• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Multi-marriages

Term_the_Schmuck

Most Interesting Man on FAF
Cults are not 'the best' example. They're the most sensationalised example and that's a big difference. There are a wide diversity of plural relationships, so defining the policy on all of them for the extraneous nature of one type can only be short sighted.

You and Spatel seem to be having an issue understanding what I'm arguing. I'm not talking about "plural relationships" I'm specifically targeting polygamist marriages as a cultural institution. And by that standard, the most readily available example of such would be those marriages which have been brought on in cultures which allow them readily, thus Mormons and Muslims.

Examples of legal situations which are already conducive to plural relationships are national health systems, rather than company supported medical insurance aimed at the bread winners of nuclear families. [although it's important to stress national health systems exist for independantly justifiable reasons]
Polygamist relationships aren't necessarily about having 10 children per adult and sponging off the state; many monogmous couples do this anyway, why is it such a stretch of the imagination to posit that some plural relationships would still make use of family planning and not have a reduced ratio of bread winners?

Except you can't automatically assume that a national health care system will exist in a given nation which allows polygamist marriages, as is the case with the US. Therefore this becomes a huge issue and just because one is allowed doesn't mean that the other is sure to follow. Therefore I can only look at polygamist marriages with health insurance as it stands right now, which isn't good.

The five-plus number of kids in a family has steadily declined as women have taken a much larger role of independence within the family unit. When women are considered equal members of the family and not simply baby-making machines, you have a desire to have less children in the family to accommodate a working life style. Likewise, in a simpler time, children were seen as a potential labor to help around the house, farm land, etc. Now, with women having their first child at an average age of 25, families also tend to have less children, and for good reason. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that the cost of raising a child born in 2009 to age 18 is pushing $300,000, before of course making decisions on schooling, getting that child a car, etc. All of those statistics can be found in this USA Today article.

Where does that leave polygamist families? Well again what are we talking about for the make-up of the family? One-husband and many wives? Two-husbands and many wives? One wife and several husbands? Does each wife or husband get to have their own biological children? Who makes that call and how is it fair? Who's caring for them? Considering you're talking about a familial unit that is based around the idea of a "big family" I don't see why those partners would be happy with just one or two children between them all. And then of course the concepts of getting jobs becomes a problem. I'm in a family with four kids. My mother works part-time while my father is a full-time worker. When we were growing up, given my mother's job, she was always around. Would the same be true in a polygamist family? Would all of those mothers want to be around for their own kids, or do they get dumped on one or two mothers while the rest go to work in order to make more money? But in some cases you have to worry about making too much money, because that can affect your ability to get your kid a student loan for college for instance, or getting more heavily taxed, reducing again your expendable income.

The human condition isn't necessarily animalistic [accepting that we are animals] sexual equality and recognising homosexual couples existed is an example of the human condition being recognised in law for the benefit of a society. Development doesn't equate to suppressing our species' condition, in fact development is often about making the most of that condition so that societies are ergonomic. Saying 'you can't have both' is clearly black and white fallacy when the history of human development is spattered with examples of just that.

And again, the benefit to modern "developed" society is still up in the air. What of other parts of the human condition? Competition, jealousy, violence? Such things can be inherently tied to a polygamist culture as this study from the University of British Columbia-led study suggests. For disclosure, the main subject of this study again was a polygamist community, Bountiful in British Columbia headed by Mormons. Though I'm having a hard time seeing why the absence of a religious presence would drastically reduce issues within a polygamist family/community where gender equality isn't a given.

Suggesting that merely discussing plural marriages undermines the argument for gay marriages is a slippery-slope fallacy, which is an infantile mistake.

