The douchenozzle in question was stupid enough to cite awesome education site Loving More in his rant. Well, I’m not one to let a good link go unplugged! For those who want to know more about poly, there you go.
James M. Arlandson, American Baffled Grandparent Hearing Their Kids Come Out for the First Time:
From Same-Sex Marriage to Polygamy and Polyandry
Man, I’ve actually been kinda waiting for a post like this for a while!
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- Blah blah, slippery slope, blah, gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage and that’s scarier so don’t support fags, blah.
No no, not because of that. The overall argument is the same tired horseshit we’ve seen a million times before and YAWN…
Sorry, I seem to have put myself to sleep just talking about it.
No, I’m excited because it’s the first one I can remember seeing that doesn’t just circle around the usual polygamy/polyandry crap, but actually shows awareness and response to actual real polyamorous people like me and my partner…s… and my partners’ partners.
Now that might not seem like something to get excited about. In fact, it probably seems like something to dread. Oh Bob damnitt, the wingnuts have realized we exist and they should hate us! Time to roll up the dinner plates, because party’s over!
But that’s because you’re forgetting that for the tiniest minority communities, the worst thing is the complete invisibility. The way people’s brows react in much the same way as they would to the information that unicorns exist when you tell them about yourself. As such, almost all the activism ends up being visibility, visibility, visibility.
The moment when that visibility succeeds to the point where Gomer’s dimmer cousin finds out you exist and is horrified enough to hold a poorly-spelled sign and rant about you on sites like American Thinker is the crucial step where a minority community’s struggle really gets to begin.
The moment where ignorance leads to backlash might herald a more annoying era, but it also means the beginning of actual growth and actual acknowledgment of social issues vital to one’s community and the first shape of things to actually struggle against rather than having to explain why it sucks that nobody bothers to care enough about you to hate you.
It’s the beginning of a long road that culminates in hating the next tiny minority that pops onto everybody’s collective radar. Like those damn fluberts! Ooh, how I hate them!
So yeah, forgive me if my poly pride nerd flag is a little high for this one, but I’m one Free Republic rant about the evils of asexuality away from having a full trifecta!
I keep hearing same-sex marriage (SSM) activists assuring us that no one else will legally redefine the essence of marriage, after they enjoy the privilege of doing so. It’s a red herring to distract us from the real issue: redefining it for them alone.
Yes, I’m sure these SSM activists claiming that they just want special dispensation on the thing your band of psychotics for some reason gets universal ownership is totally a real thing and not at all based on the same fantasy and outright fabrication behind the “science” article you linked to (for those who want to mango dive into that, take my free advice and don’t. There’s toxic and then there’s “oh, I recognize that Criminal Against Humanity Scott Lively talking point”).
Did they also tell you that gays only want to break up heterosexual marriages by being supernaturally sexy like gay incubii and that marriage is just a red herring to make stuck-in Christians feel super-jealous?
But if we redefine marriage for one group, there’s no logical reason to deny other nonconformist advocates their right to do so, especially if they successfully argue their version of marriage on utilitarian grounds — it benefits or does no harm to society.
And we just can’t have that. I mean, if we let marriage be… you know, what it is, a means of legally protecting the notion of created family and allowing certain protections to be granted to such couplings of love because of limp-wristed pansy reasons like A) LOVE or B) an agreement and commitment of two or more consenting adults or C) whether we should fucking care because it doesn’t really harm anyone when consenting adults do stuff to each other.
I mean, how will the sanctity of my ill-advised media-stunt marriage to a Vegas hooker in the presence of my Elvis impersonator peers possibly be upheld and survive, when utilitarian terrorists are arguing that decades-long proven commitments between partners of the same sex or stable triads should have the same option of legal protection and marriage?
I don’t know who invented the slippery slope fallacy, but he or she shouldn’t be decorated with a medal.
Cause, with the rate at which you and your ilk drop to the ground to suck that slippery slope like a Hoover vacuum cleaner, I pretty much assumed that if you found whoever invented the slippery slope, you’d rush off to get married in Washington.
Sometimes the slope exists, it really is slippery, and people actually slide down it.
