Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Goddamned Separate Thread about Poly Marriage

145679

Posts

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Another practical question.

    How would alimony work?

    Alimony, as it relates specifically to California family law, considers the following for an alimony award:

    The present and future earning capacities of each spouse and the ability to maintain the established standard of living;
    The contribution of each party to the marriage;
    The ability of the spouse to pay alimony;
    The financial needs of each party based on the established standard set forth;
    The number of years or month of the marriage;
    The roles and responsibilities of each party;
    The health and age of each party;
    Any domestic violence history;
    The tax consequences;
    The balance of hardships;
    The period of time it will take for the supported spouse to become self-supported



    I consider that to be yet another system that's still fundamentally broken under monogamy. Why does someone who is divorced deserve money that someone who was never married doesn't, and why is the ex-spouse obligated to pay for it rather than society in general? Why does that money scale with the wealth of the former spouse, other than the government apparently having an obligation to make sure than everyone who was wealthy stays wealthy?

  • BSoBBSoB Registered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Another practical question.

    How would alimony work?

    Alimony, as it relates specifically to California family law, considers the following for an alimony award:

    The present and future earning capacities of each spouse and the ability to maintain the established standard of living;
    The contribution of each party to the marriage;
    The ability of the spouse to pay alimony;
    The financial needs of each party based on the established standard set forth;
    The number of years or month of the marriage;
    The roles and responsibilities of each party;
    The health and age of each party;
    Any domestic violence history;
    The tax consequences;
    The balance of hardships;
    The period of time it will take for the supported spouse to become self-supported



    I consider that to be yet another system that's still fundamentally broken under monogamy. Why does someone who is divorced deserve money that someone who was never married doesn't, and why is the ex-spouse obligated to pay for it rather than society in general? Why does that money scale with the wealth of the former spouse, other than the government apparently having an obligation to make sure than everyone who was wealthy stays wealthy?

    Because without it, the financial disincentive for divorce for the non-earning party would be insurmountable.


    IncenjucarKanaFeralAntinumericJihadJesusRichyDoctorArch
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Like 70% of the issues here stem from the lack of basic income, health care, etc.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Also because the whole idea is that one party was working less or not at all and leaning on the other party, as couples are wont to do. This leaves them at a severe disadvantage when they have to re-enter the workforce.

    ShivahnIncenjucarKanaFeralQuidRichyJeixNija
  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Yeah, basically, without alimony you can end up in a rather miserable position, and in general it's given to people who've forsaken career development to be housewives and mothers.

    zagdrobIncenjucarKanaFeralQuidRichySiskaNija
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Think of alimony as reimbursement for services rendered and you are along the right lines.

    A person setting their career back to move with their spouse or care for the kids is making as valuable a contribution to the pair as if it was financial. The position of the spouse making more money is usually due to the contributions of the other spouse. Besides, alimony is usually a negotiated point and not a guarantee.

    Things like this are part of the possible down sides of getting married. Get some benefuts, get some costs.

    IncenjucarFeral
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Also because the whole idea is that one party was working less or not at all and leaning on the other party, as couples are wont to do. This leaves them at a severe disadvantage when they have to re-enter the workforce.

    If they've just been sitting around, then sure, and I'm not sure what can or should be done about that. If they've been raising children, they should have been drawing a government salary plus expense offsets the whole time, and continue to do so if they maintain primary custody of them.

    Note my use of the word "should".

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Just, you know, marriage was a great idea, but our needs have evolved beyond the paradigm of its original intent. Sometimes you need to format and start over instead of hoping every upgrade doesn't break it fundamentally.

    Let's have everyone who was married get grandfathered in, but in the future, marriage should be like building a computer or buying a car. You have basic packages that are little more than marriage in name only, but some people will need tax incentives and custody and all that jazz and some won't/can't. Some will be fine with a two door sport and others will need a 4 person SUV with off-road capabilities. Pre-nups will be of course the norm rather than a really good idea usurped by romanticism. And divorce won't be an excruciating affair unless you designed it to be.