Which is great and all, but it's one of the very main reasons why people are so against gay marriages to begin with. Fallacy or not, it's something that's constantly brought up, and was recently brought up to Dan Savage in a debate he had with the director of I believe it was Focus on the Family (Savage's statement being that polygamists should fight their own battles and that he's against polygamist marriages). You yourself preferenced this thread by saying "since we're talking about that, why not this?" which yes, brings up the gay marriage debate as a means of discussing the possibility of polygamist marriages, which would technically be connected since a polygamist marriage would also be defined as three men or five women marrying each other for example.

You can't dismiss how a polygamy debate affects the debate on gay marriage simply by calling the suggestion a fallacy.

It isn't. There is a large polyamorous subculture that aligns with the queer community. Most poly people are straight, mind you. There have been studies on these as well.

http://ego.thechicagoschool.edu/s/8...at therapists should know about Polyamory.pdf

These are studies on the relationships themselves, yet I'm not seeing where this is coinciding with the issue of marriage and having multiple children between those partners. Again, my issues are concerning to the issue of marriage and not simply dating multiple people because "love". The title of the thread, unless my eyes are mistaken is "Multi-Marriages."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886910001674
This article contains a list of studies on infidelity that found different results, depending on the design of the study. All of them found big numbers though. 20-70% numbers. The kind of numbers that actually kind of disturb me as I didn't expect them to be that high.

What disturbs me is that there's a pretty big margin of error when your results are finding "anywhere between 20-70%". I don't know how that's supposed to be conclusive when your findings are that varied.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u2037170j3200754/
Here's another, with more statistics on lifetime infidelity rates.

Can't read it without buying it.




http://www.springerlink.com/content/416k61h463210m51/
11% of women and 15% of men report cheating in their current or most recent relationship on top of that. Scary part is that 50% of the time they didn't use protection during their most recent affair.

So it's a ballpark estimate, since this is a very difficult thing to measure, but 25% seems like an honest and perhaps even conservative estimate for lifetime incidence of infidelity based on studies that have occurred.

So what you're saying is I have a better chance of being in serious car accident in my lifetime (30% according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) than either engaging or having my partner engage in some form of infidelity. Not too shabby.

If you have anything empirical to back up your opinion that someone in a long-term relationship with two people is at a higher risk of STDs than your suggestion of engaging in serial monogamy instead, feel free to share it.

Who says it's being limited to only two people? I believe the prefix "poly-" refers to "multiple". Which means when considering polygamist marriages you're open to the possibility of more people joining in the relationship at any time. And since it's generally accepted that having multiple sexual partners increases the risk of STD transmission, if one person in a polygamist marriage engages with someone they may be dating and then has sex with the individuals they're married to, it just becomes a matter of connecting the dots.

But if you want empirical studies on STDs among multiple partners, here you go.

Now of course with cheating and infidelity present among monogamous couples, they too are at risk, according to what you're saying, at the rate of possibly 25% if they have sexual intercourse with their partner who's cheated. Unless you can give me a study that says most poly-relationships are limited to three partners, I have to assume you're still dealing with individuals who are having multiple partners, even if they're in committed relationships. Whether or not they know about who's fucking who doesn't really help the issue of someone lying about their health or necessarily little details like having unprotected sex.

Given the statistics on cheating that I've posted, it means that the likelihood of someone cheating on you in any of your monogamous relationships and never telling you about it, and not using protection for their affairs approaches 100% after you have a certain number of relationships. You have no way of knowing who is cheating and you cannot prepare yourself for the ramifications of that. People in a polyamorous relationship have no incentive to hide their escapades, and by knowing what everyone else in the relationship is doing, they can protect themselves better.

This isn't a slippery slope I'm worried about. The arguments in favor of legal recognition for poly couples are straightforward and one-sided if you actually know them. My aim is to eliminate all financial benefits for marriage, but allow legal recognition of unions for child guardianship purposes, consent for medical procedures, and all the other non-fiscal tools conveyed to married couples, as well as eliminating legal discrimination that exists for non-traditional relationships. If you want to give parents a financial cushion to help them raise children, that's fine. But only do it for guardians who have dependents on their tax form. Otherwise you're discriminating against single parents and giving childless couples a bonus they really don't need.

Childless couples already don't get the same kinds of benefits from their taxes as those couples that do for that very reason of not having any dependents aside from their spouse. They also don't have to worry about financial issues such as raising a child. The two tend to go together, if you've ever filled out a W-4 or filed your own taxes.

Also, WTF is your stance? On one hand, you're saying NO FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR MARRIAGES then turn around and say that guardians should get credited for dependents on their tax forms. You do realize that most of the benefits of filing jointly on your taxes as a married couple are tied directly to the Child Tax Credit, Child and Dependent Care Credit, Student Loan Interest Deduction, and pretty much anything related to a child's eduction right? The only other benefits you receive from filing jointly are Earned Income Credit which isn't limited to married couples and has more to do with low-income individuals, Elderly and Disabled Credit which again isn't specifically tied to married couples, and Adjusted Gross Income which just means that both partners in the household have to pull together their income and deductions when filing jointly, which leads to why some people suggest filing separately in a no-child household since then you may become liable for your spouse not giving you the correct information when filing your taxes.

All other benefits received from being married are carried out by PRIVATE institutions which can make up whatever policies they want. These include cell phone providers, insurance companies, banks, and credit card companies. So what right do you have to eliminate a business policy that a private company puts forth for those couples?

Openly polyamorous couples face legal discrimination in the form of anti-infidelity laws that are on the books in many states. They can literally be prosecuted for committing consensual sex acts within their relationship. Courts have forcibly removed children from polyamorous households that had no other problems. See the Divilbiss case - 1998 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlfst8&div=33&g_sent=1&collection=journals

Those adultery cases are rarely prosecuted and it's a very difficult law to enforce regardless of state when you're dealing with an average couple as opposed to say a community of people, hence why most of those cases you hear about are of religious communities and not 20 other Divilbliss cases, which as you should note ended when April Divilbliss gave up her child when she admitted the reason behind her parents wanting custody of it were because she couldn't adequately provide for the child which you can read here. Should it be abolished, absolutely. But again it's not something which happens ALL THE TIME.

I'm not going to be here this weekend, but I will be back to expand on this a lot more, whether or not you respond to it. I feel like I have much more to talk about, and this is just a collection of disorganized responses to some of your arguments. I want to lay down the case for polyamory in greater detail. It is a rather long argument and this post is already too long to be interesting. I eagerly look forward to seeing if you can conjure some kind of counterargument to the viability of polyamorous relationships that isn't based on appeals to tradition or your own personal shortcomings or anecdotes in the subject, or using polygamous cults as some kind of strawman. I'm skeptical that you can.

So why are we suddenly making this personal by mentioning "your own personal shortcomings?" Cripes, get over it, we have differing opinions on the subject.
 

Dj_whoohoo

Member
I'm all for it... If you can deal with keeping up with all those women/men/both and have time to yourself and not stress it, then good on ya
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
[Technically mormons don't allow plural marriages, since their prophet had a 'revelation from god' shortly after the US government established Utah and said they couldn't do it. But I'm guessing they simply bypass the law- which does raise the question what the function of the current law is if it doesn't prevent the culturally weird unions you're so set against]
When considering plural marriage as a legal institution extrapolating from tiny minorities living in different cultures, like bedouin arabs, isn't a good idea, because several other cultural variables are blurred into the mix, distorting the picture. Instead the capacitance for choice, consent and responsibility of all people should be considered, a hareem living in an underground breeding compound in south-western russia probably has a pretty awful experience, but to forbid polygamy because of those individual's experiences misrepresents the situation. It would be comparable to out-lawing underground buildings on the same grounds.

It's important to stress that extra questions and choices for polygamous families are their own responsibility, and nobody's going to be able to provide any generalising answers with concrete certainty. Questions like 'can we afford children', 'how many children should we have,' and 'should I work or should my spous do the breadwinning,' are common to all familial relationships, not just plural ones, and it's not exactly fair to presume that these questions should provide legitimate cause to dismantle a plural legal union by thinking for example that plural relationships will have extremely high child to adult ratios.

