If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WorldNetDaily)   Investigation suggests even less caring about what other consenting adults to in the privacy of their own homes becoming norm   (wnd.com) divider line 47
    More: Cool, Tim Huelskamp, Google Calendar, faithfulness, group marriages, investigation, same-sex marriages, Christian Institute  
•       •       •

1393 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2013 at 9:08 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-22 08:06:38 AM
Be careful reading this headline; excessive exposure to it can cause brain explosion.

/there's someone drunk submitting right now, I think
 
2013-08-22 08:17:33 AM
go home subby
 
2013-08-22 08:30:23 AM

Pocket Ninja: Be careful reading this headline; excessive exposure to it can cause brain explosion.

/there's someone drunk submitting right now, I think


Look where the link goes, Subby's had a stroke from reading the article.
 
2013-08-22 09:09:31 AM
I can't parse that.
 
2013-08-22 09:11:39 AM
I don't know what you guys are biatching about. That headline makes far more sense than anything you'll ever find on the other side of that site icon.
 
2013-08-22 09:13:16 AM
I figured out the headline easily enough. Hey, submitter -- you have a brain just like mine.


/not subby
 
2013-08-22 09:13:49 AM
Also, that's a really weird set of tags....
 
2013-08-22 09:14:10 AM
I read had many that times to.
 
2013-08-22 09:14:13 AM
"Investigation," not study? That's... weirdly word-twisty, even for these morons.
 
2013-08-22 09:14:39 AM
I don't personally care if people live in group relationships, but I've always imagined that a formalized contract for such an arrangement could create quite the legal tangle particularly upon the dissolution of all or even some part of that relationship. It would be nice if everyone just behaved like a reasonable adult when it comes to things like division of property and child custody, but I've seen just how ugly things can get once emotions start running high.
 
2013-08-22 09:17:13 AM

phaseolus: I figured out the headline easily enough. Hey, submitter -- you have a brain just like mine.


You both should totally have sex.
 
2013-08-22 09:18:27 AM

MooseUpNorth: phaseolus: I figured out the headline easily enough. Hey, submitter -- you have a brain just like mine.

You both should totally have sex.


With a few other people.
 
2013-08-22 09:20:36 AM

MooseUpNorth: phaseolus: I figured out the headline easily enough. Hey, submitter -- you have a brain just like mine.

You both should totally have sex.



Naah, I was kind of hoping subby would be insulted by my comment.
 
2013-08-22 09:20:48 AM
Oh, "the Christian Institute" is the group claiming this.  So it's imaginary.

Man, I was all psyched up for an WND link to actually bring up something new and interesting, since current science actually tells us that Apes (including humans) are typically mostly "serial monogamists" (i.e. basically one mate at a time for several months or years at a time, but multiple pairings over the course of a lifetime), with the exceptions pretty much falling under small statistical variation.

If multiple partners concurrently were actually becoming the norm in humans, that would actually be something very interesting to investigate, as it would actually separate us from the other ape species in ways beyond minor physical variations and having gotten started on the technology thing first.
 
2013-08-22 09:22:53 AM
Sometimes I think the only difference between now and the past is that now people talk openly about it.  Gram has told me stories about what some her friends' family lives were like growing up.
 
2013-08-22 09:23:06 AM
This headline really is about the best we expect from someone who reads WND.
 
2013-08-22 09:32:53 AM
Though I didnt read the whole article, the bits I did read sounded like the author pulled every bit of it out of their ass.
 
2013-08-22 09:33:50 AM

Hack Patooey: Though I didnt read the whole article, the bits I did read sounded like the author pulled every bit of it out of their ass.


Bullshiat? On World Net Daily?

Perish the thought.
 
2013-08-22 09:34:00 AM
rivetsoftware.com

"Becoming what now?"
 
2013-08-22 09:37:53 AM
That whole article reads like a Heinlein book.  Double marriage with everyone having sex
 
2013-08-22 09:39:54 AM
Now that many nations have abandoned the biblical concept of marriage being between one man and one woman, given formalized government support for same-sex duos in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States in recent days...

Cause there sure aren't biblical accounts of open relationships, polyamory, and such.

...BBC show host Jo Fidgen openly is questioning whether there still is room for sexual fidelity in a "society where choice is everything."