    With every other major decision, you need to do the research and think ahead and find what's right for you now and in the future. Why, then, shouldn't marriage be designed to cater to your needs, instead of being the 800 lb church-state gorilla in an otherwise contractually practical room.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Incenjucar
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

    The real problem with a la carte marriage is that, as spool pointed out, there are rights and responsibilities. At least some degree of those have to be coupled.

    IncenjucarKana
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    I would argue that legal divorce is as close as we will ever get to legal poly. Divorce one spouse and marry the next. Multiple marriages for anybody that cares. You just can't have more than one spouse at the time.

    Really though, I wonder what is the maximum number of people that can be married at the same time? I am serious, how many people can you have a serious, emotional long term relationship with at the same time? At what point does these relationships become "we used to have sex at one time and now have dinner about once a week" kind of deal. People being married while really being exes in all but name.

    True Love may be an impossible cliche, but its a cliche with a lot of weight to it(and lest be honest a fair bit of truth). Marriage as an ideal is based around that. Its a lot easier to believe in one stable relationship, then a shifting alliance of multiple relationships. Basically when one relationship hits the rocks, it usually doesn't drag other relationships with it(children being the main exception):

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
    Ebola ColaMrMiscreant
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    I would argue that legal divorce is as close as we will ever get to legal poly. Divorce one spouse and marry the next. Multiple marriages for anybody that cares. You just can't have more than one spouse at the time.

    Really though, I wonder what is the maximum number of people that can be married at the same time? I am serious, how many people can you have a serious, emotional long term relationship with at the same time? At what point does these relationships become "we used to have sex at one time and now have dinner about once a week" kind of deal. People being married while really being exes in all but name.

    True Love may be an impossible cliche, but its a cliche with a lot of weight to it(and lest be honest a fair bit of truth). Marriage as an ideal is based around that. Its a lot easier to believe in one stable relationship, then a shifting alliance of multiple relationships. Basically when one relationship hits the rocks, it usually doesn't drag other relationships with it(children being the main exception):

    Poly groups can have True Love just the same as any other, though my opinion is that True Love is somewhat rare throughout the species.. As with anything poly, it's just going to be that much harder to find a group where everyone is on the same wavelength, and the odds are going to get worse with more people. But True Love has zilch to do with legal marriage anyway, even in cultures that consider it a major factor (which it is not in many parts of the world).

  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    That study has a bunch of interesting stuff in it, most of which seems to need more study. I'd be especially interested to see the difference between couples that the study identifies as having some sort of poly agreement, vs couples that are actively polyamorous, if that distinction makes sense. Like to what degree do polyamorous agreements translate to actual polyamory. Maybe it does address those categorizations, I'm only halfway through so far.

    It's also super interesting that they found no higher rate of polyamory among sexual minority groups. There's plenty of cultural and statistical evidence to show that that used to not be the case, so I'm super curious if the lack now is due to a flaw in their study, or a generational change - possibly in part due to changing cultural norms regarding same sex couples, or the role of stds in attitudes towards sex. (or I guess they might just all be counted under the "casual dating" category. Buuuut that would be less interesting.)

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

    The real problem with a la carte marriage is that, as spool pointed out, there are rights and responsibilities. At least some degree of those have to be coupled.

    It also involves making a lot of changes for no clear benefit.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

    The real problem with a la carte marriage is that, as spool pointed out, there are rights and responsibilities. At least some degree of those have to be coupled.

    It also involves making a lot of changes for no clear benefit.

    Boilerplate contracts can be more destructive than beneficial in some cases.

    One size fits all causes a number of square pegs to get pounded into round holes.

    Incenjucar on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

    The real problem with a la carte marriage is that, as spool pointed out, there are rights and responsibilities. At least some degree of those have to be coupled.

    It also involves making a lot of changes for no clear benefit.

    Boilerplate contracts can be more destructive than beneficial in some cases.

    One size fits all causes a number of square pegs to get pounded into round holes.

    How does this relate to traditional marriage?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"

    Agreed, with the caveat that the rules are emotional and sexual. You can't "cheat" on someone by breaking the deal you made with each other on not using drugs, or on breaking a deal on how to manage money, for example.

