Why the binary nature of love and commitment?

[needledriver]

The underlying precept of any argument for or against same sex "marriage" is that "marriage" is between TWO people. One thing that has always puzzled me is why love and commitment may only be expressed by couples.

I confess to being conflicted about same sex marriage. I believe that people who wish to make a public and civic declaration of commitment to each other had of right ought to be able to do this. My friends Jeff and Michael have been in a committed relationship for decades. It was a joyous occasion when they were finally able to apply for a marriage license.

Yet, I find myself wondering why, if same sex marriage had ought to be among the accepted norms, love and commitment must only be expressed by marriage in a compact of no more than two people?

Could love and commitment between and among more than two consenting adults become an accepted norm?

I'm not trying to start a "slippery slope" argument here. I'm postulating that group marriages could exist, and trying to figure out how a marriage among a group might be structured.

Marriage has certain legal rights. How might these rights be assigned or interpreted among the members of a marriage group? Property rights, inheritance, visitation, power of attorney, financial responsibility, medical decisions - &c.

What about divorce? When two people divorce, that's it, but what if one divorces three?

What if someone new wants to marry into the group?

Creating a legal structure for group marriage would need to address these issues, and I'm sure others as well.

It just seems to me that once you accept that consenting adults of the same sex can and had ought to be permitted the full right to marry, that the next step would be that more than two consenting adults had ought to be permitted to as well.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

1. In Imperial China and several other cultures polygamy was common among the upper class

and was used as a way of flaunting wealth (the more women you could support, the richer you were). Also, I remember learning in my Intro to Anthropology class back in the day that some African tribes were like that before Imperialism. Even early Judaism records several instances of polygamy.

For one reason or another, polygamy fell out of favor in the near East and Europe in the final centuries BC and except for a few groups, the Western world really hasn't looked back since. I suspect that the Greeks and Romans had a fair deal to do with it. Perhaps they thought that if a man had more than one wife it would somehow be undemocratic.

Polyandry (a woman having more than one husband) has been fairly rare globally to my knowledge.

[Chovexani]

2. Well, I am poly, currently in a closed triad.

Various people have worked this out. Most popular is a modular binary argument, with partnerships between various people recognized, like instead of A+B+C, it would be A+B, B+C, A+C.

The thing is, it would still be a legal nightmare to implement. Same-sex marriage has no effect on the current system because all we'd be doing is expanding the current system to accodmate same-gendered couples. By adding more people into the mix, we'd have to rebuild the system from the ground up, with even heavier resistance (you'll note that a lot of LGBT people consider polyamory to be a sort of "third rail" just because of how often fundies bring up the slippery slope argument).

My religion (Paganism) recognizes multi-partner relationships, tribes if you will. My partners and I have decided that if we ever decide to make a permanent commitment to each other, we'll have a handfasting with the three of us. If and when same-sex marriage ever becomes legal in our state, my GF and I will get married simply so she can get health benefits, and simply put she and I need the marriage benefits far more than our dude does, and he's cool with that. It's also a political statement as well. The piece of paper from the state has no bearing on how we feel about each other, though. As far as our dude goes, there's always legal paperwork that we can draw up, and we know plenty of poly-friendly lawyers.

You will not find very many if any poly folks pushing for this, not only because this is the wrong time and place for it, but a lot of us (most of us?) don't even really want legal recognition or benefits, we just want to be left the hell alone about it. Poly relationships literally come in all shapes and sizes and not all of them fit a marriage model. Mine does, because we're a closed triad, and a lot like a more traditional relationship with just a third person added. We're not necessarily the norm, though.

[needledriver]

3. Thank you for the explanation

I get what you say about the "third rail". I figured that group marriage would be a political non-starter. I was just curious if it were even possible to imagine a path from "here" to "there" - if real freedom to express love and commitment among a group might ever become legal, if not common.

[Chovexani]

5. In an ideal world

I would love it, too.

But in the one we've got, I would be more than happy to just be able to talk about the basic things everyone else does without having people freak out and judge me.

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. Here's the problem with that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4390700&mesg_id=4392109

I just wrote about it. Your life is just you and some consenting adults being free, but it mocks the law because the law is stupid. The law needs to be a way of life, and that means it has to not be stupid.

Seriously though, I don't think its that much of a legal nightmare. The argument consists of two parts:

1) Get RID of frivolous unenforceable legislation of genitalia. Either law enforcement has to have a mechanism to watch how consenting adults have sex in their bedrooms, or we acknowledge the law is unenforceable and stupid, and take it off the books. (things like bans on oral sex between married couples are a good example of this stuff.)

2) Allow for groups of adults to have living arrangements which bestow the legal rights of marriage, with sex COMPLETELY out of the equation: For instance, a couple of old ladies never got married but are best friends and live together. Shouldn't they be able to apply to see each other in the hospital and so forth? Again, these rights have nothing to do with these old ladies having sex, its about support structures for people who, for whatever reason, aren't living within these traditional man+woman support structures.

The point is we're gong to win this when it stops being about GAY MARRIAGE and starts being about allowing support structures for people outside man+woman marriage. That includes old widows and groups of freinds who live together, that sort of thing.

[Chovexani]

8. To put it bluntly, I just don't think we're evolved enough as a society.

I would LOVE to see legal recognition and protections for various living arrangements, outside of binary marriage. Seriously, it would be the most awesome thing ever. I would love to see those 1000+ benefits conferred by marriage to be completely separate from the concept of marriage, if only so single people and people who choose not to get married could easily designate "go to" people for various things.

I just don't think we will get to that point for a very long time, though, if ever. Monogamous marriage is a whole different ball of wax; it's had Special Snowflake status for so long that it's just expected, in a way that even heterosexuality isn't. I have had people of all sexual orientations freak the fuck out about my polyamory far more than anyone's ever given me shit for being queer. Hell, I don't even really talk about it much around here, for that reason. Even the most self-declared open minded friends I've had, who have not blinked twice about my various alternative labels, have clutched pearls and gotten crazy on me the minute I say I'm not monogamous. Responsible non-monogamy threatens basic, long-cherished precepts about love, relationships and human nature in general, and even the most well-adjusted, liberal minded people can have problems with it. I admit that this is a bit of a double standard, and probably more than a little internalized junk talking, but I don't cry myself to sleep at night because people can't handle me being poly. I feel there is a certain amount of wiring involved, but ultimately it is a lifestyle choice, unlike being queer. I was absolutely miserable when I was monogamous, I felt like I was trapped in a straitjacket. I couldn't see living like that, in much the same way that most people can't understand being poly.But I am not going to be out in the streets protesting. It is something by definition most people in this society are not going to understand, and that would be futile. It's a horribly depressing thought, and probably says more about my cynicism than anything else, but it's the truth.

Like I said before, most of us aren't even looking for that kind of recognition or legal support, because a lot of our various philosophies/worldviews don't think that is the ultimate goal for a relationship. If group marriage ever became legal me and mine would jump at it, but we'd be in the distinct minority. I would honestly settle for not automatically having our kids taken away if we ever had any.

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. Good post. I think you're right about public opinion, but we've got to separate rights and lifestyle

Consider the following: Old Mary's husband passed on some 10 years ago, and now she lives with her lifelong friend Jill, who also lost her husband. Their children have long moved elsewhere, so they are each other's only support system. Effectively, they play the role for each other that their spouses used to play, though without the sex. They are really close beloved trusting friends. Should, or should they not be given the legal rights of married couples to visit each other in hospitals and so forth?

Consider the following: Alice's husband died in Iraq after their first child was born. Alice could never move on, but she found a small Christian commune she wanted to live in, with several other people. They were all willing to take a role in raising Alice's child, be family to her, though they all practiced celibacy and none of them could marry her and be her new husband proper. Should or should not Alice have her child taken away from her for this lifestyle choice?

Both of these are no brainers for both the left and right. Clearly these people should be granted rights, and people agree. Yet as far as legal ramifications, what is the difference between case 1 and a lesbian marriage, or case 2 ad a poly marriage? ONLY SEX. It becomes shocking at the moment Mary or Alice are lesbian or Poly. So we need to ask, when did sex become the state's business? And more specifically, if you agree with case 1 and 2 above but not with sexual versions, what enforcement mechanisms should be in place to separate them? If Mary has to assist Jill in bathing after her hip surgery, should a law enforcement officer be there to make sure the bathing doesn't get to sexy? Fucking absurd.

The point is that we have to get sex OUT of the legislative process here and focus on rights. It has to stop being about gay marriage, and start being about rights for people outside of that man-woman-marriage box, for whatever reasons. We have to get the state out of the marriage business, and into civil unions that fit people's diverse needs whether their relationships are ultimately sexual or not. We framed this as about LBGT rights when really, its about friendship rights as well...I'm trying to come up with a way to phrase this...its about practical family rights. Its about those acknowledging that certain people in your life can become practical parts of your family without the blood or traditional man/woman marriage structures.

[dbackjon]

10. You are exactly correct on the legal ramifications

Our legal system is set up for 2 people. Adding a third would require a wholesale re-writing of laws.


In traditional multiple marriages, it was a one way street - A man married multiple women, usually without consent of the other parties. The two wives had no ties to each other, legally.

Let's say heterosexual polygamy was allowed.

George marries Laura. George then wants to marry Condi. Does Laura have any say? What if Condi is already married to Colin? Does he get a say? When George dies, how is his benefits/inheritance split?

If Laura wants a divorce, does she get half, or a third? If Laura, George and Condi were married in one ceremony, and Laura wants a divorce, does she divorce them all, and Condi and George still married, or do they all have to start over?

[iamahaingttta]

4. I was in a group marriage for a few years.

At it's biggest, there were 8 women and 7 men.
The idea was that every dyadic relationship was different, each "couple" had their own way of loving each other.
It was far from perfect, but isn't that the case with anything involving humans?
I've known lots of poly people over the years, and as far as I can tell, none of them ever expect legal status.
Maybe once we get to the stars, ala Robert Heinlein, we'll be evolved enough to really accept varying relationships.
It will only happen once it becomes a necessity...

[Chovexani]

7. I agree with that.

I think monogamy is just too entrenched and expected in our society for us to ever accept poly as anything other than a fringe "alternative lifestyle".

And that is honestly cool with me. I just think it's patently unfair that I can marry one partner legally, but not the other, just because I share the same bits with the latter. That's just stupid to me.

If we could just get fairness for all monogamous pairings regardless of gender makeup, that would be alright by me.

[closeupready]

9. Because society is sick and perverts what is natural for many people (polygamy) and

insists on the unnatural (monogamy). Even though in some cultures (particularly macho ones), it is acceptable for men to continue engaging in polygamy (with either gender) while women must observe monogamy with her spouse. So in this way, lying is a way of life. Just sick.