LGBTAitp - Part Twelve

[Serpentine]

That's pretty much what we're going for, with just a distinction between secular and religious union and the latter having no legal nor (general) cultural advantages over the former.

[Beelzebub1111]

Thanks to the Defense of Marraige Act, it isn't the same thing in the united states. Only counts from state to state.

[rakkoon]

(Serpentine, which is what we have over here but we're getting political )

Yay Nano!

[Danne]

I want to point out that in many countries (example: Russia), civil union is the "official" marriage, while marriage itself is a purely religious ceremony. Heck, in there the main part of the ceremony is at the registration office instead of the church (if there even is a ceremony in church). In countries with such laws/traditions, how would it relegate gay couples to second class?

It doesn't. That's only the case where marriage is the norm.

Re: Doing away with marriages in favor of civil unions (and trying to keep it unpolitical) I would say that's a very dangerous course. People who are already married are likely to look at it as "taking away" their marriages, which could get some people who are neutral or even supporters to shift to being against it.

[Serpentine]

Getting rid of marriages? No, not at all, just separating the secular and religious aspects of them.

[Don Julio Anejo]

It doesn't. That's only the case where marriage is the norm.

Re: Doing away with marriages in favor of civil unions (and trying to keep it unpolitical) I would say that's a very dangerous course. People who are already married are likely to look at it as "taking away" their marriages, which could get some people who are neutral or even supporters to shift to being against it.

It's possible to simply start off with the two being separate ceremonies. I.e. you register the marriage/union at a government office and then go to church to get married if you want to, however from a government point of view making no distinction between the two...

[RaggedAngel]

I run the Gay-Straight Alliance at my school. We have a meeting every week, discussing various topics. We're open to people of every sexuality, religion, and political alignment. We're all at least vaguely friends, and we normally have a great time.

Today, however, I wanted to discuss Polygamy. I had prepared information, and wanted to have a light discussion, like we normally do. However, I wasn't done with the basic overview before angry arguments had broken out.

I have two questions, to help me understand why some members of the club were so upset by the subject:

1. Is polygamy a subject of relevance to the LGBT community?

{Scrubbed}

[Lioness]

1. I think it's relevant mainly in that it's a deviation from the cultural norms...it doesn't really, in my mind, have any more connection with LGBT than that.

[golentan]

1. Not particularly in my mind.
2. Can't really think of any. Might make divorce law more complicated.

[Mystic Muse]

2. Would the legalization of polygamous marriage in the United States have any effect other than the validation of the practices of certain sects of the Mormon church?

Possibly more acceptance of polygamy in general, although it's debatable whether that's a good thing.

It would also make a lot of other religions quite mad I'd imagine.

Might make a few different laws kind of odd.

[DeadManSleeping]

1. No, because non-straight people can't be polyamorous[/sarcasm]

2. There's lots of legal stuff involved in marriage that might get odd if more than two people were involved, but that's as much as we can say here. I am sure that divorce rates would go up, because polyamorous relationships have the inherent added instability of an added person (humans are unstable, more humans are more unstable). I can also imagine quite a bit of emotional issues arising from manipulators using the idea of 'legitimacy' to coerce partners into polyamorous relationships that the partners don't necessarily want, but I'd think that would be an incredibly rare case (and, yes, people do that sort of manipulation already, but the frequency might increase enough to be statistically significant). Yes, overall, this might give rise to more non-monogamous romantic situations, but humanity fluctuates between monogamy being the norm and polygamy being the norm. I can cite plenty of examples for both. I really don't see a problem with things swinging the other way.

Well, except that it would even further reduce my chances of finding a romantic partner, but I think that once you go as low as "practically impossible", complaining about further reduction is a bit petty.

So, if you were to ask me, I'd say "go ahead and legalize it". But I don't think anyone's going to make the push anytime soon, because that ol' "sanctity of marriage" argument is going to be shoved in polyamory's face until the cows come home.

[Heliomance]

1. No, because non-straight people can't be polyamorous[/sarcasm]

It does make it a little trickier, what with a polyamorous relationship requiring at least two members of the same sex.

Yes, I realise this assumes a binary gender system which not everyone falls into, yadda yadda. The point still stands.

[turkishproverb]

Aw. I didn't even make it in on the first page of the new thread.

[Serpentine]

I'd say there's three big problems with legal polygamy:

1. It's almost always in the form of one man, multiple women. It would have to be made sure that it's equal across the board.
2. There's a lot of room for abuse in polygamy. A lot of care in law and policing would have to be taken to make sure it isn't abused.
3. Marriage, inheritance and divorce law is already pretty damn complicated. Adding extra people in it, with extra children and so forth, is gonna make everything a whole lot more complicated.

