Polyamorous relationships, are they damaging to society?

[Kernen]

Family law was boring as hell to me before I ran into its application to polygamous marriage.

Are you kidding ? Family law is normally two people burning their entire martial estate just to one up the other and to get the pleasure of saying the divorce was clearly the other side's fault. Its great for attorneys not so much for the people getting divorced or their children. Make it 4 people and dear god. Also if you divorce out of that group of 4 people, you lose because there are 3 people in the household that will say it is all your fault. You will get nothing from the marital estate and nothing in child visitation rights basically you will have to start life over with a child support bill.

Sure, dealing with angry people is fun. The law itself bores me. At least estate law has interesting rules.

[Medwedgrad]

Then prove it.

*Points at your post*

There. Done.

Haha I hope you are proud of yourself

[Rojava Free State]

I mean, they also refused to answer my questions, because the rhetoric they're using is the same that's used against same-sex couples

Yes, exactly the same that is used against same-sex marriages, and rightfully so.

Show me on this teddy bear where the gays hurt you.

[The New California Republic]

*Points at your post*

There. Done.

Haha I hope you are proud of yourself

Oh not really, it was only mildly amusing, nothing to write home about.

[Greed and Death]

Are you kidding ? Family law is normally two people burning their entire martial estate just to one up the other and to get the pleasure of saying the divorce was clearly the other side's fault. Its great for attorneys not so much for the people getting divorced or their children. Make it 4 people and dear god. Also if you divorce out of that group of 4 people, you lose because there are 3 people in the household that will say it is all your fault. You will get nothing from the marital estate and nothing in child visitation rights basically you will have to start life over with a child support bill.

Sure, dealing with angry people is fun. The law itself bores me. At least estate law has interesting rules.

Not fun just profitable. Not even the most die hard An cap will turn his entire estate into legal fees just to get out of taxes. Will two people turn their entire estate into legal fees just to one up the other during divorce.

[Centai Mal]

I mean, they also refused to answer my questions, because the rhetoric they're using is the same that's used against same-sex couples

Yes, exactly the same that is used against same-sex marriages, and rightfully so.

Why? Because it's "icky" to you? I'm in a monogamous relationship right now, with a very lovely guy. Guess we're making a mockery, despite us loving each other more than anyone could ever love someone as hateful as you

[Thepeopl]

I would like a statement from every single sociologist confirming your claim.

Empiricism isn’t absolute it is observed and documented information just as a side note.

Actually you can. For example the Monty Hall Problem. Choices are ultimately Computational of the brain based on sensory data gained from environmental stimuli. The irrational variability is case by case and can be absent entirely. When it is present it’s usually due to an unknown factor yet to be revealed.

So, back to your question, which you seem to not like my word choice so I’ll offer a compromise.

Sources drawn from observational, sensory, and behavioral data which is measurable and can be validated by an experiment as the preferred form of submission.

Of course that you will not get the statement from every sociologist, but if we will play that game, I can answer you that I want a statement from every sociologist in favour of your argument about the capabilities and aims of Sociology. As neither of us will get such statement, does it mean that both statements are false? Of course it won't, because social reality either can or can't be precisely measured.

I don't see how Monty Hall Problem can be connected to our discussion as I don't seem to notice anything that it has in common with measuring social realities.

But, for the purpose of this discussion, let's hypothetically accept your proposition. For example, in my nation we are thinking about a legislation about polyamorous relationship. Let's imagine that in your nation they are encouraged for few years already, and that in this period the divorce rate was reduced (once again, we are imagining it just hypothetically). Now, based on your approach (2+2=4) I should make 2 conclusions: 1. That the reduction of divorce rate in your nation is directly connected with the encouragement of polyamorous relationships; 2. That the same legislation in my nation would lead to the same effect.
However, we have following problems:
1. How can we know that polyamorous relationships and their encouragement are in direct connection with reduction of number of divorces?
a) Did we take into consideration all the changes in laws about marriage that took places in the newest history of your nation?
b) Did we take into consideration the economical development of your nation in that period?
c) ... demographic changes
d) ... influence of education
e) ... influence of religion
f) ... political changes and (in)stability
g) ... social security and welfare programs
h) ... unemployment rate
i) ... aging of the society
j) ... migrations
k) ... relations between rural and urban areas
l) ... industrialization
m) ... healthcare
n) ... social stratisfication
o) ... cultural heritage and its influence
p) ... safety
q) ... unpredictable events like pandemia
r) ... and so on

There are too many parameters to count, too many things that could directly or indirectly influence these trends. We can establish that one might made more impact than another, but we still don't get the precise equation. The trends about divorce under the same legislation might be different just few years earlier or later.

It gets even harder when we want to apply it to my nation, as we need to take into consideration all differences between our nations, starting with culture and historical heritage, ending in unpredictable events. Even if it worked in your society (and we can't know that its effect is the consequence of this concrete thing), it might work in a totally different way in another society.
Finally, even if the reduction in the divorce rate is positive, we still need to take into consideration other effects, like for example violence in marriage, economical situation of households, birth rate, quantity of abandoned children, abortion rate, influence of polyamorous relationships on raising children and their success in adult life, etc.

You can't get the final answer empirically, as the reality is too complex to measure. Choosing this road is risky and unpredictable. That's why wiser approach is the conservative one. Instead of trying to count infinite variables, why not to rely on tradition and common sense? If society worked out the principle of monogamous marriage, if it exists for as long as history can establish, if it proved to be able to endure the challenges in front of which it was put through the history, then it is the most likely the safest principle upon which society should be founded. And therefore it is wise to protect it.

You could argue the same for prescription drugs.
You don't know if it works equally well for men and women. You don't know whether it will work the same for you as for me.
And still doctors will prescribe the same drug for patients.
Only after they have seen it doesn't work, they'll prescribe other drugs.

[The Republic of Fore]

They are a little bit weird to me, but to each their own. It isn't society's business.

[Thepeopl]

Did I say "The definition of ", no I didn't.
I said "my definition ".
And yes I think Wikipedia has it wrong polygamy is 1 person has multiple spouses.
Group marriage is Polyamory not polygamy.

But because polygamy has been used in biology and sociology, the word has obtained several meanings. Unless you think animals have weddings too...

Animals don't execute paperwork.

But we do use polygamy for animals...

[Purple Rats]

I just watched "WhyKnot" documentary on Netflix. I didn't really like the guy who made it, neither his girlfriend, but it had some really interesting interviews and they looked back at history of monogamy.

Has anyone else seen it? What do you think?

[Thepeopl]

I just watched "WhyKnot" documentary on Netflix. I didn't really like the guy who made it, neither his girlfriend, but it had some really interesting interviews and they looked back at history of monogamy.

Has anyone else seen it? What do you think?

It isn't available in The Netherlands, as soon as it is, I'll watch. But on Ted talks you have several speakers on the topic of monogamy/ polyamory.

[Douleia]

Most people are, at some point in their lives, in a polyamorous relationship.
This can be because of
cheating by one or both partners in a hitherto monogamous relationship
conscious choice to have an open relationship
silent agreement to have an open relationship
(ir)religious reasons

Generally speaking: the more honestly the decision for polyamory is agreed upon by all three or more parties, the less damaging the thing becomes: if relationships founder on polyamory, it's usually because they were also premised on the pretense of monogamy.

The damage is not done by polyamory. The damage is done by monogamy extremism.

[Celritannia]

Most people are, at some point in their lives, in a polyamorous relationship.
This can be because of
cheating by one or both partners in a hitherto monogamous relationship
conscious choice to have an open relationship
silent agreement to have an open relationship
(ir)religious reasons

Generally speaking: the more honestly the decision for polyamory is agreed upon by all three or more parties, the less damaging the thing becomes: if relationships founder on polyamory, it's usually because they were also premised on the pretense of monogamy.

The damage is not done by polyamory. The damage is done by monogamy extremism.

None of those things you listed are polyamorous though.

[The Sladerstan]

Most people are, at some point in their lives, in a polyamorous relationship.
This can be because of
cheating by one or both partners in a hitherto monogamous relationship
conscious choice to have an open relationship
silent agreement to have an open relationship
(ir)religious reasons

Generally speaking: the more honestly the decision for polyamory is agreed upon by all three or more parties, the less damaging the thing becomes: if relationships founder on polyamory, it's usually because they were also premised on the pretense of monogamy.

The damage is not done by polyamory. The damage is done by monogamy extremism.

No, that's called an Adulterous relationship.

[Exxosia]

Are polyamorous relationships a problem?

Only if they spread to collateral parties in a negative way.

Do they cause problems for society?

They are not common enough to cause problems for society — especially as the society creates the relationship type first.

OR are they just like any other relationship?

For the most part, yes. I have seen two polyamorous relationships in my life. One broke down horribly, but in the end was no different than a normal breakup except for a mazda on fire. The other (a woman and two men) are happily still together 17 years into it and would benefit from a three-way marriage.

[Celritannia]

Are polyamorous relationships a problem?

Only if they spread to collateral parties in a negative way.

Do they cause problems for society?

They are not common enough to cause problems for society — especially as the society creates the relationship type first.

OR are they just like any other relationship?

For the most part, yes. I have seen two polyamorous relationships in my life. One broke down horribly, but in the end was no different than a normal breakup except for a mazda on fire. The other (a woman and two men) are happily still together 17 years into it and would benefit from a three-way marriage.

This is the best response I have seen on this thread thus far.