The current cover
of The New Yorker. Surely this doesn't help (the cause of gay
marriage, that is).
14 Comments for “Polygamy Chic.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Help” with what, exactly?
posted by Lori Heine on
I guess, help the bigots to understand us. We all know things would have been any different had The New Yorker not gone so awfully over the top.
As my friend’s teenage daughter likes to say, complete with sigh and roll of eyes “As if…”
posted by Avee on
Seems pretty evident to me: it doesn’t help the fight for gay marriage to make polygamy seem chic.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anyone who seriously believes that winning the “fight for gay marriage” depends upon changing the minds of people stupid enough to confuse gay marriage with polygamy is living on some planet other than Earth.
Polygamy will never be a problem in any society in which women have rights and social status equal to that of men. Just look at those poor losers in Colorado City, and the little girls they have to practically kidnap and hold prisoner to get to marry them. They have to go find themselves their own, little bubble outside of time in order to pull it off.
The whole “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” line of bull is being propagated by people who either have an amazing ignorance of human nature or a tremendous will to deceive.
posted by Mark on
The idea that there are more than a small handful of people who are seriously interested in practicing polygamy (as oopposed to watching an HBO show about it) is really stretching it.
posted by raj on
NEL
\\\\\\”Help\\\\\\” with what, exactly?
I was wondering the same thing. One wonders whether Stephen gets paid by the post.
posted by Randy R. on
I saw the cover the other day, and it took me a minute to figure out what’s going on. (okay, I’m slow). But it often takes me a minute to figure out ANY New Yorker cover.
I wouldn’t read too much into it. Few people read the magazine beyond NY, NJ, and Conn, and they no doubt found it amusing. As so should we…..
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
it doesn’t help the fight for gay marriage to make polygamy seem chic
But since when does “The New Yorker” speak on behalf of gay people or gay marriage?
This whole “defend what these unrelated people have had to say about your cause” concept is a nasty, control-freak form of demogoguery. Why should I worry about what someone else has to say? I’ll defend my position, thank you very much, rather than scramble to attack someone else for taking “the wrong view.” Gay conservatives, libertarians and liberals alike should do the same.
posted by Todd on
I’m a subscriber, and when I got the issue (accompanied by a smart piece about the recent FMA debate) I saw a double wedding — two sisters or college friends getting married on the same day.
posted by Patrick (gryph) on
I think technically that picture would depict polyamory, not polygamy. Don’t ask me what the real difference is. The first time I had ever heard of the term was from Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost. Its remarkable on how up-to-date Evangelicals keep themselves on the latest sexual issues. One might think they were obsessed or something.
posted by Bobby on
Polyamory is when you love several people.
Polygamy is when you marry several people.
Polyamory is a private matter and most polyamorist don’t see legal recognition. Polygamyst do seek to be legalized.
Personally, I don’t think everything has to be legalized.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t see the point in government being involved in “legalizing” any private, mutually consensual relationship or other arrangement — marriage or anything else.
The massive increase in breakdowns of families and collapse of minority urban families into poverty can be directly traced to government’s decision to involve itself intimately in the private family affairs of others.
However, so long as Americans claim government has a role in “legalizing” relationships, they have a constitutional obligation to not discriminate irrationally against any relationship which two competent adults choose. That’s something they just cannot wrap their heads around, which is why all the “states’ rights” posturing, etc. is so amusing/sad.
posted by Bobby on
Question for you, Northeast Libertarian. If two people are friends, not lovers. Should one friend be able to tell the government “I want Jerry to get a green card because he’s my best friend.”
Sometimes not everything is equal. Government has the right to pick and choose what to legalize and what to criminalize or simply ignore.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If two people are friends, not lovers. Should one friend be able to tell the government “I want Jerry to get a green card because he’s my best friend.”
Perhaps a more important question to ask is “why shouldn’t he?”
Why should heterosexual sex partners get special rights that other pairings, of whatever sort, shouldn’t get?
