So here I am, on a wednesday night, desperately trying to finish my Linguistics presentation for tomorrow, finding myself unable to concentrate. Thus, time for a livejournal update
( Read more... )
I'm a little uncomfortable with the word 'corporation', but thats probably just an association with the current business corporations (faceless evil that they tend to be).
Hmmm. My initial thought is "no, its too complicated for that", but maybe its not, and the charter would just have to encompass the complication. The initial thought I had was that in several poly relationships I know, the arrangements between various people are different for each combination - they've worked out what they want and need and realised its not the same for each set of people. But I guess you could write that sort of thing into it as well. (was that even coherent?)
I think the first few examples would be pretty exciting, especially when you add kids into the mix too. Hmmmmm. [wanders off thinking]
On the other hand some polyamorous relationships are already set up as a 'legal corporation'. I think it would work best when talking about polyfidelity, multiple partners but not necessarily interested in people outside the group.
Hmmm. You might be right, given you're talking about people making the effort to codify their relationship... or at least, in an open relationship, that the charter would only apply to the primary folks... although that makes life exciting too. What counts as de-facto in that sort of situation? :)
Hmm... Interesting question. You could claim that de facto requirements would be stated in the corporate documents, but that's probably unsatisfactory as things go, especially since de-factohood has some important benefits.
Another approach might be that a de-facto is a person who is living as if they were within the marriage corporation, but who have not actually signed a contract of inclusion with them. Effectively, a person who looks like they're in the marriage, but is legally not, which I believe is close to the legal definition of a de-facto anyway.
And do you mean polygamy or polyamory? Lee has effectively talked about both. But polygamy is specifically the marriage with multiple partner. Polyamory is closer to the oposite of of monogamy (yes, I know I'm over simplifying) And Aeduna is right, you're overgeneralising.
In theory you could just use "spouse", if husband and wife get confusing. I don't think that marriage descriptors would be horribly confusing in such a relationship. Just that women can now call spouses "wives" and men call spouses "husbands", should they so choose.
As for the divorce, The system I've come up with effectively means that all parties are marrying to the marriage, not to each other. So, if a person wishes to leave a marriage, they don't decide which person they're divorcing, they're divorcing the marriage itself. It does mean that you can't, say, decide after a while that you can't stand one of the spouses and selectively divorce him - you'd probably instead have to either renegotiate the standings in the marriage, or leave the entire marriage
( ... )
Comments 22
Hmmm. My initial thought is "no, its too complicated for that", but maybe its not, and the charter would just have to encompass the complication. The initial thought I had was that in several poly relationships I know, the arrangements between various people are different for each combination - they've worked out what they want and need and realised its not the same for each set of people. But I guess you could write that sort of thing into it as well. (was that even coherent?)
I think the first few examples would be pretty exciting, especially when you add kids into the mix too. Hmmmmm. [wanders off thinking]
Reply
Reply
Reply
Another approach might be that a de-facto is a person who is living as if they were within the marriage corporation, but who have not actually signed a contract of inclusion with them. Effectively, a person who looks like they're in the marriage, but is legally not, which I believe is close to the legal definition of a de-facto anyway.
Reply
And I'm not sharing. :D
Reply
Nope, not for a second... ;P
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
No need to be so serious.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
As for the divorce, The system I've come up with effectively means that all parties are marrying to the marriage, not to each other. So, if a person wishes to leave a marriage, they don't decide which person they're divorcing, they're divorcing the marriage itself. It does mean that you can't, say, decide after a while that you can't stand one of the spouses and selectively divorce him - you'd probably instead have to either renegotiate the standings in the marriage, or leave the entire marriage ( ... )
Reply
Maybe: "Hi there, this is my Husband-in-law"?
Reply
Leave a comment