Here comes polyamory, just as we predicted: if the winning mantras of the same-sex “marriage” movement have been “Love is love” , why limit that number to two?

Christian Post ^ | 07/03/2020 | Michael Brown

[Truthoverpower]

Noticed the great interest in the now dead Jeffrey Epstein and his pimp lady ghillsane Maxwell?

[cyn]

Polyamorous relationship touted in JAX FL: (“fallen pregnant” rolling eyes)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7759411/Polyamorous-woman-20-fallen-pregnant-one-FOUR-partners-went-away-together.html

With predictable consequences:

https://thepostmillennial.com/polyamorous-man-featured-by-progressive-media

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200325/jacksonville-man-jailed-in-abuse-of-5-week-old-baby

[fwdude]

I want to hear a good commentary on this issue, but not from Michael Brown, who has shown sickening conciliation toward the most militant homos. He has advocated “apologizing” to the “gay community.” Screw him. He is no Christian.

[Old Sarge]

During my time as a Moderator on Facebook, a new term started popping up in the dark corners of the Web:

PEDOPHOBE.

[bgill]

Throw in a couple of dogs, a cauliflower and a cell phone.

[Fightin Whitey]

if the winning mantras of the same-sex “marriage” movement have been “Love is love” , why limit that number to two?

To think I was too hungover 20 years ago to haul myself into the L-Sat testing site.

Who COULDN'T make a fortune in divorce court these days??

[mo]

its called “defining deviancy down” ...and its just as important to the left as tearing down statues.

Its about demeaning YOUR world view (never mind the intent of the Divine...)

[fuzzylogic]

I remember saying at the time gay marriage was allowed, we’ve just dumped any ‘standard’ for what marriage is. It is no longer the Judeo-Christian standard and we have nothing to replace it.

Now anything goes, so why only 2 people? There’s no moral basis for denying it. You can’t say ‘just because - marriage is between two people’. Based on what? What accepted philosophical basis do you have for such a limit?

My guess is that somebody will want to marry multiple wives and if denied they’ll sue for discrimination. The SC will have to pick it up and will have no argument but to allow it.

This is what happens when you erode the fabric of your society, it falls to pieces. Judeo-Christian ethics were woven into ours over a millennia of cultural development in the west. You only realize what you’ve lost once it becomes obvious why it existed in the first place.

Lefties don’t want the 10 Commandments in public, or found anywhere except the Church and private residences...but seriously, which one would they argue against? If it defines the fabric of a civilized society, and it works, who cares where it comes from. It is just a master list of behaviors that make a nation strong. Lefties are now just lords of chaos, they wish to destroy the civilized world.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Polyamory is for women to sleep around within “marriage.”

Polyandry is ahistorical and not supported by human biology. It is usually only attempted in these times as a stunt based on some feminist political ideal. In practice, the strongest man will eventually drive the others away.

Polygyny, on the other hand, is essentially the default state of pre-civilized humanity. High status men invariably have relationships with multiple women, even if law denies "wives" two through infinity the official status that concubines had in earlier times. Women have proven throughout history they prefer to have 10% of a high-status man than 100% of a low or even middle-status man. Women who sleep around within marriages today are expressing buyer's remorse and seeking out that high-status man they didn't get the first time. Law cannot change this behavior.

Our civilization recognizes only monogamous marriage in an attempt to minimize the social disruptions caused by rampant polygyny. Those disruptions, however, are likely to be less troublesome in these times - when other entertainment options such as pornography and video games have already greatly minimized the desire among low status men to spend time and effort raising their status just to compete for female attention. We are already seeing the return of an ancient system - a small percentage of men doing most of the procreating.

[grey_whiskers]

Sound like you've been red-pilled, but have a bit too much evo-psych in it; depending as always on details.

In particular, birth control and abortion on demand are limiting the procreation of the most promiscuous of males (say, in certain minority communities); among the majority / plurality white community, the incels and soibois are not losing out to other men for breeding, but only for copulation.

[thecodont]

Women have proven throughout history they prefer to have 10% of a high-status man than 100% of a low or even middle-status man.

Wonder how that worked out for Uriah and Bathsheba.

[rlmorel]

"...why limit that number to two..."

Or to humans. Or even to living things.

[Unam Sanctam]

What about incest, pedophilia and bestiality as well? If love is love, what is there to limit it? It’s the logical extension of their argument.

[ronnie raygun]

Beastiality is not far behind

[ChuckR163]

[Liberals embrace incest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx457T7iWMA&t=213s).

Germany: [Incest a fundamental right](http://www.theweek.co.uk/law/60587/incest-a-fundamental-right-says-german-ethics-council).

2018-0603. [Person running for congress in Virginia wants to legalize incest](https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/candidate-for-congress-wants-to-legalize-incest/67-560776071).