Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Fahran]

It does get annoying when the only sources people against polyamorous marriages are ones relating to Polygamy. Unrelated to say the least.

Polygamy and Polyamory have differences.

Yes, paper work.

Society will not end if polyamory relationships are able to marry.

If you marry more than one person, your polyamory becomes polygamy because polygamy is simply defined as marrying multiple persons.

And to use underage marriages as a way to say consenting adults should not be able to marry who they love is pathetic to say the least.

No, it's not.

As for men in their 20s committing more crimes, this also depends on socio-economic problems, not just being able to marry.
And again, you cannot force women to marry men to stop crime rates.

Large groups of young men not being able to marry and have families is a significant socioeconomic problem and my suggestion wasn't that we should force women to do anything. We should simply prevent anyone from engaging with social models that we know to be exceedingly harmful in other societies when the conditions in our society ensure that they will be harmful here.

And what of Lesbian relationships? Would they not be contradictory to stopping male crime rates?

Homosexuality is somewhat contained by limited genetic predispositions towards it. We have no real evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage will become ubiquitous and, even in societies where it was legal in the past, we didn't have large-scale participation in it as a social model. Again, the issue isn't that some people are polyamorous. It's that, when widely practiced as a social model, polyamory and polygamy, which is just polyamory with paper work, are harmful. And its prevalence won't be curtailed by genetic predispositions like same-sex attraction is. Powerful men will form harems or will marry their mistresses.

If you are against polyamorous relationships to stop men committing crimes, then you should also be against Lesbian marriages.

See above. Please stop trying to knock down other people's sand castles on very flimsy grounds. This isn't about the lesbians. They unironically have done nothing wrong here. You lot, on the other hand, have been very naughty.

As for this ludicrous statement that it helps the patriarchy, this is just wrong. Polyamorous relationship have so many variables, and do not tend to be more than 4 people.

Then provide empirical evidence that it doesn't reinforce patriarchy in patriarchal societies. A single man having three wives is still a problem if we're talking about two or three percent of men in a society.

A polygamy marriage tends to have one sex marrying multiple people the opposite sex and is almost always heterosexual, not the same as polyamorous relationships.

You should stop making your own definitions for terms and consider perhaps that you're the minority when it comes to polyamory given that, statistically, you are the minority - both globally and in the West. You're not the only person trying to have multiple spouses. And most of the people who will benefit from the government letting people like you have multiple spouses are patriarchs - Mormon fundamentalists, immigrants from countries where polygyny is a norm, wealthy businessmen, athletes, and rappers, etc. The social harm, even if contained to certain communities in Utah and Michigan, outweighs the benefits.

[Celritannia]

It does get annoying when the only sources people against polyamorous marriages are ones relating to Polygamy. Unrelated to say the least.

Polygamy and Polyamory have differences.

Yes, paper work.

Society will not end if polyamory relationships are able to marry.

If you marry more than one person, your polyamory becomes polygamy because polygamy is simply defined as marrying multiple persons.

And to use underage marriages as a way to say consenting adults should not be able to marry who they love is pathetic to say the least.

No, it's not.

As for men in their 20s committing more crimes, this also depends on socio-economic problems, not just being able to marry.
And again, you cannot force women to marry men to stop crime rates.

Large groups of young men not being able to marry and have families is a significant socioeconomic problem and my suggestion wasn't that we should force women to do anything. We should simply prevent anyone from engaging with social models that we know to be exceedingly harmful in other societies when the conditions in our society ensure that they will be harmful here.

And what of Lesbian relationships? Would they not be contradictory to stopping male crime rates?

Homosexuality is somewhat contained by limited genetic predispositions towards it. We have no real evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage will become ubiquitous and, even in societies where it was legal in the past, we didn't have large-scale participation in it as a social model. Again, the issue isn't that some people are polyamorous. It's that, when widely practiced as a social model, polyamory and polygamy, which is just polyamory with paper work, are harmful. And its prevalence won't be curtailed by genetic predispositions like same-sex attraction is. Powerful men will form harems or will marry their mistresses.

If you are against polyamorous relationships to stop men committing crimes, then you should also be against Lesbian marriages.

See above. Please stop trying to knock down other people's sand castles on very flimsy grounds. This isn't about the lesbians. They unironically have done nothing wrong here. You lot, on the other hand, have been very naughty.

As for this ludicrous statement that it helps the patriarchy, this is just wrong. Polyamorous relationship have so many variables, and do not tend to be more than 4 people.

Then provide empirical evidence that it doesn't reinforce patriarchy in patriarchal societies. A single man having three wives is still a problem if we're talking about two or three percent of men in a society.

A polygamy marriage tends to have one sex marrying multiple people the opposite sex and is almost always heterosexual, not the same as polyamorous relationships.

You should stop making your own definitions for terms and consider perhaps that you're the minority when it comes to polyamory given that, statistically, you are the minority - both globally and in the West. You're not the only person trying to have multiple spouses. And most of the people who will benefit from the government letting people like you have multiple spouses are patriarchs - Mormon fundamentalists, immigrants from countries where polygyny is a norm, wealthy businessmen, athletes, and rappers, etc. The social harm, even if contained to certain communities in Utah and Michigan, outweighs the benefits.

1. No, because polygamy is hetrosexual.
Polyamory is not always so.
Polygamy is one person having multiple members of the opposite sex.
Polyamory is not.
Polygamy is one individual loving multiple people of the opposite sex.
Polyamory is multiple people loving each other at the same time.

Big fucking difference.

2. See point 1.

3. Yes it fucking is.
Please tell me how multiple consenting adults wishing to be a relationship with each other is the same as someone wishing to marry someone underage?
I can. One is paedophilia, the other isn't

4. I am an unmarried male, I'm not committing crimes.
So, again, forcing people to stop loving who they want to for the sake of "those poor people don't have anyone to love."

5. How is 1 man having 2 wives in a polyamorous relationship any different than 2 women being in a relationship? The same results would occur, minus the male being involved. Your own logic would assume that those women are also at fault for the increased rate of crime amongst unmarried males.
And what about 3 females in a polyamorous relationship?
It's not widely practised because people like you don't want it to be.

6. How about you stop using heterosexual polygamy as your basis first?

One powerful man forming harems is not a polyamorous relationship.
Polyamorous relationships is more than just 1 man having multiple females. It can be 2 men one woman, one man, 2 women, 3 women, 3 men, etc.
So you are obviously disregarding those for your own selfish reasoning.

7.
Says the person only thinking polyamory is going to be no different than polygamy.
I am not making my own defination up You are the one blatently assuming polyamory is going to lead to one man and multiple women, which is not the case.

Again, I shall reinstate, polyamoroy can be 2 men 1 woman, 1 man 2 women, 3 women, 3 men, etc.
And let's also not forget Trans and adrogynous individuals being thrown into the polyamorous equation.

So are you only seeing one dogmatic aspect of polyamory, which is to say, Polygamy or do you also see 3 women in a polyamorous relationship?
Are you still seeing one man marrying multiple women? Or multiple people marrying each other?

Decide what you want to argue against before replaying.

[Celritannia]

So let me ask this, would you stop 3 women forming a polyamorous marriage?

[Punished UMN]

To avoid cluttering my post, I will simply refer to the post, but, answer me this: since patriarchy is a thing, how would polyamory not be twisted into something serve it? How would you be able to prevent such abuses of the system occurring?

[Proctopeo]

No, because polygamy is hetrosexual.

Only if you insist that marriage as a whole is only heterosexual.

[Celritannia]

No, because polygamy is hetrosexual.

Only if you insist that marriage as a whole is only heterosexual.

The biggest difference between polyamory and polygamy is the gender of the partners. In polyamory, anyone of any gender can have multiple partners—the gender of the person or their partner does not matter. Polygamy is almost universally heterosexual, and only one person has multiple spouses of a different gender. The most common form of polygamy by far is polygyny, a marriage in which one man marries multiple women. In polyandry, a rather rare social form, one woman marries multiple men.

