Polyamorous Relationships - whats YOUR Opinion?

[MadameButterfly]

I didn't realise that if we just all entered the ark two by two love and life would be stable, easy, uncomplicated, unselfish and you would never get hurt.

I guess it's also lucky you can gain experience from books and that Christian morality concerning child rearing has been so successful.

Damn if only we all ate five portions of fruit and vegatables a day and went to bed early too.

What happens if Christianity is a figment of ones imagination?

But not Christian morality, different things. (or am I being pedantic)

Good step away from any religious morals. I'm all for being pedantic, probably that way inclined too but my mind is open to people doing crazy things in life. There is always a reason why.

[EvilBastard]

I didn't realise that if we just all entered the ark two by two love and life would be stable, easy, uncomplicated, unselfish and you would never get hurt.

I guess it's also lucky you can gain experience from books and that Christian morality concerning child rearing has been so successful.

Damn if only we all ate five portions of fruit and vegatables a day and went to bed early too.

What happens if Christianity is a figment of ones imagination?

But not Christian morality, different things. (or am I being pedantic)

Christian morality rocks, and it is my guiding principle. Of course, it means that I'm writing this from prison while awaiting trial for stoning my neighbours to death for adultery, selling my daughter into slavery, and firebombing the local chapter of the Pagan Federation, but you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

All kidding aside - life will break your heart. Love will break it faster. The more people you have in a relationship, the more people will get hurt. When those people are adults that's one thing - adults know what they're getting into. When you add kids to the mix then that's a whole different thing. You owe it to the kids (yes, you do - you decided to have them) to give them a stable environment in which they can develop in an atmosphere of love and stability.
I'm not claiming for a moment that 1man+1woman always=stability, or that stability and love cannot exist in a homosexual, polyamorous, polygamous, or polyandrous relationship. Having tried a couple of different options, I go for monogamy. If someone asks for my opinion or counsel, that's what I'd stick to.
I'm not imposing this view on anyone else - you're all adults, do what you're comfortable with, within the limits of personal morality and the law. But know what you're getting into before you get into it - the same holds true for credit card agreements, business contracts, and mortgages, for the record.

[MadameButterfly]

What's old fashioned moral upbringing...seriously?

Whose morals??

Well that's like me! I am a young mother to two amazing children. My husband and I have certain morals given down by our generations as to the rights and wrongs in upbringing, mixed it with our own individual ideas on the subject and are splashing the old way of thinking with the new open way of thinking. Respect to the elderly, they were here before you and have just earned that right as we all are going down that path or not.
Respect one another when that respect has been earned and always be respectful to yourself as you have to walk your path alone but with help and love. Love as much as you can to the world and her beauty and what she gives us and respect by keeping her healthy to keep us alive. Believe in anything you want to, always go in peace but always stand up for yourself and the under dog. Give life a brighter look to it so you can glow but for heavens sake remember that the reality of life gives you such a kick in the face a good few times and know you have to deal with it.

I'm sorry I've forgotten what the question was?

Oh yes, these are MY morals!

[DocSommer]

Most statistic says that every ~3rd marriage/relationship will break up sooner or later so I think another kind of relationship can't guarantee a healthy, parental enviroment.

that's not a reason for thinking it'll be ok to have the child.

As long as there are no proofs that this kind of relationship is a major disadvantage for a child's development (compared to so called "normal" enviroments) I wouldn't generally state it's not ok.

[markfiend]

I think that even a situation as such could be resolved if the people
involved are really decided to live their lives this way. And as to a child -
why should this not be a home as stable as others, since at least the kid
will be loved and wanted and cared for - unlike many other children who
grow up within standard relations ...

I agree. There's no reason why a child brought up in a stable group relationship should be any less well-adjusted than any other child.

Surely it's better for kids than being brought up by people who didn't want them, can't afford them, and don't even love them?

[MadameButterfly]

I agree. There's no reason why a child brought up in a stable group relationship shouldn't be any less well-adjusted than any other child.

Surely it's better for kids than being brought up by people who didn't want them, can't afford them, and don't even love them?

Depending what that child will be exposed to though? People doing these kinds of relationships if a child is aware of it will be taught that this kind of behaviour is normal? Or will this child grow up having to adjust in adult years and then slipping into what the child only knows?

The other group of children in the situations you then mention, well I think these children grow up giving their children everything they didn't have?

As a parent I still believe not just anyone should have children either.

But we are animals so the sexual instinct prevails and some people are aware and others not. That's life.

