Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Celritannia]

Yes, the government.
Not random people.

We can keep going round in circles until you grasp that.

You're the one not grasping it lmao. If the government conducts marriage, then that means the government decides, taking into mind the interests of all citizens, what marriage should be.

Are you the government? Do you work for the government?

[Punished UMN]

Which is the perfect example of what I'm talking about; they shifted the societal default to premarital cohabitation through the actions of individuals.

But if the people vote in a referendum to call for polyamorous marriages to be accepted as a marriage, then that's that. IT won't affect anyone else, and that is my point.

"The actions of the government don't affect anyone else" this is your mind on individualism.

[Punished UMN]

You're the one not grasping it lmao. If the government conducts marriage, then that means the government decides, taking into mind the interests of all citizens, what marriage should be.

Are you the government? Do you work for the government?

No, the government represents my interests as I am a citizen of this country.

[Celritannia]

I disagree. Polyamorous relationships that exist already do not do it for money. Money just becomes easy when you have 3 or 4 people pulling paychecks.

But again, what you described would be more polygamy, not polyamory.

They don't do it for money currently because they can't. You would need a legal contract and framework like marriage to make that viable.

As I'm sure has been stated before unless you reject the concept of patriarchy you must accept that legal polyam marriages and partnerships would lead solely to polygamous situations. The social fabric to accommodate poly without issues simply isn't there.

No, they can do. You can set up a bankaccount with multiple people being on the list to access it. Which would make it easier for poly partners to share money for their household.

And as multiple examples have shown, polyamorous relationships are not based on patriarchy.
A person cannot be forced to marry someone against their will.

Rich people can also marry multiple women in Mormon country if they so wish.

But I highly doubt these things will happen.

[Celritannia]

Are you the government? Do you work for the government?

No, the government represents my interests as I am a citizen of this country.

Your interests yes, but that does not grant you access to knowing about private individuals.

[Fahran]

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.

I'm using the anthropological and sociological definitions as presented in the peer-reviewed article I posted earlier because those are the definitions that are pertinent in discussing social dysfunctions and institutionalized sexual behaviors. As I have pointed out numerous times, with empirical evidence supporting my argument, what you refer to as polyamory is one of the rarest forms of the practice of having multiple romantic partners, both in societies where polygamy is routinely practiced and in the West where polyamory usually takes the form of informal polygyny. Legalizing polygamy will by necessity legalize all forms of the practice, not just the super liberal, free love one that you like.

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

A psychological think-piece on a small aberrant community's sexual and romantic practices, albeit with some excellent and irrelevant data cited in its references, and a Wikipedia article do not really counter two peer-reviewed sociological and anthropological studies on the broad pattern of social behaviors wherein people have multiple sexual and romantic partners. You're trying to reduce the definition in a way that excludes all the forms of polyamory that you dislike so that you can say there won't be consequences if we legitimize and normalize polyamory through polygamy. The problem is that you can't engage in discrimination against the people who are very likely to adopt the practice and who are in the majority with regard to the practice. People can consent to polygyny. In fact, more people are doing that in the West at this very moment than any other sort of polyamory. The data corroborates it. So stop being weasally with your definitions and address it.

3. I'm not even polyamorous, so mentioning "my lifestyle" is incorrect.

My apologies. I misremembered you mentioning being polyamorous previously. My bad.

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.

Absolutely not. At the moment, polyamory is linked to pedophilia. In fact, the most prominent cases we have, if we disregard the extreme minority of cases and behaviors you agree to define as polyamory, are related to the government cracking down on polyamorous/polygamist groups that engaged in child marriage, often with multiple spouses. I'm not going to disrespect the struggles those girls had to experience to make people who deviate from sexual norms comfortable. They can come up with a new term for it if the historically problematic power dynamics involved with the anthropologically correct perturb definition them.

