Polyamory Approved

[Bernard Gui]

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

Edited July 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Damien the Leper]

Quote

“I’ve consistently felt that when society and government tries to define what is or is not a family, we’ve historically done a very poor job of doing so,” said Davis. “It hasn’t gone well, and it’s not a business that government should be in, so that guided my thinking on this.”

This is a solidly libertarian perspective I can get behind.

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

This is a solidly libertarian perspective I can get behind.

Sounds to me like Mr. Davis (a government official and supposed member of society) is setting about to define what is and is not a family as he sees it.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Damien the Leper]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sounds to me like Mr. Davis (a government official and supposed member of society) is setting about to define what is and is not a family as he sees it.

This is an absurd "I know you are but what am I!" type of accusation. No one's buying it.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What’s next in our Brave New World?

To quote Bill Murray , " dogs and cats living together " . 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

This is an absurd "I know you are but what am I!" type of accusation. No one's buying it.

Explain, please.

[esodije]

Didn’t Cleveland have a cousin named Polly?

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Explain, please.

Pretty sure it is an insinuation that you already have a definition of a family as you see it and are now accusing others of deviating from it.

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

To quote Bill Murray , " dogs and cats living together " . 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

This is a solidly libertarian perspective I can get behind.

To me, that quote sounds good in theory, but falls apart when you consider that the government is routinely asked to get involved in the business of the dissolution of a family. 

If we don't want the government being involved in the creation of families, or the legitimizing of families, then we need to keep them out of families period.  I disagree with the "I don't want the government to have a say in my family, until I'm trying to get divorced and I need the government to keep my ex-spouse from taking all of my money and to decide who my kids get to live with" stuff.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.  If you want a government free relationship then that should apply to every aspect of that relationship, including the ending of it.

[The Nehor]

My biggest concern is also having to divide up broken families and health insurance will be more than a little confusing. How much does your paycheck deduction go up if you have five spouses all covered by your insurance?

We can figure it out but I have my doubts these kind of relationships will prosper. Probably become the new thing you try in your early 20s before realizing it is a disaster and moving on to a more solid relationship.

[nuclearfuels]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

This is great news.

Custody, alimony, child support, etc. ideally will be divided according to corporate partnership law - based on when certain partners entered the partnership, how much capital they contributed, how much growth they were a part of/

As society continues it's decay, polygamy will eventually be legalized and re-instituted...and Libertarians and Socialists will get the anarchy they seek, it just might not end up being utopian.

“What win I, if I gain the thing I seek? A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy. Who buys a minute's mirth to wail a week? Or sells eternity to get a toy?

-Shakespeare, the Rape of Acretia

Edited July 3, 2020 by nuclearfuels

[Robert F. Smith]

Somerville, Massachusetts?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pretty sure it is an insinuation that you already have a definition of a family as you see it and are now accusing others of deviating from it.

Pretty sure that’s not what I had in mind.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Somerville, Massachusetts?

Quote

Wikipedia Somerville (ˈsʌmərvɪl/ SUM-ər-vil) is a city located directly to the northwest of Boston, and north of Cambridge, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States. As of 2019, the United States Census estimated the city to have a total population of 81,360 people. With an area of 4.11 square miles, the city has a density of 19,893 people per square mile, making it the most densely populated municipality in New England, and the 16th most densely populated incorporated municipality in the country. Somerville was established as a town in 1842, when it was separated from Charlestown. In 2006, the city was named the best-run city in Massachusetts by the Boston Globe. In 1972, in 2009, and again in 2015, the city received the All-America City Award. It is home to Tufts University, which has its campus along the Somerville and Medford border.

Yep. Somerville, MA. All-American City.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

FWIW, not everyone was roundly mocking those that said that legal recognition of plural relationships was and is still coming, and some of us have long supported marriage recognition for both same-sex and plural spouses....

On this board, I've posted for over a decade that I believe that any consenting adults who desire to enter into a plural marriage/relationship whether by personal choice or in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, should be able to do so without fear from government retaliation, and that their relationships should be subject to similar regulation (in terms of granting rights and enforcing accountability for the marriages and any dependents and children resulting therefrom).

Moreover, as the great great grandson of devoutly-LDS grandparents who themselves had to flee to the Mormon Mexican colonies because of the persecution they endured from the US Government over the plural marriages of my great great grandfather, I believe early leaders of the LDS Faith would have welcomed news that would have allowed them to practice their religion in peace, including plural marriage.

I'm always puzzled when I see Latter-day Saints decrying the decriminalization and/or legal recognition of plural relationships, not only because of our history and their belief that God can restore or rescind the practice of plural marriage at any time, but because they still believe that plural marital relationships being solemnized today (just one 'active' marriage at a time, here in mortality) can and will endure through the eternities.  As far as Latter-day Saint doctrine is concerned, plural marriage is inherently amoral, with the qualifying factor to be moral being whether God currently endorses or prohibits it's practice.

Hard to understand why today's LDS membership would view legal recognition of plural marriage between consenting adults as a bad thing...  in fact, I would think most could easily adopt the notion that God's hand could be guiding the US government (as He allegedly did in the founding of America and it's Constitution) to allow for the possibility that He could re-institute it's practice, should it become part of His plan, once again.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Daniel2

[california boy]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

This seems like such a hyprocitical post when there are other threads that constantly are screaming for the rights of religious freedom.  Especially coming from a member of the very Church that championed multiple spouse relationships as a commandment from God.  

I do have one question.  Do you think the Government did the right thing in persecuting those who practiced multiple spouse marriages in order to keep the definition of one man one women marriage?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

This seems like such a hyprocitical post when there are other threads that constantly are screaming for the rights of religious freedom.  Especially coming from a member of the very Church that championed multiple spouse relationships as a commandment from God.  

I do have one question.  Do you think the Government did the right thing in persecuting those who practiced multiple spouse marriages in order to keep the definition of one man one women marriage?

Hypocritical simply to note a current event that confirms a prediction made when marriage was redefined? I don’t agree....

Interesting question. 

In light of Jacob 2 and the arguments made by the Church at the time, it was legal, moral, and a matter of religious freedom, so IMO the government was wrong. Of course anyone who did not nor does not believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God would disagree.  Taking multiple partners without the formalities of legal marriage has been winked at by the same government and even celebrated in our popular culture. That seems hypocritical to me.

In the same light, anyone now advocating for anything other than marriage between one man and one woman is violating the law of God and are accountable to him. According to the modern prophets there will be adverse consequences for this, but of course those who do not believe there are prophets and eternal laws will disagree.

Quote

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

The Church has no legal authority to control who marries whom or what, but only to advocate for the truth and raise a warning voice. It does have the right to decide who gets to be a member.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

FWIW, not everyone was roundly mocking those that said that legal recognition of plural relationship is coming, and some of us have long supported marriage recognition for both same-sex and plural spouses....

On this board, I've posted for over a decade that I believe that any consenting adults who desire to enter into a plural marriage,/relationship whether by personal choice or in accordance with their sincerely-held religious beliefs, should be able to do so without fear from government retaliation, and that their relationships should be subject to similar regulation (in terms of granting rights and enforcing accountability for the marriages and any children resulting therefrom).

Moreover, as the great great grandson of devoutly-LDS grandparents who themselves had to flee to the Mormon Mexican colonies because of the persecution they endured from the US Government over the plural marriages of my great great grandfather, I believe early leaders of the LDS Faith would have welcomed news that would have allowed them to practice their religion, including plural marriage, in peace.

I'm always puzzled when I see Latter-day Saints decrying the decriminalization and/or legal recognition of plural relationships, not only because of our history and their belief that God can restore or rescind the practice of plural marriage at any time, but because they still believe that plural marital relationships being solemnized today (just one 'active' marriage at a time, here in mortality) can and will endure through the eternities.

Hard to see what today's LDS membership would view legal recognition of plural marriage between consenting adults as a bad thing...  in fact, I would think most could easily adopt the notion that God's hand could be guiding the US government (as He allegedly did in the founding of America and it's Constitution) to allow for the possibility that He could re-institute it's practice, should it become part of His plan, once again.

Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting comments.

Jacob 2 and the Family Proclamation explain it quite well. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting comments.

Jacob 2 and the Family Proclamation explain it quite well. 

What's interesting about Jacob 2, of course, is that whether one believes it's an ancient record or something more contemporary to Joseph Smith's time, it was written before Smith's subsequent reinstatement/restoration and subsequent LDS leaders' continuation of the practice of plural marriage in the 1800's, thus demonstrating that in LDS belief, God may command or rescind its practice according to His ways.

Additionally, as I see it, nothing in The Proclamation on the Family explicitly precludes the practice of polygamy today... that is, an LDS prophet could announce God has reinstated the practice of plural marriage and not a single sentence of The Proclamation would be made obsolete or need changing, even as it's currently written.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Daniel2

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

LDS prophet could announce God has reinstated the practice of plural marriage

That would  be a good way to lose a large %age of the membership.... and replace them with a whole different crowd. 😲

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Way back when ssm was legitimized some of us said redefining marriage would make many new things acceptable and that polyamory was next....and were roundly mocked for it. Here we go....

https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/20200701/somerville-votes-to-recognize-polyamorous-domestic-partnerships-it-is-one-of-first-in-nation

What’s next in our Brave New World?

Opens the door for legal polygamy.

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

That would  be a good way to lose a large %age of the membership.... and replace them with a whole different crowd. 😲

I'm not sure the Church would lose as many as a lot of us might presume.... prior to every major change in the Faith, I imagine many claimed they would leave the Faith behind of XYZ change were implemented, only to "fall in line behind the living prophet" once the change came.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Opens the door for legal polygamy.

Indeed. And other interesting arrangements. I don't think the Church will be hopping on the bandwagon any time soon.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. And other interesting arrangements. I don't think the Church will be hopping on the bandwagon any time soon.

I agree. Even lf legalize there is no way the LDS Church will institute plural marriage again.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

What's interesting about Jacob 2, of course, is that whether one believes it's an ancient record or something more contemporary to Joseph Smith's time, it was written before Smith's subsequent reinstatement/restoration and subsequent LDS leaders' continuation of the practice of plural marriage in the 1800's, thus demonstrating that in LDS belief, God may command or rescind its practice according to His ways.

Additionally, as I see it, nothing in The Proclamation on the Family explicitly precludes the practice of polygamy today... that is, an LDS prophet could announce God has reinstated the practice of plural marriage and not a single sentence of The Proclamation would be made obsolete or need changing, even as it's currently written.

Yes. I really cannot imagine Joseph plotting to lay the foundation for the practice of plural marriage that far in advance, but I'm sure there are those that say it is precisely what he did.

Certainly it could be reinstated if the conditions of Jacob 2 were met. 

EDIT: This sentence may need some tweaking:

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Bernard Gui