-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Same-sex marriage is so last decade. Polyamory, or “responsible non-monogamy,” is the wave of the future. At least, that’s the gist of a Boston Globe article that explores the confusing intricacies of this “new frontier” of love. The idea is to have a spat of “committed,” ongoing boyfriends and girlfriends:
Adherents call it responsible non-monogamy or polyamory, and the nontraditional practice is creeping out of the closet, making gay marriage feel somewhat last decade here in Massachusetts. What literally translates to “loving many,” polyamory (or poly, for short), a term coined around 1990, refers to consensual, romantic love with more than one person. Framing it in broad terms, [Jay] Sekora, one of the three founders and acting administrator of the 500-person-strong group Poly Boston, says: “There’s monogamy where two people are exclusive. There’s cheating in which people are lying about being exclusive. And poly is everything else.”
Not content to leave this moral aberration (and chaos) in the private sphere, look for “polyamorists” to begin pushing for legal recognitions similar to those sought by homosexual couples. If society no longer roots marriage in the historical and Christian definition, then it has no basis to deny marriage rights to any “love arrangement” the human brain can devise, no matter how bizarre.
Please, stop the insanity.
View all comments (42) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/05/a-new-frontier-in-marriage-red
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 4:26PM
And the obnoxious militant gay "activists" (or, as Kevin Jennings pronounces it, "active fists") said it would never happen. Just redraw the line in the sand to include gay marriage and all will finally be fair and just with that institution.
Gee, it's getting hard to tell the transvestites from the transsexuals out there without a score card.
On the upside, I'd like to announce here and now that my Black Lab and I are officially engaged. She played hard to get, but I kept her on a short leash.
We're registered at PetSmart, in case anyone's interested.
All I can say is, I hope the kids look like her.
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.5.10 @ 6:17PM
Grzmlyk: I thought that one of your New Years resolutions was to cut back on the sarcasm? Looks like you only made it to the 5th January huh?
So, does she prefer tennis balls, or Frisbees as a gift?
Bill| 1.5.10 @ 4:58PM
"Please, stop the insanity?"
That would require YOU to take off your blinders and make that first step, David N. Bass.
And to Grzmlyk at 4:26PM, you'd BE so lucky as to have a Black Lab interested in your sorry ass.
You folks are destroying our country with your fear mongering.
WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!
Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 5:21PM
Who do you think you're fooing, BILL?
It never was your country, ahole.
You are destroying our country with your queermongering.
Jo| 1.5.10 @ 5:13PM
How stupid. Do you imagine that marital infidelity and/or open relationships are a new phenomenon? Are somehow related to legal recognition of same sex marriage?
This has been going on for centuries. And if you actually read the article you'd know the people aren't fighting for any sort of legal recognition for their relationships. THEY have equality and rights, twit.
Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 5:25PM
How stupid. Do you imagine none of the polyamorites are going to agitate for marriage rights under the rubric of "if gay folks can do it, so can we!"
But you are still welcome to buy me a wedding present, twit.
Roy| 1.5.10 @ 9:25PM
After "responsible non-monogamy" why not "responsible non-commitment"?
Grzmlyk| 1.5.10 @ 10:09PM
I'll confess she has a weakness for chew toys. She gets it from her mother, the bitch.
I don't recall making that particular resolution. After all, if I didn't have sarscasm, I'd have to go back to starching my shirts to get that crisp crease in my day.
Still, if I had made that resolution, making it to January 5 would mean it's the last one I'd broken!
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.6.10 @ 10:27AM
Grzmlyk: I know you didn't make that resolution, I just made it up for you to give me something to write about, which broke my own personal resolution for the New Year, to stop making crap up. But I only made it about 30 seconds into the New Year, before I broke that one. Oops!! I'll try again next year, maybe!!
So keep up the sarcasm, and the big words too (I have my dictionary on standby), and have a Happy New Year too! May this new year, be the beginning of the end, to the Democratic Party, the Liberal/Progressives, and Bill (from above).
TomSwift| 1.5.10 @ 10:19PM
For those of you who don't believe in Christian morality...
