I am not sure when “conservatism” became telling other people what to think and do. Maybe it was always that way. After all, in my lifetime, it was legal to outlaw even married partners from using birth control. I think of conservatism as, ‘you mind your business and I will mind my own’. Anyone who has spent time in The Netherlands has experienced true conservatism. It’s about keeping your boundaries and letting your neighbor live in peace.
Polyamorous activist Pepper Mint circulated this article today, which he says is “notable because it is to my knowledge the first coherent piece out of the US right-wing media that sets up polyamory as a threat in and of itself, rather than using us for slippery slope arguments against gay marriage. Note that the author thinks we are more dangerous than traditional polygamists, which I find telling. Also, he relies heavily on ‘what about the children’ arguments.”
Here is an excerpt:
“Polyamory,” by contrast, is strictly egalitarian and consensual, according to CPAA, and thus does not involve or promote one gender over the other. Affidavits filed in court detail (1) a woman and her male partner who live and have relationships with two other adults in the household (they also have a child living in the home) and who have agreed that each can pursue relationships with others, (2) a woman who lives with two other men (two of her teenage sons also live in the home), (3) a husband and wife who live with another adult (and the married couples’ two young children and the third person’s teenage children), and (4) a man who lives with a woman and another man (with whom he is raising a two-year-old child). Polyamory advocates also tout a lack of social science evidence showing any harm from its practice. In other words, the CPAA is arguing that since you can’t prove that polyamory is bad for society, it must be good. By this rationale, we can all rest assured that Jimmy Hoffa is alive and well.
..infidelity?! ..distinctions of parenthood?!
..O.K. When we’re ready to be a tribe again/eventually, let me know,.. I’ll be trippin’ out over here.
(Pull out the legality piece, and it’s like a rug.. but, legality is business..)
The opposite of social conservatism is being able to say to people, “whatever works for you.” In the United States that would be history…!!
Eric,
Thank you for keeping us informed as these things develop. This is part of what will someday be called history. We are witness and participant.
hm…..and i suppose one small (being serious here) perspective could be; why would a woman (who is only emotionally familiar with oppression) want more than one abusive, repressive, dominant man in her life at one time – well, aside from fathers, brothers, uncles, etc.
Nor can many grasp the concept of a woman who wants more than one partner. But, these people aren’t martians and I promise you most of them would not fit in on Madison Ave either.
Stating the obvious –
isn’t the idea in “American Conservative” ideology that marriage of more than one means a harem? That is, one dominant male and many subservient wives?
On that basis then, polyamory would never make sense nor possibly be different from polygamy.