[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'However, the current Government have decided to no longer recognise polygamous marriages and there are measures in the Welfare Reform Bill which will bring this change in policy into effect under universal credit as from 2013'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...t=clnk&gl=uk#9

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

As a species, we are not monogamous.
As a society, we sure as **** are.

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

What I'm mainly wondering about (to join this more boring political side of the discussion ) is how it applies to the tax allowance transfer scheme? You know the thing where a spouse can transfer a chunk of their tax-free allowance if they are under the minimum tax threshold (think it's Ł1500 or something...). So... could you have like 20 spouses and get Ł30k added to your tax free allowance?

Funny side story: I told a coworker of mine about this scheme as her husband is retired, but she filled in the form the wrong way round, and transferred part of HER tax allowance to HIM, meaning she got taxed more rather than less . And didn't notice for months, then got really mad at me. Ahh good times good times...

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nature (species) and nurture (here, society) are inseparable to the extent that this statement is almost meaningless... take a baby and lock it in a room deprived of all human contact (don't ACTUALLY do this, to be clear ) and in 10 years you will have a creature that doesn't resemble a human (or any other natural living creature) in any way, shape or form and will almost certainly have actual structural braindamage. Our behaviour as a species is informed by socialization from birth to the extent that you simply can't separate out society and species. They're interlocked. There is no such thing as a human being (or any other mammal) that operates purely on instinct.

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Withano

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

A swan won't always mate for life but they usually do

ETA I think TS already covered that though, you can't compare a Lion to a human

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What I'm mainly wondering about (to join this more boring political side of the discussion ) is how it applies to the tax allowance transfer scheme? You know the thing where a spouse can transfer a chunk of their tax-free allowance if they are under the minimum tax threshold (think it's Ł1500 or something...). So... could you have like 20 spouses and get Ł30k added to your tax free allowance?

Funny side story: I told a coworker of mine about this scheme as her husband is retired, but she filled in the form the wrong way round, and transferred part of HER tax allowance to HIM, meaning she got taxed more rather than less . And didn't notice for months, then got really mad at me. Ahh good times good times...

I don't think it's likely to you can benefit from the tax system like that. I'm afraid you'll have to stick to just the one wife.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

Promise me, Withano, that you're going to come back to this thread when you fall so hard for someone that you can't think straight. I'll happen... and it'll blow your neat, clinical theories out of the water x

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

"Social security benefits
At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse, but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants. Universal Credit (UC) is to replace all existing means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age but is not expected to be fully introduced until 2022. The 2010 Government decided that the UC rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships. This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under UC than under the current benefit and tax credit system."


Source: House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No 05051 21 06 2017

The information you have provided was in my link you know, that said due to the benefit cap how could this benefit polygamous families? Even if they were to claim independently they all have to be residing in the same home and therefore be subject to the cap again, not to mention the loss of pension entitlement for any let alone one spouse.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

This suggests that any animal could hypothetically be mono or poly though? I disagree. A swan will always mate for life, a lion will always be a ****boy. I'd imagine only humans have switched, and I'd imagine that this is only because of the social rules that we forged ourselves a few thousand years ago.

Again though you're assuming that nurture doesn't play a part in the lion being a playah. If you remove a lion cub from all lion contact and lion socialization until it's an adult... you can't make any definitive statements about how it's likely to behave at all. All mammals have higher brain function and are shaped by social interaction.

I'm not saying that you're WRONG that thousands of years of society have influenced how we conduct ourselves in terms of relationships now... I'm saying it doesn't really matter; social evolution is as relevant as biological evolution to our desires and behaviors. Again I think you're trying too hard to separate nurture from nature, and also putting too heavy an emphasis on the importance of nature / instinct in a species that has the level of higher brain function that humans do. OK maybe not everyone chooses to USE all of that function; but nonetheless, we do have it .

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't think it's likely to you can benefit from the tax system like that. I'm afraid you'll have to stick to just the one wife.

