Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Cekoviu]

not really no

Oppressing people based on who they are, what they do or what they say, no matter how relatively harmless, and having them imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" as a result is not even a remotely good alternative to freedom.

polyamory is not "relatively harmless"

[Necroghastia]

Oppressing people based on who they are, what they do or what they say, no matter how relatively harmless, and having them imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" as a result is not even a remotely good alternative to freedom.

polyamory is not "relatively harmless"

You're right here, admittedly.
It's totally harmless.

[Vassenor]

Oppressing people based on who they are, what they do or what they say, no matter how relatively harmless, and having them imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" as a result is not even a remotely good alternative to freedom.

polyamory is not "relatively harmless"

Did you actually prove that harm exists or not?

[Cekoviu]

polyamory is not "relatively harmless"

Did you actually prove that harm exists or not?

not to get all philosophical on u but you cannot actually """prove""" anything

[Vassenor]

Did you actually prove that harm exists or not?

not to get all philosophical on u but you cannot actually """prove""" anything

So you have no evidence that polyamory causes harm but assert that it causes harm anyway.

[The Emerald Legion]

not to get all philosophical on u but you cannot actually """prove""" anything

So you have no evidence that polyamory causes harm but assert that it causes harm anyway.

Of course it causes harm. The idea that it does not cause harm is the one that needs evidence.

[Cekoviu]

not to get all philosophical on u but you cannot actually """prove""" anything

So you have no evidence that polyamory causes harm but assert that it causes harm anyway.

for someone obsessed with facts and logic, you sure do love making non-sequiturs

https://www.economist.com/christmas-spe ... my-and-war
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093142.htm

[Vassenor]

So you have no evidence that polyamory causes harm but assert that it causes harm anyway.

for someone obsessed with facts and logic, you sure do love making non-sequiturs

https://www.economist.com/christmas-spe ... my-and-war
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093142.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180628151713.htm

[Cekoviu]

for someone obsessed with facts and logic, you sure do love making non-sequiturs

https://www.economist.com/christmas-spe ... my-and-war
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093142.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180628151713.htm

this focuses on individual benefits while ignoring the detriment to society - you understand how i, as a collectivist, might find this unconvincing?

[Diopolis]

not really no

Oppressing people based on who they are, what they do or what they say, no matter how relatively harmless, and having them imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" as a result is not even a remotely good alternative to freedom.

I mean, if we didn't oppress serial killers on the basis of what they do, that would be a problem.
I think what you mean to say is that oppressing people for harmless things is not a good alternative to freedom. In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

[Nuroblav]

Oppressing people based on who they are, what they do or what they say, no matter how relatively harmless, and having them imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" as a result is not even a remotely good alternative to freedom.

I mean, if we didn't oppress serial killers on the basis of what they do, that would be a problem.
I think what you mean to say is that oppressing people for harmless things is not a good alternative to freedom. In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

Well yeah, I think that was probably what they meant but that makes sense. I'd argue that the state should stay out of this sort of stuff - even if I fail to understand why anyone would bother with it.

[Diopolis]

I mean, if we didn't oppress serial killers on the basis of what they do, that would be a problem.
I think what you mean to say is that oppressing people for harmless things is not a good alternative to freedom. In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

Well yeah, I think that was probably what they meant but that makes sense.

Probably, but it is an assumption that has to be challenged, or else conceded.

I'd argue that the state should stay out of this sort of stuff - even if I fail to understand why anyone would bother with it.

I understand and respect your position. I don't happen to agree with it, on the basis that the state has a vested interest in encouraging monogamy and marital stability. But it is a clear and consistent position.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I think what you mean to say is that oppressing people for harmless things is not a good alternative to freedom.

That is what I meant.