14 Comments for “Polygamy Chic.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Help” with what, exactly?
posted by Lori Heine on
I guess, help the bigots to understand us. We all know things would have been any different had The New Yorker not gone so awfully over the top.
As my friend’s teenage daughter likes to say, complete with sigh and roll of eyes “As if…”
posted by Avee on
Seems pretty evident to me: it doesn’t help the fight for gay marriage to make polygamy seem chic.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anyone who seriously believes that winning the “fight for gay marriage” depends upon changing the minds of people stupid enough to confuse gay marriage with polygamy is living on some planet other than Earth.
Polygamy will never be a problem in any society in which women have rights and social status equal to that of men. Just look at those poor losers in Colorado City, and the little girls they have to practically kidnap and hold prisoner to get to marry them. They have to go find themselves their own, little bubble outside of time in order to pull it off.
The whole “same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy” line of bull is being propagated by people who either have an amazing ignorance of human nature or a tremendous will to deceive.
posted by Mark on
The idea that there are more than a small handful of people who are seriously interested in practicing polygamy (as oopposed to watching an HBO show about it) is really stretching it.
posted by raj on
NEL
\\\\\\”Help\\\\\\” with what, exactly?
I was wondering the same thing. One wonders whether Stephen gets paid by the post.
posted by Randy R. on
I saw the cover the other day, and it took me a minute to figure out what’s going on. (okay, I’m slow). But it often takes me a minute to figure out ANY New Yorker cover.
I wouldn’t read too much into it. Few people read the magazine beyond NY, NJ, and Conn, and they no doubt found it amusing. As so should we…..
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
it doesn’t help the fight for gay marriage to make polygamy seem chic
But since when does “The New Yorker” speak on behalf of gay people or gay marriage?
This whole “defend what these unrelated people have had to say about your cause” concept is a nasty, control-freak form of demogoguery. Why should I worry about what someone else has to say? I’ll defend my position, thank you very much, rather than scramble to attack someone else for taking “the wrong view.” Gay conservatives, libertarians and liberals alike should do the same.
posted by Todd on
I’m a subscriber, and when I got the issue (accompanied by a smart piece about the recent FMA debate) I saw a double wedding — two sisters or college friends getting married on the same day.
posted by Patrick (gryph) on
I think technically that picture would depict polyamory, not polygamy. Don’t ask me what the real difference is. The first time I had ever heard of the term was from Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost. Its remarkable on how up-to-date Evangelicals keep themselves on the latest sexual issues. One might think they were obsessed or something.
posted by Bobby on
Polyamory is when you love several people.
Polygamy is when you marry several people.
Polyamory is a private matter and most polyamorist don’t see legal recognition. Polygamyst do seek to be legalized.
Personally, I don’t think everything has to be legalized.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t see the point in government being involved in “legalizing” any private, mutually consensual relationship or other arrangement — marriage or anything else.
The massive increase in breakdowns of families and collapse of minority urban families into poverty can be directly traced to government’s decision to involve itself intimately in the private family affairs of others.
However, so long as Americans claim government has a role in “legalizing” relationships, they have a constitutional obligation to not discriminate irrationally against any relationship which two competent adults choose. That’s something they just cannot wrap their heads around, which is why all the “states’ rights” posturing, etc. is so amusing/sad.
posted by Bobby on
Question for you, Northeast Libertarian. If two people are friends, not lovers. Should one friend be able to tell the government “I want Jerry to get a green card because he’s my best friend.”
Sometimes not everything is equal. Government has the right to pick and choose what to legalize and what to criminalize or simply ignore.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If two people are friends, not lovers. Should one friend be able to tell the government “I want Jerry to get a green card because he’s my best friend.”
Perhaps a more important question to ask is “why shouldn’t he?”
Why should heterosexual sex partners get special rights that other pairings, of whatever sort, shouldn’t get?