Celritannia wrote:1. No, not it is not.
A Polyamorous marriage would be more like person A marries person B, and Person C marries both person A and B.
A polygamy marriage is more person A marries persons B, C, D, E, etc.
Polygamy simply refers to the practice of marrying more than a single spouse. All of the arrangements you described above amount to polygamy by the conventional definition. Polygyny refers to the practice of a single man marrying multiple women whereas polyandry refers to the practice of a single woman marrying multiple men. These are subsets of polygamy. There's no distinction between a polyamorous marriage and polygamy. They're literally the same thing in terms of social function despite attempts by advocates to redefine terms in a niche way.
Celritannia wrote:Also, polyamorous relationships focuses on the love and compassion between the people involved, the same cannot be said for a polygamy marriage.
This is nonsense. We have multiple historical records detailing genuine love, affection, and compassion between persons involved in polygamous marriages. Again, you're trying to redefine terms instead of arguing the points with the definitions that presently exist and that are commonly accepted.
Celritannia wrote:2. Those are monogamous marriages comparing polygamy marriages. But I am not saying jealousy does not occur in polyamorous relationships.
And if it does become dysfunctional, why should we get involved in the affairs of the private lives of individuals?
Again, there's no valid distinction between polyamory and polygamy in terms of social function and impact when both are practiced ubiquitously. The distinction is legal recognition and sanction by the state. We should get involved in such affairs because social dysfunctions impact society at large and do not remain confined to persons engaging with pernicious social models. Essentially, we get involved to secure the common good.
Celritannia wrote:3. Those problems still exist without polyamorous relationships. But they won't suddenly increase with them.
Except the studies seem to suggest that they will increase if and when polyamorous relationships become more common.
Celritannia wrote:But that says multiple wives. Multiple wives is not a basis of polyamorous relationship. Again, it can be 2 men and one woman, 2 men and 2 women, etc.
Polygyny has, as I mentioned previously, been the most common form of polyamory/polygamy historically and is the most common form of such practices presently. Our social conditions and biological predilections are such that we could expect it to predominate in our current society if polyamory, as opposed to free love, became widely practiced. Even bucking those considerations, polyandry and free love give us a lot of social dysfunctions as well since the advocates for those in the West aren't especially interested in developing the social conventions and rigid controls that predominate in, say, the Himalayas, where polyandry is actually linked to children not knowing who their fathers are and limitations on the fertility rate.
Celritannia wrote:Formalised marriage doesn't even need to be a thing in today's society tbf.
Marriage remains a beneficial social institution.
Celritannia wrote:4. But that is what it appears to be. "men in 20s commit crime", how can we simply stop polyamorous marriages to help decrease the crime rates? That's not how human work.
The study suggests that married men are less likely to commit crimes and act aggressively. So preventing the proliferation of a social model that makes lower-class men far less likely to get married would absolutely reduce the prevalence of both things. We know this because it has occurred before in practically every state that modernized in the nineteenth and twentieth century, from Turkey to China. It's absolutely how humans work.
Celritannia wrote:No, we should never tell people what they can and cannot do when it involves their feelings and emotions.
We can and should depending on the circumstances.
Celritannia wrote:Age of consent is not the same as people being in a polyamorous relationship. Polyamorous relationships are consenting adults. Far different from those underage. So the 2 are not the same.
Historically and at present, there's quite a bit of overlap honestly, but that wasn't really my point. My point was that we do regulate which relationships are acceptable and/or recognized and have a vested interest in doing so when the prevalence of a particular sort of relationship makes society worse off.
Celritannia wrote:5. What you want should not matter when people who are in a loving relationship are concerned.
I don't care what polyamorous people want and I don't care about giving polyamorous people freedom. I care about society functioning, average men and women having value and rights in society, and stable families existing. Polyamorous people can remain an outlier without acknowledgement of the state and it serves almost everyone else for them to remain in this state. Muh freedom isn't an argument unless we all become libertarians overnight.
Celritannia wrote:If polyamourous marriages were to exist, it would still remain small.
That's a really big assumption.
Celritannia wrote:No, denying the people to marry the people they love hinders society.
Nonsense. Society has no vested interest in weighing in on matters of love. It would be a grievious misuse of government time. We don't recognize marriage because the love behind it is just wonderful. We acknowledge it because it's a tradition and because it provides social advantages. That's all.
Celritannia wrote:You have yet to provide actual evidence of how POLYAMOROUS (not POLYGAMY) marriages will cause problems.
They're the same thing.
Celritannia wrote:So how about people get off their high horses and understand polyamorous relationships before linking them to polygamy.
How about people read a dictionary and some relevant history before making up definitions.
Celritannia wrote:"This will lead to societal collapse" is a pathetic and stupid argument with no factual basis at all.
That's not the argument. The argument, one supported by empirical evidence, is that it will make society less stable, lead to violence and criminality, reduce the value of lower-class men and women, etc.
Celritannia wrote:And telling consenting adults who they can and cannot love is pathetic.
You can love anyone you want. Society just doesn't have to encourage or support practices that are harmful to it with acknowledgement, legal protection, or marital rights.