I was only going to have one real wife, but I had the printer ready to go with a bunch of forged birth and marriage certificates. Bye bye, fake tax wives... I hardly knew ye...

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

Promise me, Withano, that you're going to come back to this thread when you fall so hard for someone that you can't think straight. I'll happen... and it'll blow your neat, clinical theories out of the water x

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

I'll take it! LOL...

[LeatherTrumpet]

having lived with a few woman

one is really all men should be expected to put up with

any more is just cruel

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'll take it! LOL...

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

Sure. Next time it happens, I will do. Like just a heads up, I'd probably still feel like humans are monogamous by society norms, and not by evolutionary needs.

I don't think love has caused monogamy at all, but it is difficult to argue against, I'll give it that much.

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more. Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

Well, good luck with that... remember, you'll also have two mother-in-laws and I can tell you from experience, one is more than enough.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

Well, good luck with that... remember, you'll also have two mother-in-laws and I can tell you from experience, one is more than enough.

Ah no I edited that bit after you quoted haha.

[thesheriff443]

Love can be a one sided affair, or love out of convenience.

Years ago a bride to be on a hen night wanted to sleep with me wich is a weird situation.

I wish I only ever had one ever after love, falling in love a watching I fail leaves you with regret.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

That deserves its own thread. Overpopulation is the future-calamity that needs more of a platform.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

All I can really say Withano... is that you need to look at the bigger picture and realize than humans are not anything by evolutionary need any more. As a species we have socially transcended that phase, as evolution is based entirely on adaptation to suit environment (smartest, strongest or most versatile prevailing depending on environmental need) and human beings no longer need to be any of those things to procreate. Evolution is, at this point, irrelevant to humanity.

THAT presents a whole set of other problems (horrendous overpopulation, no equilibrium with habitat, eventually the inevitable exhaustion of the planet) but we're going way off track there...

Originally Posted by Withano

No, I think deep down they want to be (monogamous*) because of the social construct side of things, might even be a cognitive element now we're starting to see what mess we've made to the planet. Ultimately that weighs out our evolutionary instincts.

I honestly think we're on a similar thinking line. I just think humans are inherently polyamarous, but go against this for multiple reasons. I too believe that we will revert back to this state if needed to, unlike swans and lions who would keep their status forevz, regardless of any potential drastic environmental changes.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Ah no I edited that bit after you quoted haha.

Haha... too slow.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Withano

Yeah, I suppose it throws every evolutionary theory out the window, wouldnt even compare the human emotion of love to any animal that mate for life, personally...

but then I guess as a conclusion, I'm discussing this with people who were brought to up in a monogamous society, where they, by societal rules would only look for one single person to have the feeling of love with, and then look no further. The only way I can really prove my point now is by falling in love with two people or more (which I still wouldn't do, the idea of one person is already tiring). Which I guess brings us nicely back to the OP!

On that one I'd just direct you back to my original post: It's possible (or should be possible) for humans to love multiple people, fully and deeply, without any desire to become sexually involved with or socially entangled with multiple partners. The reason that people can't accept this is BECAUSE human society has - falsely - equated aesthetic LOVE with instinctual LUST... and driven the message home that if you find someone of the opposite sex physically beautiful and intellectually engaging, then you simply MUST want to put your genitals on them and / or spend every waking moment with them.

I would suggest to you that polyGAMY and polyAMORY are not the same thing, and that a monogamous person can love multiple other humans without it being in any way sexually motivated.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

I honestly think we're on a similar thinking line. I just think humans are inherently polyamarous, but go against this for multiple reasons. I too believe that we will revert back to this state if needed to, unlike swans and lions who would keep their status forevz.

Actually lions are more like humans than we think. The women raise the kids and sorts out the food while the man lays around on the Serengeti, scratching himself...........

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually lions are more like humans than we think. The women raise the kids and sorts out the food while the man lays around on the Serengeti, scratching himself...........

They gay lions are different, they are getting their mains and nails done in jungle salon.