Does not compute.  They aren't mandating infidelity or open relationships.  In fact, you are being given a choice, you dimwit.  Want a closed, one man/one woman relationship?  Have at it.

Once again, something that is inclusive of everyone is not somehow still exclusive of you.  It's why these moral crusaders also don't get the separation clause.
 
2013-08-22 09:41:05 AM

satanorsanta: That whole article reads like a Heinlein book.  Double marriage with everyone having sex





Heinlein's world can never exist. More than than one women in a relationship never lasts without a strong religion like Mormonism to keep them in line.
 
2013-08-22 09:48:42 AM
"We have a reached a frightening impasse," said AFA President Tim Wildmon. "I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all."

It has any definition you want to give it, plain and simple. I thought you wanted Big Government out of your life?
 
2013-08-22 09:49:36 AM

Diogenes: ...BBC show host Jo Fidgen openly is questioning whether there still is room for sexual fidelity in a "society where choice is everything."

Does not compute. They aren't mandating infidelity or open relationships. In fact, you are being given a choice, you dimwit. Want a closed, one man/one woman relationship? Have at it.


Don't you get it?  Gay marriage means he'll be forced to divorce his wife and be wed to a huge smelly biker from the Blue Oyster Bar.

And the only thing which prevents him from cheating on his wife is the fact that polyamory is not yet socially acceptable.  But that's really more of an issue for Mrs. WND-writer than for the rest of the internet.
 
2013-08-22 09:50:55 AM

Mikey1969: "We have a reached a frightening impasse," said AFA President Tim Wildmon. "I fear the day just years from now when marriage has absolutely no definition at all."

It has any definition you want to give it, plain and simple. I thought you wanted Big Government out of your life?


As I said, if it's inclusive of everyone, they somehow manage to find themselves excluded.

And how do they do this you ask?  Because you deny them their self-proclaimed moral authority over others by making everyone's rights equal.
 
2013-08-22 09:52:19 AM

Karac: Diogenes: ...BBC show host Jo Fidgen openly is questioning whether there still is room for sexual fidelity in a "society where choice is everything."

Does not compute. They aren't mandating infidelity or open relationships. In fact, you are being given a choice, you dimwit. Want a closed, one man/one woman relationship? Have at it.

Don't you get it?  Gay marriage means he'll be forced to divorce his wife and be wed to a huge smelly biker from the Blue Oyster Bar.

And the only thing which prevents him from cheating on his wife is the fact that polyamory is not yet socially acceptable.  But that's really more of an issue for Mrs. WND-writer than for the rest of the internet.


LOL.  Maybe that's really it.  They don't need Big Government to protect them from others.  They need Big Government to protect them from themselves.
 
2013-08-22 10:00:07 AM

Jim_Callahan: Oh, "the Christian Institute" is the group claiming this. So it's imaginary.


Not quite completely; their wild imagination has some real-world starting point. There is Gallup poll data showing that over the last decade, the percentage of people in the US considering polygamy morally acceptable has risen from 7% to 14%. That comes with a few caveats -- Gallup's had some sampling accuracy issues in the last couple years, there's an inherent circa 3% uncertainty, the trend may not continue, it's still quite piddling as support levels go, and so on.

Contrariwise, the GSS indicates that since 1988 the fraction of the population having had more than one sexual partner (within the prior year) has held pretty steady -- within ±1.5% of 12%, no visible trend.

Nohow, serious political debate (IE: involving support from candidates for office who get above 10% popular vote) seems at least a decade out; more likely four.
 
2013-08-22 10:18:12 AM

ds_4815: [rivetsoftware.com image 300x400]

"Becoming what now?"


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-22 10:20:44 AM

HighOnCraic: ds_4815: [rivetsoftware.com image 300x400]

"Becoming what now?"

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 602x452]


Every Morn reference is a good one. Every one.
 
2013-08-22 10:30:28 AM
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-22 10:40:36 AM
I cared about the subject 30% less after reading about half the article.
 
2013-08-22 10:41:50 AM
That's some unparseable syntax there, subby
 
2013-08-22 10:56:04 AM

Bloody William: MooseUpNorth: phaseolus: I figured out the headline easily enough. Hey, submitter -- you have a brain just like mine.

You both should totally have sex.

With a few other people.


I had no trouble understanding the headline as well. I guess an orgy is in order.
 
