-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Opponents of Polyamory -- Present Your Arguments
- Thread starter Nymphs
- Start date
Alceste
Vagabond
Tumbleweeds...
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
It's icky and I don't like it so there! :slap:
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
It is symptomatic of the decadent and hedonistic lifestyle of an elite class of people whom I view as my political enemies. The bourgeoisie and the leisure class which engages in such activities are the traditional enemy of the worker. I oppose them and everything they stand for, and that includes your "lifestyle".
Alceste
Vagabond
What part of "without insults" and "backed with evidence" sailed over your head?
As a poly laborer who works 60 hour weeks and sits south West of Ghandi on the political compass, I think your opinion is hilarious.
I don't see why opponents of polyamory need to present any arguments. If it is their personal preference not to become involved in those kinds of relationships, it is perfectly within their right to decide what kinds of relationships they do and do not want to be involved in. The only time you need to provide justification is if you're imposing your preference onto everybody else, by law. As I understand it, there are no laws against polyamory (and it would be unenforceable anyway if there were) - only against multiple marriages or civil unions.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
So, it's just your opinion that it is immoral? Personal anecdotes only, not proof.......
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I am not being insulting, within the framework of my politics that is how those classes of people are traditionally viewed. Even Einstein thought the bourgeoisie was a decadent class.
And I offer as evidence, this thread create by this forum's foremost poly advocate and the article that accompanied it:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/sexuality/159497-polyamory-rich-pretty-people.html
https://medium.com/sex-life/75b43ae5c2a1
It is a privilege of class, of a decadent and hedonistic class. And just because you are a laborer does not mean you have not adopted the hedonistic values of the ruling class. In fact many in the working class have adopted conspicuous consumption and leisure as their goals.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So, it's just your opinion that it is immoral? Personal anecdotes only, not proof.......
Weren't you the person who in one thread defended personal anecdotes as evidence?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3763743-post98.html
How hypocritical of you.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Just pointing out how you said personal anecdotes didn't count. It's called sarcasm, sweetie.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Also, it gives most of them a chance to look foolish and spout off nonsense when they don't know what they are talking about.
:beach:
The laws against it are not currently enforced everywhere, but there may be some old laws against it. There are still some very old, unenforced and forgotten laws out there. See some of the weird ones. Here are some sexually charged old laws. Legalzoom's top 10 In my own state of North Carolina, both anal and oral sex are illegal. The laws against them just aren't enforced according to this . Here are a few more.Quintessence said:
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I never gave a personal anecdote as evidence. Do you even have any understanding as to what a personal anecdote is?
I suppose what I'm saying is I don't have a problem with them having a different opinion - up until the point it infringes upon another person's rights. Whether or not their position is what I would consider to be "well-reasoned" isn't important, as they're entitled to their opinion regardless, yes?
Apologies, but none of these sources are credible. I've seen people create lists like this before, and when I've fact-checked them with primary sources, I've come up empty enough times to not trust them. Show me some lists that actually bother to reference the primary source and I will pay attention.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Well it is the view of some polys in this forum that they are more ethical and more communicative with their partners than monogamous people. In other words, they are poly-supremacist who do have a problem with people having a different opinion and wish to censor those voices. That is what this is all about. They believe they are better and that us lowly monogamists need to shut up and accept their lifestyle as superior.
I think I'll let them speak for themselves, if that's all right. XD
Depending on the specifics, I don't disagree. I think the idea of wanting to have exclusive possession of a person is... questionable. I feel that if we truly love someone unconditionally, it's... well... unconditional. We don't shackle them to us, and us alone. Doing that seems selfish to me. But again, it does depend on the specifics. I think what's most important is to be transparent with expectations in the relationship and honor those expectations which are uncompromisable.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Well you should read some of the thread created by the poster of this one (there are quite a few), any criticism of the poly lifestyle is counter with "polys are more secure, communicative and ethical than the monogamous". That seems more than a little bigoted to me which is why I have personally asked some who are critical of the polys not post in these threads anymore. In other words, we will no longer feed the you-know-what, the term starts with a t.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Hi, my name is Drolefille and you are welcome to actually USE my name rather than obliquely referring to me as if I'm Voldemort.
There's nothing hedonistic or decadent about recognizing one's privilege. We've had this discussion about how you, me, and everyone on this forum is quite privileged to have access to the internet compared to those who don't. We both are rather highly educated compared to most of the world. We both live in the US and get to watch Science Fiction TV shows.
You ignored however that the point of the article and the thread discussion that was that people who get to practice polyamory are privileged, that doesn't make polyamory itself privileged - there are poly people who cannot practice it because of their location, financial status, etc.
The internet is a far bigger part of our culture. And clearly it's more hedonistic, you can do things on the internet that the vast majority of poly people don't or can't do. So why in the world is the internet "acceptable" but loving multiple people is "decadent?"
And if you can name a single time where I claimed polyamory was a superior relationship style for anyone but myself, I'll admit my wrong. But I saw far more people reading into the "requires and promotes increased communication" as "POLY COMMUNICATING SUPER POWERS AND MONO SUCKS"