Misplaced Pages

Talk:Group marriage: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:07, 26 August 2005 editNereocystis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,989 edits →[] double-standard← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:29, 6 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,274,908 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Anthropology}}, {{WikiProject Sociology}}, {{WikiProject Sexuality}}, {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(73 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}}
== "Group marriage" is <i>not</i> called "True polygamy" ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=start|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance= }}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance= }}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid }}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low }}
{{WikiProject Family and relationships }}
}}
{{DYK talk|7 April|2004|entry=...that a theme in ]'s ] ] '']'' is ''']'''?}}
{{Archive box
| auto = yes
| search = yes
| index = /Archive index
| bot = MiszaBot
| units = days
| age = 180
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| maxarchivesize = 50K
| counter = 3
| minthreadsleft = 4
| algo = old(180d)
| archive = Talk:Group marriage/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
| target = Talk:Group marriage/Archive index
| mask = Talk:Group marriage/Archive <#>
| leading_zeros = 0
| indexhere = yes
}}


== Legal Aspects - Inaccuracy? ==
The article declares a false statement, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "true polygamy." Not only does the person who wrote that statement not not know the meaning of the ], but they did not even ].


"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."
"Group marriage" can <i>not</i> be called "true polygamy" because it is not even polygamy at all. That is because ] is only one of two things. It is either ] (one man with more than wife) or it is ] (one woman with more than one husband). Either way, it is always a relationship of one-gender to multiple-other-gender.
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Hah -- "common-law marriage." '''You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'''
That's why other arrangements of more than one gender with mutiple others of the other gender is not ], although it is rightly called "group marriage," and is one form of ].


:Anyone who believes it's somehow equivalent ought to actually go read up on ] (and likely ]). 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. <br> ] (]) 08:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I just did a quick search: The only webpages that call "group marriage" as "true polygamy" are this Misplaced Pages article and sites that copy the Misplaced Pages article directly.


==overstatement abounds==
Because this the article is not correct with this statement icnluded, it will ned to be edited. I will await a response here in TALK for about a week. If no one has anything to add or discuss on this, I will then remove that false statement.
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.
] 17:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


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?
'''Polygamy''' - From the ancient greek ''poly'' (many) and ''gamos'' (marriage). Literally, "Many Marriages" or "Married to Many". The base term does not indicate sex. Because of the neutrality of the original term, some persons refer to group marriage as "true polygamy", as it is more sex neutral than either polyandry or polygyny.


Geez... <br> ] (]) 08:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Citations:


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 ] (now corrected). As such, the section calls out for proper review.
However, I agree that the term "true polygamy" is confusing in an encyclopedic entry. In the nine pages of hits off of Altavista, I found many religious groups using it to refer to certain types of polygyny. I have removed the term from the article for the sake of clarity.


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''. <br>] (]) 17:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
] 23:10, 8 August 2005 (EDT)


==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. <br> ] (]) 09:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
By deleting ''true polygamy'', the only reference to polygamy was deleted. I see a few options:


==proper terminology==
#Mention that group marriage is a form of polygamy
In three instances I have changed '''polyamory''' to '''polyfidelity''' (or appropriate conjugation).
#Decide that it isn't a form of polygamy (as Researcher99 states), and state this as so
#Leave the article as is, and let people come to their own conclusions


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. <br> ] (]) 09:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't like 3, which ignores the issue. I suspect that 1 is correct, the dictionary definition supports it, but is there a more solid reference? This discussion will reemerge soon in ].] 21:06, 11 August 2005 (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?) <br>] (]) 16:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's a reference to group marriage being called polygamy:
:Emens, Elizabeth F., "Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence" (February 2004). U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 58, p. 21. http://ssrn.com/abstract=506242


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?
It also mentions multiple partners of the same sex, which is excluded by the current definition of group marriage in this article. Of course, polygynandry also excludes group marriages consisting only of one gender. Here's a possible rewrite, though this allows polygyny and polyandry to be types of group marriage. Is this acceptable?


Is it even possible to have "a group marriage" if there is no ceremony?
:'''Group marriage''' or '''Circle Marriage''' is a form of ] ] in which three or more people form a ] unit, and all members of the marriage share ]al responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Heterosexual group marriage is sometimes called '''polygynandry''', from a combination of the words ] and ].


And aren't there requirements to qualify? For instance, Colorado specifies that four elements substantiating a common-law marriage:
] 22:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
# holding themselves out as husband and wife
# consenting to the marriage
# cohabitation; and
# having the reputation in the community as being married
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. <br>] (]) 16:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


: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. ] (]) 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I think that your rewrite works. Since group marriage is a form of polygamy, I'd go ahead and put it up.
] 11:21, 12 August 2005 (EDT)


::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.
I'll wait a little while for Researcher99 to respond. I know he disagrees with calling group marriage a form of polygamy. I also realize that with my rewrite, group marriage and polygamy are almost identical, with polygamy and polyandry being subsets of both. I had previously thought that group marriage was one type of polygamy, not including all of polygamy, but if the requirement of 2 of each gender is removed, a bigamous couple is engaged in a group marriage. ] 18:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


::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."<br>] (]) 22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
PolyGYNY and Polyandry. :) Polygamy is the sex-neutral term. That confusion in common parlance sparked the debate over "True Polygamy" in the first place. Some advocates of group marriage hold that it is the pure form of polygamy because it presents equal opportunity to both sexes. Even if some of the people in a group marriage are homosexual, the family could still contain both sexes, assuming there are some bisexuals in there. Basically, a group marriage must contain all one sex or at least two of each sex.
] 19:14, 12 August 2005 (EDT)


== here's how/why the article got this way ==
Hmm. There's a certain gender inequality which I don't quite like yet. Or maybe it's a sexual preference difference. I'm having trouble putting my finger on it, but I'll try. Let's pretend that intercourse, or sexual preference is what matters.


Notes to various editors:
Imagine 2 men A and B, and two women Y and Z. A is bi, B is gay, Y and Z and straight. B, Y, and Z have sex only with A and not with each other. How is this different from a polygynous relationship? Polygynandry is fine if everyone is straight, but may fall apart if some are not straight. ] 23:58, 12 August 2005 (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 ].
Let's save the gender issue for later, and just restore polygamous for now. Here's my current suggestion:
] (]) 08:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

:The specific claim is:
:'''Group marriage''' or '''Circle Marriage''' is a form of ] ] in which more than one man and more than one woman form a ] unit, and all members of the marriage share ]al responsibility for any children arising from the marriage. Group marriage is sometimes called '''polygynandry''', from a combination of the words ] and ].
:{{quote|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 '']''. 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. ] (]) 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
] 22:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
::Please review that statement. You are straightforwardly saying that you '''''intend to put up Original Research''''' — re-read ], 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.
Yeah, I think that sounds fine. The whole issue of sex and marriage is fairly murky because of confusion around the meaning of the word "marriage". Indeed, the Greek term "gamos" was more specifically heterosexual because its meaning was more akin to "matrimony" in English, which is a specific religious rite. Given this uncertainty, I think we should stick with the general anthropological definition of polygamy, which includes group marriage.
::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.<br>] (]) 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
] 23:40, 13 August 2005 (EDT)
::*it exists only in fiction, never having been practiced in the real world

::AND
: Why does ] have a user name that does not exist? ] 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
::*it exists throughought fiction, over some span of time, not simply one or two stories or by a lone author.

::There ya go.<br>] (]) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
::I think that Researcher99 misunderstands Dunkelza's status. As wikipedia says when you click on :
::Enough; I've removed it again. Anyone who's read the entire article will note the factoid is much better covered under ].<br>] (]) 16:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
:::Misplaced Pages does not yet have a User page called Dunkelza.
::That doesn't mean that the user name doesn't exist, only that the page doesn't exist, and users are not required to have user pages. If you click on "User contributions", you will get a list of Dunkelza's contributions, as you would for any user. ] 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

::: As I I am glad we got that cleared up. - ] 14:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


===That's Polyamory, not Polygamy===

None of the references that ] provided offer any valid verification of "group marriage" being legitimately called "true polygamy." All but the first citation are simply usenet or forum threads. Mere discussions on threads do not qualify as legitimate ] sources. The is a tiny page that does not even mention "group marriage." Plus, the closest comment the page there makes about "true polygamy" is actually disproving the idea of using that as a definition. It said, <i>"I know of no documented social milieu which practiced "true" polygamy (multiple spouses of any gender)."</i>.

Also, the that ] makes also does not have the words "polygamy" or "group marriage" on it at all. Actually, that article is about ]. It is true that "group marriage" is a subset of ] but it is not a subset of ].

An easier way to understand this is by remembering who is called a "polygamist." In ], the husband is called the "polygamist" but his wives are not - they are his "polygamous wives." In ], the wife is called the "polygamist" but her husbands are not - they are her "polygamous husbands."

The reason why polygamy is a description of one-gender-to-many-of-other-gender is that it is based upon the relationship that the one-gender has with each of the other-gender. In ], for example, the wives are not "married" to each other - they each have their marriage with the husband. The same for ], the husbands are not "married" to each other - they each have their marriage with the wife.

The concept of "group marriage" explodes that concept into something it is not. It is definitely a form of ] but it is not possible to be a "form" of ] because it implies marriage between everyone in the group to everyone else in the group.

So, to use the re-write offered by ], I would say that the word ] needs to be replaced with ] and the last sentence needs to be removed. It would read as this:

:'''Group marriage''' or '''Circle Marriage''' is a form of ] ] in which more than one man and more than one woman form a ] unit, and all members of the marriage share ]al responsibility for any children arising from the marriage.

] 13:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


:Clearly you didn't read the entire 87 pages of Emens word by word, :). Sorry, I should have given a more specific reference. Look at p 21:

::Frank's comment highlights a common problem of terminology. The term polygamy is often used to mean two different things: 1) marriage to more than one person, regardless of sex; and 2) the marriage of one man to more than one woman. As noted above,120 the latter--one man with multiple wives--is specifically called "polygyny." Polygyny is the opposite of "polyandry," one woman with multiple husbands.121 The elision of the two is exemplified, with some acknowledgement of the confusion, by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "polygamy": "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."122 To avoid this confusion, the article uses the term "polygamy" to mean several spouses, regardless of sex. It is, however, significant that polygamy commonly refers to a man with many wives. I agree with Congressman Frank that this is one reason that people object to the idea of plural marriage. To try to supplement this perception, this article offers several examples of multi-party relationships that are not structured by institutionalized patriarchy.

