Gay marriage, yes. Legalized polyamory, no.

[elfs]

Oh, good. Jonathan Rauch has finally written a response to Stanley Kurtz's argument that if we extend marriage rights to homosexuals, we have no social-policy grounds under which to deny them to polyamorists. Rauch's argument is compelling and echoes my own: indeed, he uses the same material I did last year, adding to it more recent examples from the current Chinese experience.

The argument is a simple one: if you grant legal recognition to polyamorous households, then the ones to take the most advantange of the system will not be liberal SF-con-going women with two husbands but rabidly Christian and Mormon harem-collectors. Households with a surfeit of wives will easily outnumber households with multiple husbands. We don't live in a perfect world, and there's not much we can do to change human nature such as it is. In our world, the one where policy writers have to live, if you grant legal recognition and the transfer of marriage rights to polyamorous households, you will soon arrive at a state where you have a large underclass of men who have no chance to marry.

History records no state that was not monagamous that succeeded as a liberal democracy. Rauch misses making an important point: polygamy is a powerful tool for conservative *women*; with more than one woman in the household, they can exert more influence over the man (provided, of course, that the women all have a common agenda), and women will have the power to "marry up" into high-status households. I think that's a point worth holding onto: in a society where polyamory in the norm, you'll have a group of women who are monogamous precisely because they can't marry up. Polygamy leads to a stratification based upon criteria liberal democracies don't want to face.

But the point inevitably comes back to the real world argument that legalized polyamory would benefit households with many wives, and those with many husbands would be rare. In such a world, there would be a class of subalterns, subordinate men with no hope of ever enjoying the stabilizing effects of marriage. Rauch concludes:

Polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it.

Comments

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

I think there's a factor that argument doesn't take into consideration: if we start having a group of women who weren't able to marry into high-status polygynous households and a larger group of men who don't have wives because so many women went to polygynous marriages, sooner or later they're going to start figuring out that unless they're all stuck in "do you want fries with that" jobs, creating a marriage/household with multiple wage-earning males will create a high-status household even if the wife chooses a traditional stay-at-home role, because they will have a significantly higher household income and fewer children to support than polygynous households where one husband is supporting several wives and all their children.

I suspect this didn't occur to Rauch, possibly because he's working from the assumption that most males are fundamentally unwilling/incapable of sharing a woman and being happy at the same time.

[kengr]

He's also thinking that one is either gay and going to want to marry a member of the same sex, or straight, and going to marry a member of the opposite sex.

If gay marriage is legal *and* polygamy is legal, then it's quite likely that a fair number of men will be bi and thus decide to marry other men if there aren't enough women.

That could have important effects on the situation.

[talek.livejournal.com]

I never quite realized that bisexuality was so conditional on the state of the legal system. My gosh, everyone has been wrong: not only is it not mental illness nor intrinsic disposition... it's just an politico-economic choice!

Thank goodness there are so many men who care more about legality than whether they are drawn to or care about their partners.

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

The gender of the partners bisexual people choose is driven by opportunity. (Well, the partners any of us choose are driven by opportunity to some extent..but I mean the *gender* of the partners in this case.) I'm bi, and missing grrl energy a lot, but it's much easier to meet men in our society, and queer women seem less open to poly bi grrls. That translates to a boyfriend, but no girlfriend, currently.

Those are social (some might well say political) issues not having anything to do with my internal desires.

[talek.livejournal.com]

I agree that if the laws are changed, then those people who are bi may have more varied relationships.

What I objected to was the statement "If gay marriage is legal *and* polygamy is legal, then it's quite likely that a fair number of men will be bi"... as if the people's sexual orientation was based upon the law, instead of their expression of their sexuality being based on the law. I see no reason to believe (and very significant reason not to believe) that if the law changes, a bunch of guys will suddenly become bi. In fact, I find such a suggestion to be very derogatory to those of us who are bi, along the lines of saying "oh, he's bi... he must not have been able to find what he was really looking for, and so took anything he could get".

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

I suspect in this venue, that's more an issue of grammar than intention.

Given these changes, I suspect more men would realize and act on their inhernet bisexuality. How about that? I get your point - just think this group is mostly the choir.

[talek.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it is just grammar... but even so, there's a problem:

I'll grant that more men might act on their inherent bisexuality (or homosexuality) if there were legal recognition for long-term commitment... but I cannot respect such men, and devoutly hope that I don't know many. If someone is unwilling to express perfectly legal (in this state, at least) interest or affection simply because someday later, there might be a bit of hassle when some financial (or POA-related) problem came up, then I'm not really interested in knowing this incredibly repressed person.

As for realization... anyone who doesn't see the implications of finding people of either gender sexually attractive (regardless of activity or law) is again too self-deluded for me to be interested in knowing.

Of the population that I could respect, I don't think a change in the law will create a significant change in what relationships exist... and I'm not so pessimistic as to assert that a large fraction of the actual population is unworthy of my respect on this single issue.

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

but I cannot respect such men

You're missing my basic point. *I* am bisexual. I have been seriously involved with both men and women and lean, if anything, towards women.

However, my only serious current relationship is with a man because various social and political forces make it a lot easier to meet a man who meshes with my life. I expect eventually I'll meet such a gal, but it seems to be *harder* as many of the women I meet either already have primary males in their life, or are queer and uninterested in a bi/poly grrl.

In other words, even when we are actualized as bisexual, who we actually wind up forming our networks with is largely a matter of opportunity with some luck thrown in.

As for realization... anyone who doesn't see the implications of finding people of either gender sexually attractive (regardless of activity or law) is again too self-deluded for me to be interested in knowing.

Ah - well then. I take it you started dating both genders early? I was less enlightened - wasn't until my twenties that I figured out I was bi, and another half decade before I had my second chance to do something about it. Some folks take even longer simply because society makes it harder to connect with other queers until you know you're queer. (And even after, unless you're somewhat isolationist.)

[kengr]

It's a *fact* that when there aren't women around many men *will* turn to other men for sex. Prisons and navy in the days of sailing ships are classic examples.

The fact that most didn't consider themselves gay or bi is *their* problem, as will as social "conditioning".

My point was that postulatinmg the legality of *both* gay marriage and polygamous marriage, the shortage of women would result in some (porobably large) number of men who would ordinarily have married women marrying other men.

Whether you respect such people opr not is irrelevant and immaterial.

[talek.livejournal.com]

It is pleasant to think that when someone who has sex with another, they will inevitably seek marriage with that person if such is lawful. I don't see any basis for this assertion.

However, who said there wouldn't be women around? We're not talking about segregating society; the barflies and whores will still be present.

Further, the unlawfulness of the homosexual encounters that you cite (sodomy was against the law in many of those navies) doesn't seem to have kept the encounters from occurring... which makes me question even more why some people suspect that the marriage laws (which, we should note, do not preclude people from spending their lives together) are having a huge inhibitive effect.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

The problem with your scenario is that it's predicated upon the notion of situational homosexuality. Situational homosexuality only happens in total institutions: prison, for example, and on the high seas for months at a time. Situational homosexuality does not happen among otherwise straight men when women are, if not available to the individual, are nonetheless within reach.

China is about to learn this lesson the hard way, since they have a sex ration of 117 men for every 100 women. Right now that means that out of a billion people, they have 60 million men who right now have absolutely zero chance of gaining a wife, in a culture that values marriage more than ours. These men aren't in total institutions: they're walking the streets where women are within reach and, forgive me for saying so, but human nature being what it is the future for those women looks about as bleak as it does for those 60 million men.

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

I wish I thought you were joking.

To argue against polygamous marriage because it would most benefit conservative groups is no different than arguing against same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Both are attempts to manipulate politics to cause society to conform to one's moral views.

Further, there is an inherent assumption that the primary configuration will be men who accumulate women. This does not seem born out *outside* the conservative religious groups you mention, and since those groups do not exist in isolation, I suspect any real surplus of men with no chance to marry would be found to defect rather rapidly. I suspect Mormons, for example, would find a need to manage this situation, or see an exodus of their labour force - young men.

For women outside that group, I see the formation of more egalitarian relationships with multiple males as rather likely, which would *reduce* the surplus of completely unmated males.

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

I suspect Mormons, for example, would find a need to manage this situation, or see an exodus of their labour force - young men.

Not to mention the fact that the Mormon church is supported in large part by tithing, and if a high percentage of their wage-earning members leave, it's really going to hit the church where it hurts.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing against polygamy on the grounds that it would most benefit conservative groups; I'm arguing against polygamy on the grounds that conservative groups not interested in the well-being women would be the most populous to take advantage of it, and in doing so we condemn a large group of men to a future, as the Mormons well know now, of "hunger, homelessness, and homesickness, and most cripplingly, a belief in a future of suffering and darkness."

