July 1, 2015

"Here's how libertarianism has led me and my partner into polyamory, and why America will have to grapple with this issue next."

An article at The Federalist:
“This is it!” I thought. I’d finally found what seemed like a desirable alternative to the wedded misery I saw all around me. Brad—although skeptical about my motives—was thrilled at the prospect of opening up our relationship. After much philosophical and emotional discussion, we decided to give polyamory a chance. Wanting a fresh start, we decided to move away from our old jobs and friends in Raleigh to Asheville, a progressive, “poly”-friendly town in the Appalachians....

Since we’ve discovered polyamory, we don’t care about new houses or new cars or vacations. What really makes us tick is the idea of falling in love, over and over and over again. Now, we have the best of both worlds....
I'm not agreeing with this. Just thought you might want to read it and talk about it. The description of married sex that begins the article is the dumbest self-confessed behavior by a woman I've read since yesterday when people were linking to that Pajamas Media writer who got locked in a bedroom.

Anyway, the Federalist writer isn't even married to her Brad — whose privacy she blithely invades — so I don't know what this has to do with the recent same-sex marriage issue or why America should have to grapple with it. It's your life, lady. There's no legal issue, no role of government that needs to be figured out. We don't need to "grapple" with what makes you "tick."

Libertarians! I thought they're supposed to want to be left alone. Leave me alone.

105 comments:

Expat(ish) said...

My son is at school in Asheville and he just shrugged at this and said: Asheville.

As Jessie Helms once famously said of Chapel Hill when the state was seeking federal funding for a zoo: Why not put a fence around it and charge admission?

-C

Monkeyboy said...

Sorry bigots but you can't deny people the right to be with who they love because you find it icky.

#lovewins

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

My inclination is to believe that our evolutionary past inclines us to believe that just about any sex is good sex.

In line with that, I'm hard-pressed to see how the efficient cause of the cultural proscription of polyamory is anything other than scarcity of resources.

We are a very, very wealthy collection of human beings, historically speaking.

And who knows? Maybe I even managed to get lucky in my choice to go with "efficient." Stranger things have happened.

EMD said...

Leave me alone.

You don't have to read magazine articles.

Mr. D said...

Monkeyboy said...
Sorry bigots but you can't deny people the right to be with who they love because you find it icky.

#lovewins


The new hashtag is #lovewinwinwins

Rob said...

Polyamory is all very nice, but until it transmogrifies into three-ways, it's a dream deferred, a raisin in the sun.

Ann Althouse said...

"You don't have to read magazine articles."

Back in the 70s, I had a job that consisted of reading magazines.

Paul said...

I know people in this sort of relationship. They're good people. And part of what makes them good people is that they don't ask anyone to grapple with the details of their romances or sex lives. They don't ask for approval or affirmation from me, and they sure as heck don't need it to live their lives in the way they choose.

Why does this person think she is entitled to decide what I must 'grapple' with and discuss? She's not my friend, and whatever my personal judgements might be are irrelevant to her, as are the opinions of almost all of the vast sea of humanity. If she's living happily as she chooses, I would have thought she wouldn't be seeking more attention.

Nonapod said...

I'm a little bit confused about what specifically this has to do with libertarianism. AFAIK, there currently aren't any laws prohibiting polyarmory. There are laws prohibiting polygyny and polyandry of course.

traditionalguy said...

The discovery of a social set that screws around with one another's wives for sport and domination is like discovering any close group that repeatedly interacts like a modern Church does or an old time college faculty does or an Airline Crew out of town does. it's not new kids. If you want a new romance for a short time, hang around at clubs near the Airport area, go to the college activities or the local church activities.

To get into the mood rent a 1960s tour de force by Taylor and Burton that never makes TV called Who's Afraid of Virginian Wolf. Don't buy it because watching it once will wear you out.

PB said...

The slippery slope seems primed with KY jelly.

Related prank call about KY.
https://youtu.be/GWAR1IGdZTI?

