# A tiny step forward for non-tradional families



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

On June 29, Somerville, MA quietly became one of the first cities in the nation – if not _the_ first – to recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships.

The historic move was a result of a few subtle language shifts. For example, instead of being defined as an “entity formed by two persons,” Somerville’s ordinance defines a domestic partnership as an “entity formed by people,” replaces “he and she” with “they,” replaces “both” with “all,” and contains other inclusive language.

I think this is a positive step, although still very limited by the nature of domestic partnership law. What are your opinions about this?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

We are on the slippery slope.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> We are on the slippery slope.


We have already fallen down that slope


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Dr. Peter Venkman : This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor : What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr. Raymond Stantz : What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman : Exactly.
Dr. Raymond Stantz : Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler : Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore : The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman : Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!
Mayor : All right, all right! I get the point!


----------



## Tdbo (Sep 8, 2019)

Numb26 said:


> We have already fallen down that slope


........into the abyss.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

I'm not sure what it means for the government to recognize poly relationships...why does it matter, as long as society does?

Is it for the legal protections or tax breaks? Or just to feel legitimate?


----------



## Always Learning (Oct 2, 2013)

LisaDiane said:


> I'm not sure what it means for the government to recognize poly relationships...why does it matter, as long as society does?
> 
> Is it for the legal protections or tax breaks? Or just to feel legitimate?


it's Massachusetts, nobody is getting a tax break! LOL


----------



## karole (Jun 30, 2010)

Numb26 said:


> We have already fallen down that slope


We are in the gutter!


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

LisaDiane said:


> I'm not sure what it means for the government to recognize poly relationships...why does it matter, as long as society does?
> 
> Is it for the legal protections or tax breaks? Or just to feel legitimate?


Not sure that much of society does.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

karole said:


> We are in the gutter!


I think there is further to go than where we are now. Sadly.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

I'm not sure how a 1+ year old thread came back. Anyway, this is just "progressive" ridiculousness. I think it was just someone in that town pandering to some constituency. They said it was to help extended medical insurance coverage. Problem is, there is nothing that will make private companies agree to that.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Always Learning said:


> it's Massachusetts, nobody is getting a tax break! LOL


Lolol!!! SO TRUE!!!


----------



## Benbutton (Oct 3, 2019)

Well...Somerville is still a dump.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

There is nothing quite as biblical as polygamy.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

Married but Happy said:


> On June 29, Somerville, MA quietly became one of the first cities in the nation – if not _the_ first – to recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships.
> 
> The historic move was a result of a few subtle language shifts. For example, instead of being defined as an “entity formed by two persons,” Somerville’s ordinance defines a domestic partnership as an “entity formed by people,” replaces “he and she” with “they,” replaces “both” with “all,” and contains other inclusive language.
> 
> I think this is a positive step, although still very limited by the nature of domestic partnership law. What are your opinions about this?


As much trouble as a marriage between two people is, I can't fathom why anyone would want to take vows with even more....


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Mr. Nail said:


> There is nothing quite as biblical as polygamy.


God permitted on occasions although it was never his intention or desire as Genesis says, but for Christians it's a no no. 
The Bible says 'let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband'.


----------



## DownByTheRiver (Jul 2, 2020)

That's a lot of trackers to manage. The guy will be sitting all day like a security guard scanning for runners. I'd sure as hell be running.


----------



## Hiner112 (Nov 17, 2019)

Divorce from polygamous relationships is going to be a hoot.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

BigDaddyNY said:


> I'm not sure how a 1+ year old thread came back.


A spammer dug it up to advertise their wares (since deleted). It took off from there.


----------



## pastasauce79 (Mar 21, 2018)

Hiner112 said:


> Divorce from polygamous relationships is going to be a hoot.


I can't imagine child support and alimony!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

pastasauce79 said:


> I can't imagine child support and alimony!


No different than sequential marriages. Besides, this doesn't change marriage laws, so alimony is still likely to only go a a state-recognized spouse.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Cletus said:


> Dr. Peter Venkman : This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
> Mayor : What do you mean, "biblical"?
> Dr. Raymond Stantz : What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
> Dr. Peter Venkman : Exactly.
> ...


@LisaDiane


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> On June 29, Somerville, MA quietly became one of the first cities in the nation – if not _the_ first – to recognize polyamorous domestic partnerships.
> 
> The historic move was a result of a few subtle language shifts. For example, instead of being defined as an “entity formed by two persons,” Somerville’s ordinance defines a domestic partnership as an “entity formed by people,” replaces “he and she” with “they,” replaces “both” with “all,” and contains other inclusive language.
> 
> I think this is a positive step, although still very limited by the nature of domestic partnership law. What are your opinions about this?


I missed this way back when and it looks like everyone else did as well.

Anyway I think it's a good thing and I would like to see poly marriage in any of it's flavours, for those who wish to do that become a universally legally recognised thing.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Why wouldn’t I want 5 wives telling me I drink too much? Or better yet, being turned down for sex by 5 women in one night. I think I’ll pass.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

RebuildingMe said:


> Or better yet, being turned down for sex by 5 women in one night. I think I’ll pass.


If that's how it goes for you, then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## BigDaddyNY (May 19, 2021)

RebuildingMe said:


> Why wouldn’t I want 5 wives telling me I drink too much? Or better yet, being turned down for sex by 5 women in one night. I think I’ll pass.


Think of it as more opportunities for a yes, maybe even more than one!


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

DownByTheRiver said:


> As much trouble as a marriage between two people is, I can't fathom why anyone would want to take vows with even more....


QFT.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## pastasauce79 (Mar 21, 2018)

Married but Happy said:


> No different than sequential marriages. Besides, this doesn't change marriage laws, so alimony is still likely to only go a a state-recognized spouse.


I know. I was joking. 

I know a girl who's dad has more than one wife, they are Muslim. They don't share the same house and they come and go from the US to the middle east. The wives enjoy a good lifestyle. They also get a break from dealing with the husband on a daily basis. 

They seem happy.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> @LisaDiane


Lolol!!!!!


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

RebuildingMe said:


> Why wouldn’t I want 5 wives telling me I drink too much? Or better yet, being turned down for sex by 5 women in one night. I think I’ll pass.


You could be one of many husbands, too.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Hiner112 said:


> Divorce from polygamous relationships is going to be a hoot.


Well you can only be married to one person as the law stands so any others involved are basically live in lover's.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

pastasauce79 said:


> I know. I was joking.
> 
> I know a girl who's dad has more than one wife, they are Muslim. They don't share the same house and they come and go from the US to the middle east. The wives enjoy a good lifestyle. They also get a break from dealing with the husband on a daily basis.
> 
> They seem happy.


I guess they are bought up to believe it's what they have to do.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I just don't get why anyone would think they aren't worth enough to have their own husband or wife.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> I just don't get why anyone would think they aren't worth having their own husband.


Fortunately, they are not required to convince you. 

I don't understand why anyone would willingly eat Brussels Sprouts either. To each their own.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

NYv


Cletus said:


> Fortunately, they are not required to convince you.
> 
> I don't understand why anyone would willingly eat Brussels Sprouts either. To each their own.


Many women are told it's what they should do. It's not their choice.


----------



## pastasauce79 (Mar 21, 2018)

Diana7 said:


> I guess they are bought up to believe it's what they have to do.


It's part of their society, culture, religion, politics. It's not something strange or foreign for them. They have adapted to that way of living for centuries.

You only hear about the extremists Muslims, but we don't really hear about the regular boring ones who are happy and peaceful.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Diana7 said:


> Many women are told it's what they should do. It's not their choice.


Compared to how many women who are told that a successful marriage can only be between two people of the opposite sex? 

Let's be clear. You are projecting your notion of what a good, decent, and respectful marriage must be, and cannot fathom anyone else thinking differently. Your or my lack of imagination is not their problem. We have multiple posters here on this very forum in polyamorous relationships. Would you have us discount their experiences as invalid because you cannot wrap your head around it?

Perhaps @As'laDain could chime in here.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> I just don't get why anyone would think they aren't worth enough to have their own husband or wife.


Some people are worth more than just settling for one.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Cletus said:


> Compared to how many women who are told that a successful marriage can only be between two people of the opposite sex?
> 
> Let's be clear. You are projecting your notion of what a good, decent, and respectful marriage must be, and cannot fathom anyone else thinking differently. Your or my lack of imagination is not their problem. We have multiple posters here on this very forum in polyamorous relationships. Would you have us discount their experiences as invalid because you cannot wrap your head around it?
> 
> Perhaps @As'laDain could chime in here.


Its sexist for women to be told they must share a husband. Rarely do men want to share a wife.
It's also bigamy if a person has 2 spouses.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Personal said:


> Some people are worth more than just settling for one.


Sadly that's mostly the men whose want 2 women. Most women are content with their one husband. Those who have good self esteem would never share a man with any other woman.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

LisaDiane said:


> I'm not sure what it means for the government to recognize poly relationships...why does it matter, as long as society does?
> 
> Is it for the legal protections or tax breaks? Or just to feel legitimate?


Um, yeah, it is all part of this _Age of Wokeness.

Peoples minds and values are never changed in one full sweep, but by incrementally feeding bad tasting lice down their throats.
Drip by drip, done by some slick, dip-spit sickoo's.

Once, un-natural things are made legal, the first, and tallest fence has been breached.
The end goal is that return to Sodom and Gomorrah._

Um, yes_.


Are Dee-_


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> I just don't get why anyone would think they aren't worth enough to have their own husband or wife.


That is hypergamy in action.

Women would rather share a high-value man with other women than have a lesser man of their own.

And some men simply aren’t able to get a woman of their own and so they opt to share one rather than be completely celibate.


----------



## Numb26 (Sep 11, 2019)

SunCMars said:


> Um, yeah, it is all part of this _Age of Wokeness.
> 
> Peoples minds and values are never changed in one full sweep, but by incrementally feeding bad tasting lice down their throats.
> Drip by drip, done by some slick, dip-spit sickoo's.
> ...


A Beta's wet dream


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> I guess they are bought up to believe it's what they have to do.


No it isn't, at least not for the American Muslims in this country who have converted.

Also, according to their laws, it can only happen if the husband is able to afford to keep them BOTH in the same lifestyle level. He cannot keep one with him in riches and the other in poverty, it must be EQUAL.


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Sadly that's mostly the men whose want 2 women. *Most women are content with their one husband.* Those who have good self esteem would never share a man with any other woman.


How can you say that after reading the infidelity boards on here...Lol!!


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> Its sexist for women to be told they must share a husband. Rarely do men want to share a wife.
> It's also bigamy if a person has 2 spouses.


How is it sexist? 

And in the American Muslim families I have seen, the first wife has to be in agreement before the husband is allowed another wife.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Sadly that's mostly the men whose want 2 women. Most women are content with their one husband. Those who have good self esteem would never share a man with any other woman.


A more accurate statement is men want ALL the women, but settle for what they can actually get. 

Women want a man that can provide her with ALL the resources and security and stability that she could ever dream of and then some, even if that means she has to share him with other women.

.....or if one man cannot provide all of that, she will get what she can from multiple men.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> That is hypergamy in action.
> 
> Women would rather share a high-value man with other women than have a lesser man of their own.
> 
> And some men simply aren’t able to get a woman of their own and so they opt to share one rather than be completely celibate.


Who are these women who would rather share a high value man with other women? I think that the vast majority of women would rather be single than have to share a man. 

Most women in these sorts of 'marriages' were bought up to expect this. 
They don't think they deserve their own husband and that's sad.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Who are these women who would rather share a high value man with other women? I think that the vast majority of women would rather be single than have to share a man.
> 
> Most women in these sorts of 'marriages' were bought up to expect this.
> They don't think they deserve their own husband and that's sad.


As some of the other posters have told you, that is your cultural perspective. 

Let’s put this into nuts and bolts terms. If Tom Brady or Channing Tatum or Blake Shelton or some other popular, rich celebrity or big billionaire business tycoon were to step up to the podium and announce that he wanted 6 wives and that each would be completely provided for and would have her own house and her own housekeeping and childcare staff and whatever cars and trips etc she wanted for life and that all was asked of them would be to accept that there would be other wives and he would come around once a week for sex from her and the other days he would be having sex with the others (and one day to rest and recharge 😆) 

There would be literally millions of women across the globe, including western Judeo-Christian society scrambling all over themselves doing the Pick Me! Dance.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

oldshirt said:


> There would be literally millions of women across the globe, including western Judeo-Christian society scrambling all over themselves doing the Pick Me! Dance.


****, pick me.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> As some of the other posters have told you, that is your cultural perspective.
> 
> Let’s put this into nuts and bolts terms. If Tom Brady or Channing Tatum or Blake Shelton or some other popular, rich celebrity or big billionaire business tycoon were to step up to the podium and announce that he wanted 6 wives and that each would be completely provided for and would have her own house and her own housekeeping and childcare staff and whatever cars and trips etc she wanted for life and that all was asked of them would be to accept that there would be other wives and he would come around once a week for sex from her and the other days he would be having sex with the others (and one day to rest and recharge 😆)
> 
> There would be literally millions of women across the globe, including western Judeo-Christian society scrambling all over themselves doing the Pick Me! Dance.


Maybe a small percentage. Mosy wouldn't be in the slightest bit interested. Lots of us are not interested in Hollywood celebrities.
Most want their own spouse and would never share.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

oldshirt said:


> That is hypergamy in action.
> 
> Women would rather share a high-value man with other women than have a lesser man of their own.





oldshirt said:


> Women want a man that can provide her with ALL the resources and security and stability that she could ever dream of and then some, even if that means she has to share him with other women.


Do you even bother to read this tripe that rolls off your fingers?


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Blondilocks said:


> Do you even bother to read this tripe that rolls off your fingers?


Just because it’s tripe doesn’t mean it’s not true.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Maybe a small percentage. Mosy wouldn't be in the slightest bit interested. Lots of us are not interested in Hollywood celebrities.
> Most want their own spouse and would never share.


I was using the celebrities as an example that people could identify, but you could apply it to any man of wealth. 

But let’s bring this back in to the topic of the thread - 

The reason many women in western societies eschew plural marriage is only one wife is legally recognized and protected,,, the others are on their own and hope the guy upholds his promises of support and protection and has no legal support if he defaults.

In Muslim and other societies that embrace polygamy legally, each wife has legal protection and support of the state and the general culture. 

So in the case of this municipality that recognizes polyamorous relationship, there is at least some legal recognition of the members of the relationship even though the state likely wouldn’t. 

So I’ll go back to position above, if the men of means and status noted above were to enter into a legally binding contract to provide support and protection and parental resources to these women, women would be coming out of the woodwork to sign up even though there would be other women involved. 

Now yes of course there will be some women that wouldn’t be into that. 

But my point is if it is a legally and socially binding contract (ie MARRIAGE) lots and lots of women would be climbing all over each to be one of the ones chosen.


----------

