Talk:Group marriage

Legal Aspects - Inaccuracy?
"no Western countries ... give strong and equal legal protection (e.g., of rights relating to children) to non-married partners – the legal regime is not comparable to that applied to married couples." I don't understand this statement at all. Western countries have "common-law" marriages that are quite comparable to a completed marriage, in many cases including rights relating to children. Clarification is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.142.39 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hah -- "common-law marriage." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


 * Anyone who believes it's somehow equivalent ought to actually go read up on common-law marriage (and likely Common-law marriage in the United States). Each article has a note The term common-law marriage has wide informal use, often to denote relations which are not legally recognized as common-law marriages which speaks volumes. Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

overstatement abounds
For instance, '''Currently, the most common form of group marriage is a triad of two women and one man, or two men and one woman. However, there have recently been a number of polyfidelitous families formed by two heterosexual couples who become a four-some and live together as a family.'''

I mean, really -- "currently" and "recently" as of freakin' exactly WHEN?? Sure, Group Marriage is cited... which was published 1974. Give me an actual anchor date, else this MUST go away.

And "a number of"? How large a number, here? a million? a thousand? ten? zero?

How often is a poll done of a representative portion of nonmonogamous people that "the most common form" has been established as more than airheaded conjecture?

Geez... Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The entire Non-European cultures section reads like some freshman's weekly Anthropology 1-01 essay. I mean, FIVE uses of "adelphic polyandry" with NOT ONE link to Polyandry (now corrected). As such, the section calls out for proper review.

While nice enough, there's no indication as to whether the list is intended to be an indicative overview of relevant examples, or somehow complete. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

fiction notes
In Proposition 31, the primary characters were deeply affected by what they found in Heinlein's Stranger In a Strange Land. Rimmer had them form a corporate marriage or corporate family, a way to organize and structure a closed nonmonogamous relationship.

In response, Heinlein had the main character of Friday join a corporate marriage. My assumption is that the authors were very aware of each other's work. Weeb Dingle (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

proper terminology
In three instances I have changed polyamory to polyfidelity (or appropriate conjugation).

Reasoning: group marriage is a subset of polyfidelity (closed-group nonmonogamy) which is a subset of polyamory (high-communication borderless nonmonogamy) which is a subset of generalized nonmonogamy. Therefore, I have moved the topical term to its immediate precedent, rather than skip to a (likely misleading) more-general class. Weeb Dingle (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And I will nominate for sanctification ANYONE who can find me something credible as to the use of the term "group marriage" through history. Approximately when was it coined? Was it actually applied to Oneida in its existence? (If so, by whom?) Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

However unlikely, people generally enter into dyadic marriage with multiple declarations of "life-long" and "eternal," not unusually given some degree of enforceability under law. Can there be any marriage in group marriage without similar strictures?

Is it even possible to have "a group marriage" if there is no ceremony?

And aren't there requirements to qualify? For instance, Colorado specifies that four elements substantiating a common-law marriage: Public presentation is a key element, and recurs through jurisdictions: Iowa requires a public declaration by the parties or a holding out to the public that they are husband and wife. As very few "group marriages" seem to appear in public as though married, they fail fully half the list, so I could argue likely aren't "marriage" in any non-hyperbolic sense. Certainly, those not living in one domicile fail the "group" part as well. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) holding themselves out as husband and wife
 * 2) consenting to the marriage
 * 3) cohabitation; and
 * 4) having the reputation in the community as being married


 * What about open relationships? Monogamous marriages are also capable of being open, in terms of outside sexual interaction. Why is it any different for polyamorous relationships?


 * "Group marriage implies a strong commitment to be faithful by only having sex within the group and staying together longterm." This sentence excludes open polyamorous marriages. JaredTamana (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope I don't misinterpret you, but you seem to be saying that "marriages can be open" and "marriages can be polyamorous." Without splitting hairs (which I do quite often), that is accurate enough. However, having a bunch of people connected by sexual relations does not make it "a marriage" any more than two kids on their first date are "married." In order to have "a group marriage," everyone involved would have to at least have expressed at least an intent for longterm commitment.


 * As usually practiced, polyfidelity and group marriage are expansions of standard monogamous marriage, so "marriage with more people." Though polyfidelity is a type of nonmonogamy, it is not a subset or outgrowth of polyamory, and in fact polyfidelity predates polyamory by two decades (and group marriage was even earlier).


 * To my knowledge, nobody has yet defined WTF a "polyamorous marriage" would look like, largely because the concept "marriage" is defined so poorly/vaguely, seeming on one hand to indicate nothing more than "shared contractual responsibility" and on another "lifetime commitment, excluding all others" (which is impossible to resolve with nonmonogamy). It's not uncommon to have one or more married couples involved in an intimate network, but that is nowhere near making it "a group marriage." Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

here's how/why the article got this way
Notes to various editors: Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * When some claim is made in media, particularly entertainment media (novel, film, YouTube, etc.), then it is insufficient for a WP editor to simply point to that performance/publication; in fact, that edges somewhat close to Original Research because the "editor" is choosing how to interpret it. Instead, a source (critic, reviewer) should be found to do the interpretation, perhaps not even mentioning the fictive source. In this instance, citing a Heinlein story to define "line marriage" is insufficient.
 * "removed link to paraphilia as group marriage is not necessarily a sexual pervision" — personally, I would agree with this assessment. However, group marriage is widely lumped together with BDSM and swinging, for instance the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom NCSF.
 * The specific claim is:
 * "Line marriage is a form of group marriage found in fiction in which the family unit continues to add new spouses of both sexes over time so that the marriage does not end."


 * I've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. This is exactly how the main character's marriage is described. In this instance, I strongly dispute the claim that a secondary source is needed for interpretation; a plain reading is sufficient. A secondary source may be needed to establish notability in this context, but that's not what you're disputing. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please review that statement. You are straightforwardly saying that you intend to put up Original Research — re-read No original research, particularly
 * To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. …merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
 * I first read TMIaHM in 1977. I cited it in a paper on marriage variants in 1985. That alone DOES NOT make me a credible authority, much less empowered to paste up random trivia.
 * IMO, if line marriage is going to be presented as "a thing," then either Heinlein coined it, or he appropriated it — and either origin should be properly sourced. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'm here: if you insist on making the claim that line marriage exists in fiction, then it becomes incumbent on you to either support or deny the implications that
 * it exists only in fiction, never having been practiced in the real world
 * AND
 * it exists throughought fiction, over some span of time, not simply one or two stories or by a lone author.
 * There ya go. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Enough; I've removed it again. Anyone who's read the entire article will note the factoid is much better covered under Group marriage. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)