NationStates Jolt Archive

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

Well, no. That's a slippery slope fallacy; it's like saying by allowing women and blacks to vote, we will also have to allow children and illegal aliens to vote.

As far as I'm concerned on the two subjects, nothing wrong with polyamory, as long as you play it straight with the involved parties. As far as incest goes, I'm still wavering.

Not sure that really answers your questions though. One small point in closing though.

Homosexual incest doesn't produce genetically messed up babies.

However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?


No.

Your conclusion is wrong because you arrogantly seek to attach your own values (incest is bad; polyamory is bad) to others, and fail to understand that it's really none of your business what other people choose to do with their bodies, so long as it is consentual.

Ideally, I'd love to see marriage as a contract between consenting adults. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't see any problem with incest as long as it involves no minors, and I don't see a moral problem with polygamy, as long as all partners share the same rights and responsibilities. But I do think that when we come to legalise polygamy, we'll have to restructure most legilastion around marriage, as the divorces will get messy as hell.

Well, no. That's a slippery slope fallacy; it's like saying by allowing women and blacks to vote, we will also have to allow children and illegal aliens to vote.


No, yours is the false analogy. Illegal aliens and children can't get married to adult citizens now. So your analogy is reversed.

No.

Your conclusion is wrong because you arrogantly seek to attach your own values (incest is bad; polyamory is bad) to others, and fail to understand that it's really none of your business what other people choose to do with their bodies, so long as it is consentual.

Which is not to say that in the case of incest, especially where minor children are involved, there aren't other legal issues. But really, homosexual relationships shouldn't be bundled with incest, should they? As for polyamory, I don't see what the problem is, as long as consenting adults are involved. Again, not the same thing as same-sex relationships.

Polyamory-why not, who cares what consenting adults do, key word being "adults". -should some legal guidelines with social welfare, just because some guy wants to have 10 wives and a hundred kids and then can't support them I have a problem with society picking up the tab.

Incest-again what consenting adults do is their business, I don't see the attraction myself, never understood what the men who married my sisters saw in them, yuck! Biologically it isn't as bad as myths of mutants make out, the incidence of genetic defects are not much greater than normal. Socially it's just weird.

Homosexuals-not for me but whatever does it for you i guess.

Incest, with children, is an issue of abuse. Which is quite different from whatever consenting adults do.
Polyamory is fine by me; but probably not for me. And if Star Trek is right about all those attractive humanoid aliens out in the universe, I'd extend the sentiment to "consenting adult sentient beings". But again, practically speaking, it's probably not for me.

No, yours is the false analogy. Illegal aliens and children can't get married to adult citizens now. So your analogy is reversed.

Where's the analogy false? Once upon a time, blacks couldn't vote. Then they were allowed to, the men, anyway. Women couldn't vote, then they were allowed to. Children under 18 and illegal aliens can't vote, as you say, nor has the country been "forced" to allow them to vote.

The fallacy lies in saying that same-sex relationships, incestual relationships and polyamorous relationships are all part of the same category of relationship. They aren't.

Well, take a look at whether they are relationships that hurt people. Incest poses an inherent danger due to the similarity of genetic material. Definite no to incest.
Polyamory, on the other hand, doesn't hurt people. I've gone from against to undecided on that one, because I have no real arguments against it.

Incest poses an inherent danger due to the similarity of genetic material.

it's not as bad as it's made out to be, very slight risk of bad genetic mix but it could be better too. If you look at the bigger genetic picture of 6.5 billion people it would be insignificant. There is considerable incest in the animal world without many repercussions.

Accepting homosexuality does not justify the acceptance of incest or polygamy. It is accepted that homosexual relations, like heterosexual are generally monogamous. Or for that matter, mean that society as a whole has to.

That doesn't mean I disagree with either.

I think you raise a number of different issues that are often and easily wrapped up into an uneasy conglomerate. The first is when should the government interfear in the choices of it's citizen's, and the second is the specifics of an issue, whether it be gay marriage, incest, or poligamy.

The first issue is if the government should interfear in an issue unless there is a governmental interest in doing so. Personally I don't believe it should. That leaves me to the following conclusions...

Gay marriage should be allowed, since there is no governmental interest in denying it. The single most likely argument against gay marriage is that it is harmfull to children raised in a gay home. However all of the research I am familure with is that children raised by gay couples are as likely or more so to become productive members of society. Further children of gay couples are about as likely to become gay themselves as the population at large. So if there is noo harm to children, and no other governmental interest in denying it, why prevent it.

Poligamy is slightly different since there is a governmental interest in ensureing that a family unit is able to financially support itself, and so have a right to protect itself from large families without sufficiant resources. The answer of course is that in all societies where polygamy is allowed, before a new wife (normally) is allowed the family unit must be able to support the aditional cost. What is interesting however that in modern America, with both people working, there is less and less of an issue with this. Further, a simple economy of scale would indicate that a family unit of 3-4 spouses could have a full time child caretaker, which might actually decrease the total cost of living per person. Again I see no governmental interest in denying this.

Incest is a touch one since it is so gutterally reactionary, however a recent study indicated that the likelyhood of a genetic defect occuring through brother-sister childbearing was actually about 1/3 the likelyhood of a woman over the age of 35 having a child. While there is of course a societal interest in preventing or minimizing genetic birth defects, I am not sure the scientific evidence supports preventing incest. At least not untill such a time as we are willing to prevent women over the age of 35 from becoming pregnant.

Blood

Concerning polyamoury, I see no inherent problem with the institution. Consenting adults should be able to fiddle whoever's bean they like.

Incest, however, poses an interesting problem. When people who are genetically related breed there lies an exponentially increased chance of genetic mishaps. While this is my initial argument against incest I find myself wondering if it then implies that people who carry hereditary diseases should not be permitted to breed. I can't say I agree much with restricting who should and should not procreate based upon mistakes of nature. Does that also extend to two perfectly average people with similar genetic material breeding a monkeyed up kid?

Another criticism leveled at the legalisation of same-sex marriage not mentioned here is the legitimisation of bestiality. I don't think any reasonable adult would suggest that one could enter into a legal contract with an animal, but if it's perfectly alright to house animals in squalid conditions and kill them to sate our appetites we shouldn't deny someone their desire for goat-sex.

J.

No.

Your conclusion is wrong because you arrogantly seek to attach your own values (incest is bad; polyamory is bad) to others, and fail to understand that it's really none of your business what other people choose to do with their bodies, so long as it is consentual.

Of course it's none of my business. That's not the point. I was questioning what my view on these subjects are -- I'm allowed to decide what I think is right and wrong. I never said anything about forcing my views on others.

EDIT: I didn't intend for this to be a discussion about marriage, as easy as it is to slip into that topic. I meant to discuss this issue regarding what you (all of you) view as "right" and "wrong."

It should be against the law not to be gay. That would be a twist!

:rolleyes:

It should be against the law not to be gay. That would be a twist!I t should be law that forbids the state from mucking around peoples personal lives.

A quote from my Uni days as best as I recall "one mans' freedom ends only when it infringes on another man's freedom" I don't know who said it.

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

From a religious point of veiw--specifically Christian(I am not Jewish, or Muslim so I cant comment on the other Abrahamic faiths) Homosexuality is wrong, or a sin or whatever word you wish to use.

...I am going to take a hit for this.

I believe that.

DO I believe that makes a loving relationship between two people any less a legitamite loving relationship simply because it defies my particular faith?

No, I do not.

From a statistical point of view, incest(though I believe you mean pedophilia), and Polyamory have no relation to homosexuality.

As a matter of fact pedophilia tends to NOT be associated with Homosexuals as much as with heterosexuals. As for Polyamory goes, that is a matter of individuals and I would venture there as many bastards who are straight as are gay who try the polyamory card so that they dont have to give 100% of themsleves to any one person, fear of genuine commitment knows no sexual preference.

If your reluctance to to accept homosexual relationships as a societal norm is based on religion do what I do, keep in mind that Jesus most likely would not have told you to condemn anyone ---unless there was nothing you could be condemned for---that being said I do not make homosexual marriage a political issue I vote on, and I do not sign petitions or any other blather.

Ultimately---regardless of if you feel a relationship is legit means nothing--the two people in the relationship are all that count, not even the state can take that away.

A quote from my Uni days as best as I recall "one mans' freedom ends only when it infringes on another man's freedom" I don't know who said it.

