New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

ABC News Actively Promotes ‘Polyamory’ to Destroy Marriage

Posted by: Dean Chambers Posted date: December 01, 2013 In: News, Opinion
Google +

ABC News promotes “polyamory”

Earlier this past week, ABC News promoted the notion of further redefining of marriage to include one person having multiple partners, what is referred to as “polyamory.” While the term “polygamy” is defined by Wikipedia as one having more than one spouse, the term “polyamory” is more broad than that, in includes relationships between any number of men and women.

This past week, ABC News abandoned any claim of objective journalism and engaged in advocacy reporting to promote “polyamory” during its so-called news broadcast.

Writing about the ABC News report for Breitbart News, Williams Bigelow observed, “First the mainstream media championed gay marriage; now they are clearly out to destroy traditional marriage with a vengeance.”

Dan Harris, Co-anchor of the ABC News program, said, “Just for a minute, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point.”

Harris then further filled in the details, saying, “More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children.”

The media has been promoting the agenda of same-sex marriage and other efforts to redefine marriage for quite some time. Nick Watt, reporting for ABC News, perhaps quite candidly noted the true agenda of the report, saying, “They’re spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.”

That is exactly what this report was all about. It wasn’t news, there wasn’t anything new to report that some support such a redefining of marriage to the point where almost everything and anything of a relationship could be called a marriage, which is ultimately the destroying of real marriage. This was advocacy reporting intended to change people’s minds and thinking about this divisive social issue.

Harris even confirmed the real agenda behind this push, asking the question “Is this the end of marriage as we know it?”

It is not the end of marriage “as we know it,” if society comes to accept this degree of redefining of marriage, it is the end of marriage entirely. The far left, with their willing accomplices in the so-called mainstream media, are seeking to bring about moral decay at record speed.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
My marriage is doing just fine, thank you.

What is it that you desire? Should all Americans be mandated to engage in monogamous, heterosexual marriage? What about divorce? Should we go back to the Biblical standard of outlawing divorce as well?
 
My marriage is doing just fine, thank you.

What is it that you desire? Should all Americans be mandated to engage in monogamous, heterosexual marriage? What about divorce? Should we go back to the Biblical standard of outlawing divorce as well?


Its the breakdown of civilization and society. Thank the jew media and hollywood who promote homosexuality and the rest of this crap
 

Ben Arnold

Council Member
I was.in denial, hoping this would not happen. But it seems Gays marrying was the tip of the iceberg, which when the dominoes fall like this, it's clear that non traditional marriage is a gateway ceremony, to marriages destroyed like this disgusting promotion of poly marriage, in news drag that leaves me no choice but divorce, since I am not going to subject myself to texting, dating and trying to get her to pay half without bein obvious, time and time again, now that one woman married to me isn't politically correct and i need two, then three, then four, because once mariage changes, they'll keep changing it. So it's piointless. My perfect marriage is junk. And depending on how the blood tests come back, I could wind up buried in interest, due to child support, because Liberals destroyed my perfect family, to get votes, so their state union can keep some deadbeat on my payroll, chasing me around and hounding me for money, when Liberals and unions is why my blood relations, pending retesting have been taken from me.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Posted by: Dean Chambers Posted date: December 01, 2013 In: News, Opinion
Google +

ABC News promotes “polyamory”

Earlier this past week, ABC News promoted the notion of further redefining of marriage to include one person having multiple partners, what is referred to as “polyamory.” While the term “polygamy” is defined by Wikipedia as one having more than one spouse, the term “polyamory” is more broad than that, in includes relationships between any number of men and women.

This past week, ABC News abandoned any claim of objective journalism and engaged in advocacy reporting to promote “polyamory” during its so-called news broadcast.

Writing about the ABC News report for Breitbart News, Williams Bigelow observed, “First the mainstream media championed gay marriage; now they are clearly out to destroy traditional marriage with a vengeance.”

Dan Harris, Co-anchor of the ABC News program, said, “Just for a minute, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s set aside all of the emotion and consider whether the evangelists for open marriage might have a point.”

Harris then further filled in the details, saying, “More couples opting to become triples or fourples. Live-in lovers spicing up the marital bed, even helping raise the children.”