Of course, that only applies to legal marriage. I don't expect that many polyamorous relationships work out in the long term, but that's about my only "problem" with them.

[Jokasti]

I'd say there's three big problems with legal polygamy:

1. It's almost always in the form of one man, multiple women. It would have to be made sure that it's equal across the board.
2. There's a lot of room for abuse in polygamy. A lot of care in law and policing would have to be taken to make sure it isn't abused.
3. Marriage, inheritance and divorce law is already pretty damn complicated. Adding extra people in it, with extra children and so forth, is gonna make everything a whole lot more complicated.

Of course, that only applies to legal marriage. I don't expect that many polyamorous relationships work out in the long term, but that's about my only "problem" with them.

Polygamy is one man, multiple woman. I think polyandry is one woman, multiple men. I wonder what you call multiples of both.

[Rainbow Servant]

I'm pretty sure (not 100%, but still) that:

Polygamy - multiple marriages
Polygyny - one man, multiple wives
Polyandry - one woman, multiple husbands

And yeah, not necessarily LGBT, but still an interesting topic to debate. I don't think many legal systems would have to change too much to accomodate it either, since I don't think it's too much more complicated than divorce+remarriage, it just applies to more aspects than custody of the children.

Also, hi? I keep meaning to post here, but yeah...

[Danne]

New person! Hi, new person! *hugs and leaves cookies*

Also, @all: I think we're starting to toe the "get in trouble because of politics and/or religion" line. Let's be careful?

[celtois]

Polypanamoury

Trying say it aloud its fun

Not actually a word but it should be.

[Serpentine]

Polygamy is one man, multiple woman. I think polyandry is one woman, multiple men. I wonder what you call multiples of both.

Nope, polygamy's (meant to be) the neutral one.

[RaggedAngel]

Nope, polygamy's (meant to be) the neutral one.

From what I read, (yay wikipedia), you are correct.

A "Group Marriage" is the term for a marriage including multiple men and women.

My real confusion was concerning the very hostile reaction of normally accepting people towards the issue. I can't think of why it would be especially touchy, especially for an LGBT and Ally crowd.

[Mystic Muse]

My real confusion was concerning the very hostile reaction of normally accepting people towards the issue. I can't think of why it would be especially touchy, especially for an LGBT and Ally crowd.

Not going to say anything beyond this, but Religion.

Also, for me anyway, it still feels like you're cheating on whoever you're married to.

[rayne_dragon]

Well, first hello and welcome to loaded.dice.

Second... polyamoury is multiple-loves, which loaded.dice missed and is the gender neutral terminology that most poly folk I know like to use for their relationships regardless of if there are multiple male partners, multiple female partners, or multiples of both.

I think polyarmoury (and thus polygamy) is an issue that relates strongly to the LGBT movement. In a way it is another alternate sexuality and I think it would be irresponsible for the LGBT not to include and support those who see and treat polyarmoury as an acceptable lifestyle for theirselves. Many people have a lot of misconceptions about how polyarmoury works (see the previous posts on this topic for examples) and there will be discrimination against poly folk until these have been cleared up.

The attitude towards polyarmoury now reminds me a lot of back when the gay rights movement was making progress, but the trans rights movement was momentarily left behind on its own. "What does that have to do with us?"

Edit: If anyone wants, I'll be happy to answer questions about poly folk, since even thought I'm not very interested a poly relationship myself, I've had a lot of poly friends.

Edit #2: The following post is better at putting things more poetically than I apparently can at the moment.

[DeadManSleeping]

I don't really have anything against the principle of polygamy (other than aforementioned it-making-my-situation-even-worse), but it's rarely practical.

Still, I have not formed my opinion without knowing anything about polyamorous people. Sometimes, you wind up loving someone who loves you, and then you both also wind up loving a third person. It can happen. It has happened to people before, and it will happen to people in the future (unless I succeed at my villainous plans). Not everyone is open to the idea of being in a relationship with more than one person, and you know what? That's okay. That's how I am. But I don't think it's right to tell people "you can only love one person at a time". While I agree that you should never betray one you already love for someone else, if loving someone else wouldn't make the loved one feel wronged, then why should I have anything against it?

It's all about consent, trust, and understanding. Some people really can have that in a small group rather than a pair. I'm happy to support their happiness, much like I am happy to bake things for other people that I personally would not eat.

[golentan]

Actually, I have a theory on why Polygamy is such a touchy subject in LGBT discussions. It's a kneejerk reaction in response to a known threat.

