And Why the Reference to Polyamory today?

Well, for one thing, did you know there is a show on television on this subject going into its second season? (I refuse to provide the link [but I bet you knew it was on cable]).

For another thing, guess what one of the current issue of the Washingtonian’s feature articles this month is?

“Married, but not Exclusive.
For some couples, one relationship is not enough. By Brooke Lea Foster….”

And it includes content such as the following:

Polyamorists don’t think monogamy is wrong; they simply believe it’s not for everyone. But hearing “poly” couples speak of monogamy is like listening to an ex-con reflect on his years in prison….

Aldous Huxley, call your office…KSH.


Posted in * Culture-Watch, --Polyamory, Marriage & Family, Men, Psychology, Sexuality, Urban/City Life and Issues, Women

7 comments on “And Why the Reference to Polyamory today?

  1. Br. Michael says:

    It’s coming. Those pushing homosexual marriage have no argument against it. Nor do the secular jurists. Once you move from one man and one woman all options (anything that anyone can think of) are on the table. Where is the line drawn? Who knows.

    What should the state recognize? The answer will be nothing. Homosexual marriage does not expand marriage, it ends it.

  2. sophy0075 says:

    Coming soon to a General Convention near you…

  3. QohelethDC says:

    [i]Where is the line drawn? Who knows.[/i]

    Wasn’t the line against polyamory drawn centuries ago in the Judeo-Christian tradition? Presumably there were good reasons for doing so. Wouldn’t those reasons still be valid today?

  4. Sarah1 says:

    RE: “Wouldn’t those reasons still be valid today?”

    Oh sure — for people who care about the Judeo-Christian tradition. But rather obviously that’s not those who support giving faux “marriages” for those with one particular, currently faddish, minority sexual attraction or another, less faddish, minority sexual attraction.

  5. Jim the Puritan says:

    CNN testing the waters:

    “Monogamy: Who needs it?”

  6. Don R says:

    Maybe not testing, but rather [i]preparing[/i].

  7. Bill Matz says:

    Justice Scalia already predicted this in Lawrence v. Texas. No rational basis to exclude other preferences.