Time to Allow Polyamorous Marraiges

I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.
[\quote]

Yup. Ours didn't either.

I think there are several reasons they don't work:

1. difficulties from within the triad
2. difficulties external to the triad. If you're in a triad and it's not going perfectly, pretty much everyone (who knows) will do their part to convince you that you should leave rather than work things out. Even the slightest bit of difficulty of no degree higher than the difficulty with a typical relationship was met with, "well, maybe you should leave the triad. You're obviously not happy"

Being in the triad was the only time in my life that I felt the need to see a psychologist on a weekly basis though. A few weeks out of the triad and I told her I'd skip a week to get moved into my new apartment, and did not feel the need to return.

But I digress.

Even the marriage thing was an issue, because the other two of the triad were in a relationship and I joined. They had been thinking of getting married, and were considered having the two of them get married legally. So they'd be recognized as husband/wife by law, and I would be....what?
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic said:
The harm comes form the dishonesty.

First you are told to support gay marriage and that it is totally paranoid to think it would lead to polygamy.

Then you agree that polygamy will be supported if gay marriage is allowed -- just like the "paranoids" claimed -- but that, hey, what's the harm?

The third stage is to declare that anybody who doesn't think polygamy should be allowed is an evil racist homophobe insensitive right-wing extremist, the stage we have now reached with gay "marriage".

This is plain dishonesty -- with the goal to make "self-evident" and a (constitutional) "right", from the beginning, the very social change you claim everybody who suggests will be the result is "paranoid" for thinking so.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.

But wait, don't tell me -- it is lying for a good cause, and besides, you're just lying to those awful conservatives, so it's OK...
Click to expand...

So you feel you were dissed because you made an assumption that didn't pan out? How does your hurt feelings cause a problem in society in general?

Heinlein's Time Enough for Love describes a family of multiple disparate persons who come together to enjoy each other's company. The only rules they have is that the load must be shared, and that you need to have responsibility for raising the children you create. He very much glosses over the problems such a group would have internally, but his point is that there are more ways in heaven and on earth than just two-by-two. He also makes the point that they had to move from one planet to an unsettled new planet in order to do it without being bugged to death.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see your argument as germane. Your disappointment in the way society has grown away from the tradition you hold dear is not an excuse to keep it from growing. Go cry in your soup, if that's necessary. Come back with a rational reason.

It happened with gay marriage, no doubt polygamy is next.
Click to expand...
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
I knew a number of people involved in triads, and they almost never work.

That said, couple marriages seem to be almost as fragile any more, so why not?
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "work", I suppose. Most relationships don't result in marriage, and the majority of marriages don't last "'til death do us part". Relationships are tough, and the more complex variations can be even tougher.

That said, there is an argument to be made that (healthy) polyamorous arrangements require open and honest communication on all parts. This can lead to very strong (and happy, and healthy) relationships.

(Not, of course, saying such situations are better than monogamy. "Better" is rather meaningless. Communication is the key, however you choose to go.)
 
More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?

("I am having such a rough time in my marriage. I know what will fix it! We'll take on another person! That will make things better! I just know it!")

And if both partners are already getting along, the best that they possibly can, how will bringing another person into the mix improve things?

("We get along so perfectly, so let's bring someone else into our perfection and make it even more perfect!")

Either way, it's like two people having a baby in an effort to make things better - it will either result in a bad situation becoming worse, or a good relationship between two people becoming all muddled up in the needs of the third.

Although I suppose it could work if there were a heirarchy of some kind in place, with the founding couple at the top, and every subsequent marriage partner taking on a progressively subservient role.

No thank you.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?

("I am having such a rough time in my marriage. I know what will fix it! We'll take on another person! That will make things better! I just know it!")

And if both partners are already getting along, the best that they possibly can, how will bringing another person into the mix improve things?

("We get along so perfectly, so let's bring someone else into our perfection and make it even more perfect!")

Either way, it's like two people having a baby in an effort to make things better - it will either result in a bad situation becoming worse, or a good relationship between two people becoming all muddled up in the needs of the third.

Although I suppose it could work if there were a heirarchy of some kind in place, with the founding couple at the top, and every subsequent marriage partner taking on a progressively subservient role.

No thank you.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying, but so be it. I'm not about to begin telling anyone they should or shouldn't do something like get married to multiple people or out of their race or within their own gender. People should be free to make their own mistakes/choices etc. As long as they are nice to me and love their family more power to them.
 
Certainly polyagamy is coming. Why wouldn’t it? Of course, it’s already here, but I mean that it will eventually receive some sort of official recognition. I doubt that it will look exactly like “marriage” today, and it will probably go by a different name, but I think there will be, within 20 years, some sort of official recognition of such a relationship.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Imagine a man who lives with two women. One of them is his legal wife, but all three of them are in a “triad” relationship. The three of them think of themselves as one big happy family. None of the parents of the officially married couple approve of their living conditions. The triad family is raising two children. One of them is the biological child of the man and his legal wife. The other is the biological child of the man and his “other wife”. The grandparents are concerned about the way their grandchild is being raised. The man and his wives are approximately 30. The children are approximately 6 years old. The parents of the man and wife are all between 50 and 60 years old. Other than their unorthodox lifestyle, they live normal lives, with no exceptional characteristics.

One day, a tragic automobile accident takes the life of the man and his legal wife. The “other wife” and the two children are unharmed. Assume that they were all happy, well adjusted people prior to the accident, and that the “other wife” is a perfectly capable mother who is also financially able to provide for two children.

Who ought to get custody of the child who was the biological child of the man and his legal wife?
 
The assumptions as to why you (3bodyproblem) think people who enter into a polyamorous relationships are not typical reasons people enter into one, though I am sure some people might do it for those reasons.
 
ziztur said:
The assumptions as to why you (3bodyproblem) think people who enter into a polyamorous relationships are not typical reasons people enter into one, though I am sure some people might do it for those reasons.
Click to expand...

Sorry ziz, I'm having trouble translating what you mean here? I think you're saying people enter into these relations for the wrong reasons, so maybe they should be stopped? (that's the general idea right?, I'm presenting a utopian ideal of why they do it?)

If I read you right, I guess my response is people enter into unions for various reasons. I'm not prepared to judge every single one on a case by case basis. If you want to publically declare your love for someone, fine, do it. All I expect is for you to keep to your promise and continue to do so. Don't expect special treatment from me, AFAIK you're expected to do this no matter what your preferences are.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
thats not a solution i think.

its not only about taxes, there are more important things, like who will get money and property in case of death who gets the kids etc.
Click to expand...

People who have property and kids can figure out a way to distribute it/them. It's not that hard, everybody should have a will. Property laws are already unfair polygamy doesn't do much either way in terms of fairness.

I don't think there is any good reason why polygamy should be illegal. To me it seems totally absurd that someone would go to jail for a life-style choice like this.

Tax benefits and property laws are not that difficult to apply to polygamous marriages.

If anyone wished they had further fuel to flame me, I don't think we should throw people in jail that have sex with animals or for marrying any one or any thing. :)
 
Fnord said:
More than two people in a marriage?

Why? :confused:

If a person can not get along with their current marriage partner, then how would adding a third person improve the situation?...
Click to expand...

People do all kinds of things I don't understand. But I consider other peoples' relationships none of my business. I wish everybody had the freedom to make lifestyle choices that fit them without having to worry about getting thrown in prison.
 
If polyamory is allowed, the only logical next step will be marrying babies and animals! :D
 
What would be a reasonable course of action in a country where, through selective abortion and infanticide, the men disproportionately outnumbered the women? Or women, the men?

If the best option is for a woman to take 2 or 3 husbands, because there simply aren't enough women to go around, would that make polyandry/gamy more acceptable?
 
slingblade said:
What would be a reasonable course of action in a country where, through selective abortion and infanticide, the men disproportionately outnumbered the women? Or women, the men?

If the best option is for a woman to take 2 or 3 husbands, because there simply aren't enough women to go around, would that make polyandry/gamy more acceptable?
Click to expand...

This is a good point, aren't China and Thailand on the verge of serious demographic crises?

I think it might be a better solution than alternatives (massive emigration etc), as long as the culture can adjust to a change like that.
 
Meadmaker said:
Who ought to get custody of the child who was the biological child of the man and his legal wife?
Click to expand...

Everyone in the relationship, regardless of biological-parent status, adopts all the children. They are everyone's children, and so the remaining spouse is left with his or her children, as it would be in any marriage.

What if the husband dies? Do the women find another mutual husband, or each take her own, splitting up the half-siblings?

If they all die, will the grandparents of each mother take that mother's child? Will one set of the three sets of grandparents take all the children? Will the kids go into the system and foster homes be found, or other relatives?
 
Toke said:
Will/contract?
Click to expand...

In a will, you can appoint a guardian, but you can't make it stick.

The grandparents would contest, and the "other wife" would have a hard case to make to say that she should be the guardian, as opposed to a relative.

Unless of course, she were a relative, but the only way to achieve that is some sort of marriage-like arrangement.

It's one of the major arguments for why same sex marriage is necessary. Two people raise a kid. One dies, and suddenly the kid doesn't pass to his "other mom", but to grandparents who never approved of the child's mother's lifestyle in the first place.

Polyamorous groups will start raising children together more frequently. As that happens, they'll need the protections associated with marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom