A sticky wicket

[veronica_rich]

I won't make this terribly long, because I know people tend to read shorter, to-the-point posts than long, rambling ones, for the most part. Especially on political/sociological issues.

You need to understand that I am not opposed to same-sex marriage. I feel if you're going to allow two adults to marry, you need to allow two ADULTS - any two adults - to marry. My friends and family know this about me - whether they think I'm straight or gay is their own wonderings and I don't particularly care. (I am not gay. To me it's just a matter of fairness for all.)

A friend with whom I debate about this often (she is not in favor of gay marriage, for secular legal and personal reasons, but not for religious reasons) tells me today about a story she saw on the TV news about poly marriage. It featured a man and two women who were quoting Bible verse to justify polygamy in marriage, and saying if government allows gay marriage, it has to allow poly marriage as well.

Personally, I have no problem placing a limitation on marriage to only two adults. I don't view polygamy at all the same as a union of two people, mainly for interaction-dynamics principles on a psychological level. I won't get into all my thoughts on it; suffice it's not because of a moral imperative, it's because of practicality and property-transfer issues.

I'd be interested to know what people on my f-list think of same-sex marriage, hetero marriage, and poly marriage. Any opinion you'd like to post about it.

Comments

[hugos-hair.livejournal.com]

I'm a libertarian. As such I can't see banning in any way anything that rational concenting people would do to or with each other for any reason simply because I wouldn't force my will on anyone else. I wouldn't/don't want to be limited in the ways that I can explore life and existence by the whims and squicks of others. I don't think you can draw a line for anyone but yourself. But then, I also wouldn't force THAT ideal on anyone either.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Well, I understand that rules are necessary to preserve any society - it's the level of rules that concerns me. For example, you have to protect underage people from those whose natural inclination would be to molest or abuse them. What consenting *adults* do with one another is another matter.

As for controlling the activities of those consenting adults ... I still think 2 is the best number to stop at, no matter the gender. That said, I wouldn't object to a married couple taking on other participants, if it's what they and the participants want. It's a sticky wicket, as I said, admittedly. *shrug* I don't pretend to know everything or be the great moral arbiter.

[nobleplatypus]

I'm all for same-sex marriage. All the antis seem to have to say is that it threatens the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriages. Well, I don't see how two gay people getting hitched hurts anyone, and I can't believe heterosexual marriages are infused with sanctity because half of them are ending in divorce.

Poly marriage I'm a bit more leery of, partially because it seems to me (and perhaps this is hypocritical, but eh) that marriage should involve two people being faithful to one another. If you can marry as many people as you want, what's the point of marrying at all? Why not just say you're in a non-exclusive relationship like everyone else? :P And would poly marriages encompass one woman marrying several men, or would it only be the men marrying as many women as they pleased? Either way, it seems a bit unfair, because you're asking one party to be content with one spouse while the other party gets two or three or however many.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I never understood how allowing gays to marry threatened straight folk ... unless they're afraid more straight people will "come out" as gay now instead? I don't think, statistically, that's really going to happen.

And your point about "why marry at all?" with poly is pretty much exactly what I wondered, too. If you want to fuck that many people, go ahead - but why marry?

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

I don't particularly revere marriage, but I can understand its relevance in matters both legal and emotional/mental. For me, I suppose it's really all been about consenting adults. Conservatives like to use slippery slope arguments to insist that with gay marriage and poly marriage, marriage to children and animals can't be far behind. I call it a bullshit argument, since as stated I believe it to be a matter of adult consent, which implies to me people of the same legal standing and mental faculties--something animals and arguably children are not in possession of, and therefore should not be taken into the equasion.

Mind, I have personal principles against poly marriage, but that's really not my decision to make outside of whether I would want to take part in one or not. Perhaps it's an arrangement that's fitting and works for three (or so) people, and I don't see that they should be denied that. Lacking a certain reverence for the concept of marriage, I don't put much stock in its supposed "sanctity" outside of the value each individual couple (or threesome, etc) places on it, so I think the value and sancitity of their marriage is for them to define, in and of themselves. Maybe things would get a little messy where it came to tax breaks and whatnot, but that's not a matter I'm real qualified to speak on anyway. .. not like I'm particularly qualified to speak on marriage either, but there's my $0.02.

Though I do think that the concept of poly marriage does need to extend to all sexes--I think it's currently defined (implicitly, if nothing else) as a man with any number of wives, which I think is bollocks. Do forgive me for rambling -_-

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

My reason for not liking poly marriages is probably irrational and emotion-based - and it's not what you might think. With two people, you have the possibility of an equal dynamic - 50/50 overall. With three or more, it's nearly impossible to work out equal shares among everyone - with three people, for example, I guess I would think it's going to usually be two against one. *shrug*

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

Actually, your argument sounds pretty sound (if you'll forgive me for using the same word twice in a sentence). And being a stickler for equality in relationships, I'd generally be inclined to agree.

But I feel like if it were a matter of importance to the people in question, it would be to them to work out--not for us to say, "Well, you're not going to be very fair in your dealings, so you only get to pick one." I'm sure there are extenuating circumstances and all that, so I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

That and a friend had been telling me about this threesome she'd known from somewhere or other, a fellow and two women who travelled around, and the guy described his companions as, "One is my wife, and the other my husband," and they just had such a goshdarn interesting dynamic I felt sort of bad that they couldn't legally follow that through if they wasnted to. Which I guess is neither here nor there, and I'm just rambling again ... -_-

[captsparrow4evr.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think the concept that marriage is anything other than a legal contract between consenting adults is a romantic notion that, until the late Victorian era, was totally inconceivable. In the current context, the primary value of marriage for anyone (be it hetero- or homosexual) is simply to allow for partners to have the right of inheritance and the ability to make life choices for both partners. Toward that end, I can't see how any difference should exist between two men, two women or a man and a woman wishing to join their assets and their lives together. Romantic, eh?:)

I'm not opposed to polygamous marriages. In his books, Robert Heinlein espoused the notion that it would benefit a number of people if they were allowed to form marriages with multiple partners. Of course, in his marriages, you could ask anyone to marry you but everyone in the family had to agree to the new addition or it couldn't happen. He was fond of pointing out that it would simplify child care (after all, if you have 6 adults in a marriage with 4 kids, someone's bound to be able to watch the kids, right?) and grant people all the benefits of having an extended family that you could pick and choose. He was a science fiction writer, though, and one has to question if he knew people as well as he thought. Truth be told, I don't know. I can see a tremendous amount of problems with polygamy, not the least of which would be jealousy. And imagine the paperwork if you wanted a divorce!:P

I agree with vejita4evr that it needs to be equal opportunity for all genders and sexualities. Otherwise, it's just a new form of discrimination, isn't it? Does anybody know how the Mormons feel about polyandry? I suspect it isn't on their list of approved things.

[captsparrow4evr.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that LJ user is vejiita4evr. Apologies!

[vejiicakes.livejournal.com]

Actually ends with an "a", but that's not important ^_^ I don't actually know for certain (this being completely annecdotal), but I think the Mormon outlook on the matter is/was still one man + however many women, but not the gender reverse of that arrangement. Bunch of hooey, if you ask me -_-

I know the outlook many people have on polygamy is disdain because, "Oh, it's just an excuse for a guy to have his own harem!" or something, which is certainly a possibility (a more than likely one, considering how these usually patriarchal establishments are set up), but I know there are some people for whom this arrengement would work, and who would happily choose it for themselves. But when you limit it to 1 male/+1 female and don't allow for *cough* manharems *cough*, well then it just looks like another sexist establishment, really.

[/ramble]

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I haven't done a great deal of research on the matter, but I think the ancient Mongolians practiced polyandry - men of the same family marrying one woman so any children she had would be of the same bloodline. The idea was that land was so limited, there couldn't be great population growth.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

you could ask anyone to marry you but everyone in the family had to agree to the new addition or it couldn't happen

As I replied to someone above, I'm really just worried that with three or more people, you'd end up with situations where someone would end up being bullied or, at least, get the short end of the stick.

BUT - all else being equal - how do you think a poly divorce would work? One person wants to leave the collective, so to speak - when two people divorce one another, the dynamic is one against one. If three or more tried, it'd be at least two against one, or worse odds. Just a thought I'd had ...

[smtfhw.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of same-sex marriage particularly for myself thank you. I'm not in favour of polygamy, simply because it seems to me to be grossly unfair to women in most of the societies that practice it, and is simply a way to let some man have it all... of course, the Nepalese polyandrous practice seems to me to be an altogether more civilised model though apparently it's now dying out...

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

simply because it seems to me to be grossly unfair to women in most of the societies that practice it

You hit the nail right on the head. Our society - most of our societies on this earth - are so grossly patriarchal at this point in time that any arrangement involving a man is going to automatically give him the power in most cases (except maybe child custody). It's not PC to point out - but it's damn well true.

[captsparrow4evr.livejournal.com]

Coming back to this, I just wanted to agree with you that it needs to be two consenting ADULTS (i.e. at least 18 years of age.) Recently here in Nebraska we had a case of a 22 year old man getting a 13 year old pregnant. Rather than aborting the fetus, the mother and father take the kid to Kansas where the age of consent with parental permission was 14 and basically marry her off to the guy, in hopes of keeping the guy from going to prison for molesting a child. It made me sick at the time and I was very glad to see the Attorney General of the state go after the jerk to get him put into jail. Which, of course, brought about a huge outcry of "Well, he's taking responsibility for his baby, why put him in prison?" Um, maybe because he had SEX WITH A KID?!?! Sorry, rant over. It just ticks me off.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Do you mean the 13-year-old's parents were trying to keep the 22-year-old from being arrested? Let me guess - this misguided notion that having a molester jackass for a father is better than the baby having no father at all? Fucking PLEASE. What do they think the guy'll do to the resulting child, if it's a daughter?

People are idiots, honestly.

[a-silver-rose.livejournal.com]

Well, Ver, you know my opinion of same-sex marriages, and why conservatives want to ban it. Most of them can't stand the thought of legaslly sanctioning two me (or two women) having sex, and getting tax breaks for it. I'm all for the folks in Connecticut who are claiming that having so-called "civil unions" for same-sex partners is making them seciond-class citizens. They're right. Separate is NOT equal, folks.

As for poly marriage, a bad idea all the way around, for many reasons . . .


- Silver Rose

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Any particular reasons you'd like to put forth? (I don't disagree; I'd just like to know your list.)

[a-silver-rose.livejournal.com]

Well, first of all, the family politics would be all sorts of messed up. The first spouse may not be the favored spouse, which would likely be reflected onto the respective offspring. Also, a lessed sense of individuality if you are just one of several spouses as opposed to the only spouse. And let's face it: what man has enough income to adequately support the 26 kids he has with 7 wives? I realize the latter does not really apply to polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands for those who don't know), but it is a valid question.

- Silver Rose