The case for polygamy

[Jon Miller]

Are you including adulterous in polygamous though? I certainly wouldn't.

Otherwise I have no idea how polygamous can constitute anything other than a tiny proportion in western nations?

From the first link I gave (which is from a very liberal psychologist, former proponent of polygamy):

"Immature monogamy is, especially in men, often infected with promiscuous desire and fantasy, however much that might be repressed or camouflaged with upstanding virtues. Airbrush this, infuse it with talk of integrity and unconditional love and jealously-transcending ethics, consider bringing in another partner or two, and you’re closer than near to polyamorous or multiple- partnering territory."

Note that he doesn't judge polygamy as more negative than immature monogamy (in fact, he might judge it as more positive).

Is a relationship where both parties are OK with and engage in such desires and fantasy a polyamorous one (in some fashion)? Yes.

Besides that a lot of people know that the other person is engaging in 'things on the side' or enable them to (subconsciously). Some do so openly (and then are 'officially' polygamous), but many more do so subconsciously.

My experience with people in open relationships is that it causes hurt to the relationship, even if the claim is otherwise.

JM

[Ming]

Where is your evidence that it depends on the individuals involved?

JM

Oh please... of course it does.

If you want to look at the whole to judge the individual, then we should stop allowing traditional marriages RIGHT NOW. Depending on whose stats you use, roughly HALF of all traditional marriages fail. So you tell me, is it a problem with the institution or the individuals.

[Barnabas]

I Argentina gay marriage was legalized by changing the law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman, to something like between 2 individuals.

It seems to me that once you change the genders in the traditional definition of marriage, there is no reason to not change the numbers, and that according to the modern world's point of view, if it tried to be consistent, outlawing polygamy would be discrimination.

[Jon Miller]

Oh please... of course it does.

If you want to look at the whole to judge the individual, then we should stop allowing traditional marriages RIGHT NOW. Depending on whose stats you use, roughly HALF of all traditional marriages fail. So you tell me, is it a problem with the institution or the individuals.

Your reasoning has no logical basis. I can't say "the republican party does crazy things, I think it is due to individuals, therefore the crazy things that the ku klax klan do must also be due to individuals and not to the institution".

JM

[notyoueither]

To quote some more:

"... begin with two crucial words. The first is "marriage." Group love (sometimes called polyamory) is already legal, and some people freely practice it. Polygamy asserts not a right to love several others but a right to marry them all. Because a marriage license is a state grant, polygamy is a matter of public policy, not just of personal preference."

"By this point it should be obvious that polygamy is, structurally and socially, the opposite of same-sex marriage, not its equivalent. Same-sex marriage stabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by extending marriage to many who now lack it. Polygamy destabilizes individuals, couples, communities, and society by withdrawing marriage from many who now have it."

http://igfculturewatch.com/2006/04/01/one-man-many-wives-big-problems/

JM

Interesting, but he depends on old, religious models for behaviour. He bases it all on one husband, many wives.

Polyamoury that I have read about that brought me around has women having multiple relationships.

[rah]

There's a wide variety of opinions in the republican party and they're all not crazy so yes you have to look at individuals.
In the KKK you still have to look at individuals but it's more likely that you're going to hate anyone you choose due to the nature of the organization.

I knew a guy in college that claimed he was a member of the KKK, and he was one of the nicest guys I ever met. He said he joined because where he was from it was expected. But after awhile he quit since he couldn't stand some of the things it's member's did. Which is why he went north to go to college to get away from all those people. So yes, you still have to look at individuals.

[notyoueither]

Imagine this. A middle aged couple. The husband suffered an accident or disease that decreased or eliminated his libido. The wife is still interested in sex.

Should that couple split so that the woman can be happy? Or do our outmoded notions of marriage and acceptable behaviour need to change?

[Fake Boris]

The two-person rule in a "traditional*" marriage is just as arbitrary as the requirement for different genders.

Spoiler:

* Traditional in the modern Western sense, given that polygamy has been practiced historically by many different culture around the world.

Tell me of any moral value that isn't arbitrary.

[Jon Miller]

Imagine this. A middle aged couple. The husband suffered an accident or disease that decreased or eliminated his libido. The wife is still interested in sex.

Should that couple split so that the woman can be happy? Or do our outmoded notions of marriage and acceptable behaviour need to change?

They aren't outmoded.

JM

[notyoueither]

It is outmoded to assume that all multiple partner relationships are one man and many women and that they all are necessarily negative.

It is also outmoded to insist that people adhere to Victorian ideas about family and morality when those ideas do not meet the needs of many people.

[Flubber]

As long as there is consent between adults... I have no problem with multiple wives, multiple husbands, same sex... WHO CARES. It doesn't change the relationship I have with my wife.
I'm not going to cram some silly outdated beliefs down other people's throats. I'll let them decide what they believe in... Just like I decide what I believe in when it comes to love and relationships.

QFT

[Flubber]

The divorce rates often come from when people try to include polyamory in their relationships.

This includes the abused children and the broken homes.

Remove the marriages that contain some form of polyamory and the marriages remaining would be much more successful and positive.

JM

Cite? UNless you are equating adultery with polyamory , I don't see how what you say is true

[Pax]

I also know of many individuals who have engaged in multiple partner sex. 1 guy 2 girls, 2 guys 1 girl, orgies. Two women that I knew that had sex with there boyfriend/husband and another woman/man enjoyed that situation but considered it too be cheating when the man had sex with another woman without there permission or knowledge. So I think that mentally some of us are already very close to polygamy and that it is capable to have romantic/sexual feelings for more than one person.

[Flubber]

Once -- about 10 years ago I got in an interesting discussion with a polyamorous woman. At the time she characterized herself as being in a stable 5 way relationship with 3 men and 2 women and all of them bisexual. Apparently sexual relations could involve almost any combination of the 5 and they had been successful as a 5 way for 3 years. Prior to that it had been a 4 way for a couple of years until the 3rd guy was added. the whole concept was so foreign to me but it seemed like it worked for her. I don't know how this would work with the legal ramifications of a marriage ( if its a 5 way marriage and one person leave, do you need a divorce? How about if a 6th gets added?? I see practical problems aplenty)


Oh and she would have been offended at the idea that they assisted adultery. They "didn't cheat" . The view was that sex with others was alright as long as all parties and their partners were all aware and ok with everything .


I don't know how stable larger marriages would be (consider the 50% failure rate of traditional marriage and consider how easily a 5, 6 or 7 person grouping would have one discontented person. But I could envision 3 way bondings lasting a long time-- heck the 3rd person could be a buffer when two were peeved at each other LOL

[Pax]

I agree, the bigger the number the more complicated things could become. However, it maybe able to be answered within the limits of our current legal system.
If a 4 adult /8 children group were to have 1 adult member leave with 1 one of the kids. How much support did that person receive or provide to the group could be the factor in deciding child support/alimony.
however if i am in a group of four adults / eight kids, I imagine that I would have to be tired of the majority of the people in the group to want to leave. So I may stay because I'm really getting my needs met by one person in particular. The options to make this relationship work seem endless. Even the childcare issue seems easier to deal with if you have four working adults or even three working adults and one nonworking adult.