Comments on: If Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:03:43 +0000

The beauty of a marriage of two is that it leaves you, emotionally and legally, as the single most important person in someone’s life. That is not assured in a multiple-marriage.

And it is one of the cruelest aspects of a moral or legal code that seeks to diminish or deny same-sex relationships.

By: Eric in Oakland

Eric in Oakland — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 06:05:26 +0000

In addition to Regan’s excellent points, polygamy also poses a problem regarding marital obligations. One of the purposes of marriage is that it designates someone as being responsible for your care and able to make decisions on your behalf, should you become incapacitated. When the responsibility is shared between multiple spouses, it becomes more tenuous and fallible – easier for one spouse to ignore responsibilities because other spouses are also responsible. Furthermore, what happens if you are incapacitated and your spouses disagree on medical decisions for you? And which of your spouses is next of kin?

And if polygamy were recognized, what effect would it have on laws against bigamy?

By: Hal 9000

Hal 9000 — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:34:30 +0000

Although I am a supercomputer, I will leave it to others to work out the Thanksgiving seating arrangements and assorted baby-sitting scenarios.

By: Hal 9000

Hal 9000 — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:27:38 +0000

A complex, egalitarian relationship group of, let’s say, five, contains the following possible relationships:

Dyads (“couples” has too much monogamous baggage):

Alphonse and Beryl
Carla and Deirdre
Edward and Alphonse
Alphonse and Carla
Alphonse and Deirdre
Beryl and Carla
Beryl and Deirdre
Beryl and Edward
Carla and Deirdre
Carla and Edward
Edward and Deirdre

Triads (I’d say threesomes, but it sounds a litte tawdry):

Alphonse, Beryl, Carla
Alphonse, Beryl, Deirdre
Alphonse, Beryl, Edward
Alphonse, Carla, Deirdre
Alphonse, Carla Edward
Alphonse, Deirdre Edward
Beryl, Carla, Deirdre
Beryl, Carla, Edward
Beryl, Deirdre, Edward
Carla, Deirdre, Edward

Squares (because quadrilaterals sounds like geometry class):

Alphonse, Beryl, Carla, Deirdre
Alphonse, Beryl, Carla, Edward
Alphonse, Beryl, Deirdre, Edward
Alphonse, Carla, Deirdre, Edward
Beryl, Carla, Deirdre, Edward

The Pentad

Alphonse, Beryl, Carla, Deirdre, Edward

That makes for a grand total of 27 interpersonal subsets within the complex, egalitarian relationship group; however, each individual within the pentad only belongs to 15. That’s still quite a few.

There will be up to four sets of in-laws for each person.

Each person also brings with him or her their own parcel of life’s burdens. Note that five parcels distributed equitably between five people are still five parcels. However, some parcels are also lighter and more appealing than others.

Among the possible triad groupings, each member of the pentad has six opportunities to find him/herself in the following situation: X has stronger feelings for Y, but Y has stronger feelings for Z.

The square groupings offer everyone four opportunities to be in this situation, which can also be observed among the officially monogamous when two couples socialize together:

W has stronger feelings for X, but X has stronger feelings for Y, who reciprocates them. Z has strong feelings for X, but senses that X’s display of affection not genuine, but rather a means of saving face in front of the happy couple-ish dyad X and Y. Or worse, an attempt to stir up feelings of jealousy in X.

The same groupings, of course, also offer everyone four opportunities to be in these situations:

1) W cares most for X who cares most for Y who cares most for Z who cares most for X.

2) X and Y are starting to look couple-ish; W has strong feelings for X, and Z has strong feelings for Y.

3) X and Y are starting to look couple-ish, but both are also involved with W; Z is increasingly sidelined. Z could of course, always turn to V for consolation, but the truth is, V was always more into X until X and Y started spending some much time together, and it’s just not the same with Z…

The pentad offers everyone a chance to end up as the fifth wheel.

I’m not saying any of this WILL happen, of course…but I’m sorry, Dave. I just couldn’t do that.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:20:33 +0000

And you just answered your own question that parallels something that’s already been said.
If monogamous marriages are complicated and complex, than a multiple one expands those same complications, perhaps beyond any form of resolution.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 23:19:17 +0000

@Neon Genesis, I just DID explain why polygamy can’t be legal.
It DOES hurt someone and it hurts the principle aspects of marriage and it’s EVOLUTION and egalitarian progression to begin with. Primacy, fidelity, commitment and opportunity for others to marry.

By: Donny D.

Donny D. — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 20:44:40 +0000

We may need to start aggressively demanding that they prove it. Prove that civil same sex marriage and public approval of it is leading to polygamy right now. Social movements don't simply not exist and then pop into public view fully formed. There's always a traceable beginning. If they can't show at least the clear beginnings of a movement to legalize polygamy right now, they need to STFU. They need to show that polygamy is catching on as an increasingly popular form of relationship whether it's legal or not, right now. If they can't, they need to STFU. And if they can show any of these things, they need to connect them with us credibly. And if they can't, and you know they can't, they need to STFU. Would this be an unnecessary diversion that would be harmful for the movement for legal same sex marriage? Maybe it is right now, but if so, I believe there'll be a tipping point where we can turn this around and use it so harshly against them that they don't dare bring it up in connection with same sex marriage ever.

By: Neon Genesis

Neon Genesis — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 04:09:38 +0000

My take on all moral issues is if it’s not hurting anyone else, it’s between consenting adults, and they enjoy it, why shouldn’t it be legal? And someone explain to me when monogamous marriage has ever been simple and easy to sort out.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:33:53 +0000

If people want to discuss the pros and cons of polygamy, they should, by all means, do so. But if people feel the need to talk about polygamy in order to stop gay marriage, I see it as elephant-in-the-room evidence that there is a worldwide shortage of legitimate objections to the latter. Those who are terrified of the prospects of polygamy would be much more productive if they put their efforts into ending the practice of straight marriage.

By: toujoursdan

toujoursdan — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:47:16 +0000

Since civil marriage is expressly about the ownership and dispersal of property, legalizing (as opposed to decriminalizing) polygamy would be a judicial nightmare in a way that gay marriage isn’t. The civil institution of marriage is a “one size fits all” legal status. The dynamics of polygamy that that almost impossible. Would each spouse get equal shares of property if one chooses to divorce? Would the eldest spouse get more because they were in the marriage longest? There is no one-size-fits-all solution for questions like these.

I think it’s a huge waste of time for law enforcement to get involved in polygamous marriages (unless there are signs of abuse) but legalizing polygamy seems to be a non-starter.