:Emens uses polygamy to allow multiple partners, regardless of sex, and uses the ] as one reference for this definition. We could allow a note that some people do not consider group marriage as polygamy, if there is a reference supporting this position. ] 17:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

::It took awhile, but I found the link for the download. Your comment actually confirms what I am saying.

:: First, the paper does not even use ] in the title, but ]. It is titled, <I>Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous Existence </I>.

::Second, the paragraph you cite follows a preceding paragraph, which further notes that it is addressing the confusion which most people have about what polygamy means.

::<blockquote><small>...In addition, the image of polygamy as a Muslim practice undoubtedly adds to its negative public image, historically and also particularly in the wake of September 11, 2001.116 Arguably, one reason Americans oppose multi-party relationships is that these relationships evoke the image of a man sanctioned by a patriarchal religious society to have many wives as emblems of his power or chosen status. As discussed later,117 there is some disagreement among scholars as well as polygynists as to whether this model is necessarily bad for women, but certainly it is widely thought to be so.118 Thus, as Barney Frank has said about why people oppose plural marriage, "First, it’s almost always polygamy and not polyamory. So a lot of women don’t like it."119</small></blockquote>
::<blockquote><small>Frank’s comment highlights a common problem of terminology. The term polygamy is <b><i>often used</i></b> to mean two different things: 1) marriage to more than one person, regardless of sex; and 2) the marriage of one man to more than one woman. As noted above,120 the latter --one man with multiple wives-- is specifically called "polygyny." Polygyny is the opposite of "polyandry," one woman with multiple husbands.121 The elision of the two is exemplified, with some acknowledgement of the confusion, by the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "polygamy": <b><i>"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."</i></b>122 To avoid this confusion, the article uses the term "polygamy" to mean several spouses, regardless of sex. It is, however, significant that polygamy commonly refers to a man with many wives. I agree with Congressman Frank that this is one reason that people object to the idea of plural marriage. To try to supplement this perception, this article offers several examples of multi-party relationships that are not structured by institutionalized patriarchy.</small> <i>(Emphasis added.)</i></blockquote>

::The point of the paragraph you cited (the second one I cited above) explains how most people <i>confuse</i> the meaning of polygamy. As such, the first sentence did not provide a <b>definition</i> of two forms of polygamy. Instead, it noted how the term polygamy is <b>often used</b> <i>mistakenly</i>! (For example, people often think ] is simply ].) The author then proceeds to explain the true definition, citing the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "polygamy": <b><i>"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."</i></b> That dictionary definition did not incorporate "group marriage" into the definition there at all. For an even easier understanding, simply read that definition's first sentence again by preceding it with "<i>A polygamist's</i>" so that you understand that it is "<i>A polygamist's</i> Marriage with several, or more than one, at once." (As I explained before, a "polygamist" is only understood as a polygynist with his polygamous wives or as a polyandrist with her polygamous husbands. There is no interjection of "group" there whatsoever.) The remainder of that cited Oxford English Dictionary definition additionally clarified that specific differentiation that ] is only either ] or ]. At the end, the author then explained what she herself was <i>choosing</i> to <i>use</i> as a definition for the purposes of her article. As a matter of technicality, the remainder of her article only goes on to mostly address ] as she says in her own language, to offer "several examples of multi-party relationships" which do not fall within the definition of polygamy at all. Still, though, her "choice" to use her own designed version of a term for use in her article does not then give valid basis for us to re-define ] outside of that article beyond its actual meaning, as shown by the Oxford English Dictionary definition which she herself provided.

::Third, later in that piece you cite, on Pg. 30, the only example of "group marriage" in the piece that is provided, is in the subsection titled as <i>"A Four-Partner Family: Eddie Simmons"</b>. Throughout that subsection dealing with that situation of two men and two women together, the piece calls that arrangement ]. It does not call it ].

::So, actually, rather than prove your point, the piece you have cited has instead further demonstrated <i><b>my</i></b> point. The author most clearly did <i><b>not</b></i> "use polygamy to allow multiple partners, regardless of sex" but dealt with polyamory instead, as her title shows. Instead, she (and, more importantly, the Oxford English Dictionary) actually clearly confirmed what I have been saying. That is, <b>] is only either ] or ].</b>

:: ] 16:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:You may have missed this line in Emens, which makes her usage clear:

::To avoid this confusion, the article uses the term "polygamy" to mean several spouses, regardless of sex.

:This establishes use in a non-sex specific manner, which includes group marriage.

:The OED definition has a ";" between its various descriptions, the first two definitions do not mention gender "Marriage with several, or more than one, at once" and "plurality of spouses". The third mentions gender.

:In short, there are references which consider group marriage to be a form of polygamy. However, you still have polygyny and polyandry to specify gender-specific groups. ] 17:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:: You are adding subjective re-interpretation to the text, trying to make it imply something additional which it does not do. (I heard someone use that term, "subjective re-interpretation," and it fits very well here.) Plus, the original word of "spouse" originally only meant "wife of a husband." It was then later vernacularly modifed by monogamous egalitarianism to also mean "husband of a wife." The notion of a "husband having a husband," however, is only something that is conceived from within the very modern homosexual POV, but it is not in historic English language, as that dictionary was about. So, when the author refers to polygamy, using the dictionary definition, being "several spouses, regardless of sex," the latter clause means that it is either polygyny or polyandry, "regardless" if it is the male sex with multiple spouses (wives) or of it is the female sex with multiple spouses (husbands). It never suggests that a "group" is involved or the very modern exclusively homosexual POV of a "spouse" as also being defined as "husband of a husband." You really have to read her article, it is completely about ] and she is very clearly not trying to suggest that "group marriage" is what actual "polygamy" is. It escapes me why you are trying to use a writer on ] to try to re-define ] to make it means something it does not and she was not seeking to achieve. more than that, it really is also not very accurate to use a writer talking mostly about ] as if she is the legitimate source for re-defining ]. Polygamy was not her topic there, anyway. ] 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:The term "polyamorous" is not accurate because it assumes that all of the partners in the group marriage are "in love with" each other. While ] wants to make sure the article recognizes that not all group marriages are heterosexual, we can't forget that the term originated as a description of male-female relationships. In such a case, the marriage is simultaneously polygynous and polyandrous, hence the zoological term "polygynandry". The husbands need not feel "married" to each other, but only to their shared wives. ] 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

::Your point is well taken. Earlier today, I posted As that would indicate, ] would more appropriately fall under the category of ]. But it is definitely not a "form of ]." ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:Furthermore, the use of said term is misleading, in that polygynous and polyandrous relationships are also considered to be polyamorous. The most commonly cited form of polyamorous relationship is a "triangle", "triad", "vee", or "troika", which is quite clearly one individual (the "hinge") connected to two mates. To be clear in our articles, the word polyamory should be used in articles about "love", while polygamy belongs in articles about "marriage". ] 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

:While ] could be viewed as a subset of ], the reverse is not true. Also, though, as you rightly pointed out above that ] might not involve everyone in the "group" loving as a means to show it might not always qualify to be called ], the same is true for ]. That does not mean that ] equals ], but only that they share characteristics which could, at times, disqualify either from being udnerstood as ]. ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:While a few anthropologists are still using the unclear, pre-Boaz definitions, most are using the term "polygamy" as dichotomous with "monogamy". In this case, monogamy and polygamy are the two big categories into which other, more specific definitions of marriage are placed. Indeed, the use of group marriage as a separate category unto itself is usually only taught when talking about the early history of anthropology. In these historic instances, the term group marriage is usually associated with "savagery", a word that no self-respecting, modern anthropologist will apply to any culture. ] 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)

:: Please read the other section I created today, ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


:] wrote:
:#
:#
:#
:#
:#
:] 23:24, 16 August 2005 (EDT)


:: The is only an outdated copy of Misplaced Pages's ] article. <b>FULL CIRCLE!</b> ] first into the Misplaced Pages ]. Now we have a citation from a copycat-site of that same Misplaced Pages article used as justification to verify the error! I hope I am not the only one here who finds that genuinely hilarious. It really is funny - although still invalid, of course. ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:: The only separates into definitions of ], ], ], and ]. It says nothing about "group marriage" as being polygamy. ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:: The does nothing more than ask a single line, <i>"What is polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage?"</i> ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:: The and citations are merely single line vaguely-stated unresearched additions to concepts. The only lists "group marriage" after "polygyny" and "polyandry" as all three are subheaded under "polygamy." The does nothing more than add to the "group marriage" glossary line that "group marriage" supposedly is a "form of polygamy." In both of those citations, they could be nothing more than lazy compilers who may even have gotten that erroneous information from the incorrect Misplaced Pages ] article -- which would prove my point why it is wrong for that error to remain there, of course. The point is, these citations are not really sufficient as valid proofs that "group marriage" is "polygamy." Rather, it is more evidence of the <i>confusion</i> about what polygamy is by those who do not really study or not that much about it. That <i>confusion</i> was explained by the author whom ] cited here, on 17:31, 16 August 2005. I appreciate that you are making citations, but they really do need to be valid citations for us to rely upon them. ] 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Synopsis:
:::#The word ''true'' has been deleted, so that ''true polygamy'' no longer appears in this article, per Researcher99's request.
:::#There are references which show that the word polygamy is used to include group marriage. Hence the word ''polygamy'' is acceptable to use.

:::If this is incorrect, please state, in 1 or 2 sentences, what needs to change. Provide references, if needed. ] 19:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:::: I appreciate the removal of the "true polygamy." That is a good thing. The "polygamy" part is incorrect though. It is incorrect because only the noted <i>confusion</i> about polygamy causes people to think it could also include "group marriage" when it does not. Even the cited OED clearly spelled out that polygamy was only ] or ], especially when considering the meaning of "spouses" in historic English. It is not appropriate to have a Misplaced Pages article define a term incorrectly, justifying that mistake from people's mistaken "<i>confusions</i>" or admitted <i>choice of re-definition</i>. For better accuracy and simplicity for us all around, it is simpler to just say that "group marriage" is a ]. I have made that edit to reflect that. We can let it sit that way - at least, until it is further resolved here, if there are any more questions about it. Even for anyone who still has questions for us to discuss about it here, having us keep the article as being a ] can be agreeable for everyone, is an accurate way to be displayed, and does not mislead the reader. It is appropriate whether it stays that way permanently or we come to a better description here later. ] 20:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


Okay, this is getting out of hand. I think that this discussion is becoming circular, I believe that clear linguistic, sociological, and anthropological evidence has been given in support of the pro-polygamy argument and that no evidence to the contrary has been presented aside from personal opinion or original research.

"Monogamy" is any marriage to ONE and only one person. "Polygamy" is any marriage to more than one person. These are standard definitions in modern anthropological and sociological circles. Even if this were not the case, group marriage is SIMULTANEOUSLY polygyny and polyandry, both of which ARE by ] definition, "polygamy". Therefore, group marriage IS polygamy.

We need to wrap this up. I'll probably insist on a revert to the article to its August 7th state unless we can figure this out soon.
] 19:24, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

I suggest choosing a favorite anthropological or sociological reference book for a citation on the definition of polygamy. I used E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology in ], though not as clearly referenced as I prefer. Dunkelza may have such a reference nearby. Then the subject can be wrapped up. The reference should probably be on the article's page. ] 23:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


:I'm a-lookin', most of my books are either packed up or sold back to the bookstore; but, I'll see what I can find. Considering that ] and I will not stand for the complete disassociation of group marriage from polygamy and ] doesn't want to say that it IS polygamy, what about:

::''Group marriage or Circle Marriage is a ''']-like''' form of ''']''' in which more than one man and more than one woman form a family unit...''

:] 19:24, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

Wilson, in Sociobiology says:

:Polygamy in the broad sense covers any form of multiple mating. The special case in which a single male mates with more than one female is called polygyny, while the mating of one female iwth more than one male is call polyandry. ... In the narrower sense preferred zoologiests, polygamy also implies the formation of at least a temporary ''pair bond''. Otherwise, multiple matings are commonly defined as ''promiscuous''.

A group marriage definitely counts as a pair bond of at least temporary nature. We really have evidence that group marriage is called polygamy. If Researcher99 can provide a reference that someone doesn't consider group marriage to be polygamy, that can be mentioned as well. Without a reference, there is no need avoid the use of the word polygamy.

I don't like "polygamy-like" since that suggests that group marriage isn't polygamy. My first choice is "polygamous marriage". My second choice is simply "marriage". Perhaps we should go with the latter for now, try to look up the references, and revisit it later. If we skip the mention of polygamy, there should be "See also" reference. "Poly relationship" is not acceptable, since that suggests that group marriage is less than a marriage.

Unfortunately, Researcher99 will revisit this issue soon in the polygamy article, which are currently getting help resolving our differences there. Dunkelza should feel free to join in. ] 12:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)



I found a better reference.
In {{Book reference link| Last = Murdock |First = George Peter| Title = Social Structure | Publisher = New York: The MacMillan Company | Year = 1949) | ID = }},page 24,

:Theoretically, polygamy can assume any one of three possible forms: ''polygyny'' or the marriage of one man to two or more wives at a time, ''polyandry'' or the coexistent union of one woman with two or more men, and ''group marriage'' or a marital union embracing at once several men and several women. Of these, only the first is common.

And on page 25

:A statistical analysis of Kaingang genealogies for a period of 100 years showed that 8 per cent of all recorded unions were group marriages, as compared with 14 per cent for polyandrous, 18 per cent for polygynous, and 60 per cent for monogamous unions.

The disadvantage of working at a medical school is that the anthropology texts are not extensive, but they aren't checked out often either. This had been sitting on the shelf for over 20 years, deep in the recesses of the basement. Murdock is a sufficient reference for polygamy including group marriage. ] 06:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And on page 2:
:A ''polygamous family'' consists of two or more nuclear families affiliated by plural marriages, i.e., having one married parent in common.

And from a footnote on the same page:

:The terms "polygamy" and "polygamous" will be used throughout this work in their recognized technical sense as referring to any form of plural marriage

''Polygyny'' and ''polyandry'' are also defined here. The definition from page 25 makes it clear that polygamy extends to group marriage. ] 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)



:Researcher99 does have a source which does not include ''group marriage'' under ''polygamy''. Both of his links refer to sites hosted by thestandardbearer.com, run by Mark Henkel. Both definitions are from Henkel, I believe. There isn't anything wrong with this, of course. I just want to establish that the two links ultimately come from the same source. While Henkel refers to a definition of ''polygamy'', he doesn't explain his source for this definition. Both links Researcher99 mentioned were edited just a short while before his comment here. I can't find any evidence of there existence before this time. http://www.christianpolygamy.info/what-christian-polygamy-is-not/ (also changed today) currently links to the group marriage page, but it didn't on ], ] (http://web.archive.org/web/20041011060919/http%3A//www.christianpolygamy.info/what-christian-polygamy-is-not/). Strangely enough, I can't find the group marriage web page on google when I search for it. Perhaps Researcher99 can explain how to find this page on google. It isn't in waybackmachine.org either.

:I think that the web page is more correctly called "Christian polygamy does not include group marriage". Perhaps we could include a section called "proponents and opponents of group marriage", which includes a comment from Henkel. I think that Mark Henkel misunderstands the standard definition of polygamy. I think that he doesn't want group marriage linked with polygamy because he considers group marriage immoral.

:For this article's definition, I want a definitions of group marriage and polygamy to be independent of morality.

:Is there anything else to discuss before we resolve this issue? ] 20:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


==== ] double-standard====

I ask that everyone please look at this harrassing double standard by ] in the last post above (as made in their posting edits made from through When ] had previously provided many links that turned out to be meaningless, ] looks the other way. But I provide valid links proving the point, and ] goes all out to try to invent a reason to discredit the links of proven authority sites.

As I showed a few weeks ago to ], the TruthBearer organization also provides webhosting at its other site Just because a community comes together to have their sites hosted like that does not mean it is only one person. A second double standard here by ] is shown by their past attempts to claim one-man sites are "groups." In this case on this page, there's proof of a community using a similar webhost and yet] wants to try to call it as one man! The irony would be funny if it was not so offensive in its abusiveness.

Additionally, the sites I listed are considered valid enough for the Wall Street Journal and schoolbook publisher McGraw Hill.

Pro-Polygamy.com - yesterday, I cited from that site. That site has been reported in the Wall Street Journal. One of the links at the bottom of that page shows the link address to the Wall Street Journal, Because that requires a user log in, the article may be read for free at another place where it was also published, with the same title, PFM's Chuck Colson cites that Wall Street Journal article in the bibliography of his article The article is also re-posted at Maggie Gallagher's MarriageDebate.com and at FamilyScholars.org

ChristianPolygamy.info - yesterday, I cited from that site. That site has been been used by college textbook publisher, McGraw-Hill. In a book titled, the Web Links page for the book identifying it by saying <i>"Quote: "The definitive resource for general information about Christian polygamy." This is a modern, US-based, evangelical conservative Christian movement."</i>

Despite ] abusive attempt to try to discredit these definitively recognized sites, the sites are undeniably proven authority sites on the polygamy topic. Their input carries far more weight than the mere opinion of the aggressive POV and agenda of ] who routinely tries to have things say what they do not even say (as they opbviously did, for example, with the Oxford Enlish Dictionary definition on this TALK page here).

The amount of time that ] spent digging into the history of the site is also an extreme double standard. They looked the other way entirely when ] made many links that turned out to be meaningless, but ] jumps right on top of the quality links I provide and tries to invent a mystery and to discredit the links if they can (but can not). Their doing that is also another example of the abusive way in which they purposely harrass me into being forced into spending my time explaining answers to the abusive and wrong ideas they come up with.

Here is another example which will prove my topic expertise and ] lack of it. About the ChristianPolygamy.Info I cited yesterday, I will take a quick step-by-step process here to show what has obviously happened.

I will start with the other article I cited yesterday, from Pro-Polygamy.com, titled, The article there is dated Aug 16, 2005. At the bottom of that page, there are some bibliographic links. One leads to That article explains how the 700 Club had originally scheduled that segment to appear on July 21st. But it bumped from the news portion that day. The rest of the show that day focused on other issues including group marriage and wife swapping. With the segment to be re-scheduled for a later time, the Christian Polygamy community was then able to get into action to clarify the false assumptions and implications. When the segment did appear on August 16, the community was more prepared. So, this new at ChristianPolygamy.info occured because of that.

] seems to be trying to invent some mystery about the site where there is none. Sites regularly edit typos or whatever, and I remember hearing that dynamic types of web-sites have things that cause them to change regularly anyway. So ] hinting about site edits or whatever means nothing. Their trying to say the link can't be found in google is also false. I found it at the top of the page by searching Despite their attempt to invent a mystery, there is none. It is only another example of the abuse they pile onto me repeatedly, thoroughyl destroying the WIkipedia experience for me.

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of abuse from ] which really has to stop. I have now had to spend hours just to make this one reply. I should not have had to. The proven sites of authority on the topic have provided the answers. Just because it does not let ] have the false definition they want to put out does not change that. This abuse is what keeps me form being able to have more productive postings too. (For example, I had wanted to post more in-depth in the ] TALK pages today, but this took away the time I had for that. It's just more abuse.

The most offensive thing of all for me here is the extreme double-standard by ] When someone else provided many reference links which were not even really valid, ] just looked the other way. But I cite two authority sites, and I get this kind of abuse of invented "mystery," forcing me to spend hours to disprove their false claims and keeping me from making other posts I really would have preferred to be making.

It is my hope that someone with credibilty at Misplaced Pages will eventually be able to see how seriously abusive that ] is in targeting everything I do and say with such hostility and double-standard, and to be able to stop it for me. I only want to be productive and true NPOV, but I really should not have to bear this kind of perpetual abuse. I still hope. ] 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

:The ChristianPolygamy.info does not provide a link for the definition of polygamy which excludes group marriage.

:Google's search now has a sponsored link for the "group marriage". I admit that I don't usually look for sponsored links. It may have been there yesterday. I apologize for missing it. The link still doesn't appear under the results section.

:Researcher99, I have 2 questions for you:
:#Did you write the christianpolygamy.info article on group marriage?
:#Did you pay for the placement of this article on google?