Well, they do now, you sick bastard!
Maybe you should try taking a break from the slope and let shit dry before you start bitching about our upkeep. Jeeze!
In the 1950s, Lucy and Ricky were shown in separate beds. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Brady Bunch parents shared the same extra-wide king-size bed, but were far apart. Today?
Er… didn’t your parents ever explain… Ah jeeze, I hate having to do this.
Um… James… you should sit down. Um… James, it turns out that things on TV aren’t actually real life, they’re make believe, like the Easter Bunny or Market Forces. People back then, like your parents, still fucked… In fact they fucked a lot. Your parents have probably had filthy monkey sex on pretty much every stationary object in the house and at least half of the moving objects including the family dog. It was the only way they could spice up the drudgery of a society that considered Brady Bunch “entertainment”.
I’m sorry I have to break this to you, kiddo, but you had to know sometime. Now, if you don’t mind, your mom needs me to bring her this spare handcuff key so she can unchain your father from the fuck harness.
No need to describe primetime or daytime TV. The sex drive is powerful, and society has publically slid down that slippery, muddy slope long ago.
That is true. At that time, it was a literal slippery, muddy slope, because homo sapiens was literally speciating for the first time when this happened. Fuck, the sex drive is so powerful it predates the speciation of mammals!
Here are two more nonconformist groups clamoring for their share of the marriage mud pie.
zzzZZZZzzzz… Uh, what? Sorry, I blacked out there all of a sudden in sheer boredom.
Yeah, think I’m going to just skip over this section. But for those of you worried about missing something, let me faithfully transcribe everything of substance:
Yeah, it seems that now that Mormons are officially wingnut members in good standing, the arguments against the hideous, abusive because they are traditional, marriages known as polygamy have shifted exclusively to being about the not-terribly-frequent practice of polygamy in a few tiny African muslim communities instead of mostly about it.
And it’s every bit as sane as you’d expect from the American Thinker.
We now peer, not leer, into polyamory or open, nonmongamous relationships, including open marriages.
Sorry. You just don’t know how long I’ve been waiting for something like this. And it’s a legitimate smorgasbord!
I mean… Polyamory? Nonmonogamous relationships? Open Marriages???
This is being covered in an article by a guy who’s only life accomplishment to date has been being too stupid and crazy for a diploma mill online bible college designed to steal the money from parents so paranoid and overprotective, they don’t even want to risk their artifact home-schooled children having to leave the nest to receive their substandard useless faux-college-education. Well that and creating possibly the saddest resume I’ve ever seen.
When someone so unemployable as this literally slumming it in the dregs of wingnut welfare because every other rung on the way down was too hard to cling to is aware that polyamory and open marriages exist, we have officially made it to the big leagues.
At this point it’s only a matter of time before poly people start having their own deeply disappointing overly-corporatized lobby organization to complain about being sold out by!
~Dare to dream the impossible dream~
Traditionally, monogamy has been defined as relational and sexual exclusivity between one man and one woman.
…yesssss. That is true.
I’d dare say in our modern flubert-stained society where words have become meaningless playthings to our dark and powerful gods, monogamy still means relational and sexual exclusivity…well that and the
occasional frequent cheating. But definitely that in theory.
Hell, all power to those for whom monogamy is a natural and pleasant fit. The whole point of figuring out new relationship models that fit people’s life experiences better is to provide more options.
Heck, if we can make your lives easier by getting all the people who simply can’t commit long-term to sexually and romantically exclusive relationships out of your dating pool once and for all (where they can stop wasting your goddamned time), we are more than happy to help.
But some nonconformists say that while they have their primary partnership, they allow hook ups with others.
AAAIIIIIEEEEE!!! The End Times are here! Seas are boiling with blood! Cats and Dogs are sleeping together! Homes in San Francisco are suddenly reasonably priced! Mass Hysteria!
People in relationships who consent together for one or both people in the relationship to explore sexual relationships with people they are sexually interested in as long as consent is maintained and communication remains open instead of just having partners clandestinely slip off to a truck stop bathroom in the middle of the night and lie about it?!?
What in Sam Hell is this world coming too?!?!?
