# Polyamory/Polygamy



## KingVamp (Jan 16, 2013)

Source​


Spoiler











What seem to be the next movement for marriage equality and acceptance, has been on my mind for a while.Immoral on religions grounds? Immoral in general? Not immoral at all? If not immoral, can you handle or want more than one lover and/or spouse. Does it matter the morality of it all for law unless it harms people? Don't understand polygamy/polyamory? Is polyamory love possible or is it just lust? A smaller possibility for cheaters? Are you polyamorous? Nonreligious? Love is truly limitless or can it just be stretch and/or multiply more than we are use to? What is the limit? 4,5,30,80, 100 spouses? What is the average added spouses in a polyamorous relationship in the USA? Outside USA? Polygamy,polyandry or polygyny? What's are the chances of it being legalized at all in the USA? I'll be quiet now and let you discuss.​​Discuss! ​​​​


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Jan 16, 2013)

Well, if they're legalizing gay marriage, I don't see why not.


----------



## Gahars (Jan 16, 2013)

Statler: I think polygamy should be illegal.
Waldorf: And why's that?
Statler: Having the first wife is bad enough! 
Both: Dohohohohoho!

A lot of people are predicting that this is destined to be the next big cultural tug-of-war once the issue of gay marriage is settled once and for all. I guess this thread will be a head start on the upcoming arguments.

My two cents: People are complex, and a binary institution for marriage just doesn't represent everyone. If several, consenting adults (whatever the genders) want to enter into one marriage, I personally don't see the harm in it.


----------



## Santee (Jan 16, 2013)

Well seeing how high the divorce rate is in the United States, I don't see any reason why people should be allowed to have more wives. The only thing I can see it leading to is more divorces.


----------



## Nah3DS (Jan 16, 2013)

yay for thressomes!!!!


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2013)

Although it's not for me, I see no reason why polygamous marriages shouldn't be legal. However, I have reservations due to the misogynistic nature of many polygamous societies.

The Denobulans seemed to be able to do it right.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jan 16, 2013)

I don't think the divorce system needs any more encouragement. I'd be against this.


----------



## Lacius (Jan 16, 2013)

Hells Malice said:


> I don't think the divorce system needs any more encouragement. I'd be against this.


I'd be interested to see the effect of polygamy on divorce rates. It might arguably go down.


----------



## DrOctapu (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm a one man one woman/man/transman/transwoman/hermaphrodite/ostrich kind of guy, but if a bunch of consenting adults wanna bone regularly and live together and call it a marriage, they should do what feels right.


----------



## Prophet (Jan 16, 2013)

There are some practical issues that polygamy poses. Like taxes and insurance. Do I care if someone marries 5 women? Not at all. Do I think that an employer should be forced to extend health insurance to an employee's 5 wives? No, that seems ridiculous.


----------



## jurassicplayer (Jan 16, 2013)

Polygamy if one is a yandere and one is a tsundere. Otherwise, I'm fine with sticking to just one.


----------



## chavosaur (Jan 16, 2013)

I could never share myself, or my lover with someone else. Do I care if others do? Nah.
Personally though, I couldnt. Im too much of the jealous type, as is the woman im with XD


----------



## 1stClassZackFair (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm all for it. I'm still a young adult but if and when i ever get married I wouldn't mind getting married with some twins that i'm currently infatuated with.  If not I'll do the same Gene Simmons did for a while and live happily unmarried with them till death do us part.


----------



## porkiewpyne (Jan 16, 2013)

Like some said, if for me (and my spouse), I'd prefer a 1 to 1 relationship. Ie I don't want my wife getting another husband either. Call me selfish if you will but if she ain't happy with just me, then it's off.

But if some random person out there wants more, idgaf tbh. Unless you screw yourself over so bad, that you require welfare which will come out of our pockets through tax and what not.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 16, 2013)

NahuelDS said:


> yay for thressomes!!!!


Not sure if you are joking,but polygamy/polyamory doesn't necessarily mean 3some, 4some , etc.



DrOctapu said:


> I'm a one man one woman/man/transman/transwoman/hermaphrodite/ostrich kind of guy, but if a bunch of consenting adults wanna bone regularly and live together and call it *in* a marriage, they should do what feels right.


If you are going to support it then support it right. 



Prophet said:


> There are some practical issues that polygamy poses. Like taxes and insurance. Do I care if someone marries 5 women? Not at all. Do I think that an employer should be forced to extend health insurance to an employee's 5 wives? No, that seems ridiculous.


What's the difference between a employee with 5 wives and 5 employees each with a wife when dealing
with extended health insurance?



jurassicplayer said:


> Polygamy if one is a yandere and one is a tsundere. Otherwise, I'm fine with sticking to just one.


Lolwat? Taking this a bit seriously, why those traits?

Find it interesting that the ones that support it (except one) wouldn't have a set limit. Other words, you are fine with someone having 100 wives. Realistically tho, I didn't see that many people in the USA taking it that far.


----------



## DrOctapu (Jan 16, 2013)

To clarify, I'm mostly in favor of the idea that marriage is a pretty dumb concept in the first place, hence the "call it a marriage" thing. Doesn't make much of a difference to me whether or not they're married.


----------



## DaggerV (Jan 16, 2013)

Polygamy can and does work, but you best be fucking sure you are okay with the people involved and not doing it because you're wrapped around someone's finger. Immoral on religion ground, but religion isn't supposed to have a hold on state/federal legislation, despite the obvious.


----------



## Narayan (Jan 16, 2013)

AFAIK with muslims the rule was; If you have your first wife's consent and if you can support more than 1 family, then you are allowed to marry again.


----------



## Prophet (Jan 16, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> What's the difference between a employee with 5 wives and 5 employees each with a wife when dealing with extended health insurance?


 
Hypothetically, each of the 5 employees could have 5 wives. That would be 25 wives that an employer would be obligated to insure, as oppose to merely the 5 wives (one per man) that they are currently obligated to insure. That would be a tremendous financial burden for a business and one which I don't believe they should have to cover. If you want to have multiple spouses, the burden should be on the individuals involved to ensure that they can afford a polygamous lifestyle.

As I alluded to previously I find nothing wrong with polygamy objectively, I just don't think that tax breaks and insurance benefits can be extended to polygamous families for practical reasons.


----------



## DaggerV (Jan 16, 2013)

Shouldn't have tax break for the married anyways, coming from a married.


----------



## jurassicplayer (Jan 16, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> Lolwat? Taking this a bit seriously, why those traits?


One can't help but fall in love with you, the other can't fall out of it .


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 16, 2013)

Tell me one reason as to why it's bad and that it can't be resolved easily.

Seriously, why not? There's really no negatives at all except for the kids being confused, and then maybe douche bags out there picking on the kids, but that's it. I think it should be legal already to be honest. One guy or woman wants to marry two partners, what changes, the persons shouldn't have sex with other people again?

Even then, a bunch of porn stars are married, have kids, and they still do porn (Tori Black being a great example). If you're not going to legalize polygamy, then that shouldn't be legal either. There's really no downside at all and it can't affect other people in any single way.


----------



## Sychophantom (Jan 16, 2013)

I was married once. Didn't want her, let alone more than one.

Polyamory is just trying to have your cake and eat it too. Maybe it works for you, but usually ends up with jealousy issues.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jan 16, 2013)

Why is this a thread?

And why do we have creepy Adventure Time fan art?

EDIT: But not to be a feminist here, but it does really just feel like a male superiority complex. Having one man served by many wives does feel like female subjugation to an extent.

Also I'd say that it doesn't really feel like a true relationship. A relationship is between two people who both love each other fully. To have one person say "Well I love someone else as well" makes it feel like one party is giving all their love in this relationship while the other is just kinda half assing it.


----------



## Engert (Jan 16, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I'd be interested to see the effect of polygamy on divorce rates. It might arguably go down.


 
There is no reason and evidence to support this claim. Where do you base this, on a hunch? What are you, crazy?


----------



## Narayan (Jan 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> EDIT: But not to be a feminist here, but it does really just feel like a male superiority complex. Having one man served by many wives does feel like female subjugation to an extent.


May have something to do with who's giving birth. I mean, 1 female and 3 males, when the child comes out, who's the father?


----------



## emigre (Jan 16, 2013)

Narayan said:


> May have something to do with who's giving birth. I mean, 1 female and 3 males, when the child comes out, who's the father?


----------



## Narayan (Jan 16, 2013)

emigre said:


>


I imagine you, guild and maybe soulx, shares a girl and make her pregnant.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 16, 2013)

The problem with polygamy is that you immediately think "One husband - many wives" - it doesn't necessarily work the other way on the mental level in many societies, and it probably should since hey! Equality and all that.


----------



## emigre (Jan 16, 2013)

Narayan said:


> I imagine you, guild and maybe soulx, shares a girl and make her pregnant.


 
Like fuck I would gang bang a girl with soulsnatcher.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Why is this a thread?
> 
> And why do we have creepy Adventure Time fan art?
> 
> ...


Why not?

Looking at the other side of polygamy and found that. I was like "why not?". 

I guess you feel it's a female superiority complex and male subjugation the other way around? What about if everyone marriage to each other?

What if they give each/the other consent to look for another before hand?



Narayan said:


> May have something to do with who's giving birth. I mean, 1 female and 3 males, when the child comes out, who's the father?


We do have the technology to figure that out, but ideally, they will all treat her/him like their own child.


Narayan said:


> I imagine you, guild and maybe soulx, shares a girl and make her pregnant.







emigre said:


> Like fuck I would gang bang a girl with soulsnatcher.


You don't have do it at the same time. You would do so with Guild?


----------



## Gahars (Jan 16, 2013)

I want to address the "Divorce Rate" argument since no one else has.

First of all, the divorce rate is on the decline. It spiked around the Women's Liberation Movement in the 60s, when many women felt empowered enough to finally leave their marriages behind. Since then, the divorce rate has stabilized and lowered; marriages now are lasting longer than marriages ten or twenty years ago. Secondly, the divorce rate for first marriages isn't actually all that high - the likelihood of divorce increases greatly with each new marriage, and these failed marriages get included in the statistics for all marriages. That skews the results a bit. Finally, the divorce rate still isn't _that_ high. It's more frequent than most would like, but it isn't the epidemic that pundits in the media might want you to believe.

Also, divorce isn't a bad thing. Now, bad divorces can be heartbreaking affairs, but not all divorces have to be (or are) bad. 100 or so years ago, when divorce was still something of a taboo, if you were in an unhappy marriage, well, tough shit. You and your spouse had to suffer together for the rest of your lives, each resenting the other. Bitter fights would often be the norm, rather than the exception. That's not exactly a happy environment for children to grow up in.

Divorce is just a reflection of human nature - we all make mistakes. Finding someone to spend the rest of your life with is a tough choice - and hey, if you and your spouse realize that it isn't working out, things can still end amicably. People are no longer trapped or boxed in - and while growing up with two single parents may not be "traditional" for children, it sure beats the alternative.

So yeah. I know I've rambled a bit, but my points is that the whole divorce thing is a non-issue - or at the very least, not enough of one to justify condemning polyamorous relationships.


----------



## T3GZdev (Jan 16, 2013)

2 adults should have freedom but, there should be limits. 
"oh im an adult therefor i can take like 20 women & have like 90 babies."
we don't live in tribes & colonies anymore. 
that kinda stuff is dangerous now & costly the economy. food stamps x20 + number of kids? o.O

maybe in some countries its ok, but living in some random 2 bedroom apartment trying to achieve this in america. >.>

also its kinda hard finding a girl as if, now old man Jenkins over there hogging them all? lol


----------



## pasc (Jan 16, 2013)

I don't see a benefit that would arise by legalizing it...


----------



## BORTZ (Jan 16, 2013)

This is something about being able to own multiple shapes or something, right? Like i can buy a square AND a triangle now?


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 16, 2013)

Prophet said:


> Hypothetically, each of the 5 employees could have 5 wives. That would be 25 wives that an employer would be obligated to insure, as oppose to merely the 5 wives (one per man) that they are currently obligated to insure. That would be a tremendous financial burden for a business and one which I don't believe they should have to cover. If you want to have multiple spouses, the burden should be on the individuals involved to ensure that they can afford a polygamous lifestyle.
> 
> As I alluded to previously I find nothing wrong with polygamy objectively, I just don't think that tax breaks and insurance benefits can be extended to polygamous families for practical reasons.


 
I see your point. Maybe a set coverage meant for polygamous families, but not a additional coverage to each and every spouse.


DaggerV said:


> Shouldn't have tax break for the married anyways, coming from a married.


Why?


jurassicplayer said:


> One can't help but fall in love with you, the other can't fall out of it .


Idk. Yandere seem like a highly jealous type or at least most likely be one. Has
more of a chance of not ending well. I think if you are going there, you are better
off with two tsunderes. 



ShadowSoldier said:


> Tell me one reason as to why it's bad and that it can't be resolved easily.


Laws?
Not enough female/male to go around?
To many spouses to one person/group?


pasc said:


> I don't see a benefit that would arise by legalizing it...


Allow polyamorous people to marry each other?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 16, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> Laws?
> Not enough female/male to go around?
> To many spouses to one person/group?


 
Laws can be changed easily.

And not enough people to go around? Using that is like saying that each person HAS to get married to a different person. Again, there's no real valid reason why a person can't have multiple spouses. There's no negative benefits at all.


----------



## dickfour (Jan 16, 2013)

People can do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes but that doesn't mean the government has to put their stamp of approval and legally recognise such unions and that doesn't mean I have to approve of it but yea you're free to do whatever the fuck you want


----------



## DaggerV (Jan 16, 2013)

@Kingvamp - > I've always found the notion stupid. If anything life becomes easier with two people, add children in, sure stuff changes, but it adds incentives to get married in a world where it's lost it's meaning for most part.



Edit: Or country, I dare say, the rest of world fares better possibly.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jan 16, 2013)

Too many questions. I think if all sides are fine with it, it's fine, as that seems fair to me.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jan 17, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> EDIT: But not to be a feminist here, but it does really just feel like a male superiority complex. Having one man served by many wives does feel like female subjugation to an extent.
> 
> Also I'd say that it doesn't really feel like a true relationship. A relationship is between two people who both love each other fully. To have one person say "Well I love someone else as well" makes it feel like one party is giving all their love in this relationship while the other is just kinda half assing it.


 
Oh good you wrote what I wanted to but was just too lazy to.
But I suppose we have to remember that marrying for love seems to be on the decline.

Marriage is the union between two people. It's a special bond you share, it's a commitment. I feel a person greatly tarnishes that 'commitment' when you tell the girl you love "gosh I love you with all my heart" and then turn around and say "gosh I love you with all my heart" to the girl behind you. I dunno, that's how I feel about it. Gender, race, and (to some degree) age really shouldn't hinder two people in love from getting married. However, polygamy is a whole other ballgame.

People need to remember this isn't just about sex...you're committing yourself to two or more partners to love, cherish and support. Jealousy is going to start playing into this at some point. I see nothing but bad things happening to a MAJORITY of polygamist marriages. Obviously not all will fail, but i'm quite certain a majority would.
If people want to be together with multiple partners, that's cool, but it's just not practical to legalize it officially for marriage.


----------



## leic7 (Jan 17, 2013)

What would a polygamous marriage look like, anyway? Multiple individuals locked in a single marriage? I don't think that would work for the majority of non-monogamous/open relationships. If A has partners B, C, D, and B is in relationships with A, E, F, and if they all decided to get married, there would be 5 separate one-to-one marriages:
- a marriage between A and B
- a marriage between A and C
- a marriage between A and D
- a marriage between B and E
- a marriage between B and F
...but not a single marriage involving A~F. In all likelihood, C, D, E and F probably don't even know each other!


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 17, 2013)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Too many questions. I think if all sides are fine with it, it's fine, as that seems fair to me.


I didn't expect everyone to answer all of them, just to get them thinking.


ShadowSoldier said:


> Laws can be changed easily.
> 
> And not enough people to go around? Using that is like saying that each person HAS to get married to a different person. Again, there's no real valid reason why a person can't have multiple spouses. There's no negative benefits at all.


Do you really believe laws can change easily for *unlimited* amount of spouses?

Couldn't it possibly take away people from the ones not marrying?




Hells Malice said:


> But I suppose we have to remember that marrying for love seems to be on the decline.





DaggerV said:


> in a world where it's lost it's meaning for most part.


On what bases do you think/say this? Sure people can marry just for the benefits, but I wasn't
aware on how many people do this. I would hate to be in a marriage with someone (or some people if I change my mind and/or preference) I have no feelings for when I could be with my true love/lovers.
Why marry someone you don't have feelings for just to get benefits, when you can get both?What are all these people fighting for marriage for? Just benefits? Iirc, civil union gives you that.



Hells Malice said:


> Marriage is the union between two people. It's a special bond you share, it's a commitment. I feel a person greatly tarnishes that 'commitment' when you tell the girl you love "gosh I love you with all my heart" and then turn around and say "gosh I love you with all my heart" to the girl behind you. I dunno, that's how I feel about it. Gender, race, and (to some degree) age really shouldn't hinder two people in love from getting married. However, polygamy is a whole other ballgame.


Marriage was supposedly between a man and a women by the same race even farther back if I may added,but that aside...
The person can be up front that they are polygamist/polyamorous.

So you are saying he or she can't love more then one person with all his or her heart?
Can you love someone that doesn't fulfill everything for you?
Couldn't your lover encourage you to look for another?

You are to talk and get consent with your spouse(s) before you act on anything anyway.

Also again.


KingVamp said:


> I guess you feel it's a female superiority complex and male subjugation the other way around? What about if everyone marriage to each other?
> 
> What if they give each/the other consent to look for another before hand?





Hells Malice said:


> People need to remember this isn't just about sex...you're committing yourself to two or more partners to love, cherish and support. Jealousy is going to start playing into this at some point. I see nothing but bad things happening to a MAJORITY of polygamist marriages. Obviously not all will fail, but i'm quite certain a majority would.
> If people want to be together with multiple partners, that's cool, but it's just not practical to legalize it officially for marriage.


Jealousy plays into everything at some point. You see a "MAJORITY" failing, on what bases?
So you feel they can show "love, cherish and support" and yet you say it isn't practical?

Monogamy doesn't seem to be working for 1/2 population or at least a large amount of people
for whatever reason. Can they do worse? Can this possibly work for them?



leic7 said:


> What would a polygamous marriage look like, anyway? Multiple individuals locked in a single marriage? I don't think that would work for the majority of non-monogamous/open relationships. If A has partners B, C, D, and B is in relationships with A, E, F, and if they all decided to get married, there would be 5 separate one-to-one marriages:
> - a marriage between A and B
> - a marriage between A and C
> - a marriage between A and D
> ...


I don't see the problem with working out/with that involvement. They have to know each other to some degree since they would all need to give consent to each other. Otherwise, it's cheating.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 17, 2013)

its a persons decision who they want to be with. if that makes some people lonely, oh well. you cant force someone to not be with a couple just because itll make someone else lonely.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 17, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> its a persons decision who they want to be with. if that makes some people lonely, oh well. you cant force someone to not be with a couple just because itll make someone else lonely.


 
The problem with that statement is that a couple is a pair.  Two.

I don't agree with polygamy at all.  If you're going to devote yourself to some*one*, it ought to just be *one* person.  I would not, as is the same of many others, not want a girlfriend going around and fucking five other guys whenever she feels like it.  Likewise, most women don't want a guy who goes off and fucks five other girls whenever they feel like it.

One person, or a few people, are going to be getting the shit end of the stick in that relationship.  Take that as you will.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 17, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> The problem with that statement is that a couple is a pair. Two.
> 
> I don't agree with polygamy at all. If you're going to devote yourself to some*one*, it ought to just be *one* person. I would not, as is the same of many others, not want a girlfriend going around and fucking five other guys whenever she feels like it. Likewise, most women don't want a guy who goes off and fucks five other girls whenever they feel like it.
> 
> One person, or a few people, are going to be getting the shit end of the stick in that relationship. Take that as you will.


 
Except there are people out there who dont view it as just fucking and actually dont mind if say the man sleeps with his other girlfriend.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 17, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Except there are people out there who dont view it as just fucking and actually dont mind if say the man sleeps with his other girlfriend.


 
Nor do I view it as just that, but that's a very extreme and real scenario and will hit close to home for a lot of people.  What amount of people really are okay with their significant other sleeping around?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Jan 17, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Nor do I view it as just that, but that's a very extreme and real scenario and will hit close to home for a lot of people. What amount of people really are okay with their significant other sleeping around?


 
Aside from pornstars i know, a few of my friends. And if you're going to say thats what it mostly is, then I can say you and your girlfriend are just together for the sex along with everybody  else, and I'd be just as right as you are.


----------



## KingVamp (Jan 17, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> its a persons decision who they want to be with. if that makes some people lonely, oh well. you cant force someone to not be with a couple just because itll make someone else lonely.


So you didn't mind people looking for a lover to be lonely for the rest of their life?

Harsh... 

Of course I'm talking extreme here. I didn't think if polygamy was legal in the USA, it wouldn't
get to the point. Someone may not find a lover regardless, sadly.




Sicklyboy said:


> The problem with that statement is that a couple is a pair. Two.
> 
> I don't agree with polygamy at all. If you're going to devote yourself to some*one*, it ought to just be *one* person. I would not, as is the same of many others, not want a girlfriend going around and fucking five other guys whenever she feels like it. Likewise, most women don't want a guy who goes off and fucks five other girls whenever they feel like it.
> 
> One person, or a few people, are going to be getting the shit end of the stick in that relationship. Take that as you will.


I didn't think you are quite getting it. That sounds more like a open marriage, which didn't agree with.
Open marriage seem to contradict the meaning/point of marriage. Don't like/agree with the idea of swinging
either.

With polygamy, you have to at least have consent from your partner before looking for another and that doesn't
necessary mean you do anything sexual with the new partner before his/her marriage,if they get to that point,anyway.

Polygamy is more than just sex. You are not randomly just out and about looking for sexual satisfaction.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 17, 2013)

I can already see this as an argument I'm going to lose over one statement I made because it'll be a "well if you don't like it don't do it" situation.

Edit - for what it's worth, I didn't know people here couldn't read between the lines.  Or posts I already made.  No *shit* relationships/marriages, monogamous/polygamous aren't all about sex.  I'm in a relationship, and have been for a while.  We're not even in the same state as one another to have sex on any sort of an even semi-frequent basis, but I'm in a relationship.  I was, as I pointed out a post back, making a remark about one facet to relationships and marriages that with near certainty, almost every single one experiences, most quite frequently up to a certain point, and that in almost all societies and relationships within them, both people in the relationship do not want to share the other.


----------



## CCNaru (Jan 17, 2013)

Gay Poligamy - Supported
Lesbian Poligamy - Not Supported
Poligamy (One Woman, Lots of Men) - Supported
Poligamy (One Man, Lots of Women) - Opposed


----------



## FAST6191 (Jan 17, 2013)

Some interesting ideas expressed thus far. I would love to construct a post using the phrase "romantic notions of marriage" but it would be forced so I shall leave it in "[five minutes after an event] you know what would have been funny?" territory. I do have great problems with marriage being considered as useful notion but around here it is rapidly losing any effective power it might have had (indeed my accountant would tell me don't do it- changed from a couple of years ago when "there are serious potential downsides" would have been the advice)- stealth changes are still changes.
I have no great problem with a free for all though I would agree many institutions are built on probabilities associated with simple pairing and it could get tricky there.

Interesting video


It covers an idea called effective polygamy which looking at dynamics seems to be something of the case anyway.


----------



## osaka35 (Jan 17, 2013)

It'll stay illegal, in the US anyway, because it'd be a headache for the government. Plus, it would make the politician look less "christian", so they're not going near it.

That being said, of course it's perfectly fine. There's zero immoral or wrong about it. If it became socially acceptable to do so, then you'd find people would find it odd to think of it as immoral. Marriage is a social thing, and the concept about how it "aught to be" changes with the generations.


----------



## leic7 (Jan 17, 2013)

@KingVamp
People in polygamous relationships don't have to know each other. For example, if I was in a polygamous relationship with my partner, both of us were free to date other people besides each other... I wouldn't necessarily know the people (s)he's dating, unless I specifically asked about them. So are you saying, when/if he or she decides to marry one of them, all the others and me and all of my lovers should automatically be included in their marriage? This doesn't make sense... What if I just wanted to marry my partner...without joining their existing marriage, but to create a separate marriage? 'Cause this would reflect the nature of our relationships better -- I'm committed to my partner, but not necessarily to my partner's spouse(s).



Sicklyboy said:


> I can already see this as an argument I'm going to lose over one statement I made because it'll be a "well if you don't like it don't do it" situation.
> 
> Edit - for what it's worth, I didn't know people here couldn't read between the lines. Or posts I already made. No *shit* relationships/marriages, monogamous/polygamous aren't all about sex. I'm in a relationship, and have been for a while. We're not even in the same state as one another to have sex on any sort of an even semi-frequent basis, but I'm in a relationship. I was, as I pointed out a post back, making a remark about one facet to relationships and marriages that with near certainty, almost every single one experiences, most quite frequently up to a certain point, and that in almost all societies and relationships within them, both people in the relationship do not want to share the other.


You're extrapolating the experiences of people in polygamous relationships from your own narrow experiences. You're basically saying polygamous arrangements can't be happy because *you* can't be happy in them. But some people actually don't mind sharing their partners. Not everyone is a jealous, possessive lover with an insecurity complex and abandonment issues. Personally I don't have the energy required to invest in 2 relationships, but that's a limitation of physical resources and not an emotional limitation. I'm sure there are more energetic people out there who can pull this off. If my partner happens to be one of them who can do 2 relationships at the same time, I don't think I'd mind, as long as they're happy.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jan 17, 2013)

leic7 said:


> [...]You're basically saying polygamous arrangements can't be happy because *you* can't be happy in them.[...]


 
Which is exactly why I said:



Sicklyboy said:


> I can already see this as an argument I'm going to lose over one statement I made because it'll be a "well if you don't like it don't do it" situation.[...]


 
And me bowing out now.


----------



## Lanlan (Jan 17, 2013)

Polygamy is sick as fuck, and I don't believe polyamory is right either. Sure, you can love multiple people, but can someone be in love with two people an equal amount so as to not cause problems?


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 4, 2013)

CCNaru said:


> Gay Poligamy - Supported
> Lesbian Poligamy - Not Supported
> Poligamy (One Woman, Lots of Men) - Supported
> Poligamy (One Man, Lots of Women) - Opposed


Base on what reasoning? 




leic7 said:


> @KingVamp
> People in polygamous relationships don't have to know each other. For example, if I was in a polygamous relationship with my partner, both of us were free to date other people besides each other... I wouldn't necessarily know the people (s)he's dating, unless I specifically asked about them. So are you saying, when/if he or she decides to marry one of them, all the others and me and all of my lovers should automatically be included in their marriage? This doesn't make sense... What if I just wanted to marry my partner...without joining their existing marriage, but to create a separate marriage? 'Cause this would reflect the nature of our relationships better -- I'm committed to my partner, but not necessarily to my partner's spouse(s).


I never read or seen ( through videos) of a relationship like that, with one not knowing the other spouse/partner.

If I somehow get into this type relationship, I would at least want to know who is the other person.




Lanlan said:


> Polygamy is sick as fuck, and I don't believe polyamory is right either. Sure, you can love multiple people, but can someone be in love with two people an equal amount so as to not cause problems?


Some seem to worked it out base on stories I read, tho I didn't know any in person.


Do you (tempers) know someone in this relationship?


----------



## Shinigami357 (Feb 4, 2013)

There's a reason Lust and Greed are two of the seven [not quite] deadly sins. People can and will fuck this up. I mean, sure, there might be some who can live with a little bit of friction [no innuendo intended], but I'd say human nature would just be too overwhelming for any kind of polygamous setup.

I mean, if humans were apathetic, and cold and coupled only for procreation [like 99% or so of animals do] then sure, why not? That's how nature is. Sucks that humans are a little more complex, then [just a little... let's not get ahead of ourselves].

Love is really what fucks this up. On the one hand, you can't have any one person be constantly in love with two or more people at roughly the same levels. It's not possible, because humans play favorites, with every single freaking thing. If the amount of love is unbalanced, everything else would be unbalanced.

On the other hand, love really isn't that shining example of human virtue we all think it is. Remember I alluded to Lust and Greed? That's human nature, and humans can come to love their nature, however twisted it is. Like I said, love isn't this huge, golden equalizer everyone thinks it is. Love, when misdirected, is very, very destructive, and the more people who get caught up in it, the worse it's gonna get. [don't even get me started on people who love their Wrath]

So the bottom line here is this. People can and will fuck this up for the simplest reason: they're human. We fuck up simple things, do you expect complicated, interwoven relationships to work?


----------



## Chary (Feb 4, 2013)

Eh. I dunno. I'd feel quite awkward if I were married and there was another spouse to deal with.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 4, 2013)

Chary said:


> Eh. I dunno. I'd feel quite awkward if I were married and there was another spouse to deal with.


I don't think whether or not one feels awkward doing something is reason enough to have that thing be illegal for everyone else.


----------



## Chary (Feb 4, 2013)

Lacius said:


> I don't think whether or not one feels awkward doing something is reason enough to have that thing be illegal for everyone else.


I never said it should be illegal.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 4, 2013)

Chary said:


> I never said it should be illegal.


You said you don't know if polygamy should be legalized and cited your potential subjective awkwardness towards it as the con.


----------



## smile72 (Feb 4, 2013)

I say, sure if everyone agrees to it!


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 27, 2013)

Do you agree with them?


----------



## DinohScene (Mar 1, 2013)

If their all happy about it in the relationship then why not?

Live and let live!


----------



## 2ndApex (Mar 1, 2013)

Let consenting adults do what they want, my personal dissent or approval is irrelevant to the actions of other people.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 1, 2013)

I really don't have strong feelings for or against Polygamy.
Personally I really don't care what people do as long as everyone involved are all adults, aren't hurting anyone, or forcing anyone to do something against their will.


----------



## LightyKD (Mar 1, 2013)

Yes. Something about Beach Boys lyrics and "two girls for every boy"! Yeah... I'm a perv


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (Mar 1, 2013)

Doing or not doing something based on religion is ALWAYS stupid, in as much as most of religion is nonsense to begin with. Why base an important part of your life on something that even the poorly educated can prove is full of flaky.

But consider this. It is all fine and dandy till you look at it from the other side.

Plural marriage does NOT need to mean you get t dip your wick in several wives. Why can't it be a woman possessing several men to play with?

And then you realize the REAL problem with plural marriage. Maybe you do NOT want to be known as other than the first round draft pick eh.

Jealousy is a real problem when it is YOU that is not in demand. Because, why should it be all about you eh.

It is common for males to think 3 some equals a guy and 2 girls and man is it cool to watch a woman do another woman while you are screwing one of them as well.

But, can you put yourself in THIS picture. Imagine YOU getting a mouthful of nice warm cumshot as you suck off male number two while your tool is keeping the woman happy. Oh but you are not bisexual? The thing is, most guys just assume two women want to do each other just because the guy thinks it would be 'hot'.

I am not assuming there are no girls here at GBAtemp, I am just not planning to fret over the numbers. I have replied on the basis this will be read mainly be cliche young males.


----------



## Arras (Mar 1, 2013)

Panzer Tacticer said:


> Doing or not doing something based on religion is ALWAYS stupid, in as much as most of religion is nonsense to begin with. Why base an important part of your life on something that even the poorly educated can prove is full of flaky.
> 
> But consider this. It is all fine and dandy till you look at it from the other side.
> 
> ...


Polygamy != threesome
Also note how it says "consenting adults". Said consenting adults know (or should know) what they are getting into.


----------



## tatripp (Mar 1, 2013)

A lot of people on this site are very sick and twisted.


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (Mar 1, 2013)

Arras said:


> Polygamy != threesome
> Also note how it says "consenting adults". Said consenting adults know (or should know) what they are getting into.


 
Your assertion = you don't know latin among your other failings 

Go back to playing your games son, you are clearly out of your depth here.


