Non-Traditional Marriages

With all of the banter going on about gay marriage, why don't we take a few minutes to explore the idea of "non-traditional" marriages much more fully? After all, I would think that allowing homosexual couples to officially marry (a concept with which I have NO trouble at all, to be perfectly honest. I know a few monogamous gay couples that have been together longer than many "straight" couples I've knows - married in everything but name...) should open the door for pretty much any sort of marriage.

And, I'm not particularly religious. Leaving the Bible aside, I view marriage as a socioeconomic arrangement allowing for the mutual support of the adults involved, and for the creation of a stable and nurturing home for any children involved. There's no reason why a simple "one man and one woman" is the only arrangement that will work for those purposes, nor is there any real reason to think so. And, plenty of reason why non-traditional arrangements will work rather better.

Yes, I'm going to throw out some ideas that most would consider "odd." I am also going to make a couple of assumptions:

1) All participants are willing to enter into such arrangements.
2) Sex is /not/ a prerequisite of marriage. It's a nice fringe benefit, but it's not the primary reason one should marry. "Why buy a cow when milk is cheap?" may sound cynical, but there is a large measure of truth in it.
3) The government does /not/ get involved and screw things up. Methinks the principal reason they screw things up now is because they don't want to recreate tax forms and tax code wholesale (which is what really needs to happen - but in order to rid ourselves of the current "progressive" system where people can actually get back /more/ /than/ /they/ /pay/ /in/ at the end of the year. Something amiss there...)

So, let's begin:

- Heterosexual monogamy. This is the so-called "traditional" marriage that the Religious Right want to "preserve the sanctity of" and that Hollyweird has diluted sharply ("Been married nine times; Hell, maybe it's /you/." There's something wrong with someone younger than I am having a half-dozen marriages and divorces behind them. Seems that this is what should be addressed if one wants to "preserve the sanctity of marriage.") One man, one woman - theoretically for life.

- Amoandry (homosexual male marriage. From roots "amor-" for love and "andro-" for man. My own construction - haven't seen it anywhere.) One form of "gay marriage" that people want to get going, and I honestly don't have any trouble with it. Divorce should be just as much of a nuisance as for heterosexual marriages.

- Amogyny (homosexual female marriage. Changed root "gyno-" for woman. Another new word...) See 'amoandry.'

- Polygyny (multiple women.) This need not be a "harem" approach, but that's usually what comes to mind first.

- Polyandry (multiple men.) Reverse of polygyny - one woman, many men.

- Polyamory. This is multiple men and multiple women in pretty much any combination.

The three "poly-" marriages would have all partners on an equal footing, with perhaps the eldest partner having any "veto power" on group decisions or "tiebreaker" status, if there is an even number of partners.

And now, the really odd situation:

- "Line Marriage." An example of this can be found in Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. The typical "line" started with a couple (who become the "senior couple" or "patriarch and matriarch,") and then individuals can "marry into" the line at intervals. Individuals would be allowed to "marry in" at fairly regular intervals, and the gender would typically alternate (although exceptions could be made for logistical reasons, addition of a particular desired trait, trade, or skillset, "going off to war," or suchlike - usually at the discretion of the patriarch and matriarch.) The interesting bit about this would be that the marriage itself would /never/ dissolve due to the deaths of the members, since new members are always on the way in. This would require a contract of sorts to guide the successive members (enforceable by various means,) and the "line" could end up with couples who pair off regularly - again, the idea here is mutual support of the adults and a stable and nurturing home for the children. Considering a line could be allowed to continue for a couple of centuries, and you can see just how stable it could truly be!

The advantage to polyandry, polygyny, polyamory, and line marriage (for the adults) is quite simple - there are going to be a large number of adults avaialable to help with child-rearing. The adults are going to have various skills and various advantages - while someone may not be "baby people," someone else is likely to be. They can handle the child as a baby - when the child gets older and can now be taught complex concepts, this is probably when the person who isn't "baby people" will come to the fore. Therefore, most (if not all) stages of childhood and adolescence would be covered by the person(s) most capable of dealing with the children at that stage in their lives.

Also, an oddity of line marriages would be that the children could "marry back into" the line. Since people from outside the marriage would enter into the line at various intervals, the gene pool could be kept varied - and minimal reinforcable defects brought about - while allowing children to have the continued support of the people they know, only the children are now adults (and the family is still a known quantity to them.)

So, what's the problem here? Primarily twofold:

1) The Religious Right, and their "one man and one woman" rubbish. Yes, it's rubbish - there are plenty of different approaches to raising children effectively, and being able to pool numerous adults and their energy would be greatly effective. I'm sure we've all heard that "it takes a village to raise a child," no? Well, let's put the village in a large home! We used to have the "extended family" living within easy range of each other, until high-speed travel became first a reality, then commonplace - and now related adults are scattered from Hell to breakfast and can't really support each other anymore. My family is /literally/ spread from coast-to-coast, and that makes things difficult. Why not have several adults near to hand in support of each other?

2) Government. More specifically - how are they going to tax polyamorous marriages under the current "progressive" system? That's an easy one - they can't, and they're not. If they were smart, they'd go to something like a "consumption tax" or a "national retail sales tax" (I'll go into that idea in a future posting,) eliminate the entire progressive system (I'll go into the reasons for that as well, when I go into taxation,) and that would take care of the problem. Sure, it would lose the government some revenue - but that can be made up for by simply reducing the number of people in "civil service" (most of which is a sinecure for the incompetent anyhow,) paying elected representatives less (or nothing at all,) eliminating elected retirement and medical coverage (or put them on Medicare - and eliminate retirement entirely,) and the like. Hell, we'd be able to disband the IRS almost entirely once the forms and such go away - since it would be far simpler to administer the NRST than FITW anyhow! THAT should result in a significant savings...

This is a topic that should really be discussed. The rules for comments:

1) Leave out any religious or governmental intonations - they have no real bearing. Government can catch up with the times, and the churches need to understand that they're not necessary to encouraging "moral" behaviour in the populace. I'm looking more for practical discussion here.

2) Practical advantages and disadvantages. It's probably about time for society to swing back over to the idea of an "extended family" like we had in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were many benefits to the "extended family" - primarily in logistical and personal support - and with nuclear family units being as far-flung as they are (mine, for instance, is scattered from coast to coast!) we've lost the mutual support of the extended family. Polyamory and line marriage in particular would offer a great advantage - considering the support we've lost, some of it should be regained. The intimacy of an extended marriage can also help - while "meddling relatives" can be intolerable after a bit (because they're not intimates,) co-spouses can be both intimate and mutually supportive.

3) Bear in mind the primary socioeconomic reasons for marriage - the support, education, and rearing of children; provision of a stable home to encourage children; and mutual support for the adults involved. "Mutual support" doesn't necessarily mean "sex" - it simply means that there are more parents available for the children than the normal issue of two. If one of the parents should fall ill, another one can take care of them while the remainder see to the children and the household. Also, having a larger number of parents available means a more complementary skillset, and therefore a more effective teaching environment for the children.

Discuss.