|
...No? I don't even see the connection between my previous statement and your question.So you would be willing to say one is more of a commitment than the other?So you are proposing that polyamourous married groups must remain closed from the date of the initial marriage?No, I'm saying polyamoury does not _necessarily_ equal open relations.Really? You don't see the connection between asking if it is more of a commitment to agree to a closed group forever vs not agreeing to a closed group forever?
Do you actually not see the connection, or are you just frustrated that you can't find a way it fits into your argument?
Be honest.
First off, my comment was that a polygamous marriage can BE a closed group forever, secondly, commiting to "forever" for no good reason except getting benefits isn't an argument to getting those benefits.
If I had said that all polygamous relations WERE open I'd have gotten the connection, now it just doesn't make sense.
Well the forever part is kind of part of why you get the benefits. Your girlfriend or boyfriend don't get social security death benefits when you die, for example.
You seem to have commitment issues.
Once again, I read it three or four times and have no idea what you are talking about.
I will once again try to make your "Road to the hospital cause marriage punches you in the stomach" analogy into something that actually makes sense.
Let us say you are sick, and you need to go to the hospital. You can take the road to the hospital however you want, if you are just taking yourself.
Now if you want to take someone else, there is a special toll road you can apply to have access to for one other person, if you agree accept all of that persons financial and emotional baggage,...
Because you claim marriage is a sacrifice, so, if we can agree that letting someone punch you in the stomach is a sacrifice too, they're interchangable. The difference between this and a monetary toll is that the monetary toll is thought to be used to keep the upkeep on the road - but that's not analogous to marriage, since marriage in itself doesn't pay for the health care - the state or a company does.
The punch in the stomach is analogous to the "sacrifice" you've mentioned (yet not explained in further detail), that you cannot marry anyone else. It's a sacrifice that doesn't matter for the roads upkeep, it's just to limit who gets there in a completely arbitrary way - just like requiring a punch in the stomach is because those with low pain threshold are kept out and those with high can go there.
I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions upthread though.
EDIT: Also flagged the completely unnessecary ad hominem. Please don't go there.
I suspect that, even if polygamy were legalized, we'd see very little of it pop up. There is powerful societal pressure for women to view other women as hated rivals, where men are concerned (and vice versa for men vis a vis women). I sort of figure that the only people who would consent to sharing their spouse(s) with a group of other people would be (a) religiously brainwashed or (b) a vanishingly small hippie minority trying to prove how "open" they are.
I suspect that, even if polygamy were legalized, we'd see very little of it pop up. There is powerful societal pressure for women to view other women as hated rivals, where men are concerned (and vice versa for men vis a vis women). I sort of figure that the only people who would consent to sharing their spouse(s) with a group of other people would be (a) religiously brainwashed or (b) a vanishingly small hippie minority trying to prove how "open" they are.
It also maybe that poly behavior is a selection process of sampling possible mates that leads to long term mono relationships. Granted I'm on the outside looking in, but I'd call a couple with a years long open marriage a different beast than 5-9 people living in a years long group relationship.
|
|
If it is only a small subgroup, why re-write the entire family court systems? And when you do re-write it, you won't likely be giving them full benefits, since that would, simply mathematically, be an unfair advantage.
If it isn't then a small group, all of the other problems noted beyond the advantage issue come into play.
Again, someone on the other side, ANYONE on the other side produce a single link to any kind of peer reviewed evidence of it working in any culture that wasn't either painfully misogynistic or exceptionally resource deprived.
Because this side of the argument has produced a ton of links to studies and examples of where when it was tried it created a net negative effect on societies where it occurred.
Polygamy has a record we can look at. That record sucks. That is why we stopped doing it.
Kind of like burning witches.
|
|
I suspect that, even if polygamy were legalized, we'd see very little of it pop up. There is powerful societal pressure for women to view other women as hated rivals, where men are concerned (and vice versa for men vis a vis women). I sort of figure that the only people who would consent to sharing their spouse(s) with a group of other people would be (a) religiously brainwashed or (b) a vanishingly small hippie minority trying to prove how "open" they are.It also maybe that poly behavior is a selection process of sampling possible mates that leads to long term mono relationships. Granted I'm on the outside looking in, but I'd call a couple with a years long open marriage a different beast than 5-9 people living in a years long group relationship.
It is a very different beast indeed. At the end of the day you still have a wife who is "the" wife.
Some friends of mine tried out open marriage for awhile. They stopped as it didn't work for them, and so they called it off and became more traditional, but the concept was that it didn't matter who else they were with as long as at the end of the day they were going to end up together in the future.
