Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[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?

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.

This is just idealism. The real world doesn't work like that, that is not a solution to the problem, it is just a platitude that says the problem shouldn't exist. The problem does exist and you need to be able to find a way for the problem to not exist.

[Celritannia]

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.

1. Fair enough.
In all honesty, I dislike the concept of marriage anyway, but I am not against it.

But those things can also happen in 3 or 4 way marriages.

2. Ensuring all parties involved have expressed consent that they all wish to marry each other, or one person wishes to seek another spouse.

3. That's up to the people involved, not us.

4. Consensual Murder is a crime that insists to harm someone.

Cannibalism is not illegal, I have seen a Reddit thread where an amputee cooks his own leg at a BBQ for close friends out of curiosity.
However, harming someone to eat their flesh is a crime.

Polyamory does not wish to harm anyone, only share their lives with each other.

[Celritannia]

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.

This is just idealism. The real world doesn't work like that, that is not a solution to the problem, it is just a platitude that says the problem shouldn't exist. The problem does exist and you need to be able to find a way for the problem to not exist.

Not idealism, this already happens in polyamorous relationships.

[Punished UMN]

This is just idealism. The real world doesn't work like that, that is not a solution to the problem, it is just a platitude that says the problem shouldn't exist. The problem does exist and you need to be able to find a way for the problem to not exist.

Not idealism, this already happens in polyamorous relationships.

That's just plain naive. And it goes against the argument that polyamory grants more freedom than monogamy.

If you have to get permission from all other partners in order to add an additional partner, then that is actually less free than monogamy. That is the nature of multi-party contracts though.

[Celritannia]

Not idealism, this already happens in polyamorous relationships.

That's just plain naive. And it goes against the argument that polyamory grants more freedom than monogamy.

If you have to get permission from all other partners in order to add an additional partner, then that is actually less free than monogamy. That is the nature of multi-party contracts though.

It's not naive.
It's called communication.
If one person didn't like the idea of their partner having another one, they would listen. Which is different compared to Polygamy.

And let's not forget, in monogamy, only 2 people are involved.

[Punished UMN]

That's just plain naive. And it goes against the argument that polyamory grants more freedom than monogamy.

If you have to get permission from all other partners in order to add an additional partner, then that is actually less free than monogamy. That is the nature of multi-party contracts though.

It's not naive.
It's called communication.

You do not understand. You are assuming that all relationships involve communication and lack coercion when you say that.

[Celritannia]

It's not naive.
It's called communication.

You do not understand. You are assuming that all relationships involve communication and lack coercion when you say that.

What relationships have you been in that don't have communication?
But when it comes to the polyamorous relationships I have read about and know from good friends, communication about adding additional partners is a primary aspect.

[Punished UMN]

You do not understand. You are assuming that all relationships involve communication and lack coercion when you say that.

What relationships have you been in that don't have communication?
But when it comes to the polyamorous relationships I have read about and know from good friends, communication about adding additional partners is a primary aspect.

I have not been in such a relationship, but I have known many people who have been in bad and exploitative relationships, both mono and poly.

Yes, that is ideally an aspect, but that doesn't address that the law has no way to mandate that that is a thing.

[Celritannia]

What relationships have you been in that don't have communication?
But when it comes to the polyamorous relationships I have read about and know from good friends, communication about adding additional partners is a primary aspect.

I have not been in such a relationship, but I have known many people who have been in bad and exploitative relationships, both mono and poly.

Yes, that is ideally an aspect, but that doesn't address that the law has no way to mandate that that is a thing.

As it has no way in mandating such a thing in monogamous marriages either.

[Punished UMN]

I have not been in such a relationship, but I have known many people who have been in bad and exploitative relationships, both mono and poly.

Yes, that is ideally an aspect, but that doesn't address that the law has no way to mandate that that is a thing.

As it has no way in mandating such a thing in monogamous marriages either.

Yes, but at least in monogamous settings, the exploitative partner is limited to only one partner and the partner can leave with less legal hassle and without abandoning a much larger social support structure. Moreover, when people are suffering together, they are more inclined to remain in a situation where they are suffering.

[Celritannia]

As it has no way in mandating such a thing in monogamous marriages either.

Yes, but at least in monogamous settings, the exploitative partner is limited to only one partner and the partner can leave with less legal hassle and without abandoning a much larger social support structure. Moreover, when people are suffering together, they are more inclined to remain in a situation where they are suffering.

Then that's something for the people involved to sort out, not us.

[Punished UMN]

Yes, but at least in monogamous settings, the exploitative partner is limited to only one partner and the partner can leave with less legal hassle and without abandoning a much larger social support structure. Moreover, when people are suffering together, they are more inclined to remain in a situation where they are suffering.

Then that's something for the people involved to sort out, not us.

No, actually, it isn't. Social contracts are sorted out by society.

[Celritannia]

Then that's something for the people involved to sort out, not us.

No, actually, it isn't. Social contracts are sorted out by society.

But you want to get involved of the private lives of individuals who take out a contract for them and no one else.

[Punished UMN]

No, actually, it isn't. Social contracts are sorted out by society.

But you want to get involved of the private lives of individuals who take out a contracts for them and no one else.

Yes, that is how the enforcement of contracts work. Do you understand what a legal contract is?

[The Reformed American Republic]

A divorce from such a relationship would be a legal nightmare I must say.

[Celritannia]

But you want to get involved of the private lives of individuals who take out a contracts for them and no one else.

Yes, that is how the enforcement of contracts work. Do you understand what a legal contract is?

I do. But unless you are the government official overseeing the contract, or a law enforcement officer dispatched to deal with a domestic issue involving said contracting, then you have no reason to be apart of what happens.

Just as you have no reason to be involved of someone's divorce, marriage, or funeral.

[Celritannia]

A divorce from such a relationship would be a legal nightmare I must say.

Depends who was married to who.
If it was one person married to 2 people, then only one person gets divorced.

If 3 people were jointly married, then it would be a mess.
But I still support these marriages regardless, since the private lives of these people do not concern me.

[Punished UMN]

Yes, that is how the enforcement of contracts work. Do you understand what a legal contract is?

I do. But unless you are the government official overseeing the contract, or a law enforcement officer dispatched to deal with a domestic issue involving said contracting, then you have no reason to be apart of what happens.

That is a misrepresentation of what I support. I do not want to get personally involved in the enforcement of contracts as a private citizen, what I want is for contracts to be enforceable and for contracts to be less prone to exploitation. A multi-party contract creating a legal union of persons would be extremely difficult to enforce and easy to exploit, and that does not even go into how prone such a relationship structure could be to gaslighting and emotional manipulation more generally.

[Punished UMN]

A divorce from such a relationship would be a legal nightmare I must say.

Depends who was married to who.
If it was one person married to 2 people, then only one person gets divorced.

If 3 people were jointly married, then it would be a mess.
But I still support these marriages regardless, since the private lives of these people do not concern me.

Private lives of all citizens concern all other citizens.

[Celritannia]

I do. But unless you are the government official overseeing the contract, or a law enforcement officer dispatched to deal with a domestic issue involving said contracting, then you have no reason to be apart of what happens.

That is a misrepresentation of what I support. I do not want to get personally involved in the enforcement of contracts as a private citizen, what I want is for contracts to be enforceable and for contracts to be less prone to exploitation. A multi-party contract creating a legal union of persons would be extremely difficult to enforce and easy to exploit, and that does not even go into how prone such a relationship structure could be to gaslighting and emotional manipulation more generally.

IT depends what the people involved want to get out of the relationship and what they put in the contract.

[Diopolis]

Yes, that is how the enforcement of contracts work. Do you understand what a legal contract is?

I do. But unless you are the government official overseeing the contract, or a law enforcement officer dispatched to deal with a domestic issue involving said contracting, then you have no reason to be apart of what happens.

Just as you have no reason to be involved of someone's divorce, marriage, or funeral.

Notably, all three of those things include people who are not, by the way, getting divorced/married or buried as major parts.

[Celritannia]

Depends who was married to who.
If it was one person married to 2 people, then only one person gets divorced.

If 3 people were jointly married, then it would be a mess.
But I still support these marriages regardless, since the private lives of these people do not concern me.

Private lives of all citizens concern all other citizens.

What do I have to gain from knowing the private lives of people 4 doors down from me?

[Punished UMN]

That is a misrepresentation of what I support. I do not want to get personally involved in the enforcement of contracts as a private citizen, what I want is for contracts to be enforceable and for contracts to be less prone to exploitation. A multi-party contract creating a legal union of persons would be extremely difficult to enforce and easy to exploit, and that does not even go into how prone such a relationship structure could be to gaslighting and emotional manipulation more generally.

IT depends what the people involved want to get out of the relationship and what they put in the contract.

Marriage is not a private contract, it is a social contract. The people in the marriage don't decide the conditions for it unless they have a prenuptial and even then those are not legally binding.

[Celritannia]

I do. But unless you are the government official overseeing the contract, or a law enforcement officer dispatched to deal with a domestic issue involving said contracting, then you have no reason to be apart of what happens.

Just as you have no reason to be involved of someone's divorce, marriage, or funeral.

Notably, all three of those things include people who are not, by the way, getting divorced/married or buried as major parts.

Yes, but only include the parties involved, not every Tom, Dick, Harry.

[Punished UMN]

Private lives of all citizens concern all other citizens.

What do I have to gain from knowing the private lives of people 4 doors down from me?

If it were just that, that would be well and good, but that is not the question we must ask. What we must ask is "what do I have to gain and lose from public behavior?"

Marriage and relationship norms are not a private affair just as commerce is not a private affair and just as government policy is not a private affair. My actions affect you and your actions affect me. The only way to resolve this conflict of interests is to have as many members of society as possible agree to specifically laid out social conditions (the social contract) and to put sanctions against the few who do not abide to these social conditions.