Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Cekoviu]

i literally presented it in response to YOU and then you responded with an irrelevant article that did not counter the actual point
viewtopic.php?p=37372337#p37372337

So I did present counter evidence and you just stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed because you didn't like it.

your "counter evidence" does not actually counter the argument i was making, which is that polyamory is detrimental to society. your thing was only looking at benefits to the individuals engaging in it, not the society in which it occurs.

[Grenartia]

Your evidence was, as the same the last time we did this, about polygamy, not polyamory. Try again.

the difference between polygamy and polyamory is paperwork.

I happen to personally agree on that narrow point. However, the fact remains that your 'evidence' is extremely flimsy (so flimsy that calling it evidence is IMHO, overly generous, its just an opinion piece with cherrypicked numbers), and its quite ironic that you hound Vass for ignoring it while ignoring the legitimate criticisms that have been presented of it.

[Vassenor]

So I did present counter evidence and you just stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed because you didn't like it.

your "counter evidence" does not actually counter the argument i was making, which is that polyamory is detrimental to society. your thing was only looking at benefits to the individuals engaging in it, not the society in which it occurs.

Because apparently polygamy causes war or something like that.

[Cekoviu]

your "counter evidence" does not actually counter the argument i was making, which is that polyamory is detrimental to society. your thing was only looking at benefits to the individuals engaging in it, not the society in which it occurs.

Because apparently polygamy causes war or something like that.

uh ok, yes? did u read the articles?

[Grenartia]

Because apparently polygamy causes war or something like that.

uh ok, yes? did u read the articles?

Articles, that, I reiterate, are basically just flimsy thinkpieces with no convincing evidence to back them up.

[Celritannia]

uh ok, yes? did u read the articles?

Articles, that, I reiterate, are basically just flimsy thinkpieces with no convincing evidence to back them up.

^ THIS ^

[New haven america]

And where was it presented?

i literally presented it in response to YOU and then you responded with an irrelevant article that did not counter the actual point
viewtopic.php?p=37372337#p37372337

And that's not polyamory, that's polygamy.

So no, you haven't actually presented any evidence that's relevant to the subject at hand.

[Cisairse]

Marriage is and should be a union between a man and a woman bound by vows taken before God to love and honour each other. I don't want to debate about it with you angry LGBT supporting people. I've made my point and there's no point or argument which I've not heard before.

Wrong, next.

[Fahran]

And that's not polyamory, that's polygamy.

There is no substantive distinction between polyamory and polygamy when both are practiced in a ubiquitous and socially sanctioned manner, unless you're positing that we resort to free love as an alternative to our present serial monogamy, which entails a wide plethora of social and legal problems on its own. Closed polyamorous relationships still result in the problems Ceko's articles cited in the event of polygyny, which is historically more prevalent than polyandry and has a strong social impetus to reemerge given our present cultural conventions and biological predilections, because you still wind up with large clusters of men who have no stake in society.

"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."

As Ceko and Gren both pointed out, we're talking about paperwork when we talk about this "difference", not about social function. Our present incel epidemic should give us enough pause on this issue without having to ponder what happens when larger portions of our male population remain single perpetually instead of just into their twenties.

[Fahran]

Wrong, next.

In all honesty, the position is no less valid than the liberal position that we should always strive to prioritize personal freedom. The distinction is that one argument is religious while the other is ideological - representing a secular theology.

[Fahran]

Articles, that, I reiterate, are basically just flimsy thinkpieces with no convincing evidence to back them up.

These articles aren't really think-pieces in any conventional sense. They present a robust critique of polygyny, the most prevalent form of polygamy/polyamory historically and today, that is well-supported by the empirical evidence presently available to us. The refutation that I've seen presented implores us to imagine a world wherein widespread polyamory results in outcomes that aren't as socially and medically problematic as previous iterations of the social model in question. A few anecdotal outliers don't really inspire an abundance of confidence when it comes to believing that polyamory will be beneficial for society, women, and lower-class men when, historically, it hasn't been. In polygny, upper-class men seem to benefit. In polyandry, upper-class women seem to benefit.

