Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

 whembly wrote:
So... does that mean swinging would be more socially acceptable?

That's getting cause and effect kind of backwards. Swinging will inevitably become more socially acceptable (that's just how things work), and the changes in attitudes that make it acceptable will also make the idea of government-recognized polygamy more acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

That kind of works for the most basic case of {n >= 2} people all forming a single group marriage, but doesn't really cover a case where A marries B and C, and then C marries D but A and D don't have any kind of relationship. I guess you could in theory argue that the financial issues should all be handled jointly just to simplify things for the IRS, but you get into problems with things like child custody and medical decisions. For example, if A is in the hospital and unable to make their own decisions you want that responsibility to automatically go to B and C but not to D (unless no "higher priority" decision-maker is available).

So it might be a possible starting point, but IMO it's probably going to take a pretty major re-write of the marriage laws to make it work for more than two people.

It could work if A, B and C hold shares in the XX marriage and C and D hold shares in the YY marriage. The 'share' brought to the marriages by each individual would be divided by the number of marriages the individual was engaged in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

Great, we're turning my sex life into a business proposal!

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps a polyamorous marriage could be structured something like a limited liability company. The minimum number of people required is two, but more "directors" can be added and given shares in the company. The "profits" of the company are any legal privileges that the state establishes, plus the employment benefits offered by private companies, and would be pooled for distribution among the partners according to their share allotments.

Great, we're turning my sex life into a business proposal!

It wasn't already?