Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Overshooting the Target on Social Issues, Yet Again
I am fairly agnostic when it comes to gay marriage; perhaps libertarian is the better word. I don’t really care what other people do, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. Those on the opposition on the gay marriage issue always said “if gay marriage is legalized, there is absolutely no reason why polygamy shouldn’t be next.” We were, as usual, gaslit by the progressive Left and assured that any concerns were overwrought and exaggerated. And now, well, here we are:
HGTV Features Its First-Ever Throuple on House Hunters: 'Representation Matters' https://t.co/53VhaRVrXt
— People (@people) February 13, 2020
The People Magazine writeup is effusive; everyone is just so excited that the home improvement show is so inclusive, so progressive, so perfect. It’s just another data point on why conservatives who lean more libertarian (i.e. folks like me) refuse to be gaslit on social issues any longer. The stated goal is never the endpoint; it’s only just another part of a journey towards a total societal breakdown of social norms.
Published in General
And Utah is looking to legalize polygamy. All of this was obvious to those of us who gave this serious thought. I didn’t oppose relationships between people with same sex attraction, I opposed the redefinition of marriage, which is so much more than a sexual relationship between consenting adults. So now witness the handwringing regret of the libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative types, who just couldn’t imagine where this was going.
I don’t really understand the OP.
My impression is that Bethany still doesn’t care about the breakdown in sexual norms with regard to homosexuality, or premarital sex generally. Apparently, she opposes extramarital sex, even if this is consensual for all involved.
If you are libertarian, this should not be a problem. Yet, it appears that she finds it to be a problem. Why? She says ” I don’t really care what other people do, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.” This is not stated in the past tense. It is stated in the present tense, indicating that this is still her view.
So why is she objecting to this threesome?
Am I missing something? I simply find her position to be incoherent.
For the record — as everybody probably knows — I am a traditionalist, so my position is simple. I am questioning the internal logic of Bethany’s post.
Kingsly Amis speaks for me.
On a certain personal level, I don’t care what relationships people have unless those relationships are hurting people; themselves or others.
However from a legal perspective, marriage is religious institution that the State has bullied it’s way into controlling. The State from the 1st Amendment should not be telling religions what their qualifications for marriage are. One way or another. The State could choose to license “Civil Unions” the way France does and thus avoid the idea of regulating marriage. No muss, no fuss from a religious point of view.
All that said though the above “throuple” points to another problem. From a certain point of view which I share, the idea of monogamous marriage was a great aid in creating a civil society throughout history. In earlier barbaric times, and other barbaric religions or cultures like Islam, polygamy is accepted which has led to a far different idea of civility. The instinct in some males to become the “Alpha” male who whose primary goal in life is to mate with a number of women, and the instinct in some women to seek out her “Alpha Male” to mate with no matter how many other wives he has is well known throughout history. The problem with such polygamous marriage is the effect on the children and society is disastrous.
There’s a perfectly obvious, rational, and non-religious reason to define “marriage” as the union of one man and one woman: because every child has exactly one mother and one father. Historically we gave special recognition and benefits to this unique relationship in order to encourage parents to commit to each other and to the joint project of raising their own children together.
Once you discard this fact of Biology 101 no further limiting principle remains. Limiting marriage to groups of two is completely arbitrary, so why not three or more?
The label alone is off-putting. The French had a much better word for it, although it describes more an encounter than a relationship… which brings me to my point: It’s not a thing and it won’t be a thing. Threesomes don’t have long-term relationships.
Couples have a much better chance at long-term relationships, and that’s not saying too much in today’s practices.
My arguments were dismissed last time, not only by “the progressive left” but also by libertarians.
If those arguments had no purchase then, why should I make them now? Your bed has been made. Lie in it.
Oh, and a prediction. They will get polyamory nailed down before they start the attack on the age of consent.
(Sorry, Bethany. I’m not mad at you. But I do have friends who thought as you have, even did little sack dances when Obergefell came down, and have expressed alarm to me as if they expect me to join them in this fight.)
I beg to differ, as @unsk pointed out above polygamy, or more specifically polygyny (one husband, multiple wives) has formed the basis for long-term marriages in many cultures around the world.
Since homosexuality became popular, it became more common. Since the tranny parade, crossdressing has become common. Now people are being told they needn’t limit their interests to one other person.
It’s not about irrevocable lifelong commitments. It’s about license to act without accordance to society, tradition, nature, or God. It’s about the total liberty of self-creation; the abolition of all restrictions in worship of self.
Pandora’s box has been opened. This is just one of many aberrations to follow.
Late-comers to truth are welcome. Let’s not slam the door on any who have been fooled. For the West to be saved, even Democrats must awaken.
The trick is to awaken those who already believe they are woke.
Good points, Percival.
The problem is that we’re all in the same darned bed together. So you and I also have to sleep in the bed that they made.
I wouldn’t give up. I would, however, insist that people objecting to new levels of deviance acknowledge their prior error, and change their minds on the prior breakdowns of morality.
