Posted on 01/09/2006 3:06:22 PM PST by wagglebee
(AgapePress) - It may only be in its beginning stages, but the "polyamorist movement" may be grabbing onto the coat tails of the increasingly effective homosexual movement.
"Polyamorists" are individuals who maintain more than one emotional-sexual relationship simultaneously, believing that monogamy is unnatural. Relationships can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
Paul Harris, a New York reporter for The Observer, a London, England, newspaper, writes in words that sound strangely similar to those used to describe the homosexual movement.
He said "polyamorists are coming out of the closets across America. Several groups have sprung up. In New York, Polyamorous NYC holds monthly meetings, has an e-mail list of about 800 and holds a Poly Pride Day each year in Central Park.
"A documentary, Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family, has opened at cinemas in the city, chronicling a 13-year relationship between three people living together in a relationship that produced two children."
"Most people in the poly community are very closeted," Justen Bennett-MacCubbin, founder of Polyamorous NYC, told The Observer. "The community is where gays and lesbians were in the '60s."
"We want a change in perception of what's possible. By and large, people are not naturally monogamous, and we should be able to talk about it without prejudice," Bennett-MacCubbin said.
Perceptions seem to have definitely changed in The Netherlands. In a nation that is arguably the most accepting of homosexuality in the world, the first polygamous civil union was recorded this fall, when a man and two women had their relationship legally recognized.
"I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both," Victor de Bruijn proudly declared in September.
guess before 1968...that actually was the case. Wow! I think I remember reading about that in a history book somewhere
Being 40ish, I wouldn't know how easy/hard it was to get sex back then either. I guess it was doable, but casual sex ("hooking up") was no doubt much rarer than it is today. However, because such a high percentage of people got married back then, the idea was to get a decent woman before they were all "taken". I got married in the late 80s. Part of my motivation was years of dating subpar, neurotic women. When I finally found someone that was smart, beautiful, and sane, I snapped her up.
While one certainly can have girlfriends on the side, I would guess that can only go on so long before they want a commitment. That gets back into the "getting the milk for free" comment. I think feminism has duped many women from acting in their own self interest. Women have about a 15 year shelf life, approx 18-33. After that, their chances of getting married go down drastically. Given that, it's pretty stupid for them to waste time on guys who won't commit. I went out with a girl for 6 months who I thought was pretty dumb, but she dropped me cause she sensed I wasn't serious (which was true). That was a pretty smart move on her part.
With regard to the last part, people do lose interest in sex. Unfortunately, my wife isn't nearly as eager today as when she was in her 20s. However, my drive hasn't diminished. It's kind of a mismatch and she looks at sex like just another chore. Sometimes I get the feeling she'd be happier farming the chore out to someone else. For this reason, after you turn 40, you really start to see the wisdom of marrying someone who is 10+ years younger than you. [Ah, the joy of annonymity]
God's laws through both the Old and New Testaments are perfect and consistent. God has no desire for anybody to sin, and He has ordered it. Scripture is very clear that adultery (including polygamy), fornication and homosexuality are all sins.
Once you get rid of the idea of moral absolutes then anything goes I guess. Polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia: If our Judeo-Christian values are obsolete then why not?
Its the old "if you don't believe in something you will fall for everything" syndrome.
Or three, or four...
Does she get to cook and clean, and hold his head while he vomits. Does she get to wipe the snot off the kids nose? Does she get to hear his drunken ramblings in the night while he gropes fumblingly underneath the covers.
Good! She's free to move in.
I have been hearing that particular line a great deal of late. Mostly from athiestic proponents of evolution.
Plus they don't want to support them, they want all the wives and kids to go on welfare
"What? Where is anyone commanded by God to have more than one wife?"
I was thinking the part about when your brother dies that you are to take his wife as an additional wife.
I am helping little jeremiah out with this ping list for a little while, Freepmail him if you want on this ping list.
If a man wants more than one wife, and they're willing to put up with it, then I can accept that without too much trouble, with the following caveats:
ALL parties must be adults and none of them can ever go on public assistance. Nearly all of the stories that pop up in the news involve young girls (and imply coercion) or they're all on the dole.
I think you are referring to Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Here are the first two verses.
"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's borther shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a mother-in-law to her."
I see no indication there that polygamy is ordered by God. The marital state of the "brother" in question is not mentioned at all.
The text is very clear that the requirment to take your brother's wife was enacted specifically to ensure the genetic survival of the twelve tribes of Israel, when God's kingdom people were decided by race and covenant. Now God's kingdom is decided by covenant only. There is no racial component. So even if you wanted to claim that God ordered polygamy in the OT (which I do not), I would contend that this passage could not be understood today in the same context.
Consider Leviticus 18:18 - "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." Finally, simply consider that God "made them male and female" and in the original order of creation there was only two.
Absolutely! Please see my post 52.
Zack,
You know there is a lot of infighting on Free Republic between the Catholics/Orthodox and the Reformed/Protestants, and I am as guilty of it as anyone. However, when I see what this guy writes, I realize that it is to the detriment of all of us. The single greatest threat to Christianity is the "moral relativism" espoused by secular humanists. C.S. Lewis warned of this fifty years ago and it is close to destroying society's morality.
For what it's worth, I tend to avoid debate with idiots such as this one.
In Christ,
Rob
"Ilove my wife dearly, but why in the world would anyone want two?"
I think that's the point. You love her and find completion in her and with that love. You don't need or want anyone else.
OR...you figure one wife is more than enough trouble, who needs more?
We'll just assume you meant the 1st in case your wife is reading, ok? :)
Welcome to "paradise", screw everything, and anything, and everybody, and anybody, that's not moving too fast.
Sick cr@pola.
Next sexual minority coming out of closet.
Imagine Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky, Imagine all the people living for today... Imagine there's no countries, It isnt hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too, Imagine all the people living life in peace... Imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man, Imagine all the people Sharing all the world... You may say Im a dreamer, but Im not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us, And the world will live as one.Writen by: John Lennon © Bag productions inc.
Oh, Doug, you're crazy! Am I? If the definition of marriage is changed from what has been accepted for millenia, then why can't it be changed again to suit someone else? How silly. It has to be a human marrying a human. Who says it can't be a man and an animal? Who says you have to marry a human being? That is how it has been, but if it changes, it can change again.
And then, who knows? Polygamy with a goat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.