No no, literally, by definition, they are different things.
Advertisement
by New haven america » Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:16 pm
by Deacarsia » Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:34 pm
by New haven america » Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:57 pm
by Cekoviu » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:00 pm
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:03 pm
Cekoviu wrote:New haven america wrote:Well no, it's not.
But I'm sure if you keep saying it then it might become true, eventually, maybe... Probably not.
so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by New haven america » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:07 pm
Cekoviu wrote:New haven america wrote:Well no, it's not.
But I'm sure if you keep saying it then it might become true, eventually, maybe... Probably not.
1. so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
2. but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
3. so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
4. but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u
by The Holy Mercurian Empire » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:39 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Cekoviu wrote:so according to the dictionary definitions polygamy and polyamory are different, yeah
but in real life, there is no strong distinction between polygamy and polyamory
so in practice, polygamy and polyamory are the same
but since they're different in the dictionary, they aren't the same in theory
is this making sense to u
Where I think people are going with this is that well-intentioned attempt at love involving more than two participants, dangerous as it may be to enshrine it into law, is still meaningfully distinct from some guy on an ego/self-gratification trip wanting multiple wives he doesn't truly love.
by Esotyrica » Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:02 pm
by Nolo gap » Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:47 pm
by Vassenor » Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:18 am
Esotyrica wrote:this is stupid
every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved
this gives a lot of ammo to the wignat types who are like "everything is degenerate now"
by Grenartia » Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:29 am
Cekoviu wrote:
this focuses on individual benefits while ignoring the detriment to society - you understand how i, as a collectivist, might find this unconvincing?
Except non-monogamy in the context you're talking about occurred in societies which did not value egalitarianism and individual rights. There is no reason to believe polyamory in our current society will produce the same effects, and to claim otherwise is a fallacy.
Ethel mermania wrote:Senkaku wrote: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.
Grenartia wrote:(according to wiki, this current change was intended to make health insurance more accessible to people in polyamorous relationships in light of COVID-19).
Esotyrica wrote:this is stupid
every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved
this gives a lot of ammo to the wignat types who are like "everything is degenerate now"
Nolo gap wrote:never the place of government OR religion to define a marry age.
only the signatories to it by mutual agreement.
i do feel though, that if there is going to be more then one member of one gender, this should be balanced by more then one member of another.
not that they should have to be equal in number, just that this should never be one gender sided.
(ps, "wingnut" types ARE "degenerate". aggressiveness is a perversion.)
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:37 am
The Holy Mercurian Empire wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Where I think people are going with this is that well-intentioned attempt at love involving more than two participants, dangerous as it may be to enshrine it into law, is still meaningfully distinct from some guy on an ego/self-gratification trip wanting multiple wives he doesn't truly love.
What makes you think that polygamy in the past was about ego or self-gratification? And what makes you so sure that modern polyamory is about love?
From what I understand, men of means would often take in orphans and widows as their wives, to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable women. This is especially important in a pre-modern society with a high incidence of internecine conflict, which reduces the male population, leaving many women in a precarious situation.
Meanwhile, "ego and self-gratification" are still problems today. And it seems to me that "love" is increasingly being conflated with "sexual desire" in the liberal mind. Has been since the beginning of the sexual revolution, so far as I'm concerned. "Free love" has never been more than a code phrase for libertinism.
Perhaps you would do well to spell out your idea of love, and explain to us how it is both inclusive of polyamory and exclusive of self-gratification?
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:56 am
Esotyrica wrote:this is stupid
every polyamorous/polygamist relationship i've seen has ended in nothing but disaster for everyone involved
by Cekoviu » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:05 am
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:07 am
Cekoviu wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
What disaster befell Solomon then ?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV
tl;dr: god punishes the house of solomon for solomon's polygamy and subsequent turn to idolatry by causing ten of the tribes of israel to turn against their rule
by Cekoviu » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:10 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Cekoviu wrote:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV
tl;dr: god punishes the house of solomon for solomon's polygamy and subsequent turn to idolatry by causing ten of the tribes of israel to turn against their rule
And yet he died happily surrounded by beautiful women.
by Anurial » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:14 am
21st October
✉ Anarquía Mirror: 7 remaining Liberal MLAs form the Independent Group | International Mirror: Right-wing militias join Karsian military in fight against communist militias | Politipoll Weekly: PSF 42.3%, PDS 36.3%, SU 4.3%, AF 0.1%, CU 3.1%, PP 5.1%, Co 3.6%, IL 1.1%, CG 4.1%
by Magnolia SafeSpace » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:16 am
Grenartia wrote:https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nationThe Somerville City Council unanimously approved an ordinance with language inclusive to polyamorous domestic partnerships.
On June 29, Somerville quietly became one of the first cities in the nation – if not the first – to recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships.
The historic move was a result of a few subtle language shifts. For example, instead of being defined as an “entity formed by two persons,” Somerville’s ordinance defines a domestic partnership as an “entity formed by people,” replaces “he and she” with “they,” replaces “both” with “all,” and contains other inclusive language.
Do women get included ? If a man can Mary four women, then she should be able to have four men in marriage. Unless this is a scam to have more sex for the man ?
On June 25, the City Council passed the ordinance recognizing domestic partnerships unanimously, and on June 29 Mayor Joe Curtatone signed it into municipal law. The city is in the process of changing the application to include space for more than two partners, but polyamorous partners will be able to file soon.
So, what say ye, NSG? Personally, as a polyamorous person, I think this is a great step forward, and hope more jurisdictions follow suit.
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:23 am
by Cekoviu » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:30 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Cekoviu wrote:"happily" is arguable, and rehoboam was then relegated to the smaller kingdom of judah
Such things happens to kingdoms.
Of course, you believe it was due to God getting mad at him for having many wives. I do not think Gods opinion or his wives had anything to do with it.
by Diopolis » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:35 am
Grenartia wrote:Thermodolia wrote:There are many well documented issues with polyamory. The legal system would have a conniption over the thought of a divorce involving a poly couple.
That’s not to say that people should be barred from having more than two partners if they so wish just that it doesn’t cause what would effectively be a legal bluescreen of death.
And I say this as someone who leans towards the non-Monogamous side of things. I’m perfectly fine with people having open relationships or poly relationships it’s just that I draw the line at the legal recognition of such.
I mean, It shouldn't be that much more of a legal hassle than divorce itself already is.
Besides, there are some things that make sense to have legal rights for. Say a triad has children, and the biological parents (who are married) die in an accident. The third partner under current law, as far as I know, has no ability to claim custody, even though they are by all rights as much of a parent as the ones who died. There's also issues with insurance plans (according to wiki, this current change was intended to make health insurance more accessible to people in polyamorous relationships in light of COVID-19).
by Celritannia » Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:20 am
My DeviantArt Obey When you annoy a Celritannian U W0T M8?
| Citizen of Earth, Commonwealthian, European, British, Yorkshireman. Atheist, Environmentalist |
by Cekoviu » Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:52 pm
Celritannia wrote:Superb news.
BTW, arguments that involve "but it will destroy society" were said over LGBT marriages, women's rights, giving women the vote, giving the working class the vote, freeing slaves etc.
So that argument has no leg to stand on.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Benuty, Big Eyed Animation, Concerric, Corporate Collective Salvation, Cyptopir, DDG-1 USS Gyatt, El Lazaro, Elejamie, Empire of Lettuce, Europa Undivided, Fenwich, Floofybit, Ifreann, Juristonia, New Westmore, Ors Might, Paddy O Fernature, San Luis Abbey, Serloin, Stand Vine, Wisteria and Surrounding Territories
Advertisement