[Proctopeo]

Only if you insist that marriage as a whole is only heterosexual.

The biggest difference between polyamory and polygamy is the gender of the partners. In polyamory, anyone of any gender can have multiple partners—the gender of the person or their partner does not matter. Polygamy is almost universally heterosexual, and only one person has multiple spouses of a different gender. The most common form of polygamy by far is polygyny, a marriage in which one man marries multiple women. In polyandry, a rather rare social form, one woman marries multiple men.

What's this a quote from? You?

[Celritannia]

To avoid cluttering my post, I will simply refer to the post, but, answer me this: since patriarchy is a thing, how would polyamory not be twisted into something serve it? How would you be able to prevent such abuses of the system occurring?

I mean, that's already polygamy.

But the difference would be, whether everyone in the polyamorous marriage is having opening communication and trust amongst those who wish to have multiple relationships.

One way would be for all the people involved consent and accept the marriage.
This would be different from Polygamy, where the male (or female) does not need consent from his (or her) other partners.

[Celritannia]

What's this a quote from? You?

From Dr. Elisabeth A. Sheff

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... d-polygamy

[Proctopeo]

What's this a quote from? You?

From Dr. Elisabeth A. Sheff

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... d-polygamy

I see.

Looking into the quote a bit, you're missing something. She didn't say that polygamy can only ever be heterosexual, as you were, but that in almost all known cases of polygamy, it's been heterosexual. Which, anyway, is true of any marriage. There's nothing preventing a non-heterosexual polygamous relationship, it's just that examples are rare.

[Fahran]

1. No, because polygamy is hetrosexual.
Polyamory is not always so.
Polygamy is one person having multiple members of the opposite sex.
Polyamory is not.
Polygamy is one individual loving multiple people of the opposite sex.
Polyamory is multiple people loving each other at the same time.

Big fucking difference.

What you're describing as "polyamory" is actually one form of polygamy, albeit the rarest form of polygamy, rarer even than polyandry. If you had read the numerous articles citing empirical data on the subject, you would have known that. Polygamy does not have to be heterosexual and does not have to be centered around a particular person, though it most often is both of those things.

2. See point 1.

See the articles and arguments posted that demonstrate that your argument is an objectively false one reliant on mutilating existing definitions.

3. Yes it fucking is.
Please tell me how multiple consenting adults wishing to be a relationship with each other is the same as someone wishing to marry someone underage?
I can. One is paedophilia, the other isn't

"It's pathetic" isn't an argument. It's your opinion. And it's a fairly uncharitable opinion given what a lot of people think about your lifestyle and your position on this issue. I have no interest in shaming you or acting like I'm morally superior to you. I would ask that you return the courtesy and stick to debating the social and moral implications of polygamy as a social model. I can't discuss "it's pathetic." I can discuss "polygamy doesn't actually lead to what you believe it will lead to" so long as you can provide the empirical evidence supporting your side of the argument. If you can't, we're not having an argument. We're presenting evidence and you're preaching.

4. I am an unmarried male, I'm not committing crimes.
So, again, forcing people to stop loving who they want to for the sake of "those poor people don't have anyone to love."

Again, we're not discussing love. I deliberately sidestepped that issue because neither of us has a vested interest in discussing the meaning of love. I think your definition of love is stupid. You think my definition of love is stupid. That's an irreconcilable difference. As I pointed out before, society doesn't recognize marriage because the love between the persons involved is just the greatest thing since apple pie. Society recognizes marriage because it's an engrained custom that seems to lead to social stability and strong families more often than alternatives. I'm asking you to demonstrate that polygamy isn't terrible for societies where it is practiced and won't set back everyone else's rights.

5. How is 1 man having 2 wives in a polyamorous relationship any different than 2 women being in a relationship? The same results would occur, minus the male being involved. Your own logic would assume that those women are also at fault for the increased rate of crime amongst unmarried males.

