So who wrote this? Bob?

aaaaahh I know, Lee. How could I not?

Interesting how every group leaves someone out, isn't it?

Two reasons polyamory is illegal and should remain illegal.

A) Polyamory is a choice, homosexuality is not.
B) The law typically has to appeal to the lowest common denominator (ie, while many teens are ready to have sex at 16, the law appeals to those that are not ready and makes the age 18). If polyamory is legalized, how can you guarantee there won't be any creepy Warren Jeffs bullshit?

Come on, Lee, this argument is demeaning to us GLBT people out there (equating our struggle to be with our loved ones when they die with polygamy? or be able to take care of mutually adopted children after one dies?), and it undermines our point.

We're attempting to marry monogamously in a society that hates adultery and polygamy (and that IS what you're talking about; polyamory means loving two people, polygamy means marrying two people) and we're only barely starting to make headway - why would we further alienate ourselves by defending something that the vast majority find gross or dehumanizing? Every high-profile jackass who babbles about the evils of homosexuality has claimed that it's similar to polygamy - on a strategic level, why would we equate ourselves with that? Why would we validate their point?
So there's a bunch of arguments, take your pick.

Theo, I know you're sincere. I think you genuinely don't see that you're actually being demeaning to poly people, not vice versa. You're saying 'why would we associate with THOSE people....yuck!' - but when some black people advocates say the same exact thing about gay people (not OUR struggle!) you'd see the problem right away.

Plenty of poly people are bi. Is that a choice?

(And the 'it's a choice argument' is weak for other reasons, but it's too much for comments. I need to write it out sometime.)

What if I said "many child molesters are gay - if we legalize homosexuality, who do we stop that?" - again, you'd scream bloody murder. But you (again, honestly I believe) don't see that you're doing that same thing by saying 'if we let people marry more than one person, how do we stop pedohiles?!?'

The answer is easy - keep pedophilia illegal. Make consensual relationships legal.

You know what, Lee, I say okay, but treat each of the partnerships in a poly relationship separately. A stupid (hey, your choice) contract like marriage should be a one-on-one kind of deal. Not to restrict you: I just mean, make a separate contract as each partnership wants to uuuh, legitimize itself.

If it involves taxes, parental rights, property rights, etc, it should be a one-on-one contract. Or a (previously married) couple contracts with an individual. What the fuck ever.

It's not prejudice, is it, to try to minimize legal complications and say a marriage (or any other contract) should be one party to another?

Actually, I think I'm more curious why the fuck any poly anything would want to get married. (I can't really understand straight people getting married either except for the kids' sake, and that's getting to be less and less of an issue.)

@jane

It's not at all unjust to say that an entire class of citizens cannot get married because it might complicate it for those who can.

Hey Shane, that's SO not what I was saying. I could give a rat's ass about what complicates what for the marrieds. I DO care about trying to minimize the complications inflicted on our courts right now (which sucks to have to think about).

Reread what I wrote: I didn't say they shoudn't be able to marry. I said, courts should just address it one contract at a time. Person to person; couple to person; what the fuck ever.

Courts should only address it as a contractual agreement; all that religious shit should be addressed in a ceremony; and the twain should never meet.

Hey! and pardon my french.

"But you (again, honestly I believe) don't see that you're doing that same thing by saying 'if we let people marry more than one person, how do we stop pedohiles?!?'"

That is because an individual's dogma makes a person one-eye blind.

jane - do you ever sleep?!

Why are gay marriage advocates not defending zoophiles and furries? Why can't two men made of straw be married?

^ Good point Travis. This is my first post on this site after reading daily for about 6 months. I am now officially skipping every post by Lee...not a fan.

My support of gay marriage as an equality issue has more to do with the role of government in peoples lives. I also support the right of private religious institutions to be as backward and uptight as they choose. But as for civil marriage, I support it as a contract between two people. It is not about sex or even romance. The point being to allow a person to choose another person to make end of life decisions, to be their beneficiary by default, to share the tax benefits married couples receive. If you start adding more and more people to the equation, you have undermined the purpose of the contract.

People are free to enter into polyamorous relationships at will. They can be as romantic as they want and I don't care. My arguments against marriages between more than two people may not be fair, but they are not bigoted. There are many contracts that are limited to two people, employment contracts come to mind. If you start including 3, 4, or more people in marriages, you have to redo all the laws on divorce, child support, and estate planning.

The way that I support bisexuals, transsexuals, and gays is to separate the sex part from the contract of marriage part. This is a societal construct that is unnecessary. Marry the person you want and trust the most to make your financial, medical, and life decisions. After that, work out your romantic and sexual activities among yourselves.

As long as any and all parties involved are adults who can consent, more power to them.

If you and your buddy want to get married for tax benefits and healthcare, more power to you. Plenty of heterosexual couples marry without an kind of love in their relationship and at least chuck and larry aren't going to be pumping out babies that have to deal with their parents loveless relationship.

I really had to think long and hard about this one, and reserve my right to change my opinion at will.
That said, I'm with you Chauncy & Scrum. To have multi-party marriages would gob up the legal system to an insane degree & make some lawyers very happy. Keep the legalities as simple as possible and the personal (such as how many people you love) things personal.

I do see your point, Travis, but I don't think that you're trying to see anyone else's point.

What does that even mean?

Jane: "Courts should only address it as a contractual agreement; all that religious shit should be addressed in a ceremony; and the twain should never meet."

Bingo! That's it. Marriage needs to be a religious event. Celebrated by and with people of your faith or even lack of faith. Contracts would take care of any legal side to a relationship.

Just ban government approved marriage and re-assign contract law to handle the details. This would take a great deal of unwinding and would be protested heavily by those to whom our American laws are from God along with the Ten Commandments, but it would work.

@cminri
"jane - do you ever sleep?!"

You are so funny! Thanks for the burst of laughter!
Lurv - Jane, oops...wrong thread...must wait for PTT.

What that means, Travis, is that I see you doing the same thing that Rick Warren and other misguided individuals have been doing. Gay marriage has, by these people, been seen as a gateway to pet marriage. You, and please clarify if I'm wrong, are equating polyamory with zoophilia. How does that make you any different than the Rick Warren group?

Minx: ahhh you soooooo missed the scarcasam on Travis's post.... either that or Travis is totally in favor of straw men marriages, ummmm.

Travis want to weigh in on that one? heh.

No that's about right.

Wow! Thanks, Jenny (BTW, I like your blog). Apologies to Travis, big time. I just got my Bi-self in a bit of an uproar and the sarcasm didn't register.

I don't think Travis was being sarcastic, but perhaps he'd clarify.

I wonder if you REALLY think this is a zinger-gotcha, since it is so off-base.

Last I checked, there were plenty of married swingers in the world, and not too many of them decrying the sad state of affairs that the world wouldn't allow them to be legally recognized as co-mutual spouses.

The thing about gay marriage is that it is in no way different in ANY respect, contract-wise, legal-wise, righrs-wise, than heterosexual marriage.

There would be no need to change or write a single new line of law. It is like letting black people go to schools, or into the Major Leagues. The rules don't change, but the doors are now open to more people. The institution remains.

You're proposing a totally parallel institution. Which, if you're really gung-ho about, please do. Would it be a complicated, Oneida Colony affair, with rules governing the dissolution of groupings and the formation of new ones, and sub-ones?

But I suspect (and I may be wrong, you tell me) that you're NOT gung-ho about it, but rather just looking for a zinger, and an AHA, but are you not JUST AS BAD AS WARREN? moment. This is like the blog equivalent of the false and forced "balance" the media will give any republican malfeasance story, needing to "balance" it with a democratic transgression that may or may not in any way rise to the same level.

Do you have a workable frame-work of how such arrangements would become law? Or even a napkin-sketch? Because if not, you're really just muddying an issue needlessly, I think, trying to score points.

And I don't think any were scored.

Well, Josh - you caught me.

You see, I began this plot about 14 years ago. The first step was being openly in a poly relationship. I did this, despite it being pretty socially unacceptable ...but knowing it would give me 'cover' in 2008 when Prop 8 was passed and Rick Warren became an issue.

My careful planning might make it seem as though it was actually an issue that I (and many other people, really) cared about...but you pegged it. I went through a lot of relationships just to score points on an issue.

And the sketch of how it works is pretty easy - you allow people to enter into arrangements they want to. If you look at history, which has the world seen more commonly - plural marriage or gay marriage?

>>If you look at history, which has the world seen more commonly - plural marriage or gay marriage?

Oh my god! Based on this, gays don't deserve to marry! Well played, sir.

>>If you look at history, which has the world seen more commonly - plural marriage or gay marriage?

Oh my god! Based on this, gays don't deserve to marry! Well played, sir.

I don't understand why you are against gay marriage, Travis.

Just because something isn't as common, doesn't make it wrong - you should know that. Just ask your furry friends.

Lee:

Have you spent time lobbying for this form of relationship to be formalized?

Like, with legal recognition?

Do you see where gay marriage is a one-for-one proposition to pass,with literally NO addtional legal questions, since there is already a well established framework for marriages and the dissolution of them in place?

Your being involved in whatever type of relationship however many years ago or since doesn't speak to any of those points.

You're arguing that polygamy and marriage are the same.

I'm not passing moral judgment on this; they are objectively not the same arrangement.

Again, what are the formal rules you think should be recognized and codified into law?

Why would it be any more complex than any contract involving more than one person?

And - your argument is complexity?

Which form of marriage has been more common on the planet - same sex or polygamy?

Which form of marriage has been more common on the planet - same sex or polygamy?

Lee, you are smarter than this.

If you're talking historical precedent by way of practice throughout history, then slavery has more time in practice than not in practice.

What form of government has been more common on the planet: inherited monarchies or representative democracies? I mean, you can play this game all day long.

But of course I'm speaking about complexity. There is nothing legally new or problematic with allowing gays into a pre-existing institution, with well established and documented law.

There is no precedent,outside of Utah and Upstate NY during the Utopia-movements, for a legal framework of polygamy. And both of those were unworkable.