“One man’s right to swing his arm ends where my nose begins.” - John Stuart Mill

I know polygamy is often exersized as something that is solely the male's choice; basically a man just grabbing as many wives as he wants, without the women's consent. The very idea implies male superiority. For this reason, it could be considered without consent on both sides, and therefore unnexceptable.

It's hard to say about incest. The only thing I can think of is the genetic defects often prevelent in children produced from incest, although the same thing can happen in a non-incestual relationship.

I do believe though that accepting homosexuality isn't a slippery slope to accepting these things; it is a necessesity, and civil rights will be stagnant until it is accpeted.

No. You are taking one aspect of homosexuality "society as a whole doesn't accept it" and applying this aspect to incest and polyamory. The fallacy here is that not all of the reasons society frowns upon homosexuality apply to incest and polyamory.
Ironically, one of these reasons is that homosexual sex doesn't produce children, but opposite-sex polyamory does produce children better than monogamy does, and children are seen as a negative in an incestuous relationship.

No. You are taking one aspect of homosexuality "society as a whole doesn't accept it" and applying this aspect to incest and polyamory. The fallacy here is that not all of the reasons society frowns upon homosexuality apply to incest and polyamory.
Ironically, one of these reasons is that homosexual sex doesn't produce children, but opposite-sex polyamory does produce children better than monogamy does, and children are seen as a negative in an incestuous relationship.

Not to mention that there isn't anything different in accepting homosexuality and accepting heterosexuality, yet you never see people say "Now that we accept heterosexuality and let them get married, do we now accept polyamory and incest." Because incest or polyamory aren't in any way further or closer away from heterosexuality than they are from homosexuality.

acceptance of homosexuality does not imply the acceptance of incest or polyamory.

however, if you want to avoid being a hypocrit it does require that you think through your reasons for condemning any sort of sexual relationship. you can no longer rely on "thats the way its always been viewed" as a reason to condemn anything.

Why does everyone act like it's men who are the only people who have multiple spouses ever?

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

What if you change the premise that sexual attraction to the same sex is *not* natural...? How does that change/validate your hypothosis?

“One man’s right to swing his arm ends where my nose begins.” - John Stuart Mill

I <3 J. S. Mill.

Even after having spent most of the past two days writing a 4,000 word essay about him.

Well, no. That's a slippery slope fallacy; it's like saying by allowing women and blacks to vote, we will also have to allow children and illegal aliens to vote.

and exactly like the question on polyamoury, the supposedly un-considerable and horrific extremes aren't particularly bad things to allow.

From a religious point of veiw--specifically Christian(I am not Jewish, or Muslim so I cant comment on the other Abrahamic faiths) Homosexuality is wrong, or a sin or whatever word you wish to use.

fear of genuine commitment knows no sexual preference.

most religions don't think it's wrong - I know you're not saying otherwise, I just wanted to point out that if you gave every religion that exists one vote, the majority of religions, (not practitioners) would say homosexuality was morally neutral. unfortunately for gay people, the majority of religions are very very small and have been largely replaced by either christianity, islam, or secularism. I don't know why jews get some special place in religious discussions - judaism is always one of the first three mentioned, but there are more sikhs, traditional chinese, and aborigional religious practitioners than there are jews. that's a total aside, though. I'd also like to point out that polyamoury can mean "genuine commitment" to more than one person.

The very idea implies male superiority.

there have been matriarchal polyamourous cultures. the fact we live in a patriarchal one and the only instances in which polyamoury is practiced on a large scale that we have encountered from our culture (islam and mormonism) are partiarchal as well doesn't mean that polyamoury in and of itself implies patriarchy.

---

accepting homosexuality does not imply accepting anything else. rejecting exact conservative definitions of what marriage is *does* imply it, however, and for most people you can't accept homosexuality without first rejecting that part of your world view informed by patriarchal standards for relationships. that said...what exactly is wrong with polyamoury? and the only reason I can find to criticise incest is that it produces mutated offspring...which implies that for consistantcy we should either not allow people with genetic disorders to reproduce, or we should allow incest...though homosexual incest doesn't have the problem of reproduction built into it anyway.

Well, no. That's a slippery slope fallacy; it's like saying by allowing women and blacks to vote, we will also have to allow children and illegal aliens to vote.

No, it's really not a slippery slope. The principal that y'all want set up for homosexuals is that, because they can't choose their sexuality, because they have a predisposition to have gay buttsex, then it is alright.

Well, pedophiles might not choose to be pedophiles, as might not polygamists, nor zoophiles. According to the logic set by gay advocates, because they are predisposed to have sex with children, many women, and animals, then surely, it must be alright.

Why does everyone act like it's men who are the only people who have multiple spouses ever?
Maybe because it is typically males who only do, and it's very rare for a woman to...?!

Mmmmmmm.....what about homosexual polyamory? Delicious.

I like the flavour of polyamory that comes with both genders.

Incest is just not my thing though...then again, there is a difference between cousins and siblings.

Maybe because it is typically males who only do, and it's very rare for a woman to...?!

Spouses maybe...lovers....well okay, it's probably still uncommon because women are still judged much more harshly than men on that front.

I would LOVE a long-term polyamorous relationship, and I know a few women who are in that kind of situation. Of course, there are men involved in that situation as well, but also other women. It's really win-win.

No.

Gay civil rights is simply removing the gender constraint from the legal accoutrement's of marriage.

Doesn't open the door for anything.

Why does everyone act like it's men who are the only people who have multiple spouses ever?

A man can impregnate at least twenty women a week, a woman can only be impregnated by one man every 9 months.

Common sense, history, biology.

A man can impregnate at least twenty women a week, a woman can only be impregnated by one man every 9 months.

Common sense, history, biology.

By that logic:

A man can only fuck so many times in a night - a woman can easily outfuck 10 men.

By that logic:

A man can only fuck so many times in a night - a woman can easily outfuck 10 men.

It's true, I saw a movie that proved just that! :D

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?
One can accept homosexuality without accepting polyamory or incest, given that there are different variables involved in each situation.

One could, for instance, believe strongly in monogamy, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in nature.

Personally, I believe that consenting adults get to choose their own relationships. I don't get most of the gender/sex hangups that most people seem to have; the sex of my partner is, frankly, not really all that important a factor to me.

Incest is something that kind of squigs me out, but as long as both parties are consenting adults I don't see any reason why my personal discomfort is important.

I've got no beef with polyamory, as long as all parties involved are aware that they're in a polyamorous relationship ;).

Most importantly, though...you seem to really not want to accept certain things because then you might be forced to re-evaluate your entrenched beliefs. In my opinion, you ought to be re-evaluating your beliefs on a regular basis anyhow. If you really think that you already know everything you need to know about human relationships, sex, and gender, then I want a hit off your pipe.

No, it's really not a slippery slope. The principal that y'all want set up for homosexuals is that, because they can't choose their sexuality, because they have a predisposition to have gay buttsex, then it is alright.

Ahh, but it's perfectly fine for you to have hetero buttsex with your girlfriend, right? All protected and fine and happy because you are straight. If you are creeped out by two guys having sex, then don't inject yourself into their bedroom or this argument. I seriously doubt you have much of a problem with two of your female friends getting busy with each other, you likely think it's hot and you would would like to be the filling for their Oreo.

The principle I want to set up is to keep your miserable, prejudiced ass out of my bedroom and my life. You don't like it? Tough.


Well, pedophiles might not choose to be pedophiles, as might not polygamists, nor zoophiles. According to the logic set by gay advocates, because they are predisposed to have sex with children, many women, and animals, then surely, it must be alright.

Another thing I hate is geniuses like you who take the argument for equality and equate it as an argument for pedophilia or bestiality. This is patently false. I detest pedophiles, children have no ability to consent and any person who takes advantage of children in this manner should be thrown in the darkest, deepest recesses of a high security prison with a sign around their neck announcing they are pedophiles. It would be doubtful they would last a week. Bestiliaty has no bearing on homosexuality, but knuckleheads have been banging dogs, cats, cows and sheep for centuries among other assorted members of the animal kingdom.

Let state this without equivocation. I am a man, I am attracted to men. This makes me homosexual, NOT a pedophile and decidedly not a practicer of the arcane art of shagging animals. Your pathetic argument is a distraction from the fact that I have the right to be treated equally within the law. I am concerned with the rights of consenting adults only.

Why does everyone act like it's men who are the only people who have multiple spouses ever?
Because the simple reality is that polyamory, as it exists in the world today, is primarily in the form of a man having multiple wives.

Is it fair? No. Just like it's not fair that women are disadvantaged in pretty much every single other area. Just like it's not fair that women have been valued less than men, hold fewer rights than men, have less individual liberty than men, and have less power than men in pretty much every single major civilization on Earth.

Does this mean women CAN'T have multiple spouses? Hell no. Does it mean women shouldn't have multiple spouses, but men should? Hell no. Does this mean that evo-devo chumps have some kind of evidence for their theories that human females are just wired to be sextoys and domestic slaves for human males? Fuck no, and please feel free to laugh at them when they try to pull this.

Is it fair? No. Just like it's not fair that women are disadvantaged in pretty much every single other area. Just like it's not fair that women have been valued less than men, hold fewer rights than men, have less individual liberty than men, and have less power than men in pretty much every single major civilization on Earth.

*holds up crazy feminist shield.*

*holds up crazy feminist shield.*
I find it so cute when people react as though it's radical to notice that women are second-class citizens in most of the world. I didn't even make any arguments about how this needs to change, or how it's all the fault of evil menfolk, or anything like that...I just pointed out that it's how the world is.

The world isn't fair. When it comes to sex, most of the world is unfair in a way that benefits males at the expense of females. When somebody mentions this, they are not making some radical pronouncement; they are simply stating the obvious.

Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

To a degree. If everyone in a polyamorous relationship is consenting, I myself see nothing wrong with it in any case.

Incestual relationships where all participants are adults(or at least clearly able to consent) is trickier in the sense that it is likelier to result in unhealthy offsping. I am undecided here, but can be swayed ;)

I find it so cute when people react as though it's radical to notice that women are second-class citizens in most of the world. I didn't even make any arguments about how this needs to change, or how it's all the fault of evil menfolk, or anything like that...I just pointed out that it's how the world is.

The world isn't fair. When it comes to sex, most of the world is unfair in a way that benefits males at the expense of females. When somebody mentions this, they are not making some radical pronouncement; they are simply stating the obvious.

most of world i would agree. but africa doesnt count cause its a shit hole. china is evil and most people are trying to destroy the muslim world. in the west, please dont try and convince that women are second class. in cases men have the advantage, others women. take marraige and divorce for example, lame sexual harrassment cases, terrible actresses and singers somehow becoming famous. look at madonna for christ sake.

Incestual relationships where all participants are adults(or at least clearly able to consent) is trickier in the sense that it is likelier to result in unhealthy offsping. I am undecided here, but can be swayed ;)

nature dictates it shouldnt be allowed. i think germans arrest you for it.

To a degree. If everyone in a polyamorous relationship is consenting, I myself see nothing wrong with it in any case.

Yeah, the whole issue is about WHY you accept or don't accept certain relationships.

If you accept homosexual relationships because you believe that consenting adults should be free to choose the relationships that make them happy, then you'd probably have to also extend this to include polyamorous or incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

However, you could have completely different standards for what kind of relationships are and are not acceptable to you. For instance, you could say that an acceptable relationship is one which enables the involved parties to best rear successful and healthy children. You could say that an acceptable relationship is one which provides the maximum possible benefit to society as a whole (and you'd have to define "benefit" as well), at the least expense.


Incestual relationships where all participants are adults(or at least clearly able to consent) is trickier in the sense that it is likelier to result in unhealthy offsping. I am undecided here, but can be swayed ;)
When it comes to birth defects, incest isn't as dangerous as a lot of people seem to think.

The odds of a pair of first cousins having a child with birth defects are about the same as if a woman is over 40 when she becomes pregnant, or if a man is over 55 at the time of conception.

*the more you know!*

most of world i would agree. but africa doesnt count cause its a shit hole. china is evil and most people are trying to destroy the muslim world. in the west, please dont try and convince that women are second class. in cases men have the advantage, others women. take marraige and divorce for example, lame sexual harrassment cases, terrible actresses and singers somehow becoming famous. look at madonna for christ sake.
Yeah, there's really not much to be said to that. The existence of Madonna disproves sexism in the Western world.

I'm guessing this is like how the existence of Michael Jordan and affirmitive action proved that blacks no longer experience racism and are 100% equal to whites, right?

nature dictates it shouldnt be allowed. i think germans arrest you for it.

"Nature" does no such thing. If siblings share genes that are harmful, that puts an end to that, but in no way is "Nature" against the mating of siblings in the animal kingdom. Among people, yes, you can be arrested for having sex with a sibling. The Germans are not special in this regard.

EDIT: Dang, I used up a nice, even number like 3,400 replying to Gorias. *sigh*

Read this: Homosexuality Explored (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=317435)

By that logic:

A man can only fuck so many times in a night - a woman can easily outfuck 10 men.

Which would be extremely compelling evidence that she's a prostitute, quite a distance from "polyamory."

The male role in procreation lends itself to males having more partners than females, which is why the phenomenon is more often observed than the inverse.

Ahh, but it's perfectly fine for you to have hetero buttsex with your girlfriend, right?

A) I don't have a girlfriend.
B) I believe that the only permissable sexual act is one in which the inside of a married woman's vagina gets drenched in her husband's sperm

Another thing I hate is geniuses like you who take the argument for equality and equate it as an argument for pedophilia or bestiality. This is patently false. I detest pedophiles, children have no ability to consent

Regardless, pedophilia is a predisposition. I doubt anyone chooses to be attracted to children. Get out of their bedrooms, dammit!

Which would be extremely compelling evidence that she's a prostitute, quite a distance from "polyamory."

The male role in procreation lends itself to males having more partners than females, which is why the phenomenon is more often observed than the inverse.

Why would that be a "prostitute"?

There are plenty of women who have more than one male sexual partner.

Are you saying that a woman who sleeps with more than one man at once is a prostitute?

definition: The term prostitution refers to the act of voluntarily having sexual intercourse or performing other sexual acts, explicitly for material compensation -- normally money, but also other forms of property, including doses of narcotics, jewels, or real estat

A) I don't have a girlfriend.
B) I believe that the only permissable sexual act is one in which the inside of a married woman's vagina gets drenched in her husband's sperm


Obviously, you've never had a blowjob. That explains quite a bit.

Why would that be a "prostitute"?

There are plenty of women who have more than one male sexual partner.

Are you saying that a woman who sleeps with more than one man at once is a prostitute?

definition: The term prostitution refers to the act of voluntarily having sexual intercourse or performing other sexual acts, explicitly for material compensation -- normally money, but also other forms of property, including doses of narcotics, jewels, or real estat

Find me a woman who isnt a prostitute that sleeps with ten men in a single night and I'll give you fifty dollars.

Find me a woman who isnt a prostitute that sleeps with ten men in a single night and I'll give you fifty dollars.

Just go to the Tabu Social Club in Baltimore.

Plenty of women in there who are having sex with more than ten men in a night, and they aren't charging money (or anything else).

B) I believe that the only permissable sexual act is one in which the inside of a married woman's vagina gets drenched in her husband's sperm

"permissable" ?
Who exactly made you God ?

Regardless, pedophilia is a predisposition. I doubt anyone chooses to be attracted to children.

True that. Which is why I do not despise pedophiles, but pity them. They know that if they give in to their desires they will almost certainly harm the object of their affection. The agony must be terrible.

Just go to the Tabu Social Club in Baltimore.

Plenty of women in there who are having sex with more than ten men in a night, and they aren't charging money (or anything else).

You'll have to provide some evidence that this is true if you want your fifty dollars. I for one am not buying it.

You'll have to provide some evidence that this is true if you want your fifty dollars. I for one am not buying it.

What aren't you buying? That such places exist? That women are quite capable of having many sex partners and enjoying it? That perhaps a woman could have more sex partners in one night than a man?

things i hate, hippies; tuna; black pepper; waste; discusing israel and abortion; socialists; dogs; rabbits; horses; direct sunlight; madonna; sex and the city; and amnesty international.

Hippies, discussing Israel and abortion, socialists, and amnesty international are all veerrrrry frequent occurrences in this forum. No such luck for you there.

Tuna, black pepper, waste, dogs, rabbits, horses, sunlight, Madonna, and SatC, however, we can shield you from pretty well - especially the sunlight. Dear god you'll never get another UV ray as long as you live if you stick with us.

What aren't you buying? That such places exist? That women are quite capable of having many sex partners and enjoying it? That perhaps a woman could have more sex partners in one night than a man?

There's a video out there of a woman having sex with 500 guys in succession, one at a time, quickies.

I'm not entirely sure a guy could go through 20 girls, even with rest breaks given. Death by snu-snu indeed.

What aren't you buying? That such places exist? That women are quite capable of having many sex partners and enjoying it? That perhaps a woman could have more sex partners in one night than a man?

I think he doesn't believe that a woman would have more than one male sex partner in a night unless she was charging the men money.

He may be under the illusion that no woman actually enjoys sex, and that women only have sex with men in order to manipulate them.

I think he doesn't believe that a woman would have more than one male sex partner in a night unless she was charging the men money.

He may be under the illusion that no woman actually enjoys sex, and that women only have sex with men in order to manipulate them.

My thoughts, exactly.

Which would be extremely compelling evidence that she's a prostitute, quite a distance from "polyamory."

the exchange of money for sex is the best indicator of a prostitute. multiple partners are evidence of being a sexual libertine.


The male role in procreation lends itself to males having more partners than females, which is why the phenomenon is more often observed than the inverse.

i dont see how that is true. both male and female benefit from procreating with a variety of partners. the more men believe that a woman's child is his, the more men will participate in the care of that child.

i dont see how that is true. both male and female benefit from procreating with a variety of partners. the more men believe that a woman's child is his, the more men will participate in the care of that child.


In addition, from a biological viewpoint it is beneficial for a woman to not have all her children with the same guy. Provided of course her husband does not actually know that one or more of his children were actually sired by the pizza delivery boy.
One man to be a father, another to father a child.

In addition, from a biological viewpoint it is beneficial for a woman to not have all her children with the same guy. Provided of course her husband does not actually know that one or more of his children were actually sired by the pizza delivery boy.
One man to be a father, another to father a child.

especially important in societies that marry off young women to old men. she doesnt need to breed with some old fogey over the age 55 (see bottle's post #46 above). its a much better idea to 2-time him with some strapping young lad who can give her stronger children and still have the old guys wherewithall to support the baby.

A) I don't have a girlfriend.
B) I believe that the only permissable sexual act is one in which the inside of a married woman's vagina gets drenched in her husband's sperm

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, no wonder you are single. It's tragic really. ::rolleyes::


Regardless, pedophilia is a predisposition. I doubt anyone chooses to be attracted to children. Get out of their bedrooms, dammit!

No, genius. Pedophilia is listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a MENTAL DISORDER.

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

This is similar to the legal point that was the reasoning behind the Georgia sodomy case that was overturned by the Texas sodomy case (sorry I do not know the names off the top of my head). The point was that reproduction and reproductive rights are fundamental rights (I disagree with it but oh well I am not on the Supreme Court). Privacy is also a somewhat more limited yet recognized right. Sodomy laws may seem wierd and may seem like violations of a fundamental right to privacy but they were an example of a state's police power trumping a privacy right.

Once you say adults' privacy beats a state's police power in one situation it is pretty hard to say that it does the same thing in a different situation. This was what Rick Santorum was talking about (as well as most lawyers familiar with the prior Georgia sodomy case. Although I am somewhat of a homophobe, there is nothing homophobic about the argument that a state should be able to exercise its police power in areas where fundamental rights are not violated (and morality is a police power along with health, safety, and esthetics). Don't get me wrong, I love sodomy but I would have preferred to have sodomy laws repealed instead of being declared unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=The Fourth Holy Reich;12056096]A) I don't have a girlfriend.
B) I believe that the only permissable sexual act is one in which the inside of a married woman's vagina gets drenched in her husband's sperm QUOTE]

If you arent letting a girl get it up her a** it is no wonder why you do not have a girlfriend. That seems to be all that they want to do nowadays.

No, genius. Pedophilia is listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a MENTAL DISORDER.

Nah. I actually agree that it is a sexual preference. Just one people should not act upon, because it hurts the object of affection.

A) I don't have a girlfriend.


Shock. Really.

B) I believe that the only permissable sexual act is one in which the inside of a married woman's vagina gets drenched in her husband's sperm

So a man has to reach climax for it to be a "permissable sexual act"?

If a man has had his prostate removed and can only have "dry" orgasms, he should no longer be able to have sex with his wife?

How about an unfortunate fellow who has had to, for whatever reason, have his testicles removed. Is he ever permitted to have sex with his wife?

Frankly, it's no shock you don't have a girlfriend. No girl wants to risk ending up pregnant every time she is involved in a sexual act.

Haven't read all the pages here but an interesting bit of trivia, when we talk of polygamy we normally think of a man and many women......I recall reading about a tribe in the Himalaya's where it's acceptable for one women to have several husbands, the article was about a women who married 3 brothers(does that qualify as incest?)

If you arent letting a girl get it up her a** it is no wonder why you do not have a girlfriend. That seems to be all that they want to do nowadays.

Riiiiiiiight....

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

Apparently I was the only one to actually pay attention in Anthropology 101.

Of course you can justify homosexual marriage while denying the legitemacy of incestual and polyamorous relationships. Marriage, most broadly speaking across all cultures, is a civil institution designed to signify and codify the social arrangement of two different people into a single family unit. Practically speaking, the primary social purpose of marriage is to bond disparate elements of society together. Before I get to much farther, I'm going to sidestep into a little Montesquieu. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be necessary, but because the libertarians of the board apparently don't understand what "civil institutions" are, this sidestep is required.

In the book The Persian Letters, Montesquieu describes a tribe he refers to as the Troglodytes. This is not for their cave-dwelling, but rather for their primitive social state. After revolting from a dictatorship and returning to a Hobbesian anarchy, the Trogs get together and decide to live by the principle of doing as they will so long as no direct harm comes to others (this last part is a bit flexible, as we shall see). They find that this doesn't work out so well: in one year, the highlands suffer from famine, and the Trogs from the Lowlands decide not to give food to their fellow Trogs because, after all, it wasn't the lowland Trogs who started the Famine and they have no obligation to help. The next year, the Lowlands flood and the situation is reversed, with equally catastrophic results. Two Trogs conspire to cumulatively conquer some untamed land; in the process, one Trog is injured. The other Trog happily leaves the first Trog to die; after all, it was his misfortune to suffer that accident, and he benefited. One Trog carries off another Trogs wife; when the second goes to a wise third Trog for judgment, the third Trog rebukes him, claiming that the third Trog has nothing to do with the matter. The second Trog responds by raping and carrying off the wife of the Third Trog.

The point of these stories is to show that the purpose of civil society isn't to allow people to live any damn way they please, but to encourage people to live well. Living well demands that sometimes, just sometimes, people be denied from doing whatever they will for the greater, and their own greater, good. Marriage needs to be protected from people doing as they will because, absent good material reasons for doing otherwise, people in the end get jealous of their wives/husbands, and when they do bad things happen to society and to individuals. People get emotional, and when they get emotional, they tend to violate maxims like "Living as you will so long as it doesn't hurt others". It isn't fascism to point out that this will happen; it's simple prudence, and only an idiot or a crazy-ass utopian denies it or insists that it could all just change if we changed Factor X.

Hence, because economic conditions are such that very few men can afford more than one wife, there is sufficient land that the Nepalese process of polyandory (sp?) is uneccessary in this country, and because of this lack of necessity jealosy is especially fertile in husbands and wives minds, we don't allow polyamorous relations.

Additionally, because economic and social conditions are such that societies work better by tieing clans together than seperating them, we don't allow people to engage in incestuous relations. For a practical reason why we don't allow it, just take a gander on into Iraq, and note that a big reason why the country is fragmenting is because 50% of people marry within their own clan; hence, they have more loyalty to their clan than to larger civil society. As such, we deny people the right to form a marital or social pair with their sibling or close relations.

On this count, homosexual marriage is not harmful at all. Homosexual relations are almost by definition non-incestuous because of the difficulty in finding multiple gay kids in the same sibling set (yes, I do realize that it is more likely to be gay if your sibling is gay, but it is still fairly unlikely to have two kids, both of whom are gay and incestuously engaged). Further, there is no connection between being gay and being polyamorous or monoamorous.

Marriage needs to be protected from people doing as they will because, absent good material reasons for doing otherwise, people in the end get jealous of their wives/husbands, and when they do bad things happen to society and to individuals.

That's why most serious advocates of polyamory hold that if there is to be such a relationship, it has to be based upon the consent of all participants.

Not just giving each individual free reign, whatever the preferences of the others.

Hence, because economic conditions are such that very few men can afford more than one wife, there is sufficient land that the Nepalese process of polyandory (sp?) is uneccessary in this country, and because of this lack of necessity jealosy is especially fertile in husbands and wives minds, we don't allow polyamorous relations.

Yeah, we do, thankfully. And society hasn't broken down yet.

We just don't legally recognize them. And we should.

And I don't think people like these (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/signatories.html) are just a bunch of right-wing libertarians who don't understand the role of civil institutions.

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

I don't really see a problem with polygamy but I don't feel right about the whole homosexuality and incest thing.

I don't really see a problem with polygamy but I don't feel right about the whole homosexuality and incest thing.

"I don't feel right about" is a pretty bad basis for making a decision about what other people should do.

That's why most serious advocates of polyamory hold that if there is to be such a relationship, it has to be based upon the consent of all participants.

Not just giving each individual free reign, whatever the preferences of the others.


Essentially, my response breaks down into two different components.

1) Consent has the tendency to be retracted on the basis of new contingencies, contingencies that happen quite frequently and with recurring regularity in polyamorous relationships. Unfortunately, the end of consent usually means the end of the relationship. This is bad because societies need not simply civil institutions, but also stable and enduring civil institutions. Marriages as we know them serve that purpose while also minimizing negative externalities. By contrast, most polyamorous relationships end very fast because at least one party suddenly realizes that they are getting the proverbial short end of the stick, that their emotional needs cannot be met in a polyamorous context, or that the social strain proves to be too much. To be honest, when I hear about polyamorous relationships that approach the long-term success rate of monogamous relationships as we practice them, then and only then will I take seriously the notion that we can simply dispense with the problems of human jealousy.

2) I do not deny that it could theoretically work. I don't even deny (from the tenor of your post) that it works for you. But I do deny that it will work for more than a small minority of civil society, and further, such relations, if formalized, would also lead to abuse that you do not endorse but nevertheless would still happen.

Look at it this way: suppose I was a doctor who argued that I could, by engaging in a procedure which only I could do, use injections of an extremely lethal, extremely dangerous, and extremely illegal drug to cure heart disease in a patient. Would that justify a blanket overturning of the laws that make that drug illegal? The obvious answer is of course not, because for every person I'm going to save, many other people are going to suffer through misuse of that drug. In the same way, polyamory might work for a very few people. For most people, however, it causes severe if not fatal complications to any relationship that they try it in, however voluntary or game they may have been at the outset. Just as society has an interest in protecting its citizens, it has an interest in promoting stable civil institutions. Hence, we don't allow polyamory, and rightfully so.


Yeah, we do, thankfully. And society hasn't broken down yet.

We just don't legally recognize them. And we should.

And I don't think people like these (http://www.beyondmarriage.org/signatories.html) are just a bunch of right-wing libertarians who don't understand the role of civil institutions.

I was referring to the quasi-libertarians of this board. As for the rest of your post, the above covers it. It may work for a small group, but the positive effects of that group cannot be replicated in the larger population, and it would be devastating to condone or even allow by legitimizing it.

1) Consent has the tendency to be retracted on the basis of new contingencies, contingencies that happen quite frequently and with recurring regularity in polyamorous relationships. Unfortunately, the end of consent usually means the end of the relationship. This is bad because societies need not simply civil institutions, but also stable and enduring civil institutions.

They also need freedom. And letting the state control something as basic as with whom one forms a relationship is very much antithetical to freedom. Indeed, the imposition of a rigid structure is probably even more likely to result in the kinds of socially harmful emotional problems than the lack of a rigid structure at all. Divorce rates are pretty high even with monogamous marriage, after all. Not to mention the fact that adultery and jealousy are hardly rare.

Allowing these kinds of relationships out into the open, and making them upon the basis of consent and knowledge rather than deception, would solve many of the problems that persist by forcing them into hiding.

And the only real reason we need the modern-day institution of the family anyway is the breakdown of broader social bonds. Restore those, and what's the problem? (This is one of the many ways in which right-libertarian individualism corrodes itself.)

By contrast, most polyamorous relationships end very fast because at least one party suddenly realizes that they are getting the proverbial short end of the stick, that their emotional needs cannot be met in a polyamorous context, or that the social strain proves to be too much. To be honest, when I hear about polyamorous relationships that approach the long-term success rate of monogamous relationships as we practice them, then and only then will I take seriously the notion that we can simply dispense with the problems of human jealousy.

Monogamous relationships hardly have a decent long-term success rate.

Indeed, by demanding "long-term success" we may be stacking the deck against ourselves in the first place.

I don't even deny (from the tenor of your post) that it works for you.

Eh, I haven't tried it. But it's an option I've considered, and it seems to work for lots of others.

Look at it this way: suppose I was a doctor who argued that I could, by engaging in a procedure which only I could do, use injections of an extremely lethal, extremely dangerous, and extremely illegal drug to cure heart disease in a patient. Would that justify a blanket overturning of the laws that make that drug illegal? The obvious answer is of course not, because for every person I'm going to save, many other people are going to suffer through misuse of that drug. In the same way, polyamory might work for a very few people. For most people, however, it causes severe if not fatal complications to any relationship that they try it in, however voluntary or game they may have been at the outset.

If polyamory doesn't work for them, they don't have to keep to it. No one's making them.

This isn't an addiction. It isn't as if, once people decide to enter a polyamorous relationship, they have to keep to it. If they don't like it, they can stop.

I was referring to the quasi-libertarians of this board.

I just wanted to make the point that a communitarian approach can be combined with an appreciation for individual freedom in these kinds of decisions - indeed, such a synthesis is essential if genuine individual freedom is really desired.

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

I do not have anything against incest, nor polyamory. I don't see how incest and polyamory has anything to do with sexual orientation, either.

Nah. I actually agree that it is a sexual preference. Just one people should not act upon, because it hurts the object of affection.

Psychiatry is a field of medicine, hence the MD following their name. You will pardon me if I listen to their opinion in preference to yours. I imagine Psychiatrists know a good deal more about biology, biochemistry and the structure of the brain than you do.

Gay marriages are not legitamate, it only will lead to pedophiles trying to marry their victims, incestians(?) marrying their sisters, and would undermine the moral foundation of our country

No, it's really not a slippery slope. The principal that y'all want set up for homosexuals is that, because they can't choose their sexuality, because they have a predisposition to have gay buttsex, then it is alright.

Well, pedophiles might not choose to be pedophiles, as might not polygamists, nor zoophiles. According to the logic set by gay advocates, because they are predisposed to have sex with children, many women, and animals, then surely, it must be alright.

No. The principle that "we all" want set up for homosexuals is that, because they are consenting adults, then it is all right. The fact that homosexuality is not a choice really has nothing to do with its acceptability. No one chooses to have cancer, but most people would agree that doing so is less than ideal. Having children, on the other hand, is a choice, and most people seem to find that perfectly acceptable. Unless children and goats have become capable of giving informed consent since last I checked, the "logic set by gay advocates" in no way makes pedophilia and bestiality all right.

Haven't read all the pages here but an interesting bit of trivia, when we talk of polygamy we normally think of a man and many women......I recall reading about a tribe in the Himalaya's where it's acceptable for one women to have several husbands, the article was about a women who married 3 brothers(does that qualify as incest?)

Only if they were HER brothers.

Psychiatry is a field of medicine, hence the MD following their name. You will pardon me if I listen to their opinion in preference to yours. I imagine Psychiatrists know a good deal more about biology, biochemistry and the structure of the brain than you do.

You shouldn't, since the psychologists in these cases do not back their claims up with reasoning.
Second: I am extremely certain that I know more about the physical structrure of the brain than most psychologists. And have the degree to prove it.

well that's terrific and shit but he said PSYCHIATRISTS, not psychologists. which ain't the same thing. If you had an MD you would know that.

What's wrong with Incest and polyamory?

Apparently I was the only one to actually pay attention in Anthropology 101.
.

I resent that. I'm working on my masters as I type :)



btw--there are more than one version of Polygamy.

Polygyny is one man, lots of she types.

Polyandry is one woman, lots o' hubbys.'

Polygamy is like...both of them as it were...just means having more than one mate, see?


as for the argument that some women have sex with ten men in one night---I have been at sex parties in New Orleans Back in the day. It really does happen guys. they really can outlast one of us. Not that I ever did that kind of thing, a well raised fella like me would NEVER erm...hey, it was late, I had too much to drink...and the Hurricanes were stronger than I realized...

Find me a woman who isnt a prostitute that sleeps with ten men in a single night and I'll give you fifty dollars.

Annabel Chong. Where's my 50 bucks?

well that's terrific and shit but he said PSYCHIATRISTS, not psychologists. which ain't the same thing. If you had an MD you would know that.

I don't have an MD. My field is biophysics.
Does that make me qualified to comment on mental disorders ? No. However, I am quite capable of reading such articles. And in this specific case finding quite a lot of opinion, and very little actual backing.
Does that make me knowledgeable about the structure and biology of the brain ? Oh yes. Though admittedly that isn't really relevant for the topic.

I've endlessly pondered what my opinion of gay relationships and their legimitacy is. After mulling it over for a long period of time, changing my opinion a numerous times along the way, I found myself concluding that they are valid and by no means are worthy to be condemned. I understand that no one chooses to be a homosexual, and that an attraction to members of the same sex is as natural to them as an attraction to members of the opposite sex is to heterosexuals. Despite this knowledge, I came to find myself making a troubling conclusion: if one accepts homosexual relationships as legitimate, is it not, then, inevitable to accept incestual and polyamorous relationships?

It's true that an attraction to a family member or multiple people is unrelated to a person's sexual orientation. However, one might say that he/she naturally fell in love with a family member or that he/she naturally loves more than one person at a time. Therefore, since these feelings are regarded by their subjects as natural inclinations, if one is to follow the logic that is used to accept homosexual relationships, how can these interactions not then be accepted as legitimate? It could be argued that such relationships defy nature in some way or another, or that most people have an aversion to such relations, but aren't those the same arguments against accepting homosexuality?

Therein lies my dilemma. I want to accept homosexual relationships as I understand that a homosexual's natural inclination towards members of the same sex leaves him or her no choice but to accept their feelings, lest they engage in loveless relationships for the rest of their lives. However, I find myself torn when it comes to accepting the legitimacy of their relationships if doing so would justify something as vile (in my mind) as incest, and work to break down any notions about love and relationships that I have. So I ask all of you, is my conclusion a legitimate one?

Well, as someone who maintains that no true love should be denied, then I'm fine with both. If a brother and sister actually fall in love, well...what do you do? You can't keep them from having sex, you can only keep them from getting married. As for polyamorous relationships, someone else said this: as long as all parties are aware and in love, who cares?

soooo what's your excise about sidetracking his arguement by claiming he was talking about phsychologists, who are...sort of like the McDonald's Countermen men of the medical world...
Or have you decided you just wantto ignore it all and hope we forget (no pointy little devil signs here to show I am teasing you--that sucks lol!)

I would also like to hear you claim that you know more about he interaction of the human brain and what this does to the mental state of a human being than say...my friend the Spychiatrist who shall remain nameless and is one of the foremost Phsychiatrists in the world, and is at the moment doing several studies here at UCLA which...OH MY GOD! seem to show that being gay CAN INDEED be caused by chemicals in the mothers womb...Whoops shoots your arguement to shit don't it there, mister "I know what your brain looks like when fried with a slice of ham" guy. (that last bit was a joke too)

soooo what's your excise about sidetracking his arguement by claiming he was talking about phsychologists, who are...sort of like the McDonald's Countermen men of the medical world...
Or have you decided you just wantto ignore it all and hope we forget (no pointy little devil signs here to show I am teasing you--that sucks lol!)

I would also like to hear you claim that you know more about he interaction of the human brain and what this does to the mental state of a human being than say...my friend the Spychiatrist who shall remain nameless and is one of the foremost Phsychiatrists in the world, and is at the moment doing several studies here at UCLA which...OH MY GOD! seem to show that being gay CAN INDEED be caused by chemicals in the mothers womb...Whoops shoots your arguement to shit don't it there, mister "I know what your brain looks like when fried with a slice of ham" guy. (that last bit was a joke too)

There's an English language weeping in her room somewhere.

i know dammit. Can you believe I was a journalist for a while there? I think it made me resistant to talking like I had an education and spellcheck. I still do though, when it's for something formal:cool: DINFOS trained killer baby!

i know dammit. Can you believe I was a journalist for a while there? I think it made me resistant to talking like I had an education and spellcheck. I still do though, when it's for something formal:cool: DINFOS trained killer baby!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DINFOS

and exactly like the question on polyamoury, the supposedly un-considerable and horrific extremes aren't particularly bad things to allow.



most religions don't think it's wrong - I know you're not saying otherwise, I just wanted to point out that if you gave every religion that exists one vote, the majority of religions, (not practitioners) would say homosexuality was morally neutral. unfortunately for gay people, the majority of religions are very very small and have been largely replaced by either christianity, islam, or secularism. I don't know why jews get some special place in religious discussions - judaism is always one of the first three mentioned, but there are more sikhs, traditional chinese, and aborigional religious practitioners than there are jews. that's a total aside, though. I'd also like to point out that polyamoury can mean "genuine commitment" to more than one person.



there have been matriarchal polyamourous cultures. the fact we live in a patriarchal one and the only instances in which polyamoury is practiced on a large scale that we have encountered from our culture (islam and mormonism) are partiarchal as well doesn't mean that polyamoury in and of itself implies patriarchy.
.

I was being general for the sake of the OP, with religion and while i KNOW there are many religions that do not condemn homosexuality on the basis of its traditional Myths I also know the Abrahamic faiths do condemn it based on their Myths(Before any Christian, or Muslims or Jews get all pissy about the word "Myth" I use it in its analytical expression when regarding world veiws--not mean made up story, or fantasy) I only commented on Christianity because as a Christian I feel I only had the righ to comment as such, I cant comment as a muslim because I am not one, nor am I an Atheist....and so forth and so on.

I believe the reason Judaism gets such a special place when religion is reffrenced is because it is the founding religion of the two largest religions in the world(Christianity and Islam).

As for polyamory I refer mostly to the way it is practiced in the West, primarily abused by males who disrespect their female partners, take multiple wives and use either some arcane Christian or NeoPagan dogma to justify themselves. Again I speak only from personal experience and it has been mine that these relationships end badly. Or more accurately I have only seen them end badly and never well and have seen quite few end. They ended always because of the males insensitivty to his mate(s). This was manifest in either not realizing his primary or intial mate had really never wanted to be involved in apolyamourous relationship and was doing so only to do what she is supposed to do and work on satisfying her mate(why men forget they this obligation as well is beyond me, and in more then just the bedroom) or the men used it as an excuse to run roughshod over any woman that he could convince to spread her legs then called it polyamory to his primary mate.

I comment only on what i have seen--the West fails at being worthy of the responsibility of polyamorous relationships. I am unaware of any religious restrictions on it---in any faith, where one consults the traditional holy books.

interesting comment--that the west fails at blah blah blah... Not that I DO it, I wonder what you base this comment on. Are we somehow the only people on Earth who play around? Anthropological ethnographies seem to say you are wrong, that all humans cheat, or try to in some fashion or another. Perhaps you are hanging some personal or religous moral code on a group in the mistaken assumption that the way you think it should be is actually the way nature intended? Maybe all the cheating and idiocy we see here is part of the process of being human. It certainly helps mess around the gene pool as it were. And it also adds a bit of...erm...soap opera to our lives, which we seem to need. But what do I know? I am just an illiterate retard who never graduated second grade, eh? And I am the product of that awful American eddication system, which as we all demands we remove all accuantability from our actions etc etc etc...(Insert your favorite Pat Robertson comment here)

i even tride to spellcheck myself for you. Are you happy now or are you going to attack my intelligence, background knowledge and writin' skilzzors again?

intersedting comment--that the west fails at blah blah blah. Not that DO it, I wonder what you nase this comment on. Are we somehow the only people on Earth who play around? Anthropological ethnographis seem to say you are wrong, that all huamns cheat, or try to in some fashion or another. {erhaps you are hanging some personal or religous moral code on a group in the mistaken assumption that the way you think it should be is actually the way nature intended? Maybe all the cheating and idiocy we see here is part of the process of being human. It certainly helps mess around the gene pool as it were. And it also adds a bit of...erm...soap opera to our lives, which we seem to need. But what do I know? I am just an illiterate retard who never graduated second grade, eh?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/t81b4c.jpg

ACK!


no! No English! English Baaaaad! Bad Rooseveldt! BAD!

besides, I edited it even!

interesting comment--that the west fails at blah blah blah... Not that I DO it, I wonder what you base this comment on.
Well since you obivously didnt read my post---I will help you.


Again I speak only from personal experience
That clear enough for you or do I need to get some flash cards and mail them to you Mr. Masters? I am not presuming to knw whatthe world is doing which is why instead making a statement general and have sound as if I was stating fact, I made it clear it was based on my experiences....that would be my point of veiw, see-opinion. Get it?

If you want to follow me from thread to thread and try and provoke an arguement by all means do so, but at least come with something a little bit stronger next time.

sure thing stud. I missed that, and was curious, and simply asking you to actually spell out what the hell you were talking about. And I am not following you tehre old boy. I was in this thread earlier before we met :)

not adding much, or even really taking part, but it is an interesting subject. But now go back and read MY comments to you and try and answer my questions. I personally think your attitude is exemplary of a christian ethos, which was a goid thing 50 years ago. butmaybe society as grown past that and is trying something else. That was where I was going...

You shouldn't, since the psychologists in these cases do not back their claims up with reasoning.
Second: I am extremely certain that I know more about the physical structrure of the brain than most psychologists. And have the degree to prove it.

Psychiatrist= Medical Doctor

Psychologist= Not medical doctor.

You would think someone with the degree to prove it would know the difference between the two. The APA is the ruling body of PSYCHIATRISTS.

The APA keeps/updates the list of Mental Disorders and Illnesses.

My post was referring to PSYCHIATRISTS and since you don't seem to know the distinction between the two, I doubt your qualifications even further.

Back to basics

Humans evolved and learned to form groups that were mutually beneficial to them, for many reasons.

Groups tend to function best when the dynamics of the group function to the satisfaction of the majority in that group.

Conflict in the group can happen when some members feel that their benefits in being in a particualr group are threatened or no longer met. Conflict can happen when members of the group no longer accept the current rules on what is acceptable or isn't acceptable and there is resistance to changing things from other members of the group.

To help these groups to function and eliminate conflict, devices (such as rules) evolved that controlled the group members behaviour, usually to the benefit of the majority.

All forms of human sexual behaviour are a natural biological occurrance.

As humans learned the ability to organise in groups, for mutual benefit, some of the devices (rules) that came into being were about controling this sexual behaviour.

In a nutshell. Human societies (or groups) will decide what is and what isn't appropriate sexual behaviour/activity. The deciding factor usually being whatever the majority of the group members see as being most beneficial to them.

What is acceptable today may not have been acceptable yesterday and may be totally different tomorrow.

Conflict will always be part of the group dynamic. Unfortunately we haven't evolved enough to remove the violence from the conflict.

Hereth endeth the lesson.:headbang:

he was talking about phsychologists, who are...sort of like the McDonald's Countermen men of the medical world

siged!
finally i got to say that.

No, genius. Pedophilia is listed by the American Psychiatric Association as a MENTAL DISORDER.

So was deafness until a little while ago. Being listed as a mental disorder does not necessarily make it so. I happen to agree that paedophilia is not something you can help, like being homosexual.

And before you flame me for supporting child abuse, I should say I dont. A paedophile has feelings for children whereas a child molester does 'things' with children.

Oh, and I know im late lol, I dont really care. Just had to get my (worthless) two cents in about this.

Also I think polyamoury is perfectly acceptable, providing its informed. Incest makes me go 'yick!' but thats no reason for me to condemn it. As long as its consensual I think its fine - I would have no problem with my friends dating relatives lol

They also need freedom. And letting the state control something as basic as with whom one forms a relationship is very much antithetical to freedom. Indeed, the imposition of a rigid structure is probably even more likely to result in the kinds of socially harmful emotional problems than the lack of a rigid structure at all. Divorce rates are pretty high even with monogamous marriage, after all. Not to mention the fact that adultery and jealousy are hardly rare.

Allowing these kinds of relationships out into the open, and making them upon the basis of consent and knowledge rather than deception, would solve many of the problems that persist by forcing them into hiding.

And the only real reason we need the modern-day institution of the family anyway is the breakdown of broader social bonds. Restore those, and what's the problem? (This is one of the many ways in which right-libertarian individualism corrodes itself.)

First, let me start with a partial defense of marriage as we practice it in our society. Put very simply, our rate of dissolution of marriage is much, much smaller than is traditionally assumed, largely because a) the journalists who started the notion of the 50% divorce rate were innumerate, and b) that statistic has since taken on a life of its own. The journalists who first started the 50% divorce rate statistic essentially looked at the number of marriages performed in a year, the number of divorces in a year, and saw that the divorce total was half the total of marriages; ergo, the genesis of the 50% statistic. The problem with this analysis is that the two have no relationship with one another: the number of marriages does not overly affect the number of divorces, since very few people divorce in the same year they marry, and there is no causal or correlative influence of one on the other. What is much better a statistic to look at is the number of divorces relative to the total number of marriages, and while this may have fluctuated some in recent years, the last time I checked, if you were married on Jan. 1, you had a statistical likelihood of still being married on Dec. 31 of about 98%. That suggests that our current rate of marital bonding is far more successful than usually suggested.

Now, let me be the first to point out that this rate could be easily raised further by, say, incorporating some practices of other cultures. Divorce, for instance, is virtually unheard of in societies with arranged marriages; similarly, if we reinstituted the social stigma attached to divorce, we could easily make divorce virtually unheard of. The reason we do not is precisely what I was talking about in my first post: negative externalities. By allowing the system of divorce we currently do, we allow women to get out of bad situations with their husbands and vice-versa. The system we have doesn't minimize divorce, but it does minimize the likelihood that a person who makes a bad choice at one point does not have to suffer for it forever.

Now, to the meat of your point: freedom does not in and of itself end jealousy. In order to truly make polyamorous relationships work, you either need one of two things: material reasons to make it necessary, or you need to fundamentally overhaul men and women's deep-seated desire for exclusivity in intimate partners. Now, I don't claim that this desire is inherent; you should note how carefully I'm using my language on this point. Nor still do I claim that every man and every woman have this. But most men and women do, and it is deeply rooted in their psyche. Furthermore, there are no real material reasons to override this impulse: an individual man or woman can afford enough material means to support one partner in our society, but not many. As such, the freedom to engage in polyamorous relationships is the same kind of freedom to, say, engage in unsupervised genetic experimentation on humans. Sure, there may be a few people who do great things with it, but by and large most of those who try it will cause misery. As such, that freedom needs to be controlled, albeit only insofar as simple prudence and virtue fails.



Monogamous relationships hardly have a decent long-term success rate.

Indeed, by demanding "long-term success" we may be stacking the deck against ourselves in the first place.


Note my reply above. I would say further that, even though this is merely anecdotal and hardly reflective of any kind of statistical certainty, I can't think of any polyamorous relationships that make it to the so-called median age of a marriage (7 years), and even the polyamorous movement has difficulty finding long-term relationships to tout as examples. I can think offhand of quite a few marriages that have made it to that length of time. Insofar as marriages are more stable a social institution (even if they are not the extraordinarily stable relationships of an arranged marriage system), they are preferable to a polyamorous system.


Eh, I haven't tried it. But it's an option I've considered, and it seems to work for lots of others.

Fair enough.


If polyamory doesn't work for them, they don't have to keep to it. No one's making them.

This isn't an addiction. It isn't as if, once people decide to enter a polyamorous relationship, they have to keep to it. If they don't like it, they can stop.

I just wanted to make the point that a communitarian approach can be combined with an appreciation for individual freedom in these kinds of decisions - indeed, such a synthesis is essential if genuine individual freedom is really desired.

First of all, I resent strongly the label of communitarian. At most, I'm a Rousseau-esque or Lockean liberal, not a communitarian. Nowhere will you, for instance, see me argue against marihuana decriminalization, a position anathema to communitarians. But the reasons are very much in keeping with a classical liberal position, and very illuminating to the current discussion.

Put simply, the worst that can happen if a person smokes marihuana (Note: I'm deliberately spelling it with an h in keeping with its original spelling; it was the original "drug czars" who prohibited the drug who began spelling it with a j to capitalize on nativist anti-Mexican sentiment of the period) is that he screws up his lungs: a bad consequence to be sure. The worst consequence of attempting to enforce the law banning the substance is massive collateral damage to civilians, actual users, and the rule of law itself, which is a much greater harm to society. A set of laws that attempted to enforce an anti-marihuana ordinance would almost by definition fit with Locke's definition of a tyranny: attempting to impose by force that which no man has the right to impose, if for no other reason than because of the impossibility of properly and completely imposing the rule, and the inherent unjustness of any real enforcement.

The difference, of course, between banning marihuana and banning legitemate polyamorous relationships is fairly obvious. Banning marihuana at best solves an individual-level problem at great social cost and is of dubious real-world effectiveness. By contrast, if a polyamorous relationship fails, it splinters all kinds of social ties: familial, platonic, and romantic relations are all usually suspended, and always damaged. Secondly, banning the legitemate practice only hurts the very few who could make it work. Third, it is very easy to impose a complete and comprehensive ban on the legitemate practice of polyamory, if for no other reason than the state itself is the entity that traditionally recognizes the formation of new marital units. So, banning the practice solves deep potential social problems at a cost of the happiness of only a very small number, has minimal social cost, and is easy to implement. As such, it is a law that is hardly tyrannical, and would in all cases where we aren't bordering on anarchism be called a good law.

Now finally, a word about freedom. I don't deny that freedom is a good thing; I do deny that we can reasonably expect it to be maximized. If men were angels, I have no doubt that we could make polyamorous relationships, at least barring any divine prohibitions, work perfectly. But then again, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. The whole point about my talk on Montesquieu is that while the only true freedom is virtuous freedom, not all people recognize that, and certainly not all people will be virtuous. As such, the state needs to use coercive measures to reform, amend, and yes, curtail freedom if using that freedom would too-easily lead us to avoiding the better angels of our natures and would hurt others or society in general in the process. We rightfully don't allow children to vote, drive, or use automatic weapons without supervision. We don't allow adults to fight honor duels, own slaves, or prohibit their children from recieving necessary medical care. In the same way, we don't allow them the privilege of violating a social norm that only a few could do successfully but might lead many to very detrimental conclusions.

It's not like there's anythign actually wrong with incest and polyamory you know.

Or children voting.

In the same way, we don't allow them the privilege of violating a social norm that only a few could do successfully but might lead many to very detrimental conclusions.

Well put. Although we don't actually stop people from having polygamous relationships, we just don't reconise them legally.

The slippery slope argument which began the thread holds no water. Recognising a socially acceptable kind of relationship in no way leads to anything other than that.

First, let me start with a partial defense of marriage as we practice it in our society. Put very simply, our rate of dissolution of marriage is much, much smaller than is traditionally assumed, largely because a) the journalists who started the notion of the 50% divorce rate were innumerate, and b) that statistic has since taken on a life of its own. The journalists who first started the 50% divorce rate statistic essentially looked at the number of marriages performed in a year, the number of divorces in a year, and saw that the divorce total was half the total of marriages; ergo, the genesis of the 50% statistic. The problem with this analysis is that the two have no relationship with one another: the number of marriages does not overly affect the number of divorces, since very few people divorce in the same year they marry, and there is no causal or correlative influence of one on the other. What is much better a statistic to look at is the number of divorces relative to the total number of marriages, and while this may have fluctuated some in recent years, the last time I checked, if you were married on Jan. 1, you had a statistical likelihood of still being married on Dec. 31 of about 98%. That suggests that our current rate of marital bonding is far more successful than usually suggested.

I wasn't talking solely about the divorce rate. Indeed, as you point out in the next paragraph, lowering the divorce rate would be easy (not practically, but theoretically.) A marriage that would end in a divorce in a liberal society is a marriage that has failed to me; whether there is actually a divorce is irrelevant. Indeed, it is possible to have a failed marriage that would not end in any society, if the partners are not happy, the environment for raising children (assuming children) is poor, or the economics aren't working well.

Whatever disputes you have with the traditional statistics, however, the fact remains that the US divorce rate is enormously high, and it is not much lower in most other liberal societies. The rate of adultery is similarly high. The way the institution has declined with the liberalization of society is indicative of the fact that a very many people are not happy with it, and as long as public policy remains regressive on this subject, the economic stresses and social marginalization faced by non-traditional families will continue. That is not at all good for society.

Now, to the meat of your point: freedom does not in and of itself end jealousy. In order to truly make polyamorous relationships work, you either need one of two things: material reasons to make it necessary, or you need to fundamentally overhaul men and women's deep-seated desire for exclusivity in intimate partners. Now, I don't claim that this desire is inherent; you should note how carefully I'm using my language on this point.

I am. First you say it's "deep-seated" and that it's it's something we would need to "fundamentally overhaul," and then you say that you don't claim it's inherent.

I wouldn't quibble over phrasing, but I think the point here is important. If it's not inherent, then it's cultural; if it's cultural, I don't see your objection, because as with gay marriage, I do not only think that public policy ought to change, but societal attitudes should change with it. (The experience with interracial marriage suggests that this is far from impossible.)

Also, you seem to be assuming that I want to replace monogamous relationships with polyamorous ones. That is not my intention any more than it is the intention of the gay rights movement to make every heterosexual couple "go gay." What I want is for the choice to be open - for social attitudes and public policy to not try to force it in one way or the other. If indeed the inclination against it is "deep-seated" and "fundamental," we can expect that most people will keep to monogamy, and perhaps a slightly larger minority will go with polyamory. That will hardly cause societal breakdown. And if the inclination against it is not, and in fact half the population, once freed from sexual puritanism and statist conservatism, will rush to join polyamorous relationships, well, perhaps jealousy won't be the problem you say it will be.

If people are bothered by the notion of polyamorous relationships, they don't have to be part of one.

Nor still do I claim that every man and every woman have this.

And what of those who do not? How should they be treated?

But most men and women do, and it is deeply rooted in their psyche.

Then those men and women can keep to monogamy.

Furthermore, there are no real material reasons to override this impulse: an individual man or woman can afford enough material means to support one partner in our society, but not many.

Both men and women work these days. More partners means more earners as well as more mouths to feed.

As such, the freedom to engage in polyamorous relationships is the same kind of freedom to, say, engage in unsupervised genetic experimentation on humans. Sure, there may be a few people who do great things with it, but by and large most of those who try it will cause misery.

Temporary misery, perhaps. That's part of life; people make mistakes. It's something that happens with premarital sex, too. Should we prohibit that as well?

I would say further that, even though this is merely anecdotal and hardly reflective of any kind of statistical certainty, I can't think of any polyamorous relationships that make it to the so-called median age of a marriage (7 years), and even the polyamorous movement has difficulty finding long-term relationships to tout as examples. I can think offhand of quite a few marriages that have made it to that length of time.

Insofar as marriages are more stable a social institution (even if they are not the extraordinarily stable relationships of an arranged marriage system), they are preferable to a polyamorous system.

Why is stability essential?

First of all, I resent strongly the label of communitarian.

My apologies. It was the direction of your earlier attack on libertarianism that misled me.

(I certainly did not mean it perjoratively. I've lost a lot of my liberalism recently anyway, after I destroyed my own arguments in defense of Mill's Harm Principle, and while I guess I remain broadly in that category, my increasing distaste for certain aspects of liberal ideology may eventually push me off even further in other directions (though not communitarian ones, most likely). Though I remain politically a radically libertarian socialist, I increasingly recognize the necessarily socio-cultural basis for individual freedom in a society as rife with unfreedom as ours, and "liberal individualism" as many modern liberals and libertarians tend to view it would corrode any such basis.)

At most, I'm a Rousseau-esque or Lockean liberal, not a communitarian. Nowhere will you, for instance, see me argue against marihuana decriminalization, a position anathema to communitarians.

Communitarianism hardly has to be associated with explicit policy positions. There are all kinds of directions one can go with, say, Alasdair MacIntyre's version of virtue ethics.

By contrast, if a polyamorous relationship fails, it splinters all kinds of social ties: familial, platonic, and romantic relations are all usually suspended, and always damaged.

But not irreparably. And the social harm is slight at best; there is likely to be harm to the children of such a relationship, granted, but we seem to be capable of handling that with monogamous divorce. The participants are free to start new relationships, and if their experience truly was awful, they will not go for a repetition.

As such, the state needs to use coercive measures to reform, amend, and yes, curtail freedom if using that freedom would too-easily lead us to avoiding the better angels of our natures and would hurt others or society in general in the process.

I can agree with that. But I do not see the severe harm to society you keep pointing to.

We rightfully don't allow children to vote, drive, or use automatic weapons without supervision.

All of which have obvious potential to harm others. Again, I really don't see that with polyamory. The worst possible result is that the relationship is dissolved. That happens all the time in our society; it does not bring about catastrophe.