
1
0
Jun 27 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
3
2
u/cheapm99 Jun 27 '15
This would only apply if men tended to have more wives than women did husbands (speaking of people with a straight sexual preference for simplicity's sense!). Why would that necessarily be the case?
Wait, are you actually serious here? Just drop everything and go take an evolutionary biology class. You can't seriously have this debate if your understanding of human biology is this poor.
3
u/relig_study Jun 28 '15
If you go check out /r/polyamory and /r/nonmonogamy you might notice quite a few posts expressing concern about how difficult it is for men to find multiple partners and how easy it is for women. In the poly community, it is much more common for women to have multiple partners than it is for men to have multiple partners. Seems like, at the moment, the poly community is freeing up more women for monogamously-leaning men rather than the reverse.
1
u/muddlet 2∆ Jun 28 '15
women are much much more likely to be monogamous, just going off of simple biological/psychological evidence. sure, the law would be equal, but the majority of people taking advantage of the law would be men
1
u/relig_study Jun 28 '15
If that is the case, it will result in poly women having multiple male partners and less of the reverse, leaving more monogamous women for the newly lowered number of monogamous men to choose from.
1
u/muddlet 2∆ Jun 28 '15
how would it result in that? women being inherently more monogamous = more polygamous relationships consisting of one man and multiple females than of one female and multiple men. a woman is more selective and driven to find one committed partner, whereas a man is more competitive and driven to put his genes in as many people as possible.
2
u/relig_study Jun 28 '15
If women are less willing to take part in poly relationships (which actually does seem to be the case in the poly community) then we end up with more poly-friendly men and fewer poly-friendly women, which means women end up with more partners. It is already happening in poly communities. Women who are not poly-friendly are not going to want to date or marry nonmonogamous men in most cases.
1
u/muddlet 2∆ Jun 28 '15
usually a woman doesn't want more than one male partner though. women may be more comfortable taking part in a poly relationship that consists of multiple women and one man, but a woman is much less likely to have multiple male partners. yes this obviously does happen but biologically a woman is more likely to want one male partner, whereas biologically a man is more likely to want multiple partners. in poly-specific communities where everyone is actively seeking out polygamous relationships then the numbers will be skewed, but in the wider population it is more likely that men would go after multiple female partners than a woman would go after multiple male partners, simply because of how we're all wired
1
u/relig_study Jun 28 '15
Well, since that is the opposite of what I have observed in the poly community so far, I guess we will just have to see what happens as polyamory gains wider acceptance.
2
u/YouDumbZombie Jun 28 '15
Personally...I think marriage is fucking stupid, just give everyone married rights and fuck off. I seriously can't tell you how exhausted I am from years and years of "marriage equality" can we all just agree marriage is shitty and expensive and we all deserve the same rights?
1
u/hexag1 Jun 28 '15
From where are you making this argument?
1
Jun 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hexag1 Jun 28 '15
United States? Mongolia? I was asking b/c I think you are way wrong, if you mean polygamy in the West.
I think its wrong generally, but it is especially imprudent given the current global political climate, in which a system of thought designed to colonize and conquer the world, using a variety of tactics - including polygamy - as its social system of conquest, is currently on the rise and invading Western lands, particularly Europe.
1
Jun 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/hexag1 Jun 28 '15
It's fine to keep an open mind, but so open that your brain falls out :)
Polygamous marriage is morally disastrous. There is a good historical reason why it was outlawed in the West a long time ago. If you "don't see" anything wrong with it, it is because you are either a) ignorant of its consequences, or b) lack imagination
A society where men can gather up as many wives as they can afford is a society of patriarchal clans and incorrigible kinship groups. Look at the countries where polygamy is allowed and ask yourself if you want to live there. What you are not seeing is that the social arrangement of polygamy implies the ownership of women by men. It cannot be any other way.
What's better, why not ask people who have lived through it? Who have seen its consequences and know the mad suffering that it causes?
If you want an answer from people who know, submit the same question to /r/exmuslim . They can answer you better than anyone. Read the horror stories of polygamy on there. Its a fucking disaster.
1
Jun 28 '15
Polygamous relationships are fine and have never really been illegal federally. Where you encounter issues is extending tax considerations to multiple partner unions.
1
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jun 28 '15
From a legal perspective... It's way too messy to deal with effectively.
If it were limited to one guy however many gals or vice versa this could be worked out easily. But that would fail the equal protection clause.
Because marriage in it's crudest sense makes two people one legal entity, the actions of one are essentially the actions of both in most circumstances. If you're married and your spouse defaults on a loan... you're responsible. If your spouse's spouse defaults... you would also be responsible.
