Arguments against

I can't deny that (straight and) monogamous marital law is simple compared to marital law that allows for (gay and) polyamorous unions. Espcially poly marital law. It seems like you'd need a variety of types of poly unions, types that make varying provisions for how to divide assets (and handle visitation/custody) if the union dissolves, depending on which type of union a particular poly unit chooses. (An add/drop form would probably be a good way to handle it.) But we've passed plenty of laws that are more complicated than that, and it hasn't killed us. Not that I'm a fan of complicated statutes per se, but for the direction relationships and marriages are headed in, marital laws are certain to keep changing, and the added complexity would be for a good cause.
 
That's the thing though... it doesn't HAVE to be complicated, as I pointed out.

Make the law "if you (singly) leave a poly union, all Family assets (home, furnishings, 'family' bank account, property) remain with the family, individuals keep individual items (if all the adults have a car - the person leaving keeps "theirs", if there are individual accounts - the individual keeps theirs, IRA's and 401k's - the individual keeps)."

If the entire union dissolves, "Family assets" are sold and the profits are divided (or one person can "buy out" the others at market value divided by number of people, then minus themselves {of course... no need to buy themselves out!}).

Since there are (biologically) only two parents to a child, Children would be handled the same way they are with mono couples (either the Mother gets them, or the Father does, or they share some form of Joint Custody).

That's it. That covers everything necessary to be covered. No convoluted formulas or anything. And other "special stipulations" could be covered by some sort of pre-nup (that EVERYONE in the union/marriage agrees to), just like regular mono marriages do.
 
That's the thing though... it doesn't HAVE to be complicated, as I pointed out.

Make the law "if you (singly) leave a poly union, all Family assets (home, furnishings, 'family' bank account, property) remain with the family, individuals keep individual items (if all the adults have a car - the person leaving keeps "theirs", if there are individual accounts - the individual keeps theirs, IRA's and 401k's - the individual keeps)."

If the entire union dissolves, "Family assets" are sold and the profits are divided (or one person can "buy out" the others at market value divided by number of people, then minus themselves {of course... no need to buy themselves out!}).

Since there are (biologically) only two parents to a child, Children would be handled the same way they are with mono couples (either the Mother gets them, or the Father does, or they share some form of Joint Custody).

That's it. That covers everything necessary to be covered. No convoluted formulas or anything. And other "special stipulations" could be covered by some sort of pre-nup (that EVERYONE in the union/marriage agrees to), just like regular mono marriages do.

Ah, but some states in the US are "community property" states, while others aren't (meaning, everything acquired during the marriage belongs to 'the marriage'). Some are "common law" states while others aren't, and one common law state may differ from another (for example, NH only uses it for probate). Depending on your location, it may be an enormous PITA, or it may not.

On a related note (not in the "arguments against" category, though), Chops, Xena, and I are starting to look through this book: http://www.nolo.com/products/living-together-ltk.html

Contracts will probably be the way to go if multiple marriages are legalized. One marriage/relationship does NOT have to have the communal assets/responsibilities of another, and separate contracts would help ensure that. It's work, though - no "sign here and you're married" stuff, unless you want the "default". The only potential issue I see here is clearly delineating what belongs to one marriage/contract versus another.
 
Ah, but some states in the US are "community property" states, while others aren't (meaning, everything acquired during the marriage belongs to 'the marriage'). Some are "common law" states while others aren't, and one common law state may differ from another (for example, NH only uses it for probate). Depending on your location, it may be an enormous PITA, or it may not.
I don't disagree with any of that. However since legalizing poly would be "new", (poly is "new" because unlike with gay marriage there isn't "still just two people involved" {also one of the reasons I never understood the issue with gay marriage... it IS still just two people}) ALL states could do it uniformly (especially if it were federally enacted FIRST).

Things don't HAVE to be hard... in many cases things are hard because people want them to be.
 
Things don't HAVE to be hard... in many cases things are hard because people want them to be.

Indeed they do. There are still laws on the books regarding adultery in many states (I believe there's one state that still has laws on the books against cohabitation). There are many folks who would fight this. It doesn't HAVE to be hard, but it's realistically not going to be easy.
 
My idea for poly marriage is fairly simple. Instead of a relationship existing as a legal entity, individuals simply choose who they want connected to themselves as legal family members for the purposes of inheritance and hospital visitation, etc.

So in a V, the hinge could legally attach themselves to both legs. The legs could also choose to attach themselves legally to each other if they want, or not if they don't. In this way, it doesn't have to matter what romantic or sexual relationships anybody has to anybody else. You get to choose your family and the people that you want to be legally considered family to you.

I also think all this would be much easier in a society where it was easier for individuals to support themselves financially (including health care, etc.) instead of this society where some sort of dependency is encouraged.
 
Most interesting one I've encountered: it's not possible to love more than one person. My response: Uh, I love more than one person, so yeah it is. Also, don't you love both your mom and dad? etc.

The response to that is usually romantic love is different blah blah blah. Okay, but we're getting into Hollywood Flying Spaghetti Inarguables. This is usually not a fun conversation to have with people who are dead set on proving you wrong.

The best way to approach it (probably) is, okay, maybe it's not possible for you to love more than one...but it is for me!
 
Re:
"Maybe it's not possible for you to love more than one ... but it is for me!"

Yep, that works.
 
Good to hear!

I've heard anecdotal indicators of kids doing badly in some open/poly households, as well as of kids doing fine. My conclusion so far has been that poly isn't for everyone and that the kids' needs must be closely monitored.
 
The short answer is poly homes are not immune to abuse, neglect, mental illness, instability, drug abuse, or any of the dozens of things that actually hurt kids. Poly households in and of themselves aren't harmful, but there are individual poly homes that are harmful because they have the same problems that monogamous homes do.
 
Well to be more specific about what I've heard, I'd direct you to the following thread:

From what I've heard, some of the problems were specifically related to the way poly was handled in the home. Although like I said, the thread references many success stories as well.
 
Just on a quick skim, it sounds like the daughter was being neglected and deprived of her mother's attention. Yes, the poly situation was handled badly there, but the same thing can happen in a monogamous household when a mother gets caught up in her work, school, new boyfriend, hobby or even new pet. Neglect is bad for a kid no matter what their parents relationship was. But if a monogamous couple were so caught up in themselves they were neglecting their kids, or a single mother ignored their kids in favor of her boyfriend, you wouldn't say the problem was that the kids were in a monogamous or single-parent household, you'd say the problem was the parents were neglectful.

This seems to be an example of an individual poly home being harmful because of a problem that is equally common in other family styles.
 
Re:
"But if a monogamous couple were so caught up in themselves they were neglecting their kids, or a single mother ignored her kids in favor of her boyfriend, you wouldn't say the problem was that the kids were in a monogamous or single-parent household, you'd say the problem was the parents were neglectful."

Agreed.
 
Good to hear!

I've heard anecdotal indicators of kids doing badly in some open/poly households, as well as of kids doing fine. My conclusion so far has been that poly isn't for everyone and that the kids' needs must be closely monitored.

I agree with that conclusion, but would also add that mono isn't for everyone either. And because of this (and what an unsatisfying family dynamic can do to the family unit), kids' needs must be closely monitored.
 
My own personal objection to polyamory (from recent experience with the bf I broke up with a month ago) is, some poly people are "too" poly, NRE junkies, neglect established lovers, always on the hunt to nail the next new person. It starts to seem like they are shallow, lacking depth of feeling and commitment.

I am not suggesting a poly-fi triad is the only way to go. But there comes a point where, IMO, if you love somebody, you'll focus on them sometimes and not always be running off to the next new person and NRE sex hormone stimulation.
 
I don't have a good rebuttal to that objection. If someone is blind to their increasing level of saturation, they probably have no business doing anything poly, or at least that's how it seems.
 
I don't know if I'd consider that 'too poly', if only because my definition of poly includes commitment and ethics, and people like that have neither. Whatever you call it, it's an absolutely shitty way to treat people, and I'm sorry you had to go through that.
 
That would impinge upon states' rights, which is a basic component of our governmental system, the 10th Amendment, and all that.
I disagree.

Just like Federal Same Sex marriage laws (courtesy of the SCOTUS ruling against D.O.M.A.) don't trump State Laws against it.

Federal Poly Laws could be for "Federal Recognition only" as a beginning... and then states could then have a "roadmap" to follow.
 
Back
Top