Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why did it take us so long to do this? In the future, people will look back at our time and find it hard to imagine that it was legal to discriminate against gays in such widespread institutionalized ways. Disgusting how we treat our fellow humans. This is a great turning point, long overdue.
@SpinyNorman said:
I'm curious, what does "switchin" mean?
It's slang for describing a women's gait. Therefore it can be meant as a stereotype/throwing shade at someone (specifically, a guy) who walks a "certain way". As in....switchin your hips back and forth while walking.
@Vastmind said:
True....forgot about that...hahahaha.
Girls must be at least 18, though....
tsk tsk, stereotypes ? think of all the stuff people said about gay people being married.
Libertarians( what I was) believe in the government being out of controlling marriage period, marriage is a contract between two or more consenting adults and the government has no place in controlling that.
Libertarians find it "funny" that the government has to GIVE us marriage equality hehe.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I can understand the appeal of polygamy from a male perspective but I don't understand why a female would want to subject herself to it.
As long as they are consenting I don't see a problem really.
I would echo @Vastmind about the age though. I don't think it's a stereotype to note that teenagers aren't really informed enough about life to marry as can be backed up by divorce stats.
Being too lose and easy there is playing into the hands of predators anyways.
It protects everybody. It protects children from predators and it protects predators that try to get my underage daughter into something like polygamy from me.
I have many friends and family who are confirmed Christians, so I've had to do a bit of talking them down yesterday. Here's what I posted on my facebook this morning to help them see the big picture:
An open letter to my church going friends on the occasion of a Supreme Court Ruling.
Relax. Take a deep breath. America isn't becoming Sodom and Gomorrah. Christians aren't going to be arrested for preaching against homosexuality. All it means is that a couple who were already living together and considered themselves married can now get a government document that says they now have equal rights to file joint tax returns, inherit property, can visit each other in the hospital in spite of the family's wishes, etc. For you and your church, nothing has changed at all.
Those politicians and so-called religious leaders who are screaming the sky is falling? They're not your friends. No, God isn't going to smite America now. You're not about to be on the receiving end of Biblical plagues. God isn't going to withdraw His protection, either. As Christians, you should know better than to listen to that. It was the God of the Old Testament who went around punishing nations. With Christ's sacrifice there is a new covenant in place. God now works with each one of us, individually.
I cry sometimes for what our churches have let themselves become. They have let themselves become a political party instead of the body of Christ. They are the Sadducees now. A recent poll shows that an increasing percentage of today's generation no longer identify with a denomination or even as Christian. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they no longer feel welcome. If you are not a conservative Republican, you don't belong. The Preachers are now complaining that they should be allowed to give political speeches from the pulpit without losing their tax break. More and more, your preachers and politicians openly call for a Christian government, where the Bible is the law. We will force everyone to live Christian lives, as the most powerful among us define it.
And if that happens, it will be the death of Christianity as I came to know and loved it while listening to my Grandmother preach in those little country churches. You will have let yourselves become the very thing Jesus preached against.
God Bless every one of you. You're good people. You can do better than this.
Notice I use their language, not words having to do with equal rights and the Dharma and such. It helps that this is the world I came from.
I personally don't have a problem with any consenting adult being in whatever version of marriages and relationships that they desire too. I know people in polygamous relationships where there is 1 women and 2 men involved. And all sorts of other varieties. Whatever works for them. It might make taxes and such confusing though. While there is a lot of libertarian stuff I do not agree with, I do agree that the government really has no place in monitoring or regulating or giving permission for people to do what they desire with their lives. But at the same time, in order to allow for taxes to be rightfully paid and benefits rightfully distributed, it's pretty hard to do that if you don't have records of who is legally entitled. Estates, taxes, retirements, custody of kids, all that stuff would be extremely difficult and costly to manage without a legal document that verified the marriage.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I can understand the appeal of polygamy from a male perspective but I don't understand why a female would want to subject herself to it.
As long as they are consenting I don't see a problem really.
I'm very open minded about polygamy, under the conditions you write. Or polyandry, whatever. There's no rational reason why not, why people who don't agree with it should legislate against people who do want such a thing.
There is a great novel called "The Lonely Polygamist" by Brady Udall that I read a year or so ago, a comi-tragic-but 'real life' story of a man with five wives, umpteen kids, and the church is pushing another one on him that he doesn't want. The book is not about polygamy or Mormonism (it doesn't mention them!), just about a family in a polygamous community -- very human families and people I might add! Excellent read -- educational without being didactic.
Anyway I wouldn't choose either version of multiple partners myself, but if others think they can put up with the consequences, I think they should go for it. What a legal snarl it could be.
As for why a female might consider being in a polygamous marriage, there are lots of perks I can think of off the top of my head. If you get along with the other wives, you have live-in friends and confidants. You can get a break from your husband and even your kids, who are most often raised with their half brothers and sisters in a bunch. You have help with the housework. What you are good at will add to the family and what you dislike or aren't good at, likely another wife will be. I've never been the jealous or possessive type, like my alone time, like kids and homemaking/farming and the crafts. Sounds like a deal to me.
Polygamy without the religious obligations, sex roles, and all the other BS sounds quite reasonable. It would be much harder than coping with one spouse, but the rewards might be surprising.