----------



## Arras (Mar 1, 2013)

Panzer Tacticer said:


> Your assertion = you don't know latin among your other failings
> 
> Go back to playing your games son, you are clearly out of your depth here.


Fun fact: I took Latin for three years. Also there's this nice thing called taking turns.
Edit: Also I'm 80% sure that's Greek and not Latin.


----------



## Fishaman P (Mar 1, 2013)

I don't see it as immoral.

I could just see a massive spike in cheating spouses and jealousy, not to mention sky-high child support.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Mar 1, 2013)

Speaking as someone who has actually been in a polyamorous relationship: they're really fucking difficult. 
Even if you don't consider yourself to be a jealous person, the chances of one of the three or more people involved having jealousy issues is pretty high. 
It was mentioned earlier that most polyamorous relationships will fail. And they will. You want proof? How many girlfriends/boyfriends have you had in your life? And how many have you married. Most relationships fail, whether they're monogamous, polyamorous, or something else. 
So I'm all for polyamory, and if you can make it work then that's great, but I see no reason to make it legally binding.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 1, 2013)

Panzer Tacticer said:


> Doing or not doing something based on religion is ALWAYS stupid, in as much as most of religion is nonsense to begin with. Why base an important part of your life on something that even the poorly educated can prove is full of flaky.


Future disclaimer- While you can say where you got your views from religion , experience or a combination of the two, this isn't a religion debate. Please didn't try to turn it into one.


Panzer Tacticer said:


> But consider this. It is all fine and dandy till you look at it from the other side.
> 
> Plural marriage does NOT need to mean you get t dip your wick in several wives. Why can't it be a woman possessing several men to play with?
> 
> ...


No type of relationship is perfect.

Either their hypocrites or they don't agree with polyamory/plolygamy in general. In fact there are stories about that. MFM

(first round draft)
You mean they didn't want to be known as the first wife?

Jealousy come from outside the relationships too.

Just no comment. 

Why would you stay in a relationship that would force you like that. minus masochist of course.
I like how you assume that the men that are into that stuff (at least in general here) would force their heterosexually wives into doing that.

Then as this person already pointed out.

This.


Arras said:


> Polygamy != threesome
> Also note how it says "consenting adults". Said consenting adults know (or should know) what they are getting into.


and
this.


Arras said:


> Also there's this nice thing called taking turns.





tatripp said:


> A lot of people on this site are very sick and twisted.


Are you talking about the poll or thread?



Fishaman P said:


> I could just see a massive spike in cheating spouses and jealousy, not to mention sky-high child support.


Wouldn't it be the opposite? Less room or motive to cheat. Jealousy exist outside
a monogamous relationship, wouldn't it be the same? Not everyone is going to have child after
child, only certain groups do that. You can have a lot of children in monogamous couples too.



Vulpes Abnocto said:


> Speaking as someone who has actually been in a polyamorous relationship: they're really fucking difficult.
> Even if you don't consider yourself to be a jealous person, the chances of one of the three or more people involved having jealousy issues is pretty high.
> It was mentioned earlier that most polyamorous relationships will fail. And they will. You want proof? How many girlfriends/boyfriends have you had in your life? And how many have you married. Most relationships fail, whether they're monogamous, polyamorous, or something else.
> So I'm all for polyamory, and if you can make it work then that's great, but I see no reason to make it legally binding.


So base on your experience, jealousy is higher? I see. A FMF or MFM? Was jealousy your only or biggest downfall?

It's there a reason to keep it illegal for people who want it bound by law?


----------



## tatripp (Mar 1, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> Are you talking about the poll or thread?


I'm talking about the results of the poll and a lot of the responses in the thread.


----------



## nando (Mar 1, 2013)

i think it should be legal but there shouldn't be any monetary legal benefits for it. if you want you be married, it should be your responsibility and there should be no tax breaks for it.


----------



## LightyKD (Mar 1, 2013)

tatripp said:


> A lot of people on this site are very sick and twisted.


 
This is GBATemp! You're just figuring that out? LMAO!


----------



## Crimson Ghoul (Mar 1, 2013)

Not against polygamy for moral reasons but because they would abuse too many of benefits given to married people. 
It also might cause unnecessary issues down the line and cause in many divorce. and what happens when they divorce?
who gets what?
too many legal issues


----------



## Lacius (Mar 1, 2013)

Crimson Ghoul said:


> It also might cause unnecessary issues down the line and cause in many divorce. and what happens when they divorce?
> who gets what?
> too many legal issues


Because divorce in monogamous relationships is never complicated.


----------



## DoubleeDee (Mar 2, 2013)

Yes, I need mo' hoes.


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 2, 2013)

This is a difficult topic, most people would assume that it could only be a guy with a bunch of dames or something right, but nobody ever wants to think about it the other way around right. Hell I've actually fantasized once or twice about being in a situation where I could be with multiple partners who loved me as well as eachother but the problem is that finding one is hard enough. People should focus on finding one person to love them and if there should be others well then try and figure out how to work them into your life.


----------



## XDel (Mar 2, 2013)

1 Woman is good enough for me, 2 women would be 1 to many, plus it's kind of impersonal.

Oh sorry honey, I love you and all, but well you see... I need variety. Hell with that. I doubt many men would be up for being the "second husband".

Then again a lot of people are twisted and emotionally detached now a days so I guess anything goes.


----------



## totalnoob617 (Mar 2, 2013)

the government has no business regulating what  consenting adults do , it should be legal ,but mormons are freaks,  just look at the romneys


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 2, 2013)

Gahars said:


> A lot of people are predicting that this is destined to be the next big cultural tug-of-war once the issue of gay marriage is settled once and for all. I guess this thread will be a head start on the upcoming arguments.


 
Once this gets legalized the next big thing will be for in family marriage.... You know because marrying your cousin is like so last year, this year it has to be your daughter or sister.... lol


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 2, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> the government has no business regulating what consenting adults do , it should be legal ,but mormons are freaks, just look at the romneys


Its not really what the adults do but more like the consequences


----------



## XDel (Mar 2, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> Its not really what the adults do but more like the consequences


 
"consequences" Now that's a word I don't hear very much about any more...


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 2, 2013)

People dont really think about the future anymore, my generation is pissing me off


----------



## totalnoob617 (Mar 2, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> Its not really what the adults do but more like the consequences


yea im not endorsing it, but is the difference between living with a bunch of women like hugh heffner and  some religious fruits doing it, the only difference really is a piece of paper ,


----------



## XDel (Mar 2, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> People dont really think about the future anymore, my generation is pissing me off


 
This is more of a "today spawns tomorrow" kind of quote, but it means the same as what you said.


Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. My own counsel will I keep on who is to be trained. A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh. A Jedi craves not these things. You are reckless. - Master Yoda

One reason I have always loved these films to much, and hate to see modern politics and what not injected into them. The Wise elders do not need to bother with debate, they have already fought the internal debate long ago and understand the basic relation behind cause and effect, what leads to serenity and what leads to anxiety strife. 

On a side note, I believe even prostitution should be legal and regulated, but at the same time I believe we need a culture that puts the sovereignty of the family first. One who's education is for the benefit and well being of the individual, I.E. in relation to needs over wants, long term preparation over instant gratification, and so on. Likewise the media needs to be constructed in a similar manner, quite the contrary of the manner it is presently constructed, which is to manipulate certain natural impulses and dreams, and inject them with fruitless extremes, creating crack heads out of people so to speak.
 A society which strives towards health, discipline, and wisdom would not have such a huge desire for prostitutes, but would have an easier time at forming real human bonds and relations.

Sadly, such societies generally can only be found within rain forests, and other remote areas far away from "civilization", or end up conquered or assimilated.


----------



## tatripp (Mar 3, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> yea im not endorsing it, but is the difference between living with a bunch of women like hugh heffner and some religious fruits doing it, the only difference really is a piece of paper ,


I do find it interesting how people worship Hugh Heffner but hate polygamy.


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 3, 2013)

XDel said:


> On a side note, I believe even prostitution should be legal and regulated, but at the same time I believe we need a culture that puts the sovereignty of the family first. One who's education is for the benefit and well being of the individual, I.E. in relation to needs over wants, long term preparation over instant gratification, and so on. Likewise the media needs to be constructed in a similar manner, quite the contrary of the manner it is presently constructed, which is to manipulate certain natural impulses and dreams, and inject them with fruitless extremes, creating crack heads out of people so to speak.
> A society which strives towards health, discipline, and wisdom would not have such a huge desire for prostitutes, but would have an easier time at forming real human bonds and relations.
> 
> Sadly, such societies generally can only be found within rain forests, and other remote areas far away from "civilization", or end up conquered or assimilated.


Couldn't agree with you more, except for that whole rain forest society thing. Not all of those kinds of societies work that way, hell there are some where the men lounge around all day while all of the women do all the hunting and caring of the children.



tatripp said:


> I do find it interesting how people worship Hugh Heffner but hate polygamy.


I wouldn't call what Hefner does polygamy, or even polyamory for that matter, those women choose to be there for many different reasons mainly money, I doubt any of them actually like Hefner they just put up with him.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 3, 2013)

personally, people should only get a single chance in life to form a partnership with anyone. if they mess that one up, they may remain alone forever. maybe then they'd start to appreciate the whole concept again


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 3, 2013)

Clydefrosch said:


> personally, people should only get a single chance in life to form a partnership with anyone. if they mess that one up, they may remain alone forever. maybe then they'd start to appreciate the whole concept again


Thats a bit harsh isn't it? If someone were to screw up that single chance that they had then they could decide that now they have no other choice but to live a life of debauchery.


----------



## XDel (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> Couldn't agree with you more, except for that whole rain forest society thing. Not all of those kinds of societies work that way, hell there are some where the men lounge around all day while all of the women do all the hunting and caring of the children.


 
Ha ha, I don't think anyone in a rain forest has the opportunity to lounge around. 

My point is that they have less to be distracted with, less trivial b.s. in their lives, and the primary focus is to stay alive, be warm, and when the work is done, get cozy. For this reason, their families are really close.

Granted, in some tribes polygamy is practiced, but it seems that where ever there is polygamy, there are disputes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 3, 2013)

Clydefrosch said:


> personally, people should only get a single chance in life to form a partnership with anyone. if they mess that one up, they may remain alone forever. maybe then they'd start to appreciate the whole concept again



Purely from a would be moral perspective I would probably go so far as to say that line of logic is disgusting but I am intrigued by it.

Biology would say that is not the done thing. Now I agree biological urges are quite able to be overcome and it is often wise to do so, especially as science has made life easy*, but what would be the benefit here? *example- biology tells me to eat all day because if I am living off seeds and roots I have to so as to stay alive, right now I can eat raw sugar, fat and salt all day (something highly sought because it was so rare in seeds and roots) and it would not cost an awful lot to pull off. Because I do not want to be a fat bastard I ignore the urge to eat sugar, fat and salt all day.
Where in history, beyond the rose tinted stuff, was the concept of "partner for life" appreciated? Equally history is noted to be full of people without a clue about science and with some seriously questionable philosophies so why should I pay attention to them?
My 14 year old self was an idiot, my 20 year old self was not much better, at 25 I was quite different again and it only goes on from there. Why be bound by a choice made at a given point? Going back to biology humans have one of the longest development times of any animal, a period during which mistakes and learning are the object of the game, and many would argue it is one of things that has led to us being the dominant species on the planet.
Illness, injury? If my would be partner goes of the deep end or was faking it am I stuck?
Numbers wise there are how many billion spread over how far? A few billion factorial is a large number indeed which would seem to indicate that should I make a choice for a partner it would then be something of an arbitrary one as it would be impossible to interview the lot, if I am making an arbitrary decision does that not mean the results are somewhat negligible?


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> Its not really what the adults do but more like the consequences


So, tell me the consequences of a non-cult polygamy/polyamory.


TheJeweler said:


> I wouldn't call what Hefner does polygamy, or even polyamory for that matter, those women choose to be there for many different reasons mainly money, I doubt any of them actually like Hefner they just put up with him.


I was thinking the same thing. 


XDel said:


> Granted, in some tribes polygamy is practiced, but it seems that where ever there is polygamy, there are disputes.


How many polygamy tribes or tribes in general do you know personally? 

There are no disputes in a "regular" family?


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 3, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> So, tell me the consequences of a non-cult polygamy/polyamory.


I take it you are for Polygamy/ polyamory? anyways my reply wasn't to the topic in general but the whole "govt should let people do whatever they choose to". As I've said before, finding one person who you can truely love is hard enough.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> anyways my reply wasn't to the topic in general but the whole "govt should let people do whatever they choose to".


As long as no one's rights are being violated and no one is physically harmed, people should be allowed to do what they choose.



TheJeweler said:


> As I've said before, finding one person who you can truely love is hard enough.


Whether or not something is difficult isn't reason to make it illegal.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> I take it you are for Polygamy/ polyamory? anyways my reply wasn't to the topic in general but the whole "govt should let people do whatever they choose to". As I've said before, finding one person who you can truely love is hard enough.


Not for or against. Trying to question both sides. Oh, I see. True.


----------



## XDel (Mar 3, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> So, tell me the consequences of a non-cult polygamy/polyamory.
> 
> I was thinking the same thing.
> 
> ...


 
Actually a few, I'm part Cherokee and Shawnee and attend Pow Wows when I can and such. Also I am a huge history fanatic and try to accumulate as much history from the native's point of view that I can.

Anyhow, as for disputes, there are disputes which are reasonable and can be settled in a resonable manner. Then there are unreasonable disputes that are never settled in an unreasonable manner, much like the culture portrayed on the Jerry Springer show as an example.

Don't play with fire and you wont' get burned.


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 3, 2013)

I think I'm coming off as a bit of a douche, sorry if I am. Back on topic, legality isn't my concern here, what reason would someone really have for multiple partners?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> I think I'm coming off as a bit of a douche, sorry if I am. Back on topic, legality isn't my concern here, what reason would someone really have for multiple partners?


 
Because everyone's different, and monogamy isn't for everyone. It shouldn't be disallowed just because it isn't the norm.


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Because everyone's different, and monogamy isn't for everyone. It shouldn't be disallowed just because it isn't the norm.


You know what else isn't a norm? Cannibalism. But seriously I can understand that, just trying to get everyone's perspective on this.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> You know what else isn't a norm? Cannibalism. But seriously I can understand that, just trying to get everyone's perspective on this.


 
Well, cannibalism is a) murder and/or b) desecration of a corpse, so there's more "wrong" with it than it just not being normal.

I know you're kidding, but I see that sort of argument all the time and it just bugs me.


----------



## TheJeweler (Mar 3, 2013)

I only brought it up since I'm watching The Rite and thought it would be funny if at some point Anthony Hopkins would eat someones face


----------



## DaggerV (Mar 3, 2013)

Mormons are doing well for themselves.


----------



## RPG Hacker (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> Back on topic, legality isn't my concern here, what reason would someone really have for multiple partners?


 
That is quite simple, actually. Naturally and biologically every human is looking for the perfect counterpart in a partnership. But let's be realistic here: For 99,99% of people a "perfect" counterpart is an illusion. People are just too different and finding a person with just the characteristics you're looking for is... nearly impossible, to say the least. Now here is where polygamy comes in handy. With polygamy, you don't have to search for the perfect counterpart anymore, because your partners "add up". Let's say (speaking from a male's perspective) you would like a partner capable of being a good mother, yet you would also like a partner with good skills in bed. Finding both in one person could be a hard task, but finding both in two different persons could be quite easy.

Or just imagine this: Imagine you would want to cook the perfect soup, but you were allowed to use either only salt or only pepper. Difficult, right? But if you could use both, it would suddenly become a lot easier to cook that perfect soup, because you could take a little something from both. And basically, partnerships are just like that. One person can hardly be the perfect partner, but multiple partners with different character traits can add up to become that "perfect" partner.

In fact: From a biological standpoint, polygamy is the most natural thing in the world. It is as natural as sex itself and is, in fact, even more natural than monogamy. I'm not even making this up; I'm basing this on scientific research. And it all makes sense, too. I mean, let's just think about it: What really is it in our culuture that makes us think of monogamy as being "correct" or "better than polygamy"? It's mostly burdens from the past. As in: Moral values based on Christianity and similar stuff. Yet from a biological standpoint there is absolutely no added value in monogamy as compared to polygamy. It's a purely cultural thing. We've gotten so used to it that we don't even question it.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 3, 2013)

TheJeweler said:


> Back on topic, legality isn't my concern here, what reason would someone really have for multiple partners?





RPG Hacker said:


> That is quite simple, actually. Naturally and biologically every human is looking for the perfect counterpart in a partnership. But let's be realistic here: For 99,99% of people a "perfect" counterpart is an illusion. People are just too different and finding a person with just the characteristics you're looking for is... nearly impossible, to say the least. Now here is where polygamy comes in handy. With polygamy, you don't have to search for the perfect counterpart anymore, because your partners "add up". Let's say (speaking from a male's perspective) you would like a partner capable of being a good mother, yet you would also like a partner with good skills in bed. Finding both in one person could be a hard task, but finding both in two different persons could be quite easy.
> 
> Or just imagine this: Imagine you would want to cook the perfect soup, but you were allowed to use either only salt or only pepper. Difficult, right? But if you could use both, it would suddenly become a lot easier to cook that perfect soup, because you could take a little something from both. And basically, partnerships are just like that. One person can hardly be the perfect partner, but multiple partners with different character traits can add up to become that "perfect" partner.
> 
> In fact: From a biological standpoint, polygamy is the most natural thing in the world. It is as natural as sex itself and is, in fact, even more natural than monogamy. I'm not even making this up; I'm basing this on scientific research. And it all makes sense, too. I mean, let's just think about it: What really is it in our culuture that makes us think of monogamy as being "correct" or "better than polygamy"? It's mostly burdens from the past. As in: Moral values based on Christianity and similar stuff. Yet from a biological standpoint there is absolutely no added value in monogamy as compared to polygamy. It's a purely cultural thing. We've gotten so used to it that we don't even question it.


----------



## XDel (Mar 3, 2013)

It is perfectly legal to break someone's heart and make them feel worthless or used.

Likewise, a person's private life should remain their own business.

Though here is the question. Do we really want to live in a society that condones "anything goes"? I mean, private life or not, is it really beneficial in the long run for everyone to keep chanting these trendy buzz terms such as "monogamy isn't for everyone"? Is that the standard under which we want to raise our children when we have them? "Go ahead honey, go out there and do what you want, so long as it isn't murder or doesn't harm anyone visibly while they are in your line of sight, then feel free to do it. I mean isn't that how sweat shops operate? Modern day slavery... out of sight out of mind.

I don't care who you are, what political affiliation you have, how liberal and innovative you think your ideas are, and regardless if you adhere to Gnosticism, or insist upon a A-Gnostic reality; you are going to teach your child boundaries in order that they do not do something that is going to immediately or eventually bring physical or emotional harm to them selves or others. It is not in the best interest of their health, the health of those they interact with and try to make friends with, and it certainly does not help to make the parent's life any easier.

Granted, we do have a lot of adult children posing as parents who do very little in the way of raising their children in knowledge, compassion, and wisdom, but for those parents who see beyond their own self wants, this is the way of things.

Now as for me, if two beautiful women offered to take me home, one sitting on my face while the other...

...well you get the idea.

Well do you really think for a moment that that would not be tempting to me? Do you not think that that would not provoke some INTENSE sexual urges within me? I could jump on the band wagon and say,"hey why not, it's only pleasure?", but at what cost?

If I built a reputation of hanging around sleazy nymphs as such, would I really get the time or day with a lady who is refined, educated, and aspires to care about others as much as she does her self? Would such activities help me to be content with the one I love? Would they not have any effect on her (presuming I was in a tender relationship), would I not be hurt if my dearest lady friend went out and had a quickie with a couple of guys? Would conducting my self in front of my proverbial kids be beneficial to them? Having multiple women running around the house and no central mother, or seeing parents who will do what ever they can to find pleasure?

Mind you, some people (like some of my friends) are more about this. They are not very good when it comes to expressing or dealing with their emotions, and they are certainly not very good at dealing with or handling other people's emotions. Generally they are miserable and like to fill the void with booze, pills, sex, and well what ever gets those endorphins flowing*,* if not for a little while. (Not that I don't enjoy my herb, but it's not my only source for joy).

They were not brought up with discipline, or wisdom, as with most of them, their parents split when they were young, they were not shown much affection growing up, and this and that. Basically they just repeat what they saw growing up and never bothered to try not to repeat it for what ever reason.

For them, you ask them what is wrong with this picture of open relationships and what not, and they say nothing. They are already miserable and don't really know a better life one way or the other, nor do they know how to keep someone's trust, or to put their feelings or wants on the back burner when a friend is in need or what have you. So for them, they will say, everyone should get all the sex while they can, look at me, ain't hurt me any!

Though again, if you ask a child addicted to candy if they would like to eat candy for the rest of their lives, they probably will say yes, that they would replace their daily diet with it and never eat fruit or veggies again...


Once more, because they have not lived long enough to experience how sick that candy will make them, or how much it will shorten their life.


Anyhow, I'm tired of typing, dunno why I have to explain the obvious in such extreme detail anyhow? Bottom line, our society is sick, selfish, and short sighted when it comes to a lot of the finer things in life.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 3, 2013)

XDel said:


> Though here is the question. Do we really want to live in a society that condones "anything goes"? I mean, private life or not, is it really beneficial in the long run for everyone to keep chanting these trendy buzz terms such as "monogamy isn't for everyone"? Is that the standard under which we want to raise our children when we have them? "Go ahead honey, go out there and do what you want, so long as it isn't murder or doesn't harm anyone visibly while they are in your line of sight, then feel free to do it. I mean isn't that how sweat shops operate? Modern day slavery... out of sight out of mind.


It doesn't matter whether or not someone is harmed in your line of sight. Sweatshops are immoral and have victims. Polygamy is victimless. You appear to be missing the point if you think visibility is at all what anyone is talking about. "Privacy" is being thrown around by to highlight how there are no victims and no one's rights are being violated. A polygamous marriage, for example, affects you in no way.

Yes, I do want to live in a society where people are free to do what they want so long as no one is hurt and no one's rights are violated.




XDel said:


> I don't care who you are, what political affiliation you have, how liberal and innovative you think your ideas are, and regardless if you adhere to Gnosticism, or insist upon a A-Gnostic reality; you are going to teach your child boundaries in order that they do not do something that is going to immediately or eventually bring physical or emotional harm to them selves or others. It is not in the best interest of their health, the health of those they interact with and try to make friends with, and it certainly does not help to make the parent's life any easier.



We give children boundaries because they are not yet capable of making some decisions themselves. We're talking about adults with the capacity to make their own decisions, not children. For example, sex with a minor is always illegal because minors are incapable of making those decisions. It doesn't matter if the minor claims it was consensual.




XDel said:


> If I built a reputation of hanging around sleazy nymphs as such, would I really get the time or day with a lady who is refined, educated, and aspires to care about others as much as she does her self? Would such activities help me to be content with the one I love? Would they not have any effect on her (presuming I was in a tender relationship), would I not be hurt if my dearest lady friend went out and had a quickie with a couple of guys? Would conducting my self in front of my proverbial kids be beneficial to them? Having multiple women running around the house and no central mother, or seeing parents who will do what ever they can to find pleasure?



That's how you see it, and whether or not you engage in that kind of behavior is your choice to make. Polygamy doesn't appear to be for you. It's not for me either. However, I have yet to hear any good reason to think polygamy is immoral or should be illegal.




XDel said:


> Mind you, some people (like some of my friends) are more about this. They are not very good when it comes to expressing or dealing with their emotions, and they are certainly not very good at dealing with or handling other people's emotions. Generally they are miserable and like to fill the void with booze, pills, sex, and well what ever gets those endorphins flowing*,* if not for a little while.





XDel said:


> They were not brought up with discipline, or wisdom, as with most of them, their parents split when they were young, they were not shown much affection growing up, and this and that. Basically they just repeat what they saw growing up and never bothered to try not to repeat it for what ever reason.
> 
> For them, you ask them what is wrong with this picture of open relationships and what not, and they say nothing. They are already miserable and don't really know a better life one way or the other, nor do they know how to keep someone's trust, or to put their feelings or wants on the back burner when a friend is in need or what have you. So for them, they will say, everyone should get all the sex while they can, look at me, ain't hurt me any!



You seem to be making bold claims about sexually active people. You also seem to be implying that sexuality is immoral without giving any real reason to think so. In reality, sexuality and good mental health go hand in hand.




XDel said:


> Though again, if you ask a child addicted to candy if they would like to eat candy for the rest of their lives, they probably will say yes, that they would replace their daily diet with it and never eat fruit or veggies again...





XDel said:


> Once more, because they have not lived long enough to experience how sick that candy will make them, or how much it will shorten their life.



I refer you back to my previous points about children. Likewise, there is a difference between sexual activity and something like only eating candy and its affects on physical health.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 3, 2013)

Focusing on polygamy/polyamory, why does having more than one partner means they have to be sleazy? Why can't they both be well educated and what not? Why can't they both provide moral/ethical guidance and not be some other body in the house? 

Anything the kids aren't ready for, don't show and/or talk about it to them.

For the record, I don't agree with "open relationships".


----------



## Blaze163 (Mar 3, 2013)

I've got enough security issues after being cheated on several times, I'd rather not have the law encouraging further breakdown of morality. Legalise polygamy and soon people will be collecting wives like cards. We'll see a huge increase in the number of small tattoos on women as they start getting rarity marks tattood on their arses like Magic the Gathering cards.

Personally I remain totally faithful when in a relationship. Opportunities are always present to cheat and have more than one woman on the go at once, but I find the entire concept distasteful.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 3, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> I've got enough security issues after being cheated on several times, I'd rather not have the law encouraging further breakdown of morality. Legalise polygamy and soon people will be collecting wives like cards. We'll see a huge increase in the number of small tattoos on women as they start getting rarity marks tattood on their arses like Magic the Gathering cards.
> 
> Personally I remain totally faithful when in a relationship. Opportunities are always present to cheat and have more than one woman on the go at once, but I find the entire concept distasteful.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 3, 2013)

Blaze163 said:


> I've got enough security issues after being cheated on several times, I'd rather not have the law encouraging further breakdown of morality.


Except that no one here has demonstrated that polygamy is immoral. If you don't like it, don't enter in a polygamous relationship.



Blaze163 said:


> Personally I remain totally faithful when in a relationship. Opportunities are always present to cheat and have more than one woman on the go at once, but I find the entire concept distasteful.


By definition, there is nothing inherently "unfaithful" about a polygamous marriage; the parameters of the relationship are just different. That's likes saying I'm cheating in a game of Chess when you're applying the rules of Checkers.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 3, 2013)

XDel said:


> "do what you want, so long as it isn't murder or doesn't harm anyone visibly while they are in your line of sight"
> ..... out of sight out of mind.


At best that is a bad twisting of the "try not to cause harm to anybody" type philosophy and not one that most people could or would espouse. In another context that would probably be known as a strawman and dismissed about as easily, indeed I believe one of the psychological development milestones and an aspect of sentience is to be able to consider effects beyond your vision and how the actions of others work when you are not there.



XDel said:


> If I built a reputation of hanging around sleazy nymphs as such, would I really get the time or day with a lady who is refined, educated, and aspires to care about others as much as she does her self?


I see others have addressed the other points but let me assure you such qualities are not mutually exclusive. On the central figures part there are longstanding phrases along the lines of "it takes a village" and I will also counter with how do grandparents play into this- many quite happily adopt the position of proper authority figure and if there can be more the immediate two....?



XDel said:


> Though again, if you ask a child addicted to candy if they would like to eat candy for the rest of their lives, they probably will say yes, that they would replace their daily diet with it and never eat fruit or veggies again...
> 
> Once more, because they have not lived long enough to experience how sick that candy will make them, or how much it will shorten their life.


 
Addicted is an interesting word and one that might not be ideal to use as it carries a lot of meaning in medical discussion and most of that would not apply to sweets in almost all cases in your example. I fail to see quite where you were going with that- shock horror, an undeveloped mind can not comprehend dietary science and how it works.



XDel said:


> Bottom line, our society is sick, selfish, and short sighted when it comes to a lot of the finer things in life.


In a world where people routinely have a pension, insurance of various forms and a long term view of a lot of things I would have to dispute that. Though I would probably get the sentience idea return to greet me when wasn't it and "sick" is a fairly meaningless word there without a lot of qualification.


----------



## VashTS (Mar 4, 2013)

i say just live together and share expenses, no need to be married. 

why is everyone so uptight about "marriage", its just a formal way of saying we are legally financially bound. 

if me and two other people make a verbal/signed/whatever type of agreement to do something with finances, its quite the same, actually you are in that type of deal when you get a loan. its a legally binding financial agreement between you and a bank, which is comprised of many people. getting a loan is polygamist marriage. lolwut


----------



## XDel (Mar 4, 2013)

VashTS said:


> i say just live together and share expenses, no need to be married.
> 
> why is everyone so uptight about "marriage", its just a formal way of saying we are legally financially bound.
> 
> if me and two other people make a verbal/signed/whatever type of agreement to do something with finances, its quite the same, actually you are in that type of deal when you get a loan. its a legally binding financial agreement between you and a bank, which is comprised of many people. getting a loan is polygamist marriage. lolwut


 

Because Marriage to me is a special gift that one best friend gives to the other. It is the highest pact one human can make to another as far as I see it, but that's just me, I don't always run with pure logic and scientific reasoning I guess?

I wonder how long it will take us to catch up with ancient Rome in regards to relationships and sexual encounters...

Didn't seem to hurt them much? I dunno, maybe children do like being porked, and maybe, just maybe a husband will some day see it as his patriotic duty to allow soldiers to sleep with his wife as the state deems necessary? Maybe, just maybe the slaves who worked under the spas keeping the fires going so the pools above stayed warm actually enjoyed being down there while the  privileged had orgies above.

I sure hope so, I want in on some of that orgy action!!!


----------



## Gahars (Mar 4, 2013)

XDel said:


> I wonder how long it will take us to catch up with ancient Rome in regards to relationships and sexual encounters...
> 
> Didn't seem to hurt them much? I dunno, maybe children do like being porked, and maybe, just maybe a husband will some day see it as his patriotic duty to allow soldiers to sleep with his wife as the state deems necessary? Maybe, just maybe the slaves who worked under the spas keeping the fires going so the pools above stayed warm actually enjoyed being down there while the while the privileged had orgies above.
> 
> I sure hope so, I want in on some of that orgy action!!!


 





I think I'm going to get a lot of mileage of this picture.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

...I'm just going to post my 2 cents and retreat hastily from this thread, too slippery for my taste.

I'm againts polygamous relationships personally - the sense of exclusivity is one of the core elements of _"loving someone"_, not a by-product. Polygamy is perfectly fine when in the context of purely biological levels of attraction, however it doesn't pass the test of emotional commitment, at least not up to my standards. For me, to love someone is _"to adore"_, it's not something that passes with time. I accept the fact that love that's experienced by the senses is a by-product of a chemical balance etc. however there's also a mental component to it which very well may be unaffected by the flow of time.

To adore is to painstakingly select the other half of the apple, it's choosing one specimen which, in your opinion, is the ultimate and _"completes you"_ in a manner of speaking. When I _"fall in love"_ I practically stop noticing other females because I'm far too occupied with the one I have in my heart. I wouldn't be physically capable of loving more then one person at a time because when I love, it's not a feeling that can be subject to gradation - I either love one particular person or I don't.

What I'm trying to say is that to me, love not only implies exclusivity - exclusivity is explicit in my relationships. If I _"love"_ someone and suddenly _"fall in love"_ with someone else it means that I merely didn't _truly love_ in the first place. Were I to love someone, I would not look for thrills elsewhere.

Now, should it be legalized? Sure, if people want to engage in polygamous relationships, why not? I personally wouldn't be a part of one though, that's for sure. For me, true love is exclusive between two partners, physical attraction can apply to numerous partners. If I am to be loved, I want to be _"the only one"_.


----------



## XDel (Mar 4, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I think I'm going to get a lot of mileage of this picture.


 
You said slippery!


----------



## Lacius (Mar 4, 2013)

VashTS said:


> i say just live together and share expenses, no need to be married.
> 
> why is everyone so uptight about "marriage", its just a formal way of saying we are legally financially bound.
> 
> if me and two other people make a verbal/signed/whatever type of agreement to do something with finances, its quite the same, actually you are in that type of deal when you get a loan. its a legally binding financial agreement between you and a bank, which is comprised of many people. getting a loan is polygamist marriage. lolwut


Because we live in a society in which thousands of rights and benefits, both at the state and federal levels, are only bestowed upon couples that are legally married, including but not limited to tax benefits, health care benefits, housing benefits, family benefits, etc.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Because we live in a society in which thousands of rights and benefits, both at the state and federal levels, are only bestowed upon couples that are legally married, including but not limited to tax benefits, health care benefits, housing benefits, family benefits, etc.
> 
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html


Which is why marriage should not be considered a _"legal institution" _- our contemporary understanding of marriage alongside other similar relationships should fall under the category of a civil unions and actual marriages per-say should be organized by religious institutions. This automatically puts every type of a relationship on equal footing and people who want to be _"married"_ can do so accordingly to the rules stated in their religion _(if they follow one)_.


----------



## XDel (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Which is why marriage should not be considered a _"legal institution" _- our contemporary understanding of marriage alongside other similar relationships should fall under the category of a civil unions and actual marriages per-say should be organized by religious institutions. This automatically puts every type of a relationship on equal footing and people who want to be _"married"_ can do so accordingly to the rules stated in their religion _(if they follow one)_.


 

I do agree in that the state should keep it's nose out of people's marriages. Just the same as they should stay out of people's private lives, stop using S.S. as a form of ID, stop keeping records on everything you do (only violent crimes and such should be on record), and so on. That would make me a happier person for sure!


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

XDel said:


> I do agree in that the state should keep it's nose out of people's marriages. Just the same as they should stay out of people's private lives, stop using S.S. as a form of ID, stop keeping records on everything you do (only violent crimes and such should be on record), and so on. That would make me a happier person for sure!


That really wasn't my point.

What I actually meant was that, for example, I don't see a valid reason for tax deductions for people who follow one particular lifestyle that's been outlined by the law. If someone feels like having relations with 20 women and we encompass that within the law, does he get tax reductions 20 times? Is it 1 marriage or 20 marriages? Whose last name will the baby have?

Those issues are regulated by religion or word of mouth already - lifestyle should not be a concern for law. I understand that marriage is promoted for the sake of keeping the population numbers steady _(at least that was the point in the past)_ but we live in an overpopulated world already and I don't think the state should keep anyone by the penis/vagina at this point in history.

It's simply a private matter that should not be regulated by law, part biological, part dependant on individual beliefs.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Which is why marriage should not be considered a _"legal institution" _- our contemporary understanding of marriage should fall under the category of a civil unions and marriages per-say should be organized by religious institutions. This automatically puts every type of a relationship on equal footing and people who want to be _"married"_ can do so accordingly to the rules stated in their religion.


If you can make civil unions equal to the current institution of marriage under the law and then remove all the rights and benefits of marriage under the law, then be my guest. This includes (but isn't limited to) changing all state and federal laws to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, changing all employee unions to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, etc. Suffice it to say, what you're suggesting is not practical, particularly when you're just splitting hairs in regards to what words are used. You can have the religious institution of marriage, and you can have the legal institution of marriage. Religions and churches can do whatever they want; religions and churches and recognize whatever they want. In regards to marriage, I only care about how people are treated under the law.

Edit: or as you mentioned above, you could just take out all the rights and privileges altogether, but I don't think many couples would go for that. It's now an issue of equality under the law.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

Lacius said:


> If you can make civil unions equal to the current institution of marriage under the law and then remove all the rights and benefits of marriage under the law, then be my guest. This includes (but isn't limited to) changing all state and federal laws to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, changing all employee unions to refer to civil unions instead of marriage, etc. Suffice it to say, what you're suggesting is not practical, particularly when you're just splitting hairs in regards to what words are used. You can have the religious institution of marriage, and you can have the legal institution of marriage. Religions and churches can do whatever they want; religions and churches and recognize whatever they want. In regards to marriage, I only care about how people are treated under the law.
> 
> Edit: or as you mentioned above, you could just take out all the rights and privileges altogether, but I don't think many couples would go for that. It's not an issue of equality under the law.


Believe it or not, there are places in the world where marriage is pretty much equated to religious marriage and the separation between Church and State is very, very thin in this regard.

In some cases it's very much a matter of phrasing - a lot of people say marriage is marriage and sort-of forget about the _"religious versus legal"_ issue altogether.

I don't think the state should regulate those issues at all, and if they do want to regulate them for the sake of benefits then they should equalize the benefits for all possible options and, _preferably_ call it a civil union, but that's not really a key factor.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think the state should regulate those issues at all


So you don't think couples should have the legal rights listed in the link I posted above?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

Lacius said:


> So you don't think couples should have the legal rights listed in the link I posted above?


Couples, as in civil unions? Sure. Marriages? Sure, as long as they're legalized by registering as civil unions.

...and yes, I know it's nomenclature and it would take pain-stakingly copy-pasting the term instead of marriage, but sometimes extensive changes, even if impractical, are good. The name "Civil Union" does not have the same "syntactic weight" marriage does - it cannot be subscribed to any contemporary image of a marriage that one could derrive from a religion, and that often happens in disputes about, say, gay marriages.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Couples, as in civil unions? Sure. Marriages? Sure, as long as they're legalized by registering a civil union.


That means you think the state should regulate those issues.



Foxi4 said:


> ...and yes, I know it's nomenclature and it would take pain-stakingly copy-pasting the term instead of marriage, but sometimes extensive changes, even if impractical, are good. The name "Civil Union" does not have the same "syntactic weight" marriage does - it cannot be subscribed to any contemporary image of a marriage that one could derive from a religion, and that often happens in disputes about, say, gay marriages.


To be honest, I don't care about the syntactic weight. I only care about equal treatment under the law.

What people do with their religious institutions is of no consequence to me. "Marriage" is just a word, and if one defines marriage as a religious union, then to that person, people like atheists, gays, polygamists, etc. might not be considered married. But that person is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter what he or she defines as a marriage so long as people are treated equally under the law.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

Lacius said:


> To be honest, I don't care about the syntactic weight. I only care about equal treatment under the law.
> 
> What people do with their religious institutions is of no consequence to me. "Marriage" is just a word, and if one defines marriage as a religious union, then to that person, people like atheists, gays, polygamists, etc. might not be considered married. But that person is irrelevant, and it doesn't matter what he or she defines as a marriage so long as people are treated equally under the law.


I think we're on the same page here, I'm just a tad more extreme. Actually, I may be pedantic about the phrasing since I'm studying linguistics, but not to look too far, I'll show you an example from my own country. In Polish, _"Marriage"_ is _"Małżeństwo"_ which is a compound of the words _"Husband"_ and _"Wife"_ - by definition it implies a relationship between two people, one man and one woman. This, coupled with a strong Catholic influence on the state greatly hampers the efforts in equalizing other types of relationships to marriage since, well, it's just not _"Marriage"_ as we understand it from a linguistic stand-point.

What I'm saying is that all efforts should be made to:

Separate the Church from the State
Equalize the legal status of all relationships between consenting adults
...so I suppose we're thinking very much the same thing, just in different lexical categories.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 4, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Because we live in a society in which thousands of rights and benefits, both at the state and federal levels, are only bestowed upon couples that are legally married, including but not limited to tax benefits, health care benefits, housing benefits, family benefits, etc.
> 
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html





XDel said:


> Because Marriage to me is a special gift that one best friend gives to the other. It is the highest pact one human can make to another as far as I see it, but that's just me, I don't always run with pure logic and scientific reasoning I guess?


Sorta this.

And as XDel somewhat pointed out, a physical/documented show of commitment.



Foxi4 said:


> *In Polish*, _"Marriage"_ is _"Małżeństwo"_ which is a compound of the words _"Husband"_ and _"Wife"_ - by definition it implies a relationship between two people, one man and one woman.


Besides that, words change despite if it gain or lose weight.

That said, people will outrage if their marriages become merely just civil unions.


"Will...will you have a civil union with me?" "Will you take my hand in a civil union?"


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 4, 2013)

I want the next president to have like 3 or 4 first ladies, or would that be like the first second third and fourth first lady? I need an aspirin now...


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 4, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> Besides that, words change despite if it gain or lose weight.


You have to look at it from the perspective I outlined to get to the point. Imagine that you weren't saying _"marrige"_, you'd be saying _"husbandwife"_ - that would be the noun. Imagine how awkward it would be to denote one husband and one wife in a homosexual relationship - that's as funny as your civil union joke. 



> "Will...will you civil union with me?" "Will you take my hand in a civil union."


In Polish it's _"Will you take me?"_ - similarily to the English vows of _"Do you take this xxx as your beloved Husband/Wife"_, so the problem never occured to me.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You have to look at it from the perspective I outlined to get to the point. Imagine that you weren't saying _"marrige"_, you'd be saying _"Husbandwife"_ - that would be the noun. Imagine how awkward it would be to denote one husband and one wife in a homosexual relationship - that's as funny as your civil union joke.
> 
> In Polish it's _"Will you take me?"_ - similarily to the English vows of _"Do you take this xxx as your beloved Husband/Wife"_, so the problem never occured to me.


 
I think a lot of the "pro" talk is from men thinking "oh yeah a couple of hot chicks to bang all the time and do laundry and cook? Hell yeah!!!" with out considering the end of the shoe.... What if the woman says "Yeah 3 or 4 husbands to fix things and do the cleaning and cooking!!!" so I think a lot of the yes's would turn into no's real fast if things where on equal terms.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> In Polish it's _"Will you take me?"_ - similarily to the English vows of _"Do you take this xxx as your beloved Husband/Wife"_, so the problem never occured to me.


If people have their way, it's going to be "Do you take these xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx... and xxx as your beloved Husbands/Wives?" 


Psionic Roshambo said:


> I want the next president to have like 3 or 4 first ladies, or would that be like the first second third and fourth first lady? I need an aspirin now...



Go to 1:53


Psionic Roshambo said:


> I think a lot of the "pro" talk is from men thinking "oh yeah a couple of hot chicks to bang all the time and do laundry and cook? Hell yeah!!!" with out considering the end of the shoe.... What if the woman says "Yeah 3 or 4 husbands to fix things and do the cleaning and cooking!!!" so I think a lot of the yes's would turn into no's real fast if things where on equal terms.


There are compromises in relationships. So rather it is a closed/"open" monogamous, polygamous or no relationship at all, is on the people in them.

The guy or girl has to decide if they can work/deal with polygyny or polyandry, if it comes to that.


----------



## RPG Hacker (Mar 4, 2013)

I've noticed that many people here equal "polygamy" with "being sex driven" or "being in an open relationship" when arguing. Now that is just wrong and biased. There can be plenty of reasons for being in a polygamous relationship that don't even need to have anything to do with sex. Also many people here seem to equal "relationship" with "love", which isn't quite right, either. Sure, for many people that's an ideal, but again an ideal without any biological source. From a biological standpoint love is merely a chemical reaction and not bound to just a single partner. Once again our understanding of love nowadays originates from our culture and once again there is no real reason to keep up that understanding except for "morals", "religion" etc.

That asside: Yeah, many people really have a wrong understanding of polygamy. If a monogamous relationship isn't all about the sex, why do people think a polygamous relationship is? Because it isn't possible to "love" more than one person? Then what are you basing this believe on? And even if this was true that would automatically mean that "love" was a permanent feeling, which quite simply isn't true. In that case divorce wouldn't exist in the first place. But damn, let me not even get started about love here. In our "modern" society there exist so many false myths and common believes regarding the feeling "love", it really isn't funny. I don't know where they all came from. I guess partially from Hollywood movies and, once again, partially from our culture.

But just to state one example: "Love without conditions". What kind of bullshit is that and who came up with it? Love is ALWAYS bound to conditions; there are no exceptions. It's axiomatic. These conditions are what actually DEFINE the term "love". I mean just think about this: Imagine you and your husband were a happy couple that has been married for over 10 years already. I think everyone here can agree that you would both be in a state that you could refer to as a "love relationship". And then, for whatever reason, your husband suddenly murderd all of your children. Would you still be able to "love" him? Obviously not, because love IS bound to conditions, even if it's just the condition "everything stays the way it is".

But yeah, I'm really drifting off here. The topic is about polygamy, after all, and not about how you define love.



Blaze163 said:


> Legalise polygamy and soon people will be collecting wives like cards. We'll see a huge increase in the number of small tattoos on women as they start getting rarity marks tattood on their arses like Magic the Gathering cards.


 
I don't really get your point here. We're not talking about slavery; we're talking about polygamy. Since when does legalisation of polygamy force women to partake in it? If you were a woman who wouldn't want to be treated like a "collectible" then you simply shouldn't get involved with men who treat women as such. Even if said men don't expose themselves as assholes at first, there is always the option to leave them later. And anyways: I don't see how being in a polygamous relationship makes you the property of your husband. If that was the case then the same thing would go for monogamous relationships, which is not the case.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 4, 2013)

A lot more No just no's in the poll then I would expect.

It seems hard to implement though because of taxes and health insurance though.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 4, 2013)

RPG Hacker said:


> Long quote about love and the misunderstanding of polygamy.


Other than the love part, I mostly agree.

If polygamy is moral and is legalize, I doubt I ever will or want be in one.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> In Polish it's _"Will you take me?"_



Depends how much I have to drink at the reception?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 29, 2013)

Because of this, polygamists think they are next in line for marriage equality.
Link

Looks like may be seeing yet another 20-30years of history repeating itself with these guys.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 30, 2013)

> O brave new world, That has such people in it. Let's start at once.


This is how I see it turning out.


----------



## Minox (Jun 30, 2013)

Yes I think it should be allowed. It's not that I think that such a relationship would be easy, but if someone can get it to work what's to stop them from doing so? Silly rules which more or less serves no purpose?


On a personal note though, polygamy does not interest me.


----------



## Camplord (Jun 30, 2013)

Yes it should be, i see no problem with that as long as it applies for men as for women equally.


----------



## Sefi (Jun 30, 2013)

I don't have a problem with it.  As long as everybody involved can give their consent, but that goes for any kind of marriage.  

Are there any women out there married to several men?  It always is a guy with multiple women for some reason whenever it comes into the news or spotlight.


----------



## evandixon (Jun 30, 2013)

Polygamy may seem appealing to some, but it will lead to discontentment.

But since I'm not going to change the minds of those for it...
*Leaves thread*


----------



## Camplord (Jun 30, 2013)

Sefi said:


> Are there any women out there married to several men? It always is a guy with multiple women for some reason whenever it comes into the news or spotlight.


 

Which strikes me as odd, don't women have the right to do the same as men?


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 30, 2013)

I don't think a man would ever do that though. In nature, animals such as moose (maybe elk? whatever, some horned animal) along with seals are polygamous with a single male interacting with many females. Due to how protective men are, I'd wager to guess humans fall into the same category of animals and would much rather fight over the flock of females than share them. Damn, how degrading is that, I just called myself an animal.


> Animal sexual behavior involves struggle between many males. Female animals select males only if they are strong and able to protect themselves or not. For example, if a male animal fights against another male animal of the same species, then the animal that wins the fight will have the chance to mate with the higher number of females and also he will pass on his genes to his offspring, who pass on their genes to the next offspring in line.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 2, 2013)

If you thought polygamy was bad/good enough, check this out.


----------



## narutofan777 (Jul 2, 2013)

idc.."alpha males" game girls so easy...so wat difference does it make? they have u kno wat weekly with different girls...lol. they r that good. D:


----------



## exangel (Jul 2, 2013)

Polyamory is fine, as it's really no one's business if consenting adults are happy swinging that way.
Not reading any of the rest of the thread, I'm sure others have already said it, the government really shouldn't be obligated to recognize polygamous marriage from a taxation standpoint and from the standpoint of the appropriate level of separation between church and state (since it would be damn near certain that it would be religious individuals arguing for this right).
Whether or not someone wants to have multiple spouses simultaneously doesn't even matter if it's for religious reasons or not, bottom line is that this choice should only be made by individuals who are prepared to support all their spouses independently of the law.

I didn't vote in the poll because none of the choices fit me. I'm not on the fence and I'm all for polyamory for those who are in such situations where it's okay with everyone. One of my best friends has been married for 7 years or so now, and they won't have children. They are polyamorous but it took them a couple years to adjust and be open about it, and I'm happy for them.

I'm against involving the government and government resources in approving formal polygamous marriage and the benefits it would entail.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 2, 2013)

exangel said:


> I didn't vote in the poll because none of the choices fit me. I'm all for polyamory for those who are in such situations where it's okay with everyone.


"Yes. Consenting adults should have the choice." Isn't close enough?


exangel said:


> One of my best friends has been married for 7 years or so now, and they won't have children. They are polyamorous but it took them a couple years to adjust and be open about it, and I'm happy for them.


Mind if I ask, are they certainly in polyamory relationship and is it mfm or fmf?


----------



## exangel (Jul 2, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> "Yes. Consenting adults should have the choice." Isn't close enough?
> 
> Mind if I ask, are they certainly in polyamory relationship and is it mfm or fmf?


 

1) "Yes" would have implied that I was okay with polygamy too, wouldn't it?

2) I haven't asked them who all they're sleeping with aside from each other, I was only told about their relationship a few years ago by the husband (who was the reluctant spouse at first) and I was more under the impression that they don't necessarily do their swinging in groups as your question suggests.  More of an "open relationship" deal, he said that she suggested to him "We've been together a few years, and we trust each other and love each other, and why stop at just us? There's room for more love."   They talked about it for a year before he was even willing to try anything, and he didn't have a problem with her doing it.  He just had to practice at his share of the bargain.  It isn't just swinging to them, it's being okay with really loving people other than each other and they aren't the only couple I know who do this either.. just the only heterosexual couple I am aware of who are this committed and fair minded about it.  I also know a lesbian who has been polyamorous for years but she finally married her wife earlier this year. Haven't asked if that put a lid on it, but it seems unlikely that she'd marry a woman who was against it as this was her lifestyle for her adult life.


----------



## Sop (Jul 2, 2013)

I think it's alright. Adults should be mature enough to decide if they want to be in a relationship.

me on the other hand i couldn't
..

.
.
.
.
.
because im immature as fuck


----------



## KingVamp (May 13, 2014)

exangel said:


> 1) "Yes" would have implied that I was okay with polygamy too, wouldn't it?


Should have been answered this, but better late than never. I thought the sentence afterwards clarified the "Yes". Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 13, 2014)

Ultra-Batman-Necrobump, son!


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 13, 2014)

from what i understood, in most cases of polygamy, at least one's ending up hurt eventually. its like people who switch into an 'open marriage'. only one person is usually happy with it, the other just goes along because they hope things will work out, which they usually wont.

polyamory on the other hand, well, not that it wouldnt lead to pain too, but i believe it to be much more natural and ok than the other. we're pretty much born into this world automatically loving two people at least. it becomes a problem when people become idiots and believe they can only love one person and dismiss the earlier love automatically, because its the one that feels less intense at the moment of second love.

the world's complicated and i'm sure theres a few thousand people who'd do great together in a poly relationship. but chances are against them finding each other easily.


----------



## Dork (May 13, 2014)

I have a hard time believing that there are actually people, whether they be straight, gay, trans, etc, who are genuinely 100% okay with having their sexual/emotional partner go off and give that attention to someone else.

I mean if one person doesn't satisfy you in a relationship, how many will?

EDIT: Nevermind this thread was necro'd for some fucking reason and I didn't read the dates before it was too late.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> I have a hard time believing that there are actually people, whether they be straight, gay, trans, etc, who are genuinely 100% okay with having their sexual/emotional partner go off and give that attention to someone else.
> 
> I mean if one person doesn't satisfy you in a relationship, how many will?



For the right people is it any different to having your a significant other go off down the pub with their mates or go do sports without you for several hours a week? Once upon a time it might have been more tricky when you had pregnancy and disease to consider but modern medicine science can reduce that to a near nonexistent worry.


----------



## TheJeweler (May 13, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> a near nonexistent worry.


 
 Which would lead people to live reckless lives and eventually nobody would give a damn. Peoples reliance on medical advances for all of their worries just kinda mess up humanity, we may be passing on defective genes that should have died off,  leading the human race to weaken and eventually die out.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2014)

TheJeweler said:


> Which would lead people to live reckless lives and eventually nobody would give a damn. Peoples reliance on medical advances for all of their worries just kinda mess up humanity, we may be passing on defective genes that should have died off,  leading the human race to weaken and eventually die out.



Should be good for another generation of two, by which time we can instead have AI and/or robot bodies instead.


----------



## nando (May 13, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> Should be good for another generation of two, by which time we can instead have AI and/or robot bodies instead.


 


i hope said robot bodies are upgradeable with options for trade ins. i'd hate to be stuck with yesteryear's model.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 13, 2014)

nando said:


> i hope said robot bodies are upgradeable with options for trade ins. i'd hate to be stuck with yesteryear's model.



If it is all nanobots then it does not matter.


----------



## KingVamp (May 13, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Ultra-Batman-Necrobump, son!


 ~1 year isn't even that bad.

Now, there one more topic to discuss... again.


----------