    Some people consider that cheating! And I don't think there's a ton of use in distinguishing at the point of someone slipping into heavy drug use - especially if it's kept secret, you feel the exact same mix of angry and hurt and betrayed and scared that someone who finds out their SO has been having an affair would.
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Yeppers.

    You can have a poly relationship between three people who are never ever ever supposed to sleep with anyone outside of that trio, and you can have a mono relationship where both parties can sleep with whoever they want whenever they want without even mentioning it.
    I'm not gonna argue with someone who identifies as whatever, but in the field of relationship research, no one would call that mono.

    Fair enough. I'm not sure what the proper distinctive terms should be. Does a monogamous couple that has a threesome once no longer qualify as monogamous? *shrug*

    There remain the existence of couples who are free to have one-night stands but not form actual relationships with sexual partners and poly groups that are absolutely exclusive to the group, whatever you want to call any of them.

    That's why I won't argue (and also, when things get to fuzzy border cases, I just say "FUZZY BORDER CASE" rather than going "well ACTUALLY IF WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL GREEK YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SUFFIX -GAMY MEANS MARRIAGE SO TECHNICALLY SLEEPING WITH LITERALLY EVERYONE IS STILL MONOGAMOUS"). Normally you'd say that a couple like that has a sexually open relationship, or just lump them into "consensually non-monogamous" couples. The field of research on this isn't super advanced, though.

    Coincidentally, "Fuzzy Border Case" is my term of endearment for our hirsute immigrant au pair.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    ShivahnIncenjucarElvenshae
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

    The real problem with a la carte marriage is that, as spool pointed out, there are rights and responsibilities. At least some degree of those have to be coupled.

    It also involves making a lot of changes for no clear benefit.

    Boilerplate contracts can be more destructive than beneficial in some cases.

    One size fits all causes a number of square pegs to get pounded into round holes.

    How does this relate to traditional marriage?

    Things like "X is grounds for divorce" are bad for marriages where the partners verbally agree that "X is okay" and then one partner goes "psyche" and uses it as grounds for divorce. Religious and other considerations make certain things a bigger deal than others. Mormonism and Catholicism come with a lot of goddamn baggage, as does any situation where reproduction is a required goal and then someone goes infertile.

    It should be noted that none of these issues are "Oh god society is crumbling we need to fix this right now!" but more "Hey you know we have these law makers sitting on their ass with their thumbs up their butts maybe they can work on this."

    Like a few years ago the lien laws in California were finally updated after decades. Nobody was dying from lien laws but holy crap the new lien laws are so much easier to read and work with.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Marriage a la cart could be pretty rad. Probably still needs that social safety net to prevent abuse.

    The real problem with a la carte marriage is that, as spool pointed out, there are rights and responsibilities. At least some degree of those have to be coupled.

    It also involves making a lot of changes for no clear benefit.

    Boilerplate contracts can be more destructive than beneficial in some cases.

    One size fits all causes a number of square pegs to get pounded into round holes.

    How does this relate to traditional marriage?

    Things like "X is grounds for divorce" are bad for marriages where the partners verbally agree that "X is okay" and then one partner goes "psyche" and uses it as grounds for divorce. Religious and other considerations make certain things a bigger deal than others. Mormonism and Catholicism come with a lot of goddamn baggage, as does any situation where reproduction is a required goal and then someone goes infertile.

    It should be noted that none of these issues are "Oh god society is crumbling we need to fix this right now!" but more "Hey you know we have these law makers sitting on their ass with their thumbs up their butts maybe they can work on this."

    Like a few years ago the lien laws in California were finally updated after decades. Nobody was dying from lien laws but holy crap the new lien laws are so much easier to read and work with.

    No fault has made the old fault system almost moot though. It has evolved to meet changing societal needs.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    From a broader social perspective the ability of two adults who wish to enter a religious/spiritual/ceremonial/emotional relationship to understand and agree to a contract with important legal and economical ramifications is highly variable, and it's better for the government to interfere in the lovey-dovey aspect of it as little as possible. Plus, maybe this is something fundamentalists will push for now that this curious church/state admixture no longer benefits them.

