I guess we're still in another Dark Ages of humanity if they think they can (and sometimes do) get away with nonsense like this. It's when a person marries while already married and hiding the first one from the second. It's because initially, women were property and couldn't make decisions, so if you let fundamentalist religious men decide things, "marriage", "polygamy", and "polygyny" are all going to be the same thing, and women can just get over it. Or read it. Maybe a little hottie, or maybe one of the male jerks you have spoken to? This sounds a bit paranoid to me, unless you are Michele Bachmann, in which case, it is likely a valid concern. Nothing wrong with ending a contract and starting a new one, either, but that can be bothersome if lots of people do it all the time. There is wisdom in all people, even you, baby! Finally, if you watch the Expedia and Amazon ads (both can be viewed from the post), neither officially tells you what to do. In the original post, and in my reply above, when asked for specifics, I cited published work. And both triple marriage and double marriage plus one is vastly different if it is a triangle triad (everyone involved with each other) or a V-triad (one person being involved with the to others, but those not involved with each other). Wether that choice be to marry the same sex, abuse a drug, kill yourself, or go to the bathroom, it is all the same. "Gamy" derives from "gamous", which means "marriage". Let's start with the principle first, since your comment ends with an assertion that would imply there is no point to cite specifics. Sociologists must try to view society as if they were an outsider, and then record the behaviors and characteristics most people do not notice. But what is normal for me may not be normal for someone from Africa. For Intro-to-Anthropology 2017 we tackled big and controversial questions anthropology has attempted to answer. Most people are not ready for this as it is, and I have heard people suggest there should be obligatory marriage counseling for everyone wanting to enter any kind of legal marriage (as a side note here, in Norway, we have the legal age for marriage set to 18 (which is also the age of majority), but if there is good reasons for it, some legal instance can make an exeption and allow someone down to the age of 16 (which is legal age for consensual sex). A religious conservative tries to impose their religious values on others, and then you get rules such as "no gays", "no women in the workforce", "must attend church on Sundays", etc. No one judge you, at least not someone you see everyday at work, at school or in the street outside your house or at family gatherings. I guess if you're marrying for asset acquisition, you'd best not marry debt hound! I would disagree that getting two together is complicated, but adding more people doesn't add as much complication. We need to care for others as we attempt to build a world together. So marriage as such has a symbolic meaning that overflows the mere bounds of the associational approval it once would have provided. It took far too long to get here, so we have quite a ways to go at this pace. It isn't. Is that basically correct? And, of course, no homophilia are accepted in most muslim or mormon marriages/polygamies or monogamies :( Two clear indications that these are ultra conservative forces. I recall reading in college about some group in Nepal or thereabouts wherein two brothers would marry one woman because arable land was scarce and they couldn't afford to keep dividing it up into smaller and smaller chunks. Well, heteromonogamous couples can also have sex. Is that supposed to be a reason why they don't need marriage? Marriage is more about property, legal status, social status, etc. It isn't equality, it's a man owning a herd of broodmares, which is what the jerks mentioned above wanted. I think social media on internet is very important for poly people, since they are not that many, and often there are great distances between them. It is a combination of these, and some couples might be more interested in kids than property, or vice versa. How Many Years of Life Will a Bad Relationship Cost You? If do not legalize polygamy, then polyamorous people will not be more or less equal. People will look back one day in the history books and laugh at how long it took us to figure out these "issues" in society. Ask A Question. But that isn't really much of a value, is it? But trust me, married people, or people in monoamorous relationships, often cheat and have sex with others than their partners. I wasn't suggesting that something proposed by a jerk shouldn't be legal, only that if I only perceive jerks supporting it, I'm personally not going to be swayed by their appeals. If something changes, and the problems become much larger, someone might take the initiative to fix them for all. However, for the moment, we have what we have. Since much of it requires an account to see, I don't bother seeing it, which means that the groups you refer to are off my radar. But statistically, a vast majority of US marriages are endogamous by social class. 4 Truths About the Division of Labor Among Couples, 7 Kinds of Marriages – and One Awesome Alternative. What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? I'd like to know. I make the historical argument only to refute the ahistorical claims that marriage has always been one thing. When Jane runs off with half his money, does she get half of mine, too? If anyone is worried that gay marriage will threaten their own straight marriage, that suggests they are afraid that their spouse is gay... and also only willing to act on their true desire if gay marriage becomes legal. Ellen Degeneres is a great example of such a celebrity, but there are of course many straight celebrities who have come out also in favor of gay marriage. There is enough of cheating and promiscuity in our monogamous society. Note, for example, that we have age restrictions to protect minors from being coerced into signing a contract that they may not be capable of