Talk:Group marriage/Archive 3

The true NPOV solution to Polygamy question about Group Marriage
I have repeatedly tried to follow the footnote links to find the Murdock quote, but it has been a round and round chase to nowhere for me. I am not confident with a citation that is not backed up online.

Anyway, I have a solution to the question of polygamy and group marriage. It is a POV position to declare that group marriage is a form of polygamy. In this situation, there is legitimate evidence that that is not the case. However, it can be reasonable to include the additional mention that some believe that polygamy does include group marriage, but it is not NPOV to take that POV position of saying it as fact.

I have created a proposed solution to the polygamy question. It starts with the article taking the NPOV position of not defining group marriage as a form of polygamy. Instead, the opening line of the group marriage article simply defines it as a marital poly relationship. That addresses both the concern of correctly identifying the marriage issue as well as keeping it within the broader poly relationship context without taking a POV position. The article will then have the following proposed subsection I have placed below.

In this proposed subsection, I may have gone a little overboard with the references, but it seems that it has been necessary.

Additional note, in the proposed subsection below, wherever it says "{Reference Link Here}", I ask for anyone to provide a legitimate link to put there. This must be from a valid, credible source. When we can fill that in, I would be willing to then place it in the article.

Lastly, we are after an encyclopedic NPOV article here. It is very important and significant to consider what all real participants in the issues of group marriage and polygamy themselves demonstrate. It is for that reason that I firmly believe that the only NPOV solution here is by not defining group marriage as polygamy, but instead by reporting the disagreement that some have about saying they think it does mean that. To do it from the reverse, of defining polygamy as including group marriage, and then trying to back out of it by reporting the disagreement, not only is that based only in pure POV, but it completely ignores what the real people involved themselves demonstrate about the meaning of the words.

Here is my proposed subsection for a true NPOV solution.

Is Group Marriage a Form of Polygamy?
Disagreement exists as to whether or not group marriage may be properly identified as a third form of polygamy.

The Underlying Definition of Polygamy is Universally Accepted
It is universally accepted that the underlying definition of polygamy includes at least the two forms of either polygyny (one husband, plural wives) or polyandry (one wife, plural husbands). The Oxford English Dictionary defines polygamy as, "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once; plurality of spouses; the practice or custom according to which one man has several wives (distinctively called polygyny), or one woman several husbands (polyandry), at the same time. Most commonly used of the former." {Reference Link Here}

Some say Group Marriage is a "Third Form" of Polygamy
In addition to the universally accepted underlying definition, however, there are some who believe that group marriage (plural husbands, plural wives) should also be added as a third form of polygamy. {Reference Link Here} They state that polygamy includes three forms: polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage. {Reference Link Here}

Others say Group Marriage is "Beyond Polygamy"
Others disagree with the assertion of adding group marriage to that underlying definition of polygamy. They say that group marriage goes "beyond polygamy." They argue that polygamy is only "poly monogamy," one polygamist with opposite-gender spouses who are actually monogamous toward the polygamist. In that context, group marriage is understood as "poly polygamy," plural spouses of one gender who are all polygamous with all of the other-gender spouses in the group, vice versa, or even, in some cases, involving homosexual/bisexual relationships as well. Proponents of this argument conclude that attempting to identify group marriage as a form of polygamy is the equivalent to attempting to identify polygamy as a form of monogamy. 

Online Group Marriage and Polygamy Proponents Avoid Each Other
Online internet activity demonstrates that both group marriage and polygamy proponents typically agree with that latter argument. Both generally support only the underlying definition of polygamy to the exclusion of group marriage, and that both are separate concepts altogether.

Group marriage proponents do not accept the exclusively one-to-plural aspect of polygamists' marital arrangements. Equally, polygamy proponents just as strongly reject the plural-to-plural aspect of group marriage.

For these reasons, online group marriage proponents associate and interact mostly with online polyamorists. ,  They typically avoid all polygamy web-sites or activists. Equally, online polygamy proponents also avoid and distance themselves from group marriage supporters. No established polygamy web-site makes any link to any site promoting group marriage. , ,

Even the well-established polyamory web-site, LoveMore.com, where group marriage proponents find support, does not define group marriage using the word, polygamy. Equally, the well-established polygamy web-site, TruthBearer.org, declares on its front page that it is not about group marriage. 

Because both have very different perspectives which directly conflict with each other, neither group marriage proponents nor polygamy proponents identify themselves as defined or as associated with the other.