A gay friend of mine, Los Angeles blogger Daniel Blatt, who believes in monogamy and sees the advantages to same-sex marriage, was taken aback when he searched on the words “marriage equality” and found very little mention of monogamy on Web sites promoting such. When I helped Blatt with his research, I stumbled upon a Web site hostile to monogamy that is promoted as a marriage resource by several major gay Web sites, including those of Marriage Equality USA, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network, Equality Texas, the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, and even the Metropolitan Community Church.
Yes, apparently the World’s Dumbest Homosexual is so bad at being gay he needs a straight homophobe writing opinion for SFGate’s help just to research marriage equality.
I don’t think I’m going to top that one tonight.
“It’s a redefinition of marriage,” says one.
You just know that the gay couple quoted deliberately chose that line specifically to bait people like Jimmy Boy here into having epic-level conniptions.
And he could no more help salivating at it than Pavlov’s dog.
A mature student in my class
He is not currently listed in the faculty of any googleable university, so let me just rewrite part of this for him.
A mature student
in my classI made up told us of her friend who is in a polyamorous relationship. Her husband gives her “free rein,” so to speak.
Ooh, she’s into pony play too? “Friends” (yeah, sure and that anal plug was just a gift for your cousin, uh huh) of imaginary Christians be into all sorts of kinky shit, aren’t they?
Oh, you just meant that it is mind-shattering for you to imagine a relationship structure wherein a woman is a full person with her own sexual interests rather than a pet and object a husband may use to demonstrate high social market value to the other guys in Jerkoff Springs Gated Community when they go off for their weekly golf game and five-man orgy?
I don’t know what I could have possibly been thinking.
Derek McCullough and David S. Hall, Ph.D., say monogamy is a cultural myth and polyamory is an option:
…Much of the evidence seems to indicate that human attainment of the cultural ideal of monogamy is a myth. The moral argument for monogamy is a weak position. A better moral argument can be made regarding what is best for each individual and for society, that is, do we make life better for each and all by insisting on sex only in monogamous marriage of heterosexual couples, or on letting individuals find responsible ways of relating that, in Pagan terms, “harm none”. Liberal religion has taken a fine stance supporting homosexual and heterosexual couples, and unmarried couples as well. What is so hard about seeing the parallels to the “more than a couple” part?
MUA HA HA HA HA!
I just can’t get enough of wingnuts being too stupid to avoid quoting passages from academic papers that rip them to shreds.
Yes, it does admit that polyamory is indeed an option. And it does indeed use the word myth. But fuck, if it weren’t for the fact that your readership is functionally illiterate, they might be having as much fun as I am with the fact that the first line is not saying monogamy is a myth, but rather the cultural expectation that everyone is monogamous and naturally fits into a monogamous relationship model is a myth.
Again, hooray for the people who do, but for those who don’t or for those who just want to explore polyamorous relationship structures cause they look fun, it’s nice that there’s other options and other models.
And it really can help the survivability of a long-term relationship when the exploration of the fun and novelty of NRE or a new attraction doesn’t have to mean the end of a long-term stable couple or unnecessary self-sacrifice and the resentment that comes with it.
In fact, that’s exactly why I’m in a polyamorous relationship. I didn’t want my partner growing to resent me because my asexuality was cutting her off from experiencing relationships involving mutual sexual chemistry. I didn’t want new crushes to be constantly compared in value to our continued time together. And most importantly, I wanted us to be in a relationship model that worked best for her and for us, one we both consented to, rather than something sacrificed to simply due to cultural expectation.
I have no belief we would be together today if that wasn’t the case and we’ve been together over 7 years now.
For those for whom monogamy works, yay! For those for whom polyamory works, yay! For those for whom open relationships, swinging, occasional threesomes, shared masturbation about the weatherman, dating entire pacific island nations, or sacrificing on a dark altar at yearly intervals works, yay! The whole point is to find what works for you and your relationship and to grow enough as a society so that people who find checking the default box isn’t for them don’t have to claw, scratch, and bite for the same social regard and protections.
And if that gives guys like Jimmy, who have mild heart attacks at the notion of a “free reign” wife, a good strong freak out?
All I can say is…
In the old days, polyamory used to be called adultery or fornication.
What do you want from him? He already used up his correct “skies are blue” statement on the monogamy definition, you weren’t really expecting him to go 2 for 2 were you?
Oh right shock and outrage about yet another wingnut failing to understand the notion of consent in relationships.
Wait a minute!
…uh… shit, I’m going to have to sit him back on the couch and explain that married people fuck, aren’t I?
So you see little Jimmy, about seven times a day, your mommy gets something we call an “itch” and she needs to….
But the “moral argument for monogamy is a weak position.”
Yes, the moral argument for forced monogamy is a pretty damn weak position, just like the moral argument for forced heterosexuality or forced gender roles in marriage.
Perhaps if they didn’t have the likes of you defending them…
Apparently, in a diverse and tolerant society any point of view and feeling becomes the new norm.
This pretty much sums up every wingnut freakout ever to the notion of options. To conservatives, there are no such things as options. There is only the uncomfortable and unnatural box you destroy yourself trying to fit.
If someone ever tries and create a new option because the sight of you mangling yourself into a twisted knot of broken bones and rotted flesh tugs on every strand of their empathy, they aren’t providing an option, they are trying to destroy the old box you’re used to and force you into a new mandatory box that’s not at all familiar.
The notion that there could be a box that actually fits them is inconceivable. The notion that a box that fits better for people who are not them and they can just stay in their misery box if they really want to is sacrilege.
By bringing in a box in the first place they have made the wingnut think about their own box. And making wingnuts think is the only crime we can reliably refer to as high treason!
McCullough and Hall use the long history of polygamy to shore up the naturalness of polyamory. It’s evolutionary biology, you see. Liberal religion can endorse it. In their whole piece they project such a cool, open-minded vibe and write in such soothing psychological terms,old-school vices become new-school virtues.
Yeahhhh, I’ll just let you read that whole article yourself and let it deliver the adequate burn for me.
In any case, since we humans are so bad at monogamy, other freely chosen relationship structures should also be supported.
Thanks guys for the assist!
Things are a little confusing for me, however.
Yes. Yes, you certainly are confused in a lot of ways.
Oh man, I am seriously enjoying watching his brain just overheating over the sheer novelty of learning to hate a new concept to him.
Polyamorists may not get married, but if they were to do so, apparently they would become polygamists of sorts. Yet it would not be limited to one heterosexual husband and four heterosexual wives as we see in Islam’s old-school polygamy. Instead, we’re entering a brave new world, so any combination of men and women and sexual orientation would do (e.g. four “husbands”).
Oh dear, you can just see the gears just grinding together here.
But… people can like marry all normal like and then consent to other partners in a way that makes a direct mockery of our bullshit arguments against gay marriage? Or people can form stable triads or quads or more without defaulting to abusive sexist systems where one collected property? The property themselves could have like multiple partners of their own and marry them? Uh uh… central system at critical levels, must enact emergency brain shutdown protocols, keyword muslim.
Despite the confusion right now, we would get used to their marriage, just as we’re getting used to SSM. “Progress” is inevitable.
I mean, seriously, why don’t all these minority populations have the good sense to shut up and disappear so that we can have all the time in the world to “evolve” at our own pace and adjust to the concepts being presented. And if that just happens to be until we die. And then after our children die. And their children… Well, then, that’s just the price you should have to pay for going against God’s poorly transcribed plan!
And yeah, rolling my eyes at the notion that we’ll even begin fighting for legal protections for long-term triads in our society any time soon. Thanks to the oh so “traditional” polygamous assholes gumming up the works, I don’t think you’d even get a majority of polyamorous people behind the notion right now.
Sadly, we probably have a lot of growing as a society especially about the non-property nature of women and protecting against marital abuse to do before we can really get wide-spread support for non-fucked-up poly marriages with real legal protections.
And that’s before getting to the point that we haven’t yet fully sown up universal marriage rights for two-person same-sex couples who want them (and yes, that is DEFINITELY the fight right now). Or even fully entrenched the expectation that marriage is a union of equals celebrating love not the purchasing of property.