understanding. Sure, sure! You can listen to the entire thing if you like. Maybe. Step three is to legalize same sex marriage, and step four is to legalize polygamy (some sort of reflected and sophisticated version of "free love". That doesn't constitute role playing behaviour. Because it's NOT the first time, even in our own history. Is Marriage Natural? Maybe even some exponential growth in the fee? For updates, follow on Twitter or subscribe. It was not uncommon in history, for example, to coerce marriage with some woman who will inherit her father's property, get her to squeeze out an heir, then kill her so her husband can have her property. Kerista. I think that Americans assume that kinship is universal, that everyone is like me. Based on christianity, but more or less found a way to be secular, that is, being as good for all non-christians as for christians. As Fly on the wall points out, a huge part of the history of marriage is property and inheritance. I think some of them know each other outside of that context, but most, I think, only interact through these groups, and still form some sort of frienship and stuff. Thanks for the info, now it's available to all who don't have access (or money) to the book names you posted. :-). If you marry and want them to be able to run away with half of your money, as long as they give you half of theirs, then I guess yes, you would have to give them half your money (or a third or whatever... the legal matters is up to you, as long as it in within what the laws allows for). Doesn't have to be an authority that others even think exist, like "Mother Earth" or whatever. Perhaps that's the future! But the thing is that marriage has served and is serving a variety of roles in the modern world. Let's say every new idea is a threat to our very survival!" The US? ; ). Starving people don't care whether the food is organic! ? Although marriage's form, duration and meaning vary from time to time and culture to culture, most Americans frown on anything other than familiar monogamy. :D So there more people, the more careful you would be implored to be. I guess regardless of our perspectives, we can always find some source from some part of the world at some point in history that agrees with us. I'm going to take a middle road between the two comments above and note that yes, we do not focus on procreation nearly as much as we once did. And as long as we have marriage, we have a wonderful strong symbolic effect to create acceptance. Hmmm... those men interested in multiple partners... sound not so very concerned about equality and love and all that. not if the government doesn't recognize your association-- or else you have to undertake complex alternative arrangements most people need not. So that, should that union produce any offspring, it would be more likely that that child or children will be raised by the mother and father who brought them into the world. I learned something from watching Suze Orman. Gays should be allowed to marry because it's equality of rights, not because some idiot says so. Oh, you should, if you have the chance, spend some time on social media. Their marriage is supposed to be valid for the characters they are playing/manifesting, and the duration is set for a short while. In Norway and most other places, "polygamy" is confused with "polygyny". I do agree that less nosy social media would be important for someone like yourself that's a member of a small, scattered group. LDS-mormons are even against polygyny, only crazy FLDS mormons practice it. You can have a system, and the system can have problems, but no one bothers to fix them. ; ). The point is not whether or not they ARE jerks, but if what they want is intrinsically jerky. Marriage is more about property than love, so basing all the arguments on love pretty much misses the point. Some people *like* the fact that they're getting away with something wrong, enjoy sneaking, etc, it's thrilling to them. Did you bother to read the article? As cultural anthropologist Robert Myers wrote in 2004. There really ARE a load of people who are not mature enough to wear condoms, etc, and monogamy helps cut down on the spread of diseases. They're jerks. Among the Lakota, winkte, sometimes translated as "two spirits", had male bodies but lived as women. Kids These Day: How Youth Behavior Really Stacks Up. I think they would also be apt for such an example, being someone who doesn't contribute equally, but can walk out with an equal share. Monogamy is an unnatural way of living that will provoke inner and outer conflicts. As an archaeologist, in my original post on this topic, I looked at the historical record, and cited specific research on specific places. But in the end, it's a question of being mature. Marriage 18 Questions to Ask Before Getting Married Some of them aren't fun to think about, but they're crucial to know. But we will allow marriage to any number of partners, as long as it is to only one at a time. I want to marry (but I cannot support the immoral denying of same sex marriage and polygamy by marrying as long as any of these are not legalized). Others have wondered the same thing. I think internet is also a place where it is safe to be yourself. So why is that different? I think this is where some of the resistance will come from...the marriage contract has a lot to do with property division. As you say, maybe marriage is obsolete. 1) Canadian culture is a term that explains the artistic, musical, literary, culinary, political and social elements that are representative of Canada and Canadians , not only to its own population, but people all over the world. 