Somerville, Mass to recognize polyamorous partnerships

[Cisairse]

And yet, morally, these two scenarios are exactly the same.

Unless you're going to argue that the act of persuasion is what makes it coercive, and not the actual situation itself, in which case I fall back to my previous opinion that this does not relate to polyamory any moreso than it does to what currently happens in the real world.

If, to you, those situations are morally the exact same, then you have a great deal of moral myopia. Person A is using agency, Person B is unable to resist the agency of another.

Person B is unable to resist in the exact same way that Person A is unable to not use their own agency.

[Fahran]

You're misinterpreting my post completely, then.

But even if you weren't, I fail to see how linguistic differences in description translate to actual real-world differences in what's being described.

Perhaps but words and connotations matter quite substantially. How we frame our arguments can tell an audience quite a bit about our implicit attitudes, our mindset, what we value, etc. That's what bothers me about how you phrased your statement. But, if you concede that these relationships are exploitative, why would you favor policies that give them social sanction and legitimacy while harming society more broadly?

[Punished UMN]

If, to you, those situations are morally the exact same, then you have a great deal of moral myopia. Person A is using agency, Person B is unable to resist the agency of another.

Person B is unable to resist in the exact same way that Person A is unable to not use their own agency.

Totally incorrect. The alternative for person B is homelessness and potentially death. The alternative for Person A is that they will be in debt. That their motivations are ultimately driven by the same social forces doesn't change that the level of pressure applied upon them to make their choices is different.

This is also irrelevant however. Legalization and institutionalization would make such relationships legally protected status, which would make a woman attempting to leave these relationships less able to do so.

[Necroghastia]

I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

Read the articles that were posted then.

I've been following this thread from the start, my dude. I reiterate: I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

[Cekoviu]

Read the articles that were posted then.

I've been following this thread from the start, my dude. I reiterate: I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

then you're just being willfully ignorant tbh

[Necroghastia]

I've been following this thread from the start, my dude. I reiterate: I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

then you're just being willfully ignorant tbh

Or, y'know, employing some critical thinking skills.

[Cekoviu]

then you're just being willfully ignorant tbh

Or, y'know, employing some critical thinking skills.

ok

[Fahran]

Or, y'know, employing some critical thinking skills.

How do you explain away the prevalence of social dysfunctions in traditionally polygamous societies? Or do you maintain that a reintroduction of polygamy in the West won't exacerbate similar trends we're already observing as our culture of monogamy has decayed due to the Sexual Revolution and the ubiquity of social media? I don't think critical thinking skills mean a whole lot when you have next to zero empirical evidence that isn't anecdotal on your side of the argument. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that you lack critical thinking skills and rather possess a certain uncritical adherence to a particular secular doctrine.

[Necroghastia]

Or, y'know, employing some critical thinking skills.

How do you explain away the prevalence of social dysfunctions in traditionally polygamous societies?

What "social dysfunctions" in particular?

Or do you maintain that a reintroduction of polygamy in the West won't exacerbate similar trends we're already observing as our culture of monogamy has decayed due to the Sexual Revolution and the ubiquity of social media?

Trends like?

I don't think critical thinking skills mean a whole lot when you have next to zero empirical evidence that isn't anecdotal on your side of the argument. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that you lack critical thinking skills and rather possess a certain uncritical adherence to a particular secular doctrine.

Oh, don't be coy. Let's name names.

[Fahran]

What "social dysfunctions" in particular?

Fewer rights and opportunities for women, fewer rights and opportunities for non-elite men, higher levels of social instability, higher rates of murder and sexual assault, worse mental health outcomes for people involved in polygamous marriages, etc. You would know this if you had read the articles in question.

Trends like?

Do I need to explain incels and the statistics that drive them as a phenomenon? Natural disparities exist at present between persons with regard to sexual, social, romantic, and economic success. Certain social practices and models tend to exacerbate these disparities. The disparities themselves aren't necessarily problematic or dysfunctional but, as has previously been argued, they can and often do lead to social dysfunctions. They can also reinforce one another. As such, we have a vested interest in engaging with social models and social practices that make our society a more pleasant place to live overall.

Oh, don't be coy. Let's name names.

Libertarianism and unfettered individualism applied to social issues in a way that you would seldom apply them to anything else.

[Necroghastia]

What "social dysfunctions" in particular?

Fewer rights and opportunities for women, fewer rights and opportunities for non-elite men, higher levels of social instability, higher rates of murder and sexual assault, worse mental health outcomes for people involved in polygamous marriages, etc. You would know this if you had read the articles in question.

Oh, I did read them. I just didn't want you to be vague.
Anyway, are those societies like most egalitarian liberal democracies in all aspects but polyamory, or are they infested with sexism and cultural, often religious-based conservatism that also cause those issues?

Trends like?

Do I need to explain incels and the statistics that drive them as a phenomenon? Natural disparities exist at present between persons with regard to sexual, social, romantic, and economic success. Certain social practices and models tend to exacerbate these disparities. The disparities themselves aren't necessarily problematic or dysfunctional but, as has previously been argued, they can and often do lead to social dysfunctions. They can also reinforce one another. As such, we have a vested interest in engaging with social models and social practices that make our society a more pleasant place to live overall.

And there's no reason to believe poly people have anything to do with incels, especially anything near on the level of the crabs-in-a-bucket like nature of online incel stomping grounds or their own personal beliefs just making them not attractive people to form a relationship with.

Oh, don't be coy. Let's name names.

Libertarianism and unfettered individualism applied to social issues in a way that you would seldom apply them to anything else.

Ohhhh no! Not individualism! The horror! The horror!!!!!!

[Punished UMN]

Fewer rights and opportunities for women, fewer rights and opportunities for non-elite men, higher levels of social instability, higher rates of murder and sexual assault, worse mental health outcomes for people involved in polygamous marriages, etc. You would know this if you had read the articles in question.

Oh, I did read them. I just didn't want you to be vague.
Anyway, are those societies like most egalitarian liberal democracies in all aspects but polyamory, or are they infested with sexism and cultural, often religious-based conservatism that also cause those issues?

Do I need to explain incels and the statistics that drive them as a phenomenon? Natural disparities exist at present between persons with regard to sexual, social, romantic, and economic success. Certain social practices and models tend to exacerbate these disparities. The disparities themselves aren't necessarily problematic or dysfunctional but, as has previously been argued, they can and often do lead to social dysfunctions. They can also reinforce one another. As such, we have a vested interest in engaging with social models and social practices that make our society a more pleasant place to live overall.

And there's no reason to believe poly people have anything to do with incels, especially anything near on the level of the crabs-in-a-bucket like nature of online incel stomping grounds or their own personal beliefs just making them not attractive people to form a relationship with.

Libertarianism and unfettered individualism applied to social issues in a way that you would seldom apply them to anything else.

Ohhhh no! Not individualism! The horror! The horror!!!!!!

Individualism when taken to extremes is bad. Specifically, there must be the acknowledgement that the individual has the responsibility to behave in a way that makes society a pleasant place for all others.

[Fahran]

Oh, I did read them. I just didn't want you to be vague.

Vague-ness can be advantageous when we're operating with the same empirical evidence. It contributes to the economy of language in our arguments.

Anyway, are those societies like most egalitarian liberal democracies in all aspects but polyamory, or are they infested with sexism and cultural, often religious-based conservatism that also cause those issues?

Liberal democracies aren't egalitarian or emancipated from gender norms. The empirical evidnece in the United States for instance suggests that men are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than women. As Ostro was kind enough to explain earlier, a lot of this is rooted in biology and intrinsic differences that exist between men and women. Additionally, we still have gender disparities between elite men and elite women such that we could expect to replicate the mechanism of social control and regulation created by the bride price in places like Turkmenistan and Kenya. I think your argument supposes functional differences where none really exist.

And there's no reason to believe poly people have anything to do with incels, especially anything near on the level of the crabs-in-a-bucket like nature of online incel stomping grounds or their own personal beliefs just making them not attractive people to form a relationship with.

The large pools of men who contribute to social instability and criminality cited in Ceko's article are an equivalent to incels in societies where polygamy has exaggerated preferences and social mechanisms that control and regulate sexual selection in such a way as to create profound social dysfunctions. We've had similar social issues every time we've made it more difficult for people to get married, whether that occurred during industrialization or during globalization. You're introducing another social practice that will have the same effect and we have evidence that suggests that this has negative consequences.

Ohhhh no! Not individualism! The horror! The horror!!!!!!

You don't support the same sort of individualism on economic matters if I had to guess.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Polygamy is not a sin.

Also, this is what we warned you about Obergefell. Incest is next.

A lot of people have also said pedophilia and zoophilia was next to become fully mainstream and widely socially acceptable, recognized and legalized after gay marriage and acceptance, but that hasn’t happened and most likely never will happen.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Never mind how lazy "muh freedom" is as an argument.

And “Muh authority” is just as lazy of an argument.

I've been following this thread from the start, my dude. I reiterate: I have seen no reason to believe that polyamory is a bad thing.

then you're just being willfully ignorant tbh

Or maybe what you’re providing just isn’t that compelling or convincing.

[Fahran]

And “Muh authority” is just as lazy of an argument.

My argument isn't "muh authority." My argument is "this social practice is empirically proven to be bad for society in multiple ways." You can have a "muh freedom" argument when you can demonstrate that your pernicious social model isn't in fact pernicious.

Or maybe what you’re providing just isn’t that compelling or convincing.

Then you shouldn't have any difficulty finding empirical evidence and/or theoretical models that contradict the fundamental precepts of our argument. At the moment, your ostensible position is "our society is much more enlightened and it'll be different this time because of that." Never mind that the data really don't demonstrate that and, in fact, suggest that we're no less predisposed to the social dysfunctions that occur in Turkmenistan and Kenya. In fact, we're probably more predisposed towards polygyny than the Tibetans. Gren has actually presented a source that challenged our argument but it wasn't anywhere near as compelling as the three or four articles that have been presented.

[Fahran]

Polyamory is for hypergamous women and womanizer men who serially cheat and have babies from like 5 different people. It's literally just glofiried gaslighting cheating and abusive relationships. No one should have more than one partner

Um, hello, based department?

[Cekoviu]

then you're just being willfully ignorant tbh

Or maybe what you’re providing just isn’t that compelling or convincing.

nah i think it's my thing probably but thanks for ur input bby

[KingFerdinand1]

This Is Awful News.

Incorrect, it's actually great news.

In My Opinion Your Very Wrong.

[Cekoviu]

Incorrect, it's actually great news.

In My Opinion Your Very Wrong.

can you write like a normal person instead of Writing Like A Boomer?

[Fahran]

can you write like a normal person instead of Writing Like A Boomer?

Tfw the quirky kids team up with the Boomers to own the libs with FACTS and LOGIC.

I really hate myself sometimes.

[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.

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

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.

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.
And what of Lesbian relationships? Would they not be contradictory to stopping male crime rates?
If you are against polyamorous relationships to stop men committing crimes, then you should also be against Lesbian marriages.

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.
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.

[Crockerland]

Moving on from that, terrorism is not inherently bad.

[Kragholm Free States]

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.

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

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.

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.
And what of Lesbian relationships? Would they not be contradictory to stopping male crime rates?
If you are against polyamorous relationships to stop men committing crimes, then you should also be against Lesbian marriages.

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.
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.

But what is the functional, observable difference between a polyamorous relationship and a polygamous one? You seem to accept that the latter is a bad thing, but how do you suppose society or the state should differentiate between the two when determining who can marry? Should it go by your assertion that polygamy tends to be heterosexual, and therefore ban heterosexual marriages of multiple people while allowing homosexual ones? Probably not, that would be fairly absurd. But the only other real option is to grant polygamy and its associated exploitation and abuse legal protection in the name of granting polyamory the same protection. In a society where polyamorous relationships are already perfectly legal that would seem to be an overwhelming net negative.

Is there any reason why these relationships need state protection and encouragement at the cost of the societal harm that would result from that, as opposed to just keeping them in their current state of "frowned upon by most people but still allowed"?

[Fahran]

A lot of people have also said pedophilia and zoophilia was next to become fully mainstream and widely socially acceptable, recognized and legalized after gay marriage and acceptance, but that hasn’t happened and most likely never will happen.

Tell it to Ghislaine Maxwell and all the "minor-attracted persons" rambling about "pedosexuality." Polyamory was one of the things the neocons warned about back in the 1980s and 1990s, and, lo and behold, we have people advocating for it without even the slightest hint of shame now. To be honest, their argument is increasingly seeming like a stroke of brilliance despite the fact that I have no issue with the LGBT+ community at all. I'm just tired of people actively deconstructing and hurting the social fabric for the sake of a religious dogma.