As for having more than one husband, now that I can't relate with. That is a whole 'nother 'thing', methinks. Maybe it isn't?
The only trouble with moving on to polygamy is that action would fulfill the conservatives slippery slope predictions that if you approve gay marriage, next will come polygamy and then...
Actually, that's not the only problem. It seems to me there are tons of legal issues involved. How about just decriminalizing it.
Just because they are uptight about anything and everything involving sex and relationships doesn't mean we should give them what they want and not talk about what could, in theory, be next. To them, anything that is not male/female marriage under God is just as bad as pedophilia or incest. It's not true. There are so many gray areas we can't even differentiate them all. If we let gay people marry, that doesn't mean a man can marry his daughter, a lady can marry a goat, a man can marry a 7 year old or a lady can marry her sex toy. One does not, ever, equal the other. What happens within the relationships and behind the bedroom doors of consenting adults should be their business, and their business only. The legal crap associated it seems like a night mare. But, anything can be worked with.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
People are confusing 'Polygamy' with 'Polyamory'....
I think for insurance/estate/benefits purposes a person should be able to choose whoever they want as a beneficiary. Not everyone lives in a monogamous relationship. Some live with relatives as caregivers, etc. Can't we seperate the whole marriage and legal money issues?
I was thinking of scenarios like if a husband dies with 10 wives, who gets federal benefits, and how is it awarded (10 times what a normal wife would receive? Divided equally so that each is almost irrelevant?)? Or children if adopted? Property rights to a house? Which wife has power to decide on hospital care?
To be honest, I would think women (in general) would have a very big problem with this whole scenario.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think taxes is where it gets most complicated. In a lot of areas as long as you know the right paper work to file, you can give almost anyone control over various areas of your life and/or death. Taxes and insurance seems like it would be more complicated. But maybe not. Say if a man has 5 wives, and has 2 kids by each wife, how do they do taxes for claiming kids? If he's the head of household, he claims 15 dependents. But if one of the wives makes more than him, technically she should be head of household...except she is not married to the women or related to the other children. It just seems messy, lol.
No confusion here.
Polyamory-being in love/in a romantic relationship with multiple people
Polygamous-Having more than one spouse (generally talked about in terms of a man having multiple wives)
Polyandry-Woman having more than one husband.
No?
Polygamy is crossing a whole different line than gay marriage did. With gay marriage it was simply a change from 1 man + 1woman to that or 1 man + 1 man. Getting into polygamy is a whole different equation and not comparable.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
None of them are comparable. Just like people, relationships are far too complex to be fit into neatly defined boxes. My husband and I might have a normal, legal marriage on paper, but the truth goes a whole lot farther. There are a lot of and/or/buts built into our relationship. But because I have ovaries and he has testicles, we're good in the eyes of the government. So anyhow, no, I wouldn't say polygamy and gay marriage are the same. Just like I wouldn't say gay marriage and marriage are the same. Or that Buddhist and Catholic marriages are the same. NONE of them are the same. It's good to expand our definitions of such things, and I'm glad we are finally doing so. It's a fascinating time to be alive to watch humanity grapple with who and what people and their relationships are. The lady who is white but has been living as a black woman added another layer. My initial reaction was "pfft, geez, she must be nuts." Only took a couple of seconds for me to realize I'm sure I thought the same about transgendered people not that long ago, and that many people still think the same. There is still just so, so much more to people than what biological parts we were born with. That it gets increasingly more complex when we add another human being (or more) to the mix when we get into relationships just multiplies everything.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@karasti said: Just like I wouldn't say gay marriage and marriage are the same.
Because every single marriage is different based on the people in it. That was my point.
In one sense, they are all the same. People in a relationship who decide to take a further step and join their lives in a legal manner. But beyond that there are no similarities. My marriage is vastly different from my mom and my stepdad's marriage. It's vastly different from what my parents marriage was. And my grandparents. And my best friend's marriage (who is a gay man and married his boyfriend last fall).
My point was, no, we can't compare "gay marriage" and "polygamy" because they aren't the same. But neither is any single marriage out there, anywhere.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm sorry, I think you're splitting hairs.
You're muddling the dynamics and organisation of a marriage, with the temperaments and workings of different personalities. That's not what is being discussed here.
Everybody knows that different scenarios are limitless. But we're discussing the mechanics of an institution, not the different personalities which make each relationship different.
If we can legalize gay marriage because people are just people and love is love, then we can expand to include all adult relationships in that. I think we need to leave people alone to do what works for them because the complexities of people is just too...complex...to put in a box and label as marriage. Just as we are finding out the complexities of people means we can't always put them in a gender box. The idea that we can (as societies and governments label and thus control something so complex is just silly. The government gets it wrong all the time, so they need to just step out and let people be. For example, prior to same sex marriage becoming legal in WI just last fall, a lady I knew married a man. That is, a person born with ovaries and identified as such on a piece of paper, married a person born with testicles and identified as such. So the government approved their adult union. Except the man is transgendered and lives entirely as a woman. So, they think they got it right based on biology but they really didn't know what they were even authorizing. If he had put "woman" on the marriage application, their application would have been denied. But because he was able to put "man" their marriage was legal. WI thinks they did their duty in preventing a woman from marrying a woman. Except they really didn't. I'm not simply talking about personalities. It's just entirely too complex to be put in a box, and I am absolutely on board with moving towards legalizing any and all forms of marriage between consenting adults on that basis.
