![[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 04:26 pm (UTC)I was having difficulty coming up with a descriptive noun when talking to you; the problem was on my side, not yours. It reminded me that there was no easy way to describe it, which said to me it was a blind spot in our culture.
There's definitely a difference between co-habitation and long-term commitment, and in my rambling I stepped on it. But actually I wanted to draw the line between commitment and sexual relation -- it definitely feels like if there is a long-term commitment between people, everyone assumes it is marriage (and therefore somehow sexual) or contractual (and therefore emotionless business), which is an odd conflation. It'd be great to separate like, love, does business with, godparenting, etc...
(But then I've occasionally had the bizarre thought of a "marriage" that was actually a contract with checkboxes: "I promise to (x) love (x) honor ( ) obey ( ) live with (x) support" etc.)