Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Necroghastia]

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.

"people used this argument in the wrong place before therefore you can't use it"

Probably because -shocker!- it's just as valid an argument against those as it is against this!

[Cekoviu]

"people used this argument in the wrong place before therefore you can't use it"

Probably because -shocker!- it's just as valid an argument against those as it is against this!

not rly

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Probably because -shocker!- it's just as valid an argument against those as it is against this!

not rly

"no u"

[Hunzali]

This will be a legal mess. I couldn't care at all for the most part, but it's gonna have alot of growing pains.

[Celritannia]

Probably because -shocker!- it's just as valid an argument against those as it is against this!

not rly

It is, in all honesty.
People have always said "x, y, and z will end society", but those things never did. This is no different.

It's really getting annoyed at something for no reason, and has no overall general affect on society, unless some new case law is to be made. But other than that, it'll be a simple note in history.

[New haven america]

Probably because -shocker!- it's just as valid an argument against those as it is against this!

not rly

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

[Diopolis]

not rly

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

[Celritannia]

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

Explain how this is a slippery slope.

[Esotyrica]

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

Explain how this is a slippery slope.

>if x happens, y will happen in the future

>x happens

>y is being considered and/or supported in other places

[Necroghastia]

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

But you still say it's a step, right? Explain how a consensual relationship is at all equivalent to banging a nonsapient animal.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.

Not really, no, their slippery slope was that the widespread recognition, acceptance and legalization of homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. would lead then to the widespread recognition, acceptance, legalization of pedophilia and beastiality, which obviously hasn't happened and most likely never will.

[New haven america]

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

A. Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
B. Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

A. lol, good one.
B. No one here is arguing for the legalization of polygamy. We've covered this pages ago, please, keep up.
C. The actual next step in the slope is supposed to be pedophilia.

[Intaglio]

I mean, as long as everybody involved agrees to be poly, I don't see the problem with the relationships.

[Esotyrica]

A. Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
B. Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

A. lol, good one.
B. No one here is arguing for the legalization of polygamy. We've covered this pages ago, please, keep up.

thinking that people are gonna read 10+ pages of e-arguments is stupid

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

A. lol, good one.
B. No one here is arguing for the legalization of polygamy. We've covered this pages ago, please, keep up.

thinking that people are gonna read 10+ pages of e-arguments is stupid

There's a handy search function in the top right.

[Esotyrica]

thinking that people are gonna read 10+ pages of e-arguments is stupid

There's a handy search function in the top right.

nobody uses it

[Auze]

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.

Not really, no, their slippery slope was that the widespread recognition, acceptance and legalization of homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. would lead then to the widespread recognition, acceptance, legalization of pedophilia and beastiality, which obviously hasn't happened and most likely never will.

I have seen an increasing amount of "MAPs" and Zoophiles...

[Necroghastia]

Not really, no, their slippery slope was that the widespread recognition, acceptance and legalization of homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. would lead then to the widespread recognition, acceptance, legalization of pedophilia and beastiality, which obviously hasn't happened and most likely never will.

I have seen an increasing amount of "MAPs" and Zoophiles...

Which, outside of their little bubbles, do not have widespread recognition and acceptance, and certainly not legalization.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I have seen an increasing amount of "MAPs" and Zoophiles...

Which, outside of their little bubbles, do not have widespread recognition and acceptance, and certainly not legalization.

Indeed. They’re still fringe and will remain fringe, you won’t ever see that shit hit the mainstream.

[Grenartia]

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).

IIRC Massachusetts has de facto universal healthcare(if not single payer) anyways, though.

Source? And to nip a potential claim in the bud, no, Romneycare isn't "universal healthcare", de facto or otherwise.

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.

"people used this argument in the wrong place before therefore you can't use it"

I mean, it is a pretty fallacious argument.

Yes really.

You're in the same slippery slope that people who claim society is going to die because of LGBT people are allowed to exist are.

Tradcons have been right about the stops on the slippery slope more often than not up til now.
Remind me again what gay "marriage" was supposedly the first stop on a slippery slope to- oh wait, "marriage" to more than one person(and possibly to your dog, but that was never supposed to be the next step).

You're right, the next step after polyamory was supposed to be marrying children. Which is nowhere on the horizon, and nobody but actual child molesters want. If anything, the loopholes that allowed adults to actually marry children have closed, rather than expanded.

Also, I explicitly remember a few things from back when same-sex marriage debate threads were all the fucking rage here on NSG:

We've already begun to go down the path of where marriage doesn't mean anything - so that's why I'm opposed to further steps down that path. First gay marriage, then polygamy, then who knows where - marry animals? Anything, even?

I have nothing against polygamy. If more than two adults want to enter into a social contract such as marriage, and give informed consent, I have no problem with it.

As for your last two suggestions, if you want to marry somebody/something, but they can't give informed consent, then it shouldn't be legal.

That simplify things for you?

Most racist people have barely met any minorities.

I wouldn't say that per se.

Most homophobes have never met any homosexuals.

Source?

That said. I think a lot of people are simply insecure about their own sexuality and to add to that, there exists not a single Christian argument against homosexuality, pre-marital or extra-marital sex, lust, greed, pornography, recreational drug use, gay marriage, polygamy and polyandry, genetic engineering, cloning or artificial intelligence.

So to the many hate-filled foaming-at-the-mouth bigots that this thread has seen: Please refrain from perverting Christianity in order to justify your own senseless and ignorant bigotry.

Personally, I say that public nudity should be ok. So should incest. And pedophilia. And zoophilia. And polygamy. And please note from the four latter that sexual abuse is a different story. The reason why they are not ok is that people are so narrow-minded.

I disagree with paedophilia and zoophilia. Children aren't developed enough to make a decision like that, and animals can't make that decision at all.

The rest is fine, though.

Also, I'm pretty sure that guy Div's responding to got reported for that.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1418&p=30240&hilit=polygamy#p30240

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1418&p=30578&hilit=polygamy#p30578

And to expand on that, what's so wrong with polygamy among consenting adults?

The state legislature says so, because a majority of the people voted and decided sex with multiple partners is "icky."

Is there any constitutional reason for not allowing it? I'm not seeing one.

Is there any constitutional reason for not allowing it? I'm not seeing one.

That's an interesting question.

And this brings me to a question for all those here who support same-sex marriage.

I was going to answer Milks Empire by saying that if I were to argue for same-sex marriage, I'd avoid the polygamy issue like the plague.

But, is there a good reason? If we are going to open up the definition of marriage, why are we stopping at two participants?

I suspect it's just too much, the support isn't there, and that would give more leverage to those arguing against it.

Are those the only reasons? Is it just that it's too cumbersome?

And so many more.

As we can clearly see, there has long been support for polyamorous marriage on NSG, for over a decade, and coinciding with support for same-sex marriage, along with an often vehement oppostion to pedophilia and beastiality.

Slippery slope debunked.

[Grenartia]

I have seen an increasing amount of "MAPs" and Zoophiles...

Which, outside of their little bubbles, do not have widespread recognition and acceptance, and certainly not legalization.

And often, they get run off of whatever platform they're on as soon as they're discovered.

[Neutraligon]

Which, outside of their little bubbles, do not have widespread recognition and acceptance, and certainly not legalization.

And often, they get run off of whatever platform they're on as soon as they're discovered.

Personally I would rather the issues with young children being "allowed" to marry if their parents "allow" be removed first.

[Cisairse]

This is great, one more strike against the nuclear family. Hopefully this trend continues and we can move towards abolishing the family unit as a major societal building block in the future.

[Comfed]

This is great, one more strike against the nuclear family. Hopefully this trend continues and we can move towards abolishing the family unit as a major societal building block in the future.

While I think the traditional (That is, acceptable in 1930) family is obsolete in quite a few ways, in this case I agree. Polygamy is very stressful and damaging for all parties involved, including children. We’re all humans, but humans should only have one lover.

[Farnhamia]

This is great, one more strike against the nuclear family. Hopefully this trend continues and we can move towards abolishing the family unit as a major societal building block in the future.

While I think the traditional (That is, acceptable in 1930) family is obsolete in quite a few ways, in this case I agree. Polygamy is very stressful and damaging for all parties involved, including children. We’re all humans, but humans should only have one lover.

Only one? At a time or over a lifetime? I'm asking for a friend. I'm also curious to know how many polygamous relationships you yourself have been in, to make such solid pronouncements.