You can't have more than one "Most important".
|
|
Once again, I read it three or four times and have no idea what you are talking about.
I will once again try to make your "Road to the hospital cause marriage punches you in the stomach" analogy into something that actually makes sense.
Let us say you are sick, and you need to go to the hospital. You can take the road to the hospital however you want, if you are just taking yourself.
Now if you want to take someone else, there is a special toll road you can apply to have access to for one other person, if you agree accept all of that persons financial and emotional baggage,...
Because you claim marriage is a sacrifice, so, if we can agree that letting someone punch you in the stomach is a sacrifice too, they're interchangable. The difference between this and a monetary toll is that the monetary toll is thought to be used to keep the upkeep on the road - but that's not analogous to marriage, since marriage in itself doesn't pay for the health care - the state or a company does.
The punch in the stomach is analogous to the "sacrifice" you've mentioned (yet not explained in further detail), that you cannot marry anyone else. It's a sacrifice that doesn't matter for the roads upkeep, it's just to limit who gets there in a completely arbitrary way - just like requiring a punch in the stomach is because those with low pain threshold are kept out and those with high can go there.
I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions upthread though.
EDIT: Also flagged the completely unnessecary ad hominem. Please don't go there.
Letting someone punch you in the stomach is stupid, and if you equate letting someone punch you in the stomach with making a marital commitment, I 100% stand behind my assertion.
|
|
The analogy is this.
You call up the government and say "Hey, I want to be able to share all my assets with this person I intend to start a family with."
The government is like "Cool, we like stable families, they produce less problems for us in general, and historically have been great at making good taxpaying citizen. Sure! But I want to make sure you aren't just going to try and game the system to move income around without paying, or to get access to insurance and social security benefits...."
You say "No, I'm really serious about settling down with this person, I'm willing to give them half of everything I have, and vice versa, with a contract that really would hose me if I tried to leave them or get with anyone else. I promise to be with this person forever, and if I don't they can have whatever a third party judge decides they deserve."
Government says "Well then, you must be very serious about making this kind of commitment to this person. We will write an exception into the law to allow law for that one person to functionally be financially the same as you so you can move money back and forth and sign contracts as if you were one person. Pay taxes that way too. And we'll write laws to make the insurance companies provide benefits to them should something happen to you, so your family can stay stable if you die or get sick or hurt."
Awesome, you say. Deal done. Win, Win all around as long as you choose someone you will be happily married to.
But when you call back and say "We met this other awesome person!" the government goes "Dude, you already got an exception for the other person, it is called an exception for a reason. WTF? Can't you make a choice? If you wanted to be single or have an open marriage, whatever, but it is called an exception for a reason, man. You can't just set up some commune financial accounting system and expect all the insurance providers to provide death benefits to your new spouse of the month."
But I want to, you say.
"Dude" the government says shaking it's head "This isn't Burger King. I gave you an exception specifically because it was you saying I'm committed to making a family with this specific person, and we were cool with that. But now you throwing all these other people in and asking they get exceptions that cost...you are asking for more but providing less. Not happening. You can be like everyone else and be single, or you can pick a specific person to designate for some specific privileges in exchange for a ton of risks. Those are your options."
|
|
And....this thread has long since run its course. Ad Hominem, meet Additional Hominem..........
S'why I stopped posting. ciretose isn't gonna change his tune, and nobody else is posting against the legalization of polygamy per se.
@Kirth Gersen: I think the minority's bigger than that, and not really trying to prove anything. Some people just don't get as jealous as others (or jealous at all in some cases).
|
|
I sort of figure that the only people who would consent to sharing their spouse(s) with a group of other people would be (a) religiously brainwashed or (b) a vanishingly small hippie minority trying to prove how "open" they are.
FTFY
I didn't say the above, Kirth did.
In fact I didn't say any of that post. Edit it or I'm going to flag it.
|
|
@Naja
I chose my words carefully. If you and your family are successful without being exclusive, good for you guys. Unless someone posts evidence otherwise, the studies that have been posted say if you are all successful and well adjusted, you are the exception, not the rule.
Congrats!
As to your other points, you believing that having more than two people is not materially different than have two is something that is just fundamentally, factually, incorrect.
Again, someone on the other side, ANYONE on the other side produce a single link to any kind of peer reviewed evidence of it working in any culture that wasn't either painfully misogynistic or exceptionally resource deprived.
|
|
I chose my words carefully. If you and your family are successful without being exclusive, good for you guys. Unless someone posts evidence otherwise, the studies that have been posted say if you are all successful and well adjusted, you are the exception, not the rule.
I really don't think you can make the sweeping conclusion that "studies" suggest all poly people are neither successful nor well adjusted. That's a pretty broad conclusion.
But yes, we are generally quite successful, thanks. Likewise all of our poly friends, likewise the poly families I grew up around that are still going strong with the same people (the ones who are still alive) thirty years later. Yes, I've seen poly breakups, and some dickish behavior that people tried to excuse by calling it poly. But in general the track record I've personally seen for poly relationships is actually better than my monogamous friends have.
The plural of anecdote is not data, and I'm not offering data or statistics. This is just a look at where I live, because I don't think a lot of people outside that community have really had a chance to have a look.
As to your other points, you believing that having more than two people is not materially different than have two is something that is just fundamentally, factually, incorrect.Exclusivity in a group of two is not materially different from exclusivity in a group of three. What do you actually think the differences are?
Studies never say "all" are anything. They look at an aggregate over time.
There has been a lot of polygamy over time, and it has generally been crappy for the societies in which it occurred. You can say "But that isn't what I'm talking about" to which I will reply "So your specific, prescriptive brand of polygamy should be legal, but not others?"
Your anecdote of a success meets my anecdotes of failure, and the average is "meh".
A difference between being exclusive to one person or two people is that in one situation, there is never going to be a question of factions or hierarchy. There will never be a partial divorce (you leave, we stay) or choosing favorites (kids aren't the same as adults).
And all of the benefit issues really do matter, and no one has proposed how to resolve them, other than "Look to how other countries do it" to which I replied "They screw the woman over." which no one refuted.
|
|
Link
Again, someone on the other side, ANYONE on the other side produce a single link to any kind of peer reviewed evidence of it working in any culture that wasn't either painfully misogynistic or exceptionally resource deprived.
Finally! Something! Full credit to you sir (or mam) I am leaving for work now but will read and respond later.
EDIT: I only skimmed, but this article may not help you much since the author wrote "...polygamy, which has long been associated with the inequality of women." in the conclusion.
She seems to be arguing that although polygamy isn't so great, we need to afford women in polygamous marriages the rights of the marriage laws in Canada to prevent their further victimization. But I'll read it more thoroughly later.
(Page 32 is particularly bad for your arguement...)
telling people that they are brainwashed or hippies with an agenda when neither is true is not respectful.
"Most" =/= "all." In retrospect, I can see that my post was insufficiently clear on this point; I'll try and be more precise in the future. Still, I presume you've heard the phrase "the exception that proves the rule?"
I know, but none of you other fools were going to link nothing and I wanted to see if I could get him to rant for another 24 hours.
I mean, shiznit, I'm not even pro-polygamy--I'm anti-marriage!
(Which is where I found Ms. Campbell in the first place who, btw, is hawt!!, well at least for an Ivy League law professor.)
And, finally, to wind up: One Final Polygamist Musical Interlude
David Crosby songs are all the evidence I need.
The general connotation of 'hippie' is 'socially irresponsible'.
Hee hee! Now I get to defend polygamists AND hippies!
Ahem. That's a strange thing to say about the people who brought you the modern environmentalist movement.
I keep seeing people refer to a polygyny model with one working, educated male provider and multiple uneducated, unemployed or unemployable chattel females, and that is about as far from a modern poly demographic as I can imagine.
That's the dominant polygamout marriage model in most of the world (Africa, the Middle East) in which it's legal, and in the U.S. (parts of Utah, Texas, etc.) where it's not. I have no access to numbers, given that people in polygynous marriages in the U.S. can't very well self-report, but the cool, educated model you're espousing (and which I'd personally have no qualms at all in people adopting, if willing) is a distinct minority compared to the enforced polygamy practiced in places like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and (until recently) San Angelo, Texas.
I keep seeing people refer to a polygyny model with one working, educated male provider and multiple uneducated, unemployed or unemployable chattel females, and that is about as far from a modern poly demographic as I can imagine.That's the dominant polygamout marriage model in most of the world (Africa, the Middle East) in which it's legal, and in the U.S. (parts of Utah, Texas, etc.) where it's not. I have no access to numbers, given that people in polygynous marriages in the U.S. can't very well self-report, but the cool, educated model you're espousing (and which I'd personally have no qualms at all in people adopting, if willing) is a distinct minority compared to the enforced polygamy practiced in places like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and (until recently) San Angelo, Texas.
Yes, but it is also the style of relationship that both he and I have been arguing should have legal standing.
Yes, but it is also the style of relationship that both he and I have been arguing should have legal standing.
