Is polyamory "morally corrupt"?

bit_pattern · 13th July 2012, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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.

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?

lionking · 13th July 2012, 04:32 AM

One piece of useful advice my dad gave me was "beware moralists, they have nothing to add to any conversation".

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 04:46 AM

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.

lionking · 13th July 2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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.

That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why?

Brian-M · 13th July 2012, 04:54 AM

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?

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why?

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.

lionking · 13th July 2012, 05:03 AM

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".

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

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".

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.

bit_pattern · 13th July 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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.

Please don't derail this thread. If you can't keep OT then just don't participate.

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:25 AM

It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.

ponderingturtle · 13th July 2012, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

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?

I think he is objecting to the idea of public debate not polyamory.

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:26 AM

bit_pattern · 13th July 2012, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I think he is objecting to the idea of public debate not polyamory.

Yes.

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

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?

Now we're all on the same page do you want to take a stab at answering the question?

fuelair · 13th July 2012, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why?

No.

bit_pattern · 13th July 2012, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.

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?

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:34 AM

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?

bit_pattern · 13th July 2012, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Moslems too?

And, bingo, we have a name-o. I had a feeling that's where this was leading...

DC · 13th July 2012, 05:40 AM

if all involved parties agree on it, there is no problem with it for me.

lionking · 13th July 2012, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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?

Mormon's what?

And you will find that the the Church of the Latter Day Saints have not endorsed polygamy for decades.

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

Mormon's what?

And you will find that the the Church of the Latter Day Saints have not endorsed polygamy for decades.

Thanks. I really had no idea hence my question mark.

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by DC

if all involved parties agree on it, there is no problem with it for me.

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?

Mark6 · 13th July 2012, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

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?

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"

Alt+F4 · 13th July 2012, 05:48 AM

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.

DC · 13th July 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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?

an attempt to make a joke? or is that expression not used downunder?

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

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.

Do you really think we do? I would love a poll on that - I reckon most blokes still hold some fantasy in that regard.

Hallo Alfie · 13th July 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by DC

an attempt to make a joke? or is that expression not used downunder?

What does it mean where you come from?

Monketi Ghost · 13th July 2012, 06:20 AM

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.

Anerystos · 13th July 2012, 06:36 AM

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.

DC · 13th July 2012, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

What does it mean where you come from?

all involved parties, means that all the people that are involved in a case of polyamory.

JJM 777 · 13th July 2012, 06:56 AM

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

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 07:06 AM

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.

Weak Kitten · 13th July 2012, 07:30 AM

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.

stokes234 · 13th July 2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Meh. If that were the case I would do so. Whether you believe me or not - it doesn't bother me.

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.

NewtonTrino · 13th July 2012, 07:34 AM

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.

ZirconBlue · 13th July 2012, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

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.

I think it "works" a lot more often than you suspect.

ZirconBlue · 13th July 2012, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Monketey Ghost

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.

"Inevitably"?

Monketi Ghost · 13th July 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

"Inevitably"?

According to my admittedly small understanding of human nature. Same reason Communism doesn't work: people want to own things. Sometimes it's other people, to whatever extent they can.

Rasmus · 13th July 2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

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.

Looking at real world divorce rates, you might say the same of current marriages ...

Crossbow · 13th July 2012, 08:14 AM

Polyamory is just as moral as monamory, therefore polyamory is not morally corrupt.

BStrong · 13th July 2012, 08:49 AM

Adults want to form their own families based on what works for them, with no coercion, I say have at at.

13th July 2012, 04:26 AM	#1
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Is polyamory "morally corrupt"? Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie 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. 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?
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Last edited by bit_pattern; 13th July 2012 at 04:27 AM.

13th July 2012, 04:32 AM	#2
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 52,882	One piece of useful advice my dad gave me was "beware moralists, they have nothing to add to any conversation".
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

13th July 2012, 04:46 AM	#3
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	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.
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Last edited by Hallo Alfie; 13th July 2012 at 04:48 AM.

13th July 2012, 04:50 AM	#4
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 52,882	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie 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. That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

13th July 2012, 04:54 AM	#5
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,044	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?
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,044	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 13th July 2012 at 05:01 AM.

