Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > General Poly Discussions

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-25-2010, 12:30 AM
RGee91 RGee91 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 96
Default

There's actually alotta poly ppl who don't even know they are in polyamorous relationships, because poly is just so unpublicized. 2 of my friends were in polyamous relationships (one a male with 2 bfs/and a female with 2 men, all aware of eachother) and didn't even realize it til I came out.
Most ppl r ok with it now though, I mean we dont even have a derogatory term yet, even str8 ppl have "breeders" lol

Lets hope it stays that way...
__________________
When one limits themselves in terms of love, they have missed the point of love altogether ~ RazeGeneration
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-25-2010, 12:44 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,718
Default

It will be interesting to see how much this court case will change what people know or don't know about poly.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-25-2010, 12:48 AM
RGee91 RGee91 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
It will be interesting to see how much this court case will change what people know or don't know about poly.
I'm interested as well
__________________
When one limits themselves in terms of love, they have missed the point of love altogether ~ RazeGeneration
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-25-2010, 02:12 AM
TL4everu2's Avatar
TL4everu2 TL4everu2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Clearwater, Fl.
Posts: 907
Default

LOL I agree with Ari....Probably.

I mean, when I tell ppl that my wife is out on a date with her boyfriend, they look at me like "OMG! WTF did you just say? Doesn't that piss you off?" LOL
__________________
There is a lid for every pot...Sometimes even two or three...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-25-2010, 02:56 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,437
Default

I guess every generation has something that becomes accepted that wasn't before, or something that was discriminated against and isn't anymore? I could see a case for it being black people, then gay people, then maybe poly people... But poly's such a smaller minority, it seems more like only one of many things people are still discriminating against but hopefully will get better about.

Anyway, I think they're different enough, but I guess poly might be the next group to get more rights marriage-wise, if that's the question.
__________________
Me: 32F, straight
Seamus: My husband, 33M, straight
Fox: My boyfriend, 30M, homoflexible
Dragon: Fox's husband (and my ex), 30M, pansexual
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-25-2010, 08:00 PM
MsKtty89's Avatar
MsKtty89 MsKtty89 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ames, IA
Posts: 74
Default

I wonder how it would work if multiple marriages were allowed... Like, some people are married but then have a girlfriend also, so the wife wouldn't marry the girlfriend, just the husband, whereas there are people that both partners are with the same third person and all three would want to be married. Complicated!

I can see them saying "civil union" is okay before they jump to marriage. I wonder if they will end up allowing it, but make a cutoff as to how many you can have.
__________________
Married to my wonderful husband (Laughingman) and we are currently trying to form a triad with our friend. New to poly!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-26-2010, 03:47 AM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,437
Default

I think it would make more sense for there to be couple marriages. As in, rather than all three people getting married in one big union, have three different contracts. This way, one person can marry two later on rather than all of them needing to get married at the same time, and if someone breaks up with one person but not the other, only the relevant union would be broken.

I'm not sure if they would put a limit. It might make sense, to make sure the marriages aren't sham marriages, that they're love marriages. Could be a maximum of, say, one ceremony per year/ per two years or something, with each person being allowed to marry only up to 2 or 3 people per ceremony? I don't know how that could work but that might prevent the forced marriages or reduce their occurrence.

Or just being more careful in a second marriage, before the ceremony. To get Canadian residency I've been having to prove I have a real relationship with Ragabash, I can imagine something like that being decided.

Also I can very well imagine that any prior spouse would have to give their consent, too. They need to make sure you can't get married to several people in secret and lead a double or triple life.

I don't know how it would work for taxes, but there are lots of cases with dependents (kids, disabled relatives, etc) that work even with more than one person at a time, so it sounds like it should be doable to file taxes all together. For health insurance, I can imagine paying more if you want more people to be covered by it, although in many cases each spouse might just have their own coverage, too.

Polygamous divorces would really be the pain. What belongs to every spouse? Take my case, say I'm married to Rag and get married to Sean, and they're not married to one another. I get a divorce with one of them. What the other earned is half mine, but shouldn't be theirs at all... How do we calculate it? What about purchases made with the three of us, does the man divorcing me get a third of them?

Seems like it has potential to be messy, and then if you add kids to the mix... it's even more complicated. I assume the biological parents would be given priority, but if three people raise a child together, it seems fair to say they're all parents. If the third one, who didn't conceive the child, gets a divorce, they should get some rights over the kids, visitation rights or something.

I should probably stop here, I can see lots of issues. This being said, there are lots of complicated cases with blended families as well I assume so that shouldn't mean it's impossible.
__________________
Me: 32F, straight
Seamus: My husband, 33M, straight
Fox: My boyfriend, 30M, homoflexible
Dragon: Fox's husband (and my ex), 30M, pansexual
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-26-2010, 05:02 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post

I should probably stop here, I can see lots of issues. This being said, there are lots of complicated cases with blended families as well I assume so that shouldn't mean it's impossible.
I agree with you Tonberry, there are just way too many factors to make the idea of "state" supported multiple marriages very simple. I fully support the idea to have multiple marriages legal in that they are not "illegal". I do not support the idea of having multiple marriages affect the administrative procedures of government or employers....the percentage of the population, even amongst non-monogamous people, is just to small to warrant any significant reworking of the currently existing systems in my humble opinion.
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-26-2010, 05:24 PM
Tonberry Tonberry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,437
Default

I think I would understand having to choose one person for things like taxes and benefits and things like that (with the possibility to change who), but have it not illegal, and if things like visitation rights in the hospital and such could apply it would be great.

I would definitely understand the economic point of view, for instance. It's on the human one only that I'd be interested in rights. Right to say so and so is my spouse, and so and so also is, without it being illegal (even when it's not enforced), and being able to visit either of them in the hospital, and things like that.
I couldn't care less if I don't get special couple discounts that apply to the whole network, or tax reductions, or anything of the sort. Financially, I really don't care about the rights and benefits, and I guess I wouldn't care if I had none over any of them.

I think simply allowing the common-law spouse status would be really good. Then whatever ceremony can be a non-legal one and be symbolic. I believe so far only Saskatchewan allows something like that (you can have a common-law spouse even if you're legally married to someone else).
__________________
Me: 32F, straight
Seamus: My husband, 33M, straight
Fox: My boyfriend, 30M, homoflexible
Dragon: Fox's husband (and my ex), 30M, pansexual
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-26-2010, 05:26 PM
MonoVCPHG's Avatar
MonoVCPHG MonoVCPHG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In Redpepper's heart
Posts: 4,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonberry View Post
I think I would understand having to choose one person for things like taxes and benefits and things like that (with the possibility to change who), but have it not illegal, and if things like visitation rights in the hospital and such could apply it would be great.

.
You're reading my mind..careful, there are some dark chapters in that book
__________________

Playing the Game of Life with Monopoly rules.
Monogamy might just be in my genes

Poly Events All Over
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:21 PM.