[UUPoly-L] Fwd: [wff-sexandpolitics] New Wikipedia Polyamory subsection - Legal Theory

[Desmond Ravenstone <desmondravenstone@yahoo.com>]

Thought this might be of interest to folks on the list...
  

in finity <infinity_8p@yahoo.com> wrote:
  Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:07:18 -0800 (PST)
From: in finity <infinity_8p@yahoo.com>
Subject: [wff-sexandpolitics] New Wikipedia Polyamory subsection - Legal Theory
To: wff sex&politics <wff-sexandpolitics@lists.woodhullfoundation.org>,
Poly Legal <polylegal@yahoogroups.com>,
polyactive <LovingMorePolyactive@yahoogroups.com>,
Poly Researchers <polyresearchers@yahoogroups.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Legal_theory

There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory
activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous
marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of
marriage to include polyamorous families). The debate
centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all
approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons
are all joined together at the same time within a
single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing
laws against bigamy are revised such that people are
perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple
other persons, provided that each such new marriage is
preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending
new marriage to all those to whom one is already
married; failure to provide that legal notification
would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).

Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought
of as a "molecular" family structure ? one which might
be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly
used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain
a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between
two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the
existing system of legal marriage, but the
introduction of concurrency would provide access to
legal marriage for polyamorous families.

Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation
associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well
as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm
cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would
take the form of a complete graph, in which every
person is (pairwise) married to every other person,
thus correctly representing any situation associated
with the "all-with-all" paradigm. A dyadic network may
also represent situations in which some persons are
(pairwise) married to some members of the dyadic
network but not to all of them ("V" and "N"
geometries, for example) ? these are situations that
the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm is unable to
accurately represent.

The "all-with-all" marriage paradigm assumes that
everyone is equally involved with everyone else in the
group ? one global marriage agreement has to fit every
participant at the same time. But dyadic network
marriages separately define the terms of each specific
2-person relationship, and these dyadic marriages do
not typically happen at the same time (A marries B, B
marries C ("V" structure), C marries D ("N"
structure), etc. ? thus, the shape of the dyadic
network dynamically changes over time). Participants
in a dyadic network need not even be aware of the
specific terms of marriage agreements existing
elsewhere within the same dyadic network.

Under the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm, when
irreconcilable differences arise there can be no
alternative to a complete separation ? one person
cannot divorce another without ending the entire
marriage agreement for everyone involved. But dyadic
networks can function in much the same way as
watertight compartmentalization functions in naval
vessels, i.e., to limit and contain damage. An intense
disagreement between two persons takes place within
the context of their marriage, and need not greatly
involve (or threaten) the relationships between other
participants. Within a well-connected dyadic network,
a divorce between two persons need not result in a
complete separation of the network ? for example, a
dyadic network with triangle geometry would simply
turn into a dyadic network with "V" geometry.

An "all-with-all" marriage can only exist or cease to
exist. In contrast, the shape of a dyadic network can
dynamically change over time. Divorces subtract
connections, and marriages add connections. The dyadic
network itself either changes shape, separates into
two dyadic networks, or merges into another dyadic
network, depending on the precise nature of the newly
added or subtracted connection.

The maximum size of an "all-with-all" marriage is
limited by the fact that every participant must be
aware of the existence of every other participant
(otherwise the global marriage contract would be
invalid, because it could not satisfy the legal
condition known as a "meeting of the minds"). But
since a dyadic network relies only upon every
participant's local knowledge of his or her own direct
partners, its size is theoretically unlimited. The
dyadic network paradigm is so powerful that it is
theoretically capable of managing a situation in which
every adult on earth is legally joined together in a
single enormous dyadic network. Thus, with the dyadic
network model, the idea of "many loves" is directly
translated into a practical reality, and the
"infinity" symbol (representing love without limits)
is directly matched by a marriage model capable of
handling an infinitely large number of participants.




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
-
Posting address: wff-sexandpolitics@lists.woodhullfoundation.org
To unsubscribe: wff-sexandpolitics-unsubscribe@lists.woodhullfoundation.org
To contact list-administrator: wff-sexandpolitics-owner@lists.woodhullfoundation.org

Hosted by Online Policy Group. http://www.onlinepolicy.org/
Help keep OPG services online and free.



Desmond Ravenstone

********************

Check my blog & find my books at http://www.myspace.com/desmond_ravenstone
       
---------------------------------
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.  Make Yahoo! your homepage.