ABC News Actively Promotes ‘Polyamory’ to Destroy Marriage

[gigi]

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.

Oh. An orgy then. Except they all really, really care about each other.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Oh. An orgy then. Except they all really, really care about each other.

That's why I avoid polyamory. I'm just too damned old to deal with the 24/7 sex.

 

[JV-12]

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

Hey, this has already been tried and true on "Full House." Everything worked real well on every episode. It's all good. We Christians just need to lighten up.

ps -- the jew media? as though the gentile media and hollywood are so much holier???

 

[Havelock]

Oh. An orgy then. Except they all really, really care about each other.

Ummm... No, not really... Here's the basic definition of "orgy:" A revel involving unrestrained indulgence, especially sexual activity. So you see, "orgy" describes an event; it certainly doesn't describe a relationship, in fact it implies nothing about any ongoing relationship among the participants.

You know, your misuse of language in this thread is really undermining your attempts at smug put downs. Just a piece of friendly advice...

Cheers!

 

[gigi]

Ummm... No, not really... Here's the basic definition of "orgy:" A revel involving unrestrained indulgence, especially sexual activity. So you see, "orgy" describes an event; it certainly doesn't describe a relationship, in fact it implies nothing about any ongoing relationship among the participants.

You know, your misuse of language in this thread is really undermining your attempts at smug put downs. Just a piece of friendly advice...

Cheers!

This arrangement you're talking about does involve unrestrained activity, and that does include sex. Group sex....an orgy. I think what you're considering to be my "attempts at smug put downs" is really just my refusal to "open" my mind to allow intellectual gymnastics that are intended to spin nonsense into an acceptable reality. Marriage is about two people. The commitment necessary for a marriage doesn't allow for more than one partner.
Change the number of partners involved then you have to change the nature and level of the commitment to each person involved into something other than a marriage commitment.

 

[NightSwimmer]

"The commitment necessary for a marriage doesn't allow for more than one partner."

Difficult then, to explain divorce and remarriage.



"Change the number of partners involved then you have to change the nature and level of the commitment to each person involved into something other than a marriage commitment."

I agree. A polyamorous relationship is quantitatively and qualitatively different from a monogamous relationship, regardless of whether it takes the form of a licensed marriage. I still suspect that maintaining a full time relationship would require more than sexual activity alone.

 

[Havelock]

This arrangement you're talking about does involve unrestrained activity, and that does include sex.

Well, looky there. It's yet another unsupported -- and demeaning -- assertion made in order to justify untested assumptions about others and to support untested assumptions about one's own moral superiority. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

Group sex....an orgy. I think what you're considering to be my "attempts at smug put downs" is really just my refusal to "open" my mind to allow intellectual gymnastics that are intended to spin nonsense into an acceptable reality.

No, you're pretty clearly indulging in attempts at smug put downs based on unchallenged judgements about others and yourself. But don't sell yourself short, you're a master at intellectual gymnastics. One of the best on these boards, in fact...

Marriage is about two people. The commitment necessary for a marriage doesn't allow for more than one partner.

And you base this conclusion on... what? I'm betting its another judgement lifted from the book of "Duh, it's obvious to all right-thinking people." Gotta love those...

Change the number of partners involved then you have to change the nature and level of the commitment to each person involved into something other than a marriage commitment.

Now that might be true in the sense that the nature and level of commitment required to sustain an intimate relationship among three or more individuals may be rather different than what's required to sustain a similar relationship between two partners. But of course you've offered us no reason other than your say so to think that the former can't properly be termed a "marriage."

Cheers.

 

[gigi]

"The commitment necessary for a marriage doesn't allow for more than one partner."

Difficult then, to explain divorce and remarriage.



"Change the number of partners involved then you have to change the nature and level of the commitment to each person involved into something other than a marriage commitment."

I agree. A polyamorous relationship is quantitatively and qualitatively different from a monogamous relationship, regardless of whether it takes the form of a licensed marriage. I still suspect that maintaining a full time relationship would require more than sexual activity alone.

What does divorce and remarriage have to do with it?

 

[gigi]

Well, looky there. It's yet another unsupported -- and demeaning -- assertion made in order to justify untested assumptions about others and to support untested assumptions about one's own moral superiority. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.



No, you're pretty clearly indulging in attempts at smug put downs based on unchallenged judgements about others and yourself. But don't sell yourself short, you're a master at intellectual gymnastics. One of the best on these boards, in fact...



And you base this conclusion on... what? I'm betting its another judgement lifted from the book of "Duh, it's obvious to all right-thinking people." Gotta love those...



Now that might be true in the sense that the nature and level of commitment required to sustain an intimate relationship among three or more individuals may be rather different than what's required to sustain a similar relationship between two partners. But of course you've offered us no reason other than your say so to think that the former can't properly be termed a "marriage."

Cheers.

Are polygamists polyamorous?

 

[Havelock]

Are polygamists polyamorous?

Which polygamists...? Polygamy being illegal everywhere in these United States, strictly speaking there are no polygamists in this country. So what comparison are you asking us to evaluate? I suppose that most folks who self identify as polyamorous would not identify with FLDS folks, or doctrinaire Muslims, or other such faith-based, authoritarian, and patriarchal polygamist systems. Yes, and...?

Cheers.

 

[gigi]

Which polygamists...? Polygamy being illegal everywhere in these United States, strictly speaking there are no polygamists in this country. So what comparison are you asking us to evaluate? I suppose that most folks who self identify as polyamorous would not identify with FLDS folks, or doctrinaire Muslims, or other such faith-based, authoritarian, and patriarchal polygamist systems. Yes, and...?

