I used to think having more than one "main" partner for life was an absolutely sick and horrid practice..but after hearing the other side I have to say I can indeed understand the ideas behind it. Here's a main site that illustrates some of the finer points of it..just read the first couple of paragraphs if it's all too long, the main gist of it is in there.
Basically though to me, allowing polygymy would be like legalizing drugs. It would make what woudl be a taboo accepted..in a legal sense at least, and take away some of the thrill that is there.
And if you're going to argue that we should/can only truly love one person..look all around us, naturally we have two parents, people have multiple kids all the time (meaning multiple siblings/relatives), and I'm sure most of us has more than one friend that we consider close..and all of these people we love in different ways, yet feel very close to..why is it such a taboo to have more than one lover? Is it just another biblical thing that makes us believe it's wrong?
Basically though to me, allowing polygymy would be like legalizing drugs. It would make what woudl be a taboo accepted..in a legal sense at least, and take away some of the thrill that is there.
And if you're going to argue that we should/can only truly love one person..look all around us, naturally we have two parents, people have multiple kids all the time (meaning multiple siblings/relatives), and I'm sure most of us has more than one friend that we consider close..and all of these people we love in different ways, yet feel very close to..why is it such a taboo to have more than one lover? Is it just another biblical thing that makes us believe it's wrong?
Now, if we're monogamous, our options are a) settle for what we got, or b) break up and find someone better. There's really no other option if you love who someone is. Changing them to suit you better would be changing who you love into a person you may not love, likewise for changing yourself to suit them better.
Settling leads to all sorts of problems. First, there's the obvious. You have unfulfilled desires. Unhappiness results when our (people's) needs are not filled. There is something we want, that we "can't" have. Now obviously, in some cases, well, life is hard. I want a 1x10^9 dollars, but it's just not gonna happen right now. Some people will say to this, well, you love her, accept that she doesn't fill those needs and move on. Again, we'll get back to this.
Second, it leads to insecurity (this is getting back to the first "we'll get back to this"). What if the priority she puts on need y, which I fill, falls? What if the priority she puts on need x, which I don't fill, rises? Will that be the clincher that makes her decide not to settle and to try and find somone else? What about need z, which she's ignoring out of love for me? When will she decide she can't ignore it?
Then there's disappointment. I love her, but I still feel unsatisfied. This is sorta like the first thing, unhappiness, but I feel it's different enough to deserve its own paragraph. It's less an unhappiness over a desire unsated than a disappointment with the person you love and your own needs that aren't filled, because they are supposed to be. You love each other, right?
Which leads to my last one. Self-recrimination. Why do I have these needs that she doesn't fill? Why? What's wrong with me that I want this thing here, why can't I be happy with what I have?
And the second option, breaking up, well, that's just bad. I love her. I don't want to part with her. I don't think I really need to go any further into that.
I should point out that all these hers and Is are just placeholders. Replace with your name and your partner's name. Or whatever.
Now we're back to the second "we'll get back to this." People who say "Life is hard. Sometimes you don't get everything you want. Deal with it."
Why?
I don't understand what these people are saying at all. Yes, sometimes you can't get what you want, when it's unattainable. But it's not unattainable, unless you're setting artificial limits, like "I can only be with one person." Which is where we get into polyamory.
It basically goes something like this. If we go with this assumption of a hypothetical relationship where I love someone for who they are and vice-versa, then why does it matter who fulfills our needs? I don't love Brooke because she plays video games with me. I love her for who she is. I won't stop loving Brooke if she doesn't play video games with me. I won't love her more if she does. I won't stop loving her if I find someone who does play video games with me.
It doesn't matter where my needs get filled, or hers. That's not the root cause of our love. Even if I find someone who fills all the needs she does and more, I won't stop loving her. She is still who she is. I still love her. If I find someone else I love, even, I will still love her. That love for someone else is for who they are. Who they are does not replace who she is in my heart. I still have that connection to her, despite that new connection with someone else.
All of these reasons are at the core of my choice to be polyamorous. I love people for who they are. If I love for who they are, it doesn't matter where my needs get fulfilled, it doesn't change my love. If it doesn't change my love, then there is no reason to put an artificial limits on my love for people, like "only one person."