[Senkaku]

Imagine living in a world full of political oppression and corruption, ecological catastrophe, and widespread pestilence, and you wake up one morning and think to yourself “no... the REAL problem is the poly clusters in that small Massachusetts town... could do in the whole culture if we let that go better make that today’s priority”

[Ethel mermania]

Imagine living in a world full of political oppression and corruption, ecological catastrophe, and widespread pestilence, and you wake up one morning and think to yourself “no... the REAL problem is the poly clusters in that small Massachusetts town... could do in the whole culture if we let that go better make that today’s priority”

We can say the same for the folks who passed this nonsense. " We could get black kids more jobs, nah let's confuse the family courts to hell".

If the state did it with appropriate family law legislation it's fine, it is a change that we can debate good or bad. A town does it with nothing to back it up it's nothing more than feel good virtue signaling, and rightfully should be deplored.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

Just as I'm sure there's disagreement over whether or not homosexuality, miscegenation, the existence of trans people and probably even what hand people use to write with is harmless.

[Diopolis]

In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

Just as I'm sure there's disagreement over whether or not homosexuality, miscegenation, the existence of trans people and probably even what hand people use to write with is harmless.

So rhetorical flourishes and arc of history triumphalism in place of argument? Ok.

[The Emerald Legion]

Oppressing people based on who they are, what they do or what they say, no matter how relatively harmless, and having them imprisoned, killed or "disappeared" as a result is not even a remotely good alternative to freedom.

I mean, if we didn't oppress serial killers on the basis of what they do, that would be a problem.
I think what you mean to say is that oppressing people for harmless things is not a good alternative to freedom. In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

Do we oppress serial killers for who they are?

[Serrus]

*shrug*
The sooner we recognize what already exists, the sooner we can get to a better society. Poly relationships are harmless. Sure, legal marriage might be a clusterf*ck, but I'm sure we can make marriage unnecessary.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Just as I'm sure there's disagreement over whether or not homosexuality, miscegenation, the existence of trans people and probably even what hand people use to write with is harmless.

So rhetorical flourishes and arc of history triumphalism in place of argument? Ok.

More like some people tend to claim things many people would probably consider fairly harmless cause societal harm without going much into detail about how much or how widespread said harm is or whether the amount of harm allegedly done is worth banning said things and consequently oppressing people as a result. We have a lot of things people engage in, like free speech for example, that many people see as relatively harmless, that could arguably be causing societal harm to an extent by some who don't like free speech but the cost of banning free speech and preventing people from engaging in any sort of free speech would likely not be worth the trouble.

[Nuroblav]

Well yeah, I think that was probably what they meant but that makes sense.

Probably, but it is an assumption that has to be challenged, or else conceded.

I'd argue that the state should stay out of this sort of stuff - even if I fail to understand why anyone would bother with it.

I understand and respect your position. I don't happen to agree with it, on the basis that the state has a vested interest in encouraging monogamy and marital stability. But it is a clear and consistent position.

Fair enough. I see we have very different opinions (I'm not much of a state person as you can tell) so I'm glad we've reached some sort of conclusion here.

[New haven america]

So you have no evidence that polyamory causes harm but assert that it causes harm anyway.

for someone obsessed with facts and logic, you sure do love making non-sequiturs

https://www.economist.com/christmas-spe ... my-and-war
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093142.htm

And for the 3rd time, Polyamory=/=Polygamy.

[Huato]

Massachusetts was also the first state to license and recognize same-sex marriages, 11 years before it was recognized in all fifty states, so I wonder if this means that in the future we'll see polyamorous partnerships become recognized in more and more United States jurisdictions.
If that does happen, well, as the poll put it, good for them.

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

In which case the disagreement is over whether or not polyamory is harmless.

Just as I'm sure there's disagreement over whether or not homosexuality, miscegenation, the existence of trans people and probably even what hand people use to write with is harmless.

Tell me, do you think that homosexual acts, miscegenation, and polyamory are on a moral par? If so, why?

[Auze]

for someone obsessed with facts and logic, you sure do love making non-sequiturs

https://www.economist.com/christmas-spe ... my-and-war
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 093142.htm

And for the 3rd time, Polyamory=/=Polygamy.

... In theory, that is