Homosexuality, by the way, was not the start of the problem. Feminism drove the abandonment of much sexual morality in the 1960s, accompanied by the destruction of the norm of lifelong marriage through the adoption of no-fault divorce.
This was not the fault of the Boomers. They were kids at the time, and only a few of them could vote. The problem was the so-called Greatest Generation. Not to absolve the Boomers, mind you — my point is that there’s plenty of blame to go around.
The 1960s was not the beginning of the problem, either. I’ve been struck in listening to some of C.S. Lewis’s broadcasts and writings from the 1940s, in which he describes a major breakdown of sexual morality even at that time.
Gun-rights advocates said knife control would be next. Gun controllers said that was insane. Now, witness great Britain, where they confiscate screwdrivers.
There is a slippery slope, made of greased Teflon, behind every leftie idea.
Manny had already begun a conversation about this here. As I wrote there:
Polygamy is more natural than gay unions. Polygamy, like divorce, was abandoned because it cheapened marriage and divided families.
It was permitted by various cultures for thousands of years because it accords with our animal nature. But it does not accord with our spiritual nature. The endless possibility of adding or exchanging spouses meant that no one person ever merited total devotion. No family was indissolvable.
This slippery slope did not begin with the normalization of homosexuality. Before that was divorce and abortion. Before that was feminist rejection of sexual roles, even with exceptions or modifications. Before that were various rejections of other social roles and orders.
At the core is a radical assertion of liberty veering from self-direction to self-creation. It’s an insistence that we inherit no roles or responsibilities, no identity, and no bonds but those we choose.
It will end, as it always has, in the dissolution of society. The comforts and powers of affluence fool people into believing anything is possible and we may escape our roots. I pray that God breaks through the lies in time to preserve our peace and order.
The Progressive method for eroding a certain order is always to begin the attack on it by presenting that attack as compassionate and those who oppose it as heartless. So the type in Utah isn’t looking to legalize polygamy—Oh my, no.—they just want to change the cruel law that too severely punishes polygamists, because that law isolates the children of polygamists and encourages the secrecy that protects and enables abuse of women and children.
They’re probably right. But get rid of that law and you’ll have more polygamy. I’m sure they know that.
I’m not giving up, just spouting off. Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more — and don’t think too much about the very next words out of old Hank’s mouth. It’s bad for morale.
None of this would have happened had the darn hospitals relaxed their visitation rules.
My bet is they will try to normalize pedophile “love” before poly marriage but it could be a toss-up.
If you mean ménage à trois, that is the long-term relationship. An encounter is a threesome.
If three people want to “marry”, I really don’t care anymore. My issue though is when it comes to Social Security benefits. There ARE benefits for EX-Spouses, Divorced Widows(ers) too and the rules are not stringent.
So, if you had one guy with multiple wives and was married for more than 10 years, and they all divorced because they realized how insane this relationship was, they could ALL get Spousal benefits off the husband’s Social Security record. And at his death even SURVIVOR benefits too!
Is this the Social Security expansion Bernie et al want?
Exactly, Jerry. This has been an ongoing back-and-forth for thousands of years.
I would also add that if the human species produced offspring who were not dependent upon adults to survive, such as, say, sharks or snakes, then the human species would have no need of marriage.
The idea that a society can tinker with and redefine marriage and then be surprised by unforeseen consequences is laughable.
As Utah winds its way back to polygamy, may I point out that outlawing it was condition to statehood? If they rescind the ban does that also rescind statehood? Asking for Mittens.
Christians started out as a minority in a pagan culture. And defeated pagan culture. Then 1500 years or so later joined and adopted pagan culture. If Christians want to influence the broader culture, they need to ignore the broader culture. and live Christian lives. Christian lives are attractive and winsome. Christian lives are much more effective than laws in influencing people for Christ.
The attack on the incest prohibition has long since already started with a father and daughter “couple” in New York and a couple of other such cases. The case I am referring to was a college professor and his daughter, the latter having been 27 at the time the suit was brought if memory serves. Repeat after me: Santorum was right, Dobson was right, Colson was right.
could not agree more. And that’s why I’m so optimistic about the health of the Church. When operating outside the mainstream we’re MUCH more effective
I also believe in live and let live. However, the gay rights movement has harmed society by forcing gay “marriage” down people’s throats. They go further in demanding everyone approve, and woe to anyone who disagrees. Gay “marriage” has also opened the door to anything goes. Who’s to say four people can’t be in love and get married? Or ten? I don’t care if they’re in love, but getting married? It’s never going to stop . . .
What can’t go on indefinitely, won’t.
I think her point is the slippery slope, like the legalization of soft drugs leads to harder drugs leads to more crime leads to non-functioning adults which includes parents. Jerry – I’m a traditionalist too, for that same reason. Even Bush (and at one point Obama, then he changed) agreed to same sex civil unions, but not re-defining marriage. Did anyone really think it was going to stop there? Now the 60+ multi-gender society, and a breakdown of boundaries of any kind.
That won’t stop the left from trying . . .
The left reminds me of small children. They keep pushing the bounds of tolerance with parents to see how far they can go.