    Also, it will allow the sexual aspect and the everything else aspect of marriage to be regulated and discussed independently, and may help solve all these hangups where a sexually dysfunctional couple - never mind any other aspect of the marriage - often leads to disproportionate tragedy

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.

    Provided there aren't laws preventing such arrangements - like anti-adultery laws or bigamy statutes that prevent cohabitation - consenting adults are free to do as they wish.

    A "legalise it" attitude doesn't make a lot of sense because it isn't clear what we're legalising.

    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
    Es-annon NEVA 4GET
    spacekungfumanLoisLaneFeralJuliusDarkewolfeSiskajoshofalltradesElvenshaezagdrob
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Plus, maybe this is something fundamentalists will push for now that this curious church/state admixture no longer benefits them.
    If you think that non-LDS fundamentalists will ever be in favor of non-monogamous marriages, think again, because it's never going to happen.

    ISIS delenda est
  • milskimilski Their Will comes, at last, to Earth, to the Neath, as a storm crosses the sea. Registered User regular
    Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.

    Well yes, but marriage is also a collection of benefits and responsibilities granted by the government, so it isn't quite the same as simply legalizing something. Most of this thread deals with the huge issues that polygamy (and monogamy) has w.r.t. properly granting those benefits and responsibilities.

    High, cold, eternal, immobile, minuscule. You endure; you burn.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Plus, maybe this is something fundamentalists will push for now that this curious church/state admixture no longer benefits them.
    If you think that non-LDS fundamentalists will ever be in favor of non-monogamous marriages, think again, because it's never going to happen.

    Not if marriage really becomes an individualized deal - religions only have eyes on monolithic, ritualistic convention. Many religious figures are noted as saying that with the advent of gay marriage legalization, the institution of marriage is slipping out of their grasp. Maybe if it becomes something totally different and unrecognizable to their dogma, they'll be tempted enough to let it go.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    I feel like you could solve 95% of the issues polygamy causes with two laws:

    1) You are PROHIBITED from entering into a polygamous marriage until you at least 28 (regular marriage stays the same). Even parental consent won't give you the right to a polygamous marriage.

    2) Prior to marriage, you MUST set fill out a long form document that sets forth all the rights of the spouses to all current and future assets and such rights cannot be changed unless all the parties agree.

    Once we set an age of consent for polygamous marriage to a sensible age like 28, and we requirea prenuptial agreement, almost all my concerns vanish.

  • LoisLaneLoisLane Registered User regular
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I feel like you could solve 95% of the issues polygamy causes with two laws:

    1) You are PROHIBITED from entering into a polygamous marriage until you at least 28 (regular marriage stays the same). Even parental consent won't give you the right to a polygamous marriage.

    2) Prior to marriage, you MUST set fill out a long form document that sets forth all the rights of the spouses to all current and future assets and such rights cannot be changed unless all the parties agree.

    Once we set an age of consent for polygamous marriage to a sensible age like 28, and we requirea prenuptial agreement, almost all my concerns vanish.

    How would this handle a supreme court challenge under the 14th amendment? Because this seems like a lot of undue paperwork which might seem extraneous to some people. This also doesn't solve any of the taxation issues.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    3) You have to live together for X years to make sure the relationship is the real deal and not a scheme for tax cheats.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.

    Provided there aren't laws preventing such arrangements - like anti-adultery laws or bigamy statutes that prevent cohabitation - consenting adults are free to do as they wish.

    A "legalise it" attitude doesn't make a lot of sense because it isn't clear what we're legalising.

    There are no anti-adultery bans in the US in the same way there are no gay marriage bans. It doesn't matter if they are "still on the books" they cannot be enforced due to the same SCOTUS rulings that made anti-sodomy laws unconstiutional.

