CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Three Cheers for Polyamory

Dec 8, 2010

Don’t you just love it when the other side makes your case for you? I sure do. The other side always seeks to shoot you down when you spill the beans about what they are up to. But when people from their own side spill the beans, that is sweet.

But still, I know I will have critics who will simply shoot the messenger here. They will ignore everything that has been said – by someone from their own side – and they will instead simply launch personal attacks on myself for daring to even draw your attention to all this.

So what am I referring to here? Group love, that’s what. It is now all the rage, and the polyamorists are so very emboldened and pleased with the way things are progressing. They especially love the fact that all the groundwork has already been prepared for them. They really don’t have to do a thing.

Indeed, the push to normalise homosexuality and legalise same-sex marriage has been just what the doctor ordered. All the arguments have been made, and all the social softening up has occurred. They can now just traipse in on the coattails of the homosexual lobby, and easily demand equal treatment.

The reason for this is quite simple: the argument for same-sex marriage is the argument for group marriage. Exactly the same. Same “logic,” same rationale, same shouts of discrimination, same sob stories – the same baloney in other words.

Once we argue that the unhealthy sex acts between two men are on a par with opposite gender sex, then the argument for any other type of sex is much easier to make. And once we destroy the fundamental nature and definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, then any similar demand will be impossible to resist.

So who is making this case? A long standing social activist and academic who for decades now has been telling us that family means anything you want it to mean. And the institution which was happy to give her a free run with all this? A leading Melbourne university, no less.

I refer to Linda Kirkman of LaTrobe University, which just recently published her case for group love. Linda and her sister Maggie have been at the cutting edge of radical social change here in Australia for quite some time now. In 1988 Linda carried Maggie’s baby as Australia’s first IVF surrogate mother.

So no real surprises here. The sexual liberationists who seek to break sexual taboos and rubbish sexual restrictions will always find new causes to champion. Group “love” is just the next logical cause to rally around. Just consider how this academic justifies all this sexual anarchy:

“The more aware and accepting of diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is.”

“Adaptability to social change makes us more resilient and healthy as a society. Discrimination and stigma based on sexual orientation or family type diminishes us.”

“I look forward to a society where any loving family, irrespective of how many people it includes or what sex they are, feels safe to be open about who they are.”

There you have it folks. Thanks so much for that. Those into paedophilia, incest, bestiality and necrophilia would all wildly concur. They too are in the wings, waiting for their demands to be heard. And their case is so nicely being made by these academics. The same appalling arguments, the same loony logic, the same foolish appeal to “rights” and “diversity” and “tolerance”.

Fortunately, there have been plenty of great intellects over the centuries who have rightly scoffed at this ludicrous notion that healthy societies can continue while allowing complete laissez faire when it comes to sexuality. Consider a few such thinkers:

Noted political philosopher J. Budziszewski, said in his important 1999 volume, The Revenge of Conscience:

“Consider just the domain of sexual practice. First we were to approve sex before marriage, then without marriage, now against marriage. First with one, then with a series, now with a crowd. First with the other sex, then with the same. First between adults, then between children, then between adults and children. As sin passes through its stages from temptation to tolerance to approval, its name is first euphemised, then avoided, then forgotten. A colleague tells me that some of his fellow scholars call child molestation ‘intergenerational intimacy’. That’s euphemism. A good- hearted editor tried to talk me out of using the term ‘sodomy’: that’s avoidance. My students don’t know the meaning of the word ‘fornication’ at all: that’s forgetfulness.”

Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin wrote in 1956, “This sex revolution is as important as the most dramatic political or economic upheaval. It is changing the lives of men and women more radically than any other revolution of our time. . . . Any considerable change in marriage behavior, any increase in sexual promiscuity and sexual relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences. A sex revolution drastically affects the lives of millions, deeply disturbs the community, and decisively influences the future of society.”

J D Unwin of Cambridge University has argued that marriage is seen as the crucial element in the development and maintenance of healthy societies: “The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilised unless it has been completely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. Marriage as a life-long association has been an attendant circumstance of all human achievement, and its adoption has preceded all manifestations of social energy. . . . Indissoluble monogamy must be regarded as the mainspring of all social activity, a necessary condition of human development.”

Will and Ariel Durant, writing in The Lessons of History (1968) put it this way: “The sex drive in the young is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.”

Or as G.K. Chesterton once reminded us, “A society that claims to be civilized and yet allows the sex instinct free-play is inoculating itself with a virus of corruption which sooner or later will destroy it. It is only a question of time.”

For years now I have been warning that once we legalise same-sex marriage, the next inevitable step will be polyamory, and/or group marriage. I am always decried and dismissed as a nutter for daring to state the obvious. OK, so ignore everything I have ever said on the subject. But what are we going to do about what I have cited here? And bear in mind that there are hordes of other academics and sexperts who are calling for these very things.

www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2010/opinion/poly-is-the-new-gay

[1121 words]

23 Responses to Three Cheers for Polyamory

  • “Any considerable change in marriage behavior, any increase in sexual promiscuity and sexual relations, is **pregnant** with momentous consequences.”

    Interesting word choice.

    No surprises here except that they are getting bolder. I wonder what ‘marriage’ will be by the end of my lifetime. Perhaps we will see the end of the power of the west.

    P.S. Four unrelated articles in one day. You have been busy.

    Kylie Anderson

  • Thanks Kylie

    Yes it has been a busy day. But with so much madness and corruption encroaching everywhere, we need to keep busy and rise up to meet the many challenges. Our rest will come later.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill,

    You are not stupid for suggesting that one thing will lead to the next. I suggest we all bombard Linda Kirkman with our opinions, statistics, beliefs etc. She is truly one confused woman. Her email is at the top of the article.

    Jane Petridge

  • Thanks Jane

    But I suspect she has her mind well and truly made up already, and would not be very open to counter-beliefs and counter-evidence. But we can use pieces like this as we make our case to the broader community, to those who have not yet made up their minds on all this.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Sweet vindication Bill. BTW, did you hear about the guy in Toowoomba who married his dog recently? He may have a case too.
    Damien Spillane

  • Real leadership thanks Bill. The future is right where you say it is. There can’t be anywhere else to turn after this. This issue is abyssal.
    Martin Snigg

  • Bill,

    The drift in definition of monogamy is seen by comparing http://www.dictionary.com with The Macquarie Dictionary’s definition. Dictionary.com’s definition is that monogamy is “marriage with only one person at a time…. the practice of marrying only once during life”. The Macquarie Dictionary’s definition for the third edition of 1997 is that monogamy means “marriage of one man with one woman”.

    Dictionary.com obviously allows for the politically correct inclusion of homosexual marriage, but that is not the historically accurate definition of monogamy as your article (and The Macquarie Dictionary) state so well.

    Spencer Gear

  • Jane,

    Thanks for the suggestion to write to Linda Kirkman. I have taken up your challenge and wrote the following which I have emailed (I’ll be interested in the kind of reply that you receive from her). I wrote:

    I refer to your article, “Poly is the new gay“. Here you begin with this statement:

    “Keeping up with social change is exciting, and important. There is a growing awareness of polyamory [group sexual relationships] as a way to form relationships and families, and it is on the frontier of social change in acceptance of relationships. The more aware and accepting of diversity in relationships the more healthy our society is” (emphasis added).

    Historically, this is an inaccurate statement.

    The Macquarie Dictionary’s definition for the third edition of 1997 is that monogamy means “marriage of one man with one woman”. J. D. Unwin of Cambridge University did his study (in the 1920s) on the historical and sociological understanding of marriage. His conclusion from the evidence was:

    “The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilised unless it has been completely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs. Marriage as a life-long association has been an attendant circumstance of all human achievement, and its adoption has preceded all manifestations of social energy…. Indissoluble monogamy must be regarded as the mainspring of all social activity, a necessary condition of human development”.

    I refer you to Unwin’s works: “Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy,” The Hibbert Journal 25, no. 4 (July 1927); no. 100, 662–77; and “Marriage in Cultural History,” in The Hibbert Journal 26, no. 4 (July 1928), no. 104, 695–706.

    Yours is a modern interpretation, not a historical perspective. Unwin’s research demonstrated that your promotion of group loving relationships/sex is not the way to a more healthy society. Monogamy, one woman for one man for life, is the way to a healthy society, not your promotion of polyamory. The fact that polyamory is not even included in the third edition of The Macquarie Dictionary of 1997, indicates that it is a term of modern invention – dare I say, political correctness and promiscuity.

    Sincerely,
    Spencer Gear, Hervey Bay Qld

  • Hi Bill,

    It never ceases to amaze how the academic institutions seem to be full of intelligent people, but the agendas that are pushed are so far removed from simple common sense and an appreciation of the lessons of history, and an ignorance of simple evidence (as you have clearly stated).