8, since it banned same-sex marriage. Oh, I'm fully aware that married people often cheat, but I have doubts about polygamy correcting that. It seems to me that marriage is becoming obsolete, and that rather than gays being able to marry, what we really need to do is let marriage die and let people define their own relationships. Yes, Stewart’s views have a huge impact too! Loving women, I almost want to fight for polygyny, so that people realize they actually need to help women (not to say that women are helpless, but this is a man's world... it is time for a change. Most men, by far, are monogamous. You can stop progress as in making it halt for a while, but not forever, that's what I meant by stopping it. Your inclusion of both genders is also new to me. Note, for example, that marriage contracts usually specified how certain bits of property get distributed, but often didn't mention at all how children get handled; it was just sort of left to chance. The ECHR found in favour of Norris, vindicating him after an eleven year legal battle with what was describe… I don't watch ads. So providing an example about a tribe (out of thousands) from a faraway continent is pointless, show us an example of a society greater than third world status that practices same sex marriage with a similar approach to government as us. Yes, marriages that go through churches usually do have marriage counseling as a mandatory first step, however, that's not the only way to get married, and our divorce rate is still 50%, so I'm not sure if "married through a church with counseling" has a better survival rate than "married in Las Vegas while drunk". It's not that she is arguing other cultures are superior to our own, she's arguing that they are different so we should stop pretending that what we do is universal and has been for all time. Well, yes, as a person can in a two person marriage. Some things might depend entirely upon the number of people, like how much food they eat, but say, like a washing machine, three people might not need to use more money on that than two people would have anyway, so there are resources to be saved here. Someone suddenly wants a baby, or wants a different partner, or whatever. Now that is interesting! I agree they have a right to, but I want my burger to be lunch, not an effing political stance. I agree that although each culture has a different meaning for each family member, kinship shows relatedness through birth or marriage. Blog There can be all sorts of problems with equality there. MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55 it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional - (Laughter.). Its basic questions concern, What defines Homo sapiens? If we say that marriage is being two people, one male, one female, well no homosexuals can't achieve that. In France, it's even possible to marry your deceased fiancé. But marriage has not been solely about children. Exclusive sexual relationships were discouraged. The best part of my article is likely the link Jon Stewart’s hilarious discussion of the Chick-Fil-A debate. The institution survives despite infidelity, and sex does not by itself create marriage.... What, then, about restriction of the legal bond of marriage to a man and a woman? Arranged marriage needs a little extra work and care, if you are going to meet someone for an arranged marriage, then here are some questions that you must consider asking in the first meeting. We can argue all we want, but the truth does not correspond with reality? For links to the ads, just read the article. Yes, but no one can't seriously expect to understand a law without understanding the history. To me, "romance" is just this really uncomfortable phase when another person tries to force me to be what they want. Alice Dreger When Taking Multiple Husbands Makes Sense in People are actually caring about each other and have personal relationships, that is obvious. As the arguments against marriage equality have always taken the form of claims of either "tradition", "origin", or social necessity, anthropology would indeed be helpful to the Supreme Court-- since it shows, definitively, that the form of marriage varies across time and space, and no one form of marriage is necessary for any of the various social purposes people propose for it (regulating sex, regulating procreation, regulating the transmission of property). The Bible? The Kerista encouraged group marriage. Maybe there could be some fee per person involved in a specific marital structure? And that gives us something to say about the core claim by counsel for Prop 8. It sounds like US marriage laws are similar to yours. eight not because I believe that it is wrong for to couples of same sex to be married but my belief is that it shouldn't be called the same name. Step two was races, to legalize mixed race marriages. You still didn't answer his question, who practices same sex marriage in Africa and in what country (Africa is a continent)? It's the problems caused by the jealous spouse that society is trying to prevent with the contract. For example, here in the US we it is not legal for a man to have more than one wife and arranged marriages are unheard of. It doesn't get much more personal than marriage, so maybe there will be a time when people can just define their own marriage. And if we say that it a combination of raising children, or property, or love, then I believe homosexuals can achieve all of these things. Kinship is, after all, one of our historic, signature issues. While there are certainly many examples of nuclear families all over the world, we tend to see and portray the nuclear family as universal. The counsel arguing the case to uphold Proposition 8-- which would deny equal access to marriage to couples who are the same biological sex-- used the term "the age-old definition of marriage" when the justices finally let him begin his argument for the merits of the case. :-) The reason I say it's intrusive is that it is always asking for more and more information, sometimes takes it without asking, and keeps resetting the privacy settings so that your page is open until you close it again. I think more of it is cowardice than unquenchable desire. Every relationship can turn out unequal, but to some extent, you have to let people figure out things themselves. I think this is a serious threat to conservatives, just no fiscal conservatives. The site is hosted by SiteGround. Polygamy is like highlighting these problems, perhaps provoking people enough to actually