:] 20:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

::I am still uncertain where ] has provided citations showing that the broad, scientific classification of "polygamy" '''can not''' include group marriage. All that I've seen are citations that speak to one or another specific forms of polygamy as espoused by certain groups. I'm interested in a purely encyclopedic article, not one that caters to the "Christian Polygamy" movement or even the "Polyamory" movement. ] 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

:You're right, Dunkelza. Even if the citations are valid, they don't provide a reason to make a change. ] 23:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

:As Dunkelza suggested in ], let's finish this discussion during our rewrite of the polygamy article. ] 17:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

== "Polygynandry" is NOT even a word ==

The article also declares another false statement. It makes up a new word, saying that "group marriage" is sometimes called "polygynandry." I just looked up the word, and The person who added that word appears to have made up a word, and they did not even ]. I'll check back in about a week to see if anyone has more to add about this. At that time, if there is nothing more to discuss or explain, I'll make the correction. ] 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

---
Citations for Polygynandry: (I don't LIKE the word, but it is a technical term in zoology)


There were at least 10 pages of hits off Altavista.
] 23:10, 8 August 2005 (EDT)

: I am quite surprised at how much your citations are not valid either. I am not trying to shoot citations down, but, ], you really got check the sources you're citing. The one is useless. The one is only about mating. The one has so many popups and ads that it appears as one of those out-for-profit-only money-maker sites that quickly throw content together in order to generate ad revenues based on keywords. The one is also only about mating. None of these really justify calling "group marriage" as "polygynandry." If it even is a word, in "zoology" as you note, although no dictionary seems to be showing "polygynandry" exists as a word, then it appears to me that that term is only applicable to mating systems of the animal kingdom. It also seems more as animal promiscuity than "marriage," even for animals. (While animals do not "marry," I do realize that some have "monogamous" bondings and "polygamous" bondings, as they term it zoologically. But "polygynandyry" sounds like no permanent bonding is even possible, meaning promiscuity instead, animal-wise.) That does not make it "another word" for "group marriage." It could be mentioned in some other Misplaced Pages article about zoology and mating, but it does not seem to apply here at all. ] 17:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I performed a BIOSIS search on ovid.com and found 31 journal references, reputable, I believe. Here are the first 10, some mentioning the word in the title, others not:

#Vermette, Richard ; Fairbairn, Daphne J. . How well do mating frequency and duration predict paternity success in the polygynandrous water strider Aquarius remigis? Evolution. 56(9). September, 2002. 1808-1820.
#Haydock, Joseph ; Koenig, Walter D. . Reproductive skew in the polygynandrous acorn woodpecker Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 99(10). May 14, 2002. 7178-7183.
#Campbell, Veronique ; Fairbairn, Daphne J. . Prolonged copulation and the internal dynamics of sperm transfer in the water strider Aquarius remigis Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79(10). October, 2001. 1801-1812.
#Winterbottom, M. ; Burke, T. ; Birkhead, T. R. . The phalloid organ, orgasm and sperm competition in a polygynandrous bird: The red-billed buffalo weaver (Bubalornis niger) Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology. 50(5). October, 2001. 474-482.
#Bishton, Glenn . Social structure, habitat use and breeding biology of hedgerow Dunnocks Prunella modularis Bird Study. 48(2). July, 2001. 188-193.
#Jones, A. G. ; Avise, J. C. . Mating systems and sexual selection in male-pregnant pipefishes and seahorses: Insights from microsatellite-based studies of maternity Journal of Heredity. 92(2). March-April, 2001. 150-158.
#Chiba, Akira ; Nakamura, Masahiko . Note on the morphology of the sperm storage tubules in the polygynandrous alpine accentor, Prunella collaris Journal of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology. 32(2). 29 December, 2000. 73-79.
#Sommer, Volker ; Reichard, Ulrich . Deconstructing monogamy: Thailand's gibbons at Khao Yai Folia Primatologica. 71(5). September-October, 2000. 362.
#Briskie, James V. . Song variation and the structure of local song dialects in the polygynandrous Smith's Longspur Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77(10). Oct., 1999. 1587-1594.
#Goldizen, Anne W. ; Buchan, Jason C. ; Putland, David A. ; Goldizen, Alan R. ; Krebs, Elizabeth A. . Patterns of mate-sharing in a population of Tasmanian Native Hens Gallinula mortierii Ibis. 142(1). Jan. , 2000. 40-47.

] 13:36, 11 August 2005

Here's a quote from the Haydock article cited above:
:This species provides a key test case because only a few vertebrates exhibit polygynandry (multiple breeders of both sexes within a group).

The relative rarity of the practice may explain your unfamiliarity with the word. The application to humans in group marriage is direct.