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

I never said it would lead to social collapse. I said that legalizing polygamy, which is what government acknowledgement and legal protection for polyamory effectively does, will lead to the legalization of all forms of polygamy, including the most popular form in the West - polygyny. I then argued that widespread polygyny would lead to social instability, devaluation of women and lower-class men, higher occurrences of sexual assault, murder, and violence, and exaggerated social inequalities. I have sociological evidence for all of these claims. The only one that you can really dispute is my assertion that institutionalized polygyny would become widespread. And, honestly, why should we risk it when informal polygyny is already a problem?

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

While I appreciate the article, from the same researcher as previously no less, it doesn't really address any of the critiques that have been levelled at polygamy as a social model and cultural practice. You have to examine the effect on the entirety of society, not exclusively on the children of a small number of well-educated, upper middle-class, white families. The children of elites aren't probably doing too terribly in Turkmenistan either. Additionally, I do wish she had provided more concrete information. This comes across as rubber-stamping the kids as alright and without significant psychological trauma. It doesn't really let us know much about how they socialized with other children or anything else.

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

It's why people get married in many cases, yes. It's not why society retains the institution of marriage though.

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.

You're for polygamy by definition. You just have a weird definition about what precisely constitutes polygaymy.

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 you'll do absolutely nothing to prevent it from becoming normalized and, in fact, would implement policies that make it inevitable that it will receive government recognition and legal protection. I don't know how you think Mormon, Kenyan, or Arab polygamous marriage works but there's often an element of consent to them. That doesn't prevent them from being socially dysfunctional on a large scale.

But I am not against polyamory.

I'm not against polyamory either, so long as it doesn't involve marital infidelity. I'm against polygamy because legalizing it would give us social dysfunctions.

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

I'm not addressing that because it's one of the rarest forms of polyamory in the world. You're wanting to legitimize polygamy for the sake of an extremely small community even as you say you oppose the people who comprise the majority of those with a vested interest in seeing polygamy legitimized. Consent isn't the be all or end all of what we should allow in society. People can consent to things that harm society more broadly. Society has no interest in allowing that to happen. With any contract.

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

Read the articles. Polygyny is the most common form of polygamy in the West. Legalizing polygamy legalizes polygyny. Polygyny leads to social issues. Ergo legalizing polygamy leads to social issues. The evidence is pretty robust. The logical trail hasn't been interrupted by your argument. I'm trying to figure out how you don't get this.

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.

What you call polyamory is rare. So I don't care about it.

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?

It's not the elites in Turkmenistan or Kenya doing the raping and murdering because they're single, have no families, and have no stake in society. I swear you're being deliberately obtuse on this issue.

[Punished UMN]

No, the government represents my interests as I am a citizen of this country.

Your interests yes, but that does not grant you access to knowing about private individuals.

I never said it did, you are arguing against something I never said.

[Celritannia]

But if the people vote in a referendum to call for polyamorous marriages to be accepted as a marriage, then that's that. IT won't affect anyone else, and that is my point.

"The actions of the government don't affect anyone else" this is your mind on individualism.

I am refering to people in poly marriages. They won't affect anyone else bu the people involved.

[Celritannia]

Your interests yes, but that does not grant you access to knowing about private individuals.

I never said it did, you are arguing against something I never said.

You said I should care about what people 4 doors down the street for me do.

[Punished UMN]

"The actions of the government don't affect anyone else" this is your mind on individualism.

I am refering to people in poly marriages. They won't affect anyone else bu the people involved.

Yes it will, because it is a social contract.

[Punished UMN]

I never said it did, you are arguing against something I never said.

You said I should care about what people 4 doors down the street for me do.

Yes, you should. That is part of being a conscientious citizens.

[Diopolis]

"The actions of the government don't affect anyone else" this is your mind on individualism.

I am refering to people in poly marriages. They won't affect anyone else bu the people involved.

Changing the societal default doesn't affect anyone, clearly. Life is exactly the same as it was in the fifties, obviously.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

we have people advocating for it without even the slightest hint of shame now.

Just as there are people who advocate we all pack up our sticks and stones and go back to living like Paleolithic hunter-gathering cavemen they’re fringe and have remained fringe and will most likely continue to remain fringe with no mainstream acceptance and support.