fix them, and that would also greatly benefit monogamous relationships. Humanity has always used each other as tools, a means to an end. Myers goes on to describe some other aspects of marriage that don't fit the definition of marriage that the counsel in the current Supreme Court case advanced: Most Americans find marriage to a first cousin repulsive, although a strong preference for a marriage partner who is your first cousin on your father's side is the rule in dozens of traditional societies. Three persons is still a very big change, but not so big as the leap from one to two, and four people again is a smaller leap. Good insight, concise, and covers the important points. I did enjoy huffinton post's article by Shane Windmeyer on the Chick-fil-A issue, though. All Rights Reserved. Everyone that has expressed an interest in multiple marriage partners to me was male. If they all got together at the same time, that might be different. Though certainly we marry within our social class for other reasons as well. “Unless it’s directly related to the issues a client wants to address in therapy, I tend to not ask very invasive questions during the first session because I don’t want clients to feel exposed.” I also agree that the change would take place as you describe; young people growing up would just start accepting, same as with homosexual marriage. Oh, that was my point about the men who have expressed interest in multiple wives. This might seem complicated in the beginning, since we are not used to it, but it's actually not that complicated once you get the hang of it, and the reward is a lot of flexibility (and that is actually is closer to the truth). While the model of marriage is arguably heterosexual, the practice of marriage is not. If they can't agree on a contract, maybe they shouldn't make the contract and sign it. It's designed, Your Honor, to make it less likely that either party to that -- to that marriage will engage in irresponsible procreative conduct outside of that marriage. But we are free to choose some sort of authority that accepts the kind of marriage we want. I don't think we should end marriage before everyone has the right, and full acceptance of moral relationships and ways to live have been well established. Nosy bastards. That's messed up. And I don't believe there is any such thing as "free love". Now both partners own property. See Deuteronomy laws or the book of Ruth (particularly chapter 4) which show that when Ruth wanted to marry Boas, Boas first had to make sure that Elimelech, who had the right to a parcel of land and Ruth, did not want it. If a married couple incurs a pile of credit card debt during the marriage often the courts will split the debt evenly between the divorcing spouses. People in the US who want their church to marry them often DO have to get marriage counseling, or the church will refuse to marry them. "Let's ignore science because it disagrees with our views! Maybe you have a point, maybe I have a point. I believe we were made to love and be loved, and if you accept that, there is no alternative to polyamory. You say, "arranging their own personal life is up to people". Aforementioned economic benefits! It attempts to import contact when I tell it not to, etc. If you allow polyamory, and one spouse approves and the other doesn't, you're going to have the same problems with jealousy with or without the contract. The Supreme Court should only be concerned about the law. The funny thing is, we already have a way for people to be polyamorous...you just don't marry. It might be much easier for a high-earner to repay their half of the debt, and next to impossible for a low-earner to satisfy the credit card debt. I don't care about history, the history of marriage, what they do in Africa or who is allowed to marry their cousin. Should Marriage Still Involve Changing a Woman's Name? In a country where today, 48% of children are born to mothers who are not legally married, this simply seems remarkably out of step with reality. Thanks for the hug! To deny marriage to same-sex couples... expresses a rejection of this civil rights tradition and a regression to a politics of exclusion. Living Anthropologically is part of the Amazon Associates program and earns a commission from qualifying purchases, including ads and Amazon text links. We might have to start thinking of the word as a little more inclusive... and that is about it? Just be a good person, basically. That equality should include the right to marry who one wants to marry, regardless of what has been and where it has been. Question 26. Cheers! Cheating is one of the things I divorced my ex for. Ask a (cool) Anthropologist. Then I'll be satisfied (with that). Just because they match our own liberal sensibilities? She needs to ask a real Anthropologist some questions for her Planning 10 course. We do not need the legal recognition provided by a marriage license to make lives together, and increasingly, people do not automatically seek that license. But I prefer my more technical one (people uniting under the power of an authority). The sole purpose of marriage now is not to have children like it was in the past. Ha! And there are many different court decisions that you would have to know why they even came to court in the first place to interpret TODAY correctly (for example, the Loving court decision was brought up several times in the hearing). Nope, polygamy was the rule for much of the Old Testament. I'm just trying to get through my day, and companies are shoving their politics in my face whether I want it or not. To answer your concern about someone coming in with no property into a marriage, I would like to point out that that is usually avoided by the simple fact that people tend to marry within their social class, probably partially for this reason (even with two people).
Barbie Instagram Accounts, Lg Lecteur Bp550, Texas Native Plants Landscaping, Georgetown Medical School Secondary Application, Maine Tree Identification Guide, Gary Vaynerchuk Liquor Store, 1080ti Or 2080 Super, Road Trip To Llano,