Synopsis:

Researcher99 stated that ''polygynandry'' is not a word. References have been supplied showing that it is a word. Is there anything more which needs to be done with ''polygynandry''? ] 19:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

: References have NOT shown that it is a word, although a few invalid links have shown that some may have made up the word. More than that, I akcnoledged that even if it is a word, it is only applicable in the zoological context as that is the only thing where it comes from in the supposed "references." 1.) What is the "link" to the "Haydock" article? I find no link to find the article at all. 2.) Does a term not found in dictionary qualify for saying it exists? 3.) If the term only applies zoologically, and is not being used in addressing humans in "group marriage," then it is only subjectivity trying to label it as "group marriage" when not one mention has called it that. As I said before, mayeb it could be in a zoological article about mating, but does not seem to have any basis for being in the "group marriage" article. 4.) The references have all not been that quality anyway, as I have shown. (If the other, unlinked "references" have links, I would be glad to check them, too.) With all this, it is very aggressive to try to quickly suggest the discussion is altready "over" when there has not been any evidence that human "group marriage" is ever actually called by the "zoological term" of polygyandry. 19:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please search for Haydock above. It's an article in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America'', a respected journal. You may be able to retrieve it as http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/10/7178, but I'm not sure that translates outside my site. I included 10 references total from journals, all respected. I can give you more. You'll have to look up the journals yourself, however.

Here's another reference which refers specifically to humans:
:Title: Mental health aspects of Arab-Israeli adolescents from polygamous versus monogamous families.
:Author: Al-Krenawi, Alean Graham, John R Slonim-Nevo, Vered
:Source: Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (4): 446(15), August 2002. ISSN: 0022-4545

:Polygamy has been defined as "a marital relationship involving multiple wives" (Kottak, 1978, as cited in Low, 1988, p. 189). It occurs in Europe, North America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Oceania (Altman & Gmat, 1996). It includes three types, the first of which is most prevalent worldwide and was the sole concern in the present study: (a) Polygyny occurs when one husband is married to two or more wives and is hereinafter referred to as polygamy; (b) polyandry occurs when one wife is married to two or more husbands; and (c) polygynandry is a group marriage scenario in which two or more wives are simultaneously married to two or more husbands.

This author uses the definition of polygamy which is limited to one husband and multiple wives, but includes the use of the word polygynandry for humans.

We have 10 references to scientific biological journals, one to a psychology journal, plus multiple altavista hits. Polygynandry is a word, and it applies to humans. Is there anything else which needs to be done before this issue is closed? ] 20:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, just to throw another log on the fire, I'd like to point out that "polygamy" is also a zoological term, and in such cases ONLY refers to multiple sex partners, not marriage (opposite the statement on the page). Humans are animals, and as such, zoological terms can be applied to us as well. In many cases, physical anthropologists share terminology with zoologists and biologists so as to avoid confusion. This has led to such terms being widely appropriated by other social scientists.
] 19:40, 18 August 2005 (EDT)

==An Archived TALK at Polygamy, led to "Poly Relationship" article==

In November, 2004, ] and I had a productive discussion about the issues pertaining to ], ], etc., addressing what are the applicable subsets and so on. The result of the excellent discussion was the creation of a new article by ], on , called, ]. In understanding the differences, editors will want to read both that new article and the discussion that prompted it.
*<b></b> <i>(the discussion)</i>
*<b>]</b>
] 15:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:This discussion did not resolve the question of whether group marriage is a type of polygamy. Calair did not agree with you on the topic. Do you have a reference which says that polygamy does not include group marriage?

:Group marriage is a form of marriage, which is a specific type of amorous relationship. In fact, marriage does not have to include romance or love at all. Saying that group marriage is a type of poly relationship is too general. We might as well say that group marriage is a form of interpersonal relationship. True, but too general. We still need to change this.

:Perhaps Researcher99 should move this discussion to ], where we are trying to resolve the flow of the polygamy article, rather than overwhelming people on other articles. Will you agree, Researcher99? ] 22:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

:: This is my first chance back. ] is really the only broad enough term to correctly encompass it. I have not seen any valid reference yet that definitively declares human group marriage ever being <i>"called polygynandry."</i>. Drawing an inferrence is not citing a reference. Anyway, I can see that it is just too easy for people to confuse polygamy with group marriage, and I have been trying to explain it but have not been able to put my finger on the right words to communicate what I mean. Then I found this from google: It puts into better words what I have been trying to explain. Its explanations of the difference of what it calls "poly monogamy" (polygamy) and "poly polygamy" (group marriage) put it better than I have been able to. That article also shows me more clearly why people are able to make that confusion. In google news search, I found which also declares how group marriage is not polygamy. About a different report, it states, <i>"a sentence early in the report very accurately explained that it was addressing, 'a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and beyond - to 'polyamory,' or group marriage.' Indeed, most of the report focused on the 'beyond polygamy' subjects, dealing more specifically with the liberal, unbiblical concepts of polyamory and group marriage - neither of which are definitions of actual polygamy."</i> Hopefully, these have better explained what I have not been able to do as well. Essentially, calling group marriage as polygamy is as wrong as saying polygamy is monogamy. ] 19:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:Welcome back.

:We have two issues here:
:#Does ''polygynandry'' apply to humans?
:#Is it appropriate to apply ''polygamy'' to ''group marriage''?

:Issue 1 is covered in ], which includes references to using polygynandry to apply to humans.

:Issue 2 is covered in ], which includes many references to group marriage being a form of polygamy, including Murdock, which was an expert on the matter. I prefer to keep the discussions in these headings, rather than repeat the issue here. ] 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:29, 6 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Group marriage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAnthropology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFamily and relationships (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships
A fact from Group marriage appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2004/April.
Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


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:

  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

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)

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:

  • 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.

Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages: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#Portrayal in literature.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Categories: