Konkvistador comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong

-9 Post author: h-H 06 June 2012 07:57PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (127)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 June 2012 05:39:28PM *  6 points [-]

ITYM 'good'?

Yes thank you for the correction.

I've certainly heard the argument that polygamy is tied into oppressive social structures, and therefore legitimizing it would be bad.

Same argument can and has been applied to other kinds of marriage.

Would you say this is rationalization?

Yes. Because legalizing such marriage would if anything improve the legal standing and options available to the women in such marriages. It would also ensure fairer distribution of resources, not to mention custody issues in case one of the parents dies. Also Polygamous marriages in the US and Europe are a fact on the ground, a social reality, that we should deal with. Refusing to do so is just perpetuating discrimination.

FWIW I'm very skeptical of the whole "status explains everything" notion in general.

Status doesn't explain everything, it does explain situations like this.

Comment author: CuSithBell 07 June 2012 05:45:41PM 0 points [-]

I've certainly heard the argument that polygamy is tied into oppressive social structures, and therefore legitimizing it would be bad.

Same argument can and has been applied to other kinds of marriage.

On the one hand, the argument doesn't need to be correct to be the (or a) real reason. On the other, I'd expect more people to be more convinced that polygamy is more oppressive (as currently instantiated) than vanilla marriage (and other forms, such as arranged marriages or marriage of children to adults, are probably more strongly opposed).

Comment author: [deleted] 07 June 2012 05:56:58PM *  3 points [-]

.

Comment author: CuSithBell 07 June 2012 06:11:28PM 1 point [-]

I don't care what other people are convinced.

When you said above that status was the real reason LW-associates oppose legal polygamy, you were implying that these people are not actually convinced of these issues, or only pretend to care about them for status reasons.

I'm in a happy polygamous relationship and I know I'm not the only one.

Certainly! I'd like to clarify that I don't think polyamory is intrinsically oppressive, and that I am on the whole pretty darn progressive (philosophically) regarding sexual / relationship rights etc. (That is, I think it probably ideally should be legal. There are probably additional political concerns but politics makes me ill.) I think it's kinda weird that government is in the marriage business to begin with, but probably it is useful to have some sort of structure for dealing with the related tax / property / etc. concerns. I think that polygamy does occur in some cultures that are oppressive towards women, but I don't really have a notion of how much a part of that oppression it facilitates, and I don't necessarily think that's a legitimate factor in whether to legalize the institution. I'm on your side philosophically / politically.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 June 2012 06:13:18PM *  6 points [-]

When you said above that status was the real reason LW-associates oppose legal polygamy, you were implying that these people are not actually convinced of these issues, or only pretend to care about them for status reasons.

If polygamous people where high status they wouldn't voice nor perhaps even think of these objections.

I think it's kinda weird that government is in the marriage business to begin with, but probably it is useful to have some sort of structure for dealing with the related tax / property / etc. concerns.

I tend to agree. Customizable contracts would be the best solution. This way we wouldn't straight jacket people into one size fits all marriage. Some people might like marriages where infidelity is grounds for divorce and the cheating party is penalized somehow. Some people might like marriages that have to be renewed every 10 years, to minimize any hassle with any potential divorce or allow a time out on the relationship. ect.

This would make everyone from the traditionalists to those seeking novel arrangements happy.

Comment author: CuSithBell 07 June 2012 06:19:19PM 6 points [-]

I tend to agree. Customizable contracts would be the best solution.

For some reason I'm picturing the Creative Commons licenses.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 June 2012 06:20:14PM *  7 points [-]

I had exactly that as a sort of model in my brain. :)

Comment author: CuSithBell 08 June 2012 03:33:44AM 1 point [-]

I find this quite aesthetically pleasing :D

Comment author: TheOtherDave 07 June 2012 07:20:20PM 0 points [-]

This would make everyone from the traditionalists to those seeking novel arrangements happy

How seriously do you mean this claim?

Comment author: [deleted] 08 June 2012 05:14:16AM *  3 points [-]

Pretty seriously, I'm not sure why you would think I'm not. Is there something wrong with people having options to customize the legal arrangements of their relationships? And with the decline of classical marriage shouldn't we encourage all such relationships to increase social cohesion as well as contribute towards creating better environments for raising children?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 08 June 2012 05:29:35AM 0 points [-]

Pretty seriously, I'm not sure why you would think I'm not.

Because I find it very unlikely that your proposal would make traditionalists happy, if implemented, but it was plausible that you just meant that part as hyperbole.

Comment author: [deleted] 08 June 2012 05:34:39AM *  4 points [-]

It wouldn't make mainstream "conservatives" happy, but that is simply because they are so utterly ignorant to how legally different marriage is today compared to a few decades or worse don't mind it at all, not minding the incongruity. It would make traditionalists happy. They could recreate much of what they miss about modern marriage.

Take for example penalizing the partner who is cheating in divorce settlements, this is something I know no Slovenian court will ever take into consideration but something people who actually want a traditional marriage would love. In general maybe some people would like to make divorces more difficult because they in general don't approve of them. Maybe some people think default custody should de facto lie with the husband instead of the wife (as it does currently). ect. ect.

Before you think there aren't any people who look at it this way, note that I've seen enthusiasm for this concept on very hardcore Christian right wing blogs like the Orthosphere and The Thinking Housewife.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 09 June 2012 06:06:32PM *  1 point [-]

Take for example penalizing the partner who is cheating in divorce settlements, this is something I know no Slovenian court will ever take into consideration but something people who actually want a traditional marriage would love. In general maybe some people would like to make divorces more difficult because they in general don't mode approve of them. Maybe some people think default custody should de facto lie with the husband instead of the wife (as it does currently). ect. ect.

Careful, you need to weaken the political power of feminism first, otherwise they will try to pass restrictions on the types of marriage contracts to be enforced, similar to the restrictions on employment contracts.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 08 June 2012 05:37:31AM 0 points [-]

Fair enough. If mainstream soi-disant conservatives aren't on the continuum you were referencing, then I was simply confused about what you were referencing.

Comment author: CuSithBell 07 June 2012 06:17:11PM *  -1 points [-]

If polygamous people where high status they wouldn't voice nor perhaps even think of these objections.

Why isn't it the other way around?