[Cisairse]

Wrong, next.

In all honesty, the position is no less valid than the liberal position that we should always strive to prioritize personal freedom. The distinction is that one argument is religious while the other is ideological - representing a secular theology.

I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.

[Fahran]

I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.

You may do so if you'd like but I'm skeptical that it would really refute the argument I just presented. Your argument is essentially a liberal/libertarian argument at the end of the day, at least if you frame it in axiomatic or deontological terms.

[Lavan Tiri]

I could argue the "live and let live" position on ethical grounds.

You may do so if you'd like but I'm skeptical that it would really refute the argument I just presented. Your argument is essentially a liberal/libertarian argument at the end of the day, at least if you frame it in axiomatic or deontological terms.

Bro what the fuck's with the big words, just let people do what they want

[Fahran]

Bro what the fuck's with the big words, just let people do what they want

I knew this would come in handy.

[Celritannia]

And that's not polyamory, that's polygamy.

There is no substantive distinction between polyamory and polygamy when both are practiced in a ubiquitous and socially sanctioned manner, unless you're positing that we resort to free love as an alternative to our present serial monogamy, which entails a wide plethora of social and legal problems on its own. Closed polyamorous relationships still result in the problems Ceko's articles cited in the event of polygyny, which is historically more prevalent than polyandry and has a strong social impetus to reemerge given our present cultural conventions and biological predilections, because you still wind up with large clusters of men who have no stake in society.

"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."

As Ceko and Gren both pointed out, we're talking about paperwork when we talk about this "difference", not about social function. Our present incel epidemic should give us enough pause on this issue without having to ponder what happens when larger portions of our male population remain single perpetually instead of just into their twenties.

Polygamy is usually one person controlling the relationship. Polyamory is not.
Also, those problems happen in monogamous relationships too. Cheating and jealousy still occurs, it's nothing new.

Why does it matter if men are single into their twenties are not?
We cannot force people to love someone they do not want to.

[Fahran]

Polygamy is usually one person controlling the relationship. Polyamory is not.

Polygamy is paper work. Polyamory is the same familial and social relationship in the absence of paper work. Power dynamics still exist in the absence of paper work and formalized social controls.

Also, those problems happen in monogamous relationships too. Cheating and jealousy still occurs, it's nothing new.

The specific social problems cited by the good professors in Ceko's article do not occur in the same frequency in monogamous societies. In fact, polyamory seems to exacerbate quite a few social dysfunctions.

Why does it matter if men are single into their twenties are not?

"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."

In the absence of formalized marriage, this problem still persists for men who have no romantic partners.

We cannot force people to love someone they do not want to.

You're countering a social critique about a particular social model as an argument in favor of forcing specific persons to love other persons when that's not what has been presented. We can actively discourage pernicious social habits and models without telling people who they can love. Additionally, we already tell people who they can't love - which is quite different from telling people who they can love. We do this through legal mechanisms, such as mandating an age of consent and charging those who prey on children as sex offenders, and through social censure, such as looking down on ISIL brides.

For polyamory, I simply propose to retain the present social stigma and to keep it as a niche practice among a small number of largely well-to-do, college-educated, and libertine persons and for persons who belong to cults that get periodically arrested because they violate legal prohibitions against certain sorts of relationships. Denying these communities legal perks is absolutely in the best interest of broader society.

[Celritannia]

Polygamy is usually one person controlling the relationship. Polyamory is not.

Polygamy is paper work. Polyamory is the same familial and social relationship in the absence of paper work. Power dynamics still exist in the absence of paper work and formalized social controls.

Also, those problems happen in monogamous relationships too. Cheating and jealousy still occurs, it's nothing new.

The specific social problems cited by the good professors in Ceko's article do not occur in the same frequency in monogamous societies. In fact, polyamory seems to exacerbate quite a few social dysfunctions.

Why does it matter if men are single into their twenties are not?

"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."

In the absence of formalized marriage, this problem still persists for men who have no romantic partners.

We cannot force people to love someone they do not want to.

You're countering a social critique about a particular social model as an argument in favor of forcing specific persons to love other persons when that's not what has been presented. We can actively discourage pernicious social habits and models without telling people who they can love. Additionally, we already tell people who they can't love - which is quite different from telling people who they can love. We do this through legal mechanisms, such as mandating an age of consent and charging those who prey on children as sex offenders, and through social censure, such as looking down on ISIL brides.

For polyamory, I simply propose to retain the present social stigma and to keep it as a niche practice among a small number of largely well-to-do, college-educated, and libertine persons and for persons who belong to cults that get periodically arrested because they violate legal prohibitions against certain sorts of relationships. Denying these communities legal perks is absolutely in the best interest of broader society.

1. No, not it is not.
A Polyamorous marriage would be more like person A marries person B, and Person C marries both person A and B.
A polygamy marriage is more person A marries persons B, C, D, E, etc.

Also, polyamorous relationships focuses on the love and compassion between the people involved, the same cannot be said for a polygamy marriage.

2. Those are monogamous marriages comparing polygamy marriages.
But I am not saying jealousy does not occur in polyamorous relationships.
And if it does become dysfunctional, why should we get involved in the affairs of the private lives of individuals?

3. Those problems still exist without polyamorous relationships. But they won't suddenly increase with them.
But that says multiple wives. Multiple wives is not a basis of polyamorous relationship. Again, it can be 2 men and one woman, 2 men and 2 women, etc.

Formalised marriage doesn't even need to be a thing in today's society tbf.

4. But that is what it appears to be. "men in 20s commit crime", how can we simply stop polyamorous marriages to help decrease the crime rates? That's not how human work.
No, we should never tell people what they can and cannot do when it involves their feelings and emotions.
Age of consent is not the same as people being in a polyamorous relationship. Polyamorous relationships are consenting adults. Far different from those underage. So the 2 are not the same.

5. What you want should not matter when people who are in a loving relationship are concerned.
If polyamourous marriages were to exist, it would still remain small.
No, denying the people to marry the people they love hinders society.

You have yet to provide actual evidence of how POLYAMOROUS (not POLYGAMY) marriages will cause problems.

So how about people get off their high horses and understand polyamorous relationships before linking them to polygamy.

"This will lead to societal collapse" is a pathetic and stupid argument with no factual basis at all.
And telling consenting adults who they can and cannot love is pathetic.

[Fahran]

1. No, not it is not.
A Polyamorous marriage would be more like person A marries person B, and Person C marries both person A and B.
A polygamy marriage is more person A marries persons B, C, D, E, etc.

Polygamy simply refers to the practice of marrying more than a single spouse. All of the arrangements you described above amount to polygamy by the conventional definition. Polygyny refers to the practice of a single man marrying multiple women whereas polyandry refers to the practice of a single woman marrying multiple men. These are subsets of polygamy. There's no distinction between a polyamorous marriage and polygamy. They're literally the same thing in terms of social function despite attempts by advocates to redefine terms in a niche way.

Also, polyamorous relationships focuses on the love and compassion between the people involved, the same cannot be said for a polygamy marriage.

This is nonsense. We have multiple historical records detailing genuine love, affection, and compassion between persons involved in polygamous marriages. Again, you're trying to redefine terms instead of arguing the points with the definitions that presently exist and that are commonly accepted.

2. Those are monogamous marriages comparing polygamy marriages. But I am not saying jealousy does not occur in polyamorous relationships.
And if it does become dysfunctional, why should we get involved in the affairs of the private lives of individuals?

Again, there's no valid distinction between polyamory and polygamy in terms of social function and impact when both are practiced ubiquitously. The distinction is legal recognition and sanction by the state. We should get involved in such affairs because social dysfunctions impact society at large and do not remain confined to persons engaging with pernicious social models. Essentially, we get involved to secure the common good.

