Is it wrong for people to have more than one partner?

[Tom McCurdy]

Is it wrong for people to have more than one partner?
I mean is it our society that seems to have the stigma that one person should have one partner, or is it nature? Is it wrong for example for a guy to have five girlfriends at once if he does not lie to them? Would marrying in this instance (polygamy) be acceptable in any case? Also not only with one guy with multiple girls but also one girl with multiple guys or just one person witn any other number of people (allowing for gay/lesbian relationships)

 

[0TheSwerve0]

It would only be wrong if we were not meant to. I'd say if all parties agree, then it would be ok. I guess this presupposes that the function of romantic relationships is to join with another person in order to create something new through experience and sharing. Then I would ask, is there a benefit to only doing this with one person versus many? Does it seem wrong because we wouldn't be able to do this completely with several people or because we wouldn't feel as special? And is this actually valid?

 

[James R]

If they are all informed, consenting adults, I can't see why there would be anything "wrong".

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Then why does our society feel so strongly against polygamy? (our being US)

 

[arildno]

Then why does our society feel so strongly against polygamy? (our being US)

Because the moral code in US is wrong in this respect.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Do you feel that people then should be allowed to marry more than one partner? I guess trying to view other side argument, that they are preventing it because...

a. The United States is largly Christian, and people just won't accept it anyway.
b. Often in the cases of polygamy it is in some cult instance involving brainwashing, so rather than deal with that this is a way to skirt the issue.
c. Bill Gates can't have 3 million wives, there will be none left for anyone else :)

 

[arildno]

What has marriage got to do with this?
If we're talking about cherished ceremonies in some private community of like-minded individuals, they should, IMO, feel free to celebrate what they think constitutes a proper living.

Secondly, if we think of marriage as a judicial contract which more or less confer some privileges (for example, automatic inheritance right) to those involved (as long as some minimal requirements are fulfilled), then I don't see why such juridically binding contracts should be reserved for some particular life-styles, in the sense that others should be able to enter such contracts as well.

However, this does not mean that (for some reason) childless couples/quadruples should benefit from tax relief particulaly aimed for those who DO raise children.

 

[Akihiro]

Umm... it's wrong because it leads to the overflooding of a single person's gene? Or it is just because we humans define it as wrong, and therefore it is WRONG?

 

[arildno]

Or it is just because we humans define it as wrong, and therefore it is WRONG?

So just because the Nazis judged Jews to be scum, therefore Jews ARE scum?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

So just because the Nazis judged Jews to be scum, therefore Jews ARE scum?

I believe he was just being sacrastic there arildno

It would see that he agrees that it should be alright, then again I could be ... Wrong

 

[so-crates]

I guess it would be OK if all parties are OK with it, which I've never seen happen except for casual relatinships.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

So-crates... who do infer by all parties?
do you mean the people in the relationship and the society around them?

What happens if its alright with the people in the relationship but not alright with the people around him, kind of like a common situation with gay/lesbian couples. Although it would be shunned upon even more.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

What's being "shunned upon?" :rofl:
Is that like being thrown up on? Ok ok, carry on.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

And again, is there a benefit to only doing this with one person versus many? Does it seem wrong because we wouldn't be able to do this completely with several people or because we wouldn't feel as special? And is this actually valid? I think this is being touched on.

I guess it would be OK if all parties are OK with it, which I've never seen happen except for casual relatinships.

So why only in casual relationships?

 

[pansessualismo]

.
c. Bill Gates can't have 3 million wives, there will be none left for anyone else :)

Uhhmm, maybe Bill Gates can have 3 million ...men...
When he opens his 'gates'?! :yuck:
If he can put an 'apple' in his ass...why not 3 million men...

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Uhhmm, maybe Bill Gates can have 3 million ...men...
When he opens his 'gates'?! :yuck:
If he can put an 'apple' in his ass...why not 3 million men...

What are you talking about...

anyway... so I guess the general opinion is that it is alright as long as everyone is aware and people aren't taking advantage of a system.

 

[so-crates]

And again, is there a benefit to only doing this with one person versus many? Does it seem wrong because we wouldn't be able to do this completely with several people or because we wouldn't feel as special? And is this actually valid? I think this is being touched on.

So why only in casual relationships?

I think we have an innate biological jealousy with our partners. Mammals are different from other species in that we have fewer children, and put comparatively more effort into to raising them to survive. For men, we want to be sure that the children we are raising come from our own gene pool and not some random jerkoff. Women want their men to be devoted to their own offspring and not someone else. Of course this is just speculation, and their are exceptions. One exception is with women who into "players" who do their business and move on. If sexual behavior is an inherited trait, then here offspring would also be similarly aggressive in seeking out multiple partners.

Well that's what the naturalist in me says. The humanist in me says that there's really no rule that says that a polygamous relationship couldn't work. I have thought about it myself that I wouldn't mind being in a polygamous relationship or even a polyandrous relationship if my partner was an exceptional "alpha" female.

You should research societies in which formal polygamy is allowed, both polygymous and polyandrous, and look at the role of men and women in the arrangements. I believe there is a certain culture from Tibet where fraternal polyandry is accepted, mainly for economic reasons since the agricultural work is so difficult. I seem to recall from a high school anthropology class is that their is usually tremendous amount ot tension and jealousy in polygynous marriages even when it is culturally accepted. The wife accepts it grudgingly.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So if we remove the jealousy and have many partners, we lose nothing and gain much? Is there nothing lost when we do that? I mean in terms of loving (unless we've disowned love as just brainchemistry and only important so far as it helps our survival), are we capable of having a truly committed and full relationship with multiple people?

 

[so-crates]

How can you have a "full" relationship with multiple people. If you have more than one partner, there is obviously some inequality as you will have to prioritize your resources among them. You inevitably have to decide one is more important than the other.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

So then it isn't wrong, it's just not a good choice for love.

 

[so-crates]

Like, I suggested before, you might want to look up contemporary and historical examples of polygamy if you want to gain a little bit more insight. I believe the book we read for that anthro class was called "Nisa". And keep in mind I am differentiationg between merely having multiple partners vs. formal societal acceptance of such an arrangement. If you want something more in tune with with U.S. culture you might want to research those communes they had in the 60s-70s and certain Mormon cultures.

If study isn't enough for you, well, a wise man once said:
"No one can be taught anything, the experience is everything" :-)