The Mormon Fundamentalists don't care about their labor force: they forcibly eject their young men. Monopolizing the reproductive years of women is more important to them than having a brawny labor force, and this has only become more true the more industrialized farming has become.

In fact, I'll make a provocative statement: This is already happening. We don't call it polygamy, but serial monogamy. Outside of our smug, insular oh-so-Northwest sensible community, men marry for youth and prettiness, and women marry for money and security. Not all the time, and possibly not even deliberately, but often enough and carelessly enough, that we do have populations of older women and younger men who, for all our wishing, aren't going to get together to keep each other happy: instead, they face a future of loneliness.

I don't believe the blank slate theory. (If I did, I'd have to also conclude that homosexuality is a choice and/or a "cureable condition.") Men and women are built fundamentally differently, and the average behavior patterns of those two groups circle around fundamentally different ways of looking at and reacting to the world. Our society is structured as a consequence of that difference much more than it is a cause of that difference.

As long as public policy is going to extend privileges to some groups of people, it must do so with an eye toward the consequences of doing so: same-sex marriage would bring people into a communal fold that they have long been denied; legalizing polygamy would not. At best, it would make the current situation no better; at worst, it would do one heck of a lot of damage.

[mothball-07.livejournal.com]

I'm arguing against polygamy on the grounds that conservative groups not interested in the well-being women would be the most populous to take advantage of it, and in doing so we condemn a large group of men to ..

You yourself state that many of those young men *already* leave Mormon circles. If this is the case then they are *not* doomed to bleak futures. They are likely to marry women from other backgrounds. Yes, perhaps this removes from the overall pool of women, but as stated previously, I believe other forces will balance there.

Re. serial monogamy, I see this as an argument *for* poly marriage. The vast majority of divorces contain an element of wanting a new mate, but no accepted social mechanism for taking one on. I believe that were polyamory socially accepted (which is a clear effect of legalization) we'd see divorce drop *dramatically.*

Further, we'd see populations such as older women (the group traditionally most alone due to the unbalanced death rate and marriage-age shift) banding together to share available men and resources.

I suspect we'd also see younger couples forming aliances for raising children. The truth is, there are many advantages for families with young children to have more than two available parents.

Personally, I think any move from strict family-structure rules to a more flexible set of options will benefit everyone, and most of all those with the least power as they pool resources.

Very wealthy men already can, and do, lock up multiple women's interests. Social acceptance would put these options within reach of *more* people, and especially those with less power : women, and younger less established men.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

You yourself state that many of those young men *already* leave Mormon circles.

I did not say that: I said those men have been expelled from the Fundamentalist Mormon compounds (in at least two cases, whole farming towns), dumped on the streets of more mainstream Mormon communities. These young men want desperately to get back to the life they know, the only life they have ever known. Imagine being told by the rebbe: "Leave and never again darken our door." I imagine you could take it, you're a tough person, but not everyone can. The rehabilitation of these young men is long, intensive, and expensive.

In any event, I don't see a single example of the kind of social experiment you're proposing actually working, and those societies where polygamy has been legal are all less liberal and less democratic than ours

[velvet-wood.livejournal.com]

Tibet, traditionally, has been very sexually liberal, with a cultural meme of 'Free Love', and a strong tendancy towards polygamy. I'm not sure about the gov't, type, but as they've been pretty much owned by China for a long time, I doubt it's democratic, but I don't honestly see that it matters. Democracy doesn't automatically equal sexual freedom. Or personal freedom of any kind. That's rather obvious these days.

And you're missing one very important point. The conservative christians that you see benefitting from legal polygamy are _already_ doing it. They are, in fact, doing it quite frequently with underage female 'partners', often closely related, who it would still be illegal for them to 'marry'. Their lifestyle wouldn't change a bit. Their 'marriages' are often non-consensual affairs and, as such, shouldn't be legal anyway. If they are fully consensual then there's no reason not to recognize them. They're _already_ living that way. Making it legal would change nothing at all. People who are _not_ religious fanatics and who might benefit from it are as likely to have MFM triads as MFF. Or MMM. Or FFF. The thing is, _NONE_ of that affects how many available women are out there. People are already living as they choose. It's just not _legally_ recognized. The lack of that legal recognition, when it _is_ granted to MF monogamous couples, is discrimination, and as such is potentially harmful to our society.

