Why is marriage between two people?

[Larry L.]

I once saw a law firm online offering "Relationship LLCs", as a sort of legal hack for non-traditional relationships. Sounded like a cool idea.

But to play the devil's (or maybe Jehovah's?) advocate here:

If marriages are permitted of infinite quantity, what's to stop abuse via marriages of convenience? I mean, what if your boss decides everyone in the company is getting married? -- it'll give some killer tax breaks or something... What if the Teamsters all get married?

[Christopher Weeks]

Yeah, Larry.  What if?

If that's a problem under law, then maybe there's screwy stuff in our law that ought to change.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Eric, Christian, Larry: you're all doing technocratic arguments. What you're essentially saying is that polygamy is no good because it's hard to implement due to existing bureaucratic procedure, which, you imply, is too difficult to change. That's a rather light argument compared to the question of whether polygamy is "right" or "wrong". I'd say that a state has a problem if it's bureaucracy is so massive that it can't be changed to improve it. Actually, the historical answer is to cry for revolution when the state refuses to bother with adapting.

What you state are genuine challenges - but they're challenges of application, not principle. To accept them in deliberation of the principle is to claim that the bureaucracy we live in is stronger and more important than ideology (read: the passion you live for). I don't think any of you would claim that the US government is already perfect.

What I'm trying to say: I don't doubt for a second that all those practical tax law issues and potential loopholes can be solved with expert legislation. Polygamy is a question of whether we should, not whether we can.

[joshua neff]

I told my wife about this conversation, and she said, "You are far too soft hearted to just fuck your way around a harem, anyway.  You'd get all emotionally involved and end up shortchanging us all and exhausting yourself. It's better this way."

And she's right, which is why I should be polygamous. I can't think of any reasons why people in general shouldn't be polygamous, though.

[xenopulse]

My argument wasn't really aimed at not allowing polygamy, but rather, at why the state should support some kind of domestic partnership to begin with (to protect some of those entering into such partnerships).

I have no issue with that protection expanding to include more than two people.

[Harlequin]

Eero, I would contend that "because we don't know how to handle an alternative system yet" is still a reason why we don't try to use (stronger yet, assume) the multiple form in all conversation.  The U.S. government (or my own Canadian one) is of course not perfect.  But this does not change the argument that a move from binary to trinary+ logic is a deep change, qualitiative in kind.

If you want to ask "why do we not think of polyamory, instead of duoamory?" then that's a different question altogether.  No damn reason at all; I don't, except that I happen to find that I love one individual more than all the rest put together.

But why do we think of marriage as between just two, instead of more?  My answer is that marriage is an institution with a function, and that function is altered in nontrivial, qualitative ways by increasing N.  We have essentially zero experimental data on these changes; all we have is theory.

I might paraphrase Ralph in a different context: "Enough theory!  Go out and get multiply-married, already!"  ... or similar.  I don't think that further theoretical discussion re: marriage, as a multiperson institution, is fruitful (amongst, say, convinced Heinlein readers).  As far as I'm concerned, somebody's gotta try it, first (maybe by use of some explicit powers-of-attorney nonsense and so forth, to achieve the equivalent-of-marriage in the current world), before we can say anything more at all about why it should or shouldn't actually work.  All we can say clearly is that we know we don't know.

Which gets off-topic for Chris Week's original point.  Basically, Chris, I'm on your side ... but I'm a serious Devil's Advocate for it until I see some Actual Play threads.

- Eric

[Christopher Weeks]

You are far too soft hearted to just fuck your way around a harem, anyway.  You'd get all emotionally involved and end up shortchanging us all and exhausting yourself.

I think this is missing a very common point.  Let's imagine that six people are all "married."  Any one hasn't enough socio-emotional resources to be there for all of the other five (or even for just one, I would submit) all the time.  But there are another four members that you can fall back on.  All six are working to support one another in the ways that they're good at.  That's precisely the value added.

The corollary to this is that your spouse, no matter who s/he is will never satisfy you in every way that such a partner could (emotional, humorous, conversation, sexual, etc.) 100%.  We try to hook up with people who're better than anyone else we've had a chance to settle with, but no one is perfect.  But with those five partners, you can get and provide satisfaction of various needs from different people.  We all do this with friends and associates anyway, but all living together in a loving relationship would be more flexible in lots of ways.

I think.

[Valamir]

Ack, Christopher...I did fail to bring my point back on topic.

Allow me to rectify.

If we accept that there is no benefit to marriage that people can get that REQUIRES government involvement to accomplish in the insitution of marriage than individual people can choose to marry or not marry independent of legal considerations.  If for your faith marriage requires 2 people of opposite sex wed in a church by a priest...great...continue with the practice however you like...leave the government out of it.

We then recognize that there are currently all sorts of legal / financial laws/policys that involve the married status.  However, it doesn't take much to realize that married status is simply a bureucratic convenience.  Its an easy way to, in a single word, identify a recognized formal relationship between two parties.  All of the religious "living in sin" consideration is supposed to be a non issue for our secular government.  Those for whom it is an issue can continue to have religious ceremonies to validate their relationship according to their own faith as now.

So...if we realize that "marriage" as perceived from a government bureaucratic perspective is simply a formally recognized contractual relationship between people (where the contract is provided by statutory law rather than an actual negotiated contract)...we can then hit on the obvious fact that the law already provides for formally recognized contractual relationships between people...there called partnerships.

You create a partnership agreement that identifies the assets of the partnership, the bylaws for how the partnership will be organized and run, blah blah blah...and lo and behold you have a legally recognized entity that is distinct from but not seperate from the individual partners...in a fashion VERY close to that of a married couple with "joint" property vs "sole" property.

So, no great stretch to come up with a standard "Domestic Partnership" agreement that lays down all of the legal terms and clauses that the law ALREADY provides to married couples.  Instead of it being statutorially imposed its agreed to in a contract.  A contract that can be modified and amended by the parties to fit their own needs...for instance is "alimony" and "child support" REALLY applicable in a marriage where both parties are independently wealthy?  

Ok...now to get to the point of the thread.  Once you seperate out the legal / financial / bureaucratic issues that should be the realm of the government from the religous issues that should be the realm of an individuals choice of Faith you can start to apply those legal issues legally...without being trapped in circular arguements about "what a marriage is" because its no longer a marriage...its a legal partnership.

Once its a legal partnership it becomes very obvious that most legal partnerships actually involve SEVERAL partners....with rules for how new partners can join, old partners can resign, and how the relationships can be severed.  It just becomes a new way of owning property jointly with anyone you choose according to established terms of your partnership agreement.  In essence everybody become a member of their own little mini business practice where the business of the practice is living. 2 People, 3 People, 30 people.  Legally there's no problem with structuring it how you want.

Now...how to deal with all of those pesky existing practices...like Company provided health insurance that allows you to carry your spouse on your policy.  No problem at all really.  Simply amend "spouse" with "any single designated Domestic Partner".  What the hell does the insurance company care who that individual is.  The perk from the job covers you +1.  They mind have to recrunch the actuarial tables in order to account for new combinations of genders and ages in order to set appropriate premium levels...but that's really not that hard to do.


Now as for concerns that the reason you have what amounts to a statutorially enforced relationship called marriage is to protect the naive / weaker party from entering into an unfair arrangement.  Certainly something that should be accounted for, but far from insurmountable.  In fact, the domestic partnership model actually makes it easier to arrive at a fair balance because they don't have to be "one size fits all" arrangements.  Courts and mediators have ample experience at dealing with contract disputes.

[Andrew Morris]

But with those five partners, you can get and provide satisfaction of various needs from different people.  We all do this with friends and associates anyway, but all living together in a loving relationship would be more flexible in lots of ways.

From my personal experience, yes, it certainly can work out this way. It can also work out the opposite way, just like any other relationship. Hey wait! It is just like any "normal" relationship between two individuals -- sometimes it works out well, sometimes not. I'd post my Actual Play posts, but I don't really think that'd be appropriate.

You know, Ralph, somehow, "Will you enter into a legal domestic partnership with me?" just doesn't sound as romantic as "Will you marry me?" What do you do at the signing of the agreement, exchange bylaws instead of vows, and federal TIN numbers instead of rings?

[Brennan Taylor]

Love between two people = good.
Sharing a life together = good.
Marriage = stupid silly nonsense.

The issue we are having in our society is that we have created this statement:

Love between two people = marriage

Which is hardly the historical point of marriage, and it is what causes all of the fuck-ups now. If marriage is only about love and life-sharing, why should we restrict it at all? Numerically, gender, whatever, it makes no sense to stop two or more people who love each other from getting married. It's when you start to bring in all of the legal and economic issues (the original motivations for marriage, btw) that any arguments for restriction can even begin to make sense.

We need to decide what marriage is for. Is it a legal arrangement? Then we need to make it make legal sense. Is it for social benefit? Then I am really leery about the government getting involved, as they fuck this up all the time. Is it about love? Then get off it, and let anyone marry who wants to.

[Christopher Weeks]

I'd post my Actual Play posts, but I don't really think that'd be appropriate.

I'd love to read and discuss it.  I've done so with any others that I find who're willing.  Depending on why you think it's not appropriate, it could be in another thread, by email, or not at all.  Let me know.

[Meguey]

Hah! Joshua Neff, your wife's input made me laugh out loud.

The whole 'women as property' thing should maybe at least get an historical nod. After that, it's all emotionally wiggly (ok, and probably physically wiggly, too.)

[joshua neff]

Hah! Joshua Neff, your wife's input made me laugh out loud.

Then you'll probably get a kick out of her latest comment, in Jason L Blair's livejournal:

"I'd outcompete Josh, too. The harem would be MINE!"

[Matt Wilson]

I told my wife about this conversation, and she said, "You are far too soft hearted to just fuck your way around a harem, anyway.  You'd get all emotionally involved and end up shortchanging us all""

That's kind of why I'm skeptical about the benefits of a multi-person arrangement. It's a lot of work to maintain a relationship between two people with that kind of trust and honesty. It seems to me that adding people would dilute the mix.

But I'm happy to be swayed by examples of the opposite, and I'm certainly not up for no bannin' of nothin'. Eff that.

[daMoose_Neo]

Just a thought, not really a nod in either direction, but the logistics of it scare me.
Bob, Sue and Joan are married under Agreement A. Sue falls in love with Tom and decides to marry him as well. Tom is married to Suzy, Greg and George under Agreement B.

Part of the arrangement of a standard marriage includes sharing homes, even in existing & functioning poligamy situations though it may be property instead of a single building, incomes etc.. Such an arrangement above would be *quite* interesting. The mess of paperwork would frighten me greatly, not to mention it is quite alien in concept to myself.

I'm in the crowd that says one is enough for me. Its bad enough when you throw in in-laws (or even your own parents, as is my case). Personally, I'd have to think you insane to even attempt such a thing.