In short, shit’s still got a long way to go before the “dark” future he’s decrying.
One gay activist who works hard at redefining marriage says the ultimate goal is to change society. “In the end we will have so remade society, it will have to adjust to us, because it will seem absurd not to.” Others say marriage has no essence, so we can “fiddle” with it as society evolves. Scholars rewrite the definitions in the trade dictionaries and encyclopedias to go with the muddy flow and establish new norms. Now the public has to catch up.
Oh, sorry, I interrupted your one-man pity parade with my sobering reality. No, I totally agree, having people acknowledge that you don’t actually own a legal concept because you bitch about the sanctity of words a lot is totally the worst oppression any group could possibly suffer. You poor dear, etc…
Further, to borrow a question from SSM advocates, how would polygamy or polyamory harm your individual traditional marriage?
Whether or not it harms an individual marriage is difficult to say, but here are some knotty issues to ponder:
I gotta say, it’s refreshing to see that they are as intellectually bankrupt on this argument as they are on the “SSM harms traditional marriage” argument.
Well, gosh, it turns out there’s pretty much nothing two or more consenting adults do to each other that can even remotely be argued harms my whiny little breeder marriage of convenience other than revealing the hollow lie of it…
Um, er… Engage bullshit mode, STAT!
The polyamorists want to get married at a Bed and Breakfast, privately owned by a crazy religious simpleton who advertizes for wedding parties. But he objects to the whole lifestyle (too irreligious and confusing) and denies them his own facility? Would he be sued?
And then they’ll steal his wife and take her off on a wild road trip leading to her having a pansexual polyamorous self-discovery.
Cause otherwise this has literally nothing to do with harming actual marriages and is just a barely rewritten twist on the whining self-martyring you assholes do when you’re not allowed to openly discriminate against minority groups with your private business or public facility.
And we both know you wouldn’t be doing that, right?
What about the employers providing the partners with insurance and incurring extra costs? Would insurance companies get sued if they denied them coverage? Would the employers?
Well I’m glad we sorted that out. I certainly feel better about this conversation now.
What about tax breaks if polyamorists have children? What about adoption? If a religious adoption agency said no, would it get sued for discrimination? Does polyamory produce a wholesome environment for the child? Apparently the polyamorists say yes. After all, one of the partners may already have a child, and now she lives with loving, built-in caretakers and babysitters. No need to hire strangers. Heather has two daddies and two mommies who “share” their love.
Yeah, see, that’s kinda the problem here.
People are already creating these familial structures and many times they are doing so from the base-point of legal protected marriages.
Sure, four person marriage with full legal parenting rights to each party may still be eons in the future away, but groups composed of one or more married couples and possible live-in partners who all contribute to the raising of children already happens.
And as the studies show, more hands on deck to pick up when one parent is stressed out is pretty much always a good thing. It’s a large reason why the dominant family model for ages was one in which multiple generations of a family lived under one roof all helping with the raising of the children.
Our newfangled isolated two-person nuclear family trying to do the best they can is a remarkably new invention and a pretty radical shift with regards to family model.
Also, am I the only one who is reading deep and bitter envy in this paragraph. The way he spits about those damn polyamorous people and their live-in babysitters right on hand at a moment’s notice. You just know he was recently asked by his overworked wife to change a single diaper while he was writing this and he’s grumbling the entire time about how polyamorous people don’t have to change diapers and they get to have sex with who they want and grrr, unfair!
Despite the confusion, this question still remains: since same-sex activists are redefining marriage in the law, how can we logically deny advocates of polygamy and polyamory their right to redefine it legally? If we did, we would be called “polyphobes.”
Dude, you’re right! We do need to start thinking up a term to describe people who reflexively and irrationally hate polyamorous people and are otherwise overprivileged bigoted assholes. Now that we’re starting to move into that phase, we’ll definitely need something to call you. Polyphobes is good, but we might be able to improve on it.
Hmm, monogamist…-ist? No that’s fucking stupid. Hmm, poly-ist, anti-poly… poly-cheese-monger… hmmm, if anybody in the comment thread has a better one, please throw it up. It’d be disappointing if this clown got to name our bigots for us.
The outcome of all these three nonconformist arrangements — SSM, polygamy, and polyamory – is a muddle, for now. It’s taking SSM some time to be acceptable; I imagine it will take polygamy and polyamorous marriage even more time. But we’ll be told it’s inevitable.
Yes, the future of SSM rights is totally up-in-the-air right now. Definitely. There could be a turn-around any day now for Team Homophobe, yup.
One Canadian judge recently concluded polygamy harms children, women, monogamy, and society. But another judge, even the U.S. Supreme Court, finding expert testimony like the scholars at AMJA, and citing a long history of polygamy, might redefine marriage in multiple ways because she (or they) believes a variety of nonconformist marriages would not harm anyone or society. Such marriages may even benefit society.That’s what we’re told by the elites like religiously conservative al-Qudah and al-Haj, and socially liberal McCullough and Hall, odd “bedfellows” who tear down traditional marriage.
As to SSM, we’ll find out in July 2013 what the Supreme Court will rule. I hope the court sends the issue back to the people. Activist judges open the floodgates to redefinitions with no end in sight. Any small clique that legally decides this issue for more than 310 million Americans puts democracy at risk.
… um. I should point out here that despite trying to muslim up the shit sandwich which is polygamy as a religious practice to try and bury the bodies, polygamy pretty much sucks and is the go-to argument for homophobes and … sigh… polyphobes alike entirely because it is traditional marriage.
It’s objectionable because it is super “traditional”. Because in those communities, women are viewed as property, men are viewed as the inherent head of the household, gender roles are enforced, and notions like love, consent, communication, and protections against abuse are often considered secondary at best.
Because these relationship structures most closely hew to the “traditional” structure that wingnuts bitch about preserving is the very thing that makes them a problematic subject to cover and will always make a discussion about extending legal protected family creation to polyamorous structures problematic.
How do we extend rights to relationships of consent and love without further allowing asshole groups who essentially run family cults to have a handy tax dodge and make it even easier for them to abuse the current system? How do we handle the way we as a society automatically connect extremely retrogressive polygamous communities with more open polyamorous communities? Should we limit rights and restrict communication simply because the unsavory nature of this ancillary group makes the subject a bit unpleasant?
And isn’t the disinfectant of sunlight important to destroy the notion of “traditional” marriages once and for all and ensure that consent, love, and desire for the creation of a legal family continue to become universal values of modern marriage?
All important questions that I doubt I’ll see an answer for in my life largely because assholes like this are willing to use more traditional than thou assholes they would be gleefully supporting any other day of the year as a cudgel against, as he said, “nonconformist arrangements”.
However, Obama not only endorses SSM, his administration refuses to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by the legislative and the executive branches, all elected by the people.And down the slippery slope we slide.
Are they fucking still on this goddamned whine about Obama not wasting government money on a doomed law?
You idiots do realize that it’s probably only the lack of a robust defense that’s protecting you from having a judicial or legislative level repeal of the law, right?
SSM activists have been battering down the door of Ye Old Institution of Traditional Marriage; therefore, the advocates of polygamy and polyamory are now taking up axes and sledge hammers.
~One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.~
Next come the wrecking ball and the professional demolition crew of politicians and judges.
While the demolition is going on, the whole edifice is sliding down the sloppy, slippery slope.
Muddy business, that.
Slippery slope! Oh god, please believe in the slippery slope. I mean, I went to all the effort of finding a minority group that might legitimately have a shot at being a “next in line” for rights due to legitimate grievances instead of the usual “man on bear” sidetracks, so it’s gotta work this time.
Oh Jimmy. Sadly, no!
But thanks, your research has created an important milestone for my people. One we will grow more and more to appreciate as you shift your resources from making LGB lives miserable into making poly and trans lives miserable.
~In the Ci-rcle!! The Circle of Str-i-i-i-fe!~
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. C’mon wingnuts, go for the gold. Asexuals are making a mockery of religious abstinence. Asexuals are failing to uphold their appropriate gender role in The Game. Asexual is just another word for nazi. Pick one! We are aware of all Internet traditions.™