13th July 2012, 05:02 AM	#6
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Originally Posted by lionking That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why? 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.
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:03 AM	#7
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 52,882	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".
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill Last edited by lionking; 13th July 2012 at 05:05 AM.

13th July 2012, 05:09 AM	#8
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Originally Posted by lionking 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". 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.
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:23 AM	#9
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie 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. Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie 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. Please don't derail this thread. If you can't keep OT then just don't participate.
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406

13th July 2012, 05:25 AM	#10
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture.
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:25 AM	#11
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,955	Originally Posted by bit_pattern 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? I think he is objecting to the idea of public debate not polyamory.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th July 2012, 05:26 AM	#12
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:29 AM	#13
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I think he is objecting to the idea of public debate not polyamory. Yes. Originally Posted by bit_pattern 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? Now we're all on the same page do you want to take a stab at answering the question?
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406

13th July 2012, 05:29 AM	#14
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	Originally Posted by lionking That's not the question. Is it morally corrupt and if so why? No.
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

13th July 2012, 05:32 AM	#15
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture. 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?
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406

13th July 2012, 05:34 AM	#16
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	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?
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:38 AM	#17
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Moslems too? And, bingo, we have a name-o. I had a feeling that's where this was leading...
bit_pattern Guest Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 7,406

13th July 2012, 05:40 AM	#18
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	if all involved parties agree on it, there is no problem with it for me.
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

13th July 2012, 05:43 AM	#19
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 52,882	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie 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? Mormon's what? And you will find that the the Church of the Latter Day Saints have not endorsed polygamy for decades.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

13th July 2012, 05:44 AM	#20
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Originally Posted by lionking Mormon's what? And you will find that the the Church of the Latter Day Saints have not endorsed polygamy for decades. Thanks. I really had no idea hence my question mark.
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:45 AM	#21
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Originally Posted by DC if all involved parties agree on it, there is no problem with it for me. 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?
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:45 AM	#22
Mark6 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,260	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie It really is a schoolboy's fantasy though don't you think? - and most men's I would venture. Originally Posted by bit_pattern 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? 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"
Mark6 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,260	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

13th July 2012, 05:48 AM	#23
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,018	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.

13th July 2012, 05:50 AM	#24
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie 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? an attempt to make a joke? or is that expression not used downunder?
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

13th July 2012, 05:50 AM	#25
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Originally Posted by Mark6 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. Do you really think we do? I would love a poll on that - I reckon most blokes still hold some fantasy in that regard.
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 05:51 AM	#26
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691	Originally Posted by DC an attempt to make a joke? or is that expression not used downunder? What does it mean where you come from?
Hallo Alfie Banned Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 10,691

13th July 2012, 06:20 AM	#27
Monketi Ghost Confusion Reactor Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 25,141	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.

13th July 2012, 06:36 AM	#28
Anerystos Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 839	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.
Anerystos Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 839	Last edited by Anerystos; 13th July 2012 at 06:39 AM.

13th July 2012, 06:50 AM	#29
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie What does it mean where you come from? all involved parties, means that all the people that are involved in a case of polyamory.
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

13th July 2012, 06:56 AM	#30
JJM 777 Suspended Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,060	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
JJM 777 Suspended Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,060	Last edited by JJM 777; 13th July 2012 at 06:57 AM.

13th July 2012, 07:06 AM	#31
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 15,334	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.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 07:30 AM	#32
Weak Kitten Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,909	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 quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot

13th July 2012, 07:30 AM	#33
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,294	Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie Meh. If that were the case I would do so. Whether you believe me or not - it doesn't bother me. 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.
stokes234 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 2,294	__________________ "I offer the world my genius. All I ask in return is that the world cover my expenses." Hugo Rune

13th July 2012, 07:34 AM	#34
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,517	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.
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,517

13th July 2012, 07:52 AM	#35
ZirconBlue Sole Survivor of L-Town Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth Posts: 14,709	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 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. I think it "works" a lot more often than you suspect.
	__________________ Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards.