The next step down the slippery slope
LINK :
https://news.yahoo.com/video/polyamorous-parents-put-controversial-spin-083943524.htm
The video you will find at the above link demonstrates what I suspect is the very next step down the slippery slope that the US is going on in its behavioral norms . Recently SCOTUS passed a law about the previous step down by making polygamy closer to legal :
http://thenewstalkers.com/forum/topics/polygamy-closer-to-legal
Now the next step is already starting to happen :
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
Is there no one here who would not at some point down this behavioral slope about marriage rules get offended at one point or another ? Frankly I don't even want to consider what other possibilities could happen in the future as the strictures weaken about what is allowed .
It seems like a "naturally unnatural" progression . There is really nothing to prevent it from happening just because of the way rules have consistently been loosened . With continued loosening there comes a point at which anything goes ...
Where are we headed? Open marriages will become popular. "Swinger" clubs will most likely become a very successful business. Adultery may no longer be considered immoral or grounds for divorce.
Those are certainly possibilities . But I wouldn't be surprised to see even more extreme activities becoming accepted as normal ... I don't see anything opposing them from happening because of the loosening climate coming from SCOTUS ...
Paper clips don't do it for me . How do you feel about kangaroos ?
The issue of workplace benefits is likely to become quite a tricky one in the future . It is entirely possible that particular benefit will simply disappear . Do you have any ideas about how the public can resist this coming progression ? It seems that returning to the old restrictions of a heterosexual couple is just not possible ...
That might work for you and your partner . But how about the next generations ?
Olde-tyme religion is starting to look better all the time ... tyme ? I was going to suggest that at least limit the count of spouses to one . But SCOTUS is already chpping away at that :
Can't those innumerate SOBs in black robes learn how to count ?
And I'm lousy at dinner conversation too ...
When a news agency takes on a topic it knows so little about, it shows. The video, which comes off as a staged reality TV show for maladjusted individuals and reeks of pure sensationalism. Whatever crap ABC peddled off, it isn't Polyamory .
One of the main tenets of Poly is that marriage is NOT required nor an end goal. Such relations are fluid and outside of a few having written contractual agreements , most just practice polidelity .
Polyamory is NOT, bigamy, polygamy or polyandry. It is it's own element and has absolutely nothing to do with legal marriages.
This is not a restriction on your sex life . It's a restriction on your marriage . Who else would you trust to be in charge of that ... some church ?
That might be accurate now . But people have a tendency to seek legitimacy . The people in the video were starting to do that . When there are benefits to be had it is inevitable , things like insurance . And when there are children in the arrangement ...
BTW my comment has disappeared 2X already . I am redoing it yet again .
I'm not familiar with that expression . Is this some kind of expression ofhomosexual lust ?
It may not appear slippery at the moment . People have a tendency to attack the ramparts of social restrictions in this western social environment . My point is that making things legal that are currently not will encourage those actions .
There are MANY things that are better off left unexplored by the masses . Legalizing them gives them legitimacy and the encouragement to be explored . I wrote this article to attempt to find what the next step would be now that "gay" love has been legalized by SCOTUS . It is my expectation that combining that legalization with the new loosening on the rules on polygamy will inevitably lead to this next step : the combination of the 2 in group marriage .
Can I assume that the people on this thread raising opposition are in favor of group marriage , not just polygamy , but actual group marriage ? If so please explain the advantages to the society at large of such behaviors ...
I would presume that this means that Solomon should not be held up as a wise and great personage?
I only have one question concerning relationships. Why is it the state's job to tell anyone what kind of relationship they may have?
That is an important question . From my perspective it used to be about encouraging reproduction and the raising of families . That does not seem to be the current approach .
Would you care to comment on where problems may develop from a complete lack of rules of any kind ? That seems to be where things are headed . And if there are no such problems that you perceive then please indicate that .
The nation-state as we know it has only existed for a few hundred years. Before that there were empires, kingdoms, city-states and various other amalgamations of peoples. Empires and kingdoms would have been the least homogeneous groups.
America today is more akin to the empires of yore. They (the empires) mostly let the peoples of districts carry on on their own traditional manners. America seems determined to place city-state mores on an empire of diverse groups.
History has shown that that strategy is doomed.
I am not a great believer in the state as a setter of morals, ethics or behavior. Those are best suited to smaller groups of a more homogeneous nature. Those groups generally don't even need a set of written rules, they are taught and understood.
