Politico Embraces Polyamorist Marriages



Politico writer Fredrik DeBoer wants to know why Progressives aren’t pushing to legalize Polygamy. He sees it as the “next advance” and since love is no longer “driven by gender alone” he wants to know why anyone would limit it to two individuals.

The moral reasoning is “as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage,” he claims. Since they are accepting that “everyone has the right to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose,” why can’t it be formalized.

One has to wonder if he is referring to pedophilia. Sure, why not, since we don’t have any morals or absolutes, that will work too.

In his warped thought process, DeBoer reduces marriage is a “defensive system” meant only to protect certain interests.

This is a man who has no concept of love or any idea of the need to establish limits. The fact that Politico posted it certainly says something about the direction the leftists will go in next.

Since Polyamory is a fact, then they must of course have the “same basic recognition” we grant to others, he insists – it’s a “right”.

Mr. DeBoer thinks the only argument for marriage is that it’s always been that way.

The article states rightly, “But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means.”

He’s right and Conservatives were right. It’s the slippery slope and now that it has come to pass, how does the Supreme Court not give the same right to these odd couples? Conservatives always knew the push would continue until anything goes.

De Boer says, It no longer makes sense to put off the acceptance of marriage for polygamists. “It’s time to legalize polygamists,” he claims.

The American family, the backbone of our country, is being destroyed. The welfare of children and women in a pluralistic marriage will NOT be protected.

The psychologist Joseph Henrich has pointed out that the two-parent family “best ensures that men and women are treated with equal dignity and respect” and is most likely to engender a spirit of mutuality in the family; polygynous families, by contrast, tilt in a heavily patriarchal direction less conducive to liberal virtues like equality and independence.”

In 2012, far-left Slate argued against plural marriages and used it to condemn Romney’s religion – they said it’s “awful”. Monogamous marriages reduce crime, they contended. They also quoted cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich’s writings that state polygamy as an institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody. They also pointed out that these relationships are more about power

In 2013, a New York Times editorial also argued against it.

How much do you want to bet that they will soon change their tune?

Marriage is about commitment, not a formalization of deviant sexual behavior so the deviants can all receive benefits.

If anything, this movement to redefine marriage as anything goes should solidify the real purpose and meaning of traditional marriage.

Justice Kennedy not only redefined marriage and came up with a new “right”, he, according to the leftists at Mother Jones, embraced the leftist concept of a “living Constitution.” A reading of Kennedy’s opinion seems to verify their reading.

If you google “polyamory” and check out google images, you will find disgusting porn. That’s what we are headed for – legalized orgies.

In fact, Masha Gessen, a radical anti-marriage activist, explained it quite clearly. Going one step at a time is mere political pragmatism because the goal has always been to destroy the institution of marriage. One can presume that she doesn’t speak for normal gay people but she speaks for the people the normal gays have allowed to speak for them.



Source: Politico

  • “love is no longer “driven by gender alone” ………The guy is a babbling idiot. Love was never driven by gender. I loved my Dad and my Mother. But this is what these people do. They conflate, they take out of context, they mix metaphors, they redefine, they cry and weep and moan and dramatize. One of the most trite and overworked and non-sequiturish exclamations is “You shouldn’t be discriminated against because of who you love.” You AREN’T, liar. You can love your fellow man all you want to, you just can’t sodomize him in public.

  • If the Welfare State can remove all traditional, sexual morality from the thinking of the people–especially through the education system, which intrudes right into the home–it can undermine all the less moral precepts that otherwise make the work of the State too difficult. The architects of statism know that if the sense of privacy, and the historically deep moral feelings associated with romantic love and sex, can be removed from the function of sex, then removing taboos and traditions from other areas of human life will be relatively easy. Once the State invades intimacy itself, converting the private into the public, the intimate into the banal, then what is public becomes paramount over what was private.