Legalization of Polygamy in America

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Ultimately, it's not about stripping whatever privileges are already in place, it's about extending those same privileges to everyone else.

Which isn't going to happen as long as people can say that their interpretation of what their god has to say about marriage is totally against extending those privileges...

And that doesn't solve the bigger issue that religion shouldn't play any role in granting or bestowing purely secular rights and benefits.

You realize that we are both advocating for the same thing, right? That all...unions (for lack of a better word) deserve equal access to these secular rights and benefits. I agree that religion shouldn't be a factor in determining what does or does not constitute a union, but when you start drawing lines that religious unions won't be recognized but state/secular ones will, you're essentially doing the same type of discrimination that religion is doing right now.

If the idea is to not discriminate, then trying to argue that religious ceremonies should no longer have any meaning is the complete opposite of that. Replacing one dogma with another isn't a solution.

I'm not religious, but I'm all for religious freedom (with the usual caveats of as long as it doesn't harm anyone), and that includes athiesm or whatever else.

Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Isn't this the exact situation we have right now?

I mean, when you get married in a church, that *is* irrelevant in the eyes of the government until you file the paperwork with the state.

I think this was missed on the last page. Currently you do have to get a marriage license from the state if you want that religious marriage to mean anything legally.

Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Isn't this the exact situation we have right now?

I mean, when you get married in a church, that *is* irrelevant in the eyes of the government until you file the paperwork with the state.

I think this was missed on the last page. Currently you do have to get a marriage license from the state if you want that religious marriage to mean anything legally.

Not to mention that the person performing the marriage has to be state-licensed.

Jonman wrote:
Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Isn't this the exact situation we have right now?

I mean, when you get married in a church, that *is* irrelevant in the eyes of the government until you file the paperwork with the state.

I think this was missed on the last page. Currently you do have to get a marriage license from the state if you want that religious marriage to mean anything legally.

Not to mention that the person performing the marriage has to be state-licensed.

Hmm... do they? I mean for secular sure, but I thought that was one of those religious exception things. Kinda like ship captains out a certain distance from shore.

Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Not to mention that the person performing the marriage has to be state-licensed.

Hmm... do they? I mean for secular sure, but I thought that was one of those religious exception things. Kinda like ship captains out a certain distance from shore.

Turns out they don't! At least, not in WA. Kind of. You can't just be anyone to perform a wedding - you either need to be a judge, or affiliated to a religion. And yes, the Universal Life Church counts even if it is an organization that basically exists so that the non-religious can claim this benefit.

As one officiant put it during a friend's wedding: "By the powers vested in me by that hokey Internet Church that I gave some money to, I now pronounce you husband and wife"

Jonman wrote:
Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Not to mention that the person performing the marriage has to be state-licensed.

Hmm... do they? I mean for secular sure, but I thought that was one of those religious exception things. Kinda like ship captains out a certain distance from shore.

Turns out they don't! At least, not in WA. Kind of. You can't just be anyone to perform a wedding - you either need to be a judge, or affiliated to a religion. And yes, the Universal Life Church counts even if it is an organization that basically exists so that the non-religious can claim this benefit.

As one officiant put it during a friend's wedding: "By the powers vested in me by that hokey Internet Church that I gave some money to, I now pronounce you husband and wife"

Yep, I just found this site that breaks it down by state. I find it annoying that for NC they don't even mention that judges can perform a marriage. Just a "minister of any faith". I doubt that is true.

We used an Internet minister for our ceremony.

Curiously the legality of this in NC seemed to be somewhat in question at the time (perhaps it still is?). Since nobody has come by to unmarry us yet, though, I'm guessing we're in the clear.

nel e nel wrote:

I'm not religious, but I'm all for religious freedom (with the usual caveats of as long as it doesn't harm anyone), and that includes athiesm or whatever else.

Well, there's your problem. Religion poking its nose into marriage is what has harmed people and will continue to harm people.

Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Isn't this the exact situation we have right now?

I mean, when you get married in a church, that *is* irrelevant in the eyes of the government until you file the paperwork with the state.

I think this was missed on the last page. Currently you do have to get a marriage license from the state if you want that religious marriage to mean anything legally.

Not to mention that the person performing the marriage has to be state-licensed.

Hmm... do they? I mean for secular sure, but I thought that was one of those religious exception things. Kinda like ship captains out a certain distance from shore.

Note that in general, the captain of a ship has never been able to perform marriages unless already specifically certified to do so. Being a captain doesn't give you that ability.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I'm not religious, but I'm all for religious freedom (with the usual caveats of as long as it doesn't harm anyone), and that includes athiesm or whatever else.

Well, there's your problem. Religion poking its nose into marriage is what has harmed people and will continue to harm people.

I don't see how atheism doing the same sh*t to religion is the solution.

Mousetrap wrote:
Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Yellek wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

People can still have religious marriage ceremonies, but those ceremonies will be absolutely meaningless to the government. They wouldn't create any legally recognized bond between two people and they wouldn't automatically confer state-granted rights or benefits. If people want those things then they have to go before the state.

Isn't this the exact situation we have right now?

I mean, when you get married in a church, that *is* irrelevant in the eyes of the government until you file the paperwork with the state.

I think this was missed on the last page. Currently you do have to get a marriage license from the state if you want that religious marriage to mean anything legally.

Not to mention that the person performing the marriage has to be state-licensed.

Hmm... do they? I mean for secular sure, but I thought that was one of those religious exception things. Kinda like ship captains out a certain distance from shore.

Note that in general, the captain of a ship has never been able to perform marriages unless already specifically certified to do so. Being a captain doesn't give you that ability.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...

What? Zapp Brannigan totally lied to me.

nel e nel wrote:

I don't see how atheism doing the same sh*t to religion is the solution.

You really think that atheists are going to try to pass constitutional amendments banning marriage for religious people? Or that atheists are going to successfully petition the nonexistent atheist Congressional representatives to pass a law redefining marriage as something that's only possible for two non-religious people?

All that would be done is try to limit the damage religion and its followers cause and get them out of the way so the rest of society can progress.

nel e nel wrote:

I don't see how atheism doing the same sh*t to religion is the solution.

Implementing equality can look like oppression to the oppressors.

Well, this thread is certainly all over the place.

What I think we all want: consenting adults to be in situations that are not abusive, not harmful to others in general, and equally applied, regardless of religious affiliation.

Do we get that with a semantic redefinition of marriage? I don't think so. Yes, part of the problem is that the word and concept of marriage is tied with religious trappings, but the problem isn't that the terminology is getting in the way.

Marriage is a social merit badge, essentially. You wear it on your ring finger the same way a scout would wear her badges. Whether or not that marriage was performed at a courthouse, or a chapel in Vegas, or a 300-year-old Catholic church in Europe, the ring on your finger doesn't say. It just says you've formed this bond and commitment with someone. Unless you're a member of the majority religion, the concept of marriage already doesn't necessarily assume religious origins. I still stand by the idea that taking away the state's ability to perform marriages and instead limiting it to a series of legal documents that you essentially sign and file with the county courthouse, you take away the secular ability to say you've been married.

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I don't see how atheism doing the same sh*t to religion is the solution.

You really think that atheists are going to try to pass constitutional amendments banning marriage for religious people? Or that atheists are going to successfully petition the nonexistent atheist Congressional representatives to pass a law redefining marriage as something that's only possible for two non-religious people?

All that would be done is try to limit the damage religion and its followers cause and get them out of the way so the rest of society can progress.

History has shown us that, unfortunately, it is very common for one regime to be replaced with another after a revolution. So yes, I do think that is a possibility. Athiests can be assholes too.

It sounds like you have some sort of personal vendetta against religion in general and the word marriage in particular, and I don't personally believe that using government to enforce a "Well, let's see how YOU like it" policy is going to get anyone anywhere.

As NSMike said, you're getting hung up over the semantics of the word 'marriage', with your desire to strip it of all it's meaning. And as Jonman and others have pointed out, we already have a certificate system in place that recognizes both sacred and secular ceremonies. You can get married by a judge, a city official, etc etc. It doesn't matter if you're married or have been civilly unioned, what's important is to EXTEND the current privileges to everyone who chooses to enter into that type of partnership.

The funny thing is that polyamory is *extremely* common, even among married politicians and ministers and, well, damn near everybody. Ever hear the term "mistress"?

Yeah... So even though they don't condone it, many, many of these critics of anything but monogamy engage in polyamory on the side. It's like we're culturally blinded to this; everyone thinks polyamory is for hippies and college students, but in fact, we by default turn a blind eye to it in society and always have, until someone screws up.

It sounds like what you're describing is adultery, not polyamory.

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/9C7vlkN.jpg)

NSMike wrote:

What I think we all want: consenting adults to be in situations that are not abusive, not harmful to others in general, and equally applied, regardless of religious affiliation.

Do we get that with a semantic redefinition of marriage? I don't think so. Yes, part of the problem is that the word and concept of marriage is tied with religious trappings, but the problem isn't that the terminology is getting in the way.