[Diopolis]

we have people advocating for it without even the slightest hint of shame now.

Just as there are people who advocate we all pack up our sticks and stones and go back to living like Paleolithic hunter-gathering cavemen they’re fringe and have remained fringe and will most likely continue to remain fringe with no mainstream acceptance and support.

The entire history of the social liberal movement would contradict you.

[Fahran]

Just as there are people who advocate we all pack up our sticks and stones and go back to living like Paleolithic hunter-gathering cavemen they’re fringe and have remained fringe and will most likely continue to remain fringe with no mainstream acceptance and support.

People with your views on this issue got a city to implement what amounts to a precursor to polygamy, meaning marriage involving more than two spouses, and you expect us to back off on this issue on the grounds that y'all constitute a fringe element? I'll start presenting arguments against the San when they get a small township in my country to abolish agriculture.

[Fahran]

I am refering to people in poly marriages. They won't affect anyone else bu the people involved.

Let me know where we run into a disagreement.

1. Egalitarian poly marriages are a form of polygamy, with polygamy in this context meaning any marriage with more than two spouses.

2. Egalitarian poly relationships are one of the rarer forms of polygamy/polyamory with both polygyny and polyamory being more common, both globally and in the United States where informal and non-institutionalized polygyny is the most common type of non-monogamous relationship.

3. You want to recognize marriages between more than two spouses - meaning that you want to legalize what my articles call polygamy.

4. You do not support discrimination against heterosexual people or anyone else so long as an individual gives consent to a marriage.

5. This means that people who practice polygyny and polyandry will not be discriminated against so long as these relationships are ostensibly consensual. You will not account for cultural practices or familial pressure or anything else - at least no more so than we do already.

6. Polygyny will remain the most popular form of polyamory/polygamy in the West because there's no reason that would change.

7. Formalized polygyny has negative social consequences.

8. We will experience these negative consequences to the extent that formalized polygyny is popular.

9. Legalizing polygamy will lead to negative social consequences.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Just as there are people who advocate we all pack up our sticks and stones and go back to living like Paleolithic hunter-gathering cavemen they’re fringe and have remained fringe and will most likely continue to remain fringe with no mainstream acceptance and support.

The entire history of the social liberal movement would contradict you.

Uh huh.

Just as there are people who advocate we all pack up our sticks and stones and go back to living like Paleolithic hunter-gathering cavemen they’re fringe and have remained fringe and will most likely continue to remain fringe with no mainstream acceptance and support.

People with your views on this issue got a city to implement what amounts to a precursor to polygamy, meaning marriage involving more than two spouses, and you expect us to back off on this issue on the grounds that y'all constitute a fringe element? I'll start presenting arguments against the San when they get a small township in my country to abolish agriculture.

Cool beans.

[Fahran]

Cool beans.

Would you like to try an intellectually honest argument this time?

[Celritannia]

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.

I'm using the anthropological and sociological definitions as presented in the peer-reviewed article I posted earlier because those are the definitions that are pertinent in discussing social dysfunctions and institutionalized sexual behaviors. As I have pointed out numerous times, with empirical evidence supporting my argument, what you refer to as polyamory is one of the rarest forms of the practice of having multiple romantic partners, both in societies where polygamy is routinely practiced and in the West where polyamory usually takes the form of informal polygyny. Legalizing polygamy will by necessity legalize all forms of the practice, not just the super liberal, free love one that you like.

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

A psychological think-piece on a small aberrant community's sexual and romantic practices, albeit with some excellent and irrelevant data cited in its references, and a Wikipedia article do not really counter two peer-reviewed sociological and anthropological studies on the broad pattern of social behaviors wherein people have multiple sexual and romantic partners. You're trying to reduce the definition in a way that excludes all the forms of polyamory that you dislike so that you can say there won't be consequences if we legitimize and normalize polyamory through polygamy. The problem is that you can't engage in discrimination against the people who are very likely to adopt the practice and who are in the majority with regard to the practice. People can consent to polygyny. In fact, more people are doing that in the West at this very moment than any other sort of polyamory. The data corroborates it. So stop being weasally with your definitions and address it.

3. I'm not even polyamorous, so mentioning "my lifestyle" is incorrect.

My apologies. I misremembered you mentioning being polyamorous previously. My bad.

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.

Absolutely not. At the moment, polyamory is linked to pedophilia. In fact, the most prominent cases we have, if we disregard the extreme minority of cases and behaviors you agree to define as polyamory, are related to the government cracking down on polyamorous/polygamist groups that engaged in child marriage, often with multiple spouses. I'm not going to disrespect the struggles those girls had to experience to make people who deviate from sexual norms comfortable. They can come up with a new term for it if the historically problematic power dynamics involved with the anthropologically correct perturb definition them.

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

I never said it would lead to social collapse. I said that legalizing polygamy, which is what government acknowledgement and legal protection for polyamory effectively does, will lead to the legalization of all forms of polygamy, including the most popular form in the West - polygyny. I then argued that widespread polygyny would lead to social instability, devaluation of women and lower-class men, higher occurrences of sexual assault, murder, and violence, and exaggerated social inequalities. I have sociological evidence for all of these claims. The only one that you can really dispute is my assertion that institutionalized polygyny would become widespread. And, honestly, why should we risk it when informal polygyny is already a problem?

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

While I appreciate the article, from the same researcher as previously no less, it doesn't really address any of the critiques that have been levelled at polygamy as a social model and cultural practice. You have to examine the effect on the entirety of society, not exclusively on the children of a small number of well-educated, upper middle-class, white families. The children of elites aren't probably doing too terribly in Turkmenistan either. Additionally, I do wish she had provided more concrete information. This comes across as rubber-stamping the kids as alright and without significant psychological trauma. It doesn't really let us know much about how they socialized with other children or anything else.

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

It's why people get married in many cases, yes. It's not why society retains the institution of marriage though.

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.

You're for polygamy by definition. You just have a weird definition about what precisely constitutes polygaymy.

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 you'll do absolutely nothing to prevent it from becoming normalized and, in fact, would implement policies that make it inevitable that it will receive government recognition and legal protection. I don't know how you think Mormon, Kenyan, or Arab polygamous marriage works but there's often an element of consent to them. That doesn't prevent them from being socially dysfunctional on a large scale.

But I am not against polyamory.

I'm not against polyamory either, so long as it doesn't involve marital infidelity. I'm against polygamy because legalizing it would give us social dysfunctions.

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

I'm not addressing that because it's one of the rarest forms of polyamory in the world. You're wanting to legitimize polygamy for the sake of an extremely small community even as you say you oppose the people who comprise the majority of those with a vested interest in seeing polygamy legitimized. Consent isn't the be all or end all of what we should allow in society. People can consent to things that harm society more broadly. Society has no interest in allowing that to happen. With any contract.

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

Read the articles. Polygyny is the most common form of polygamy in the West. Legalizing polygamy legalizes polygyny. Polygyny leads to social issues. Ergo legalizing polygamy leads to social issues. The evidence is pretty robust. The logical trail hasn't been interrupted by your argument. I'm trying to figure out how you don't get this.

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.

What you call polyamory is rare. So I don't care about it.

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?

It's not the elites in Turkmenistan or Kenya doing the raping and murdering because they're single, have no families, and have no stake in society. I swear you're being deliberately obtuse on this issue.

1. Which is why there is a need to show a difference between polyamory and polygamy. Polyamory is not one partner having multiple partners. It's a companionship of the people involved.
If you refuse to see the difference, then of course polygamy will remain. But if you do, you can then make the problems of any polyamorous easier with the distinction between polygamy.

2. By a doctor who studies this field since it is hardly discussed, along with a number of actual accounts of polyamorous relationships.

3. No problem. Mistakes can easily be made.

4. Yes, because multiple consenting adults is exactly the same as paedophilia.
As far as I am away, no polyamorous relationships include children.
To say see means you have little understanding in polyamory.

