Share
Go down
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 83
Join date : 2017-07-21
Location : Texas, United States
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sat 31 Mar - 23:32
I'll agree that complexity isn't the real issue. The issue is unforeseen consequences due to the complexity. Say for instance Keith and I share a house that we own. I marry my second spouse, call him Kevin, and now 1/4 of that house belongs to the marriage between me and Kevin. Kevin soon divorces me, so now he gets 1/8 of the house. If Keith and I want to keep the house, we have to buy out Kevin's 1/8. What if we don't have the cash?

It just seems like bad social policy to let people get into these binds. I am hoping someone can propose a fair and viable alternative.

I'll embark on the mathematical next step of trying to figure out how to track the changes of b and c, the assets of each marriage, which do not stay constant as we earn and spend money.

Is anyone here a mathematician? I don't have any credentials in math, so this is kind of a struggle for me; I feel like my work should at least be checked.
Member
Member
Posts : 96
Join date : 2018-02-18
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sun 1 Apr - 0:31
Leigh (my sister and a law student), who is up on the ideas of polyamory but is herself rather between demisexual and all but asexual, has clued me in on some of the discussions that her law classes have had on this topic.

The consensus (among the law students in this particular class) was that the main legal barrier for poly marriage now that gay marriage is legal is that of property disputes, as pointed out above (and rather well illustrated mathematically).  She is ALSO of the opinion that the simplest way to allow it is to require full party consent and treat all members of the marriage as equal.

It is worth noting, however, that property law has long dealt with the ideas of business partnerships - and that these partnerships frequently have waaaaay more than just two members. I think their system goes more along the lines of the above-suggested pre-nup.

Of course, when an actual divorce occurs, such an agreement is still able to be argued, depending on the specifics of the case.

Celes: As to the WHYs - many do simply wish to express their love publicly. To have polygamy be LEGAL offers quite a certain amount of protection. Now that gay marriage is legal, it is quite messy for a company to consider firing an employee JUST for being gay. Instead they have to do things like hack their accounts, find their gay porn, and then post said gay porn under their account in a company forum.

YES, I know someone that happened to. It has destroyed his life and he has gotten a complex about even THINKING about looking for work now.

Thankfully, most companies won't go to those lengths just to fire someone. Furthermore, it is harder now for government agencies to harass gay parents.

But if - for example - the woman who recently came on to Lily and me and "dated" us (we both considered it dating, but Lily REFUSED to take it seriously and also refused to tell me to stop it FOR her. MONTHS she strung this girl along, but whatevs) had been discovered by DHS? They would have taken our children. I am confident of this, since this occurs to poly families aaaaaaall over the states.

Poly marriage protection (even if it IS only for triad, quads, etc) would normalize it.

Sorry for not @ing people who made certain points - this conversation is getting a little long XD

@Unowen - trust me when I say I want to be more available romantically to my wife. Working 88 hours a week (plus the transportation and ready time of approx. 8 hours a week), trying to spend time with my 2 young children (10 hours a week? If I'm lucky?), keeping my yard from developing city fines and house from falling apart/burning up in an electrical fire/ flooding in a plumbing disatrophe (anywhere from 0-20 hours a week), trying to keep our two vehicles in repair (0-20 hours a week) just doesn't leave me with much time to give her. (24*7 = 168. 168 - 96 (work + travel) = 72. Honestly 72 hours a week is less than I would spend sleeping and laying in bed in an ideal world. Everything else I do just cuts into that R&R time.)

Plus my wife has her own (largely chemical, largely economic) depression problems that make her frequently just not be INTERESTED in being romanced, let alone seduced.

All things considered, we have about the best relationship we can hope for in the situation. We both miss each other, love each other, and occasionally make love to each other. It's all we've got.

Thankfully neither of us has strong feelings of anger over the MonoPoly thing anymore. (Annoyance? Sure.)

Poverty sucks. Down with the centralized banking machine!


Last edited by Bloodsexsugarmagick on Sun 1 Apr - 0:48; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Adding more content, fixing early typos, doing fuzzy math)
Member
Member
Posts : 96
Join date : 2018-02-18
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sun 1 Apr - 0:51
@Money - I would hope that we all get the point. I was aware, (and many/most of us seemed to be) of the general premise. Your description of the house asset is an excellent illustrative point of it all going wrong. I wouldn't continue with the illustrative math unless it is particularly enjoyable for you.
avatar
Member
Member
Posts : 83
Join date : 2017-07-21
Location : Texas, United States
View user profile

Re: It should be legal

on Sun 1 Apr - 1:17
I guess if people think multiple marriages should be legal no matter how complicated the math is, then the math doesn't matter to them. Fair enough. But, if we're fortunate, someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, people will be having these marriages, and they'll need to know how this works--unless they use a prenup, per Jane's suggestion. And some won't, unless it is required, which I favor. I think all parties should at least have to explicitly, rather than implicitly, agree to this non-understandable mess, if they don't make specific other arrangements.

But even if complexity and unforeseen consequences don't matter to you, if you advocate for legalizing multiple marriages, this stuff is going to have practical implications on people. I think it is a mistake not to consider how it will work.

In conclusion, I can support multiple marriages on the following conditions:
1. All current spouses must agree to it.
2. A prenup is required. Both parties getting married and all their current spouses must agree to it.

For the sake of having a complete picture, should this all become relevant:

Recall:
x = # of spouses Keith has
y = # of spouses I (J.S.) have
z = # of spouses Kevin has

b = the assets in my new marriage to Kevin
c = the assets in my marriage to Keith after I marry Kevin

So lets say b1 is the moment we get married, and b2 is the moment we get divorced or one of us enters another new marriage. So b2 = b1 + Δb.

Let's say:
l = Keith's net income
m = my net income
n = Kevin's net income

Because I have 2 marriages, m is really composed of 2 components:
mb = my income as respects Δb
mc = my income as respects Δc

m = mb + mc

Note that:
Δb = (1/y)mb + (1/z)n
Δc = (1/y)mc + (1/x)l

Therefore:
mb = (1/z)(Δb - (n/y))
mc = (1/x)(Δc - (l/y))

That means:
m = (1/z)(Δb - (n/y)) + (1/x)(Δc - (l/y))
Sponsored content

Re: It should be legal

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum