Actually, it has something to do with the Laws of Nature -- which are to be discovered, not made, by man. If we fail to learn and obey the rules, there will be consequences that cannot be escaped by anyone -- even if they're "open" and "progressive."
There is no animal that gets away with promiscuity -- certainly not any complex one. Other animals use either monogamy or a harem system. Either way, the females are only having contact with one male. That is a closed reproductive system.
[And yes, it is theoretically possible to have a closed system with 3 or more intimate partners. However, anything beyond two people is going to be inherently unstable, because it is unnatural. What is the longest anyone has seen an intact polyamorous group remain together -- and faithful?]
An open system in which males and females are having intimate contact with multiple partners [defining promiscuity] is unsustainable. It creates an environment that will be exploitable by pathogens.
Our technology can alleviate symptoms and kill off some of the weaker agents, but this only results in genetically engineering pathogens to become more virulent and intractable. Consider the transmission, mutation and incubation periods of HIV.
If not for promiscuity, HIV would have killed off its local host population and become extinct. If there is a cure found for HIV and the promiscuity of the '70s resumes, a new and even more virulent agent will develop and spread.
So it does matter to the community at large whether individuals are discriminating about with whom they are intimate. And the circumstances under which children are reared affects society as a whole also.
Children need a stable home in which the biological parents who made them also raise them to adulthood. Anything less than that is less than optimal, increasing the odds of truancy, mental illness, underaged pregnancy, premature death, criminal victimization, incarceration, suicide, etc.
Certainly parents can, through no fault of their own, find themselves being forced to raise kids in a less-than-optimal situation. But to deliberately bring children in the world with a strike going against them from the start is beyond irresponsible.
If those charged with the responsibility of raising children choose to indulge themselves at their kids' expense, that threatens to bring lasting negative effects to those around them.
Aldous Huxley called it correctly: “Orgy-porgy”
Increasingly I am amazed that I’m not driving past pillars of salt on my way to work.
Another reason why I avoid CNN like the plague.
42 years monogamous. Thank God!
In other words, have no standards. The fact that human beings often resent and react violently to non-monogamous actions doesn’t seem to factor into their thinking. Even people who initially agree to a threesome or open relationship, often react badly when confronted with one in reality.
It briefs well, but more often than not, it won’t actually work in the real world.
For the record, I don’t have any first hand knowledge about topic. My wife is one of those people who would be very and violently unhappy if I tried it.
Chimpanzee females have sex with more than one male. The males in a troop are usually related.
Some pair-bonded birds cheat, both sexes.
What they are really saying:
Sharia Law supports polygamy
therefore
Monogamy doesn’t make sense anymore.
/// For some couples, non-exclusivity might take the form of attending “play parties” together and swapping partners, watching other couples have sex, dating other people or even entering into polyamorous relationships with multiple partners. ///
Ick.
Bleach, anyone?
Is monogamy for everyone? A better question to ask — is marriage for everyone?
My answer is no. Some people are too unstable or amoral.
Monogamy means never getting caught.
Doctrine of demons.
Ever since I discovered girls when I was twelve or so ... I always fantasized about "the one special girl"
I never (and I'll challenge every man that reads this) desired to be a whoremonger par excellance !
Even Hugh Hefner had one special one ... admittedly for not very long.
But then, it's CNN always looking to screw up America by re-arranging her thought processes.
If I had my Moral Absolutes ping list, this would be pinged out.
Illustration of “How to Destroy Civilization in A Couple of Generations”.
A subplot in “1984” was the “Anti-Sex League”. The Left is bringing that to fruition too, demeaning normal procreative copulation.
It’s funny to read all of the objections to people having “multiple partners” but what most of them object to is the idea of multiple partners >at the same time<.
Serial monogamists like our President (who I support) are acceptable to these people even though his multiple marriages would offend them only if the marriages were concurrent. But because they’re consecutive it’s somehow acceptable.
And of course it’s still socially acceptable for single men to have as many sexual partners as they possibly can and that remains acceptable. Some of them are even celebrated for having multiple casual partners at the same time.
But if they commit to these multiple partners and commit to taking responsibility for the children they create then that makes them evil?
Seems to me that committed polygamy is far less of a threat to society than is the selective morality that eats away at the foundations of our civilization.
Doesn’t CNN have better Trumps to go after than trying to support the existence and efforts toward illicit sex? I guess thbey are going to blame VD and aids on him and Bush.
red
A subplot in “1984” was the “Anti-Sex League”. The Left is bringing that to fruition too, demeaning normal procreative copulation.
It should take anyone 5 seconds looking at how open relationships have destroyed Chicago.
This is nothing but psyops, pure & simple. It's part of the campaign designed to erode independent, traditional family units and replace them with state sponsored, dependent drones.
One shouldn't respond to gaslighting or any other psychological games being played upon the public with sincere, rationale replies. Rather, they should either be identified, ridiculed and/or ignored.