5. Not if you accept the differences between polygamy and polyamory.
Polygamy, or one man marrying multiple women is a bad thing.
But multiple people marrying those they love in an honest and compassionate environment is not a bad thing. Why do you thing there is such a need to distinguish the 2? So it is not linked with the patriarchal control of women. That's why.

6. Again, a rather new topic of discussion with a few sociologists and psychologist looking into it, so of course there is a limit on research.
Does not dispute the actual case studies used or actual accounts of polyamorous families being no different from monogamous ones.

7. Which can also change through referendums.
No, you see the similarities because of the dangers of patriarchal domination.
It's the same reason why I see the differences to remove the idea of patriarchal domination.
If we do, then we can stop male dominated relationships.
And from what I have seen and read, most polyamorous relationships are no more than 4 people.

8. I am doing something, recognising the differences.
Moromons and Arab ones are religion based and Kenyans war lords use it for power.
Why do you think people want polyamory to be seen differently? To not be linked to those male dominated aspects, because that's not what polyamory is meant to be.

9. Again, not if you recognise the differences. By understanding polyamory is not domonating, you can see a difference and thus ban polygamy but accept polyamory.

10. But this is what polyamory people want polyamorous marriages to be seen as. Not male dominated, but involving people in an equal relationship.

11. Polygamy, not polyamory. I have also provided links to working polyamorous relationships.

12. And the more you see the similarities between polygamy and polyamory, the less you will be able to accept you can ban one and allow the other.

13. Turkmenistan is a muslim nation that uses polygamy in a males dominated society.
This is not what polyamory means nor stands for.

(Apologise for my numbers going out of sequence, I am following each section you quoted individually. I have always had difficulty quoting like that, and thus gave up a long time ago in attempt).

[Washington Resistance Army]

The entire history of the social liberal movement would contradict you.

Uh huh.

Dio is objectively right lol. There was a time when gay marriage was fringe and had no mainsteam acceptance or support, there was a time when trans rights were fringe and had no mainstream acceptance or support etc etc. The entire social liberal movement is built and relies on continually finding new things to advocate for, this can't even be argued against.

[Celritannia]

You said I should care about what people 4 doors down the street for me do.

Yes, you should. That is part of being a conscientious citizens.

For their health and safety, yes. But not what they do in their own home, or in the company of themselves in public.

[Diopolis]

Uh huh.

Dio is objectively right lol. There was a time when gay marriage was fringe and had no mainsteam acceptance or support, there was a time when trans rights were fringe and had no mainstream acceptance or support etc etc. The entire social liberal movement is built and relies on continually finding new things to advocate for, this can't even be argued against.

The gods of copybook headings demand it.

[Celritannia]

I am refering to people in poly marriages. They won't affect anyone else bu the people involved.

Let me know where we run into a disagreement.

1. Egalitarian poly marriages are a form of polygamy, with polygamy in this context meaning any marriage with more than two spouses.

2. Egalitarian poly relationships are one of the rarer forms of polygamy/polyamory with both polygyny and polyamory being more common, both globally and in the United States where informal and non-institutionalized polygyny is the most common type of non-monogamous relationship.

3. You want to recognize marriages between more than two spouses - meaning that you want to legalize what my articles call polygamy.

4. You do not support discrimination against heterosexual people or anyone else so long as an individual gives consent to a marriage.

5. This means that people who practice polygyny and polyandry will not be discriminated against so long as these relationships are ostensibly consensual. You will not account for cultural practices or familial pressure or anything else - at least no more so than we do already.

6. Polygyny will remain the most popular form of polyamory/polygamy in the West because there's no reason that would change.

7. Formalized polygyny has negative social consequences.

8. We will experience these negative consequences to the extent that formalized polygyny is popular.

9. Legalizing polygamy will lead to negative social consequences.

1. for the sake of argument, yes.

2. This would mean I would have to accept the link between religious and male dominated polygamy, to polyamory which is nether of these. So no.

3. FTSOA, yes

4. Yes

5. Because there is a difference between polyamory and polygamy, male and religious dominated polygamy should not be seen as equal as polyamory.

