Sliding towards polyamorous ‘marriage’


It was clear during and following the public discussion of gay ‘marriage’ that there was no in-principle argument among the majority of its proponents that could present a stumbling block for polyamorous ‘marriage’. If people could not recognize that marriage was a union of the opposite sexes, given its ends, how could they further recognize it was also an exclusive union?

So it’s not surprising that the Economist, no less, is gently suggesting, in much the same way it and other outlets did re gay ‘marriage’, that polyamourous arrangements face discrimination, are misunderstood, and so on. There is, of course, an acknowledgement that marriage is in many respects institutionally inapt for polyamorous arrangements,

Triads and quads are what Laura Boyle, a relationship coach, calls “poster-child polyamory”: comprehensible to monogamous people who can grasp the concept of a closed unit living together. In fact networks are often more complicated, represented by v- and n-shaped configurations that don’t imply mutual attraction among several people. Ms Boyle lives separately from her three partners; she co-parents with her ex and his wife. She calls polyamorous people “folks with a scheduling kink” and thinks they are more willing to accept some fluidity in their relationships, for which marriage is a poor framework,

but the recognition is nevertheless sort in order to obtain the tax, workplace, health care, immigration benefits and the like that marriage affords. What is often missed in these discussions is that marriage includes these benefits because the institution itself was understood as a public good and thus worth promoting through these benefits, not because of its benefits to individuals. It’s not clear at all that these relationships (polyamorous, gay, and so on) that fall outside of the nature and form of marriage confer the same or similar public goods typically associated with it.

But this will likely be ignored, and the focus will be on whatever ‘discrimination’ is faced by those that want to engage in polyamorous arrangements. This will be the case both at the juridical and political level. The only likely impediment is the absence at present of a victim class. Gay ‘marriage’ was aided by the category of ‘sexual identity’, there ‘homosexual’; whereas, polyamorous arrangements can involve hetero/ homo/ bi- sexual individuals. Of course, given the propensity to multiply the number of sexual identities by the variety of sexual inclinations, there is nothing to stop the creation of the sexual identity ‘polysexual’; in fact, it is already with us.

The only way to stop and reverse this slide is to ask what marriage is for, and any failure to do so allows for the continued dissolution of marriage as a meaningful institution, which may be the point.

, ,

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

53 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dunny Brush
Dunny Brush
January 16, 2023 2:52 pm

I grew up with a bunch of kids whose parents were Sri Rajneeshis and involved in polyamory and constant sex parties. Pretty much all of the kids went off the rails and so did their parents when the party stopped. That said, the left have already killed marriage. Traditional religions should come up with a new name for conventional unions and carry on. Frankly I don’t care if the gubbermint thinks I’m married or not. It’s now meaningless.

Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare
Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare
January 16, 2023 2:55 pm

Correct, Dover. Marriage between a man and a woman based on the birth and raising of children is a foundational institution of any society. When it devolves to a network of arrangements then social stability is at risk. If individuals prefer to make these arrangements then they should be prepared to live with the disruptive nature of them, bear the expense involved personally, and not seek societal assistance in furthering their choices. To provide such assistance would, as you note, further diminish the original institution to the net disadvantage of children, who need stability rather than confusion in their daily lives.

wal1957
wal1957
January 16, 2023 2:58 pm

Gay “marriage” was always a no for me for the simple reason that the word “marriage” applies to a union between a man and a woman.
Spool forward x number of years and now the “experts”…
Can’t define a woman
Cannot see any problem with “transwomen” competing against women (even though they can’t define a woman)
Cannot see any problem with housing “transwomen” prisoners in a female prison -(at least 3 documented rapes by “transwomen” have occurred)
etc
etc
The list is endless.
The F’wits calling for these changes should all be neutered, hung and quartered, and then the burial plot published so I can p!$$ on their graves at my leisure.