[EvilBastard]

I agree. There's no reason why a child brought up in a stable group relationship shouldn't be any less well-adjusted than any other child.

Surely it's better for kids than being brought up by people who didn't want them, can't afford them, and don't even love them?

Depending what that child will be exposed to though? People doing these kinds of relationships if a child is aware of it will be taught that this kind of behaviour is normal? Or will this child grow up having to adjust in adult years and then slipping into what the child only knows?

That thar's a slippery slope, and one that those who oppose adoption by homosexuals cling to. The logic being that being raised by pooves will result in the child becoming gay (tortuous logic, to be sure, but they seem keen on it).
Sensible parents will help the kid understand that there are lots of different sorts of people and families - divorced, gay, widowed, whatever - but that crucially no one kind of relationship is better than any others.

[DocSommer]

Depending what that child will be exposed to though? People doing these kinds of relationships if a child is aware of it will be taught that this kind of behaviour is normal? Or will this child grow up having to adjust in adult years and then slipping into what the child only knows?

Yeah - like all childs who has been raised by gay parents ends up in Brüno stereotypes

Surely it's better for kids than being brought up by people who didn't want them, can't afford them, and don't even love them?

good point!

[MadameButterfly]

I agree. There's no reason why a child brought up in a stable group relationship shouldn't be any less well-adjusted than any other child.

Surely it's better for kids than being brought up by people who didn't want them, can't afford them, and don't even love them?

Depending what that child will be exposed to though? People doing these kinds of relationships if a child is aware of it will be taught that this kind of behaviour is normal? Or will this child grow up having to adjust in adult years and then slipping into what the child only knows?

That thar's a slippery slope, and one that those who oppose adoption by homosexuals cling to. The logic being that being raised by pooves will result in the child becoming gay (tortuous logic, to be sure, but they seem keen on it).
Sensible parents will help the kid understand that there are lots of different sorts of people and families - divorced, gay, widowed, whatever - but that crucially no one kind of relationship is better than any others.

I don't oppose adoption by homosexuals at all because a child brought up in that environment will never just become gay because it's parents are! That's where my question comes in but for the interest of any child.

Of course with sensible parents! These kind of parents are also in the minority and then with the responsibility (unshown) of us parents with regards to the children without such parents, then there is also the law about privacy. What about the children where abuse is also a known thing that shouldn't be?

Like I said in previous posts on this thread, don't bring the children into it...

[EvilBastard]

Surely it's better for kids than being brought up by people who didn't want them, can't afford them, and don't even love them?

good point!

There are lots of good reasons why people should not have kids - apart from the number of people who make lousy parents, and who send their offspring into the world without knowing not to make calls on mobile phones in the cinema, drop litter, or microwave kittens, the cost to the exchequer, to business, and to society in general is incalculable - maternity leave, paternity leave, Family & Medical Leave, schools, medical care, you name it these chubby-fingered sh*t-machines soak the system for billions every year with no guarantee of repayment. That's a bad investment in anybody's book.
Better, surely, to take children away from their biological parents at 6 weeks (or sooner) and hothouse them in an environment where their development (physical, mental, social) could be carefully monitored by experts. We'd slash rates of childhood obesity, Type-2 diabetes, hate-crimes and anti-social behaviour at a stroke, plan more efficiently for future needs, and turn out the kinds of people that we would want our kids to marry (if we had any).
Couple with this a requirement for breeding licenses - if you want to breed (not parent, as this would be taken over by the state) you have to prove that you're healthy. It would work on a points system (the way Canadian immigration does) - you need a certain number of points to qualify. So while a history of mental illness, diabetes, or a criminal record would on their own not necessarily preclude you from reproducing, a combination of all three almost certainly would. If you don't have the points, then you don't have the contraceptive implant turned off, and if you do manage to breed then you get nothing from the state. No healthcare, no education, no medical care, nothing. Bugger this paying for Future Criminals of America to profit from the money my parents send me every week lark - desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Being645]

... sounds like A Brave New world, or was it 1984 ?

[MadameButterfly]

i'm sorry EB, don't know which planet you are coming from, but since when & why would you decide who is to be a parent or not? unless you are thinking of some kind of god in your own mind!?

in this day and age in the world we are living, all human races are breeding like rabbits and no higher person has the right to tell them they can't!

living in a place that doesn't exsist but be very comfortable.

[Bartek]

unless you life in Chine with their one-child-per-family policy.

[DocSommer]

... sounds like A Brave New world, or was it 1984 ?

or Gattaca?

