Why is polygamy, bigamy, polyamory, etc. immoral?

[Verv]

Why are these things considered immoral, unethical, sinful, etc.? How do you feel about them?

This is the issue with Western modern "morality."

Modern morality to Westerners is measured in a method that was originally fundamentally a political measure of our individual rights as opposed to right and wrong. It is measured by what a 17th century Christian scholar, John Locke, perceived as the nature of 'natural rights' endowed to us by God.

That is: my rights end where your rights begin.

Modern liberals have flipped this entire argument for freedom into an argument for decadence by saying my morals end where yours begin. That is to say, any action that does not physically harm another person or damage or steal their property is permissible, and we no longer view it as immoral.

There is a tremendous confusion in the West on the issue of legislating morality.

For instance, perhaps it should be entirely legal for someone to be a glutton, to be a jerk, to be a prostitute or a polygamist. The question that is merely left for us to decide is: 'is it ethical?'

Whereas, Eastern morality and previous Western morality used a similar measure. In Eastern thought, there is the concept of 'Cheonri,' which means essentially 'the logic of Heaven,' or 'the Eternal Logic.' It goes to say some things are inherently illogical or unnatural to the intended way that nature has designed us.

Because of this, they cannot be moral.

Morality in traditional Eastern thought on its most basic form centers around Cheonri, and in Taoist thought it then centers around pursuing Cheonri alone and in and of itself while Confucianism focuses on the pursuit of the five virtues.

Certainly, a man cannot be fulfilling these virtues and it should be legal, but that does not make it right...

In short, what makes those things wrong much of the time is their failure to fulfill the basic heavenly logic.

A man or a woman cannot have many lovers at the same time and love them equally, nor keep these relations in good order. Thus, it is immoral as it negatively impacts the others and does create a society more aimed at decadence.

 

[Penumbra]

This is the issue with Western modern "morality."

Modern morality to Westerners is measured in a method that was originally fundamentally a political measure of our individual rights as opposed to right and wrong. It is measured by what a 17th century Christian scholar, John Locke, perceived as the nature of 'natural rights' endowed to us by God.

That is: my rights end where your rights begin.

Modern liberals have flipped this entire argument for freedom into an argument for decadence by saying my morals end where yours begin. That is to say, any action that does not physically harm another person or damage or steal their property is permissible, and we no longer view it as immoral.

There is a tremendous confusion in the West on the issue of legislating morality.

For instance, perhaps it should be entirely legal for someone to be a glutton, to be a jerk, to be a prostitute or a polygamist. The question that is merely left for us to decide is: 'is it ethical?'

Whereas, Eastern morality and previous Western morality used a similar measure. In Eastern thought, there is the concept of 'Cheonri,' which means essentially 'the logic of Heaven,' or 'the Eternal Logic.' It goes to say some things are inherently illogical or unnatural to the intended way that nature has designed us.

Because of this, they cannot be moral.

Morality in traditional Eastern thought on its most basic form centers around Cheonri, and in Taoist thought it then centers around pursuing Cheonri alone and in and of itself while Confucianism focuses on the pursuit of the five virtues.

Certainly, a man cannot be fulfilling these virtues and it should be legal, but that does not make it right...

In short, what makes those things wrong much of the time is their failure to fulfill the basic heavenly logic.

But in order for all of this to make sense, the eternal logic would have to be proven to exist, and then it would have to be identified.

Who is to say who is arguing on the side of eternal logic and who is arguing against it?

A man or a woman cannot have many lovers at the same time and love them equally, nor keep these relations in good order. Thus, it is immoral as it negatively impacts the others and does create a society more aimed at decadence.

Who says they cannot love them equally nor keep relations in good order? I mean, I'm personally opposed to this sort of thing (for myself anyway), but who is to say who is capable of it and who is not? Unless somehow supported, the claim that they cannot do this is unfounded.

Should parents stick to having one child because there's no way they could love them all equally and keep these relations in good order? I can imagine a world where this is the prevailing thought, and those that think multiple children is a good idea are looked upon as ridiculous due to this same argument.

-Lyn

 

[nolongerhome]

This is the issue with Western modern "morality."

Modern morality to Westerners is measured in a method that was originally fundamentally a political measure of our individual rights as opposed to right and wrong. It is measured by what a 17th century Christian scholar, John Locke, perceived as the nature of 'natural rights' endowed to us by God.

That is: my rights end where your rights begin.

Modern liberals have flipped this entire argument for freedom into an argument for decadence by saying my morals end where yours begin. That is to say, any action that does not physically harm another person or damage or steal their property is permissible, and we no longer view it as immoral.

There is a tremendous confusion in the West on the issue of legislating morality.

For instance, perhaps it should be entirely legal for someone to be a glutton, to be a jerk, to be a prostitute or a polygamist. The question that is merely left for us to decide is: 'is it ethical?'

Whereas, Eastern morality and previous Western morality used a similar measure. In Eastern thought, there is the concept of 'Cheonri,' which means essentially 'the logic of Heaven,' or 'the Eternal Logic.' It goes to say some things are inherently illogical or unnatural to the intended way that nature has designed us.

Because of this, they cannot be moral.

Morality in traditional Eastern thought on its most basic form centers around Cheonri, and in Taoist thought it then centers around pursuing Cheonri alone and in and of itself while Confucianism focuses on the pursuit of the five virtues.

Certainly, a man cannot be fulfilling these virtues and it should be legal, but that does not make it right...

In short, what makes those things wrong much of the time is their failure to fulfill the basic heavenly logic.

A man or a woman cannot have many lovers at the same time and love them equally, nor keep these relations in good order. Thus, it is immoral as it negatively impacts the others and does create a society more aimed at decadence.

Legal does not equal moral, you are quite right in that. How, however, did you manage to get access to the eternal, heavenly logic of morality?

Why can't a man or a woman have multiple lovers at the same time and love them equally? Can parents not love multiple children equally at the same time? The nature of the love is different in a romantic relationship, certainly, and it adds complications which would make things more difficult. I don't think that just anyone could make it work. But for those that can make it work, I see no reason to consider it immoral. I don't see how nature has designed us in a way that requires monogamy - many animals aren't monogamous at all.

What do you mean by "create a society more aimed at decadence"?

 

[Verv]

There are only two points to cover here:

Yes, I know the eternal logic, the eternal reason. Most people can learn what this is fairly easily by reading extensively Confucian, Neo-Confucian or Taoist thought.

First, you are trying to get me to do something impossible: prove a negative. You would say, Verv cannot possibly know everyone and perhaps this does work for some people.

But if I were to even try to convince you of the truth of my words, it would have to go back to the Eastern concepts of Ilwonchae and Iwonchae.

Metaphysically, Taoists believe that there is only one general substance that makes up all beings and this is 'Ilwonchae' concept. That is to say, all entities are made of the same thing.

Metaphysically, Confucianists believe in Iwonchae; all things are made of the same two substances.

Both Confucian and Taoist philosophers tinker with an idea called Manmul Ilchae, 'All entities one body.' When we learn what our true hearts are we learn the true desires we have and the true good within humanity.

By knowing my true heart, and by many of you all knowing your true heart, and us all generally concluding the impossibility of holding many lovers at the same time without encountering barriers we become aware that this is counter-intuitive.

We also see what benefit it would serve the deceiver who engages in these things: sexual and potentially monetary gratification plus a delusion of self-righteousness through their singular rebellion against social standards.

The answer is clear.

 

[Belk]

This is the issue with Western modern "morality."

Modern morality to Westerners is measured in a method that was originally fundamentally a political measure of our individual rights as opposed to right and wrong. It is measured by what a 17th century Christian scholar, John Locke, perceived as the nature of 'natural rights' endowed to us by God.