I don't care what they do in their relationship(s), but we don't necessarily have to legalize everything that everyone wants.
If a man can own a shotgun, can he also own a nuke?
If people want to live in a legal polygamous marriage, can people also fly the Confederate flag?
Now, if they want to live in a circus, fine. But like the guy that Federica pointed out...I have no confidence that he has any actual respect for women.
Ah, we are peeling the layers of this onion pretty well. Truth be told (?) diversity is our reality, tolerance our growth and compassion our strength.
The institutional dynamics continue to go through changes, metamorphosing into whole new relativist dynamics.
I'd push this further, but life calls.
Have fun, enjoy the ride, and watch for falling rocks.
...We must first give ourselves permission to be happy..
(Off subject: federica, you do the ballet between moderator, sergeant at arms, and participant remarkably well. I know I could not pull it off. Kudos )
We don't have to worry about legalizing everything if the government kept their noses out of our private lives to begin with.
And sorry, comparing marriage to someone owning a dangerous humanity destroying weapon doesn't really work, either.
If individual people want to fly the confederate flag, they can go ahead. But the government doesn't fall into that category.
Those arguments are about as good as saying legalizing gay marriage means we might as well legalize pedophelia. I'm not advocating legalizing this or that. I'm saying the government should get out of the marriage business all together and let adults make their own decisions. But unless we actually ever get to that point (which is unlikely, government doesn't like to give up control of its people) then I will be happy with whatever strides we make that give people equal rights and don't hold particular groups of people above others.
I am utterly thrilled that SCOTUS legalized marriage. I think it's utterly ridiculous what had to happen in order for it to happen. For something that should be an inherent right for adults. To spend millions, often in tax payer money, just to give people the right to something they never should have had to fight for to begin with.
Now, if they want to live in a circus, fine. But like the guy that Federica pointed out...I have no confidence that he has any actual respect for women.
...or the children that he's fathered.
This is my biggest hangup with polygamy. I think a polyamorous situation or polygamy can work, but what about the cases where it doesn't? The big problem is that our society has been set up to function with the traditional nuclear family at its basic core. How do we make the transition to allow other family structures? Sure won't be easy...
@karasti, my point is this -- different people will say different things will fulfill their right to "the pursuit of happiness". Just because somebody wants something, doesn't mean that society has to say, "Okay, well if you want it, then we should just let you have it." Sure, a nuke was an exaggeration, but there are all classes of weapons out there that are VERY serious that private citizens and secret groups have, and we're talking about some big time military type weapons in some cases. It's a slippery slope, and the question is where to you draw that line. Jeffrey Toobin was actually quite interesting on CNN yesterday when he made a very significant point of why he felt that gay folks made such fast progress that led to the Supreme Court decision, which -- as he indicated -- was predicated on the massive shift of public opinion: what have they asked for over the past decade -- really, nothing outlandish, just 2 very conservative things -- to be able to join the military and to be able to marry.
I know people who have Polyamorous (sp?) relationships. And that's fine. No problem. But I see no need to give such relationships legal standing. And that's the difference with what happened yesterday -- gay folks said "we just want what they have, nothing extra". Adding Polyamorous relationships isn't "the same thing they have", it's a whole different class of relationships.
And I think that we too often dismiss the concept of "the slippery slope". Lots of people and governments and nations have slid down one slippery slope or another. In fact, I would argue that's it's human nature. We often talk about the Westboro Baptist Church. From what I read, they began by picketing about gay sexual activity in a public park. Seems pretty reasonable. Then they went down that slippery slope. Dozens of such locations throughout the city. Then traveling to other states and other causes. The slippery slope.
Unfortunately for the cause of polygamy, the practice has OFTEN been associated with lack of free will. This may be helpful: http://www.polygamy.org/about/f-a-q/
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
For me, and I think many others, the line for what an individual's rights and freedoms comes down to is when those rights and freedoms impinge on another's. So I think in this context what goes on between consenting adults is all good and free to be you and me. 'Consenting adults' would mean polygamy but wouldn't mean a man and his turtle.
There are a lot of traditional roles being upset lately. The speed with which gay marriage swept the US and I'm thinking of Bruce Jenner coming out as trans. There will no be a period of transition as people get used to the new dynamic with even good intentioned people making wrong assumptions and wrong use of pronouns (many accidentally referred to Caitlyn Jenner as he/him).
For each of us we can practice to let go of our preconceptions and let our example show others how they can also transition.
@vinlyn said:
It seems to me that we should be joyous for all LGBT Americans today, but that we should not take joy in the suffering of those who are on the wrong side of American history.
Your post was wonderful and I feel like a heel for suggesting any change to it - but perhaps, "...we should be joyous for all LGBT Americans today, and those of us who love and support them as well." Thank you for the reminder about taking joy in anyone's suffering.
