The legal argument for polygamous vs. homosexual marriages

[spotty_dog]

While I respect and value people in polyamorous situations where all partners have equal standing in the relationship, and I am firmly in favor of removing sex-based restrictions from legal marriage, I can't see any way that legal marriage could be changed to incorporate multiple parties. One particular snag that I frequently consider is that of inheritance. Multiple inheritance in the case of multiple marriage would be a headache and a half to define clearly in a legal sense. :|

Since polyamorous people are not restricted from marrying their one primary partner (a common arrangement in such relationships) if that person is of the opposite sex, I don't think this legal argument needs to take the spotlight at the very least until same-sex marriage is secured. One legal change that might need to be considered though is the definition of adultery -- I think that in some cases adultery charges can legally be pressed even if all parties involved approved of the extramarital "affair".

Add enough spice there Ms. Ladybug??

Interesting arguement w/some good points ... but ...

Most of what I know / have read about polygamy relates to the people who call themselves Mormon Fundamentalists (acknowledging the LDS church outlawed the practice around 1890). In what I've read, the additional 'wives' are often arranged by their families and 'taken' at a very, very young age (12, 14), so it is hard for me to see this practice as a marriage based on love and partnership that is entered into willingly by both (all) parties.

They do have the same arguement regarding health benefits and inheritance - but this is asking to legalize what is basically a religious practice. I believe homosexuality to be something genetic - not a religion, or lifestyle "choice", and to forbid homosexuals to marry is tantamount to the old laws that forbid people of different races marrying. There are homosexuals of many different religions who want to marry their partner for love, not as a religious duty.

[spotty_dog]

Most of what I know / have read about polygamy relates to the people who call themselves Mormon Fundamentalists (acknowledging the LDS church outlawed the practice around 1890). In what I've read, the additional 'wives' are often arranged by their families and 'taken' at a very, very young age (12, 14), so it is hard for me to see this practice as a marriage based on love and partnership that is entered into willingly by both (all) parties.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I think that assuming legal polygamy will open the door to nonconsensual and underage marriage is the same argument as assuming that legal same-sex marriage will open the door to bestiality. The consensual actions of adults shouldn't be classified with other extreme situations, I don't think.

Here's a resource for consensual adult polyamory, the kinds of people who might be interested in legalizing their relationships: http://www.polyamory.org/

As Jenn said, more of what I have read about is related to very young women (girls, really) being assigned to husbands in an arranged marriage sort of way and being viewed as property. Can't think of anything there that I agree with. I hadn't thought about adults who *truly* enter into polyamorous relationships with consent and with equal standing in the relationship.

Well, Annie, check that one off your list! :> :!

[fluffhead]

Well I don't think the govt should have any say in marriage matters whatsoever - if you want to be married to a tree, please have a long and happy life together.
HOWEVER -
I certainly don't want to have corporations mandated to proved equal benefits to an employee, his 6 wives and 54 children! What a recipe for disaster. So I say let everybody get equal treatment under the law - nobody has to provide anything for anybody. And if a corporation finds it advantageous to offer full family benefits for polyamorous, homosexual, or any other kind of relationship, then it should do so.

[Rapunzel]

I certainly don't want to have corporations mandated to proved equal benefits to an employee, his 6 wives and 54 children! What a recipe for disaster. So I say let everybody get equal treatment under the law - nobody has to provide anything for anybody. And if a corporation finds it advantageous to offer full family benefits for polyamorous, homosexual, or any other kind of relationship, then it should do so.

I actually agree with that - let the market decide which employers survive.

But, seriously, if an employer is going to provide health insurance coverage to a girlfriend/boyfriend (non-married partner) in either a same-gender or heterogenous relationship then why not to the guy who is legally married to six women? Aetna does this (provides full benefits for non-married partners (regardless of relationship-type gender-wise) soooooo, why wouldn't Aetna provide coverage for a man, his wife, and his mistress? She's his girlfriend after all and they DO provide coverage for non-marital relationships....

On a similar note: Serial monogamy (ie divorce after divorce after divorce) is just a glorified version of polygamy. So is having several longterm relationships going at roughly coinciding timeperiods (such as having a marriage and a recurrant "fling" or an ongoing mistress or other adulterous situation). Oddly enough, in the course of researching another topic entirely I happened upon a very, very large Muslim message board the other night where a hot topic was - polygamy. It was interesting to see the arguments for polygamy from the point of view of Islam. I believe the site was http://www.ummah.com (I *think* that was the one).

One of the arguments the Muslims on the site used was that men who fathered children would be more easily held accountable for their welfare if they were required by law to get married prior to any sexual relationship (of course the alternative - extramarital sex - was considered grounds for death ).

Personally, I'd have to kill somebody if my husband decided it was time to add another person to the marriage. Seriously, blood would run.

[Rapunzel]

Here's a link for numerous threads on the Muslim perspective (probably the world's largest group of people who currently practice polygamy):

http://www.ummah.com/forum/search.php?searchid=721822

[Vishenka69]

I believe homosexuality to be something genetic - not a religion, or lifestyle "choice", and to forbid homosexuals to marry is tantamount to the old laws that forbid people of different races marrying.

ITA with this. I also believe that while homosexuality is not a choice, polygamy is.

Personally, I'd have to kill somebody if my husband decided it was time to add another person to the marriage. Seriously, blood would run.

Also completely agree with this.

[spotty_dog]

I believe many polyamorous people would disagree that they have a choice about whom they love any more than anyone else does.

Just to play the devil's advocate, I think that assuming legal polygamy will open the door to nonconsensual and underage marriage is the same argument as assuming that legal same-sex marriage will open the door to bestiality. The consensual actions of adults shouldn't be classified with other extreme situations, I don't think.

Here's a resource for consensual adult polyamory, the kinds of people who might be interested in legalizing their relationships: http://www.polyamory.org/

I wasn't inferring that legalized polygamy would lead to nonconsensual and underage marriage. I was stating that most of what I know about the CURRENT status of polygamy ENTAILS nonconsensual, underage marriage. Many state laws (including Kansas ) would allow that to continue in our hypothetic, legal polygamy, b/c it only requires the parent's permission.

I believe many polyamorous people would disagree that they have a choice about whom they love any more than anyone else does.

From what I've read and seen (both the documentary I watched and the books I've read are based on the fundamentalist Mormons, rather than Muslims as Rapunzel mentioned), I've never heard "love" enter into it. It's been more of a reference to "God's Will" to have a large family and many wives -- not a "I happened across this woman at Sunday's service and my heart will explode if I cannot take her as my 4th wife."

[Rapunzel]

Yeah - the 1.2 (or is it 1.6 now? ) billion Muslims around the world are the best way to research polygamy because it's such an incredibly large social experiment.

What I was reading on the site to which I linked was that 1)polygamy was primarily a charitable religious "duty" in order to provide for the fatherless and widowed (ie 2nd and 3rd, etc. wives were "supposed" to be women who would find more security in marriage due to their situation in life) and 2) polygamy was better than adultery and an "overly-sexed" (the words used on the site) man was better getting married to more women (in order to satiate his "appetites") than if he was running around behind his wife's back - this appeared to follow the "men will be men" line of reasoning . Oh, I forgot: 3)A man cannot have more than one wife in Islam unless he can provide for each wife equally and support them all financially (including having seperate homes in many cases! ).

Finally, from what I was reading (in between the lines) in some of these posts - there are numerous polygamous Muslim marriages already in existance in the United States and Canada! Basically they just keep it under wraps.

I didn't see a lot on love among this group posting - mostly it was about duty to society and fulfilling sexual desires (male, that is). If polygamy is made legally permissible in the United States the group that will primarily benefit from it will be the possibly enormous number of Muslims in the country who already have secret polygamous marriages.

Yeah - the 1.2 (or is it 1.6 now? ) billion Muslims around the world are the best way to research polygamy because it's such an incredibly large social experiment.

Finally, from what I was reading (in between the lines) in some of these posts - there are numerous polygamous Muslim marriages already in existance in the United States and Canada! Basically they just keep it under wraps.

After doing some research online, it seems like Muslim polygamy is mostly practiced outside of the U.S., and actually that many, many cultures have or have had polygamists before. It was prevalent in Hinduism, in Imperial China, Ancient Judiasm. For the purpose of this debate topic -- legalizing polygamy and/or gay marriage in the United States --- it seems that the largest segment of the US population that practices it are the Mormon Fundamentalists. Even the article I found from the Salt Lake Tribune reprinted on polygamy.com says

And, many say, polygamy is almost nonexistent among the Muslim immigrants in the United States.
If there are polygamists in America, ``they wouldn't even tell us Muslims about it,'' said Aziza al-Hibri, who teaches at the University of Richmond Law School in Virginia. ``They would act the way people who have affairs do.'

No matter the segment of the population who practices it, I've really never heard of it proposed outside of a religious context. I stand by my original statement on the debate, where I said I support gay marriage b/c I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, and forbiding it is like forbiding interracial marriage. Polygamy is a religious practice, and if a church wants to sanction it - that is up to the church, but those marriage do not need to be legal in the U.S.

[Cumberland]

Has anyone watched Big Love on HBO? Sunday nights at 10 EST. It is about a modern day polygamous family. Watching it definitely gets you thinking.

[Rapunzel]

Well, what about the argument that men are genetically geared towards having and maintaining multiple sex partners for the purpose of spreading the old wild oats (kids)? I think it's filed under "evolutionary psychology" or something like that. In fact, far from a religious context, I've heard that pop culture argument a lot in the last few years (that men are "made" to have multiple sex partners ).

Of course, I think that is bunk. But, I also think it's bunk that anyone is "born" to be "gay". You can "feel" however you want. The fact is that it isn't a fact - or even a theory. A loose hypothesis, or warm fuzzy feeling perhaps.... But, there is no gay "gene" and the precious few studies on the possibility of same-gender attraction being genetic are inconclusive or contradictory. Campaign slogans are nice I suppose, but they aren't necessarily truth.