That is: my rights end where your rights begin.

Modern liberals have flipped this entire argument for freedom into an argument for decadence by saying my morals end where yours begin. That is to say, any action that does not physically harm another person or damage or steal their property is permissible, and we no longer view it as immoral.

Why do you feel that this view is incorrect?

There is a tremendous confusion in the West on the issue of legislating morality.

For instance, perhaps it should be entirely legal for someone to be a glutton, to be a jerk, to be a prostitute or a polygamist. The question that is merely left for us to decide is: 'is it ethical?'

Whereas, Eastern morality and previous Western morality used a similar measure. In Eastern thought, there is the concept of 'Cheonri,' which means essentially 'the logic of Heaven,' or 'the Eternal Logic.' It goes to say some things are inherently illogical or unnatural to the intended way that nature has designed us.

Because of this, they cannot be moral.

Morality in traditional Eastern thought on its most basic form centers around Cheonri, and in Taoist thought it then centers around pursuing Cheonri alone and in and of itself while Confucianism focuses on the pursuit of the five virtues.

Certainly, a man cannot be fulfilling these virtues and it should be legal, but that does not make it right...

In short, what makes those things wrong much of the time is their failure to fulfill the basic heavenly logic.

Via what method is the "heavenly logic" discerned? What process is used to ensure that correct conclusions are reached?

A man or a woman cannot have many lovers at the same time and love them equally, nor keep these relations in good order. Thus, it is immoral as it negatively impacts the others and does create a society more aimed at decadence.

What mechanism makes it not possible?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Uhhh..the more the merrier? I think if one got really creative he could do exactly that.

you betcha

How many people here want multiple wives or husbands?

It's not that I want multiple husbands (never marrying again!), but there's nothing wrong with polyamory My daughter's relationship is workign well...she and her husband have a third in their relationship...all 3 of them are extremely happy, content, and intent on extremely open adn clear communication. They create a unique and very loving dynamic in the home...and their love is almost tangible.

It seems to me an issue is being made out of something simply for the sake of argument. I don't know anyone that has advocated multiple marriage partners or protested the limitations of marriage between two individuals.

Arguments like this distract from genuine political issues.

Oh please, what's political about multiple partners? Yes, there is a teeny tiny itsy bitsy political element if the polygamy laws were to be repealed...but this is about morals, not politcs... you wanna discuss those start a separate thread in politics...

Would you be willing to share your man with one or two other women?

why not? as long as everyone communicates openly and honestly...I've seen this work...I've had it work in the past...each person in the relationship adds to the foundation of the whole...

Why is it considered immoral? Evolution.

How do I feel? If everyone involved wants to, then go for it.

exactly that

 

[Penumbra]

There are only two points to cover here:

Yes, I know the eternal logic, the eternal reason. Most people can learn what this is fairly easily by reading extensively Confucian, Neo-Confucian or Taoist thought.

Well, that of course only holds true if Confucianism and Taoism is indeed eternal reason, which I would say is an unsupported assumption. Basically this comes down to some guy on the internet saying he has eternal logic because he believes he has the perfect philosophy.

How can one even identify eternal logic if they were to see it?

First, you are trying to get me to do something impossible: prove a negative. You would say, Verv cannot possibly know everyone and perhaps this does work for some people.

But if I were to even try to convince you of the truth of my words, it would have to go back to the Eastern concepts of Ilwonchae and Iwonchae.

Metaphysically, Taoists believe that there is only one general substance that makes up all beings and this is 'Ilwonchae' concept. That is to say, all entities are made of the same thing.

Metaphysically, Confucianists believe in Iwonchae; all things are made of the same two substances.

Both Confucian and Taoist philosophers tinker with an idea called Manmul Ilchae, 'All entities one body.' When we learn what our true hearts are we learn the true desires we have and the true good within humanity.

By knowing my true heart, and by many of you all knowing your true heart, and us all generally concluding the impossibility of holding many lovers at the same time without encountering barriers we become aware that this is counter-intuitive.

We also see what benefit it would serve the deceiver who engages in these things: sexual and potentially monetary gratification plus a delusion of self-righteousness through their singular rebellion against social standards.

The answer is clear.

I definitely would not say it's clear. It's clear to me what works for me in this scenario, but definitely not clear what works for others.

In fact I've seen some polyamorists use a similar argument to defend their lifestyle. I've seen some argue that we are all one and therefore to pick one specific person to love more than any other person and then to claim that person for our-self is a limiting lifestyle that holds us back from our full potential to love. It could be argued that there are elements of clinging selfishness in monogamy that are not necessarily present in polyamory.

-Lyn

 

[Verv]

Why do you feel that this view is incorrect?

Human interaction should involve a sense of harmony and not some sense of isolation.

Via what method is the "heavenly logic" discerned? What process is used to ensure that correct conclusions are reached?

Meditation, natural observation, logical exercises, Shimrihak (studying of the human heart), Geungeumhak, (observation of other species and attempts to relate their basic behaviors to our own), dorihak (study of the logic of the path,), etc. etc.

A lot of this is based off of combining metaphysical truths about the universe with the human heart.

What mechanism makes it not possible?

Jealousy, division of interests, lack of time, faithlessness in one another, natural confusion amongst children brought into the relationship, the natural desire of the overwhelming majority of people to share exclusive company...

It is incredibly unnatural to the average person's psyche and would require a very, very different and non-human society to resemble it.

 

[Belk]

Human interaction should involve a sense of harmony and not some sense of isolation.

I find this a rather unenlightening response. Perhaps you could elaborate for those of us following along at home?

Meditation, natural observation, logical exercises, Shimrihak (studying of the human heart), Geungeumhak, (observation of other species and attempts to relate their basic behaviors to our own), dorihak (study of the logic of the path,), etc. etc.

A lot of this is based off of combining metaphysical truths about the universe with the human heart.

So would you say it is fair to characterize this as religious thinking without empirical evidence?

Jealousy, division of interests, lack of time, faithlessness in one another, natural confusion amongst children brought into the relationship, the natural desire of the overwhelming majority of people to share exclusive company...

It is incredibly unnatural to the average person's psyche and would require a very, very different and non-human society to resemble it.

I disagree. I have seen relationships with multiple partners that work. I do not think any of the things you have listed are so ingrained in humans that it is not possible to overcome them.

 

[Skaloop]

Human interaction should involve a sense of harmony and not some sense of isolation.

Wouldn't being in harmony with more than one person bring human interaction even further from isolation?

 

[citizenthom]

In what way? Could they not all three belong to each other equally?

In the same way one can have two jobs. And if you did, you'd understand what I mean. One job is always subordinate to the other, whether it's the more steady job (one offers 40 hours per week, the other 20) or the higher-paying job. There are always conflicts in when you can and can't work, and you never truly consider one your "career."

Now imagine you had a job that did not necessarily need you to be there all the time, but needed you "on call" all the time in case something happened; and hoped that even in those "non-need" hours you were thinking of ways to make the business better and to advance your career. That's what marriage is. Marriage is a full-time job--full time, as in 140 hours per week. You can't do that kind of job for two masters, period.

 

[Skaloop]

In the same way one can have two jobs. And if you did, you'd understand what I mean. One job is always subordinate to the other, whether it's the more steady job (one offers 40 hours per week, the other 20) or the higher-paying job. There are always conflicts in when you can and can't work, and you never truly consider one your "career."

Now imagine you had a job that did not necessarily need you to be there all the time, but needed you "on call" all the time in case something happened; and hoped that even in those "non-need" hours you were thinking of ways to make the business better and to advance your career. That's what marriage is. Marriage is a full-time job--full time, as in 140 hours per week. You can't do that kind of job for two masters, period.

Having children is a full-time job too. Are you against multiple-child families?

 

[nolongerhome]

In the same way one can have two jobs. And if you did, you'd understand what I mean. One job is always subordinate to the other, whether it's the more steady job (one offers 40 hours per week, the other 20) or the higher-paying job. There are always conflicts in when you can and can't work, and you never truly consider one your "career."

Now imagine you had a job that did not necessarily need you to be there all the time, but needed you "on call" all the time in case something happened; and hoped that even in those "non-need" hours you were thinking of ways to make the business better and to advance your career. That's what marriage is. Marriage is a full-time job--full time, as in 140 hours per week. You can't do that kind of job for two masters, period.

I think rather than the two jobs analogy I will provide the two children analogy.

I think this is better because it involves human relationships, which is what we are talking about.

Is it possible to love two or more children equally? Or are they always subordinated in a hierarchy? I don't have kids, so I don't know, but it seems to me that a lot of parents claim to love all their children in such a way that none is favoured and all receive the love that they require.

 

[citizenthom]

Having children is a full-time job too.

Truth be told, no, it isn't. Material needs can be met in a set timeframe. Children do not have anywhere near the same complex emotional needs as adults; and by the time they develop them, they need to be allowed to develop them on their own and to find mates to meet them apart from their parents. Treat your partner like a mere child and you're doing him/her a disservice.

 

[Skaloop]

I think rather than the two jobs analogy I will provide the two children analogy.

I think this is better because it involves human relationships, which is what we are talking about.

Is it possible to love two or more children equally? Or are they always subordinated in a hierarchy? I don't have kids, so I don't know, but it seems to me that a lot of parents claim to love all their children in such a way that none is favoured and all receive the love that they require.

Yep. I would bring back the job analogy, though, to point out that many people juggle a job, a spouse, children, friends, hobbies, errands, and a bunch of other things without necessarily having negative effects on their marriage. No spouse gets 140 hours of attention, based on sleep requirements alone. Throw in the other stuff, and even the most healthy marriage doesn't have a major proportion devoted to the alleged full-time marriage.

 

[nolongerhome]

citizenthom - you seem to be considering these relationship as a < shape - a man at the pointy end, connected to two women who are not connected to each other.

What if it was more like this: &#916;

That is, the connections link all partners. Each individual has responsibilities to two others, but also receives support from two others two. You can expand this out further, increasing the links. Is it not conceivable that in such a situation the fact that emotional needs are being provided for by more than one other partner enables everyone to be satisfied despite the fact that each individual partner may not be giving the same amount of individual attention to each other partner as the two partners in a monogamous relationship would give to each other?

 

[Mr. Ripley]

I think it's the other way around. We shouldn't have to have a point to legalize something, but instead should have a point in order to make something illegal. The state of something for which there is no good reason to make illegal, should be legal, as otherwise it needlessly restricts freedom. Arguments based on tradition or on, "because I don't like it" have caused enough problems.

While I don't like polygamy, I would not strive to keep it illegal unless presented with very compelling reasons for doing so.

-Lyn

I don't disagree with your reasoning. I disagree with the unintended consequences of that reasoning. In effect, it, IMO, causes more harm than good. You say you don't like polygamy but would not strive to keep it illegal. I don't care about polygamy one way or another, but there are millions of Americans who would fight to the death to maintain its illegality. Since there is no widespread desire to repeal these laws, I see it as a pointless argument which would simply distract from other very serious issues, like the economy, the 9-year war, and a myriad of other issues of significant magnitude. Whether someone wants to marry multiple people or not, quite frankly, pales in comparison. And yet, because of the immense controversy of the idea, it would garner more attention than real issues.

It's a pet peeve of mine. And I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[Archer93]

I've had open relationships before (that's basically a monogamous romantic relationship, with the freedom to have sexual relationships on the side). They turned out fine... obviously there's a lot of communication required, but all relationships require that. Personally I don't find sexual fidelity necessary to love and trust someone.

Some very good friends of mine are in long term polyamourous relationships (I know examples of both multiple men and multiple women).

I think the important thing about any of these relationships is that they require more communication and the informed consent of all parties.

(Being a cheating jerk and calling yourself 'polyamourous' is particulay offensive to me).

I think you've hit all the nails squarely on the head here.
Especially when it comes to communication and honesty.

It's a bit of a cliche, but none the less true, that a number of marriages break up because one of the pair has had some sort of fling. Not necesseraly a serious affair, but has slept with someone else and their spouse has found out about it.
I find myself wondering whether the problem is more to do with the betrayal of trust than with the simple fact of sleeping with someone else?
If the standard attitude was "Stay safe, and let me know about it", we might have fewer broken relationships.

I'm polyamorous, although am currently in a sexually monogamous with my fiancee. If my 'husband' wasn't gay then there might be something going on there, but he is so there isn't.

Personal opinions and experiences coming up-
The problem I personally find with exclusive pairbonding is the tendancy to become a gestalt entity. I think it's very important to have a life outside of the relationship as well- when two people are pretty much living in each other's pockets it can get very stressful.
I like opera. My fiancee doesn't. My 'husband' does, so I go to the opera with him. And it's kinda like a date, rather than two mates going out, because of our emotional connection.
She likes Formula One, I don't, she watches it with someone who would be her girlfriend if she wasn't monogamously married.
This may sound like the textbook definition of 'It's complicated', but in practice it really isn't.
It's just trust and honesty and communication.

I have had a bad experience with a past lover- he got possesive and controlling and, ultimatly, downright nasty. But that was a problem with him, not with the concept of polyamory, since monogamous men can get like that as well. And women as well, of course.

Okay, enough of the personal.

I also know a poly trio who have been together for over 5 years now and are still going strong.

It isn't for everyone- just as some people are gay and some are straight and some are bi, so some people are naturally monogamous and others are polyamorous and some people are fine with open relationships that don't involve deep romantic emotion apart from with their primary partner.

tl/dr- it's not for everyone, but the things that make a poly relationship work are the same things that make a monogamous relationship work.

 

[Rebekka]

I think rather than the two jobs analogy I will provide the two children analogy.

I think this is better because it involves human relationships, which is what we are talking about.

Is it possible to love two or more children equally? Or are they always subordinated in a hierarchy? I don't have kids, so I don't know, but it seems to me that a lot of parents claim to love all their children in such a way that none is favoured and all receive the love that they require.

Considering the discussions about the Duggar family we've had here, I'd say that a lot of people think there is a limit to the number of children you can love equally and give them the amount of love they need. Most people nowadays don't have 10+ children anymore. And when I compare my parents' childhood (9 and 8 kids) to my own (I only have one sibling), I definitely received more attention and love from my parents than they did from theirs. You can't give each of your 9 (let alone 20) kids the same amount of love and attention as when you have only 2. I can imagine that that goes for 2 vs. 1 kid, too.

But I agree with citizenthom that a romantic relationship is not like a parent-child relationship. The objections I have against a 'classic' polygamous relationship (one husband, multiple wives; wives have fewer rights than the husband) have to do with it resembling a parent-child relationship too much: it isn't equal, one has power over the others. That doesn't seem healthy to me.

I've had open relationships before (that's basically a monogamous romantic relationship, with the freedom to have sexual relationships on the side). They turned out fine...

So you're still with them?

 

[citizenthom]

citizenthom - you seem to be considering these relationship as a < shape - a man at the pointy end, connected to two women who are not connected to each other.

What if it was more like this: &#916;?

It's not about the shape of the relationship, but the content of the obligations. Married people owe each other their entire beings. It is impossible to give everything of yourself to two different people.