Thank you. And might add that my suggestion not to take joy is anyone's suffering does NOT apply to GOP presidential candidates who are exploiting the situation.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Taking back the subject to the Marriage question (there's no point calling it 'gay' marriage, or 'same sex' marriage any longer. It's 'Marriage'), an awful lot of people are incorrectly convinced that a long-standing relationship between two people - with no legal ceremony or process declaring it a recognised union - is valid and just as pertinent.
In the UK, many people refer to this type of union as a 'common Law' marriage. In other words, everyone knows they've been together for 15 years, have three kids and are a permanent item, so that's ok for them.
Well, it's not.
There is little or no allowance made for a 'common law' union, because there is no such thing as 'common Law'.
And the death of one partner can lead to protracted legal wranglings, years of heartache and a result which neither partner would actually want or desire.
Which is why the Law regarding Marriage, to include all those wishing to BE married, was so important in the UK.
Because it also Legally recognised the importance and prominence of a person whose entire life was dedicated to another, selflessly and with genuine love.
The Supreme Court's adjudication also recognised this. Hence its momentous decision.
It wasn't so much about giving Homosexuals in the USA the right to be equal, because of their sexual persuasion or preferences; it was about enabling them to legalise their union, in order to be on a par with other couples who did the same, for legal, social and practical motives.
@federica said: Which is why the Law regarding Marriage, to include all those wishing to BE married, was so important in the UK.
Yes, it's about equality under the law. On the issue of cohabiting couples, I gather there is is now pressure for Civil Partnerships to be extended to anyone who wants them, as an alternative to Marriage ( Civil Partnerships were a sort of compromise, introduced for same-sex couples prior to Marriage law being extended ).
It's not always entirely bad having rich people in office. Our governor is a billionaire heir to the Target fortune and in his years in office (6 now I think?) he has turned our state from one with a deficit to a billion dollar surplus (that he is reinvesting in education, largely) and one of the best states to do business despite him having raised taxes on the rich. He's a good man. I don't always agree with him, but I'm sure there will never be a politician I will agree with. He has done some amazing things for our state in the name of the citizens and nothing more. I'm more partial to Bernie than Hillary right now, but we'll see.
ANYHOW. I know polygamy gets complex. But I also don't think that just because something is complex doesn't mean we should disallow it necessarily. There are many more people in successful poly situations that don't go to the extremes of Sister Wives and other such things. I don't support any situation where someone owns someone else, and that is the type of situation he (and others like him) have set up. But the women are also consenting adults.
@federica said:
Well, it's not.
There is little or no allowance made for a 'common law' union, because there is no such thing as 'common Law'.
And the death of one partner can lead to protracted legal wranglings, years of heartache and a result which neither partner would actually want or desire.
At the risk of going slightly off-topic, I'd like to mention that my fiancee and I have what some might consider a common law marriage. We've been together for 6 years, but we cannot afford to get married. She is on disability, and if we get married she stands to lose about $400 a month in benefits and increased taxes. So for us, marriage is a luxury that would cost us nearly $5000 a year. I'm glad at least some folks can now get married...
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I'm so sorry the scales of fairness are so weighed against you. It seems a travesty that you cannot enjoy a legal union.
In the UK, married couples actually gain by having individual taxes reduced... is there any way you could research whether there are other advantages which might make up the financial shortfall...?
I can't comment on the system in your country, I know next to nothing about it.
Oh, ok.
I know NOTHING about it.
Except that if a person is on disability benefits they stand to loose a huge whack of that, if they marry. Which is preposterous....
@federica There are several factors at play. Her disability income is so little that she qualifies for assistance to pay her Medicare premiums. If she marries me, her income goes up, so she loses that benefit. Also, if we get married, the Internal Revenue Service takes an automatic 10% off of her income. Sigh...
Many older people in the U.S. are in that same situation, if they are receiving social security. They live together without getting married because that would cut off benefits to one of them.
Doesn't it go by household income though and not solely married income? So if you live together, your income is already being counted with regards to her benefits? if you don't then moot point!
Our youngest son receives a paltry amount of disability from SSA and when they look at parental assets, even the income of our 18 year old counts towards total household resources. So despite him needing to save for college, he is, in the eyes of SSA, expected to pay for his youngest brother's medical needs. Anyhow, I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure for at least some social security benefits, it is household income that is counted whether you are married or not. It may be weighed differently if you are married, so make sure you check into that, too. When you are just "living together" they might consider household income weighed more heavily because there isn't an assumption that one is responsible for the other. When you are married that is different because a spouse can be a dependent. For example, if we have $5000 sitting in savings, it is counted differently than if one of our children had the same amount because they are considered to have no responsibility while as parents we have a home, other children, vehicles etc to pay for.
it sucks, because you can't even truly meet with the right people to ask questions because it can bring something to their attention and cause an audit.
For some time I have been using a set of forums called City Data to learn more about Colorado and my expected move to Arizona. The states/cities portion of the forum are great.
A few days ago I started using some of the other sections of the forums including the "politics" section.
Some of you ought to read through the topics, including several threads on this topic, just to get some perspective about how some people are reacting to this (and almost any political topics). What a bunch of nut cases!
Comments
Why did it take us so long to do this? In the future, people will look back at our time and find it hard to imagine that it was legal to discriminate against gays in such widespread institutionalized ways. Disgusting how we treat our fellow humans. This is a great turning point, long overdue.
It's slang for describing a women's gait. Therefore it can be meant as a stereotype/throwing shade at someone (specifically, a guy) who walks a "certain way". As in....switchin your hips back and forth while walking.
does this have implicants for polygamy to be legalized as well? if not the phrase above wouldn't quite be true.
True....forgot about that...hahahaha.
Girls must be at least 18, though.. And some financial stability, please.
tsk tsk, stereotypes ?
think of all the stuff people said about gay people being married.
Libertarians( what I was) believe in the government being out of controlling marriage period, marriage is a contract between two or more consenting adults and the government has no place in controlling that.
Libertarians find it "funny" that the government has to GIVE us marriage equality hehe.
I hear you.....
@Jayantha;
I can understand the appeal of polygamy from a male perspective but I don't understand why a female would want to subject herself to it.
As long as they are consenting I don't see a problem really.
I would echo @Vastmind about the age though. I don't think it's a stereotype to note that teenagers aren't really informed enough about life to marry as can be backed up by divorce stats.
Being too lose and easy there is playing into the hands of predators anyways.
It protects everybody. It protects children from predators and it protects predators that try to get my underage daughter into something like polygamy from me.
I have many friends and family who are confirmed Christians, so I've had to do a bit of talking them down yesterday. Here's what I posted on my facebook this morning to help them see the big picture:
An open letter to my church going friends on the occasion of a Supreme Court Ruling.
Relax. Take a deep breath. America isn't becoming Sodom and Gomorrah. Christians aren't going to be arrested for preaching against homosexuality. All it means is that a couple who were already living together and considered themselves married can now get a government document that says they now have equal rights to file joint tax returns, inherit property, can visit each other in the hospital in spite of the family's wishes, etc. For you and your church, nothing has changed at all.
Those politicians and so-called religious leaders who are screaming the sky is falling? They're not your friends. No, God isn't going to smite America now. You're not about to be on the receiving end of Biblical plagues. God isn't going to withdraw His protection, either. As Christians, you should know better than to listen to that. It was the God of the Old Testament who went around punishing nations. With Christ's sacrifice there is a new covenant in place. God now works with each one of us, individually.
I cry sometimes for what our churches have let themselves become. They have let themselves become a political party instead of the body of Christ. They are the Sadducees now. A recent poll shows that an increasing percentage of today's generation no longer identify with a denomination or even as Christian. Why do you suppose that is? It's because they no longer feel welcome. If you are not a conservative Republican, you don't belong. The Preachers are now complaining that they should be allowed to give political speeches from the pulpit without losing their tax break. More and more, your preachers and politicians openly call for a Christian government, where the Bible is the law. We will force everyone to live Christian lives, as the most powerful among us define it.
And if that happens, it will be the death of Christianity as I came to know and loved it while listening to my Grandmother preach in those little country churches. You will have let yourselves become the very thing Jesus preached against.
God Bless every one of you. You're good people. You can do better than this.
Notice I use their language, not words having to do with equal rights and the Dharma and such. It helps that this is the world I came from.
That should go on facebook!
I personally don't have a problem with any consenting adult being in whatever version of marriages and relationships that they desire too. I know people in polygamous relationships where there is 1 women and 2 men involved. And all sorts of other varieties. Whatever works for them. It might make taxes and such confusing though. While there is a lot of libertarian stuff I do not agree with, I do agree that the government really has no place in monitoring or regulating or giving permission for people to do what they desire with their lives. But at the same time, in order to allow for taxes to be rightfully paid and benefits rightfully distributed, it's pretty hard to do that if you don't have records of who is legally entitled. Estates, taxes, retirements, custody of kids, all that stuff would be extremely difficult and costly to manage without a legal document that verified the marriage.
I'm very open minded about polygamy, under the conditions you write. Or polyandry, whatever. There's no rational reason why not, why people who don't agree with it should legislate against people who do want such a thing.
There is a great novel called "The Lonely Polygamist" by Brady Udall that I read a year or so ago, a comi-tragic-but 'real life' story of a man with five wives, umpteen kids, and the church is pushing another one on him that he doesn't want. The book is not about polygamy or Mormonism (it doesn't mention them!), just about a family in a polygamous community -- very human families and people I might add! Excellent read -- educational without being didactic.
Anyway I wouldn't choose either version of multiple partners myself, but if others think they can put up with the consequences, I think they should go for it. What a legal snarl it could be.
As for why a female might consider being in a polygamous marriage, there are lots of perks I can think of off the top of my head. If you get along with the other wives, you have live-in friends and confidants. You can get a break from your husband
and even your kids, who are most often raised with their half brothers and sisters in a bunch. You have help with the housework. What you are good at will add to the family and what you dislike or aren't good at, likely another wife will be. I've never been the jealous or possessive type, like my alone time, like kids and homemaking/farming and the crafts. Sounds like a deal to me.
Polygamy without the religious obligations, sex roles, and all the other BS sounds quite reasonable. It would be much harder than coping with one spouse, but the rewards might be surprising.
As for having more than one husband, now that I can't relate with. That is a whole 'nother 'thing', methinks. Maybe it isn't?
You may copy it if you like, attribute it to "a friend". I put it on mine and nobody seems upset enough to attack me for it.
The only trouble with moving on to polygamy is that action would fulfill the conservatives slippery slope predictions that if you approve gay marriage, next will come polygamy and then...
Actually, that's not the only problem. It seems to me there are tons of legal issues involved. How about just decriminalizing it.
@Vastmind
LOL, I had no idea. Switchin' First time I've heard that one.
Just because they are uptight about anything and everything involving sex and relationships doesn't mean we should give them what they want and not talk about what could, in theory, be next. To them, anything that is not male/female marriage under God is just as bad as pedophilia or incest. It's not true. There are so many gray areas we can't even differentiate them all. If we let gay people marry, that doesn't mean a man can marry his daughter, a lady can marry a goat, a man can marry a 7 year old or a lady can marry her sex toy. One does not, ever, equal the other. What happens within the relationships and behind the bedroom doors of consenting adults should be their business, and their business only. The legal crap associated it seems like a night mare. But, anything can be worked with.
People are confusing 'Polygamy' with 'Polyamory'....
I think for insurance/estate/benefits purposes a person should be able to choose whoever they want as a beneficiary. Not everyone lives in a monogamous relationship. Some live with relatives as caregivers, etc. Can't we seperate the whole marriage and legal money issues?
I was thinking of scenarios like if a husband dies with 10 wives, who gets federal benefits, and how is it awarded (10 times what a normal wife would receive? Divided equally so that each is almost irrelevant?)? Or children if adopted? Property rights to a house? Which wife has power to decide on hospital care?
To be honest, I would think women (in general) would have a very big problem with this whole scenario.
Polygamy is unworkable.
Polyamory isn't.
I think taxes is where it gets most complicated. In a lot of areas as long as you know the right paper work to file, you can give almost anyone control over various areas of your life and/or death. Taxes and insurance seems like it would be more complicated. But maybe not. Say if a man has 5 wives, and has 2 kids by each wife, how do they do taxes for claiming kids? If he's the head of household, he claims 15 dependents. But if one of the wives makes more than him, technically she should be head of household...except she is not married to the women or related to the other children. It just seems messy, lol.
No confusion here.
Polyamory-being in love/in a romantic relationship with multiple people
Polygamous-Having more than one spouse (generally talked about in terms of a man having multiple wives)
Polyandry-Woman having more than one husband.
No?
Polygamy is crossing a whole different line than gay marriage did. With gay marriage it was simply a change from 1 man + 1woman to that or 1 man + 1 man. Getting into polygamy is a whole different equation and not comparable.
Try to get your heads round this guy....
None of them are comparable. Just like people, relationships are far too complex to be fit into neatly defined boxes. My husband and I might have a normal, legal marriage on paper, but the truth goes a whole lot farther. There are a lot of and/or/buts built into our relationship. But because I have ovaries and he has testicles, we're good in the eyes of the government. So anyhow, no, I wouldn't say polygamy and gay marriage are the same. Just like I wouldn't say gay marriage and marriage are the same. Or that Buddhist and Catholic marriages are the same. NONE of them are the same. It's good to expand our definitions of such things, and I'm glad we are finally doing so. It's a fascinating time to be alive to watch humanity grapple with who and what people and their relationships are. The lady who is white but has been living as a black woman added another layer. My initial reaction was "pfft, geez, she must be nuts." Only took a couple of seconds for me to realize I'm sure I thought the same about transgendered people not that long ago, and that many people still think the same. There is still just so, so much more to people than what biological parts we were born with. That it gets increasingly more complex when we add another human being (or more) to the mix when we get into relationships just multiplies everything.
Hang on.... why not?
Because every single marriage is different based on the people in it. That was my point.
In one sense, they are all the same. People in a relationship who decide to take a further step and join their lives in a legal manner. But beyond that there are no similarities. My marriage is vastly different from my mom and my stepdad's marriage. It's vastly different from what my parents marriage was. And my grandparents. And my best friend's marriage (who is a gay man and married his boyfriend last fall).
My point was, no, we can't compare "gay marriage" and "polygamy" because they aren't the same. But neither is any single marriage out there, anywhere.
I'm sorry, I think you're splitting hairs.
You're muddling the dynamics and organisation of a marriage, with the temperaments and workings of different personalities.
That's not what is being discussed here.
Everybody knows that different scenarios are limitless. But we're discussing the mechanics of an institution, not the different personalities which make each relationship different.
How do you spell vasectomy?
If we can legalize gay marriage because people are just people and love is love, then we can expand to include all adult relationships in that. I think we need to leave people alone to do what works for them because the complexities of people is just too...complex...to put in a box and label as marriage. Just as we are finding out the complexities of people means we can't always put them in a gender box. The idea that we can (as societies and governments label and thus control something so complex is just silly. The government gets it wrong all the time, so they need to just step out and let people be. For example, prior to same sex marriage becoming legal in WI just last fall, a lady I knew married a man. That is, a person born with ovaries and identified as such on a piece of paper, married a person born with testicles and identified as such. So the government approved their adult union. Except the man is transgendered and lives entirely as a woman. So, they think they got it right based on biology but they really didn't know what they were even authorizing. If he had put "woman" on the marriage application, their application would have been denied. But because he was able to put "man" their marriage was legal. WI thinks they did their duty in preventing a woman from marrying a woman. Except they really didn't. I'm not simply talking about personalities. It's just entirely too complex to be put in a box, and I am absolutely on board with moving towards legalizing any and all forms of marriage between consenting adults on that basis.