Marriage is a social merit badge, essentially. You wear it on your ring finger the same way a scout would wear her badges. Whether or not that marriage was performed at a courthouse, or a chapel in Vegas, or a 300-year-old Catholic church in Europe, the ring on your finger doesn't say. It just says you've formed this bond and commitment with someone. Unless you're a member of the majority religion, the concept of marriage already doesn't necessarily assume religious origins. I still stand by the idea that taking away the state's ability to perform marriages and instead limiting it to a series of legal documents that you essentially sign and file with the county courthouse, you take away the secular ability to say you've been married.

I think you are correct to point out that the separate-but-equal approach offered by recognition of civil unions alongside marriage is not a path to equal rights for relationships outside of heteronormative, cisnormative pairings.

However, I see in this thread (and others) that the word "marriage" carries a huge amount of baggage for what (at a legal level) is simply a contract.

That's why I'd love to see the government get out of the business of sanctioning marriages at all (as clover pointed out, upthread).

Do I see that as likely any time soon? No. But if you'd asked me 20 years ago whether I thought gay marriage would have legal standing anywhere in the US, I would have answered "No" to that, too.

Society is inherently fluid. Consenting adults to be able to structure their romantic and family life however they want without sacrificing equal protection under the law is important to me. Patient advocacy and awareness raising on a small scale seems like the best way I can lobby for that right now.

However, I see in this thread (and others) that the word "marriage" carries a huge amount of baggage for what (at a legal level) is simply a contract.

Yes, and what I'm trying to get at is that the baggage is the problem - society isn't just going to leave that baggage behind if the legal definition of a marriage changes. I don't want to get too deep into semiotics here, but while it is essentially extra meaning applied to what amounts to legal contracts, there is a ton of baggage that "marriage" carries in social context as well, and some of that has as much psychological weight as law.

It's why the fight for marriage equality has largely rejected civil unions as an acceptable solution. It's why the fight for marriage equality exists, because while there are legal contracts out there that can solidify nearly all of the same rights offered married persons, gay couples would almost always have to sit down with a lawyer who knows the extent of the contracts needed, the procedures that need to be followed, the places where they need to be filed, etc. And it also means that you'd have to have a sheaf of legal documents constantly at the ready in case of emergency, just so you could see your significant other in the hospital or make decisions for them. And even then, some hospitals would turn you away because you weren't married.

Polyamory - the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time. (Google)

Polyamory - the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time (Free Merriam Webster)

Polyamory - The philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time. (Oxford Free)

Polyamory - Any of various practices involving romantic or sexual relationships with multiple partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved. (Wiktionary)

Polyamory - participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships (Dictionary.com)

I'm using it in it's wider sense, to describe simultaneous loving or sexual relationships whether or not people outside of some of the relationships are aware of them. Adultery I would consider a subset of polyamory, not a different thing entirely, especially since the element of consent is present between the two adulterous lovers. You can debate the meaning, but that's how *I* interpret it and used it in this discussion, so please consider that when evaluating my argument.

The fact that you want to use a term of condemnation to identify adultery is interesting, though. It seems like an attempt to "spin" multiply loving attractions and relationships into two categories (acceptable and unacceptable) based on social conventions. I'm trying instead to get at the fact that people have loving and sexual relationships with multiple partners outside the bonds of marriage even after they have agreed to monogamous relationships as a contract and under both social conventions and law.

That fact is key to understanding that exclusive, monogamous loving relationships are by no means the only norm over the course of a lifetime.

Robear wrote:

Polyamory - the philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time. (Google)

Polyamory - the state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time (Free Merriam Webster)

Polyamory - The philosophy or state of being in love or romantically involved with more than one person at the same time. (Oxford Free)

Polyamory - Any of various practices involving romantic or sexual relationships with multiple partners with the knowledge and consent of all involved. (Wiktionary)

Polyamory - participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships (Dictionary.com)

I'm using it in it's wider sense, to describe simultaneous loving or sexual relationships whether or not people outside of some of the relationships are aware of them. Adultery I would consider a subset of polyamory, not a different thing entirely, especially since the element of consent is present between the two adulterous lovers. You can debate the meaning, but that's how *I* interpret it and used it in this discussion, so please consider that when evaluating my argument.

Thank you, I understand your viewpoint much better after your clarification. I had always heard polyamory used in more of an open relationship setting, and not with adultery. So perhaps I was off with that assumption.

The fact that you want to use a term of condemnation to identify adultery is interesting, though. It seems like an attempt to "spin" multiply loving attractions and relationships into two categories (acceptable and unacceptable) based on social conventions. I'm trying instead to get at the fact that people have loving and sexual relationships with multiple partners outside the bonds of marriage even after they have agreed to monogamous relationships as a contract and under both social conventions and law.