Because the social impact can expected to be different. We have yet to discover evidence of a society wherein all women decided to marry each other because same-sex marriage was legal. We have plenty of evidence about the impact of legal polygamy though, and some of those societies still exist. You keep trying to make this personal, individual, and about love. That's not a response to the arguments that have been laid out before because it's not why we want to maintain the ban on polygamy.

And what about 3 females in a polyamorous relationship?
It's not widely practised because people like you don't want it to be.

What's not widely practiced? Polygamy? Well, good. I don't want it to be widely practiced. Because I don't want to deal with the consequences that happen when it is widely practiced. As for your example, sadly, marriage equality means we can't do that without also allowing the Mormon patriarch to take five wives.

6. How about you stop using heterosexual polygamy as your basis first?

Most people are heterosexual so there's no sense in doing that unless you plan to specifically discriminate against the straights.

One powerful man forming harems is not a polyamorous relationship.

Yes, it is. By definition.

Polyamorous relationships is more than just 1 man having multiple females. It can be 2 men one woman, one man, 2 women, 3 women, 3 men, etc.
So you are obviously disregarding those for your own selfish reasoning.

I'm not the one advocating for a social model that leads to social instability, exaggerated disparities between social classes, higher occurrences of murder and rape, fewer rights and opportunities for women, and fewer rights and opportunities for lower-class men with a definition that suggests a profound myopia and ignorance of how the social model in question generally functions in patriarchal societies. I'm disregarding those because they're statistically the rarest form of polygamy by the way. As has been empirically demonstrated.

7.
Says the person only thinking polyamory is going to be no different than polygamy.
I am not making my own defination up You are the one blatently assuming polyamory is going to lead to one man and multiple women, which is not the case.

You absolutely are making up your own definition. Read the articles that were posted.

Again, I shall reinstate, polyamoroy can be 2 men 1 woman, 1 man 2 women, 3 women, 3 men, etc.
And let's also not forget Trans and adrogynous individuals being thrown into the polyamorous equation.

Polyamory can be any of those things, yes. It includes any relationship that involves multiple partners. Polygamy is simply adding paperwork. Legalizing polygamy isn't going to make us all LGBT+ so I don't know why you insist on bringing up people who are a minority of the population. Most polygamists in a given society are going to be cishet. You get to deal with the consequences of that if you want to present a compelling argument on the subject. You get to deal with the Mormon and Kenyan patriarchs as well.

So are you only seeing one dogmatic aspect of polyamory, which is to say, Polygamy or do you also see 3 women in a polyamorous relationship?

They're both polyamory. I've never disputed that. You're just citing the rarest forms of polyamory as the norm.

Are you still seeing one man marrying multiple women? Or multiple people marrying each other?

Yes, because one man marrying multiple women is the most common form polyamory and polygamy takes followed very distantly by one woman marrying multiple men. You're asking us to legalize all of it for the rarest examples of the social model where the relationship is exclusively same-sex or where multiple people of both sexes are involved. It's illogically dense.

Decide what you want to argue against before replaying.

I'm still arguing against polygamy. You can have your polyamory as a niche practice. We don't owe you anything more than that morally until you can prove it won't lead to negative outcomes for the rest of us.

[Celritannia]

From Dr. Elisabeth A. Sheff

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... d-polygamy

I see.

Looking into the quote a bit, you're missing something. She didn't say that polygamy can only ever be heterosexual, as you were, but that in almost all known cases of polygamy, it's been heterosexual. Which, anyway, is true of any marriage. There's nothing preventing a non-heterosexual polygamous relationship, it's just that examples are rare.

Unless there is evidence to suggest there are homosexual polygamy marriages?

[Proctopeo]

I see.

Looking into the quote a bit, you're missing something. She didn't say that polygamy can only ever be heterosexual, as you were, but that in almost all known cases of polygamy, it's been heterosexual. Which, anyway, is true of any marriage. There's nothing preventing a non-heterosexual polygamous relationship, it's just that examples are rare.

Unless there is evidence to suggest there are homosexual polygamy marriages?

Are you claiming that, because there's scant few known examples, it's impossible?

[Fahran]

Yes. There's a pretty broad anthropological consensus on this. Source

"Anthropologically, polygamy is defined as marriage between one person and two or more spouses simultaneously. It exists in two main forms: polygyny, where one man is married to several women, and polyandry, where one woman is married to several men. A third form, group marriage between several men and women, is rare; same‐sex polygamy is very rare. Polygyny is the most common form, including de facto forms, where a person is formally monogamous but socially polygamous, maintaining additional relationships. Contemporary anthropologists explore polygamous kinship and gender relations and the law and politics of polygamy. Focal points include managing love, emotions, and sexuality in polygamy and polygamy's impact on women's and children's health and rights. Polygamy becomes political when minorities such as fundamentalist Mormons claim the practice as a religious or cultural right in majority monogamous societies."

I think I'm going to side with the sociologists and anthropologists writing peer-reviewed and comprehensive studies on a particular social model and its impacts over the psychologist writing about a niche social practice in the West that can be neatly slid into preexisting social models and paradigms for what amounts to a glorified blog with some statistical and empirical relevance. She doesn't even refute the argument laid out else-where.

How precisely do we prevent polygyny from dominating the minute we extend legal recognition to polyamorous relationships given the statistics?

[Fahran]

Are you claiming that, because there's scant few known examples, it's impossible?

Same-sex polygamy is even rarer than what Celt calls polyamorous marriage. Both are extremely rare compared to polygyny and polyandry.

[Celritannia]

1. No, because polygamy is hetrosexual.
Polyamory is not always so.
Polygamy is one person having multiple members of the opposite sex.
Polyamory is not.
Polygamy is one individual loving multiple people of the opposite sex.
Polyamory is multiple people loving each other at the same time.

Big fucking difference.

What you're describing as "polyamory" is actually one form of polygamy, albeit the rarest form of polygamy, rarer even than polyandry. If you had read the numerous articles citing empirical data on the subject, you would have known that. Polygamy does not have to be heterosexual and does not have to be centered around a particular person, though it most often is both of those things.

2. See point 1.

See the articles and arguments posted that demonstrate that your argument is an objectively false one reliant on mutilating existing definitions.

3. Yes it fucking is.
Please tell me how multiple consenting adults wishing to be a relationship with each other is the same as someone wishing to marry someone underage?
I can. One is paedophilia, the other isn't

"It's pathetic" isn't an argument. It's your opinion. And it's a fairly uncharitable opinion given what a lot of people think about your lifestyle and your position on this issue. I have no interest in shaming you or acting like I'm morally superior to you. I would ask that you return the courtesy and stick to debating the social and moral implications of polygamy as a social model. I can't discuss "it's pathetic." I can discuss "polygamy doesn't actually lead to what you believe it will lead to" so long as you can provide the empirical evidence supporting your side of the argument. If you can't, we not having an argument. We're presenting evidence and you're preaching.

4. I am an unmarried male, I'm not committing crimes.
So, again, forcing people to stop loving who they want to for the sake of "those poor people don't have anyone to love."

Again, we're not discussing love. I deliberately sidestepped that issue because neither of us has a vested interest in discussing the meaning of love. I think your definition of love is stupid. You think my definition of love is stupid. That's an irreconcilable difference. As I pointed out before, society doesn't recognize marriage because the love between the persons involved is just the greatest thing since apple pie. Society recognizes marriage because it's an engrained custom that seems to lead to social stability and strong families more often than alternatives. I'm asking you to demonstrate that polygamy isn't terrible for societies where it is practiced and won't set back everyone else's rights.

5. How is 1 man having 2 wives in a polyamorous relationship any different than 2 women being in a relationship? The same results would occur, minus the male being involved. Your own logic would assume that those women are also at fault for the increased rate of crime amongst unmarried males.

Because the social impact can expected to be different. We have yet to discover evidence of a society wherein all women decided to marry each other because same-sex marriage was legal. We have plenty of evidence about the impact of legal polygamy though, and some of those societies still exist. You keep trying to make this personal, individual, and about love. That's not a response to the arguments that have been laid out before because it's not why we want to maintain the ban on polygamy.

And what about 3 females in a polyamorous relationship?
It's not widely practised because people like you don't want it to be.

What's not widely practiced? Polygamy? Well, good. I don't want it to be widely practiced. Because I don't want to deal with the consequences that happen when it is widely practiced. As for your example, sadly, marriage equality means we can't do that without also allowing the Mormon patriarch to take five wives.

6. How about you stop using heterosexual polygamy as your basis first?

Most people are heterosexual so there's no sense in doing that unless you plan to specifically discriminate against the straights.

One powerful man forming harems is not a polyamorous relationship.

Yes, it is. By definition.

Polyamorous relationships is more than just 1 man having multiple females. It can be 2 men one woman, one man, 2 women, 3 women, 3 men, etc.
So you are obviously disregarding those for your own selfish reasoning.

I'm not the one advocating for a social model that leads to social instability, exaggerated disparities between social classes, higher occurrences of murder and rape, fewer rights and opportunities for women, and fewer rights and opportunities for lower-class men with a definition that suggests a profound myopia and ignorance of how the social model in question generally functions in patriarchal societies. I'm disregarding those because they're statistically the rarest form of polygamy by the way. As has been empirically demonstrated.

7.
Says the person only thinking polyamory is going to be no different than polygamy.
I am not making my own defination up You are the one blatently assuming polyamory is going to lead to one man and multiple women, which is not the case.

You absolutely are making up your own definition. Read the articles that were posted.

Again, I shall reinstate, polyamoroy can be 2 men 1 woman, 1 man 2 women, 3 women, 3 men, etc.
And let's also not forget Trans and adrogynous individuals being thrown into the polyamorous equation.

Polyamory can be any of those things, yes. It includes any relationship that involves multiple partners. Polygamy is simply adding paperwork. Legalizing polygamy isn't going to make us all LGBT+ so I don't know why you insist on bringing up people who are a minority of the population. Most polygamists in a given society are going to be cishet. You get to deal with the consequences of that if you want to present a compelling argument on the subject. You get to deal with the Mormon and Kenyan patriarchs as well.

So are you only seeing one dogmatic aspect of polyamory, which is to say, Polygamy or do you also see 3 women in a polyamorous relationship?

They're both polyamory. I've never disputed that. You're just citing the rarest forms of polyamory as the norm.

Are you still seeing one man marrying multiple women? Or multiple people marrying each other?

Yes, because one man marrying multiple women is the most common form polyamory and polygamy takes followed very distantly by one woman marrying multiple men. You're asking us to legalize all of it for the rarest examples of the social model where the relationship is exclusively same-sex or where multiple people of both sexes are involved. It's illogically dense.

Decide what you want to argue against before replaying.

I'm still arguing against polygamy. You can have your polyamory as a niche practice. We don't owe you anything more than that morally until you can prove it won't lead to negative outcomes for the rest of us.

1. And yet, Polyamory is different in the respect, Person A is married to person B, and Person C is married to person B but not person A.
Polyamory is not as straight forward as polygamy.

2. Articles relating to polygamy are not the same as actual articles relating to polyamory.

3. I'm not even polyamorous, so mentioning "my lifestyle" is incorrect.
However, linking polyamory to paedophilia is pathetic, as the former is with consenting adults, the latter is not.
Retract your comment that polyamory is like paedophilia.

I have also yet to see evidence that polyamory will lead to a societal collapse.

4. Everyone's definition of love will be different, but again, I am not polyamorous.
Marriage does not always end up as it should either. Single parents, children living with other reletives.

But here you go:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ies-part-1

The children and young adults who have participated in my research are generally in great shape, by which I mean they are articulate, intelligent, thoughtful, and capable young people. Although their lives are not perfect, they largely feel equipped to deal with life’s challenges—both with their own internal resources, and with support from others.

5. But love is the fundamental aspect of marriage. IF you deny love then you deny marriage. That's why people get married.

I am not for one person dominating a marriage or polygamy. I am for equal acceptance and communication between people involved, which is more so in polyamory.

6. I am not discriminating against anyone, simply pointing something out. You are against one man controlling a relationship with multiple women. I am too, I disagree with Mormon marriages.

But I am not against polyamory.

Do you have evidence of a polyamorous relationship that, that is to say, not a man with multiple wives, being patriarchal?

And what evidence is there that it will lead to social instability?

The same thing was said for women's equality, women voting, homosexual marriages.
Polyamorous relationships tend to be small, and will remain so whether or not they are actually allowed to marry.

And yet, polyamorous relationships do not involve murder rape, etc, when consenting adults all agree to be in the same relationship. Unless you have evidence to say polyamorous relationships lead to this?
Otherwise it's just a scare tactic as was "the gays will take your children".
We do not know the type of polyamorous relationships will include, but you cannot go around linking them to one man controlling women. Polyamory is based around communication and trust, more so than polygamy.

7. How about you read the recent article I linked. OR Link actual testimonies from Polyamorous relationships.

Polygamists who control the relationships consider polygamy, not polyamory.
Again, there are ways to help stop those types of things happening, including the people involved have open communication and trust, which usually happens in polyamorous relationships anyway, and everyone involved consenting to the marriage. Different fomr Polygamy, where the main figure does not require consent from others to marry another person.

(I think you accidentally used polyamory instead of polygamy here).
Then why not support actual polyamory then, because it is not truly the same as polygamy in terms of trust and communication with the involved parties.

Not of polyamory, because one man does not simply take lots of female partners. That's polygamy. Whether with or without paperwork, there is a difference in terms of trust, communication, and emotion, which is what you are not recognising in a polyamorous relationship.
And most Polyamorous relationships tend to be small, compared to polygamy.

Again, I am not polyamorous, but I support it.
You also have to provide evidence that actual polyamory, not polygamy, actually harms society.

[Celritannia]

Unless there is evidence to suggest there are homosexual polygamy marriages?

Are you claiming that, because there's scant few known examples, it's impossible?

Can you provide such examples? That's what I am asking.

[Celritannia]

Yes. There's a pretty broad anthropological consensus on this. Source

"Anthropologically, polygamy is defined as marriage between one person and two or more spouses simultaneously. It exists in two main forms: polygyny, where one man is married to several women, and polyandry, where one woman is married to several men. A third form, group marriage between several men and women, is rare; same‐sex polygamy is very rare. Polygyny is the most common form, including de facto forms, where a person is formally monogamous but socially polygamous, maintaining additional relationships. Contemporary anthropologists explore polygamous kinship and gender relations and the law and politics of polygamy. Focal points include managing love, emotions, and sexuality in polygamy and polygamy's impact on women's and children's health and rights. Polygamy becomes political when minorities such as fundamentalist Mormons claim the practice as a religious or cultural right in majority monogamous societies."

I think I'm going to side with the sociologists and anthropologists writing peer-reviewed and comprehensive studies on a particular social model and its impacts over the psychologist writing about a niche social practice in the West that can be neatly slid into preexisting social models and paradigms for what amounts to a glorified blog with some statistical and empirical relevance. She doesn't even refute the argument laid out else-where.

How precisely do we prevent polygyny from dominating the minute we extend legal recognition to polyamorous relationships given the statistics?

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved.[1][2] It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy".[3][4][5] People who identify as polyamorous believe in an open relationship with a conscious management of jealousy; they reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are necessary for deep, committed, long-term loving relationships.[6][7]

Polyamory has come to be an umbrella term for various forms of non-monogamous, multi-partner relationships, or non-exclusive sexual or romantic relationships.[8][9][10] Its usage reflects the choices and philosophies of the individuals involved, but with recurring themes or values, such as love, intimacy, honesty, integrity, equality, communication, and commitment.[4][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

[Diopolis]

And what evidence is there that it will lead to social instability?

The same thing was said for women's equality, women voting, homosexual marriages.

Two of those things did lead to social instability. One of them has yet to have much of an effect because its barely five years old.

[Bear Stearns]

Swinging has been legal for awhile now.

[Kragholm Free States]

Polyamory (from Greek πολύ poly, "many, several", and Latin amor, "love") is the practice of, or desire for, intimate relationships with more than one partner, with the informed consent of all partners involved.[1][2] It has been described as "consensual, ethical, and responsible non-monogamy".[3][4][5] People who identify as polyamorous believe in an open relationship with a conscious management of jealousy; they reject the view that sexual and relational exclusivity are necessary for deep, committed, long-term loving relationships.[6][7]

Polyamory has come to be an umbrella term for various forms of non-monogamous, multi-partner relationships, or non-exclusive sexual or romantic relationships.[8][9][10] Its usage reflects the choices and philosophies of the individuals involved, but with recurring themes or values, such as love, intimacy, honesty, integrity, equality, communication, and commitment.[4][2]

It's all very well and good having a definition that says it's all just a heartwarming snuggly lovefest, and I'm sure in some cases it really is, but the fact is there's no law in most of the West preventing people from doing that anyway. It is already permitted. That's fine, because it's not particularly common. Why does it need to be encouraged, and why does it need the legal protection of marriage at the necessary cost of providing that same protection to exploitative forms of polygamy?

[Celritannia]

It's all very well and good having a definition that says it's all just a heartwarming snuggly lovefest, and I'm sure in some cases it really is, but the fact is there's no law in most of the West preventing people from doing that anyway. It is already permitted. That's fine, because it's not particularly common. Why does it need to be encouraged, and why does it need the legal protection of marriage at the necessary cost of providing that same protection to exploitative forms of polygamy?

The same question could be asked about marriages between 2 people. Why should they be encouraged?

Again, polygamy is one person controlling the relationship, not a good basis to follow multiple marriages for.

Polyamorous marriages would ensure all parties involved are heard and respected.

Here are actually some good examples.

[Proctopeo]

Are you claiming that, because there's scant few known examples, it's impossible?

Can you provide such examples? That's what I am asking.

So you are claiming that.
Your very own source claims that somewhere, at some point in time, they did exist (or had the possibility to), by her usage of "almost universally" instead of "always" or just "universally".
Why is same-sex polygamy impossible, Celritannia?

[Kragholm Free States]

It's all very well and good having a definition that says it's all just a heartwarming snuggly lovefest, and I'm sure in some cases it really is, but the fact is there's no law in most of the West preventing people from doing that anyway. It is already permitted. That's fine, because it's not particularly common. Why does it need to be encouraged, and why does it need the legal protection of marriage at the necessary cost of providing that same protection to exploitative forms of polygamy?

The same question could be asked about marriages between 2 people. Why should they be encouraged?

I never actually argued that they should be, although societal cohesion, incentivised protection of children, and ease of property inheritance all seem to be decent enough reasons. Ultimately there's just no great disadvantage to doing so.

Again, polygamy is one person controlling the relationship, not a good basis to follow multiple marriages for.

And how would you avoid granting those relationships state protection while doing so for the "good kind"?

Polyamorous marriages would ensure all parties involved are heard and respected.

The divorce rate is already 42%, so clearly that doesn't work when there's only two people involved. How on earth would it be anything less than a complete clusterfuck with more than that?

Here are actually some good examples.

Some exceedingly rare examples. I could find examples of consensual murder and cannibalism, doesn't mean we should encourage it.

[Celritannia]

Can you provide such examples? That's what I am asking.

So you are claiming that.
Your very own source claims that somewhere, at some point in time, they did exist (or had the possibility to), by her usage of "almost universally" instead of "always" or just "universally".
Why is same-sex polygamy impossible, Celritannia?

For one thing homosexual marriage is rather modern.
Yes she says it, but gives no examples either.