...is "polyamory". This means any group of people who share sexual partners among themselves. Once same-sex marriage is accepted, why stop at just two people? Why not three? Or more? Logic of this=polyamory.
Commentator Dr Albert Mohler in the Bulletin published by Family and Youth Concern, notes: "Perhaps the best way to understand this new movement is to understand it as a natural consequence of subverting marriage. We have largely normalised adultery, serialised marriage, separated marriage from reproduction and child-bearing, and accepted divorce as a mechnaism for liberation. Once this happens, boundary after boundary falls as sexual regulation virtually disappears among those defined as "consenting adults".
"The ultimate sign of our moral confusion becomes evident when virtually no one appears ready to condemn polyamory as immoral.The only arguments mustered against this new movement focus on matters of practicality. Polyamory is certainly not new, but this new movement is yet another reminder that virtually all the fences are now down when it comes to sex and sexual relationships."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
To be the contrarian, the issue is not one of morals but of people having the same morals. Across the span of distance and time people have had a variety of what we now call morals when it comes to sexuality, which in their own time were considered right and proper.
From the Greeks having sex with young boys so as to not deflower any girls, to classic old testament figures with multiple wives, and even into today in other countries where having a wife and a mistress is the norm, all of these are considered moral. It is merely a matter of accepting that we live in a multi-cultural society with a wide range of moral standards when it comes to sexuality.
I do agree that we must draw some line in the sand, and I think the phrase 'among consenting adults' is as close to one as we can find. Meaning of course what happens between two consenting adults is between them and no one else's business.
The ultimate sign of our confusion comes when religious dogma is more important that love.
The author of that article shows fundamentally that he does not understand polyamory at all. Check out this Knol article on polyamory.
Polyamory is about love and intimate relationships in our lives. Do these relationships included sex, yes they most likely do, but it is not required. Polyamory can very much be an non-sexual intimate friendship that goes far beyond what someone would consider a "normal" friend.
Why does sexuality need to regulated among consenting adults? Why is it any of our business what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It is none of our business. These laws and mentalities are some of the last remaining vestiges of blind dogmatic oppression that needs to be stopped. =(
I am not sure how condemning love is going to be productive. Polyamory is about adding love to your life and to others'. I am not sure why love is so counter to Catholic values. This fact has always baffled me!!
Moral codes have gone. This is due to the lack of true Familly and true Familly values.
Feral Children run riot in our streets,if they are told off,Its called child abuse.
The Goverment think all "normal" people are perverts.(Re:CRB checks).
A normal person can not baby sit a friends child.
A Neighbour can not take an Elderly person to church with out one(The cost of such checks is expensive to that person).
When you write a loss of morality.I feel it is more it,s a loss of true values in life in a country going to the dogs.
Wuh-whoa! I think you might be upset to know about Christian polyamorists- http://www.libchrist.com/
Ah, but then again, I just don't see what's wrong with polyamory. I want to hear somebody give me an actual good reason why it would be immoral. Instead, everybody seems to simply state that, oh, of course it's wrong, it's immoral, and it's bad to let fall (or knock down) boundaries in regards to sexual regulations. But they never seem to justify it with an explanation as to the WHY.
I like to question things. Do you have any answers?
Lax moral values? No. Progressed social values? Yes!
Moral values have not gone lax so much as they have progressed beyond the oppressive and harmful puritanical social values endorsed by the Catholic Church.
How is a values system that support openness, honesty, self responsibility, and love a lax moral code?
The very word 'POLYAMORY' conjures up the image of muliple sex partners, wife-swapping, and polygamous relationships.
There's no confusion here. Plain and simple. You can dress this one up, try as you may, it's not going to change shape or colour.
In light of our secular society, this 'slogan-word' harks back to a Godless society where morals and values depended on relitavist persuasions. Not unlike the society we live in today.
Christ came to give us The Way, The Truth and The Life. He is Love. If this be religious dogma, so be it. Christians are meant to follow His teachings thereby building up a just,loving and caring society, Christ's church.
Sexual relationships between consenting adults do not need to be regulated, however, we have choices to make and when we make those choices, we have to live with the consequences to those choices. These choices have a direct effect on our society---one way or another.
Christ's way provides me with a direct and uncomplicated route to the Truth. No confusion, no questions. Just Truth.
It is a shame that you miss to much of the point of the modern era. The fact is no one is saying that your morality is evil either. Show what you believe to be right and do nothing to stop others from following the path they seek to choose. In the end, this is no different then what God does. After all if the Almighty does not choose to prevent others from doing these things when it is clearly within the power of HIM to do it it is saying that he wants others to choose. If you are right and making a better life then you don't have to make others do it They will come to you and try to get that life anyway they can. Witness the fall of the USSR as one of many proofs of his fact. I implore anyone that thinks that using social pressure to make others feel and at as they would like to try another path themselves. Show a Living God within by living a happy life and let others try to do the same. They want to marry more then one, that is cool. They are not saying you must do it. I think there is something more beautiful when two could marry more that number and having that true choice to choose to only be with each other.
Anonymous seems to be redefining 'love' and confining it to feelings. Of course religious dogma is not in itself more important than love, but it is considerably more important than the diluted understanding of love shown here.
What consenting adults do is indeed the business of all - not of nosey individuals - but of society as a whole which is weakened by the destruction of the family.
Gwen, it is the separation of the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive which is wrong. Once the 'babies and bonding' are seen as two separate things, it sets up a contradiction within the very heart of the persons and of society. A bit like eating only for pleasure and then having to vomit so there is no effect of the food on the person - apart from the damage the vomiting does.
Why does sexuality need to regulated among consenting adults?
If we could have a policy of segragated schools so that children from married homes didn't have to be educated alongside single parent children, and there were no benefits, and the punishment for every crime was a cheap 50p bullet to the back of the neck, you might have a case.
The reality is that sexual decisions affect the wider community, and these policies are too harsh to be practical.
god is love what you and many others call love is lust
these people think having many partners can save their marriage
thats like trying to cure a leak by adding more water
Also pertinent here - fomr this site:
http://traditioetvirtus.blogspot.com/
When despair presents itself it is both tempting and natural to look for whatever pleasures present themselves to us and grasp longingly at their comforts. Though the things that we may choose to comfort ourselves with often have roots that are essentially good, they can become twisted by our ability to become lost in our pleasures, and used to prize open our weaknesses. And our weaknesses, left unmonitored and uncontrolled by a lack of moral strength or self-discipline, lead us towards excessiveness. And excessiveness ultimately leads us to a state of shame. Eventually, after we have convinced ourselves that the ways we choose to address our lusts and desires are perfectly acceptable, shameful states become completely shameless ones. And when a state of shamelessness occurs, our souls begins their descent into the abyss; and once this process begins, it becomes very difficult to free ourselves of lifestyles that are ultimately destructive and evil.
In an overly permissive society such as ours, where all kinds of shamelessness are encouraged under the guise of liberty and individualism, this is an endemic problem that, as well as casting individual lives deeper into the mires of despair, also undoes the natural, established order of society. And this, in turn, ruins more individual lives. And so it goes on. So, what one really gets out of permissiveness, then, is not freedom or happiness, but a mindless and bestial captivity; a downward spiral that only discipline, hope and love can reverse.
This is I feel the bottom line.Two people get married and promise to be faithful to each other.
This is the law in England.Forget Morals of a moment and think of Hurt.Someone who gave all their love to one person in a legal promise(but actually a promise in love).Think of the hurt they will feel.We have come on a long way since Roman Times.Do we want to go back to an immoral society. I for one do not !!.
Your heterosexual lifelong monogamy is not right for everyone and is even harmful, especially when it is said that this is the only acceptable relationship model. Not only is it counter to the entire breadth of adult intimate relationships, but it is oppressive to expansion of love.
@Robert Summerville What if "two promise to be faithful to each other" is not what happens, or what either want, but they do so only out of fear of going to jail or losing their children? What if in their hearts they promise to be open and honest with each other, and love one another; and to enjoy dating others and to foster the growth of love in their lives? That is so bad why?
@Alyson Because the word polyamory "conjures up the image of muliple sex partners, wife-swapping, and polygamous relationships" for you does not mean that you are correct or have any knowledge of the subject. You are speaking from fear and ignorance about the topic. Your extreme distaste is another's joy and that is their business and not yours. Keep your religion out of their private lives.
Keep in mind that you are talking about your interpretation of biblical truth and not everyones. If everyone had the same interpretation we would not have so many flavors of Christianity. We would also not be having this conversation. Have you also heard of the Gnostic Christianity? Those Christians have a different view on things.
Your heterosexual lifelong monogamy is not right for everyone and is even harmful, especially when it is said that this is the only acceptable relationship model.
Catholic understanding is that marriage isn't right for everyone. However the vast majority of men are called to be husbands and fathers of a family, the vast majority of women wives and mothers.
Polyamory introduces tensions and complexities into a sexual relationship. In the West it is just a silly, metropolitan sexual fashion, and the polyamorous marriages won't last long before the participants get tired of them and go on to something else.
Just for the record and to clarify my point of view (from a practicing Roman Catholic point of view):
1. I am in no way threatened by this topic. I am steadfast in my faith and am unwavering in my recognition of things bogus and deceitful.
2. For me, there is only one way to be a Christian, there are many ‘flavours’ of Christianity yes, some of these ‘flavours’ being more diluted than others. I for one, belong to the Roman Catholic denomination of Christianity. The one truly UNIVERSAL (Catholic) church, which can boast of a history full of examples where the truths of Christ’s teaching have been upheld by His Church (through the lives of His saints and martyrs), in the face of ridicule, at the risk of torture and death.
3. The Church to which I belong does not sway from one direction to another in order to please the crowds. Throughout the centuries, the faithful have lived and died for the very same truths, and I believe, more will die for them in the centuries to come.
4. You either belong to the club and follow the rules, or decline membership. There is no place for relative membership.
5. I ‘m not so bold as to profess to interpret Biblical truths, I live Christ’s Truths as interpreted by the Magistarium and Tradition of the Catholic Church. The authority of the Church is not negotiable. I can rest assured in Her unwavering loyalty to Christ Jesus.
6. Not only is this form of ‘love’ abhorrent, it takes on different ‘flavour’ altogether when so-called ‘Christians’ adhere to it’s sinister deceit.
The Truths of the Catholic Church are easily accessible. Feel free to become enlightened and unburdened by these.
Poly Friend,
There is no such thing as Gnostic Christians. Even if they were closely related (which they aren’t), at best, Gnostics are heretics, from a Christian perspective.
I once had a woman coming onto my blog to declare she was a polyamory adviser. She helped gay people cope as they moved from one disappointing relationship to another. She also told me that here was a division in the gay community between those who sought gay marriage and one partner and those who were not helping the cause by continuing this polyamory. It was most enlightening.
Post a Comment