Proposed subsection submitted by Researcher 17:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposed Subsection
Please use this place here for discussing the above proposed subsection. This may also be used for suggesting or discussing the links to replace the "{Reference Link Here}" markers. Researcher 17:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your posting. Dunkelza and I agree that it will be more productive to confine our discussions to the Talk:Polygamy, where we are trying to rewrite polygamy and related topics. We'll come back to topic of group marriage and polygamy in the appropriate place in that discussion. Nereocystis 17:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am trying to TALK over there. My solution above is so easy and obvious that it can be done quickly.  No need to dodge it.  It's your opportunity to prove you can occassionally offer good faith after all.  The fact that you are deliberately using that other TALK page to advance the problem which my solution here solves, proves why it is proper to solve this NOW.  It is so easy to solve this now, unless you are out to continue to abuse me.  I would like to see good faith instead.  Researcher 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, we will get to this topic as part of the Talk:Polygamy discussion. This discussion is taking away from the time you need to present an outline, as you have explained on the polygamy discussion. Please handle polygamy first, then we can handle this discussion. Nereocystis 18:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, this does not have to take time away from me. If you just do it, we got it solved.   My solution here is easy enough for you to just work with it. If you refuse, though, then it is yet another example of how you always refuse to do anything, no matter what it is, I try to do at all times.   If you refuse to work with this easy solution now, it is just like the very petty example of when you would not even accept the very tiny compromise of even allowing the one NPOV tag removal in my offer of resolution on polygamy TALK a fwe weeks ago.  If you refuse this easy solution here now, it is once again another ewxample of your bullying me at all times.  I am tired of you running over me.  I gave you an easy solution and an easy way for you to show that you might be willing to stop the abuse.  By just doing this easy solution now, which requires no debate,  my time is not wasted  and you will have begun to show a little good faith. Then we can have a better foundation to try to work for resolution.  Researcher 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attempt at trying to resolve the issue. Your suggestion doesn't work for me. To explain why removes our discussion away from polygamy, which we would both like to improve. My discussion on this topic is over, until we work on polygamy. Please do not change the group marriage article without discussion on the polygamy talk page. Nereocystis 19:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You appreciate nothing. There is nothing to discuss.  The resolution here is easy.  You have proven here that you refuse to work for anything.  I say again, this solution here is easy.  The only reason "it doesn't work for you" is because you don't want it to. Bullying.  It is clear that you absolutely refuse to resolve anything, to ever work wth me under any circumstances, here or anywhere else.  And your vandalism on my user TALK page today shows that you deliberately  are acually purposely trying to confuse the TALK pages.  As the second bullet item in the Layout section of "Talk page guidelines" instruct, I have only kept your posts indented so the thread could be understandable.  By your post on my own user TALK page today, it is obvious, therefore, that you deliberately want things as non-understandable to read as possible on the TALK pages.  The amount to which you are wiling to be a bully amazes me. A little good faith goes a long way.  Researcher 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a pointless attempt at laying blame. The discussion as to whether or not group marriage is or is not a form of polygamy was TABLED to the Talk:Polygamy page, to be discussed THERE during such time in the discussion as we discuss the types of marriage to be included in the definition of polygamy.  Refusing to participate in THAT discussion and instead wasting time gnawing on past wounds, real or not, is clearly abusive.  Furthermore, refusing to provide a proposed outline for THAT discussion could limit one's impact on the future of BOTH articles.
 * PLEASE STOP WHINING AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ACADEMIC DISCUSSION!
 * Up until this point, I have tried to be very civil, but the whining needs to STOP and the actual academic discussion needs to start... Where it belongs: On Talk:Polygamy.  I'm really, really, really fed up. >:( Dunkelza 23:05, August 26, 2005 (EDT)

DISPUTE TAG ADDED
Because we are still awaiting resolution of disputes as shown in the above section and on Talk:Polygamy, readers of the group marriage article must not be mis-informed into thinking that the current version of the article is legitimate when it is not. Rather than my making an edit to the correct way which I have proposed the article should be, insead I am just placing the NPOV and Dubious tags, for now. I add the NPOV tag also specifically because I believe the agenda to insist on calling group marriage a "form of polygamy" is a hostile non-neutral POV that does not reflect NPOV at all. I add the Dubious tags to show specific dispute lines which are not yet resolved. When we can get back to resolve these specific issues, those tags may be removed then. - Researcher 18:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a moderate approach. I hope that we discuss these issues soon under moderation. Nereocystis 20:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed NPOV and restored the reference to polygamous. Researcher99 has been banned from editing any articles related to polygamy in Requests for arbitration/Polygamy. No one has produced a reputable source which says that group marriage is not a form of polygamy. If anyone has such a source, please mention it here. Nereocystis 03:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wheres the biological mating system?
Not to add another issue to this prolonged dispute, but did anyone notice that the only species referred to on this page is humans? I was not looking for info on group marriages, but polygynandrous mating systems, which is a system that is very common to many species and relatively uncommon for humans. every variation of this word i could try either redirected to the group marriage page or wasnt recognized at all. despite all the controversy on this page, it does not go into any detail on the biology of the system. There needs to be a separate page for animals vs. humans, because this page is woefully lacking for anyone trying to find information on a creature other than themselves. Vackley 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you shouldn't have chosen an article called "group marriage"? To my knowledge, the governmental/religious institution of marriage exists only with humans. Correct me if I am wrong. Fearwig 06:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Vackley didn't choose a marriage article. Vackley was trying to find the page on polygynadry, which is the biological name of the mating practice, not the "marriage".  Apparently, all of the pages with similar names redirect to group marriage, which is not literally correct.  My suggestion to Vackley is to edit the page polygynandry and then cross link the articles rather than have them combined as they are now. --Dunkelza 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Racial diversity
"Heinlein also makes a point of telling the reader that this family is racially diverse." Cite a page? I believe in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, almost everyone on Luna is "racially diverse". I wouldn't bring it up if it weren't a characterization of the source. Fearwig 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * SPOILERS BELOW
 * I'm looking for it, but I know that in the section where Manny is arrested for polygamy, it is later revealed that the judge who locked him up was motivated by racism, because he didn't like the fact that Manny's family was multiracial. Shoot.  I can't find my copy.


 * * - The Heinlein Society's Concordance "Lexington, Kentucky"


 * --Dunkelza 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage link & reform movement
With the legalization of Same-sex marriage in Canada and some parts of the United States, some members of the polyamory movement are talking about a reform movement to also allow group marriage.

Since this is a partisan talking point in the gay marriage debate, I am requesting sources. I have therefor added the template. And also, what is "some" here? Is this an organized movement or one buried article at page 39 of the local tabloid? A "reform movement" should be serious. --Liberlogos 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Murdock claims
I am very skeptical of Murdock's claim regarding "group marriage." Should Murdock (1949) be considered a reliable source for Kaingang marriage practices? The book is not about the Kaingang and I'm not clear that Murdock ever spent time among them. Such extraordinary claims - and this is, ethographically, an extraordinary claim - require more than this, I believe. I have also inquired on the Kaingang page.24.19.33.82 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also pretty questionable to call Kaingang a 'traditional culture' when the data was included in a 1949 compilation of contemporary reports, this in contrast to 'modern culture' which includes the 19th century.24.19.33.82 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition
In the lead we read: Group marriage is a form of polyamory in which more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit, with all the members of the group marriage being considered to be married to all the other members of the group marriage, and all members of the marriage share parental responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.[1]

I find it better to use a modified definition from the polygamy article, hereby expressing that the term relates to any relation (male-male, male-female, female-male, female-female) in which each partner has multiple partners.

The definition goes:

The term group marriage is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, and sociology. Polygamy can be defined as any "form of marriage in which multiple persons [have] more than one spouse."[1]

By the way, isn't there a greek word for it; something like ?(unsure how to pronounce) "ομάδα", which means group and the Greek word gamos "γάμος", which means marriage or union; the group marriage article could then be moved to this greek name, as the monogamy and polygamy article also have the greek name as their main article name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article images
these article image should be removed from this article: Image:Mobius-purple.jpg|thumb|200px|The Purple Mobius symbol for Polyamory, non-monogamy, and LGBTQ. Image:Love Outside The Box.svg|thumb|200px|The "love ouside the box" symbol for Polyamory, non-monogamy, and LGBTQ.

Instead move them to the polyamory article. The main image is best a schematic of 2 people having each an arrow to each other, aswell as arrows to other people (drawn under each of the 2 people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Picture made, please include to article - Image:Group marriage.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.165.179 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 July 2009‎

Reality or misunderstanding?
Does group marriage really exist? I mean a group of men being married to a group of women with all the men of the group being considered married to all the women. I thought it was a misconception based on some societies' tolerance of sex outside marriage. In that case the people thought to engage in group marriage where actually not married at all.

2010-03-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.71 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity
So what is it exactly? All of the men have all the women as their wives and all of the women have all the men as their husbands. But do all of the men also have all the men as their husbands? And same with the women? Are there heterosexual and bisexual group marriages? And what if there was a brother and sister in there? Would they just be exempt from being married while still sharing the other partners? This is messed up. 24.49.35.99 (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In some cases in a group marriage there might be merely one or two who have the poly orientation and multiple relationships, while other partners who may be bi, ace, pan, or heterosexual coexist and form non-romantic relationships with the others. Think of the poly members as "hubs," if you will. As for being "messed up" -- that is an opinion that anyone is free to hold, of course. 72.201.113.118 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture
Are the "Gods" in Isaac Asimov's The Gods Themselves another, fictional, alien race for whom a group marriage is a fundamental biological imperative ? They have three "sexes"; one of each of whom form a physical union in order to procreate. The characters we meet are in social relationships with one of each, much like a marriage of three. 86.6.29.99 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannot be illegal if not recognised
It is not correct to say that this "form of marriage is not officially recognized or permitted in any jurisdiction in the U.S., and de jure illegal in many". If these marriages are not recognized they have no legal status - therefore they are not illegal. As they have no legal status they cannot be de jure illegal.101.98.74.13 (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would read "recognition" more as referring to the privileges that come out of marital status, and "legality" referring to the act of registering marriage to multiple individuals. As recognition of a marriage entails attribution to the spouse of the benefits that marriage allows (e.g. inheritance, next-of-kin, etc.), non-recognition of the marriage would therefore deny those benefits to a spouse. The de jure illegality would then refer to separate bigamy prosecutions (as a fraudulent status, regardless of the consent of involved parties) that would arise from attempts to register a group marriage. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)