Plural marriage has a small, small constituency. Even some people in open marriages, including some women (and men) who have (openly) both a husband and a boyfriend, maintain a distinction between their primary relationship, which is the marriage, and outside-the-marriage liaisons. In other words, just because a person is in an open marriage doesn't mean they support plural marriage.
And, again, if you want me to support plural marriage you have to specify what I'm approving. When this subject comes up, no one ever specifies how it would work.
So we do not gender discriminate- yesterday one of the advise columnists had a letter from someone about avoiding Thanksgiving with her family because her sister was going to attend with both the sisters husband and her boyfriend. The husband and boyfriend were okay with the situation. So it is not only men who could benefit from plural marriage. Heck my wife would like a husband who could fix stuff around the house. Actually so would I.
" Economically, they did OK for awhile with two working parents and a full time stay at home mom."
Seems like they would've been better off with a full time nanny/housekeeper. But then, of course, they'd have to pay her.
"Why not just bring harems back. Seemed like a good deal."
My younger son has what we call, his harem. He is very happy, always smiling, constant female attention. I believe the girls aren't quite as pleased with it as he is.
A family that is related by marriage to a friend was in a plural marriage and I've heard many stories about this family. One husband, two "wives," two kids. Not in Utah or anywhere you'd imagine. The adults are college graduates, the H of a top USNews university. They were not youngsters when they got together, not Mormons, either. The kids were from one of the "wives. " All five lived together for a bit, but once the second child came along the "wife" who was not the mother of the children became very jealous and eventually left. The parents worked odd hours, and never interacted much with others. I don't feel it was a healthy situation, psychologically, for anyone involved. Economically, they did OK for awhile with two working parents and a full time stay at home mom.
But, zoose often brought up complicated logistics issues since it is so set up for a two-person contract. I think a lot of these things could be worked around though.
Fine. Work around the issues (which are deeply entwined all over the law, and I think you'd find it's considerably more difficult than you thought), tell us what the proposal is, and then we can see if we agree or not.
I'm kind of neutral on plural marriage. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with it and it probably should be legal. But, zoose often brought up complicated logistics issues since it is so set up for a two-person contract. I think a lot of these things could be worked around though.
As long as it is consensual and with adults, I don't really think a line should be drawn. It's not like it's going to become more accepted. IMO it will help in states like Utah where those in polygamist marriages file as "single" and collect a lot of government help (welfare, etc) because they are seen as being much more poor than they actually are.
If marriage were uncoupled from legal benefits, and with the caveat that no minors are involved and that there is full consent, then no one would care who is married to whom or to how many others.
Where it gets thorny is on issues of SS benefits, insurance benefits, estate law and so on.
To my mind, once a court, like the Massachusetts Supreme Court said that the state should not be defining marriage based on some sort of prevailing morality, tradition, etc. then it's really anything goes. If you can't draw one line, why draw others?
The whole conundrum of states sanctioning some marriages but not others could be solved by granting benefits to individuals rather than to 'marriages' and some re-working of the estate laws with respect to such things as intestacy.
When people advocate for same-sex marriage, we know exactly what that means in law: the new spouses will be the parents of all children in the marriage, they'll be each other's health care proxies, they'll have some specified tax consequences, inheritance will be spelled out if one dies without a will, if one is in the service the other will get spousal benefits, they can divorce by following certain legal procedures and so forth. We don't need to change much, because we already have a system in place for two people to be married.
When people advocate for plural marriage, I want to know what they are actually proposing. If three people are married, is that just one marriage among all three, or is one of them married to two other people? If two people are married and one of them wants to marry a third, does the other get a veto? What if three people are married and one wants out-- what happens to the children? What happens to the property accumulated in the marriage? Does the employer have to give benefits to all an employee's husbands and wives? In a divorce, who pays child support, and is there ever spousal support? How do people in a plural marriage file taxes? What if one spouse is in a coma and the others disagree on medical treatment?
We know what same-sex marriage would be in law. We don't even know what plural marriage would be in law, and unless we actually have a proposal, we aren't in a position to decide whether we're in favor.
How come when people talk about plural marriage, it's always one guy with multiple wives? Why is it never the other way round, with one woman having multiple husbands? When I start seeing the latter, perhaps I'll stop believing that plural marriage is (perhaps not inherently, but certainly in practice) a way of exploiting women (often very young women). And will start believing that the "true consent" issues aren't as major as I think they are. There are polyandrous societies, and some polyandrous relationships in the US, but they're not going to be very open, given the societal views on polygamy. Polygyny is more seen than polyandry in the US because the former is actually associated with some religions.
We are all about sustainable earth and homes and businesses now.
Yet in plural marriage, what is sustainable? What happens to those boys raised in these environments where one day, they will not be able to marry because women of marriageable age will all be married to someone else with multiple wives?
I am all for same sex unions.
Totally opposed to plural marriage.
My LDS friends are appalled at this idea and find it to be the kind of backwards stereotype that people think of when they view Mormons.
I have seen that show several times. It's like watching a train wreck slowly unfold. I am sure they all love each other and seem like they are everyday, normal people. But, I am worried about the young women and the young boys who have been and will be cast out in FLDS communities. This family isn't normal. Sorry.
Why any man wants more than one wife is beyond me. I get the women wanting to be sister-wives. They help each other out quite a bit, even with resentment and jealousy.
But what's in it for him? Breeding children? It's certainly not about sexual gratification -keeping up with several women could just about kill a middle aged man, I would think.
I have several questions about how it works - who gets the life insurance benefits if he dies? How do they get health insurance benefits? Clearly, only wife is the spouse for legal forms. Do the others just go along for the ride and hope they will be taken care of if something happens?
Do the FDLS kids go to college?
I find it interesting on this show that they have a youngish dad and three, now four normal adult women. But that isn't always how it is with some of these fundamental LDS groups. Younger women and much older men, much of the time. I agree - I think it's exploitation.
How come when people talk about plural marriage, it's always one guy with multiple wives? Why is it never the other way round, with one woman having multiple husbands? When I start seeing the latter, perhaps I'll stop believing that plural marriage is (perhaps not inherently, but certainly in practice) a way of exploiting women (often very young women). And will start believing that the "true consent" issues aren't as major as I think they are.
Have you ever heard something and it kind of makes you step back and rethink?? Well, I have a friend who was raised LDS and has family members who are fundamentalist Mormon.She told me the show “Sister Wives” was carefully orchestrated to bring plural marriage out in the open to the American public and show how “normal” it is.They think this exposure will have the same result as coming out of the closet did for homosexually and same-sex unions.They are hoping when states redefine and rewrite marriage laws - plural marriage will piggyback in, so to speak, with same-sex.Interesting ….. if states OK same-sex can they (should they) legally deny plural marriage?