That fact is key to understanding that exclusive, monogamous loving relationships are by no means the only norm over the course of a lifetime.

On the bolded. I don't think I used a term of condemnation on adultery. Although that would be on point. I don't know about unacceptable, but engaging in another relationship when already with someone who believes they have an exclusive romantic relationship with you is dishonest, selfish, and hurtful to someone you purportedly care for. I'd guess most people would find polyamory unacceptable under those conditions.

A person can identify as poly and also be a huge asshole.

Adultery *is* a term of condemnation, though. What I'm getting at is that there are socially acceptable AND unacceptable forms of polyamory (which naturally change according to social convention, which in turn is influenced by religion among other things). If we consider the actual *practices* that go in America, having loving/sexual relationships (of any form) that involve more than one partner is, functionally, polyamory - and many, many Christians are fine with it on the down-low.

Robear wrote:

The funny thing is that polyamory is *extremely* common, even among married politicians and ministers and, well, damn near everybody. Ever hear the term "mistress"?

Robear wrote:

I'm using it in it's wider sense, to describe simultaneous loving or sexual relationships whether or not people outside of some of the relationships are aware of them. Adultery I would consider a subset of polyamory, not a different thing entirely, especially since the element of consent is present between the two adulterous lovers. You can debate the meaning, but that's how *I* interpret it and used it in this discussion, so please consider that when evaluating my argument.

Well, then you should consider other people's interpretations in evaluating their arguments.

I didn't criticize their arguments, I added an observation. One that, in fact, depended on *understanding* their arguments...

I don't intend this to support any thesis—I just want to share it as an example of how when everyone involved is poly and consenting there can still be complicated issues of trust:

I'm Polyamorous and I STILL Got Cheated On
(Anonymous, xoJane, 2015-02-19)

The language may be a bit squicky to people who aren't familiar with some terminology (or even some who are). And, I'd argue that the presentation is designed to be more than a little sensational. But still, it's interesting.

Robear wrote:

I didn't criticize their arguments, I added an observation. One that, in fact, depended on *understanding* their arguments... :-)

I guess I don't see what that observation adds to anything. The whole point of calling something polyamorous in the first place is to capture the idea of not monogamous, but not adulterous, either.

edit: Robear, are you trying to point out that lots of *people* throughout history have proven themselves capable of having relationships/sex while already having a partner?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: Robear, are you trying to point out that lots of *people* throughout history have proven themselves capable of having relationships/sex while already having a partner?

Yes, and that it happens all the time even when people are married and their spouses are not aware of it. That does not change the fact that the relationships exist. Leaving that out of the definition because people in *trusting* poly relationships don't want to be associated with it (quite naturally, mind you) seems to miss the entire dynamic that underlies the propensity to love more than one person at a time. That, to me, is a basic human trait.

It's like defining homosexuality as "Same-sex attraction within the bonds of marriage". It leaves out the majority of such relationships in favor of a socially defined ideal. It doesn't encompass the entire reality.

Edit - Let's see if I can put it baldly. Can you convince me that a person who is married to one person and in a long-term sexual, loving relationship with a different person, absent the knowledge of the spouse - that is, someone who is committing adultery - is *not* a person who has more than one loving, sexual relationship at a time?

If there's a better word that encompasses *all* multiple partner relationships, I'm happy to use it. But right now, it looks to me like polyamory is it.

Robear wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

edit: Robear, are you trying to point out that lots of *people* throughout history have proven themselves capable of having relationships/sex while already having a partner?

Yes, and that it happens all the time even when people are married and their spouses are not aware of it. That does not change the fact that the relationships exist. Leaving that out of the definition because people in *trusting* poly relationships don't want to be associated with it (quite naturally, mind you) seems to miss the entire dynamic that underlies the propensity to love more than one person at a time. That, to me, is a basic human trait.

It's like defining homosexuality as "Same-sex attraction within the bonds of marriage". It leaves out the majority of such relationships in favor of a socially defined ideal. It doesn't encompass the entire reality.

It's not leaving out the majority of such relationships in favor of a socially defined ideal. It's leaving out relationships that don't meet the rules for the individual, specific relationship as established by the individuals involved, whether that's also a socially defined ideal or not.

Maybe it would be more accurate, then, to express what I think you're trying to say like this: poly people are actually the norm. Going by your sort of definition, most monogamous relationships are not monogamous because the people involved lack attraction to other people. Most of the people in those monogamous relationships have attraction to other people all the time: they just don't act on that attraction for whatever reason.

(I would say that when people call themselves poly, they don't just mean they're capable of having an affair and are saying something more nuanced and meaningful about their sexuality, but that's maybe another conversation)