3. Those problems still exist without polyamorous relationships. But they won't suddenly increase with them.

Except the studies seem to suggest that they will increase if and when polyamorous relationships become more common.

But that says multiple wives. Multiple wives is not a basis of polyamorous relationship. Again, it can be 2 men and one woman, 2 men and 2 women, etc.

Polygyny has, as I mentioned previously, been the most common form of polyamory/polygamy historically and is the most common form of such practices presently. Our social conditions and biological predilections are such that we could expect it to predominate in our current society if polyamory, as opposed to free love, became widely practiced. Even bucking those considerations, polyandry and free love give us a lot of social dysfunctions as well since the advocates for those in the West aren't especially interested in developing the social conventions and rigid controls that predominate in, say, the Himalayas, where polyandry is actually linked to children not knowing who their fathers are and limitations on the fertility rate.

Formalised marriage doesn't even need to be a thing in today's society tbf.

Marriage remains a beneficial social institution.

4. But that is what it appears to be. "men in 20s commit crime", how can we simply stop polyamorous marriages to help decrease the crime rates? That's not how human work.

The study suggests that married men are less likely to commit crimes and act aggressively. So preventing the proliferation of a social model that makes lower-class men far less likely to get married would absolutely reduce the prevalence of both things. We know this because it has occurred before in practically every state that modernized in the nineteenth and twentieth century, from Turkey to China. It's absolutely how humans work.

No, we should never tell people what they can and cannot do when it involves their feelings and emotions.

We can and should depending on the circumstances.

Age of consent is not the same as people being in a polyamorous relationship. Polyamorous relationships are consenting adults. Far different from those underage. So the 2 are not the same.

Historically and at present, there's quite a bit of overlap honestly, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that we do regulate which relationships are acceptable and/or recognized and have a vested interest in doing so when the prevalence of a particular sort of relationship makes society worse off.

5. What you want should not matter when people who are in a loving relationship are concerned.

I don't care what polyamorous people want and I don't care about giving polyamorous people freedom. I care about society functioning, average men and women having value and rights in society, and stable families existing. Polyamorous people can remain an outlier without acknowledgement of the state and it serves almost everyone else for them to remain in this state. Muh freedom isn't an argument unless we all become libertarians overnight.

If polyamourous marriages were to exist, it would still remain small.

That's a really big assumption.

No, denying the people to marry the people they love hinders society.

Nonsense. Society has no vested interest in weighing in on matters of love. It would be a grievious misuse of government time. We don't recognize marriage because the love behind it is just wonderful. We acknowledge it because it's a tradition and because it provides social advantages. That's all.

You have yet to provide actual evidence of how POLYAMOROUS (not POLYGAMY) marriages will cause problems.

They're the same thing.

So how about people get off their high horses and understand polyamorous relationships before linking them to polygamy.

How about people read a dictionary and some relevant history before making up definitions.

"This will lead to societal collapse" is a pathetic and stupid argument with no factual basis at all.

That's not the argument. The argument, one supported by empirical evidence, is that it will make society less stable, lead to violence and criminality, reduce the value of lower-class men and women, etc.

And telling consenting adults who they can and cannot love is pathetic.

You can love anyone you want. Society just doesn't have to encourage or support practices that are harmful to it with acknowledgement, legal protection, or marital rights.

[Grenartia]

Articles, that, I reiterate, are basically just flimsy thinkpieces with no convincing evidence to back them up.

These articles aren't really think-pieces in any conventional sense. They present a robust critique of polygyny, the most prevalent form of polygamy/polyamory historically and today,

Do you have any hard evidence that its currently the most prevalent? The poly community has a term for men who exclusively seek multiple women for a relationship. Its called unicorn hunting, and isn't looked very highly upon. Which isn't to say that NHA's assertion that such arrangements are outright discriminated against by the rest of the community is entirely accurate.

that is well-supported by the empirical evidence presently available to us. The refutation that I've seen presented implores us to imagine a world wherein widespread polyamory results in outcomes that aren't as socially and medically problematic as previous iterations of the social model in question. A few anecdotal outliers don't really inspire an abundance of confidence when it comes to believing that polyamory will be beneficial for society, women, and lower-class men when, historically, it hasn't been. In polygny, upper-class men seem to benefit. In polyandry, upper-class women seem to benefit.

The problem with the article is that it presumes a different set of social values than are widely accepted in current society. If you're drawing conclusions about a phenomenon for a society that values egalitarianism and gender equality, but are using cherrypicked datapoints from societies which decidedly never truly valued egalitarianism and gender equality in the first place, then you are at best making an honest, though fundamentally obvious, mistake, and at worst, outright lying.

I won't guess as to which of those the author(s) of the articles in question are guilty of.

Polygamy is usually one person controlling the relationship. Polyamory is not.

Polygamy is paper work. Polyamory is the same familial and social relationship in the absence of paper work. Power dynamics still exist in the absence of paper work and formalized social controls.

Also, those problems happen in monogamous relationships too. Cheating and jealousy still occurs, it's nothing new.

The specific social problems cited by the good professors in Ceko's article do not occur in the same frequency in monogamous societies. In fact, polyamory seems to exacerbate quite a few social dysfunctions.

Why does it matter if men are single into their twenties are not?

"Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives."

In the absence of formalized marriage, this problem still persists for men who have no romantic partners.

Which is fundamentally saying that men aren't at all responsible for when they rape, kidnap, murder, assault, rob, and commit fraud, and that they require women to avoid doing them (which is somehow sexist against both women and men, and is fundamentally freudian in its flawed conclusion, AND perpetuates rape culture). Likewise, I have to question if they truly accounted for the fact that all of these crimes were more common even in monogamous societies of the past, and are more common in unstable societies of the present. Like, this is truly a prime example of fractal wrong-ness.

Valerie Hudson of Texas A&M University and Hilary Matfess of Yale have found that an inflated brideprice is a “critical” factor “predisposing young men to become involved in organised group violence for political purposes”.

Sounds like the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In fact, hell, this alone proves the conclusion doesn't apply to Western societies at large, because Western societies do not have brideprices. In fact, it could equally be argued that the existence of the brideprice itself is the cause of these things, not whether or not the society which has it allows polygyny or not. Of course, that argument would itself require conceding that men only become involved in bad behavior when sexually frustrated with no outlet, and that they must have access to a woman to be satiated (which is extremely rapey and blatantly incorrect to say). I refuse to concede that argument (an argument which is DIRECTLY implied by both articles).

[Diopolis]

Can anyone point to significant numbers of polyamorists that have above replacement fertility?

[US-SSR]

Not sure what the municipal advantages would be from having one's polyamourous relationship officially recognized -- maybe a bigger recycle bin for more people in a household or extra on-street parking in front of your downtown apartment -- but ya gotta start somewhere I guess...

[US-SSR]

You may do so if you'd like but I'm skeptical that it would really refute the argument I just presented. Your argument is essentially a liberal/libertarian argument at the end of the day, at least if you frame it in axiomatic or deontological terms.

Bro what the fuck's with the big words, just let people do what they want

Looks like someone just learned them in Phil 101.

[Grenartia]

Can anyone point to significant numbers of polyamorists that have above replacement fertility?

Imagine thinking that has any relevance to anything.

Not sure what the municipal advantages would be from having one's polyamourous relationship officially recognized -- maybe a bigger recycle bin for more people in a household or extra on-street parking in front of your downtown apartment -- but ya gotta start somewhere I guess...

As I've pointed out before:

In Massachusetts, domestic partnerships provide some of the legal benefits married couples enjoy, including hospital visitation rights, shared health care coverage and sick or bereavement leave for a partner, according to the Miller Law Group.

[Diopolis]

Can anyone point to significant numbers of polyamorists that have above replacement fertility?

Imagine thinking that has any relevance to anything.

So you admit that you can't. Good to know.