@Spintendo:
@36605domtop:
You really have to find two other people that you are totally into on an equal basis. The minute the equality goes on pretty much any basis, I would say that this idea starts heading towards splitsville.
Love is given equitably, not equally. If equal is every child having a pair of shoes, then equitable is every child having a pair of shoes that fits. You can see how there is a difference between the two words, and a throuple where the love was equally doled out would not only be impossibly difficult to maintain it would also be quite unfair to all involved.
I would argue that we strive for equality in most things in life, but that equitability or equitableness is what we usually use to define what we ultimately achieve. Ask any member of a three child family. The parents always strive to raise each child equally, while learning from their mistakes. But, the actual result of that is that the children are raised "equitably". The majority of the time, the oldest child will say that he was spoiled until the second child arrived. The middle child is likely to say that he felt "forgotten", as the oldest and youngest children probably received the most attention. The third child is likely to say his parents were the least involved and/or hands on with him. The two older children likely took on more of the parenting responsibility for the youngest. That's an equitable result. But, is that what anyone actually aimed for in the beginning?
Equitable love is not only fair it's also something almost everyone already does. When a person loves two parents or two siblings equitably then there's not much reason to believe they couldn't also love two boyfriends equitably.
The concept of "equitableness"/"equitability" is probably only "fair" in a legal environment, as there is usually a precedent or set of guidelines that a judge renders their decision using. In any other situation outside of the legal arena, equitability / equitableness is just one way we choose to term or define our reality or end result. There is no rhyme or reason to it (Fairness may or may not be applicable, and many times fairness is only present in the mind of the person trying to justify the outcome, not everyone that is involved in the outcome.) I would also argue that most are pre-dispositioned to define their end result as equitable (whether it is or not), because most simply do not want to define their attempt as a failure, especially if you find yourself on the "losing" side verses the "winning" side.
Who actually attempts to do anything relationship oriented at less than 100%? It's impossible to give more than 100%. Who wants to accept less than 100% of a person's love? No one only wants to be cared for on the good days of a relationship and not the bad ones. We start out wanting equality. But on the eve of a divorce court date, we realize that despite our best efforts, we failed, and the best we can hope for is an equitable outcome.
The US is a nation that strives for equality in a lot of things, but the reality is that we have come up far short in a lot of areas. We choose to justify the shortcoming of those results with this "equitable" concept. Equitability is what we arrive at, not what we aim for.
Traditional major was once the law of the land in every US state. Only recently did things like domestic partnerships and civil unions come along as suitable, some might say "equitable" alternatives. But those were NOT our initial goals, otherwise, the movement would have ended there. We went into that fight always wanting total equality under the law, and all that comes with it, and now we have it.