2013-08-22 11:45:11 AM
Jo Fidgen openly is questioning whether there still is room for sexual fidelity in a "society where choice is everything."

And of course that is not what is being argued at all.

The programme argues that the "taboo" around sharing lovers between an unlimited number of sexual partners could disappear within a decade.

Arguing that open relationships or whatever you want to call them may no longer be seen as "taboo" is far different from suggesting that there is no room for sexual fidelity.
 
2013-08-22 11:59:55 AM
As far as I'm concerned people can do whatever they want as long as

1) Everyone is legal age and able to give consent (aka no animals)
2) I don't have to see it or know about it
3) It doesn't in any way end up costing me money
 
2013-08-22 12:01:05 PM
I don't click those links, but judging from the thread, it's a poly article? Oh ffs.

Okay first thing: can we not equate poly or open relationships with infidelity? People in those groups will tell you that they are being perfectly faithful; they just have a different definition of faithful than others that may focus more on honesty and openness (like it's not cheating as long as you ask first).

Second, theory is different from practice. The fiance and I have been in an open relationship for our entire four years now. Been monogamous the entire time. Funny how that works out sometimes.
 
2013-08-22 12:10:59 PM

CujoQuarrel: As far as I'm concerned people can do whatever they want as long as

1) Everyone is legal age and able to give consent (aka no animals)
2) I don't have to see it or know about it
3) It doesn't in any way end up costing me money


Yes. It's none of my business and I really couldn't care less what living arrangements other people have made.

OTOH, dogs and cats living together...well that's just plain SICK!
 
2013-08-22 12:52:52 PM

abb3w: Jim_Callahan: Oh, "the Christian Institute" is the group claiming this. So it's imaginary.

Not quite completely; their wild imagination has some real-world starting point. There is Gallup poll data showing that over the last decade, the percentage of people in the US considering polygamy morally acceptable has risen from 7% to 14%. That comes with a few caveats -- Gallup's had some sampling accuracy issues in the last couple years, there's an inherent circa 3% uncertainty, the trend may not continue, it's still quite piddling as support levels go, and so on.

Contrariwise, the GSS indicates that since 1988 the fraction of the population having had more than one sexual partner (within the prior year) has held pretty steady -- within ±1.5% of 12%, no visible trend.

Nohow, serious political debate (IE: involving support from candidates for office who get above 10% popular vote) seems at least a decade out; more likely four.


Polyamory is totally a thing, Met a few people who espoused it irl..

If you wade into the perpetual gender/sexual identity debates it's pretty hard not to come across it at some point.
 
2013-08-22 12:53:53 PM
www.wnd.com
Well, it's clearly not going to be the norm for everyone.
 
2013-08-22 12:57:38 PM

Sybarite: I don't personally care if people live in group relationships, but I've always imagined that a formalized contract for such an arrangement could create quite the legal tangle particularly upon the dissolution of all or even some part of that relationship. It would be nice if everyone just behaved like a reasonable adult when it comes to things like division of property and child custody, but I've seen just how ugly things can get once emotions start running high.


Such a formalized contract would be quite difficult to manage.  First, due to the co-ownership aspects of a marriage you couldn't base it that way and establish bi-lateral agreements between each participant.  So you now have to look at multi-party agreements.  Something like a treaty organization would become the working basis.  Each party continues to own their own assets within the structure, and formal definitions of sharing.  It would make life very tedious to enable the whole thing to be unwound when one person decides to leave (or in the worst case, decide they'd like to kick someone else out).

Historically, polygamy and polyandry have a fairly rigid structure - 1 member of one gender, and many of the other.  Power has been a hierarchy, so equality was never a feature.  This would have problems going forward.  Same-sex marriage would alter polygamy and polyandry in very significant ways.  While sister-wives may grow close in a polygamous relationship, they never overcome the fact that from the enabling society's view the man is in charge.  To meet the standard of our modern society, we could easily see the power structure being a multi-way same sex marriage - think 4 way lesbian relationship (Ok, half the audience just left for their bunks...).  This requirement makes the historical power structures of polygamy and polyandry fail.

Looking at this makes me feel that those who are concerned about impending multi-way marriages are conflating sexually open relationships with the legal formalism of marriage.  When someone in a "open" marriage takes or drops a new partner, that "outside" partner doesn't get a claim on anything in the marriage.  The situation is similar with swingers - couples drifting apart for whatever reason generates no obligations.  A multi-way marriage would have enormous legal baggage that the other, informal relationships lack.  Child custody issues would be damn impossible to manage - just look at what happens when one partner remarries today - the ex can go completely ballistic if they don't "like" the new person.

I suspect that the "acceptance" TFA references is more the "open" or "swinger" style arrangements and not something formalized like a marriage.
 
2013-08-22 12:59:36 PM
Reminds me of my favorite joke-I-didn't-get-as-a-kid from Tny Toons.

Buster: "You want me to marry both of your daughters? But that's bigamy!"

Papa Gator: "Naw, son, that's Big of ME."
 
2013-08-22 01:13:44 PM

HempHead: Heinlein's world can never exist. More than than one women in a relationship never lasts without a strong religion like Mormonism to keep them in line.


You know how I know you're a mouth-breathing misogynist?
 
2013-08-22 01:37:44 PM
Polygamy - fine for social terms, but the husband must designate an "alpha wife" or whatever the hell term is most appropriate to be the legal representative for financial, medical, and insurance reasons. The group living is acceptable to me, but pick one partner and go with that.

How the partner is picked is not an issue to me, either. Voting, appointment, foxy boxing tournament, I do not care.
 
2013-08-22 01:41:03 PM

Dwight_Yeast: HempHead: Heinlein's world can never exist. More than than one women in a relationship never lasts without a strong religion like Mormonism to keep them in line.

You know how I know you're a mouth-breathing misogynist?


I always felt that thr females in Heinleins books generally wore the pants in the relationship, not so much thst they were in charge of everything but that they, and not the men, ran the household as their sphere of authority.

But i was like 16 when i last read Heinlein so what do i know.
 
2013-08-22 01:43:19 PM
So many knickers in a twist about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes...

Most folks aren't poly. Most folks won't go poly. Most folks aren't equipped to deal with poly. While men claim that they want the "freedom" that comes with those sorts of relationships, when actually faced with the levels of honesty that they require, fold like pieces of tinfoil. It ain't for everyone. It isn't for most folks even, not in the society that we've been raised in. It's not a failing, it's a feature. Some folks choose to experiment, and to be fair, most folks fail at it miserably, because they didn't think their clever plan all the way through. Some folks succeed, and some folks even excel. Good on them. It's neither better nor worse than "traditional" relationships. All God's Chill'uns gots to dance, but that don't mean that they all dance to the same tune. Be good to each other, and roll on...
 
2013-08-22 02:41:51 PM

hubiestubert: So many knickers in a twist about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes...

Most folks aren't poly. Most folks won't go poly. Most folks aren't equipped to deal with poly. While men claim that they want the "freedom" that comes with those sorts of relationships, when actually faced with the levels of honesty that they require, fold like pieces of tinfoil. It ain't for everyone. It isn't for most folks even, not in the society that we've been raised in. It's not a failing, it's a feature. Some folks choose to experiment, and to be fair, most folks fail at it miserably, because they didn't think their clever plan all the way through. Some folks succeed, and some folks even excel. Good on them. It's neither better nor worse than "traditional" relationships. All God's Chill'uns gots to dance, but that don't mean that they all dance to the same tune. Be good to each other, and roll on...


Burn him!
 
2013-08-22 10:27:12 PM

Sybarite: I don't personally care if people live in group relationships, but I've always imagined that a formalized contract for such an arrangement could create quite the legal tangle particularly upon the dissolution of all or even some part of that relationship. It would be nice if everyone just behaved like a reasonable adult when it comes to things like division of property and child custody, but I've seen just how ugly things can get once emotions start running high.


That's really the main reason, I suspect, why there's been resistance to polygamy on the legal end of the equation. Just dissolving a marriage or partnership is bad enough when there are only two parties--I can't even imagine how it will be when there are three or four people, half a dozen kids in common, five or six houses, and everyone claiming THEY are the primary beneficiaries of the property, kids, spousal support, etc. It seems like in a divorce, the main goal is to screw the other person as hard and viciously as possible and nevermind the effect it might have on the kids or other family members; so when there are multiple spouses involved, the battle would be an all-out war.

Which will eventually make the lawyers very happy; but it will be hell for Child Support Services when one man has to pay support for 19 kids and 4 wives; or the support has to be split between two wives and three other wives and six of 8 kids and....
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report