Cheers.

What do you mean "yes and?". I didn't ask you if it was legal or not. After reading your last post I only asked you.... Are polygamists polyamorous?
Do they experience the same feelings and needs and possess the same abilities toward marital commitment to multiple partners that the polyamorous of the top post do?

 

[Havelock]

What do you mean "yes and?". I didn't ask you if it was legal or not. After reading your last post I only asked you.... Are polygamists polyamorous?
Do they experience the same feelings and needs and possess the same abilities toward marital commitment to multiple partners that the polyamorous of the top post do?

And I answered you, didn't I? Assuming that "they" are the sorts of polygamists I mentioned in my last reply -- and I have to assume as you haven't clarified -- then I suppose that neither group tends to identify much with with the other and neither would say that their relationships are the same. As to feelings, needs, and abilities, well, we're all human, no? So for the most part I expect we all share the same basic feelings, needs, and abilities.

By "yes, and...?" I mean what's your point in asking the question? I think I know where you want to go with this, but it'd help if you'd be more forthcoming and specific.

Cheers.

 

[gigi]

And I answered you, didn't I? Assuming that "they" are the sorts of polygamists I mentioned in my last reply -- and I have to assume as you haven't clarified -- then I suppose that neither group tends to identify much with with the other and neither would say that their relationships are the same. As to feelings, needs, and abilities, well, we're all human, no? So for the most part I expect we all share the same basic feelings, needs, and abilities.

By "yes, and...?" I mean what's your point in asking the question? I think I know where you want to go with this, but it'd help if you'd be more forthcoming and specific.

Cheers.

Havelock I don't really want to go anywhere with this. I'm not all that invested in the issue beyond being amused by a couple of things about it and the PC spin on it.

I just wanted to know if you thought polygamists fit under the polyamorous definition or do you think they engage in polygamy as a religious requirement (or perk).

 

[Havelock]

Havelock I don't really want to go anywhere with this. I'm not all that invested in the issue beyond being amused by a couple of things about it and the PC spin on it.

Mmm hmm...

I just wanted to know if you thought polygamists fit under the polyamorous definition or do you think they engage in polygamy as a religious requirement (or perk).

All right then...

Cheers.

 

[NightSwimmer]

What does divorce and remarriage have to do with it?

You said; "The commitment necessary for a marriage doesn't allow for more than one partner."

If what you said were true, then people who marry would remain married, rather than divorcing and remarrying, would they not?

You give the appearance of being disgusted by the very thought of polygamy, and yet the only significant difference between polygamists and those who legally marry multiple spouses is a civil divorce agreement that violates the Christian ideal of marriage every bit as much as does polygamy. Even more so actually, if you base your ideal of marriage upon Biblical text, since many of the heroic characters of the Bible clearly practiced polygamy.

 

[gigi]

You said; "The commitment necessary for a marriage doesn't allow for more than one partner."

If what you said were true, then people who marry would remain married, rather than divorcing and remarrying, would they not?

You give the appearance of being disgusted by the very thought of polygamy, and yet the only significant difference between polygamists and those who legally marry multiple spouses is a civil divorce agreement that violates the Christian ideal of marriage every bit as much as does polygamy. Even more so actually, if you base your ideal of marriage upon Biblical text, since many of the heroic characters of the Bible clearly practiced polygamy.

Divorce occurs when one or both of the parties decide they don't want to be committed to the other....and often enough, because there's a third party involved....a love interest outside the marriage for one of them. By that fact, divorce alone shows what marriage is.

And why is it that the folks who find the Bible to be a work of fiction are always the first to bring it up? For me, my opinion about this has nothing to do with the Bible.
If a group of people want to set up home and live together, fine for them. Consenting adults and all. If they want to call it marriage, that's their business. They can call it whatever they like. And no, I'm not disgusted by it. But what is amusing is the reaction of the PC crowd when the rest of us don't forget everything we know to be true, and won't forget the definitions we've understood and experienced all our lives, in order to jump on board with the lingo because some other people want some words to mean something else now. That makes us judgemental and morally superior, etc....

 

[NightSwimmer]

Divorce occurs when one or both of the parties decide they don't want to be committed to the other....and often enough, because there's a third party involved....a love interest outside the marriage for one of them. By that fact, divorce alone shows what marriage is.

And why is it that the folks who find the Bible to be a work of fiction are always the first to bring it up? For me, my opinion about this has nothing to do with the Bible.
If a group of people want to set up home and live together, fine for them. Consenting adults and all. If they want to call it marriage, that's their business. They can call it whatever they like. And no, I'm not disgusted by it. But what is amusing is the reaction of the PC crowd when the rest of us don't forget everything we know to be true, and won't forget the definitions we've understood and experienced all our lives, in order to jump on board with the lingo because some other people want some words to mean something else now. That makes us judgemental and morally superior, etc....

You know the truth©, but you aren't in any way bigoted because of your possession of that special knowledge. I understand.

 

[Havelock]

[...] But what is amusing is the reaction of the PC crowd when the rest of us don't forget everything we know to be true, and won't forget the definitions we've understood and experienced all our lives, in order to jump on board with the lingo because some other people want some words to mean something else now. That makes us judgemental and morally superior, etc....

No, what makes you nastily judgmental are precisely your unsupported claims of moral superiority, your unwavering belief that you know The Truth, and your smug put downs of those who don't hold to your particular moral code. This ain't rocket science.

Cheers.