Namely, when gay marriage comes up, one of the common arguments we run into are slippery slopes. And the three main places people go with slippery slopes from gay marriage are "bestiality, child abuse, and polygamy." As such, the gay community has a vested interest in keeping those topics well, well beyond arms reach. Basically "we're not with those guys, can we get married now please?"

[rayne_dragon]

Actually, I have a theory on why Polygamy is such a touchy subject in LGBT discussions. It's a kneejerk reaction in response to a known threat.

Namely, when gay marriage comes up, one of the common arguments we run into are slippery slopes. And the three main places people go with slippery slopes from gay marriage are "bestiality, child abuse, and polygamy." As such, the gay community has a vested interest in keeping those topics well, well beyond arms reach. Basically "we're not with those guys, can we get married now please?"

You're probably right. Maybe we should try to get polygamists the right to marry since then nobody will complain about homosexual marriages? I mean we could try for one of the other two, but poly folk are so much nicer. Plus there's the whole consent issue with the other two.

[Worira]

I'd say there's three big problems with legal polygamy:

1. It's almost always in the form of one man, multiple women. It would have to be made sure that it's equal across the board.
2. There's a lot of room for abuse in polygamy. A lot of care in law and policing would have to be taken to make sure it isn't abused.
3. Marriage, inheritance and divorce law is already pretty damn complicated. Adding extra people in it, with extra children and so forth, is gonna make everything a whole lot more complicated.

Of course, that only applies to legal marriage. I don't expect that many polyamorous relationships work out in the long term, but that's about my only "problem" with them.

Hey look, it's my opinions on this matter.

[Alanzeign]

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but how are those "slippery slopes"? LGBT relationships are still based off of consent (at least as much as any relationship is) and bestiality + child abuse do not have the possibility of consent. Polygamy would be much more similar to LGBT relationships because all affected parties are consensual.

Also welcome loaded.dice! *hands out cookies*

I don't really understand polygamy and think in ways that it undermines a 1 vs. 1 relationship but I don't really see any issues with it either.

[Danne]

I'm sorry, Alanzeign, you are expecting people to be rational? Well there's your problem!

I can't explain or understand why gay = trans = bestiality = child abuse = polygamy = bad. Suffice to say that in some people's minds it is.

[golentan]

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but how are those "slippery slopes"? LGBT relationships are still based off of consent (at least as much as any relationship is) and bestiality + child abuse do not have the possibility of consent. Polygamy would be much more similar to LGBT relationships because all affected parties are consensual.

Also welcome loaded.dice! *hands out cookies*

I don't really understand polygamy and think in ways that it undermines a 1 vs. 1 relationship but I don't really see any issues with it either.

The slippery slope fallacy is entirely based of the problems you mentioned. It isn't a slippery slope argument if the ending portion is actually a direct and logical consequence of the preceding points.

I.E. if someone says "Providing pizza during breaks may lead to complaints from people who can't eat dairy" is not a slippery slope argument, whereas appending "which will bankrupt us because we'll have to buy them caviar!" is.

[Coidzor]

^: It's the idea of, well, one thing has just been changed about marriage, thus we're going to be more receptive to change in the future, as far as I've ever been able to tell.

2. Can't really think of any. Might make divorce law more complicated.

Yeah, pretty much. qntm.org deals with some other concerns in the article "Gay Marriage: the database engineering perspective"

I have two questions, to help me understand why some members of the club were so upset by the subject:

I'd say it's because it has all of the nasty divisions of discussing marriage along with all of the nasty divisions over the issue of polyamorous people as their relationship to the LGBT movement is not firmly established.

Had you discussed Polyamory at all before this?

1. Is polygamy a subject of relevance to the LGBT community?

In passing. It's not so much important to LGBT individuals as it is Poly individuals, who may or may not be accepted as part of the LGBT movement by any particular group or supported by them regardless of whether they're seen as part of the movement.

2. Would the legalization of polygamous marriage in the United States have any effect other than the validation of the practices of certain sects of the Mormon church?

Yes. It'd require an overhaul of property inheritance laws and divorce law.

Aw. I didn't even make it in on the first page of the new thread.

*pat pat* There, there. We still want you around regardless.

Also, hi? I keep meaning to post here, but yeah...

Welcome!

My real confusion was concerning the very hostile reaction of normally accepting people towards the issue. I can't think of why it would be especially touchy, especially for an LGBT and Ally crowd.

Just because one supports/wants same-sex marriage doesn't mean one supports/wants multiple-partner marriages or multiple marriages per partner or both.