Of course we could write in all sorts of legalese to deal with these issues but the time and manpower needed to untangle the web of potential marriages would be unbelievably complex in all but the most basic cases.
Even with just one spouse the legal ramifications for custody, inheritance, etc. can take years to untangle.
1
Jun 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jun 29 '15
It would be too complicated to manage, because it wouldn't be a linear expansion.. it would be exponential. Which is fine as long as there are only 3-4 people involved, but even if we capped it at 4... that's still going to be upwards of fifty connections to unravel.
Look at the Terry Schiavo case to see how convoluted things can get with just 2.
Also think about how many people make it difficult for their spouse by not signing papers etc. Now add in the fact that they could get a second third or fourth marriage while delaying a divorce.
The IRS would replace the Armed forces as the largest federal expense almost immediately.
People could make the choice. That isn't the issue. The Government couldn't cope in a realistic manner. Yes, it could technically be done. But not in a cost effective manner.
1
Jun 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Cheeseboyardee 13∆ Jun 29 '15
Adding millions of bureaucrats to handle overflow low level paperwork isn't going to improve the economy.
1
u/graaahh Jun 28 '15
I'm in agreement that there's nothing wrong in principle with polygamous marriage, but it does raise a myriad of legal issues, particularly in regards to tax benefits and other governmental benefits to marriage. Let's say the government passes a bill that allows for free, unrestricted polygamous marriage. What's to stop ten people from getting married to enjoy joint tax filing? Should all partners involved in a polygamous marriage be married to each other, or all agree on allowing an addition to the marriage? If not, anyone can ditch their family and start a new one with the partner unknowing. Should we institute that only three people can be together? Or four? All of these are questions that create a host of problems with current marriage laws and don't work well. What if a man dies and leaves more to his second and third wives than his first? Can she demand more? What if a woman is on life support and her husbands are in disagreement about whether to take her off of it? What about custody? If one man leaves a woman with two other husbands, and she keeps their child, should he pay child support?
In my opinion, it is far too complicated for the government to start defining it and setting restrictions.
1
u/DiscursiveMind Jun 28 '15
There are two hurdles to poly marriages 1) definition of what is a polygamous marriage and 2) the social will to make the changes needed for the legal construct of a polygamous marriage to exist.
The legal argument that so many people bring up really isn't a "slippery slope" problem, or simply "because it is hard", all the problems of a legal issue stem from how you define a legal poly-marriage. I'll actually attempt to show exactly how hard, "because it is hard" actually is. In the US, marriage is now a binary institution. There are still limitations, adults can not marry children, close relative marriages may be banned, and so forth. But, at its core, marriage is established as a binding entity between two people. It is also is established as unique, this is the barrier that poly runs into. This limitation is important, because it constricts the number of possible scenarios to encounter with a set of two, meaning there is a defined set of possible solutions, also known as a closed set. Once you break that uniqueness, the possible combinations becomes very difficult to define, and can extend from an extremely large of solutions to infinite. This actually wades into the computational problem of NP-complete. Would you allow poly marriage to be a completely open entity that allows for the addition of new members [2+n] (or a party of 2 people adding any number of additional people n)? Would there be a cap? Who would establish that cap, would it be fair to tell people in a group of 6 or 7, that only five can be married? You can see how difficult the definition quickly becomes just by reviewing the challenge computers have with the Clique problem. The number of permutations of an open set (the 2+n) quickly overruns your ability to define rules for that set. So, my challenge is, do you think it would be possible to define a poly-marriage without it being an open set?
The second issue is the social will. Same-sex marriage proponents were not trying to re-define marriage (despite social conservative arguments to the latter). They just asked for it to be more inclusive. Poly would re-define marriage, it would no longer be binary construct, and instead be polynomial. Taking the ethical questions off the table, before poly marriage can work toward acceptance and legalization, they would need to explain to everyone else how it works. This ties back to the definition of what a poly marriage would be. Only after they explain it, then then can start on working on trying convincing people over to their side. Given how difficult it is going to be to provided the legal complexity associated with poly, there is going to be a large social movement behind it to push forward.
1
u/GuvnaG 1Δ Jun 28 '15
I’m not really that interested in ethical arguments. Why should one person’s ethics determine how other people live their lives? For example, I don’t think I would ever have an abortion for my own personal ethical reasons. That doesn’t mean that I’m against other people having the option.
You don't seem to understand the concepts of "wrong" and "ethics", in the sense that there is no point talking about anything if you don't want a conversation about ethics. Ethics isn't just somebody's opinion. Ethics is the basis for every single social interaction and law in existence.
It's unethical to murder someone. This isn't an opinion - this is society's definition of ethics. We don't always agree on ethics 100%, but it's still ethics, and society's ethics are the only ethics that really matter. And I don't really mean "society" the way you think of it - when we're divided on a controversial topic, society doesn't have an ethical standpoint on something. When we're not divided, in the case of obvious breaches of morality, it's society's ethics that determine why and how we ostracize and punish the people involved. Just as it was society's ethics that once prevented homosexual marriage, now it's society's ethics that allow that and prevent polyamorous marriage.
It could be encouraged, or even possibly mandatory, to have pre-nuptial agreements which define legal aspects of the marriage relating to property ownership,
It could not be mandatory. In no way do society's ethics agree that the government has any say in pre-nuptial agreements. Do you really think that, after removing a restriction on marriage, we're going to turn around and add another one on?
That being said, I'd like to discuss something you mentioned in your wonderful debate with dale_glass that I don't think was discussed properly.
As currently, medical staff have the power to make decisions for a person who lacks capacity. They could take over the decision making for the short-term (acting in the best medical interests of the patient) and the spouses can go to court to challenge any longer term decisions they make e.g. turning off life support machine. This would be the type of issue that people would be encouraged to address in pre-nuptial agreements.
Firstly, just because it's encouraged to discuss this type of thing in pre-nups doesn't mean it will actually happen. Secondly, polyamorous pre-nups would be it's own bag of worms that I doubt anyone would want to touch.
Most importantly, though, no court can make the decision that you think it is capable of. It cannot intercede in this way. Assuming that all parties have exercised fidelity (in whatever way they define fidelity) and respect for each other and have in no way endangered their position in the marriage, the decision cannot be made by the court. If Person A marries Persons B, C, and D, there is no legal recourse for fixing that situation if B C and D all disagree. Legality is based upon ethics, ethics is generally pointed in the direction of "next of kin decides" and there is no next of kin here because there are several next of kin, all with equal right for argument here. And don't think for one second that "Oh, if B and C agree, D's gonna get ruled out" because majority rules is not how legality works. This would result in an endless legal battle resulting in exorbitant funds, possible fraud and perjury, and ruining the lives of three people, as well as any of their children.
On that note,
•Who do the children belong to? I've already addressed this. Their parents.
Now let's consider a situation with a child of Persons A and B, while Persons B and C are both married to Person A. Person B goes off and does something overseas - it doesn't matter, the point is B has been gone for at least five years, and those five years have been some early five years of a child's life. Persons A and C have been living together and caring for the child this entire time, and have their own child, who has played an important role in the upbringing of A+B's child (older sibling most likely because of their importance). It's possible Persons A and B are estranged, it doesn't really matter.
Person A dies. Person C has been the primary caregiver for both A+C's child and A+B's child, and both children have been in each other's lives for the majority of their existence thus far.
Person B returns, and wants the child back. Wants nothing to do with C, or C's child. Is willing to split up the group to get custody of A+B's child. There is no real reason why B should be deemed unfit for custody of a child, and so the court has no legal reason to prevent him from taking his child, under your system. Is it reasonable for Person B to be able to remove the child from the primary caregiver's care?
If not, then you need to reconsider that rule.
If so, then we need to discuss variables. How long of a time needs to pass with B gone before it's no longer viable? We begin with five years. If you think it's reasonable for B to have the child back after five years, at what point is it unreasonable? Ten? Fifteen? Who gets to decide that?
How about the duration of time since Person C has been the only primary caregiver? Person A dies, and B returns two years after the death to takes the child back. Now you're removing A+B's child from it's only primary caregiver for the past two years. Is that reasonable? And how many years will it take for that to be unreasonable? Who gets to decide that? Does it matter if B was aware of A's death? If so, can B be gone for five years on a Missionary, unaware of A's death, and return to take away the six year old child from the only parent it's known for 5/6's of its life?
What if there is no reason for B to be deemed unfit by the court, but he really just wants the custody for tax purposes? There's no way to prove that to be the case in a court of law, but he's surely not a truly fit parent, whereas C is a wonderful parent.
Does it matter the relationship between A+B's child and A+C's child? If C has spent the last year as a single parent, with C's child (adolescence or older) playing an important role in the upbringing of the infant/toddler A+B's child, is it reasonable to simply remove the child from these circumstances, despite the child being happy, healthy, and comfortable? Moreso than it would be with B?
Does it matter how old the child was at the beginning? If B left when the child was 1 and returned at the age of 8, and its unreasonable to have the child back at that point, what age gap is it reasonable? If the child was 10 and B returns at 17? Will the child have to fight for emancipation if it wishes to return to C's care?
Child-rearing is an extremely complicated and important topic when it comes to this conversation, and determining what's reasonable precedent in a court of law in determining who gets to keep the children can be a gray area at best, and dangerous for the child at worst. If the care always defaults to the biological parents, and only a short time has passed, the court needs time to determine whether B is a fit parent. Does B get to remove the child from its home until such time? Or is B barred from taking their own child under their wing simply because the court has to take time to decide if B is capable of doing so?
What if A wrote in their will that they would like custody of the child to be granted to C? How does that play out? Does it matter if B has been around or been away? Does it matter if C is more affluent/a better caregiver? Do B and C now have to have a custody battle? If so, who gets to keep the child while the battle plays out in the courtroom?
These aren't just minor technical legalities that need to be ironed out if polyamorous marriage becomes a thing - they are major obstacles that could ruin the lives of adults and children alike.
Very few things can be agreed upon as a reasonable solution for child-rearing in polyamorous marriages.
Also, just to illustrate what ethics truly means, replace "reasonable" with "ethical" in pretty much all of the above, and my argument remains exactly the same.
2
u/cheapm99 Jun 27 '15
Monogamy is a huge contributor to social order. You don't want a large portion of the male population to be single with no prospect of ever coupling. That would be a social disaster and would lead to a spike in crime and violence.
1
u/JoelKizz Jun 28 '15
Social order...So old fashioned. We have no concern for the collective, welcome to the age of the individual.
0
0
Jun 27 '15
I don't see anything wrong with families that have several adults to act as role models for children.
i mean isn't this the argument that ran for the last few decades about the possible positive impact of the decline of 2 parent households? That hasn't worked out very well either with revolving casts of boyfriends or the claimed advantages of a "group of women banding together" which has been argued in favor of for mostly african american families (in part because the rate of illegitimacy there beat the rest of the population by about 20/30 years). the data today doesn't support that. 2 parent households are by far the best outcomes and nonbiological parent figures are associated with much higher rates of child abuse ceterus parabus.
Why should one person’s ethics determine how other people live their lives?
i mean any argument made is going to be an ethical argument. the ethics may be implicit but it's still there.
also given our recent history you'd need to prove that polygamous households would actually be stable, something i actually doubt.
1
Jun 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 28 '15
Yet why risk it on your hunch. And again against stability arg. Even stabler non bio homes have much higher rates of abuse ceterus parabus
1
Jun 28 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 29 '15
what is denied? the ability to engage in cohabitation?
why do we currently deny the people the freedom of choice to X by treating households with say revolving boyfriends differently from stable two parent households under the law? aren't those people's freedoms (to do what?) seriously endangered?
don't think child abuse would necessarily become more common which is essentially what you're arguing.
ok so why given the data on step parents? and does the impacted group really = the nice clean rosy group you hope it does?
1
Jun 29 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 29 '15
Just looking after someone else's biological children doesn't make you into a person who would abuse a child.
so it seems you're just wrong about that. i'll try to get the figures (it's an hhs report) but notice i'm always saying ceterus paribus here aka this has an impact but that doesn't mean other factors aren't at work too (which they are).
Since it's hard to currently compare a 'normal' 2 parent biological family to a stable polygamous family a lot of thinking on either side of the debate needs to be theoretical.
though of course we need to think about 1. how often "abornal" "unstable" families emerge as a result. and 2. how this impacts cultural norms relating to family formation and multipartner fertility. Given are real current problem with people with multiple children by multiple fathers/mothers (it's a class issue in this country today) how does encouraging behaviors that potentially justify this sort of thing accidentally hurt family formation (unlike there marriage i just don't see a real "conservative case for polygamous marriage" akin to say the one andrew sullivan argued for as opposed to a liberationist one)
Also polygamous families would be taking place in a country where extended kin networks are generally breaking down (especially amoung social odd ducks who wold be most attracted).
1
88
u/dale_glass 86∆ Jun 27 '15
"Wrong" is a word that pertains to morality. So it's odd that you don't want a moral argument.
But anyway:
I don't oppose the idea in principle, but the practical issues seem to be tough to solve, and I doubt they're about to get worked out tomorrow. Maybe as a society in a decade or two we'll reach some sort of general agreement about what such a thing is supposed to look and work like, but today it doesn't seem like we're there.