Polygamy increases the odds of terrorism. If 20% of men take 4 wives each, this leaves 80% of men to fight for 20% of the women. This gets competitive, creating a culture where violence is acceptable.
This is also why most terrorists are Arab/Muslim, since they are the only ones who (currently) practice it.
Jasmine | 1.6.10 @ 11:23AM
> ... they [Muslims] are the only ones who (currently) practice it [polygamy].
This is simply false. At the very least, polygamy can be found currently among fundamentalist Mormons, other Christians, and those who follow traditional African religions.
> If 20% of men take 4 wives each...
What if 20% of women take 4 husbands each? In polyamory, women are equally as likely to have multiple partners as are men.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 10:21PM
Check This Out « Spirit Led Info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 10:22PM
Check This Out « Spirit Led America links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Anita Wagner | 1.6.10 @ 1:40AM
TomSwift, you might consider educating yourself on this subject before making statements that imply that polyamory will lead to terrorism. Hogwash. Polyamory is very different from religion-based polygamy in that it is egalitarian. In fact, the vast majority of the leaders of the polyamory movement are women who arrange their intimate relationships on their own terms. No patriarchy here. Can you say the same as to your own love life? Thought not.
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 5:15AM
Well, David, you must be a child. You don't remember "free love" of the 60's????? This fear mongering and religious extremism needs to stop. With over half of marriages ending in divorce, even with Christian evangelicals, this is a far better solution than creating one parent families.
I'm sure Hillary didn't mean it this way, but I guess it really does take a village....
Warren Piece| 1.6.10 @ 7:45AM
Bob: 1.) I was alive and lived through the era of "free love". Easily half of those, who were intoxicated with the freedom to stick their body parts wherever they wanted, hide their former "adventures" from friends and family alike because it was...well...foolish to think there would be no consequinces in the future. As the saying goes, they had written checks they would never to able to cover.
2.) "Fear mongering" ? You think you've cornered the market on being afraid? Don't you think we are more than a little afraid of what kind of country will be left to are children if the Democrats actually get their way?
3.) "Religious extremism "? Does a "centerist" religion mean keeping your mouth shut? Or can the religious left never be "extremist" because it sees its duty as kissing leftwing butt at every turn?
4.) The prevailance of divorce in the Church is a scandal. No excuses. Nevertheless, bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior. Many a liberal wax poetic about loving their fellowmen yet are abusive to their own families. Are we to believe that because they save their brutality for the one's they supposedly love most these liberals have no business voting and/or advocating domestic abuse legislation?
Bryce | 1.6.10 @ 12:08PM
Perhaps the scandal is not "the prevalence of divorce", but the contrafactual notion that 1) romantic relationships are broken if they don't last a lifetime, and 2) a nineteen year old is perfectly capable of selecting a lifelong partner, even when selecting any-damn-body is a prerequisite for sex.
But I fully support your belief that child and spouse abuse are problems that only afflict godless liberal families. Or whatever you were trying to say there. Whatever it was, I support you. I'm here for you, man.
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 8:11AM
Warren, I think you missed the point -- there was far more polyamory in the 60's than we will ever see today. To talk about this as a "trend" or something that will hurt "marriage", is just plain dumb.
As for their being more fear about the future today than ever before, you seem to forget the past. In the 30's when people couldn't get enough food to eat and people were jumping off of buildings, the fear was far greater. In the 40's when we had WWII, the fear was far greater. In the 50's when we thought we would blow each other to bits, the fear was far greater. In the 60's when we lost 58,000 people in Vietnam and AIDS began to develop, the fear was far greater. In the 70's when we had the Carter "malaise" and embassies being overtaken, the fear was far greater, etc., etc., etc. When Bush2 got us into Iraq and the World Trade Center was blown up, the fear was much greater. You can always fear monger, but this is nothing new.
Regarding religious extremism -- this involves not only fundamentalist Muslims, but fundamentalist Christians. People so dumb that they think the world is only 6,000 years old or deny evolution are making our country less competitive in the sciences. Making a major political party so religious that a pro-choice or atheist could not make it past a primary is just scary.
Regarding bad behavior, the point was that it will exist notwithstanding religion or the institution of marriage. Take Tiger Woods for example or perhaps all of the religious/married politicians who were caught this past year.
Indiana Alex| 1.6.10 @ 8:34AM
There they go again, pointing out problems with particular theories that give the left a fuzzy warm blanket makes us deniers.
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 8:42AM
The truth shall set you free.....
Poly Friend| 1.6.10 @ 10:36AM
@Warren - Free Love =/= polyamory; They are distinctly different movements with different ideologies at their cores. They are somewhat similar but definitely different.
@Grzmlyk - Animal marriage? Really? FUD is so not based on any sense of reality. Show me where in any American court of law where and animal can sign a contract and be legally recognized. Uggghhh! =(
@Tom Swift - As was noted by Anita, Polygamy/Polyamory is not will not promote terrorism, otherwise the FLDS would be killing people like crazy, or perhaps even the Christian Polygamist movement as well. In the case of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism the cause is Militant Theocratic Fundamentalism... not polygamy.
Dogma is more important than the people.
Keep in mind that forms of polygamy are practiced in Tibet, India, the other various Muslim nations throughout Africa and Asia. It is primarily the Fundamentalist Arabic Islamists that are the problem and their Fundamentalist Religious beliefs are the cause, and not polygamy.
@Everyone
We Americans suffer from a similar problem domestically - Christian Fundamentalism. It does not necessarily threaten us physically, but it has been assaulting the Freedoms and Civil Rights of Americans for a very long time. =(
Polyamory is not a redefinition in marriage. I would say that it is an evolution in relationship ideologies; evolving from a Puritanical Christian Patriarchal and Possessive Monogamy ideology to an Egalitarian, Open, and Honest model.
Polygamy is very much a par of the Christian history. Polygamy was socioculturally the norm in biblical times. Polygamy is in some way apart of almost every single cultures' history.
Bryce | 1.6.10 @ 11:58AM
Re: The FLDS. They have different methods for correcting the gender imbalance that arises from their version of polygamy. They just brand some of the teenage boys as "rebellious" and kick them out of the community. Here in Utah, we call them "The Lost Boys," and they do end up putting a strain on social services and law enforcement.
But your broader point is correct. Polyamory doesn't cause the "terror-inducing gender balance" ::eye roll:: because women take extra partners as often as men.
@TomSwift: If your "gender imbalances cause terrorism" theory is correct, why isn't China a hotbed of terrorism?
racking | 1.6.10 @ 11:00AM
http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
racking | 1.6.10 @ 11:00AM
http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
Bryce | 1.6.10 @ 1:00PM
I know a great number of polyamorous people. They come from a wide variety of backgrounds, hold a broad swath of political views (with libertarians heavily represented; they like libertarians here, right?), and ascribe to a variety of religious beliefs. A few of them do see common cause with the gay marriage movement, but in my experience, most of them have no interest in expanding the definition of marriage to include themselves.
Instead, the most common view on marriage among the polyamorous is that it is an institution with a religious and a secular component, and those components ought to be kept separate. The secular component is really just a matter of contract law, and there is no particular reason for the law to have a special contract for heterosexual, romantic couples.
As for the religious aspect of marriage, the imprimatur of the state can be granted to a relationship without forcing anyone to believe anything about its spiritual significance. Mormons can continue to believe that only marriages sealed in their temples will last through the eternities, and Catholics can continue to believe that marriages between homosexuals or between non-Catholics have no significance in the eyes of God. The "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" of the state should have zero effect on the spiritual significance you attach to your own relationships.
The slippery slope argument is absurd on its face. To get to gay marriage, all you have to do is say, "see this contract here? You can put two dudes' names on it now." But there are thousands of statutes (federal, state, and local) on the books mentioning marriage, written with the assumption that there were precisely two parties involved. So unlike gay marriage, expanding the number of partners in the marriage would require going over each law with a fine-toothed comb, and thinking about how it could possibly apply in a situation where three or more people are involved.
Simple example: given the exact wording of the current tax law regarding the married couple tax deduction, explain how much of a deduction is owed to a married triad filing jointly.
It can't be done. The law has no idea, and would have to be rewritten to clarify such a situation. There isn't even room on the form for a third signature. The only way we could get state-sanctioned polyamorous marriage is if our society commits to making it real; it will not piggyback on gay marriage.
P.S.: Polygamy is biblical. Peace out!
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 5:13PM
. o O ( Save Your Relationship – Save Your Marriage – Get Ex Back – Stop … Review: S links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Warren Piece| 1.7.10 @ 11:34AM
Well, Bob, it’s like this. Many of us find your hyperventilating over fundamentalist Christians and “evolution-deniers” bizarre—and more than a little fear-mongering in itself. Such people have been around for a long, long time and you will find them everywhere—even among the well-read and those who make significant contributions to society and the world. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious society, you grossly exaggerate their influence.
Do I agree with them? Hell, no. But, if everyone is going to get all worked up about losing our grip on scientific innovation, we should look more toward Public School 109 on College Street than Cumberland Christian Church on Thomas Avenue. “Evolution” is the least of our problems. Launching fireballs at this or that group of citizens is a complete waste of time (and needlessly inflammatory) when our school system can’t even get our children into the sciences to begin with.
.
I will say this. What I have found in my long years is that, when “Sam” complains that the “Harry is “fear-mongering”, what “Sam” really means that “issue X” shouldn’t be important to anybody—as long as “Sam” gets his way.
Oh! “Making a major political party so religious that a pro-choice or atheist could not make it past a primary is just scary.” I don’t know. When the other major political party is so solidly pro-abortion that a pro-life candidate can’t even get a hearing for his cause or will not even be allowed to speak at the national convention, I’d say welcome to American politics.
Jasmine | 1.7.10 @ 1:16PM
> Same-sex marriage is so last decade.
> Polyamory, or "responsible non-monogamy,"
> is the wave of the future.
Wave of the future? No, not at all. Polyamory has been around as long as there have been people. The name is new, but not the relationships.
What IS new to our culture is people living openly and visibly about it, refusing to hide in the closet any more. And that's healthy for all of us, even if it's a little uncomfortable during the transition.
Here's your chance to ask real polyamorous people real questions. What would you like to know?
Scot| 1.7.10 @ 3:26PM
Please, stop the judgementalism and let consenting adults love the way they see fit, not the way YOU see fit.
Warren Piece| 1.8.10 @ 12:00PM
Of course your "arrangement" has always been around. Quite a bit of nastiness has also always been around. Arguing from existence proves nothing.
The faulty assumption among the "Polyamory" folks is that every family "constellation" is just a matter of choice, similar in impact, and essentially each is benign toward the rest of the community. Sounds nice in theory and sweet in the libertarian fantasy world.
It is the task of all civilized peoples to take judgments and DISCERN TO WHAT THINGS WE WILL EXTEND OUR PROTECTIONS. We are not inclined to reinvent the wheel and dispense with the accumulated wisdom of the centuries that has shown us that what is called the "nuclear" family is the best structure by which individual men and women make covenant with each other and make mutual bonds to the nourishing of children.
This is our considered judgment. Reject it if you like. But don't look for support or protections for your "lifestyle" from the rest of society. You are playing with fire and we have no interest in encouraging you.
Pingback| 1.9.10 @ 10:09PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : A New Frontier in Marriage … links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.10.10 @ 4:36AM
Save Your Marriage. Stop Divorce Now. - The Blog Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Scot| 1.10.10 @ 5:58AM
@Warren - Where is the evidence that the traditional nuclear family is the best one or even successful?
"The two-parent family is a structure that relies on two people. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Parents get sick. Parents die. And (all too often in the U.S.) parents go to prison. Ultimately, that means that many children are not going to have that two-parent family. Rather than trying to bury our heads in the sand, wouldn’t it make more sense to question the cultural beliefs that lead us to only take responsibility for children on such a limited basis?
The nuclear family is a weak institution. When one parent is taken out of the equation, as so often happens, the children suffer. Kids need more than two people that they can rely on in this world."
Quote from http://www.broadsnark.com/the-.....a-failure/