![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dsrtao(Note for random readers: I'm mono, married, and happy.)
All the strictly economic arguments in favor of marriage apply at least as well to triads and quartets. Larger numbers are probably socially infeasible without significant special legal accomodations.
Consider the non-romantic, non-sexual basis for marriage: in brief, forming a partnership can decrease living expenses, increase capabilities, and provide long term stability for capital-intensive activities including businesses, child-rearing and general wealth-building. Adding one or two additional committed partners adds value to all of these propositions. Just as a two-parent family has the options:
- one parent works outside the home, one inside
- both parents work outside the home
so a triad has the options:
- one parent works outside the home, two inside (good for families intending to raise large numbers of children)
- two parents work outside the home, one inside (good for families intending to raise a few children)
- three partners work outside the home (good for childless families)
and a similar expansion is available for quartets.
Depending on current housing conditions, it is almost always cheaper to purchase a slightly larger house to fill the needs of three or four adults than it is to house them separately. This is a major economic incentive in urban and high-end suburban areas. Arranging this via a permanent contract (i.e. marriage) is much less economically risky than speculating on rental property or taking in boarders.
Child-care is significantly eased by the presence of multiple adults in the house. Whereas older members of extended families handled this role in previous generations, many children grow up isolated from adult contact because of the necessity of having two wage-earners to support the family. Not only is a triad or quartet more likely to be able to afford to dedicate one partner to household support, but the other partners can more flexibly relieve the main household partner.
The only real counterargument is the increased complexity of divorce proceedings. However, many divorces are already more-or-less disastrous, and the divorce of one partner of a triad or quartet is potentially less economically unsettling than the split of a two-person couple.
All the strictly economic arguments in favor of marriage apply at least as well to triads and quartets. Larger numbers are probably socially infeasible without significant special legal accomodations.
Consider the non-romantic, non-sexual basis for marriage: in brief, forming a partnership can decrease living expenses, increase capabilities, and provide long term stability for capital-intensive activities including businesses, child-rearing and general wealth-building. Adding one or two additional committed partners adds value to all of these propositions. Just as a two-parent family has the options:
- one parent works outside the home, one inside
- both parents work outside the home
so a triad has the options:
- one parent works outside the home, two inside (good for families intending to raise large numbers of children)
- two parents work outside the home, one inside (good for families intending to raise a few children)
- three partners work outside the home (good for childless families)
and a similar expansion is available for quartets.
Depending on current housing conditions, it is almost always cheaper to purchase a slightly larger house to fill the needs of three or four adults than it is to house them separately. This is a major economic incentive in urban and high-end suburban areas. Arranging this via a permanent contract (i.e. marriage) is much less economically risky than speculating on rental property or taking in boarders.
Child-care is significantly eased by the presence of multiple adults in the house. Whereas older members of extended families handled this role in previous generations, many children grow up isolated from adult contact because of the necessity of having two wage-earners to support the family. Not only is a triad or quartet more likely to be able to afford to dedicate one partner to household support, but the other partners can more flexibly relieve the main household partner.
The only real counterargument is the increased complexity of divorce proceedings. However, many divorces are already more-or-less disastrous, and the divorce of one partner of a triad or quartet is potentially less economically unsettling than the split of a two-person couple.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 01:04 pm (UTC)However, I think one limiting factor is how well the parties involved can manage the interpersonal aspects. I've been involved with a few people who, while they thought they could handle poly relationships, could not. Likewise a few who thought they could handle mono relationships, and were incapable! I don't know if anyone would want to form a multiple adult household with close ties if there weren't a romantic/sexual aspect.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 02:17 pm (UTC)This entire thought was limited purely to the economic aspects. Social is a whole 'nother ball of human behavior. All I can say is that I'm in favor of letting people make their own mistakes in such matters, as I can't see how it's any of my business.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 02:26 pm (UTC)And child-rearing.
I've said many times there needs to be more adults than children, if for no other reason than the continued sanity of the adults.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 06:15 pm (UTC)If the world were set up in a rational way, then marriage would be simply one subset of contract law, and could be entered into by any two or more consenting adults. And then the "gay marriage" thing would not be a hot button, either.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-01 02:25 pm (UTC)