Morsie
Morsie
January 16, 2023 3:17 pm

Muslims will be happy

Cassie of Sydney
January 16, 2023 3:23 pm

Ah yes, the “slippery slope”. With every argument, be it abortion, SSM, and euthanasia, progressives always accuse us on the right, when we right rightly warn about the “slippery slope”, that we’re engaging in hyperbole and scare mongering. But you see, we’re not, because we know what the left is up to, we know how the left operate. We can accurately predict the obvious and on every single issue we’re proven right because it is always the cause that progressives are never ever happy with the status quo, no, they must push, push, and push. Why do they do this? Because progressivism has no moral or ethical boundaries.

Abortion = supposed to be “safe, legal and rare” = in most Australian states abortion* is allowed just prior to birth, and we’ll soon see the murder of infants post-birth.

SSM = as soon as the age old notion that marriage is only between a man and woman was trashed, we now see the push to legalise “polyamory”. Unsurprising, all part of the slippery slope.
And of course, since the legalisation of SSM, we now have the rise of the sinister cult of “transgenderism and its tenets, which involve the mutilation of children by cutting of their breasts and their penises. What next? Well it’s already happening, the push to normalise pedophilia by quaintly referring to it as “minor attracted people”.

Euthanasia = look no further than Belgian and the Netherlands where children are now being euthanised. And Canada, a disgrace, people are choosing euthanasia because they have depression.

What next? Gulags? Umm, it’s not so absurd. The left now control everything, from the MSM to the police. In the UK and even here in Victoria, the left are already using their goons in the police to intimidate and arrest people for wrong-think. Forget about arresting a person for knife crime, far better (and easier) to arrest someone for posting a tweet on transgenderism that doesn’t conform to the progressive paradigm.

* and worth remembering that legal abortion right up to birth was ushered in, here in NSW and in SA, by supposed Liberal governments.

Kneel
Kneel
January 16, 2023 3:52 pm

“…SSM = as soon as the age old notion that marriage is only between a man and woman was trashed,…”

It started before then – first it was “we just want homosexuality to be legal – why should we be punished, we’re not hurting anyone!”, then changed to “We just want equality”, then changed to “You should celebrate us!”, then changed to “We should be able to use the same words”.

The first 2 I am OK with – life your life as you see fit, if you’re not hurting anyone else, I don’t care.
The rest is BAD – I do NOT need or want to “celebrate” your “unusualness” – and I use that word for a reason, since saying you are “not normal” is apparently a problem. So OK, you are “unusual” instead.
In that, it is “usual” (ie, most common, and most likely any random person will be) heterosexual (and probably monogamous as well).

And words have meanings – if you change what words mean, you inhibit communications between people. That results in fights that can’t be resolved because the words you use mean different things to each side. That’s why the left does it – so GovCo can come in and “fix” what doesn’t need fixing. English is very flexible – if you need a new word, create one!

Old Lefty
Old Lefty
January 16, 2023 4:52 pm

The BBC, which is pretty woke these days, had to report between its teeth recently on the results of the recent UK census. There was, for the first time, a question on sexual orientation. And guess what? The proportion of the population that self-identified as LGBTQI+ was 1.5 percent. Yes, not ten percent plus as they like to claim, but ONE point five. The proportion into ‘polyamory’ would likely be even less. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

The need for regular families comes down to biology. We have by far the longest need for nurturing of any animal before we can function independently: apart from the physical vulnerability of children (we don’t have furry hides or thick scales and need to use adult intelligence instead), think of the complexity of acquiring language, let alone a secure sense of identity. Hence the need for stable and committed families.

One of Richard Dawkins’ most annoying traits, by the way, is his refusal to let the logic of biology get in the way of his religiophobic prejudices. I gather he is not on speaking terms with his own daughter.

Wally Dalí
Wally Dalí
January 16, 2023 5:11 pm

Allow me to Tap The Sign-
It isn’t hard- they want a godless, parentless, wealthless mass of scatamanic proles to rule over.

duncanm
duncanm
January 16, 2023 5:29 pm

allows for the continued dissolution of marriage as a meaningful institution, which may be the point.

I think we’re already there.

Get the state out of recognising the institution of marriage and we may have a solution.

Boambee John
Boambee John
January 16, 2023 5:50 pm

What state benefits (tax, welfare) are available to those married, that are not also available to those in de facto relationships. hetero or homo?

If the state does not provide specific recognition to those in hetero marriages, raising children, what point is there in state recognition? Get your union blessed by whichever you prefer, and announce to the state that you are a de facto couple. Ignore the register of marriages.

Boambee John
Boambee John
January 16, 2023 6:27 pm

by whichever religion you prefer …

bespoke
bespoke
January 16, 2023 8:12 pm

What are these public benefits?
Why can’t a de facto relationship provide them?

The religious angle to this is neither here nor there.

Sure!

Roger
Roger
January 16, 2023 8:27 pm

I’ll go out on a limb here…

Demographics will see that we (at least in Australia) return to traditional marriage.

Boambee John
Boambee John
January 16, 2023 8:40 pm

Dover

It was always thoroughly stupid and short-sighted doing so anyway re de facto marriage. The whole point of providing these benefits is to channel people into marriage because of the public benefits that accrue therein. The rationale for those benefits were never private, they were public.

And

The religious angle to this is neither here nor there.

Those benefits will never be taken back, there is no government that would even try. That leaves only the alternative as to separate the religious aspect from the state aspect.

Cassie of Sydney
January 16, 2023 8:40 pm

“I’ll go out on a limb here…

Demographics will see that we (at least in Australia) return to traditional marriage.”

Not a limb. I think you’re right and not just in Oz…but also in the UK and France.

duncanm
duncanm
January 16, 2023 8:44 pm

If you think marriage is a public good, that it actually delivers tangible benefits to society, then you need the state to recognize marriage.

as others have suggested, de-facto recognition already covers (I think) everything at the legal level.

The public good is limited to stable families — I’m not sure marriage (of any form) improves a child’s lot these days.

bespoke
bespoke
January 16, 2023 8:46 pm

Typically not as stable

How do you know?
Like stats or is it assumption?

Also, you want the couple to publicly make their declaration

Mine was private like most.

bespoke
bespoke
January 16, 2023 9:06 pm

I referring to the ceremony, Dover. Infront family and friends. Registering was just a formaty. It ment nothing to owe comment.

bespoke
bespoke
January 16, 2023 9:10 pm

formality

Louis Litt
January 16, 2023 10:06 pm

Marriage is coming back. The effect of feminism has come the full 360.
In the media articles are being written that girls should only have sex with boys they want to have children with.
Meaning in a Church to me is meaningful, from the friends , family, to the community you live in and out through the cosmos – the whole universe – it means something.
Outside the Regular church going families growing up in the 70s, the notion of family seemed to mean not much.
Ask where the brother ect was – I don’t know, or the one I remember was I could go to a boozy night out due to a feast day – you Catholics – you and your families.
It’s coming back. Talk to females to a pointed part of a conversation about ssm and quite a number will blurt out it’s disgusting or that homosexual behaviour in nature is treated as freaks – talk to horsie girls

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 4:19 am

So it was public, bespoke.

No

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 4:42 am

External expectations can couse trouble for couples as it is without the the state butting in. Remember the last time a state did that? Hint: it was in Europe in twentieth century .

duncanm
duncanm
January 17, 2023 5:50 am

Sure, but the studies indicate de facto relationships lack the stability of marriage.

Ok, I believe that, but correlation is not causation.

If there were no state recognition of marriage, I think those who entered marriage solely under the umbrella of religion would be more stable.

Gerry Jackson
Gerry Jackson
January 17, 2023 8:52 am

Homosexual ‘marriage’ was the first step in the left’s campaign to abolish both marriage and the family as institutions.

duncanm
duncanm
January 17, 2023 9:11 am

Homosexual ‘marriage’ was the first step in the left’s campaign to abolish both marriage and the family as institutions.

which is exactly why families, and the church, need to take back marriage from the state.

duncanm
duncanm
January 17, 2023 10:38 am

You can provide plausible explanations for the correlation. People can fall into de facto relationships, whereas people in de jure relationships enter into them intentionally, make vows to each other, and so on.

precisely. Those that marry are generally more serious about it, whereas defacto is often just a default setting for couples in a relationship.

My point is that the *state institution of marriage* (signing up at the registry) didn’t create a more stable relationship, it was the public statement of commitment (ceremony in front of family and peers) which did it.

Dissolving a legal marriage is easy these days – or should I say dissolving a de-facto relationship is just as hard.

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 1:17 pm

You conducted it in front of family and friends. You registered it. It satisfied the forms of marriage which is why your guests understood what the event entailed and so on. It was thus public.

Rubbish. You’re looking for an excuse to put conditions acting though the state. It was a private ceremony invitation only owe commitment was between us not you or the state.

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 1:51 pm

Well what are getting at Dover?
Is it because we invited guest that makes it public?
Ridiculous!

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 1:57 pm

The conditions are between me and my wife.

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 2:49 pm

Sure, beyond the basic conditions that make the relationship ‘marriage’, entirely up to both of you to decide who takes the garbage out, cooks dinner, etc.

And weather we choose to have kids.
Look if women want to lay back and do it for King and country or go into an an arranged marriage as has been suggested go for it. Only as long as it’s for themselves not! My granddaughter or little sister.

Zyconoclast
Zyconoclast
January 17, 2023 3:39 pm

Social security and multiple relationships

Social security law recognises that a person can be in a de facto relationship with more than one person at a time. These are termed ‘multiple relationships’. An assessment as to whether a person is a member of a couple is conducted in respect of each relationship.

Members of a multiple relationship would receive the partnered rate of payment which is lower than the single rate. For example, the basic single Newstart Allowance rate is currently $528.70 per fortnight while the member of a couple rate is $477.40 per fortnight.

Members of a multiple relationship are also considered partnered for the purposes of the income and assets tests. Each person’s income and assets are assessed against the income and assets of each of their partners and the lowest rate payable is applied.

A reader
A reader
January 17, 2023 4:23 pm

That quote is awful. Who in their right mind would use the words polyamorous and Child in the same sentence?

Given marriage is a committed relationship between a man and a woman at the exclusion of all others the term polyamorous marriage is an oxymoron.

It reminds me of a quote I swlaw recently that said “ethically non-monagamous” is a term invented by people who sleep around but have a guilt conscience

bespoke
bespoke
January 17, 2023 5:33 pm

Just because that is the primary end of marriage, institutionally, doesn’t mean that all individual couples are compelled as a matter of law to have them. All that the form of marriage requires therein is that the relationship involves the opposite sexes.

indubitably.

Now if you expect the state to dictate what is marriage then you’ll be legally bound to accept its interpretation. Take that power away you are free to accept or not., simple.

DrBeauGan
DrBeauGan
January 19, 2023 9:22 pm

I don’t expect the state to ‘dictate’ what marriage is; I want it to recognize and acknowledge what marriage is because it is an important public institution.

You have higher expectations of those running the state than I do, dover. You want them to ask themselves what marriage is for. I don’t believe they are capable of contemplating societal functioning. They ask themselves only what will get them votes from the other unthinking.

  1. interesting. She obviously takes care of the weapon and practices, like maybe one day my life could depend on it.

  2. But all the civilians running the other way don’t have a glock on their hip. That’s the problem.No problem just…

  3. Did the Israelis think they could attack the Iranian embassy in Damascus without triggering a response? The Israelis didn’t attack…

  4. Some images of the church attack by the muzzie including one of him smirking while being held down: BREAKING: Another…

53
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x