    I read the linked article, and its ridiculous some of the broad statements she makes without a single indication of any evidence to back them up. And the wording about the ‘poly’ relationships is sickening – using words like “respect” and “love” – once again being hijacked to make themselves acceptable to the reset of society.

    Thanks for your hard work, writing these thoughtful and obviously well researched article. Please be encouraged. I read regularly and am so glad to be informed. Keep it up!

    David Sampson

  • Great quotes; your research is amazing.
    Jon Newton

  • Damien, then there was the guy in Germany who ‘married’ his cat; not to mention the lady from Taiwan who ‘married’ herself!
    Dunstan Hartley

  • Good on you Spencer.

    My email is more on the line of inviting Linda to examine the numerous problems existing in our schools, which relate to marriage breakdown, extra-marital affairs, domestic violence, single parent homes etc etc. Everyone (especially Governments) are worried about the fact kids can’t read and write properly, when in fact, for a growing number of children, school is the only place where there is normality and security, because of the ‘dysfunctional’ relationships existing between adults in their household. School is their SAFEHAVEN, academia is secondary.

    C’mon LINDA, C’mon down your local school! The children are suffering because of selfish, twisted adults like YOU!

    Jane Petridge

  • You are a blessing to the Christian community and help greatly to keep people like myself informed about today’s issues. I consider myself a very tolerant Christian, but this truly makes my blood boil. Sin truly is an infection, and being a young man I will sadly see the devastation society will be left with for embracing it.

    Anthony Lichoudaris

  • Bill, I don’t think you or the others alude to the crucial case going through the courts in Canada (I think it’s polys claiming all the legal rights, etc., that other marital unions (!) have already; I know little about it, but some of your readers will know). Yes, once you question the idea that the state has the right to define and delineate one idea of marriage, then you cannot rationally argue against anything, or for anything.
    “Our rest will come later” – just wonderful, Bill.
    John Thomas, UK

  • Thanks John

    Yes I wrote up the Canadian case here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/11/22/homosexual-marriage-and-the-slippery-slope/

    The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has called Canada’s marriage laws “discriminatory” because they prohibit polygamy. Now where have we heard this sort of argument before?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • You just have to tune into Nova or Fox FM here in Melbourne and hear them prattle about maintaining multiple casual relationships at the same time. It’s one thing for academic quacks to spout their dribble but for it to be on mainstream radio?
    Grant Vandervalk

  • Hi Anthony,

    Please can you define what you mean by a ‘tolerant Christian’?

    Jane Petridge

  • It seems that today, the term “academic” has become a term of abuse, as many academics come out with such loony ideas.

    One example of course is Philosopher Peter Singer, who apart from advocating killing newborn babies if they don’t turn out to be absolutely perfect, has an interesting take on animals. From Wikipedia:
    “On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals,”

    Pam Renton

  • I sure can Jane,

    I am capable of being around people who’s choice in words are not very Christ like, and who’s actions are not of Christ. Perhaps tolerant was the wrong word to use, and what I meant to say was I love sinners enough not to judge and hate them most of the time, but still be capable of objecting to their actions. If I did mean tolerant it certainly was not today’s modern “accept and believe everything to be valid” sense of the word.

    God bless,
    Anthony Lichoudaris

  • Thanks Anthony,

    I concur with your sentiments, and agree that ‘tolerant’ may not have been the right word. If you look at the following three definitions, the last being the oldest, they all give a different meaning.

    1. tolerance – permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior

    2. tolerance – showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others

    3. tolerance – The ability to endure pain or hardship; endurance. [15th-19th c.]

    If Christians were to follow definitions one and two, we would have to compromise the Word of God and our salvation!
    Thanks for responding to my question.

    Jane Petridge

  • Our universities are full of these idiots, no wonder we are churning out drones as graduates, I have always encouraged my sons to go to uni if they feel it is for them, but after seeing what has been happening in them, I am starting to back off a bit. This type of insidious mentality is a cancer and as such, people in positions of responsibility who adhere to this dangerous crap really should be removed!
    Steve Davis

  • Thanks guys

    Now the Greens want incest legalised. Why are we not surprised?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks again guys

    So why stop at group sex? What about a little incest as well?: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/15/in-praise-of-incest/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply