• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is polyamory "morally corrupt"?

bit_pattern

Unregistered
bit_pattern
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
7,406
A.A. Alfie said:
This is a bit odd too .

Secret minutes of a meeting on June 30 also revealed that the leadership of the Australian Young Greens party wanted to push for a public debate on polyamorous marriage, which allows people to have several wives or husbands.​

The party of the morally corrupt.
Click to expand...

So, the question is, why is it morally corrupt to discuss the merits of familial relations that don't fit with the model of the so-called 'traditional' family structure? Is this just a religious hang-up, to define an individuals decisions on who they love a matter of morality? How do you think a modern day sceptic could justify having such 'moral' concerns over how people negotiate human relations?
 
Last edited:
One piece of useful advice my dad gave me was "beware moralists, they have nothing to add to any conversation".
 
One wonders why the meeting minutes needed to be secret. One also assumes that the push for the debate was buried by the quorum and perhaps a disgruntled supporter of the debate leaked them.

Curious anyway.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
One wonders why the meeting minutes needed to be secret. One also assumes that the push for the debate was buried by the quorum and perhaps a disgruntled supporter of the debate leaked them.

Curious anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why?
 
What exactly does it mean for polyamory to be "morally corrupt" anyway? Are we anthropomorphizing polyamory, regarding it as a person who should be able to act in a moral fashion but chooses not to?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why?
Click to expand...

In actual fact, the "morally corrupt" was a comment summarising the whole post and the Greens in general (you know 800 deaths at sea and all that? remember them?), not just the snippet that has been provided above.

Is your wife keen on another man in the relationship LK?

I've been barking up the third woman tree in my marriage - my wife isn't up for it sadly. Another dirty schoolboy dream dashed. :)
 
Your claim can be seen by everyone. I don't blame you for back peddling. It would be far more honest to say "I was wrong, I can't support that contention".
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Your claim can be seen by everyone. I don't blame you for back peddling. It would be far more honest to say "I was wrong, I can't support that contention".
Click to expand...

Meh. If that were the case I would do so. Whether you believe me or not - it doesn't bother me. I am more than comfortable with the thread - in fact I think it will be very enlightening. A poll would have been more revealing though I think.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
One wonders why the meeting minutes needed to be secret. One also assumes that the push for the debate was buried by the quorum and perhaps a disgruntled supporter of the debate leaked them.

Curious anyway.
Click to expand...

A.A. Alfie said:
In actual fact, the "morally corrupt" was a comment summarising the whole post and the Greens in general (you know 800 deaths at sea and all that? remember them?), not just the snippet that has been provided above.

Is your wife keen on another man in the relationship LK?

I've been barking up the third woman tree in my marriage - my wife isn't up for it sadly. Another dirty schoolboy dream dashed. :)
Click to expand...

Please don't derail this thread. If you can't keep OT then just don't participate.
 
It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.
 
bit_pattern said:
So, the question is, why is it morally corrupt to discuss the merits of familial relations that don't fit with the model of the so-called 'traditional' family structure? Is this just a religious hang-up, to define an individuals decisions on who they love a matter of morality? How do you think a modern day sceptic could justify having such 'moral' concerns over how people negotiate human relations?
Click to expand...

I think he is objecting to the idea of public debate not polyamory.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.
Click to expand...

No. I don't think. I know people, men and women, who have polyamorous relationships. So, on topic, why do you believe that an individual deciding to love other individuals (in the plural), or discussing the merits of recognising such relations in society, is morally corrupt?
 
To further the question, how many have sounded out their partner about the inclusion of others?

I admit it, we have.

We didn't discuss another in the marriage though, which was the topic this political party put up for debate. Three in a marriage. Mormon's do that don't they, Moslems too?
 
if all involved parties agree on it, there is no problem with it for me.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
To further the question, how many have sounded out their partner about the inclusion of others?

I admit it, we have.

We didn't discuss another in the marriage though, which was the topic this political party put up for debate. Three in a marriage. Mormon's do that don't they, Moslems too?
Click to expand...

Mormon's what?

And you will find that the the Church of the Latter Day Saints have not endorsed polygamy for decades.
 
DC said:
if all involved parties agree on it, there is no problem with it for me.
Click to expand...

Labor, Liberal, The Greens, Family First, The Nats, Bob Katter's Australia Party, etc...?

I really can't see them all coming to the party.

Perhaps we could put our car keys in the ash tray instead?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.
Click to expand...
bit_pattern said:
No. I don't think. I know people, men and women, who have polyamorous relationships. So, on topic, why do you believe that an individual deciding to love other individuals (in the plural), or discussing the merits of recognising such relations in society, is morally corrupt?
Click to expand...
I would say you are both right. Polyamory -- more accurately polyginy, -- is in fact a schoolboy's fantasy, although most men grow out of it. Real-life polyamory, at least the kind I am familiar with (as in, know people involved), is not all that exciting.

A bit off-topic. Reminds me of this quote I saw few years ago:

"Vast majority of Western literature and film would fall apart if we dropped the assumption that it is only possible and/or desirable to love one person at a time"
 
Morally corrupt, I don't think so, just too exhausting. I can barely keep up with the one wife I do have. And think of all those tax returns, yikes! If everyone involved is over 18 and not being forced, what's the harm? These type of relationships don't seem to work in the long-term (unless it religious based, cause then "you ain't goin' nowhere") because of a human trait that can't be avoided....jealousy.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Labor, Liberal, The Greens, Family First, The Nats, Bob Katter's Australia Party, etc...?

I really can't see them all coming to the party.

Perhaps we could put our car keys in the ash tray instead?
Click to expand...

an attempt to make a joke? or is that expression not used downunder?
 
Mark6 said:
I would say you are both right. Polyamory -- more accurately polyginy, -- is in fact a schoolboy's fantasy, although most men grow out of it.
Click to expand...

Do you really think we do? I would love a poll on that - I reckon most blokes still hold some fantasy in that regard.
 
I'm betting on a friend to hit this thread and have something useful to say.

Myself, I don't see anything wrong with it if all adults understand the relationship and how they're involved. The only problem is that inevitably people have a desire to be "more" than the other person, have a desire to be the "favorite" and "special".

"I love you all the best" doesn't really cut it when that happens.
 
As a British judge once commented when refusing to send a bigamist to jail:

“The penalty for bigamy is two mothers in law”.

I guess that applies to any form of multiple marriage - only worse.

Personally, I go with Alt+F4.
 
Last edited:
Polyamory is not morally corrupt, if the participants know their rights (or lack thereof) in advance before joining the group relationship, if there is no discrimination between rights of genders (for example: one man vs. many women allowed, but not vice versa), and if they have the liberty to leave the group if they so wish.

/thread
 
Last edited:
It's all about context. In a culture where the line of succession is an important aspect of the society, it makes sense for it to be considered morally corrupt. In a purely meritocratic culture, it shouldn't make any difference. But it does, because some things are hard for a culture to unlearn.
 
There's nothing immoral about polyandry. The only problems with it are logistical. If those who want poly-marriage legalized can work out the legalities in a standardized manner that works for all group sizes, configurations, and foreseeable situations then I say they should be legal.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Meh. If that were the case I would do so. Whether you believe me or not - it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

I think you should either support the contention or withdraw it. Making it, and then refusing to say whether you actually believe it or not is cowardly.
 
The simple answer is no.

Why one would want to marry more than one person is a good question though. These kinds of relationships tend to be hard to keep together and require a particular kind of personality that most people don't have.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
I'm betting on a friend to hit this thread and have something useful to say.

Myself, I don't see anything wrong with it if all adults understand the relationship and how they're involved. The only problem is that inevitably people have a desire to be "more" than the other person, have a desire to be the "favorite" and "special".

"I love you all the best" doesn't really cut it when that happens.
Click to expand...

"Inevitably"?
 
NewtonTrino said:
The simple answer is no.

Why one would want to marry more than one person is a good question though. These kinds of relationships tend to be hard to keep together and require a particular kind of personality that most people don't have.
Click to expand...

Looking at real world divorce rates, you might say the same of current marriages ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom