Skip to comments.‘Polyamory’: the next civil rights movement?
Posted on 10/30/2012 5:21:54 PM PDT by ReformationFan
They used to call them swingers. Not anymore. These days, like most alternative lifestyle groups, theyve adopted a new, more clinical-sounding description polyamorist and incorporated it into the names of a small but growing number of advocacy and social networking organizations.
As the battle over the true definition of marriage heats up nationwide, they want a place on the front line.
Polyamorists now want a seat at the table of "equality" and "tolerance."
Polyamorist means lover of many, and its exactly what it sounds like. Polyamorists maintain more than one sexual relationship at a time, with the full consent and knowledge of all partners. Some are married to one partner but maintain a rotating stable of lovers. Others join together in more lasting unions between multiple partners for example, a threesome or foursome (which they call triads and quads,) wherein all parties enjoy sexual relations in various combinations heterosexual, homosexual or both.
In the midst of Minnesotas raging debate over gay marriage, the Minneapolis-area City Pages recently featured two articles highlighting the polyamorist lifestyle, in which they interviewed some of its practitioners.
One such interview was with a mother of two young children, Julia Janousek. Julia, who has been married for 12 years to her husband, Jim, told the City Pages they decided to open [their] marriage up three years ago. She quickly met another man, Justin, and became sexually involved with him, a relationship that continues to this day.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
Why shouldn’t they have it? If the civil law doesn’t outlaw adultery, and people are absolutely free to have as many casual sexual contacts that they want, whether they’re married or not, whether they’re gay or straight, then how in the world can the same civil law tell people that they can’t limit their sexual contacts to a closed set of people. Or for that matter, if adultery is completely legal, as it is, and a man can have sex and make babies with different women at the same time, then how can the civil law tell that same man that it won’t allow him to commit to the several mothers of his children in some legally-recognized arrangement approximately polygamy? it’s over, folks. It all began when the Anglican Communion allowed contraceptives for married couples in 1928. That little acorn contained within itself the entire oak of liberalism. And now we have a full grown oak. We need to quite complaining about it and change the laws to fit what we’ve become.
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. Luke 17:28-30.
One of a myriad of today's signs that Jesus is coming very soon.
this country is so close to being over its not funny
This sort of thing was predicted by anyone with a brain when we started to give in to the Gay lifestyle (gay marriage, gay couple adoption, etc.). When you allow one perverse lifestyle get its nose in the tent the rest of perversion will soon enter the tent.
The problem here is that these people will then have to deal with the other legal issues that come with recognition. Can you imagine having to pay alimony to 3 ex-wives at once?
BTW - These are the same people that complain the Mormon churches history of Polygamy
As bad as it is and much as I do not agree with it, polygamy certainly makes more logical sense to me than so-called “gender-neutral marriage”. At least with one man married to 2 or more women, his children will at least have the benefit of having their father legally married to their mother. That is completely impossible in a same-sex relationship where by necessity any child conceived by IVF or other means will be by definition permanently separated from either his father or mother.
Probably, but never forget Whoopie GOldberg’s defense of Roman Ploanski: that buggering a 13 old girl in a hot tub “wasn’t really rape-rape.”
That kind of thing may be the next to demand acceptance.
I agree. As I read recently: “If Heather can have two mommies, she certainly can have two mommies and a daddy.” And now that sodomy is a Constitutional right, who can argue with that? We need to legalize polygamy before the mental contortions we’re putting ourselves through for gay “marriage” drive us completely insane.
I can barely afford one wife. But at least polygamy has an historical basis, whereas “gay marriage” does not.
I agree, but would add that this result was apparent to the perceptive in 1928 when the Anglicans legalized contraceptives for married couples. Huxley foresaw it. Pope Paul VI foresaw it. Gay marriage was just one stop along the way to where we are now and to where we're headed. Stick a fork in us. We're done. I for one am through fighting this battle on the political front. We need to let it play itself out. Legalize polygamy. That's where it's leading anyway, and it's a vast improvement over what we have now. There are so many loser men out there. Incarcerated or on parole. Alcoholics. Drug addicts. Video game enthusiasts. Lobotomized by professional sports and cheap beer. Shiftlessly working deadened jobs. At least give women a chance to share one of the dwindling numbers of good men.
No, I think Autoamory will come first. That is, people like Obama who are in love with themselves, but who “deserve” all the benefits of marriage.
As we all know, he’s been told to engage in self-reproduction countless times, so it’s only fair he should do so under the umbrella of self-matrimony.
That's when a muslim has a female goat AND a female sheep.
I think Autoamory will come first.
It's already here.
I’d rather have swinger in my neighborhood than homosexuals. No slippery slope here considering we started at the bottom.
I couldn’t care less whatothers do in their bedrooms or who they love.
I just want that stupid red communist Kenyan out of the Whitehouse and a free market with the rule of law, Liberty and Freedom.
If it means - to some - the freedom to bugger a willing bugee, so be it.
Perversion is perversion ... rather not have either living next door. But that’s just me.
ick . . . .
ick . . . . that’s all I can say
Actually polygamy will be the next battle in the states after they recognize gay marriage. The same arguments can be made for polygamy as gay marriage and with large Muslim populations in some states polygamy may be demanded as a religious right.
Indeed. The only thing I’m looking forward to about it is giving the same-sex “marriage” advocates a taste of their own medicine and start accusing them of “polyphobia” and “bigotry” for opposing it.
And polygamy has a religious and social history for thousands of years. And there were laws on everything from inheritance to moral treatises on the treatment of women in these relationships.
There was also an excellent analysis, I think by Dennis Prager, on how monogamy for everyone led to the general civilizing of the world. When even the rich guys have just one wife, every man has a chance at one. When the rich men have multiple women, multiple men at the bottom go without. You get more violence and crime as a result.
And non-Muslim Africans and Christian / Mormons.
How consenting adults choose to order their lives is no concern of the State. None.
Here’s my question for that particular argument: isn’t asking the government to give its stamp of approval on their sexual lifestyles and arrangements a form of making it a concern of the state?
It is indeed. The best response to those people is to reply that it is not the proper role of government to give any sort of approval at all.
Thing is, the leaders in the sexual anarchy/homosexualist/polyamorist/etc. movement for government recognition desperately WANT the government to give approval so they can use the state to punish those who disagree or disapprove. That is most definitely NOT a “live and let live” kind of ideology or lifestyle.
Which is exactly why conservatives have to get government out of the business of defining “marriage” at all. The only way to win is not to play at all.