Polyamory

DeathMagus said:

There's a distinction between banding together and cooperating and the development of art, religion, music, philosophy, etc.

Click to expand...

So you say.

As I said, a great many disagree with you, starting with Freud, and on from there. There is a school of thought that says EVERY human activity is built on the drive to reproduce... even those that don't directly result in reproduction, somhow enhance the ability of either the individual, the family, or the larger group, to reproduce.

Believe it or don't, I'm just telling you its out there.

EnemyPartyII said:

So you say.

As I said, a great many disagree with you, starting with Freud, and on from there. There is a school of thought that says EVERY human activity is built on the drive to reproduce... even those that don't directly result in reproduction, somhow enhance the ability of either the individual, the family, or the larger group, to reproduce.

Believe it or don't, I'm just telling you its out there.

Click to expand...

I know it exists, I simply don't subscribe to it.

DeathMagus said:

I know it exists, I simply don't subscribe to it.

Click to expand...

As is entirely your right.

sidhe said:

Ah...I see the issue.

You're using "natural" in the sense of "right and proper to an objective standard", but that's not what the metaphysical naturalism of atheism refers to.

"Natural", in that sense, means "observable in nature" - thus, no deities (not observable), but homosexuality is natural, because it can be observed.

You've mixed your metaphors, so to speak.

Click to expand...

But homosexuality is not natural because it is not inherently conducive to the existence of the human race.

And the fact that homosexuality is so easily abhorred and often done so in most societies as it is disgusting is demonstratable proof... The majority of humans disapprove.

It has no benefit to the society.

DeathMagus said:

Here's the thing. Humans, and all life, have naturally evolved over millennia strictly to survive, reproduce, and pass along to the next generation their genes or genes very similar to theirs.

The minute that these activities are no longer the be-all and end-all of human existence - the very instant such a thing happens - the naturalism argument is no longer valid.

Naturalism hasn't been a valid argument for thousands upon thousands of years, because the very idea of culture is a tacit admission that food, sex, and making babies are not the most important things we can do with our lives.

Click to expand...

That isn't really true.

You should re-evaluate culture and the meaning behind it.

What is the meaning behind it?

And why abandon what is the natural notions of being humanity, and if we do that where do we even draw a sense of morals? What is even the point of morals?

You need to tell me what you believe before we can really go anywhere because you've only told me what you do not believe and I have a feeling you are a vacuum.

EnemyPartyII said:

How does homosexuality or polyamory breach any of these definitions?

I get that you personally thing it is irrational, however I don't see why it should automatically follow that anything you consider irrational automatically be "unnatural"?

Click to expand...

It is unnatural because it is not in line with the natural model for human existence.

jmverville said:

That isn't really true.

You should re-evaluate culture and the meaning behind it.

What is the meaning behind it?

Click to expand...

I stated it earlier - art, music, literature and more are all ends unto themselves.

And why abandon what is the natural notions of being humanity, and if we do that where do we even draw a sense of morals? What is even the point of morals?

Click to expand...

Because arguments from nature are logically fallacious, for numerous reasons. See here:

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Throwing around the phrase "natural" is a meaningless gesture. By one definition, polyamory is more "natural" than medicine, since medicine is inherently artificial, whereas polyamory is found in nature.

By another definition, everything rational humans do (including polyamory) is inherently "natural", since we are, in fact, natural beings.

Then there's a really common (but worthless) definition of "natural" in which "natural" things are really just things that are common and accepted. This is even worse than most definitions, since it combines an appeal to nature with an appeal to popularity.

"What is commonly done and considered acceptable is natural and what is natural is good" is usually how such arguments go. It's worthless.

You need to tell me what you believe before we can really go anywhere because you've only told me what you do not believe and I have a feeling you are a vacuum.

Click to expand...

I stated before what I believe - civilization affords us the freedom to pursue things other than survival and reproduction. Some of it directly improves our survivability and ability to reproduce; much does not.

jmverville said:

But homosexuality is not natural because it is not inherently conducive to the existence of the human race.

And the fact that homosexuality is so easily abhorred and often done so in most societies as it is disgusting is demonstratable proof... The majority of humans disapprove.

It has no benefit to the society.

Click to expand...

Congratulations! You just stated exactly what that homosexuality being abhorred in most societies is proof of - the majority of societies disapprove!

That makes no statement on whether or not it's moral. That makes no statement on whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed. It simply says that the majority of cultures feel the need to cling to dehumanizing a minority.

However...it also says nothing as to whether or not the majority of humans disapprove. Many cultures/societies voice their opposition, but that does not reflect the individuals. Case in point - Italy. Italy is quite Catholic (big C intentional) in culture, which would tend to oppose homosexuality, yet the majority of the individuals feel that homosexuals/bisexuals/etc. are entitled to full legal rights up to and including marriage/civil unions. Similarly, Spain - which still has a fascist element to its politics - is quite traditionally Christian, but the individuals are as a whole supportive of homosexuality to the point that same-sex marriage is legal.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking of people in groups. Cultures are not uniform, and the stated values of a culture and the practiced values of a culture may be radically divergent.

jmverville said:

But homosexuality is not natural because it is not inherently conducive to the existence of the human race.

Click to expand...

Neither are things like penicillin, glasses, cars, or computers but does that mean we shouldnt use them?

And the fact that homosexuality is so easily abhorred and often done so in most societies as it is disgusting is demonstratable proof... The majority of humans disapprove.

Click to expand...

But see... that's the thing, it WASN'T seen as bad by society basically until pretty modern times. No ancient society that we can find had a problem with it. Even early on in our history it was something you may not have discussed with your friends but you werent shunned or ostracized for it, you were simply a "life long bachelor"

It has no benefit to the society.

Click to expand...

Can you prove this?

And why abandon what is the natural notions of being humanity, and if we do that where do we even draw a sense of morals? What is even the point of morals?

Click to expand...

You want us to follow YOUR natural notions, mine say nothing about "the gay is bad". Morals are common guidelines that a group of people agree to in order to have a cohesive society.

You need to tell me what you believe before we can really go anywhere because you've only told me what you do not believe and I have a feeling you are a vacuum.

Click to expand...

I'm a polyamorous Pagan, what more do you want to know?

It is unnatural because it is not in line with the natural model for human existence.

Click to expand...

I saw a video of a speaker who did a whole long talk about gays and society.

One of the things he said was "A lot of people say that being gay isnt natural, the parts dont fit together. All I can say to that is, yes they do. If they didnt, people would try it [gay sex], it wouldnt work, and they'd go do something else.

"Oh my god the parts dont fit!"
"Well this isnt working out, why dont we go do something else?"
"Wanna go bowling?"
"Sure!"

It was a hilarous talk and he raised some excellent points. I'll post it up here for you if you'd like

Just another spanner i nthe works of jmerville.

Homosexuality occurs in nature to slow over-population. It DOES benefit the exhistance of the human race, and the other races which take part in it.

jmverville said:

In a very objective sense it does not effect those outside of it, but at the same time no man is completely an island and we all have to live in a society; some of us do not want to be confronted with a behavior we deem sickening.

Nazis have a right to march on the streets, but isn't it sickening to you?

Click to expand...

If they do it in their own bedrooms, they are not confronting you. I don't care what people do with their own sex lives.

Nazis spread hate and intolerance and have an agenda that they want society to have, so I don't see how that's related. They can march all they want, though, and I'll just ignore them.

-Lyn

Verv,

You need to open your mind up just a tad. It sounds like you've got a large amount of intolerance.

Humans are not monogamous by nature, and does the Bible not teach us that it is wrong to be jealous? We are related to the Bonobo chimp, a species that is by nature polyamourous.

bonobos

I don't see how polyamory could hurt anyone in anyway. As long as the people in the relationship all consent to it, there's no problem. Same with monogamous relationship.

Steezie said:

One thing I managed to discover about myself over the last few years is that I am actually polyamorous. This was a bit of a shocking discovery since before that I'd always considered myself extremely monogamous.

After going through that, I can honestly say I have at least a taste of what it feels like to have to tell the people around you that you are gay because the reactions of different people ran the gamut between fascinated and angry.

I'm curious as to why this is.

I understand that a lot of it is religious and I had several friends say to me "Religiously, I don't agree with it, but you are my friend and I accept you." Much of our social fabric is woven out of Christian cloth and Christianity typically frowns on a relationship with multiple partners so, again, that much I understand.

However beyond that it seems strange to me how quickly attitudes change. Many of the reactions I observed to this news were negative even though I am not currently and have no plans to be in a polyamorous relationship.

I guess it falls along the same lines as the phrase "Im no different now than I was before you knew" and that honestly confuses me.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with it. Would even support legal polyamorous marriages if they could fix the legal issues with it (like how does an estate get split during a divorce, and who gets custody of kids, etc.).

Heck, the Christians should have no problem with it - their bible is replete with polyamorous marriages.

Verv said:

Polyamorous relationships are immoral and should not exist; The notion that there is no exclusivity in a relationship essentially takes away the sanctity of that union and is a rationalization for people to fulfill their deeds of the flesh.

And what kind of an example is that to those around them? What does that say -- what is the point of always giving into other desires and risking relationships in situations that produce jealousy and feelings of inadequacy while setting a terrible example for others around you?

What is the point of doing the easy wrong over the hard right?

Click to expand...

Well...I'm not sure where you got the idea that polyamory is easy. Navigating the emotions of multiple people is quite a lot harder than doing the same with one.

Your image of poly seems to be that two people say they are in a relationship, but then sleep with anybody they want, without limits or concern for the wellbeing of each other.

That's not generally what happens at all. Two people can be poly and never have sex with anybody outside of their relationship--in that case the 'poly' label might mean that they form emotional relationships, or do sexual-type activities short of intercourse. Or they might..... infinite options and configurations here.

The point of poly--of most forms of alternative sexuality-- is that it's about building a relationship built on the needs and desires of the people involved rather than on the rules we learned from 90's sitcom-dramas.

Done well, the people involved aren't "always giving into other desires and risking relationships in situations that produce jealousy and feelings of inadequacy."

Those feelings might come up, but it certainly isn't a guarantee, or considered a normal part of poly. It can happen in any relationship, and a healthy poly relationship handles it the same way a healthy monogamous one does: by talking about why somebody bad, when they feel good, what they need, what it's reasonable to expect of their partner.... and myriad other things, and then having everybody involved come to a solution.

When I see my partner with her other partner, though, it doesn't make me feel jealous or inadequate. I like seeing her happy, and he makes her happy, so I have an "awww sweet" response.

Verv said:

How do people even do this, and how are they culturally brought to such a point where this is possible?

Click to expand...

Hmm...I'm not sure, really. I certainly wasn't brought up this way (to be fair, I don't identify as monogamous or polyamorous, and I don't plan to pursue either type of relationship as a goal unto itself. I just happen to be involved in a relationship that leans slightly toward poly.)

I think people have started doing this because parts of our culture have realized a few things.
1. Some people just cannot be happy in monogamous relationships.
2. Open, honest communication is the key to a healthy relationship.
3. A relationship in which the people involved honestly care about each others needs and desires, and seek to meet them, is much more likely to work out than a relationship built on externally imposed expectations about what people "should" want and need.

It is not possible to share such a concept of love as it is inherently going against the concept of what female search for in mates: fidelity that guarantees protection.

It goes against the animal instincts of the female human.

Click to expand...

Really? Because my partner and I are both female, and it's working out pretty well for us.

It is a relationship that violates the principles of nature and messes about with our very human concepts of jealousy and human nature, and if we are animals, why should we tread so easily upon some very important things that help define us as humans?

Click to expand...

Because we've grown up since the 90's sitcoms, and have realized that jealousy is not healthy. At least, not the kind that turns girls into trophies and boys into raging thugs.

I occasionally have moments where I think "'My Girlfriend' isn't supposed to say/do things like that." That isn't me, though, and it isn't about her. That's the echo of stupid teen movies, and it translates into, "she belongs to me and nobody else is allowed to experience her." Well, no. She doesn't belong to anybody. We're important to each other, so we'll discuss important decisions, but ultimately, if she really wants to do something, I have no right to stop her--she's her own person, not an extension of me. If I don't like it, I can accept it as a side of the relationship that I'm not fond of, or I can decide it's too big for me to accept, and leave the relationship.

To give a quick overview of our relationship and how we work...

She's my first girlfriend (or anygender-friend, my first romantic relationship of any kind), and, being a little nervous about diving into something I wouldn't be able to navigate, I was looking for a somewhat casual relationship. By which I mean, one where it was understood from the start that we probably will never marry. I wanted real connection and emotion, absolutely, but not the expectation or assumption that we'd fall head-over-heels in love right from the start. I wasn't looking for poly, but it's pretty common in my area, so I knew it was a possibility and was ok with -giving it a try,- but as long as it was understood that I might not be able to manage it, and communication was direct, open and honest. My major thing, though, was that I didn't want a relationship where we try to change the others' lives. No "I'll date you if you become a vegetarian," or "if you get rid of that ugly couch," or whatever.

She was coming out of a long term relationship--they'd 'opened' the relationship at the end, just a little bit, but the 'rules,' were somewhat unreasonable and she ended up lying to herself and her boyfriend. One of the rules was that she could date another person, but wasn't 'allowed' to fall in love....not something that can really be controlled. She did end up loving the other guy, and the relationship with her primary boyfriend ended up falling apart, though they're still on good terms.

So, we met up, were really compatible, and she shared my respect for not trying to change other people and for not changing her own life -for- other people. I emphasize this because, the third time we met, she let me know that she was with that other guy--he was a part of her life, when we met, and that's exactly the sort of situation I was thinking of when I decided I wouldn't tell anybody "well, if you're going to be with me, you need to change X." I wasn't about to tell her she needed to get rid of him if she wanted to be with me.

But I wasn't entirely sure I liked the situation, either. We talked about it a bit--I asked some really direct questions to get a sense for what I was accepting, or not (how often do you see each other? Do you have sex?...) and she sort of...asked if I was ok with it continuing. I said that I wasn't 100% sure I was comfortable with it, but I was more comfortable with it than I was with the idea of saying "No, break it off." So we decided that they'd keep on seeing each other--we'd keep on seeing each other, and we'd check in again to see how I was doing. If I ended up not being comfortable with it, we'd figure out how to deal with it, but I promised I would remember I'd said ok, so it would be -my- problem, and I wouldn't blame her for anything if I couldn't manage it.

As it turned out, the more I thought about it, and the more into the relationship I got, the more comfortable I got with it. So the 'check in' conversations have become, "yup, I'm good."

She's not pursuing anybody else, and neither am I, (I'm still wrapping my head about being in a relationship, let alone trying to manage multiple) but we both see the day coming when that'll change. Right now, the two of us are still sort of new to each other, so tossing other people in the mix would be....really unstable, but once we're more confident in our relation with each other, we might start poking around a little.

Personally, I don't see myself ever trying to manage more than one full-fledged relationships any time soon, but I could see having one girlfriend, and somebody else who was closer to...an activity-buddy, or a "we go on occasional dates" sort of relationship.

She....is easily distracted by new and shiny things, so we'll see how that plays out

In a very objective sense it does not effect those outside of it, but at the same time no man is completely an island and we all have to live in a society; some of us do not want to be confronted with a behavior we deem sickening.

Nazis have a right to march on the streets, but isn't it sickening to you?

Click to expand...

That is. But there have been other things I found sickening until I found myself exposed to them, and decided to see what they were about. Some of them I still don't like, but I get why other people do--some I've found I can really respect, even though I don't share the inclinations (incidentally, Nazi fetishism is in that category).

So...yeah, be sickened and leave it at that, or try to understand it--that's your choice. But you don't have much of a right to declare that other people have to structure their relationships your way, or else they're immoral and shouldn't exist.