I don't know why I'm getting defensive when you're just stating your impression honestly. I guess I just don't like the idea of being "convoluted, unsound, and a bit crazy to some." I can understand that you disagree with things I say, but I think my analytical reasoning is sound enough to be a basis for reasonable discussion and I don't see how my thoughts are going in circles - maybe you'd care to explain in more detail/depth.
Hi Serial,
Hey, there's a bunch of people here trying to really help you. I suggest you try to LISTEN closer. Nobody is attacking etc but some of your 'logic' is very illogical and obviously driven from your cultural experience and background. The same as everyone. It seems (?) that your background, experiences etc may have come from a number of conflicting directions and you are running on half honey and half black tar. You need to stop the engine and get some clarity.
That's why NYC (and others) have tried to tell you you are going in circles.
First off I'd suggest dispensing with the religion. You don't seem like an overly religious person and there's nothing better than religion to confuse some things that should be basic and simple. That's intentional by the way. It's hard to call someone on some false belief if they never say the same thing twice. They can always fall back and say they have a basis for agreement. So if you can leave that completely out of your thought process (and discussion) you might better stay 'on track'.
Next I think you just need to take a deep breath and ACKNOWLEDGE that serial monogamy and polyamory are simply NOT the same thing. You are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to make some connection between the two that simply doesn't exist except through your own semantic manipulations. It's like trying to make a connection between a horse and a dog based on the fact they have four legs. Sorry - the connection is NOT there ! So stop trying to make one. It's a waste of your time and energy and just is making your own clarity more elusive.
The primary difference, as has been explained by a number of us, lies in the word SIMULTANEOUS. And as has also been explained, that simultaneity may include potentiality if unrealized. Even though one may only have a single love partner at a given moment, they are open (and often pursuing) additional ones. And this 'philosophy' is voiced openly (hopefully) to anyone involved - or potentially involved - with them.
Contrast this with a monogamous outlook where it's acknowledged that there will be - at least in a physical sense - no "additional" lovers once engage already with one.
It's really quite simple and a waste of time & energy to try to manipulate it semantically otherwise.
Does that help ?
So if you are having this internal struggle you simply have to ask yourself that simple question.
Are you comfortable engaging in a SIMULTANEOUS loving relationship with more than one person - and furthermore, are you comfortable with your lover(s) doing the same.
If the answer is a resounding YES you may choose to adopt the label "poly" honestly. And live accordingly. If the answer is NO, then you must adopt the monogamous label.
No rocket science or deep philosophy required here............
GS