Are Multi-Partner Marriages Gonna Be a Thing?

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Krazysh0t

you or anyone can not say that it would screw with genetic rift.

1) they are the very same d.n.a that exist's their already so no change
2) its never been done so this would be a first in the history of mankind

as a great man once said "to boldly go where no man has gone before"

Ok let's look at this logically. Let's say for ease of calculation that the female to male ratio is currently 1 to 2. In other words there are exactly 2 men for every one woman. Let's then say that the government in response decides to clone some women a bunch of time to make the ratio more even.

These women then grow up, live their lives and get married. Eventually they'll want to have kids so do. So far so good. Now here is where the problem starts to appear. As these kids grow up, they could meet someone who has the same mother as them (though is a different clone). These two people despite having two technically different mothers would ACTUALLY share a mother with the same genetic material. It would be the same as someone marrying their step-sibling, which is incest.

One of the reasons that incest is looked down on is because the offspring has a high tendency for genetic defects because there isn't enough genetic drift between the parents to account for these genetic abnormality. But now, with your suggestion, there could potentially be up to a quarter of the country ends up accidentally inbreeding with each other.

Though none of that takes into account the ethics of cloning either. I mean your solution to the ethical "problem" of polyamorous marriages is to use a solution with even MORE ethical problems attached to it.

To be honest, I think it would just be easier and cheaper for everyone if you'd just get that stick out of your ass about not liking polyamorous relationships. If you don't want to be in one you don't have to be, but saying that they can't exist just because YOU don't like them is rather intolerant.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ok very logical ,i see i did not take this scenario into account and its a very strong case indeed.
maybe failsafe's would need to be implemented or slight d.n.a manipulation in second generations ,
i concede for now as this indeed is a problem but not unworkable as we have made incredible advances in manipulating d.n.a




because i disagree with your views does not make me intolerant ,it just means i have another opinion tell the truth at least.

a reply to: stuthealien

Oh I really don't care if you disagree with me on this issue or not, it's just that you are trying to suggest that we work up all these convoluted solutions to something because you refuse to consider that polyamorous relationships would be a viable solution. It's not like it's dangerous or unhealthy to be in them.

I'm just trying to show you that you are letting your personal morals stand in the way of a very practical solution only because you find it unappealing and the mark of loose sexual morals (though I disagree, I'd say that there are a plethora of reasons why a group of people would want to form a polyamarous relationship than JUST sex).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

well i consider cloning to be a better solution then time sharing a lady,nothing to do with my morals, i really logically believe it to be the best solution to the chinese problem and would also make them the world leaders in cloning technology .


i'd like to hear from any chinese ats users and their opinions on this matter .

a reply to: stuthealien

Why? It costs less money for society and doesn't have tons of ethical problems coming along as additional baggage. Not to mention, cloning hasn't been even been perfected yet, much less be able to be put in widespread circulation to tackle a problem such as this.

PS: If you don't have any moral or ethical concerns with polyamorous relationships then what's the problem? If 3 or more people want to form a relationship like you have with your wife, who are you to say that it is wrong?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

because time sharing a lady does not help the female population to grow, birth rates will be the same,so the problem remains.
you must be able to see that,they actually need to increase the female population ten-fold.

a reply to: stuthealien

I do see it. I just don't care. It's China's problem, not the US'. I just don't have a problem with polygamy.

Are you aware that relationships like they are suggesting in the OP are going to require a bit of a homosexual element as well?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: stuthealien

I do see it. I just don't care. It's China's problem, not the US'.

really, thats showing your true colours now.
maybe your noise is because you fear the chinese becoming the world leaders in cloning technology and not the u.s.a


there is another solution we have all forgot due to current issues ,they could take the syrian refugees but females only ,how would you feel about this????

a reply to: stuthealien

Fear? I don't fear anything about China.

Cloning research is banned across the world. I'm not really worried about ANY nation becoming the world leader in cloning technology.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sure, and societies where marrying women as young as 13 is normal, or even children for that matter! There are societies where human beings eat each other! Human sacrifices, etc. You can find exceptions to anything! I am talking about what's normal!

originally posted by: Bluesma

Your freedom ends where another's begins.

Yeah, like how we choose not to kidnap, rape and murder people, but how some psychopaths do...

Or how don't steal from each other, as sociopaths do...

No, we have laws to prevent people from taking justice into their own hands (mob rule.)

And likewise, we have laws to prevent the family from perverting into something unhealthy!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, you're psychic and wise. I didn't know I was depressed...huh.

Caring and wanting to make a stand against what is wrong is a GOOD thing. Good people will continue to do this, whether or not it's 'the in thing' culturally. Cultural outlooks change, but right and wrong are right and wrong.

With sex, there must be BOUNDARIES. You can't just open the doors of moral caution and say, "Whatever!" Some of you seriously need to read up on psychology, sociology and history, esp. involving families.

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: Gryphon66


With sex, there must be BOUNDARIES. You can't just open the doors of moral caution and say, "Whatever!" Some of you seriously need to read up on psychology, sociology and history, esp. involving families.

i get where you're coming from, but your view of this subject isn't reflected in mainstream psychology or sociology (both of which reject western universality in favor of relativism and constructivism), nor in the historical record, which as our good augustusmasonicus points out is riddled with examples of sexuality and family modes that deviate from the current mode.

if we followed up with the three brazilian brides in 20 years and found they were still happily married with healthy, well-adjusted children, how would that impact your current belief system?

originally posted by: stuthealien

there is another solution we have all forgot due to current issues ,they could take the syrian refugees but females only ,how would you feel about this????

it's probably a better solution than the wholesale import of se asian mail order brides lol.

a reply to: ATODASO

'Belief system' huh? I'm not religious, actually. Amusing how people assume things of you because you take a different stance on a subject.

No, my view is focussed largely on common sense and what I know to be right in my heart. The facts just support my case. I advise people to read on those subjects because I feel they need to.

You think that people haven't had these thoughts many times before? Just because you think it, and it's something so very anti-religious-view, doesn't make it a brilliant, radical new idea.


I think some people need to consider if they are searching for personal empowerment in the wrong way. Speaking out against religion seems to be the new 'in thing,' even if the specific arguments being made are immortal and very unwise. You can seek personal empowerment by learning not to care what other people think and just living life your way (with boundaries of course, not insanity,) hang out with who you want, reach for the goals you want, be spontaneous and have more fun, get involved in more activities that you enjoy, and art is a great way of expressing yourself! There is no need to tear at the moral fabric of society. Consider the consequences to your thoughts on how far you feel personal freedom should go. We have laws and morals for a reason.

originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
a reply to: ATODASO

'Belief system' huh? I'm not religious, actually. Amusing how people assume things of you because you take a different stance on a subject.

cool, i wasn't using it in the religious sense, but the ideological one.

No, my view is focussed largely on common sense and what I know to be right in my heart. The facts just support my case. I advise people to read on those subjects because I feel they need to.

if you have any info you could direct us to, it would be helpful in supporting your case.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Marriage is a concept of two people, in love, who want to share their lives together. It is represented by a wedding ring, which symbolizes the two united as one, and their link to that special someone. If people would rather sleep around, or have different partners, well, I guess no one can stop stupid. But when it comes to marriage, sharing your life with someone, that is supposed to be sacred. The very concept of the wedding ring is a romantic notion. Romance is more than just sex, but love, togetherness, the very experience of sharing the little things in life together.

Will you marry me? I feel the same way! I can't see a man saying, "I love you" to a number of women. Kind of loses the meaning. ya know? It would creep me out to have a husband having sex with other women and telling them he loves them. Seems dishonest and not at all genuine and sincere.

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
The point of the OP to me is that people are perhaps "consenting" to arrangements out of necessity and not their hearts or true desires

Which is why they should just live together. Marriage shouldn't mean a group of people getting together for financial reasons to make life easier.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Krazysh0t

because time sharing a lady does not help the female population to grow, birth rates will be the same,so the problem remains.
you must be able to see that,they actually need to increase the female population ten-fold.

China does not have a problem with low birth rates. On the contrary.
The problem is men that are alone.
The sex angle seems to be obsessing some people in the discussion of such arrangements, but humans have more need for each other than just for sexual gratification and reproduction.

originally posted by: Night Star


Will you marry me? I feel the same way! I can't see a man saying, "I love you" to a number of women. Kind of loses the meaning. ya know? It would creep me out to have a husband having sex with other women and telling them he loves them. Seems dishonest and not at all genuine and sincere.

Really? You cannot imagine a man loving more than one woman?
It doesn't seem that impossible to me. I love many people. I see my husband is capable of loving all three of our children, despite that they are very different. -I know, there is probably a big line between relationships of paternal nature and of romantic nature.... I just wonder why we so commonly draw it there, in terms of affectionate attachment.