I don't care what they do in their relationship(s), but we don't necessarily have to legalize everything that everyone wants.
If a man can own a shotgun, can he also own a nuke?
If people want to live in a legal polygamous marriage, can people also fly the Confederate flag?
Now, if they want to live in a circus, fine. But like the guy that Federica pointed out...I have no confidence that he has any actual respect for women.
Ah, we are peeling the layers of this onion pretty well. Truth be told (?) diversity is our reality, tolerance our growth and compassion our strength.
The institutional dynamics continue to go through changes, metamorphosing into whole new relativist dynamics.
I'd push this further, but life calls.
Have fun, enjoy the ride, and watch for falling rocks.
...We must first give ourselves permission to be happy..
(Off subject: federica, you do the ballet between moderator, sergeant at arms, and participant remarkably well. I know I could not pull it off. Kudos
)
We don't have to worry about legalizing everything if the government kept their noses out of our private lives to begin with.
And sorry, comparing marriage to someone owning a dangerous humanity destroying weapon doesn't really work, either.
If individual people want to fly the confederate flag, they can go ahead. But the government doesn't fall into that category.
Those arguments are about as good as saying legalizing gay marriage means we might as well legalize pedophelia. I'm not advocating legalizing this or that. I'm saying the government should get out of the marriage business all together and let adults make their own decisions. But unless we actually ever get to that point (which is unlikely, government doesn't like to give up control of its people) then I will be happy with whatever strides we make that give people equal rights and don't hold particular groups of people above others.
I am utterly thrilled that SCOTUS legalized marriage. I think it's utterly ridiculous what had to happen in order for it to happen. For something that should be an inherent right for adults. To spend millions, often in tax payer money, just to give people the right to something they never should have had to fight for to begin with.
...or the children that he's fathered.
This is my biggest hangup with polygamy. I think a polyamorous situation or polygamy can work, but what about the cases where it doesn't? The big problem is that our society has been set up to function with the traditional nuclear family at its basic core. How do we make the transition to allow other family structures? Sure won't be easy...
@karasti, my point is this -- different people will say different things will fulfill their right to "the pursuit of happiness". Just because somebody wants something, doesn't mean that society has to say, "Okay, well if you want it, then we should just let you have it." Sure, a nuke was an exaggeration, but there are all classes of weapons out there that are VERY serious that private citizens and secret groups have, and we're talking about some big time military type weapons in some cases. It's a slippery slope, and the question is where to you draw that line. Jeffrey Toobin was actually quite interesting on CNN yesterday when he made a very significant point of why he felt that gay folks made such fast progress that led to the Supreme Court decision, which -- as he indicated -- was predicated on the massive shift of public opinion: what have they asked for over the past decade -- really, nothing outlandish, just 2 very conservative things -- to be able to join the military and to be able to marry.
I know people who have Polyamorous (sp?) relationships. And that's fine. No problem. But I see no need to give such relationships legal standing. And that's the difference with what happened yesterday -- gay folks said "we just want what they have, nothing extra". Adding Polyamorous relationships isn't "the same thing they have", it's a whole different class of relationships.
And I think that we too often dismiss the concept of "the slippery slope". Lots of people and governments and nations have slid down one slippery slope or another. In fact, I would argue that's it's human nature. We often talk about the Westboro Baptist Church. From what I read, they began by picketing about gay sexual activity in a public park. Seems pretty reasonable. Then they went down that slippery slope. Dozens of such locations throughout the city. Then traveling to other states and other causes. The slippery slope.
Unfortunately for the cause of polygamy, the practice has OFTEN been associated with lack of free will. This may be helpful: http://www.polygamy.org/about/f-a-q/
For me, and I think many others, the line for what an individual's rights and freedoms comes down to is when those rights and freedoms impinge on another's. So I think in this context what goes on between consenting adults is all good and free to be you and me. 'Consenting adults' would mean polygamy but wouldn't mean a man and his turtle.
There are a lot of traditional roles being upset lately. The speed with which gay marriage swept the US and I'm thinking of Bruce Jenner coming out as trans. There will no be a period of transition as people get used to the new dynamic with even good intentioned people making wrong assumptions and wrong use of pronouns (many accidentally referred to Caitlyn Jenner as he/him).
For each of us we can practice to let go of our preconceptions and let our example show others how they can also transition.
Your post was wonderful and I feel like a heel for suggesting any change to it - but perhaps, "...we should be joyous for all LGBT Americans today, and those of us who love and support them as well." Thank you for the reminder about taking joy in anyone's suffering.
Thank you. And might add that my suggestion not to take joy is anyone's suffering does NOT apply to GOP presidential candidates who are exploiting the situation.
P - R - I - C - K.
Taking back the subject to the Marriage question (there's no point calling it 'gay' marriage, or 'same sex' marriage any longer. It's 'Marriage'), an awful lot of people are incorrectly convinced that a long-standing relationship between two people - with no legal ceremony or process declaring it a recognised union - is valid and just as pertinent.
In the UK, many people refer to this type of union as a 'common Law' marriage. In other words, everyone knows they've been together for 15 years, have three kids and are a permanent item, so that's ok for them.
Well, it's not.
There is little or no allowance made for a 'common law' union, because there is no such thing as 'common Law'.
And the death of one partner can lead to protracted legal wranglings, years of heartache and a result which neither partner would actually want or desire.
Which is why the Law regarding Marriage, to include all those wishing to BE married, was so important in the UK.
Because it also Legally recognised the importance and prominence of a person whose entire life was dedicated to another, selflessly and with genuine love.
The Supreme Court's adjudication also recognised this. Hence its momentous decision.
It wasn't so much about giving Homosexuals in the USA the right to be equal, because of their sexual persuasion or preferences; it was about enabling them to legalise their union, in order to be on a par with other couples who did the same, for legal, social and practical motives.
And thank you @Lionduck, you're very kind.
Yes, it's about equality under the law. On the issue of cohabiting couples, I gather there is is now pressure for Civil Partnerships to be extended to anyone who wants them, as an alternative to Marriage ( Civil Partnerships were a sort of compromise, introduced for same-sex couples prior to Marriage law being extended ).
Yup
I could walk to Detroit in 10 minutes.
I grew up in the bushes though. I'm a townie. Too farm-boy for the city, too city for the farm.
I hope Hillary gets in. Dang that's redemption if I've ever saw it. I'm reading a book on why she lost her last nomination.
I know they are all millionaires, and the system isn't perfect, but damn American politics are interesting.
Yes this is off topic.
Ha-ha yup 10 minute walk I can stand in the good ole Motor City.
It's not always entirely bad having rich people in office. Our governor is a billionaire heir to the Target fortune and in his years in office (6 now I think?) he has turned our state from one with a deficit to a billion dollar surplus (that he is reinvesting in education, largely) and one of the best states to do business despite him having raised taxes on the rich. He's a good man. I don't always agree with him, but I'm sure there will never be a politician I will agree with. He has done some amazing things for our state in the name of the citizens and nothing more. I'm more partial to Bernie than Hillary right now, but we'll see.
ANYHOW. I know polygamy gets complex. But I also don't think that just because something is complex doesn't mean we should disallow it necessarily. There are many more people in successful poly situations that don't go to the extremes of Sister Wives and other such things. I don't support any situation where someone owns someone else, and that is the type of situation he (and others like him) have set up. But the women are also consenting adults.
At the risk of going slightly off-topic, I'd like to mention that my fiancee and I have what some might consider a common law marriage. We've been together for 6 years, but we cannot afford to get married. She is on disability, and if we get married she stands to lose about $400 a month in benefits and increased taxes. So for us, marriage is a luxury that would cost us nearly $5000 a year. I'm glad at least some folks can now get married...
I'm so sorry the scales of fairness are so weighed against you. It seems a travesty that you cannot enjoy a legal union.
In the UK, married couples actually gain by having individual taxes reduced... is there any way you could research whether there are other advantages which might make up the financial shortfall...?
I can't comment on the system in your country, I know next to nothing about it.
Oh, ok.
I know NOTHING about it.
Except that if a person is on disability benefits they stand to loose a huge whack of that, if they marry. Which is preposterous....
@federica There are several factors at play. Her disability income is so little that she qualifies for assistance to pay her Medicare premiums. If she marries me, her income goes up, so she loses that benefit. Also, if we get married, the Internal Revenue Service takes an automatic 10% off of her income. Sigh...
Many older people in the U.S. are in that same situation, if they are receiving social security. They live together without getting married because that would cut off benefits to one of them.
Doesn't it go by household income though and not solely married income? So if you live together, your income is already being counted with regards to her benefits? if you don't then moot point!
Our youngest son receives a paltry amount of disability from SSA and when they look at parental assets, even the income of our 18 year old counts towards total household resources. So despite him needing to save for college, he is, in the eyes of SSA, expected to pay for his youngest brother's medical needs. Anyhow, I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure for at least some social security benefits, it is household income that is counted whether you are married or not. It may be weighed differently if you are married, so make sure you check into that, too. When you are just "living together" they might consider household income weighed more heavily because there isn't an assumption that one is responsible for the other. When you are married that is different because a spouse can be a dependent. For example, if we have $5000 sitting in savings, it is counted differently than if one of our children had the same amount because they are considered to have no responsibility while as parents we have a home, other children, vehicles etc to pay for.
it sucks, because you can't even truly meet with the right people to ask questions because it can bring something to their attention and cause an audit.
Hmm, maybe a consultation with a disability lawyer is called for. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
For some time I have been using a set of forums called City Data to learn more about Colorado and my expected move to Arizona. The states/cities portion of the forum are great.
A few days ago I started using some of the other sections of the forums including the "politics" section.
Some of you ought to read through the topics, including several threads on this topic, just to get some perspective about how some people are reacting to this (and almost any political topics). What a bunch of nut cases!