[EvilBastard]

i'm sorry EB, don't know which planet you are coming from, but since when & why would you decide who is to be a parent or not? unless you are thinking of some kind of god in your own mind!?

in this day and age in the world we are living, all human races are breeding like rabbits and no higher person has the right to tell them they can't!

living in a place that doesn't exsist but be very comfortable.

We, the law-abiding, tax-paying or otherwise contributing members of society, we get to decide. We get to decide on the kind of society that we want to live in. Now, if you want to live in a society filled with people who microwave kittens, talk in the cinema, steal cars, and frighten old ladies, then you get to vote in favour of this. And if it turns out that you're in the majority, then so be it. Personally I'm a little tired of having my tit squeezed ever-harder to bankroll the existence of the kinds of people that I wouldn't p*ss on if they were on fire. That's just me - you can say I'm an extremist, and you're probably right.
However, we live on a planet that can support a finite number of people, and you can only squeeze a buffalo so hard. If we have to have people then let's at least have the sorts of people that we wouldn't mind living next door to.
It could well be that I'm in a minority here - maybe 51% of the world wants to live in the galactic equivalent of a 60s-era council tower block with graffiti, heroin addicts in the hallways, broken windows and a broken lift that's awash in human excrement. I'm prepared to accept that (and if it is the case then my ticket on the asteroid is confirmed). But if I'm not, if we do want a world full of the kinds of people that we'd want to live next do, let's start doing something constructive about getting there. We've failed dismally so far - perhaps the time has come to grasp the nettle and make some real changes.

[Being645]

unless you life in Chine with their one-child-per-family policy.

... where part of the female population is working in factories producing puppets for the Western market ... ...

... sounds like A Brave New world, or was it 1984 ?

or Gattaca?

Yes, to name a more recent example.

[Bartek]

so men are doing nothing or nothing accept supervising ?

[MadameButterfly]

i'm sorry EB, don't know which planet you are coming from, but since when & why would you decide who is to be a parent or not? unless you are thinking of some kind of god in your own mind!?

in this day and age in the world we are living, all human races are breeding like rabbits and no higher person has the right to tell them they can't!

living in a place that doesn't exsist but be very comfortable.

We, the law-abiding, tax-paying or otherwise contributing members of society, we get to decide. We get to decide on the kind of society that we want to live in. Now, if you want to live in a society filled with people who microwave kittens, talk in the cinema, steal cars, and frighten old ladies, then you get to vote in favour of this. And if it turns out that you're in the majority, then so be it. Personally I'm a little tired of having my tit squeezed ever-harder to bankroll the existence of the kinds of people that I wouldn't p*ss on if they were on fire. That's just me - you can say I'm an extremist, and you're probably right.
However, we live on a planet that can support a finite number of people, and you can only squeeze a buffalo so hard. If we have to have people then let's at least have the sorts of people that we wouldn't mind living next door to.
It could well be that I'm in a minority here - maybe 51% of the world wants to live in the galactic equivalent of a 60s-era council tower block with graffiti, heroin addicts in the hallways, broken windows and a broken lift that's awash in human excrement. I'm prepared to accept that (and if it is the case then my ticket on the asteroid is confirmed). But if I'm not, if we do want a world full of the kinds of people that we'd want to live next do, let's start doing something constructive about getting there. We've failed dismally so far - perhaps the time has come to grasp the nettle and make some real changes.

No we don't get to decide! Well you can think you deserve to decide, but all heavens above, you are looking at the minority here been us the lucky sods with enough money to have this benefit! Have you actually looked at the world other than from this rich, powerful, western northern part of the world when only these are your worries?

What about the billions of people in this world that are dying dayly just because the weak will die opinion? this world that where you are coming from have fuckedup my world i live on because of the wealth and greed and not caring about the under dog in this world!

*pfffttt* to that way of thinking thanking you very much dear sir.

[Being645]

so men are doing nothing or nothing except supervising ?

So this is what you call a logical conclusion? : ...

Sorry, I really do not foster a hatred of men. 't was just an example for the absurd side of the situation in China.

However, we all know about the job distribution in various factories ... it's
the places where young single parent mothers get a job to feed another
neglected child at home, both of them without much chance for development.
Because love is just a fun sport ... I'd clearly prefer polyamorous relations to that state of affairs.

[EvilBastard]

No we don't get to decide! Well you can think you deserve to decide, but all heavens above, you are looking at the minority here been us the lucky sods with enough money to have this benefit! Have you actually looked at the world other than from this rich, powerful, western northern part of the world when only these are your worries?

What about the billions of people in this world that are dying dayly just because the weak will die opinion? this world that where you are coming from have fuckedup my world i live on because of the wealth and greed and not caring about the under dog in this world!

*pfffttt* to that way of thinking thanking you very much dear sir.

Hey now - I never said that other countries were excluded from this. You've got basket-case countries (Haiti, Congo, Zimbabwe) that are getting the shaft precisely because they're being run by the kinds of people that one might happily see buried up to their necks in scorpions, being influenced by people who should know better (the incumbent of the Vatican, for example), being played-off against each other in proxy wars, and dying of things that are easily preventable because business interests in "this rich, powerful, western northern part of the world" have held the government to ransom. These are precisely the things that a radical shift in society would aim to address. Haitians don't live in Cite Soleil out of choice, Zimbabwans don't collect their paycheques in wheelbarrows because they want to, and the Congolese would, I presume, rather not live or die at the whim of a goon with a gun in the pay of major copper-mining companies. I'm guessing that the average Palestinian would sooner not see his kids burned to a crisp by WP, the Laotian would quite like to be able to farm without wondering whether today's the day that he waves goodbye to his legs thanks to EO, and the Karen in Burma would sooner have some rights in their own country than not.
Getting rid of the criminal element doesn't end with the ASBO family at Number 27 - it goes all the way.

[MadameButterfly]

No we don't get to decide! Well you can think you deserve to decide, but all heavens above, you are looking at the minority here been us the lucky sods with enough money to have this benefit! Have you actually looked at the world other than from this rich, powerful, western northern part of the world when only these are your worries?

What about the billions of people in this world that are dying dayly just because the weak will die opinion? this world that where you are coming from have fuckedup my world i live on because of the wealth and greed and not caring about the under dog in this world!

*pfffttt* to that way of thinking thanking you very much dear sir.

Hey now - I never said that other countries were excluded from this. You've got basket-case countries (Haiti, Congo, Zimbabwe) that are getting the shaft precisely because they're being run by the kinds of people that one might happily see buried up to their necks in scorpions, being influenced by people who should know better (the incumbent of the Vatican, for example), being played-off against each other in proxy wars, and dying of things that are easily preventable because business interests in "this rich, powerful, western northern part of the world" have held the government to ransom. These are precisely the things that a radical shift in society would aim to address. Haitians don't live in Cite Soleil out of choice, Zimbabwans don't collect their paycheques in wheelbarrows because they want to, and the Congolese would, I presume, rather not live or die at the whim of a goon with a gun in the pay of major copper-mining companies. I'm guessing that the average Palestinian would sooner not see his kids burned to a crisp by WP, the Laotian would quite like to be able to farm without wondering whether today's the day that he waves goodbye to his legs thanks to EO, and the Karen in Burma would sooner have some rights in their own country than not.
Getting rid of the criminal element doesn't end with the ASBO family at Number 27 - it goes all the way.

Not aiming at you as EB just keeping in mind the gust of my opinion. We have know each other for many years on here and the way we think when it comes to discussions that sometimes go off topic but for the worth of the subject...

You are looking at it from the higher levels and I go into the mankind of the situation and when that freaks my mind out, go into the mother nature safe place that we are also fuckingup but then again no race or human is at the top of that scale when we go medical into germs and stuff nor when we go into natural disasters & disease to keep a balance on earth when we are too populated and are polluting more than we are fixing or even trying to and that goes back into the cycle of money has the upper hand...blah blah blah!

And some people want more than one sexual partner in life so let them be!

[EvilBastard]

And some people want more than one sexual partner in life so let them be!

It's people like that who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes
Seriously, if people want 1, or 2, or 300 sexual partners at a time, I'm not going to stand in their way. It would be nice, though, if they only f*cked up their own lives (not that they would perforce f*ck them up, but if they did, do you see?) rather than the lives of any children that may result.

Truth be told, I'm far more concerned about the lives of domestic pets - they always seem to suffer most with domestic turmoil, but no-one sends Tiggy to a behavioral psychiatrist or makes allowances for poor attitude because he suffered a broken home. Great shame, I think.

[Erudite]

Frankly, I had enough trouble coping with one woman in my life.
This just sounds like a recipe for disaster!

[Silver_Owl]

Frankly, I had enough trouble coping with one woman in my life.
This just sounds like a recipe for disaster!

Agreed.

[GC]

In the meantime when are we going to organise the first Heartland gangbang