Giving people the capacity to decide to be in a plural relationship, and shoulder that responsibility if they desire, does not necessitate that these relationships are entirely peachy, and studying to isolated groups with weird cultures is as I've stated many times, not an honest control. People can love more than one person, that's a reality of the human condition, and unlike other aspects, such as a tendency toward violence, it's not intrinsically destructive so consenting people should have the right to declare that love and relationship legally as much as any other union does.

When a fallacy is brought up the response should be to explain it is a fallacy, not to distort or censor the discussion of other areas. By exchanging the variables the nature of the fallacy is exposed: If you ask 'Is newton wrong?', and the general response is 'if we discuss this we might find out general relativity is also wrong, therefore we should discuss neither,' the ignorant nature of the slipperly slope is exposed: opening up new areas of discussion should be welcomed, not used as an excuse to close off debate entirely.
So when people assert 'if x then why not x then y!?' a fitting response would be to explain the fallacy, but the true irony is proposed when y is subjective.
 

CaptainCool

Lady of the lake
It works for many people. And just like I don't see any secular reasons for banning same sex marriage I don't see any secular reasons to ban "multi-marriages".
I probably wouldn't want to be in a relationship like that myself but I am most definitely not against it! I simply think that it is silly to limit love with all sorts of outdated laws or based on religions.

But just think about it! Twice the wives also means twice the sandwiches! :D
 

Evan of Phrygia

WwwHhAaaAaTtTttTttTtT
Where does that leave polygamist families? Well again what are we talking about for the make-up of the family? One-husband and many wives? Two-husbands and many wives? One wife and several husbands? Does each wife or husband get to have their own biological children? Who makes that call and how is it fair? Who's caring for them? Considering you're talking about a familial unit that is based around the idea of a "big family" I don't see why those partners would be happy with just one or two children between them all. And then of course the concepts of getting jobs becomes a problem. I'm in a family with four kids. My mother works part-time while my father is a full-time worker. When we were growing up, given my mother's job, she was always around. Would the same be true in a polygamist family? Would all of those mothers want to be around for their own kids, or do they get dumped on one or two mothers while the rest go to work in order to make more money? But in some cases you have to worry about making too much money, because that can affect your ability to get your kid a student loan for college for instance, or getting more heavily taxed, reducing again your expendable income.
See, I don't think this is really an argument that holds ground when you think about how your very first point is giving ground to the concept of variables. When it comes to child desires, despite the addition of one or two more people with their own opinions on the topic, it is still very much possible that children aren't desired at all. that relationship is then set down to taking care of legal finances of the marriage, finances of properly sized housing, and then establishing work, and intimacy decisions which you mentioned as a valid point. This is still a lot, but these concerns are still apparent in a monogamous marriage save the intimacy. If they have a way of being able to accept those possible conflicts in intimacy, and there isn't a sense of favouritism, then they've built a healthy multiperson relationship.

Obviously, I'm not going to call variables and argue your entire point on polygamous setbacks and such. Just that perhaps not every form of polygamy is impossible to succeed with.
So why are we suddenly making this personal by mentioning "your own personal shortcomings?" Cripes, get over it, we have differing opinions on the subject.
Well, this seems extremely brazen, somewhat missing his intent honestly. This paragraph seems to be constructed on the notion of looking forward to having a true argument, not to belittling you. Yes, there's clear hints of vice ladled throughout his writing, however he does have a point, and he summarized your multiple counterarguments rather easily.

And it's interesting that you pull that one from his paragraph when you've been referencing your own family often in your argument. I think you misinterpreted him to be talking about himself when you say that as far as I can tell.

But really, though. He's not making it personal and your response gives a sense of relative disgust/personal offense.
 
Top