I haven't actually argued against it at any time (I'm actually in favor of having almost nothing short of blatant theft, rape, or murder be illegal). I am very much against treating women as chattel, however -- and I'm agaist any system that legitimizes the ways in which religious fundamentalists seek to impose that end. If most polygynous marriages worldwide are in fact systems of master and chattel, then I'm against them, and would be against their perceived "legitimacy" spreading elsewhere.
As to the nonconsensual polygyny chattel model, about all I can say without using unacceptable language is 'yuck' and 'do not want'. But it's no more directly relevant to my life than any other human rights injustices in third world countries.
It's relevant if, through well-intentioned legislature, those injustices become more widespread here as well. Let me be as clear as I can:
1. I'm in favor of your scenario being legal.
2. I am not in favor of any kind of female chattel system becoming legitimized under law.
3. If the first objective can be achieved without allowing the second under the exact same laws, then all for the better. If not, then there's a lot of very hard work ahead before you can write laws that are clear enough and specific enough to allow the one and still deny the other.
|
|
I think that model is legal, but not sanctioned or entitled to benefits.
The issues comes in when you are talking about benefit access. You can have an open relationship, and you can have an open marriage, and all of that I think we can all agree should be legal.
The issue comes when you also seek the benefits and want them applied to more than one person.
Naja agreed with my concerns on that, and I don't disagree that people should be able to have relationships with whoever they want however they want, and the state should stay out of it.
But when you are asking for special benefits and privilege that go to people who do certain things, you have to actually do the things that are required to be eligible for the benefits.
Citizen Meatrace: it looks like if you want to practice polygamy, you're going to have to join me for international proletarian socialist revolution.
I don't want to practice polygamy, particularly, and you have clearly missed my cries for revolution!
|
|
@Naja - The problem with your definition being that the people who are what you consider chattel polygamy generally think they have a choice.
And I can tell you stories of abuse in the latter...time is a fickle thing to a wandering and selfish eye. I'm trying to find studies, but not having a lot of luck, so we are both anecdotal at this point.
I am unsure that specifically legislating against multiple marriages is an effective legal response. It limits the rights of people who want to be polyamorous by choice, and I'm not convinced it fixes the oppression problem or even helps it all that much.
The problem is that written laws have to close loopholes and achieve their intended aims while not providing avenues for worse ends. You can't just say "this law is meant to do X," and leave it at that. Specific legal language must clearly spell out what is allowed and what isn't. That's a not-inconsiderable task -- as a thought exercise, just try drafting a bill for a couple of weeks and see what you come up with, and then invite people in the thread to come up with perfectly-legal ways to abuse it and turn it into something you never intended.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I am saying that it would take years of work, and probably at least several test cases, in order to legalize the types of relationships that you and I both support, vs. supporting the ones we don't. "No chattel allowed" isn't legal language; it's a philosophical standpoint. It doesn't come close to achieving the end we're envisioning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swingers are to committed polyamory relationships as friends with benefits is to monogamous marriages.
@ Naja -- I'd probably start by decoupling "marriage" as a social and religious rite from "marriage" as a financial and legal status. Like maybe (off the top of my head -- this isn't a full-fledged idea yet) each person could name up to one other person (or none) as one-way legal beneficiaries with power of attorney, visitation rights, shared assets, and so on. We could call this a civil union, or whatever. Because it's one-way, you could have "rings" of rights, where Person A names Person B, Person B names Person C, and Person C names person A, for example. Or you could have a more traditional deal where persons A and B designate each other.
Separately from that, there would be the deal where you invite everyone over to witness your statement of lifelong commitment together. Most current "marriages" would involve both aspects, but if kept separate they could be added in just about any combination withoout screwing things up too badly. For children, each child would be legally claimed by one (1) adult; the other adult named as civil union partner by that parent would be the default "other parent" for legal purposes.
Yeah, this would mean that if one person in a polygynous marriage got sick, only one other "spouse" would have visitation rights, but everything else would be a lot easier to sort out.
And with only being able to pick one other person for financial commitments, it would cut down on the mutliple-wives-as-dependent-chattel scenario, because only one of the wives would be financially entitled to anything.
Of course, none of my ideas would ever pass muster in the U.S., because 99.999% of my fellow citizens are far less socially libertarian than I am. If it were up to me, the war on drugs would be ancient history, and there would be no such thing as "public indecency" -- you'd be able to walk down the street naked, while smoking a joint, if you wanted to.
If it were up to me, the war on drugs would be ancient history, and there would be no such thing as "public indecency" -- you'd be able to walk down the street naked, while smoking a joint, if you wanted to.
Sounds like an average day in the life of Doodlebug Anklebiter.
Sounds like an average day in the life of Doodlebug Anklebiter.
I hate you.