What really bothers me, though, is that the argument of "Men won't get wives and will be left out!" could as easily be used against lesbianism. After all, that takes two women out of the pool for those poor young men, so it's just as bad, right?

Arguing against greater freedom because the 'wrong' people will use it is simply messed up, sorry. And saying it can't work because it's never worked is not only defeatist, it's illogical. A society like ours has never existed before. So, of course, a society like ours has never tried free and open marriage laws before. The experiences of societies _unlike_ ours are completely irrelevant.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Arguing against greater freedom because the 'wrong' people will use it is simply messed up, sorry.

Ah, but that's not what I'm arguing. I never referred to them as the "wrong" kind of people: I simply said that if you removed the social and legal barriers to polygamy, you would see polygyny exercised far more frequently that polyandry, and the consequences of our doing so would be vast and devastating. There have been thousands of polygynous societies throughout history and, what, 3 polyandrous ones? I think that says a lot right there about human behavior.

[velvet-wood.livejournal.com]

How can the consequences be vast and devestating if nothing changes? All that it would likely do is recognize relationships already in place, or that would already take place. Our society is not going to change overnight into one where just any woman is going to accept being one of a herd. The people who would practice polygyny in a potentially harmful way _are already doing so_, for the most part, and the harmful aspects of it would be no more legal with the potential legalization of consensual, adult polygamy than they are now. Mormons aside, the rest of the population forms their relationships as they want, and the _only_ proposed change is legal recognition of those relationships. Whether, a hundred years from now, polygynous, polyandrous, or huge conglomerate marriages will increase in popularity _cannot_ be predicted. Certainly more _currently existing_ polygynous than other poly relationships would file for recognition, but there's no reason to assume they would become any more popular than they are now. It could very well go the other way. Women could see having two husbands as the solution to needing two incomse _AND_ a full-time stay-at-home parent to raise kids. Men could decide they enjoy the comraderie of having a 'brother' in the house to do those manly macho things while the wife's out shopping... and the more chauvinist males may be won over by having someone to share their wife's shopping bills. Who knows? It is _not_ predictable, because this society is _not_ gender-biased. (caveat: yes, I realize that practically, it still is, slightly. However, legally, it's not, and society is pushing towards equality slowly but surely. The hardcore chauvinist is rapidly becoming a thing of the past... something to point to in amused horror, rather than a feature of the landscape)Or the tendancy of young couples to do things in MF-MF foursomes might evolve into solid quads. Who knows? There's no way to tell because it would be a unique society.

As I said, history cannot predict what a free and democratic society, in which women hold equal status to men, including the equal rights in shaping the laws of the society, will make of polygamy. It hasn't ever been tried in a society like that. Using societies in which women were subjugated and treated as property to say "Polygamy is bad" is as non-sensical as people claiming video games are evil because way back before video games were invented we didn't have drug wars. It's mistaking correlation for causation. The past should teach us... it shouldn't _limit_ us.

[mundens.livejournal.com]

The solution to the problem is actualy to remove all statutes related to marriage of any sort. The state has no busines regulating marriage or relationships.

The only reason for a legal framework for relationships is to handle financial obligations related to such relationships. These can easily be handled under existing contract law covering partnerships.

If people do not wish to enter such a contract they should not be protected by law. caveat emptor, as it were.

If the simplest option above can not be implemented, then the state has a moral obligation to treat all relationships equally.

The argunments given against support for multiple partmer mariages seem irrelevant. So what if rich men have harems? Rich women will have harems too.

If people want to enter such relationships why should the state stop them? The argument implies the reason is purely because some men won't get partners. So what? Many men don't get partners now.

If this is considered a problem, consider adding education to the standard school curriculum on making men good partners, most of them are crap at it now so it's no wonder they won't get partners. Or start supporting other forms of relationships for unmaarried men.

Without the ability to legally marry many people, your "harem bulders" just build harems in which the members of the harem have no legal protection (unless the members are smart enough to demand a contract).

What evidence is there that introducing support under exisiting marriage law for group marriages will actualy result in more harems than there are now? I don't see any given.

It will merely automatically extend legal protection to members of harems if they actually marry the partner building the harem

Anyway, at present there are actually more females in the age groups between 25 and 45, which is resulting in many women "marrying down", in other words choosing partners from lower socio-ceconomic groups and IQ levels because there are not enogh men available who match them!

A possible solution to the proposed "men don't get enough partners" problem would be to remove "adultery" as a valid reaosn to anull a marriage. The law should not support a person controlling the sexualty of another with the threat of financial retribution via divorce. Thats the realm of individual agreements not the state.

That way, the men who build harems would have to accept that their partners will be having relationships with other men, as there's no way a harem builder can satisfy all members of the harem anyway.

BTW, I am in a polyamorous relationship where one woman has three partners, two male and one female, and I find it hard to satisfy her! :)

Frankly, I don't give a damn about marriage laws, as I'm not going to get married again. I will happily sign a contract with a lover covering distribution of assets and financial responsibilities if we get into that situation, but I won't be marrying anyone.

[hastings1066.livejournal.com]

In general I agree with your points, however, a few comments.
Partnership law is really ugly, and much of it is only enforceable in the state of creation, and doesn't protect yourself in the case of liability suits, and many other things. I think that if a polyamorous configuration that is stable enough to enter into such an agreement would need to incorporate to create a sufficient shield to protect the entire family unit from the actions of 1, and also against the state.

Also, in the case of paternity and custody, partnerships again fail here, but I believe corporations do not have provisions for this either (IANAL, however). The kin/guardian/relative wording is integrated throughout tax, medical, liability, estate, grant, and other law sets that you need a lightning rod that will allow that to be set and unset by contract (which is currently only alluded to in states that support "civil unions" and not really tested or fully determined). Until you can set that to whomever(s) you want, there will be a fundamental failure in establishing a partnership/corporation/family contract that is strong enough to protect everyone and do what the intent is.

Yes, the idea of removing the idea of a "default relationship configuration" may do the same thing, but people like having titles (husband, wife, SO, life partner, that which I shall worship other than myself, etc) and they like simple. Contracts that are binding are not simple (hell, my MSA was 16 pages in small print, and it was amicable no-fault and done together with my ex and the same lawyer), and if you are trying to create a contract that takes the brunt of all the law types I listed, all you are doing is requiring that one person in your poly configuration be a contracts lawyer. Until we figure out how to make things "simple" we need to figure out how to redefine certain words that are used everywhere (spouse, next of kin, etc) to be something else but just as legal and binding. Then after that, you can start to change the myriad of laws and entire titles of law that would need to be changed, ratified, challenged and accepted.

These changes would affect domestic partnerships, civil unions, marriages [sic], adoption, and custody. But more importantly, it is a direct challenge to state's rights (which is always fought in the US Supreme Court and therefore time-consuming). Corporation law has to hold up to interstate commerce laws, which are all Federal. If you use this, rather than partnership/marriage/etc laws that tend to be state only, you start where the problem is (as you said, mainly financial), and work toward a freestanding family that are citizens of the US first and state citizens second, you can get much more protection for a family than you can at the state and local level. But in parallel, you need to fix the state level, but first you say nice doggie, *while* you find a big stick ;)

And look who is verbose instead of getting work done *P

[mundens.livejournal.com]

Just a quick response.

I have to admit I only know local (New Zealand) contract and partnership law, which covers the whole country, and is actually quite simple (at least in the basic case), in that there is a default contract that is assumed if no other contract is drawn up.

Contract law using the default contract in New Zealand is automatically applied to any business operation, even if there is no signature or specific document. A verbal agreement, or an implied contract, such as the exchange of money for goods, is enough to bring the default contract into play.

The real complexity is when a specific contract is drawn up because no such contract may break any other law, and there are certain entitlements that one cannot sign away under contract (in employment contracts one cannot sign away the minimum holiday period, for instance), and any such contract becomes unenforceable if they contain such illegal clauses.

As one might imagine this becomes a common tactic for the less than ethical who think they may want to break a contract, they build ina clause that deliberately violates law, thus making the contract itself illegal and unenforceable.

Similarly if no specific partnership agreeement is drawn up and signed, a default partnerhip agreement is applied when a partnership is formed.

(At least that's how I understood it from the brief training I was given, and IANAL also.)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

The solution to the problem is actualy to remove all statutes related to marriage of any sort. The state has no busines regulating marriage or relationships. : :

[Remainder snipped]

Here Here!

Many of you might be interested to know: Most marriages prior to the 20th century were what we now call "commonlaw." In N. America, an itinerate preacher may not be in your neck of the woods for a year or two. In Europe, you couldn't afford to pay the church for the wedding service … unless, of course, you were wealthy.

