Polyamory Thread: I Love You All!

[Benuty]

Just to note there are some Jews who have more than one wife. They are really big into the whole "monogamy is crap" movement.

Cannot say I blame them really. Although it would be nice if the women could have more than one husband, or marriage equality what have you.

[Manisdog]

Yes the christians have there own act and the muslims have there own shariah law

and the parsis marry there cousins and sisters

Please correct grammar. Christians, Muslims, or Parsis are not places.

In that, I'm not seeing any such acts.

Every religion has got a different family act check it out and you would find

christians are polygamous

jews, I am not sure

parsis can marry there sisters, they are an endangered species really

Muslims can have multiple wives but they are ruled by shariath, and no not really good for women

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

christians are polygamous

The overwhelming majority of Christians are monogamous. I don't even need a source, that's just common sense. Even in the past, most were certainly monogamous. Men usually tend to have one partner and have no interest in sharing her with anyone else.

[Anglo-California]

The thought of being a cuckold does not sit well with me, and I could not in good conscious, engage in relations with a committed woman.

Being a cuckold and being apart of a polyamorist relationship are two different things. A cuckold consents to the wife/girlfriend being able to sleep with whomever she pleases but he doesn't while in a polyamorist relationship they both are able to pursue sexual and emotionally romantic relationships with each other along with anyone they want with consent of course.

Very well. I am not comfortable with either.

[Liriena]

God has designed the social structure to be one man, one woman, monogamous and heretosexual. Thus this polyamory is not advisable.

The first sentence makes no sense in reality. Same-sex unions exist, polyamorous relationships exist, open relationships exist... If God designed "the social structure", all those could not exist on their own, and yet they do. They are not artificial constructs. They have all been a part of our species for some time now, in many different forms, across many societies.

The second sentence is just pathetic. If a blatantly false pseudo-sociological claim is the only thing you can say that makes polyamory "not advisable", then clearly you have ran out of reasons.

[Liriena]

God has designed the social structure to be one man, one woman, monogamous and heretosexual. Thus this polyamory is not advisable.

The first sentence makes no sense in reality. Same-sex unions exist, polyamorous relationships exist, open relationships exist... If God designed "the social structure", all those could not exist on their own, and yet they do. They are not artificial constructs. They have all been a part of our species for some time now, in many different forms, across many societies.

The second sentence is just pathetic. If a blatantly false pseudo-sociological claim is the only thing you can say that makes polyamory "not advisable", then clearly you have ran out of reasons.

Furthermore, if relationships that diverge from this "social structure" cause no visible harm, then why would they be reprehensible?

[Solaray]

Nope, not for me I don't think. I've generally been more comfortable with the "norms" in life, and this is no exception.

But hey, if it's your thing, all the power to ya.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

God has designed the social structure to be one man, one woman, monogamous and heretosexual. Thus this polyamory is not advisable.

The first sentence makes no sense in reality. Same-sex unions exist, polyamorous relationships exist, open relationships exist...

As a result of sin (Genesis 3, Romans 1:26).

If God designed "the social structure", all those could not exist on their own, and yet they do. They are not artificial constructs. They have all been a part of our species for some time now, in many different forms, across many societies.

God designed it but it is not adhered to, as a result of sin.

The second sentence is just pathetic.

Semantics.

If a blatantly false pseudo-sociological claim is the only thing you can say that makes polyamory "not advisable", then clearly you have ran out of reasons.

[/quote]

I could always say that it is morally wrong, sinful, etc, but I think my point is made well enough by saying 'it isn't advisable'. And, I maintain, it isn't. One should not have open marriages, open relationships, etc.

[Spoder]

I'd be totally fine with it.

There's benefits to both monogamy and polyamory.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

The first sentence makes no sense in reality. Same-sex unions exist, polyamorous relationships exist, open relationships exist... If God designed "the social structure", all those could not exist on their own, and yet they do. They are not artificial constructs. They have all been a part of our species for some time now, in many different forms, across many societies.

The second sentence is just pathetic. If a blatantly false pseudo-sociological claim is the only thing you can say that makes polyamory "not advisable", then clearly you have ran out of reasons.

Furthermore, if relationships that diverge from this "social structure" cause no visible harm, then why would they be reprehensible?

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

[Nasal Bondage]

The first sentence makes no sense in reality. Same-sex unions exist, polyamorous relationships exist, open relationships exist...

As a result of sin (Genesis 3, Romans 1:26).

If God designed "the social structure", all those could not exist on their own, and yet they do. They are not artificial constructs. They have all been a part of our species for some time now, in many different forms, across many societies.

God designed it but it is not adhered to, as a result of sin.

The second sentence is just pathetic.

Semantics.

If a blatantly false pseudo-sociological claim is the only thing you can say that makes polyamory "not advisable", then clearly you have ran out of reasons.

I could always say that it is morally wrong, sinful, etc, but I think my point is made well enough by saying 'it isn't advisable'. And, I maintain, it isn't. One should not have open marriages, open relationships, etc.[/quote]
You don't seem to understand that the bible, or any religious text for that matter, isn't a valid source in an argument, especially one with non-Christians.

How is it not advisable? What makes same-sex relationships different from traditional relationships?

[Aahmerica]

Nooope.

Could not, would not.

Zero fucks given for those that do, but aint my style.

Why the hell would i want to disappoint two or more partners?

[Spoder]

Furthermore, if relationships that diverge from this "social structure" cause no visible harm, then why would they be reprehensible?

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

Actually we can decide if it is reprehensible.

If Adam and Eve did eat the Apple of Eden, then we know what is good and what is bad.

[Nasal Bondage]

Furthermore, if relationships that diverge from this "social structure" cause no visible harm, then why would they be reprehensible?

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

This is the reasoning that members in cults use - our leader says this is wrong, so it is; our leader says this is right, so it is. Stop blindly taking the word of a guy in the clouds who probably doesn't even exist, and start using your own brain to think things through.

[Liriena]

The first sentence makes no sense in reality. Same-sex unions exist, polyamorous relationships exist, open relationships exist...

As a result of sin (Genesis 3, Romans 1:26).

If God designed "the social structure", all those could not exist on their own, and yet they do. They are not artificial constructs. They have all been a part of our species for some time now, in many different forms, across many societies.

God designed it but it is not adhered to, as a result of sin.

So... this "social structure" is designed in such a way that it can be (harmlessly) ignored or disregarded by millions of people around the world, the moment a fictional event involving a legged snake takes place?

The second sentence is just pathetic.

Semantics.

If a blatantly false pseudo-sociological claim is the only thing you can say that makes polyamory "not advisable", then clearly you have ran out of reasons.

I could always say that it is morally wrong, sinful, etc, but I think my point is made well enough by saying 'it isn't advisable'. And, I maintain, it isn't. One should not have open marriages, open relationships, etc.

Yet you have failed to demonstrate any reason why we should consider polyamorous relationships inherently wrong, other than "my interpretation of the Bible says so".

[Geilinor]

Furthermore, if relationships that diverge from this "social structure" cause no visible harm, then why would they be reprehensible?

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

God created the behavior.

[Liriena]

Furthermore, if relationships that diverge from this "social structure" cause no visible harm, then why would they be reprehensible?

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

Why? I mean, there's an awful lot of unproven premises behind your conclusion. Starting with the alleged existence of this "god", the alleged moral perfection of this "god", and the alleged veracity of your interpretation of the will of this "god".

[Liriena]

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

Actually we can decide if it is reprehensible.

If Adam and Eve did eat the Apple of Eden, then we know what is good and what is bad.

Theology. You are doing it right.

[Benuty]

We aren't God; thus we cannot decide whether or not something is reprehensible just because it doesn't appear to cause visible harm. God says that behavior like this is wrong, therefore it is.

Why? I mean, there's an awful lot of unproven premises behind your conclusion. Starting with the alleged existence, the alleged moral perfection of this "god", and the alleged veracity of your interpretation of the willof this "god".

Yahweh didn't seem to mind the fact their contracted party had multiple spouses so I am not seeing where this prudish attitude of Archeuland's is relevant anyhow .

[Spoder]

Actually we can decide if it is reprehensible.

If Adam and Eve did eat the Apple of Eden, then we know what is good and what is bad.

Theology. You are doing it right.

I really don't know where the fuck people get this "only God knows what is wrong" shit.

If you believe in what the Bible says, its right fucking there in Genesis chapter 3 that we do know the difference between good and bad.

[Liriena]

Why? I mean, there's an awful lot of unproven premises behind your conclusion. Starting with the alleged existence, the alleged moral perfection of this "god", and the alleged veracity of your interpretation of the willof this "god".

Yahweh didn't seem to mind the fact their contracted party had multiple spouses so I am not seeing where this prudish attitude of Archeuland's is relevant anyhow .

Hey, if God made orgies possible, who are we to question the wisdom of his design?

[-The Trade Federation-]

Yahweh didn't seem to mind the fact their contracted party had multiple spouses so I am not seeing where this prudish attitude of Archeuland's is relevant anyhow .

Hey, if God made orgies possible, who are we to question the wisdom of his design?

That's some people's motto.

"If God gave us *insert something sexual here*, it's because we were made to do it !"

[Syrixia]

I think polyamory is a right and should be allowed and accepted; some people don't want traditional relationships, and frankly the idea that love should be spread between more people than just one select favorite is actually pretty noble.

That said, I wouldn't, nor do I want to, be involved in such a relationship. It's like an awesome vacation place you go to, but you know you don't want to live there.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

God has designed the social structure to be one man, one woman, monogamous and heretosexual. Thus this polyamory is not advisable.

No
No
No
No

and, let me say it again, no.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Its not only me but allot of people frown upon these swingers

We're not swingers. Swingers just have sex and nothing more. Again, who the hell are you to tell others what relationship they could have. The majority of people believe that it is acceptable to have a polyamorous relationship.

I am a swinger type of guy. As such I feel polyamory is kind of a topic I should be dwelling on.

I am still a bit unsure about the polyamory bit. I don't know if I'd call myself polyamorous. I know I like and enjoy very much the idea of me and my partner having sex with other people and even have them join in the fun. I'm not sure how I feel about me or my partner having more than one romantic relationship.