What's Your Opinion of Polyamory?

[The Kilted Heathen]

First of all, polyamory is very different than swinging.

I know the difference, and did not suggest that it was.

The emphasis in the first is on the ongoing relationship and in the second on the sex.

I didn't mention sex.

Why put in the effort? Why limit love to one person?

Monogamy isn't limiting love to one person. It's limiting devotion and loyalty to one person. If you love more than one person that's all you, but trying to devote to them equally? I think it's foolish.

In my mind (and ymmv)

YMMV?

I think a serious problem many people have is that they don't get everything out of their marriage that they want in life.

People don't get everything out of life that they want in life. It's called life, and no one said it would be easy.

But being in a monogamous marriage does not mean that you give up your interests for your partner. That's just as foolish as polyamory is to me, and polyamory isn't the factor that allows people to retain interests in a relationship; being an adult about things is.

 

[Polymath257]

I know the difference, and did not suggest that it was.

Fair enough. Many people do not.

I didn't mention sex.

Yet it is implicit in any discussion of non-monogamy

Monogamy isn't limiting love to one person. It's limiting devotion and loyalty to one person. If you love more than one person that's all you, but trying to devote to them equally? I think it's foolish.

Monogamy has nothing to do with loyalty or devotion. It has to do with sexual exclusivity. Polyamory both allows romantic love and sexuality with more than one person. And yes, it has loyalty and devotion. It has caring and compassion (when done right).

Why is loyalty and devotion to more than one such a difficult concept? In a different context, we can be loyal to more than one child, can we not? Why is it so different with romantic relationships? If anything, I think it is easier because all involved are adults and can make their own decisions.

YMMV?

Your Mileage May Vary.

People don't get everything out of life that they want in life. It's called life, and no one said it would be easy.

So why not make it easier when possible? Why not allow for more when possible? And doesn't this go double for someone you love? Should we not attempt to help our loved ones be happier and more fulfilled?

But being in a monogamous marriage does not mean that you give up your interests for your partner. That's just as foolish as polyamory is to me, and polyamory isn't the factor that allows people to retain interests in a relationship; being an adult about things is.

Yes, and being polyamorous requires being an adult to do it well. You have to take responsibility for your actions and emotions. You have to be willing to give freedom as well as get it. You have to be willing to give up ideas of 'owning' another person. And you have to be willing to really communicate instead of burying issues.

 

[QuestioningMind]

As I explained in other posts, I was not suggesting that ALL marriages are religious sacraments. I made a general statement, one which allows for exceptions.

In the USA, I think most, if not all, states are involved in the licensing all marriages although a minister can sign the license in most. The laws do vary so I'm not certain.

Yes, and when the states recognize a marriage it is issuing a civil license that the state recognizing as a secular marriage. It's the church that recognizes a marriage as a religious sacrament, not the state, so again, the state is NOT promoting religion by issuing marriage licenses.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Monogamy has nothing to do with loyalty or devotion. It has to do with sexual exclusivity.

A.) Seems you're the one focused on sex here. B.) WHAT!? Monogamy is entirely about loyalty and devotion to one person; that is literally the definition of it: "the fact or custom of being married to only one person at a particular time."

Why is loyalty and devotion to more than one such a difficult concept? In a different context, we can be loyal to more than one child, can we not?

I never said it was a difficult concept; I said it's my opinion that it's foolish. Your different context doesn't work because we're talking about romantic loyalty.

So why not make it easier when possible? Why not allow for more when possible? And doesn't this go double for someone you love? Should we not attempt to help our loved ones be happier and more fulfilled?

Why bother with dedicated relationships if you can't commit to just one person? You still haven't answered that question.

Yes, and being polyamorous requires being an adult to do it well. You have to take responsibility for your actions and emotions. You have to be willing to give freedom as well as get it. You have to be willing to give up ideas of 'owning' another person. And you have to be willing to really communicate instead of burying issues.

The accusation seems to read that monogamy is not about these things. Which I can assure you, it is just as much.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, and when the states recognize a marriage it is issuing a civil license that the state recognizing as a secular marriage. It's the church that recognizes a marriage as a religious sacrament, not the state, so again, the state is NOT promoting religion by issuing marriage licenses.

You're technically right but otherwise wrong in making your semantic argument. In the USA, when state governments issue marriage licenses only to a man and a woman, they are supporting the beliefs of the Christian majority. In fact, by outlawing polygamy, the states supported the beliefs of the Christian majority against those of a Christian minority.

Furthermore, if the purpose of the marriage statutes isn't to promote the Christian position on marriage, why have those laws? I can't think of a single reason that the state HAS to be involved in issuing marriage licenses; can you? The legal issues can be handled between the parties.

 

[Polymath257]

A.) Seems you're the one focused on sex here. B.) WHAT!? Monogamy is entirely about loyalty and devotion to one person; that is literally the definition of it: "the fact or custom of being married to only one person at a particular time."

And how is that relevant to loyalty or devotion? It is simply exclusivity.

I never said it was a difficult concept; I said it's my opinion that it's foolish. Your different context doesn't work because we're talking about romantic loyalty

And why is it so problematic to be romantically loyal to more than one person? What is so foolish about it?

Why bother with dedicated relationships if you can't commit to just one person? You still haven't answered that question.

Because you want that person in your life? Because you have no intention of ever wanting them NOT in your life? Because in this society health care is tied with marital status?

The accusation seems to read that monogamy is not about these things. Which I can assure you, it is just as much.

And, again, if monogamy works for you and you are happy with it, then go for it. That is no skin off of my nose. But why is someone *else* being in a non-monogamous relationship such an issue for you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

According to Dictionary.com, polyamory is the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.

I have no problem accepting polyamory, even in lifetime partnerships, because I see nothing immoral in an act unless there's harm done to a victim, an innocent person. If the people involved are happy with it, that's fine with me. This is a general rule for me, of course, there will be exceptional cases of immoral acts that derive from any kind of relationship.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

Your opinions?

I have no problem with whatever consenting adults do, as long as they're not harming anyone else. That being said, in my experience, polyamorous relationships are rarely healthy or stable, and are usually a sign of underlying issues with all those involved.

 

[joe1776]

I have no problem with whatever consenting adults do, as long as they're not harming anyone else. That being said, in my experience, polyamorous relationships are rarely healthy or stable, and are usually a sign of underlying issues with all those involved.

I don't think that we can judge from our own experience because the sample size is so small. It seems to me that romantic and sexual relationships of all kinds are risky but the reward is great when they work.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And how is that relevant to loyalty or devotion?

You're kidding, right? To enter into a monogamous relationship - typically marriage - is to commit (devote) your loyalty to a single person. It is only exclusivity is something is denied of you, but if you're the one forgoing outside romantic relationships, then it's not exclusivity.

And why is it so problematic to be romantically loyal to more than one person?

Yet again, I did not say it's problematic.

What is so foolish about it?

I have stated that it is my opinion that they are foolish, because I've never seen one work out well - or longer than a span of months, for that matter.

Because you want that person in your life? Because you have no intention of ever wanting them NOT in your life?

And you can't do that without a rule-bound relationship... why? It seems that your overcomplicating things with trying to box them into a relationship. And if the "agreement" is so free that there's no foundational relationship between all parties there, then what's the point?

Because in this society health care is tied with marital status?

What does this have to do with polygamy? Polygamy isn't technically legal, so it has no bearing on marital status in regards to health care.

But why is someone *else* being in a non-monogamous relationship such an issue for you?

It's not. You're the one making it an issue here. I just stated my opinion, as was asked for.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've seen monogamous marriages break up more than once. Are they nothing but trouble also?

I knew a guy (now deceased) who married and divorced two women twice each.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Seems you're the one focused on sex here.

A guy goes to a shrink who administers a series of Rorschach ink blot tests on him.

"Tell me what you see here," says the doctor.

"I see a nude woman," replied the patient.

"And here?"

"I see a couple making love."

"And here?"

"I see an orgy."

"Sir," the doctor concludes, "I think that you are overly preoccupied with sexual issues. You have a sex problem."

"I have a sex problem? You're the one with a desk full of dirty pictures."

 

[Milton Platt]

According to Dictionary.com, polyamory is the practice or condition of participating simultaneously in more than one serious romantic or sexual relationship with the knowledge and consent of all partners.

I have no problem accepting polyamory, even in lifetime partnerships, because I see nothing immoral in an act unless there's harm done to a victim, an innocent person. If the people involved are happy with it, that's fine with me. This is a general rule for me, of course, there will be exceptional cases of immoral acts that derive from any kind of relationship.

And on a related topic, I think it's morally wrong for the governments in the USA to give special rights to married couples. Marriage is a religious sacrament. Why is the government involved in promoting religion? Domestic agreements can handle the property issues when life partnerships are dissolved.

Your opinions?

Not interested in it, but have no objection to it.

 

[joe1776]

I knew a guy (now deceased) who married and divorced two women twice each.

Cause of death double pneumonia?

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're technically right but otherwise wrong in making your semantic argument. In the USA, when state governments issue marriage licenses only to a man and a woman, they are supporting the beliefs of the Christian majority. In fact, by outlawing polygamy, the states supported the beliefs of the Christian majority against those of a Christian minority.

Furthermore, if the purpose of the marriage statutes isn't to promote the Christian position on marriage, why have those laws? I can't think of a single reason that the state HAS to be involved in issuing marriage licenses; can you? The legal issues can be handled between the parties.

Need I point out that currently none of the 50 states ONLY issues marriage licenses to a man and a woman?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're technically right but otherwise wrong in making your semantic argument. In the USA, when state governments issue marriage licenses only to a man and a woman, they are supporting the beliefs of the Christian majority. In fact, by outlawing polygamy, the states supported the beliefs of the Christian majority against those of a Christian minority.

Furthermore, if the purpose of the marriage statutes isn't to promote the Christian position on marriage, why have those laws? I can't think of a single reason that the state HAS to be involved in issuing marriage licenses; can you? The legal issues can be handled between the parties.

Homosexual marriage is also legal in the US. The State has a vested interest in marriage as it's the basic unit of society, producing children and because of inheritance and other estate issues.

Monogamous marriage goes back to the pre-Christian Greeks and probably before them, in the West. Christians just upheld it. Monogamous societies are superior to polygamous ones. They have lower rates of violence, better outcomes for children and more rights for women.

Monogamy 'safer' than polygamy

 

[joe1776]

Need I point out that currently none of the 50 states ONLY issues marriage licenses to a man and a woman?

I somehow missed the ban as unconstitutional in 2015. So, read my statement as true until fairly recently.

 

[joe1776]

Homosexual marriage is also legal in the US.

Because of a Supreme Court ban, yes, otherwise it would have been banned in many states.

The State has a vested interest in marriage as it's the basic unit of society, producing children and because of inheritance and other estate issues.

There are forms to handle the legal issues available online and with lawyers for people who want to marry or not. There is no need for the state to issue licenses.

Monogamous marriage goes back to the pre-Christian Greeks and probably before them, in the West. Christians just upheld it.

And made it a religious sacrament in the fifth century. I have a prior post on it.

Monogamous societies are superior to polygamous ones. They have lower rates of violence, better outcomes for children and more rights for women.

This thread is about polyamory not polygamy which I mentioned only in passing as being made illegal by the Christian majority because of bias against a Christian minority.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have never tried it, so can't imagine the depth of the pitfalls.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because of a Supreme Court ban, yes, otherwise it would have been banned in many states.

There are forms to handle the legal issues available online and with lawyers for people who want to marry or not. There is no need for the state to issue licenses.

I already said there's a need for the State to be involved in marriage due having a vested interest in regulating the family unit, taxes, inheritance, estates and so on.

And made it a religious sacrament in the fifth century. I have a prior post on it.

Who cares? Religious and civil marriage are seperate things.

This thread is about polyamory not polygamy which I mentioned only in passing as being made illegal by the Christian majority because of bias against a Christian minority.

Polyamory is only practiced by a minority of naive liberals as an excuse to sleep around (going by what I see of it in practice), who probably don't care to marry all of their partners or wouldn't be the ones mostly partaking in plural marriage. Plural marriage has almost always been polygamous in nature. You give makes the opportunity to hoard females and they will take it. The idea that plural marriage would be some feminist liberal arrangement is a pipe dream. It would wreck the institution of marriage in the West as our laws aren't set up to handle it. Homosexual marriage was pretty easy to integrate, on the other hand.

 

[joe1776]

I already said there's a need for the State to be involved in marriage due having a vested interest in regulating the family unit, taxes, inheritance, estates and so on.

If the states aren't interested in the promotion of the institution of marriage itself, then you should be able to pick out a legal reason that cannot be handled just as well between the parties and without a marriage license. You can't do that.