Our modern marriage custom is nothing more than mimicry of the behavior of the Elites of the Victorian Era.

Get the State out of people's private lives, and make the legal mingling of finances, and the legal rights and responsibilities of parenting, clear, explicit, and up-front.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

Besides the counterarguments other commenters have left, this argument assumes that making polyamorous marriage legal means that a very large proportion of the population will do it. I don't think this is true, any more than making gay marriage legal means that suddenly a lot of people will turn gay.

[rarkrarkrark.livejournal.com]

AFAIK history records no non-monogamous state that *attempted* to be a liberal democracy. I would think this would have an effect on the number of sucessful attempts.

Women's lib has already caused a somewhat related problem -- a man with a higher powered, higher paid job is more likely to marry a woman with similar, and a woman with such is more likely to marry a man with similar, particularly if they are going to be a two-income family. This has helped increase the gap between the haves and have nots. However, I would consider this a lousy argument against women's lib.

Outside of extremely conservative spaces, however, I don't think the polymarriage==polygamy thing would hold. First, because monogamy is so very rooted in our culture that even if it became legally approved tomorrow, the number of people who would go from monogamous to poly is so small as to be ignorable and because women who have grown up in a more egalitarian (not necessarily egalitarian, just more so than Mormon culture, which is not hard to do) wouldn't put up with the idea that they should marry into a higher status family rather than making their own family a higher status family. The 'women can control the man' argument only really holds water in a society where women do not hold any power, cannot vote, etc. Things aren't equal here, in the U.S., now, but they are considerably better than that.

You might be interested in the second half of this (http://rarkrarkrark.livejournal.com/19585.html) as an alternative to the marriage question altogether.

[gromm.livejournal.com]

This is a very important point of fact. There has never been a society where women were afforded so much legal, social, and political power. Many if not all previous societies that allowed polymarriage had no rights for women, so of course the examples we have to draw upon are entirely male-centered.

With this in mind, and women and men free to do whatever they please with regards to marriage, I don't think anyone could actually predict what might come of that. Divorce law would most certainly become infinitely more complicated however.

Eh?

[(Anonymous)]

The legalization of polyamory would not transform the majority of the population into polyamorists, any more than the legalization of same-sex marriage would make everyone gay. Being in a polyamorous relationship takes a lot of effort, even more than monogamy with a single partner... even if a majority tried it, it is doubtful that a majority would stick with it.

I do think there are sound reasons for forming households with multiple adults - the continuous presence of child (and/or elderly) care, redundancy of income sources, multiple hands to get the chores done, multiple minds to apply to problem-solving, etc. - but those were addressed by extended families centuries ago. I consider the "nuclear family" (one wife, one husband, 3.2 children) to be a temporary anomaly, a consequence of we Americans having lots of land to spread out into, and motivation for doing so. Extend families, particularly in a time when multiple wage-earners are needed, make more sense... but the transition back to that won't be easy.

Also, the fact that some would abuse the institution is no grounds for barring everyone from it. If your concern is "rabidly Christian and Mormon harem-collectors", then why not address that, rather than stop everyone who wants to from being poly?

Re: Eh?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

If your concern is "rabidly Christian and Mormon harem-collectors", then why not address that, rather than stop everyone who wants to from being poly?

I don't want to stop everyone who wants to be poly. Far from it; I'm simply saying that if you provide legal incentives for polygamy, you'd better be ready for the consequences and so far, nobody has presented a reasonably coherent argument stating that sanctioned polygamy would have a better cost-benefit over monogamy. If the net change is, at best, not a whole hell of a lot, and the net cost is a massive increase in the burden presented to the legal system, then the argument comes down to "I want it because it would benefit me."

And secondly, how would you write the law such that you give benefit to your tribe while at the same time holding back the Christian, Mormon, and Muslims who would "abuse the institution," as you put it?

[(Anonymous)]

www.sexeditorials.com
They have a page suggesting that men are mostly homosexual and heteroromantic (like women for relationships but favour men for pure sex). Not sure if I agree.

There's also a major point you guys missed, you're assuming that marriage has only one person on one of the gender sides. I could imagine a situation where there are maybe multiple husbands married to multiple wives.

As for what I think, I personally wouldn't be overly interested in sharing a woman... but that's just me. Maybe it's social conditioning or romanticism, but I want one person I can connect with and I wouldn't go looking anywhere else if I had that.