Skip to comments.Coming Soon: 'Polyamorist Rights'? (Bigamy, Polygamy, etc.)
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.
Well you need to stay that way and the homosexuals need to go back to it; or better yet, all of you should repent and renounce your sinful ways.
Homosexual agenda/Moral absolutes ping.
Gosh, I could use a husband and a wife to help me out around here.
I have to admit that the natural state of things in the animal kingdom, and through most of human history, is one male with several women. Of course, that doesn't mean it works well in modern human society.
"Of course, that doesn't mean it works well in modern human society"
so, which society do we live in now?
I love my wife dearly, but why in the world would anyone want two?
The Chinese symbol for trouble is two women under one roof. BIG trouble is the guy committing suicide in the second symbol.
Cite an example of a Jew (after the Ten Commandments had been given) or a Christian who falls into this category.
I just went to the website of Poly-NYC.com or .org or wherever in order to find my future three wives. :-)
But the photos show the weirdest collection of crazy people I have ever seen. They are weirder than anyone you'd see at a Gay "Right's" Parade. How could one person marry them, not to mention two or three.
NYC was my home town until after 9-11. Now it is like a distant planet to me. And yet I recognized Central Park. :-(
I think you are right about the natural state of most animals. I think it may also be true for human males. Unfortunately, I believe monogamy is the natural state for women. A woman who agrees to polygamy may be doing it to keep a man. Inside, who knows what it is doing to her psyche?
" "At any given Arby's, McDonald's, Rotary Club or veterans hall," he says, "people are overwhelmingly in favor of calling a halt to drug prohibition. Overwhelmingly." "\
I'm sorry you don't like my tagline - it is inteneded as a reminder that liberty continues to depend on the right of self defense.
Only if that male can chase off all competitors through superior strength, courage, determination and good looks. (Or, a big pile of money...)
But in our system, even your local nebbish can hope for a loving monogamous marriage.
I suppose a lot of fellows picture themselves the Lord Lion of the Pride--but they don't see all the other lions who have to be beaten off, who wander alone and frustrated.
Sorry, about post 15. I pasted the wrong quote and then misread the post I was responding too.... I'm gonna go jogging before I try to post any more.
I didn't even understand trigonometry.
Of course I know what it means. I like the tagline. My comment was meant as a joke related to your comments on the present topic.
In ages past, polygamy was a power issue. The king or rich merchant could prove he was powerful with multiple wives. But among the poor it meant that women would not grow old without a mate. Back then the mortality rate of young men was very high due to war and pillaging on other continents (e.g., Genghis Khan) so plural marriage was the only way a woman could get a husband and children, and some security.
Divorce lawyers are salivating...
Muzzies can have up to 4 wives - and a large majority of the world is going that route - so it makes sense to me </sarc>
Actually, one could make the case for it. 50 years ago, it wasn't needed. Now, many men are reluctant to get married 'cause they're getting the milk for free. As a result, lots of women who want to get married and have kids can't. As a result, this could help reverse the "child deficit" among Caucasians.
One could also argue that we have a form of this right now (called serial monogamy). Except that if you like another partner, you've got to break up your existing family to make it happen.
Of course, even if this were possible, you'd still have to talk your first wife into it. While that could be tough, it might not be if your wife would rather have you bothering someone other than her for sex.
And it's downhill from here....
In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on a something shocking
but now God knows
The whole concept of marriage has been corrupted, starting with the gay marriage garbage. I'd rather see the government get out of the marrage recognition business altogether. Let the people get married in their church, and that's it. Any legal necessities between a couple can be done without legal marriage, so it isn't necessary.
since the degenerate marxists cant use homosexuals to destroy marraige and thus the family unit, they will use this avenue.
Communist Goals (1963 congressional record)
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
If my daughter should happen to read this: Remember I told you this would happen. Ready to share your husband yet, huh????
I really get tired of being RIGHT all the time.
the world has gone mad today, it looks bad today...
"the world has gone mad today, it looks bad today..."
good authors too who once knew better words now only use four letter words writing prose....
Take my husband please.
Just this morning I had a high school student tell me that there shouldn't be any restrictions on how many people she can marry, since gays want to marry. Why not two husbands and three wives? We've already had a woman marry a dolphin recently. Eventually, all sex will be reduced to the pleasant sensation gained from rubbing skin against something else. The childbearing and reproductive aspects of sex, by definition, will then be eliminated or hidden under social shame. We're already close to this point in some quarters; you'd be amazed at the number of young men and young women who want no children and lots of sex. When most of us hit that point, in my opinion, the culture is dead.
I've already run across one of the polyamorists at the local university when I was taking education classes several years ago. As always, the latest decline in standards is portrayed as liberation, and if you disagree, you're oppressive. Maybe we'll just have to hit bottom before we understand the need for self-discipline and moral conduct.
I'm with you.....I could use a stay at home wife around here too...I'm sick of cleaning, cooking, running errands, bill paying, phone calling and laundry!
What? Where is anyone commanded by God to have more than one wife?
[Actually, one could make the case for it. 50 years ago, it wasn't needed. Now, many men are reluctant to get married 'cause they're getting the milk for free.]
As a single man, I have to admit that I get surprised and learn a lot on FR. For instance, did a lot of older men in American society really marry partly because they would finally be able to get sex? I guess before 1968...that actually was the case. Wow! I think I remember reading about that in a history book somewhere.
[One could also argue that we have a form of this right now (called serial monogamy). Except that if you like another partner, you've got to break up your existing family to make it happen.]
The real other form that exists right now (for some guys) is the girlfriend in San Francisco, the girlfriend in LA and the girlfriend in Reno (not necessarily with any bad premarital sex going on). The breaking up part isn't very fair or nice to someone you may want to be friends with forever.
[Of course, even if this were possible, you'd still have to talk your first wife into it. While that could be tough, it might not be if your wife would rather have you bothering someone other than her for sex.]
And this is where I lose you. If your first wife is someone that you *want* to bother all the time for sex...then you are a lucky man! No need for the second wife.
[What? Where is anyone commanded by God to have more than one wife?]
I think he is referring to the Rachel/Leah deal where the older sister had to be married first. Isaac or Jacob. Who cares. It is the Old Testament. It is not as if it is anything Paul wrote.
As I consider the Old Testament every bit the revelation of the New Testament, I looked up the reference to Rachel and Leah. Nowhere does God order polygamy, in fact Jacob's marriage to two women came about through the deception of Rachel and Leah's father. So I think that the fellow's point is just off.
i'm interested in your comment about the woman marrying a dolphin.
can a person marry TWO dolphins?
can people marry penguins, too, or is it just dolphins?
(I'm not sayin' i'm INTO penguins--i'm jes' askin out of curiosity)
I'm sure they're doing some of the string pulling to legitimize this.
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.