As for what may develop from a complete lack of rules? The end of the state; which, as an end game, I do not see as a bad thing.
Your history is likely to be fairly accurate as far as I can tell . But I don't see it as having much predictive value for the future . Some of the biggest differences with the past have to do with the greatly increased population size that the world has today especially in Asia .
Also in the distant past the power & influence of religious mores was much more pronounced than it is today . As such this statement :
does not appear to be particularly accurate . Certainly in western traditions the religious influence of Athens and of Rome were enormous and forceful . And outlying districts had their own tightly controlled mores even if different from the central power .
Finally talking about the possible demise of the state may or may not be accurate . What I think might be more predictable is the spread of STDs if there is a lack of any kind of mores . That is basically what I had in mind when I wrote this article ...
The way I see polygamy it also presents the biggest practical problems . Combining polygamy with same sex relations leads to all kinds of group marriage possibilities which have no basis at all in our current social structure as a method to raise children among other problems .
Another potential problem is having enough boys with an interest in defending the country against foreign enemies . I'm not sure what effect same sex relations has on that let alone what effect polygamy would have on that ...
How does polyamory differ from just good 'ole fashioned "sleeping around"?
And is it something new? Seems like there was a lot of this sort of things in the 60s....???
I suggest you consult the expert Aeon Pax . Here is her comment with links :
Also look into the video in the article ...
Wrong. I'll agree you can state your opinion that it is, but in fact, the two are not even associated with each other. Do you even know what polyamory is? If anything, Poly is an "alternative to marriage.
What you just said is your opinion of polyamory . You are concluding based on your perception that it will never be legitimized . But for those in such relationships [especially if they have children in those relationships ] there could be an interest in legitimacy . Once that SCOTUS legalized gay marriage and is working on legalizing polygamy the next step is going to be the combination of the 2 in polyamory . The video with this article was about just such a triad . They had children so they wanted legitimacy . Are you saying they are the only such group "marriage" with such a pursuit ? Your categorical denial is unsupported .
There are numerous reasons for pursuing legitimacy such as benefits like insurance as well as estate distribution upon death .
But wouldn't the STDs stay within the group? Or are you afraid that a "traditionalist" might stray and contract a disease?
Whether legitimized or not, people will act as they will. With or without the state's official okey dokey, there is a possibility of spreading STDs, mumps, measles, chicken pox and the dreaded summer cold.
In another thread , Petey Coober said:
He seems to be suggesting that I wrote the opening post, or had something to do with it. But I did not.
I am, however, polyamorous -- which fact Petey finds "disgusting". And that's fine! I think he finds freedom disgusting, generally. That's why he wants all of the old familiar "rules" to apply to all of us.
____________
I would have addressed the misattribution of the opening post in that other thread, but Petey closed comments there.
Yes, I would hope that readers here would take some time to learn about polyamory before presuming to judge or assess it. By no means does polyamory have anything to do with multiple marriage partners (in the legal sense).
So What?
Petey, you go on and on about those icky gay people and minding who sleeps with whom under the pretense of not spreading STDs, but you think that you should be able to control people's actions when they do not conform with your personal standards through law. That is the slippery slope that we continuetrying, as we have been since the founding of the country, to crawl up.
Um. ... What?!
If you want to understand what polyamory is about, it would be best to consult actual polyamorists on the topic. What they (or we) say, with overwhelming frequency, is that polyamory is " ... the practice, desire, or acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual or intimate relationships, with knowledge and consent of everyone involved" [Wikipedia].
Polyamory is about having more than one loving partner at a time. It is as closely related to the topic of marriage as bicycles are related to lemon trees. Human relationships are not confined to, or defined by, the institution of marriage.
I suspect polidelity was a typo (?), with polyfidelity being the intended word.
Nah . I have no expectations of controlling people's behavior . I attempt to appeal to the reasoning processes of those who are on the fence . BTW WTF does this mean :
If you wanted to confuse things you have succeeded .
Bottom line : sex is all you need . Got it .
This question was directed to those who have a clue about what it means to serve their country in the armed forced . Obviously that leaves you out .
That comment was deleted in that other thread . I'm fairly certain that you have once again violated the rules of this site . They are called the CoC . I suggest you learn them B4 you find yourself running into the site owner yet again ...
This article is full of hit-and-run commentary . Doesn't anyone have a point that are willing to stand up for?
So , no guts . Got it .