Who cares? If they are all adults, they should be permitted to live together however they wish. No skin off my nose, and I'd hope they'd grant me the same consideration. There's no reason for me, the government, or anyone else to get involved here. If six wives or husbands make you happy, be happy. It ain't for me personally, but more power to you, have fun if that's what makes you and your six spouses happy.

I had this discussion with a friend a few days ago. While I have no objection to plural marriages, she sited a study that shows them to be psychologically harmful to the participants.

I asked her for sources but have not received a reply...

Chelsea: Wouldn't you consider it polygamy/polyandry if you had a situation where not everyone you're married to is married to the same people? You could construct a web of marriages stretching across (potentially) all human adults. I think this is what rex is talking about regarding the spread of stds.

rex: While stds are a concern when poly-marriage is allowed, simple caution and ordinary safety put into common practice would be plenty to make stds a minor concern. If people talk to their partners about their sexual health, use protection regularly and get regular std testing (as all the polyamorous people I know do), stds become something to think about but far from a problem.

As long as everyone is consenting I see no problem at all. The spirit of this law as it has been presented in my experience is something I agree with, but the law itself is not. The spirit as I've experienced is to protect people from abusive relationships, but there is no evidence whatsoever that a group of people could not have a polygamous relationship without any more abuse than ocurrs in any relationship.

More so than general promiscuity? I doubt that. And we'd need to include people like swingers in such a demographic as well.

AFAIK, that is the case, typically.

In the end, the STD charge is not a reason to keep responsible or even irresponsible adults from entering into realationships of their own volition. People are going to fuck whoever they want, I see no reason to create bueracracy around sex.

Hi there.  Just reading your posts on multiple partners.  I was wondering what your view is on mixed-race breeding or sexual contact.  Should it be allowed or prohibited by law.  Do you have any opinion on this from an evolutionary perspective?

I didn't realize the concept of "race" was still taken seriously.

However, if you're talking about inter-species erotica, I've heard that modern man came about by extra-species breeding at least twice.

Evolution facilitates organisms to fit the environment. There's really no way to figure out which will genes or pigments are going to be bad except by letting natural law take its course.

Once again I think evolution has nothing to do with decision making in the social arena, that sort of thing has gotten people into trouble too many times already.

As to "mixed-racial" breeding. I think there should be more, I can't think of anything that would get humanity out of the mess it is in faster. But there should not be any laws about it. Laws should exist only to protect those who can not protect themselves, everything else is bureaucracy.

Debauchrist: 

 Could I also ask how old you are with out giving offense? I am merely curious.

I'll be married 5 years this April. I've been with my wife for over 12 years. The only reason we got married was to stop our families from bitching about our child being born out of wedlock. We were married in April and our first daughter was born that July. We cut it close just to mess with them

Marriage means nothing to us. We love each other as much now as we ever did, marriage didn't change anything.

Yes, but that's like saying that because rates of depression are higher in homosexual youths, heterosexuality therefore provides a more positive outcome for children. Because society still largely belittles and demonizes homosexuality is why gay youths are more prone to depression, not because heterosexuality is inherently "happier."

That's because all the systems were created to the advantage of married couples.

When you're poor, supporting a child/children on one income becomes that much harder. Hence, marriage in and of itself isnt necessarily beneficial, the income of two working parents(or at least having one at home so as not to need to pay for child care) is the true benefit.

Marriage as we know it, meaning 2 people that profess to love one another equally and choose to enter into a life-long committent, is a very recent concept. I believe it really only goes back to the victorian era. I assumed you werent referring to arranged marriages and the like that still are prevalent in India, for example.

In theory, I agree that it seems like a good idea. I, for one, am not at all convinced that lifelong monogamy is what humans were built for. Yes, humans choose to do many things they weren't "built for," but some things may be too deeply imbedded in our genetic code to deny.

I would argue that only reason many people feel as though they need a contract is because society makes them believe they have to have one.

I would say have babies with whomever you choose, so long as you have the ability to provide for that child's well-being. And I'm not referring only to financial concerns either. And yes, people love to screw each other over on this planet. Always have, probably always will. On that positive note......

Yeah, big brainfart on my part there. Your original post regarding plural marriages should have been a clue.....

Not at all, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I was just pointing out that the model of marriage that I was using was the "western" one, and not the "Indian" version. They're quite different, and I was simply acknowledging that my argument didnt apply to all current forms of marriage.

I would argue that humanity is, in fact slowly doing away with marriage. Possibly because the definition of marriage is so rigid, that people would rather not do it at all if they can't modify it. I think that you're saying keep the social/parental/financial/etc benefits of the marriage arrangement, but loosen up the restrictions on who can enter into it, and how long the marriage needs to last. Am I on the right track here?

Yeah, yeah, mea culpa. See above apology

I agree, but when it becomes "four people share resources," I wonder if we're just creating another way for lawyers to stuff their pockets.

Well, now that sounds a lot like traditional marriage to me. I don't think that a contract would necessarily sway jerks who ditch their responsibilities any more than it does now. Plus, supporting 3 people on one income, for example, on the average income in America(which I believe is around $35,000) is not very realistic, unless you are willing to really scrape by.

I am sorry but a hot dog stand is just not a good analogy for marriage. Here is what I think marriage should be, and why I think it is a necessary institution, much like government is a necessary institution. (If you want to argue that please start a new thread).

The hot dog stand was an example of incongruity. Love, happiness, and child-rearing have nothing to do with marriage unless you imagine that it does.

Should be: A contract just like any other. The two (or whatever) people involved decide what kind of contract suits them. A contract to provide for cohabitation, sharing earnings, etc. for whatever amount of time sounds good to them. Or a contract that provides for the rearing of a child or children (probably would need to be at least 18 years). Or perhaps a couple wants no contract that is good. Maybe they are religious and want a contract that represents a traditional marriage. I think marriage should be flexible enough to cover all the different ways humans have found to live with each other. I am not arguing that marriage as we know it is working well, I don’t think it is.

Sounds like marriage is really alimony, child support, and power of attorney all wrapped up into one pretty legal package. The only assurance is that at least one family member will be severely punished for breaking the contract.

If you want flexibility, simply learn to trust your partner(s). Do you have your friends or family members sign contracts before you acknowledge them as friends?

Why it is necessary: Say you and some one else has a child, no marriage, no laws about the issue whatsoever. Either of you could just walk out and leave the other to deal with parenting on their own. Both could walk out and now the child has no parents. We need marriage, in some form, to help ensure that a child is well cared for and there is some sort of continuity in that care.
Believe or not but marriage also has benefits for the adults. If marriage in its many forms did not work so well for our species it would not be so all-pervasive.

Since we're talking hypothetically, two married people could simply walk out and leave a child alone. Or better yet, married people could kill their children, ever hear of that happening? Marriage has nothing to do with making sure a child is well cared for.

A stable home environment with two parents (regardless of the sexuality of the parents) is perhaps best for the child. That has nothing to do with marriage, that has to do with the respect and love two parents have for each other and the child. The only thing marriage really does is make two people who are really unhappy with each other even more scared of divorce.

You have misunderstood me. I don’t say that marriage protects children from physical abuse. Marriage doesn’t cause physical abuse either.

Then marriage is neutral upon matters of child protection. Since marriage isn't increasing or decreasing the protection of children the subject shouldn't be debated because the issues are unrelated to a significant degree.

No I am not equating these, there is love without marriage and marriage without love. Some couples have kids, some don’t. I am most definitely not suggesting any sort of discrimination, I will never suggest discrimination. I am suggesting that if the person has the emotional and mental intelligence of a 9 year old they should receive the protection and guidance that a 9 year old would receive concerning marriage. Any child married to an adult would be at a disadvantage.

I don't see how that is not discriminatory against the mentally handicapped. If someone who is mentally handicapped has the mentality of a nine year old, they're not allowed to get married seems to be what you're implying. You're implying this because I don't see you (or any rational person) instructing a nine year old to get married.

Should people take IQ tests to determine their mental age before they're allowed to marry? Personally, I think the mentally handicapped should have the same rights I do, it wasn't their choice to be mentally handicapped. At least a nine year old has the choice to marry when they get older. What if the roles were reversed, could a nine year old legally marry without guidance if they had the mentality of an eighteen year-old? I really don't think that marriage or even family planning should have anything to do with IQ or mental age.

There are civil ceremonies and religious ceremonies. What harm do you see marriage as doing? Maybe I could speak to a specific complaint rather than generalizations.

Could I also ask how old you are with out giving offense? I am merely curious.

No offense taken. Could I not answer without giving offense as well?

As to what specific harm marriage does, it gives people unrealistic expectations of their loved ones. Humans aren't business ventures to be contracted out. If two people who are unhappy with each other are married, marriage tends to bind them together longer than if they weren't married. Marriage is also a tool of discrimination; how many people have you seen using the institution of marriage to discriminate against gays? Marriage, in the polygamist and monogamist sense, are misogynistic, created to make it illegal for other men to taint your "property".

If you cared for your children, you don't need a contract requiring you to care. Likewise for your mate(s). If you love each other, again, you don't need a contract requiring you to support your loved one(s). I think evolution almost requires this, because if you're not altruistic towards your kin, your genetic line will die. Not only will your kin shun you for breaking the rules, society will as well. So enough with the legal contracts for what is already naturally obvious.

Ouch. Good hit. I admit I left myself open for that one. Should have seen it coming. Good point, might doesn't make right. Might doesn't make wrong either. So I guess that was a null argument. I merely meant to illustrate that all cultures have found marriage to be a useful tool at some time or other.