The case for polygamy

[Flubber]

hmmm

Most of the the problems of legally accepted polygamous marriages that have been identified here, are not problems that are worsened by legalizing polygamy. They are more problems that can be made worse by hidden polygamy.

There are abusive husbands everywhere and they abuse their partner(s) whether or not they are legally married to them. I fail to see how having a second "wife" in the home with "nanny status" is preferable to some legal recognition of the wife she is. Would not some legal standing be to the benfit of such a vivtim??

Custody of children and making medical decisions are all issues in "traditional" relationships as well and there are mechanisms to determine such things. Anyone entering a polygamous marriage should have to think about things like medical decisions.

On child custody I don't see it as the end of the world if the two biological parents have first tier rights at custody while other spouses would be treated as the next layer (much like but perhaps ahead of the rights to access that some grandparents have exercised in some jurisdictions ). Some might dispute a biology first approach and thats fine too.

There are other concerns though

1. Immigration-- how many spouses can a person bring?

2. Spouses of convenience for tax purposes-- Could polygamous marriage be abused to take advantage of tax laws ( ie Couples are John-Jill and Sam-Sally and they are traditional couples but they all get married since John-Jill are in their 50s and rich while Sam and Sally are 21 and have massive potential tax deductions from their current college tuitions-- Obviously tax laws would need to be completely revamped to accomodate this.

3. Government forms will not cope

4. Walking down the aisle of children gets complicated and Wwedding invitations can get exceptionally long if you have to list 5-6 parents per side You also require far to many tickets to children events etc etc

5. IF and its a big IF a society saw beneifits of 3, 4, 5 partner bonds, is 6 ok -- how about 7? Is there a limit? If Hugh wanted to marry 25 perky 20somethings, is that something we should legally sanction?



Overall I am torn on the issue. I am a supporter of gay marriage but fundamental to my vision of marriage is that it is a joining of one person to another in a legally recognized way. While I support a polyamorous groups lifestyle choice to be whatever they want, I don't know that the current legal institution of marriage with it existing ramifications is well suited to deal with larger and larger groupings. Frankly we would need some new concepts. I have rejected some of the issues identified but there would be some real issues to be resolved (in this it is quite unlike gay marriage which was very simple to implement relatively speaking).

With polygamous marriage I fear that there would be far more opportunities to abuse the tax, social welfare and immigration systems and that there would be effects far beyond the cursory review we have discussed on here

[rah]

Since most of the uber wealthy people abuse the tax code and pay almost no taxes, having a few more people getting married to save on their taxes, shouldn't be a a big issue when determining whether its a good idea or not. Let's worry about changing the TAX code.

[notyoueither]

So I don't want this to be supported selfishly because I think that society will be worse. This has been detailed in the links. I don't want this to be supported altruistically because I think that a lot of people will think it is a rational choice of forming a real mature relationship and will thus never get the chance to do so. I recognize that most people will not form real mature relationships in their lifetimes anyways, but they should at least be given the chance. I already see far too many people who ruin their chances for a mature intimate connection due to believing in the ideal of polygamy and this is with the current level of support!

JM

Links?

You linked to two things earlier. The second one I already commented on. The author looks only at religious polygamy. You had no response.

The first I avoided talking about, to be courteous. Since it seems some comment is required...

http://www.robertmasters.com/newsletter/July2006.pdf

So is monogamy on its way out? No, and not just because it’s so culturally
entrenched, and still held up by most as the best way to form a lasting love
partnership. What needs to go — and what is at last ready to go — is not
monogamy, but monogamy as it usually practiced. In what follows, I’ll clarify
this by comparing such monogamy with what it could be. To further flesh
out this discussion, I’ll also bring in polyamory (relationship with more than
one partner at a time), because of its connection, however shadowed, with
everyday monogamy.

So, his ideal monogamy doesn't actually exit yet, or at least not in very many places. How much longer do we wait for it?

Immature monogamy gets neurotically attached, multiple-partnering avoids
(and is a distraction from) attachment, and mature monogamy permits
attachment, without making a problem out of it. And what’s so important
about attachment in intimate relationship? Well, for starters, without it we are
not nearly vulnerable enough in our relationships; it’s easy to be loving but not
vulnerable, but without sufficient vulnerability, we won’t open — and be broken
open — to the depths of relational intimacy of which we are capable. I’ll say
more about the value of attachment in intimate relationship a bit later.

...

Mature monogamy is a life-giving, passion-deepening, spiritually-opening
choice, and it’s a choice we cannot truly make until we’ve become incapable
of immature monogamy and unseducible by multiple-partnering’s advances.
At this point, we can love so deeply and so fully in a one-on-one relationship
that we can become profoundly attached, so that if our beloved were to
suddenly die or betray us, our heart would be ripped wide open.

Such deep focus, such devotion to our shared depth, such shared safety to get
really vulnerable and really alive with each other, such shared emotional and
existential and spiritual nakedness, is an ongoing choice made all the richer
by cutting off all exits. Then she is not just a woman to him, but all women
and Woman Incarnate, and he is to her not just a man, but all men, and Man
Incarnate. This is not metaphysical mush, but a living reality, full-blooded and
more often than not ecstatic.

...

One more thing about mature monogamy: It makes possible the kind of
relationship that transcends relationship. Touching the One through the two.
Freedom through intimacy. Mature monogamy is, in other words, a liberating
bondage, a deeply joined freefall into What-Really-Matters.

Actually... I'm sorry, Jon. This is just... a pile of mush.

It is one man's opinion of how we can all find a single other to whom we will be happy to completely cede our autonomy, and then we'll all live happily ever after. Meanwhile, we haven't managed the trick (or not many of us) over the last several hundreds of years of state and church suppression of the alternatives.

It is science fiction. And that is being charitable.

Who is this man, BTW? Is this him?

Welcome to the site of Robert Augustus Masters
www.robertmasters.com/
Offers psychospiritual healing and awakening, personal growth services. Surrey, BC, Canada.

Hmmm.

Anyone else have an opinion?

[notyoueither]

I think the difference is that polygamy is a lifestyle choice and homosexuality isn't.

And to me that's a valid reason to say we can treat the two cases differently if that's what we decided.

This is true. There are large differences.

However, when I think about it, there are likely to be as many or more people who are not suited to monogamous relationships as there are homosexuals.

I am swinging over to think we should extend legal recognition to polyamorous relationships.

[Flubber]

Since most of the uber wealthy people abuse the tax code and pay almost no taxes, having a few more people getting married to save on their taxes, shouldn't be a a big issue when determining whether its a good idea or not. Let's worry about changing the TAX code.

The perception is that this is not as prevalent in Canada as in the US but the sentiment that you can change the tax code to fit society instead of the reverse does apply --

I was just trying to come up with some real and some practical or funny problems with polygamy

[Aeson]

I think the difference is that polygamy is a lifestyle choice and homosexuality isn't.

You're mixing things up to try to draw a contrast that isn't there.

Heterosexual marriage is a lifestyle choice.
Homosexual marriage is a lifestyle choice.
Polygamous marriage is a lifestyle choice.

Having the physical/emotional desire to be with one of the opposite sex is not a lifestyle choice.
Having the physical/emotional desire to be with one of the same sex is not a lifestyle choice.
Having the physical/emotional desire to be with more than one person is not a lifestyle choice.

[Jon Miller]

Links?

Hmmm.

Anyone else have an opinion?

That wasn't what I referred to.

That was an example of a former polygamous changing to monogamy. He seemed to be fairly representative of the 'new' polygamy camp before he switched.

And I do consider them mush. But they are the group you want to take seriously. They are the 'non-religious' polygamists.

Your comment that the others only look at religious polygamy... no, the male dominated form of polygamy is what happens mostly secularly too, not just religiously. So do others, it (polygamy dominated by one male with multiple females) has dominated the secular polygamists also. Historically and now.

Show me that secular polygamy is not dominated by one man/multiple women.

JM

[MikeH]

You're mixing things up to try to draw a contrast that isn't there.

Heterosexual marriage is a lifestyle choice.
Homosexual marriage is a lifestyle choice.
Polygamous marriage is a lifestyle choice.

Having the physical/emotional desire to be with one of the opposite sex is not a lifestyle choice.
Having the physical/emotional desire to be with one of the same sex is not a lifestyle choice.
Having the physical/emotional desire to be with more than one person is not a lifestyle choice.

Yeah, good point.

Except I'm not sure that the third one isn't a lifestyle choice.

[Pax]

http://news.yahoo.com/sister-wives-family-sues-prevent-prosecution-polygamy-224012388.html

[Aeson]

I think we can all agree that Utah's law is wrong to criminalize "cohabiting" with someone you know is married (not to you), or if you are married "cohabiting" with anyone else.

[Jon Miller]

Yes. It was necessary, maybe, 100 years ago.

Not now.

JM

[notyoueither]

That wasn't what I referred to.

That was an example of a former polygamous changing to monogamy. He seemed to be fairly representative of the 'new' polygamy camp before he switched.

Where do you get that he was a polyamorist?

And I do consider them mush. But they are the group you want to take seriously. They are the 'non-religious' polygamists.

Your comment that the others only look at religious polygamy... no, the male dominated form of polygamy is what happens mostly secularly too, not just religiously. So do others, it (polygamy dominated by one male with multiple females) has dominated the secular polygamists also. Historically and now.

Show me that secular polygamy is not dominated by one man/multiple women.

JM

You are the one making the claim. Can you support it?

I am claiming that non-religious polyamory encourages women to have multiple loves if that is what is good for them. The evidence for this is pretty easy. Look at who has written many of the books on the subject.

As for mush. So, your intent was to display that polyamorism is grounded in mush, and you did that by posting a new-agish pile of mush that promoted 'mature monogamy?'

Have you read anything written by a feminist, secular polyamorist?

[Pax]

It would save a lot of time and effort if we would go ahead write legislature simultaneously extending marriage to gays and polygamous couples. If we wait, then eventually we will have to go back and write legislature for polygamy. After reading the comments on this thread, I would believe that most of us don't have a problem with polygamy. It reminds me of how it was when Clinton made the don't ask don't tell policy that led the way for accepting gays into the military. Most of the same people that have a problem with gays marrying are the ones that have a problem with polygamy.

[Aeson]

It would save a lot more time to just not have government messing in marriage at all.

[Soltz]

Unfortunately, the state would get involved once a polymagous marriage breaks up.