    You could almost certainly challenge cohabitation laws on the same grounds (which would beat all but restrictive covenants and maybe even those)

    This is like the third time I have had to explain that there are no anti-adultery laws in the US. I don't want to have to do it again.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Apothe0sis
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/06/08/how-to-know-if-youre-cheating/
    Scenario: You’ve just done something physically and/or emotionally intimate with another consenting adult human being who is not your spouse/partner.
    So, gonna tell your partner?
    a) Yes.
    b) Any other response.
    If the answer is “b,” then there’s a really excellent chance you’re cheating.

    jmcdonaldFeralSiskazagdrob
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Like 70% of the issues here stem from the lack of basic income, health care, etc.

    I don't find "if everyone could just rely on the government they wouldn't need each other so much" to be very compelling.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/06/08/how-to-know-if-youre-cheating/
    Scenario: You’ve just done something physically and/or emotionally intimate with another consenting adult human being who is not your spouse/partner.
    So, gonna tell your partner?
    a) Yes.
    b) Any other response.
    If the answer is “b,” then there’s a really excellent chance you’re cheating.

    The key here is physically and/or emotionally intimate. Not just anything you would not tell your partner.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
    spool32
  • KanaKana Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Like 70% of the issues here stem from the lack of basic income, health care, etc.

    I don't find "if everyone could just rely on the government they wouldn't need each other so much" to be very compelling.

    yes but IF we lived in a post-scarcity society...

    Kana on
    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
    spool32
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Shivahn wrote: »
    Yeah, I think we as a culture pretend both that we know what cheating is globally and that it is sex with someone while in a relationship. But really, the definition is basically "breaking the agreements of a romantic relationship"

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2011/06/08/how-to-know-if-youre-cheating/
    Scenario: You’ve just done something physically and/or emotionally intimate with another consenting adult human being who is not your spouse/partner.
    So, gonna tell your partner?
    a) Yes.
    b) Any other response.
    If the answer is “b,” then there’s a really excellent chance you’re cheating.

    Some relationships people are okay with it as long as they're not told.

    FeralShivahn
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    LoisLane wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    I feel like you could solve 95% of the issues polygamy causes with two laws:

    1) You are PROHIBITED from entering into a polygamous marriage until you are at least 28 (regular marriage stays the same). Even parental consent won't give you the right to a polygamous marriage.

    2) Prior to marriage, you MUST fill out a long form document that sets forth all the rights of the spouses to all current and future assets and such rights cannot be changed unless all the parties agree.

    Once we set an age of consent for polygamous marriage to a sensible age like 28, and we requirea prenuptial agreement, almost all my concerns vanish.

    How would this handle a supreme court challenge under the 14th amendment? Because this seems like a lot of undue paperwork which might seem extraneous to some people. This also doesn't solve any of the taxation issues.

    I don't think the 14th amendment would do much here. The court could easily find that additional protections of young women are necessarily in light of the historical and current abuses of polygamy.

    With respect to taxes, it's also not that hard I think. Marriage shouldn't put anyone at a tax advantage or disadvantage anyway.

    We could discuss the specifics but honestly I think legalizing polygamous marriages is still too far away for such rigorous realism.

  • LibrarianLibrarian The face of liberal fascism Registered User regular
    I think child custody is the biggest issue and can get absolutely crazy.
    Imagine a poly marriage of 3 people falling apart and each member entering a new poly relationship when there are children involved.
    Shared custody means now at least 6 new adults with the status of step parents in the kids lifes. And what legal status should each part of a poly marriage have in regards to a child from that marriage anyway? Are they all going to be full mothers/fathers by law?

    Brad R. Torgersen says:

    Librarian,

    Go read what I said about not arguing with third graders.
  • JustTeeJustTee Registered User regular
    The easiest thing to fix here, I think, is hospital visitation (and I guess, other visitation?) rights. Realistically, there's no reason that hospital visitation rights should be restricted to purely spouses, parents, and children. If someone in the medical field has a better reason for the limitation (other than to limit crazy relatives, and to prevent the hospital room from being over crowded, I'd guess?), I think we should make it easier to be considered "family" for visits. Hospitals could establish a simple "no more than 1/2/X number of people in a room at a time" type rule, instead of "ONLY OFFICIAL STATE RECOGNIZED SPOUSES PLEASE".

    This could be tacked on to the existing types of documents for Health Care Proxies, stating who is allowed to visit you and under what circumstances.

    PS, everyone should definitely consider now whether or not they have a health care proxy, and if the answer is no, you should probably definitely go get that done. If you were to have a major accident or sudden illness strike you tomorrow, who is going to be responsible for making treatment decisions, and what will those decisions be? If the answer involves any sort of pause or thought, regardless of your current age or health status, go get that covered.

    When major illness struck my life, I was lucky enough to retain cognitive function. I was able to make the (at times) difficult treatment decisions the way I wanted them to happen. It was mere chance that what happened to me allowed that. I was 27 at the time, and in the best shape of my life.

    We should do a better job as a country at educating people about these types of concerns, and everyone (mono, poly, single, other) could use a little more intention in determining these major health decisions.

    As for taxation rights and such for poly marriages/relationships - I'd have to say that there have been many compelling arguments to the ease at which these could and would be abused. Several other fundamental shifts would have to occur before I could see these ever being a reality. As a small business owner, I'd have to say that the first one to be changed would be employer provided health insurance for 1+n family members. That shit already is a major portion of my payroll, and with the internet crushing margins everywhere always, I don't see it getting any easier to afford that kind of stuff and still profit.

    Diagnosed with AML on 6/1/12. Read about it: www.effleukemia.com
    Incenjucarpirateluigi
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Consenting adults should be free to do as they wish. Don't like poly marriage? Don't have one.

    I bolded the two parts that are usually violated in real-world not-on-paper poly marriages and that are why poly marriages should continue to be banned.

    sig.gif
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Librarian wrote: »
    I think child custody is the biggest issue and can get absolutely crazy.
    Imagine a poly marriage of 3 people falling apart and each member entering a new poly relationship when there are children involved.
    Shared custody means now at least 6 new adults with the status of step parents in the kids lifes. And what legal status should each part of a poly marriage have in regards to a child from that marriage anyway? Are they all going to be full mothers/fathers by law?

    Eh, it wouldn't be that different from what happens when two parents die and the court has to decide which extended relative gets guardianship. The choice has to be made for the best interests of the child. That isn't to say that it would be simple, just that we have a judicial framework in place for making complicated guardianship/custody decisions.

    But child custody specifically is a situation where poly people do get kind of fucked. Let's say my girlfriend and I have a child. Depending on what state we're living in, her husband would be presumed to be the father and I would have no legal rights.

    We've discussed this situation and if we were to have a kid, she'd get a divorce and then we'd get married. There are other strategies we could use, but that would be the most reliable. Still, it kind of sucks.

    And then there have been occasional cases where courts have taken such a dim view on polyamory as an alternative lifestyle that they've denied poly parents custody based on that.

    Before we even get to collectively considering poly marriage, I'd be overjoyed if polyamory weren't overtly discriminated against by courts.

    Edit: better link with a specific example: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/10/polyamory-in-penna-custody-ruling-nancy-polikoff

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Incenjucar
  • LibrarianLibrarian The face of liberal fascism Registered User regular
    edited July 2015
    Sorry if my previous posts sounded overly dismisse of poly relationships. I am sure there are many that are the real deal and that make it work. I just would like to see some numbers on that, before the massive attempt at changing the laws to accomodate them was made.

    I would also like to point out, because someone turned my comment about the LGBT community being born this way into the possible view that LGBTs are somehow inferior or defective, that I absolutely do not feel this way at all. I just mentioned it, because I saw it as a stronger incentive to open the laws for gay couples.

    @Feral
    I am not at all firm with US law, but wouldn't it be possible for you to be recognized as the father before the law, even if your girlfriend stayed in the marriage?
    I agree that there should at least be no legal descrimination for poly relationships and I am sure much of that is also the result of society still viewing it as unusual aka weird and wrong(EDIT to clarify: not my opinion, but mainstream society).

    I would also be interested in how your day to day relationships "work", if any of the poly people here would like to share, just so I might have a better idea.

    Librarian on
    Brad R. Torgersen says:

    Librarian,

    Go read what I said about not arguing with third graders.
    [Expletive deleted]
Sign In or Register to comment.