i kinda like you. you remind me of myself.

which is really bad, because i can't look myself in the mirror!

at least you're not me.

like i said, the meaning of todays marriage (as with the whole religion) is a different one than when it was invented. in japan people prefer to celebrate in a western or christian way, instead of their own traditional marriage, even though they aren't christian at all. a christian wedding is today an event to make it feel that the marriage is official, to memorize that they became an item now. at least in western societies, it has lost all religious connotation and has become a vow to the people involved and not god.
also vows are rarely explicitly about being monogamic and are rather about being faithful. it may differ from your opinion, but you can be faithful if the extramarital activities are agreed upon by both partners.
i don't think your allegory fits. it's more like you order pizza, like everyone around you agrees is a good thing and some people say that you shouldn't mess with the toppings. but then you like pineapple on it and people are not so sure it is a good idea, but you like it that way. now the pineapple pizza is not a normal pizza and some might argue it is not a true pizza at all, but you think it is the best pizza to have.
you have a christian wedding, because it's what everyone does and like the sentimental meaning it holds. you want marriage, because to you it is a fundamental part you want in your life, even though it differs in meaning what others think about it. hell back in the day marriage was a financial or influential deal and had nothing to do with love. so why should a poly relationship with marriage as baseline be any less worth, than a business transaction without any love as marriage only in name? and those definitely had vows they didn't hold.

the form of love you bond with your grandparents is somewhat similar to parents. but let's say they are also unique. love to your brother and sister is even more unique, because some people don't have brothers, sisters or siblings at all. as is the love to your children. the love to your partner is unique as well. so why accept that you can love 4 grandparents, an indefinite amount of siblings and an indefinite amount of children, but you allow yourself to only love one partner. and that's not even true. if you have had at least one other relationship, you have loved 2 partners in your life. how is that far fetched to believe that you could love them at the same time, if the conditions were right?
and what about loving a friend like a brother/sister? what about parents that remarry after losing their spouse and you come to love your step-parent? you might be out the house already when it happens, so they might not even have been parenting you, despite you coming to love them. why is it that only love to your partner has to be singular?

so then this discussion is entirely because of old christian values? which by the way have changed since their invention, over and over again. so why should one hold themselves to traditional values, that might not even be suitable to them? and who said anything about the marriage being a christian / religious orientated one? in my opinion it would be a very sad marriage, if the goal was to make me and my spouse legally obligated to be faithful, as opposed to, you know, be faithful because you respect each other.

"why can't i be romantically interested in more than one person?"
"you just can't"
i sure hope so, you aren't romantically in love with your mom and dad! i'm asking why familial love is seen very broadly, to the point that it's accepted to even surpass romantic love, aka loving you and your spouse's kids more than your spouse, and romantic love HAS to be just one person and none more? why isn't it comparable?

because sex doesn't equal love?

so far how i see it, there are two types of reactions to cheating:
"they went behind my back and lied to my face about wanting to be with someone" and
"someone diddled my stuff"
one is about trust and the other is about pride, but both are with commitment.
if you are one of the first, there should be no problem to come to an understanding to pursue more people, since the commitment doesn't stand for the sole purpose of sex alone.
if you are one of the second, of course extramarital interests are out of the question, since the commitment is treated like exclusivity rights.

but i mean, why put wanting a spouse and wanting children in the same category of who you want to diddle? and why do you think that love is reserved for one person only? if you love your parents, you also don't say "i stop loving my dad, because otherwise it would be not right to love my mom also."
so why is it important that romantic love is to be had with one person only?

at long last, i have recovered the sauce. it was difficult because it never was uploaded as standalone doujin and only came with it's whole volume. i also forgot the author.
anyway it's 134065
it starts with page 55

not the sauce, but another artist with a body like in the art she draws:

<- artist / art

@KittewO / @Kittew_art

what?! god is british??? hell no!

well my version of skyrim turns me on