Opinion of the "Polyamorous community"

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Obviously fine if everyone involved freely consents to the arrangement.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Consent is not a magic spell that obviates every potential moral problem with a sexual act. It's a necessary but not sufficient aspect of sexual morality. I don't think anybody is arguing that it's somehow less objectionable to cheat on a partner you've ostensibly promised not to; rather, the principle on which people operate is that carrying on multiple sexual relationships concurrently is objectionable regardless of how the people involved feel about it.

And where exactly does this principle come from that makes it any more legitimate than the principle of accepting that 1) it is possible to love more than one person at a time and 2) that consenting adults can do what they wish in the privacy of the bedroom?

The morality you're talking about seems almost dogmatic. How can something be immoral if it's not hurting anyone? Isn't it lazy to denounce something as immoral "just because" (or, even worse, "just because [I don't like it]")?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Seems from Nathan's response to my post that everything comes down to individual presuppositions that are based on nothing but gut feeling or religious dogma. That is how people like him and Antonio are able to allege that polyamory "degrades society"—they cannot prove it hurts anyone, so they say it degrades society based only on their presuppositions. How does it degrade society? It perpetuates something they don't like... and that's all.

You can point out the logical and intellectual flaws of that, sure. But you can't really argue with it, because they are the same mechanisms that others use to defend bigotry, discrimination, etc. I'm not saying being against polyamory is tantamount to being a bigot, but it does certainly seem like it's a position that involves the same sort of wilful close-mindedness.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I just wish that people would refrain from invoking moral principles when they aren't willing to follow them to their logical conclusion.

Yeah, that's really my problem with the "pro" side in this thread. Even if I happen to more or less agree with them, I really can't stand the sort of arguments they use.

Well, I think the point Mopsus raises actually crystallizes the key differences between polygamy and polyamory.

"Regulation" would seem to more affect the practitioners of polygamy than polyamory, and that may well be justified when we are talking about the legal institution of marriage. But when we're talking about polyamory and private relationships between consenting people, the need for "regulation" seems weak.

I hope this isn't an insulting comparison, but it's kind of like the difference between the state applying regulations to a registered business and the state applying regulations to a garage sale. There's not really any reason to intervene in the garage sale unless stolen goods or toxins are being distributed. There's not really any reason to intervene in a polyamorous, non-marriage arrangement unless someone is being harmed.