6. Not unless you actually see the difference between polygamy and polyamory.

7. Not unless you actually see the difference between polygamy and polyamory.

8. Not unless you actually see the difference between polygamy and polyamory.

9. Not unless you actually see the difference between polygamy and polyamory.

[Fahran]

1. Which is why there is a need to show a difference between polyamory and polygamy. Polyamory is one partner having multiple partners. It's a companionship of the people involved.

How do you draw a line in the sand legally with any sort of moral or logical authority? You seem convinced that the only factors that matter in such arrangements are the love of those involved and ostensible consent. Recognizing what you call polyamorous marriage and what I call egalitarian polygamy means that you have to recognize all forms of polygamy legally unless you engage in some serious discrimination.

2. By a doctor who studies this field since it is hardly discussed, and a number of actual accounts of polyamorous relationships.

I don't know what you think the social scientists we cited were studying but they mentioned this particular niche community multiple times and emphasized that they're the exception rather than the rule.

4. Yes, because multiple consenting adults is exactly the same as paedophilia. As far as I am away, no polyamorous relationships include children.
To say see means you have little understanding in polyamory.

Again, you're operating with a different definition to the one employed by me and that should be abundantly clear on both sides of the argument by now. Let's try to slip past that by ignoring the conversation over connotations for a moment.

5. Not if you accept the differences between polygamy and polyamory. Polygamy, or one man marrying multiple women is a bad thing.
But multiple people marrying those they love in an honest and compassionate environment is not a bad thing. Why do you thing there is such a need to distinguish the 2? So it is not linked with the patriarchal control of women. That's why.

I don't distinguish the two because I don't really accept your redefinition of terms at the behest of an extreme minority population. But let's move beyond that. In a poly marriage, does someone have to marry every other spouse in the arrangement? Or can one person have three spouses while one of their spouses has different two spouses? If you're not going to insist on extreme regulation of polyamory, you're legalizing formal polygyny and polyandry by default. There's no way to effectively stop them.

6. Again, a rather new topic of discussion with a few sociologists and psychologist looking into it, so of course there is a limit on research.
Does not dispute the actual case studies used or actual accounts of polyamorous families being no different from monogamous ones.

It's not a new topic of conversation. Numerous articles that have been shared acknowledged the small number of people who practice what you call poly marriages.

7. Which can also change through referendums.
No, you see the similarities because of the dangers of patriarchal domination.
It's the same reason why I see the differences to remove the idea of patriarchal domination.
If we do, then we can stop male dominated relationships.
And from what I have seen and read, most polyamorous relationships are no more than 4 people.

How do you get ready of the threat of patriarchal relationships? Are you going to ban polygyny outright? Because that's gender discrimination and illegal under law at the moment.

8. I am doing something, recognising the differences.
Moromons and Arab ones are religion based and Kenyans war lords use it for power.
Why do you think people want polyamory to be seen differently? To not be linked to those male dominated aspects, because that's not what polyamory is meant to be.

Because they don't want to be associated with negative consequences or religious extremism despite the fact that they largely adhere to the functional model in other ways. It perpetuates socioeconomic status in much the same way even when it's white liberals instead of Kenyan businessmen.

9. Again, not if you recognise the differences. By understanding polyamory is not domonating, you can see a difference and thus ban polygamy but accept polyamory.

How can you ban polygamy?

[Fahran]

1. for the sake of argument, yes.

Okay. Check one. Next.

2. This would mean I would have to accept the link between religious and male dominated polygamy, to polyamory which is nether of these. So no.

Except that's not how polyamory or polygamy was defined here. They're defined simply as having multiple romantic partners in the one case and having multiple spouses in the other. I'm not asking you to associate what I termed egalitarian poly relationships with them beyond an acknowledgement that all of these relationships involve having more than one partner and that egalitarian poly relationships are rare.

Additionally, polygyny in the United States is not associated with religious control or even formal patriarchal control of women. It's largely associated with consensual relationships such as extramarital affairs. We can address this before proceeding.