The media has been promoting the agenda of same-sex marriage and other efforts to redefine marriage for quite some time. Nick Watt, reporting for ABC News, perhaps quite candidly noted the true agenda of the report, saying, “They’re spreading the gospel of polyamory, hoping to speed up societal acceptance of this kind of set-up.”

That is exactly what this report was all about. It wasn’t news, there wasn’t anything new to report that some support such a redefining of marriage to the point where almost everything and anything of a relationship could be called a marriage, which is ultimately the destroying of real marriage. This was advocacy reporting intended to change people’s minds and thinking about this divisive social issue.

Harris even confirmed the real agenda behind this push, asking the question “Is this the end of marriage as we know it?”

It is not the end of marriage “as we know it,” if society comes to accept this degree of redefining of marriage, it is the end of marriage entirely. The far left, with their willing accomplices in the so-called mainstream media, are seeking to bring about moral decay at record speed.
I've always thought one wife wasn't really enough, especially when she works 60 hours a week. One to clean, one to cook, one to work, one to raise the children. :)

On the other hand, think of all the people with jobs and company sponsored health care that will marry multiple spouses just so they get free benefits.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
On the other hand, think of all the people with jobs and company sponsored health care that will marry multiple spouses just so they get free benefits.

Heh!

Reminds me of that commercial in which the Brand X credit card holder celebrates his (or her) genius in purchasing lunch for the entire office every day or providing concert tickets to every kid in the neighborhood.

Little do they know that he (or she) is accumulating bonus points on their Brand X card for making all of these purchases.

One should never underestimate the stupidity of the American public. ;)
 

Havelock

Mayor
I love it! The essence of this complaint could have been lifted from a 1890s diatribe against “The New Woman.” Social decline! Immorality! Iniquity! Satanic agendas!

Mercy! I'd best to lie down for a moment.

Whew, that's better.

Now then, just a couple of thoughts...

First, just because there's a report on this or that “lifestyle” that fails to condemn those being reported on as demonic spawn of Hell who are out to defile all that is holy and good doesn't imply that the report is therefore an effort to “actively endorse” that group's beliefs or behavior – no matter how outrageously immoral some believe that “lifestyle” to be. Sometimes it's okay to put information out there without prejudgment. Really, it is.

Second, the idea that there has been some sort of “plot” by progressives to advance an “anything goes” agenda is laughable. Now, it is true that progressives as a whole are no better than they ought to be when it comes to thinking through the logic of their ethics and impartially following that logic to its natural conclusions. As a result, social conservatives have over the years had a number of opportunities to indulge in bouts of “I told you so!”, such as when acknowledging basic Gay rights led inexorably to recognizing same-sex marriage.

The fact is, though, that the vast majority of those '70s Gay rights folks who insisted that they had no intention of seeking a right to same-sex marriage were being completely sincere. Either they didn't see where things were likely to go or else they couldn't believe that society would move that far, that fast. At any given point in time most progressives honestly believe that we're “just about there”, just as most social conservatives believe we're “just over the line.” The line shifts, but not as a result of any great conspiracy of liberal puppet masters.

Besides, at any particular point in time one can always find a healthy number of progressives who do want to push for a more far-seeing vision. And they're usually fairly vocal about it, if only one listens. The first challenge to same-sex marriage bans reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971, after all. No one is keeping any secrets.

Finally, and this is the most important point, we have a tolerably well established tradition in this country of requiring that laws that have a disparate impact on this or that group or even individual must have at least a so-called rational basis. We're not perfect about upholding that tradition, Lord knows. And we still quibble a bit about what constitutes a “rational basis.” But one thing we've pretty much settled upon is that “God says it's a sin” doesn't by itself constitute a rational basis. Ever.

So, if one wishes to argue that polyamory, or whatever, is just awful and nasty and ought not to be countenanced by decent folks, one can invoke divine displeasure however one likes. But if one wishes to argue that it's fine for the state to legally disadvantage polyamorous individuals, for example, then it behooves one to come up with something more than “it's iniquitous.” One needs a reason that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest and is compelling enough to justify the discrimination imposed. And one needs a real reason, not something like, “Gay marriage is bad because them nasty homos just want more opportunities to give everyone the AIDS!”

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
My marriage is doing just fine, thank you.

What is it that you desire? Should all Americans be mandated to engage in monogamous, heterosexual marriage? What about divorce? Should we go back to the Biblical standard of outlawing divorce as well?

Marriage is suppose to be with a man and a woman. God Created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Marriage is suppose to be with a man and a woman. God Created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.
I don't have a problem with same sex unions, just don't use the word marriage to describe them. Look up the word marriage in the dictionary its between a man and a woman. Same sex unions should want to come up with their own word that represents what they are and be proud of the new word.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Yes, you have a problem. You simply aren't willing to admit it.
How so?

What is your definition of marriage?

Why would anyone want to change that?

When someone says they are married and their spouse isn't present, a person knows that it means a man and a woman. When someone says they are married and their spouse is the same sex as them, how do you know if they are married to a man or a woman?

Seems like a new word should be invented.

But I am open to listening to what you believe, just please refrain from telling me what I believe.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
How so?

What is your definition of marriage?

Marriage is a legally binding contract.

Why would anyone want to change that?

Nobody does.

When someone says they are married and their spouse isn't present, a person knows that it means a man and a woman. When someone says they are married and their spouse is the same sex as them, how do you know if they are married to a man or a woman?

Ask them?

Seems like a new word should be invented.

Why?

But I am open to listening to what you believe, just please refrain from telling me what I believe.

Your own words do a fine job of expressing your beliefs. It is likely that they perform this task more efficiently than you, yourself realize.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Your dodge on stating your personal beliefs on the subject are noted.

Can you not support gay union contracts but still be against the word marriage to describe them?

I am asking because I've never spent two seconds thinking about this like you have.

Do all gays believe the word marriage should be redefined?

I can't ask because I don't know any that are married or want to get married. My realestate agent is gay and a friend from work, also my wifes managers.

It feels like your being an ass.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
Your dodge on stating your personal beliefs on the subject are noted.

Can you not support gay union contracts but still be against the word marriage to describe them?

I am asking because I've never spent two seconds thinking about this like you have.

Do all gays believe the word marriage should be redefined?

I can't ask because I don't know any that are married or want to get married. My realestate agent is gay and a friend from work, also my wifes managers.

It feels like your being an ass.

"Marriage" is not a theological term. It is a legal term that describes a legally binding contract that spells out property and custodial rights, among other things, for those who enter said contract.

The word "marriage" appears thousands of times in various federal and state statutes. Is it your proposition that every one of these legal documents should be amended to say "marriage, or gay marriage" so you won't be bothered by the icky feeling that you get from calling a gay couple's marriage a "marriage"?

Which word do you propose as an alternative for these second-class marriages?
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
"Marriage" is not a theological term. It is a legal term that describes a legally binding contract that spells out property and custodial rights, among other things, for those who enter said contract.

The word "marriage" appears thousands of times in various federal and state statutes. Is it your proposition that every one of these legal documents should be amended to say "marriage, or gay marriage" so you won't be bothered by the icky feeling that you get from calling a gay couple's marriage a "marriage"?

Which word do you propose as an alternative for these second-class marriages?
You said "you won't be bothered by the icky feeling that you get from calling a gay couple's marriage a "marriage"?"

I would rather not take advice on gay marriage from someone who gets an "icky feeling" when talking about it.

It sounds like you have some deep seeded issues about it.

There is a search and replace function on computers these days for issues like this, but you are right, it isn't worth the money and massive amounts of goverment work hours to fix it, so I'm good with it being called marriage.

How is the same sex marriage consumated? Or is consumation no longer a legal part of the marriage becoming a legal binding contract?

I am asking, because I don't know.
 

fairsheet

Senator
On this topic, my state has just outlawed "civil unions" (with a few exceptions)! How red-hateful is THAT! Same-sexers in my state, may no longer form civil unions!

Of course...this move came post our legislating marriage equality, rendering civil unions superfluous.
 

Havelock

Mayor
Polyamory......didn't that used to be called "swinging"?
Ummm... No, not really... "Swinging" most commonly implies that one or both of the partners in a marriage openly engages in relatively short-term liaisons with multiple third persons, often in the context of organized "mate swapping" activities. On the other hand, "polyamory" usually implies a committed relationship among three or more individuals. That's a notably different arrangement, don't you think? Not to say that there couldn't be "swinging" polyamorists...

Cheers.
 
Top