EMD said...

polyarmory

Definitely in Chicago, unless you're a criminal.

n.n said...

Stuck on polygamy. This is reminiscent of the pro-choice effort to preserve sacrificial rites by narrowing the focus to the moral ambiguity associated with conception in the exceptional rape cases. They lost control of the narrative once they expanded their frame of reference to slander all men with the spinning of a "rape culture". The sanctimonious hypocrisy was progressive and overwhelming.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

I wonder what the facebook avatar for supporters of polyarmory marriage will look like.

CatherineM said...

Gee Asheville has changed from the days in the late 80s when my nickname was "commie Yankee democrat" there. I realized how much it had changed when I saw so many "white Rastafarian's" carrying produce in a shallow baskets around by foot around 2004.

sinz52 said...

Life is terribly, tragically short.

So get as much sexual pleasure as you can while you still can.

Sex just isn't as much fun when you're my age and hooked up to a dialysis machine.

Expat(ish) said...

@CatherineM - what the heck part of Asheville were you in? I was there plenty in the 70's and 80's and as a Carter Democrat (don't judge) I felt like a Bircher.

Now, two miles outside the center of town we are all Banjo, 'shine, and flags, yes.

-XC

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

Polyamory is all well and good. Just don't come to the govt for subsidies and privileges that were created in the first place to promote the well-being of the the rising generation. And if you bring children into it, expect the court to enforce some of the basic rules and relationships of the arrangement until the children are of age if the relationship goes away or the fun goes out of it.

Isn't having more than one wife "poly yammery"?

CStanley said...

The article and author are so dumb that it makes me much LESS inclined toward libertarianism since there is a child being subjected to this. But I know that putting the govt. in charge of sorting that out would be worse so I'm left with feeling sorry for kids like that and offering my prayers. Very sad.

tim in vermont said...

Sorry bigots but you can't deny people the right to be with who they love because you find it icky.

Who is suggesting that?

Monkeyboy said...

@Paul

I know people in this sort of relationship. They're good people. And part of what makes them good people is that they don't ask anyone to grapple with the details of their romances or sex lives. They don't ask for approval or affirmation from me, and they sure as heck don't need it to live their lives in the way they choose

Interestingly one could have said the same thing about gay couples, but that is now considered homophobia.

clint said...

Exhibitionists come in all flavours.

jimbino said...

Civil marriage of any kine is an affront to libertarianism. The gummint needs to get out of the marriage business, leaving the religious and superstitious the option of having any wedding ceremony and un-recognized marriage they wish. Rand Paul, our resident libertarian, has proposed just that.

Gabriel said...

All libertarians are dumb and all libertarian ideas not worth dealing with because ONE libertarian said something dumb.

Libertarianism 101: There is no libertarian who can make statements on behalf of other libertarians, because libertarians do not agree on what libertarianism is.

Babaluigi said...

Well, the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this piece was that it is a darned shame they are sexually bored with each other after just 4 years...Y'all just are not doing it right...

The second thing is concern for how the kid is going to turn out ...but not my kid or concern, "so judgemental" that would be...so good luck to them...they are going to need it...(besides, I am sure the world could always use more strippers, nothing wrong with that, right?)

Julie C said...

As soon as I saw the line that she was practicing "attachment parenting" I thought, lady, that was your first mistake.

I think what she's describing is what we used to call swinging. You can dress it up with fancier terms, but it's still a pig's ear.

Peter said...

"My inclination is to believe that our evolutionary past inclines us to believe that just about any sex is good sex."

Is it not more reasonable to suppose our evolutionary past would incline men toward quantity and women toward quality?

Monkeyboy said...

@Tim
Who is suggesting that?
Why the people who don't support poly marriages of course. Consider the case of two "official" members having to go to the hospital and a third member being denied the right to visit them.
Some children are not growing up in stable, validated families because of hate, pure and simple.

Bay Area Guy said...

No mention of how the 3-year daughter feels about all this leftist nonsense.

Not to be prude, but all this is pretty easy to handle if one stays single. The problem is that whatshername wants simultaneously the security of commitment along with the freedom of non-commitment, which, obviously, is not doable. Or, if I may paraphrase the great political philosopher, Bob Seeger, "he wants to dream like a young man, with the wisdom of an old man...."

tim in vermont said...

Some children are not growing up in stable, validated families because of hate, pure and simple.

You throw that term "hate" around pretty freely. Could you define it?

lgv said...

Asheville? Reailly? I did not know that. Other than that, I couldn't tie the points together.

Monkeyboy said...

@Tim

Gladly,
Hate is the opposite of #lovewins.
When everyone on Facebook changes their avatar, people who refuse, do it out of hate.
If something feels good, and you try to stop me from doing it, you act out of hate.
Don't validate life choices that are popular on the internet?....HATE!

Glad I could be of help.

Darcy said...

Well, it can work as well as a (bad) traditional marriage, I guess. Got a laugh out of me.

jr565 said...

"You throw around the word hate pretty freely. Could you define it?"
In the lefties case it's disagreement with the stated position. If uou are anti gay marriage then it's not disagreement it's hate. If you don't accept polygamy (and you are for polygamy) then your disagreememt is hate.

digs0 said...

"Leave me alone."

Surely you understand you're asking for it with that comment, right? Or are you slyly acknowledging what the Christian businessperson feels under the pressure of the overstepping gay rights movement? You don't even want to read a magazine article about people whose lifestyles don't interest you or meet with your approval. Now imagine that the polyamorists have the power to destroy your business and your life. All because they have been able to hypnotize the country into thinking they have a right to your active approval.

The insanity will continue.

Clayton Hennesey said...

In Sex & the Kingdom of the Self, Rod Dreher seems to think she represents many of us, us being not him.

"What makes this something more than a Jerry Springer Show episode is that Burrows’s core conviction — that marriage is something entirely about accommodating the desiring individual Self — is also at the core of our fast-evolving understanding of marriage (and not just same-sex marriage, but marriage in the age of no-fault divorce). Burrows is an outlier, certainly, but the radical “freedom” she embraces is logically consistent. That is, she follows a concept of liberty that many contemporary Americans actually believe in, to its end."

He concludes:

"There are no victimless crimes, there are no sins that we own ourselves."

Ann Althouse said...

"Isn't having more than one wife "poly yammery"?"

Great word, but I suggest using it to mean talking about your polyamory too much (or at all).

Ann Althouse said...

"My inclination is to believe that our evolutionary past inclines us to believe that just about any sex is good sex."

Time for remedial-anti-rape lessons.

I Callahan said...

Civil marriage of any kine is an affront to libertarianism. The gummint needs to get out of the marriage business, leaving the religious and superstitious the option of having any wedding ceremony and un-recognized marriage they wish. Rand Paul, our resident libertarian, has proposed just that.

You'd think so. But read the pages of Reason magazine lately, and you may be a bit surprised.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Uh oh, Ann is going to start crying again.

An article by one self described Libertarian in that magazine just won't leave her alone.

LarryK said...

The author looks like she's in her early 30s, but intellectually she's 19 and still in a late adolescent phase of rejecting the "chains" of family and religion in a quixotic quest for authentic autonomy (I'm felling alliterative today...). This is immature libertarianism from an immature person. Hopefully she'll grow out of it and not do too damage to her child along the way.

tim in vermont said...

Civil marriage of any kine is an affront to libertarianism!

OK, I added the exclamation point.

Funny thing is that this is not a country founded on libertarianism. It is a nation, which has mechanisms to defend and replicate itself over time. Mechanism without which any nation eventually disappears.

Don't reproduce, which seems to be a bugaboo of yours, and those of us who have's grandchildren will be quite happy living the the world those who did created without your contribution.

All fine colloquial English, BTW.

kcom said...

Leave her alone. It's the mood swings.

Oh, never mind. Different post. LOL

kcom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

The description of married sex that begins the article is the dumbest self-confessed behavior by a woman I've read since yesterday...

You have to love the internet.

Dr.D said...

Shows the typical sexual obsession of the Left. She says that they no longer car about anything other than "falling in love again and again," read that "falling into bed with a new partner, again and again."

One of the several reasons that tropical societies have accomplished little (think Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, etc) is that they have spend so much of their energies on procreation. They have little or no sense of self-restraint, but simply go from bed-to-pallet-to-ground, time and again, all day, every day. Think what they might have accomplished had all that energy been channeled into something other than sexual gratification!

eric said...

Don't worry, this isn't going to be forced on us like gay sex was. Because these people are much wiser and more understanding of those who disagree with them. Uh huh.

Freeman Hunt said...

Since we’ve discovered polyamory, we don’t care about new houses or new cars or vacations. What really makes us tick is the idea of falling in love, over and over and over again. Now, we have the best of both worlds: the security of a steady, stable partner, to have and to hold, and the sense of adventure and excitement at the thought of the unknown, the possibility of new romance around every corner, the butterflies in our stomachs we never thought we’d get the chance to feel again.

Another way to put this: "We are incredibly boring people. The only things that pass our consciousnesses as possible interests or hobbies are acquiring material possessions or having new sexual relationships. That's it. Those two things. We picked the second one."

policraticus said...

Ick.

That pretty much sums up my reaction to the whole thing.

But you know what? Icky or not, it is none of my business how others choose to complicate and confuse their lives. I am, however, bored with hearing about. It is tedious, these people and their endless wranglings over their various liaisons, their puerile grapplings and then later their pseudo-intellectual bourgeois self-justification for what is, at bottom, a matter of lust. I don't care that you are horny when your partner is tired. I don't care about how "he doesn't "touch you" even when he is, presumably, inside of you. I really don't care. Stop talking about and start f-king like you mean it and leave me to do likewise.

These people are too boring to be libertines. They lack the courage of their convictions. They are the antithesis of the anything like sexual liberty. Like gay marriage, they are taking what was once considered transgressive and outrageous and packaging,it so that it can be sold to the proles at WallMart.

Where is Henry Miller when we really need him??

Freeman Hunt said...

"Grapple with my profound shallowness! Grapple with it!"

Kyzernick said...

Whorrible article, written clearly as clickbait.

Anglelyne said...

Julie C: I think what she's describing is what we used to call swinging.

And before that, other things. You have to be pretty incurious and ill-read to think nobody ever crusaded for "breaking the chains of monogamy" before.

This chick sounds really, really dumb.

The author: We’ve gotten a lot of warnings and admonitions from well-intentioned friends and family members that we’re going to destroy our relationship and hurt our daughter, but we feel exactly the opposite.

Well, as long as you feel that way...

There is no need for cheating, lying or sneaking around. No one owns anyone else. No one is responsible for anyone else’s emotions or meeting anyone else’s needs. There is no more co-dependence. There is interdependence, on a voluntary basis. Each member is an autonomous, free individual, who can come or go as she or he pleases.

Including your three-year-old daughter?

Drago said...

Althouse: "..so I don't know what this has to do with the recent same-sex marriage issue or why America should have to grapple with it."

Now that's funny.

Just Mike said...

Just like the nudists yesterday upon whom YOU MUST LOOK, in this instance YOU MUST CARE

Alexander said...

Libertarians! I thought they're supposed to want to be left alone. Leave me alone.

That's cute.

Our government has declared time and time again that one has no right to be left alone. Make the wrong donation to a political cause or ask to be left out of a wedding arrangement or play a visually accurate board game set in 1862, and you're done. The TSA, NSA, EPA... not one iota of respect for individual privacy.

I would certainly prefer a live-and-let-live society. But I have no intention of allowing my preference to be a suicide pact: those who push and push to invade the right to disassociate will have no sympathy for me when the get pushed back and start demanding protection of the very principle they murdered.

Those who insist on dividing humanity into faces and boots on the premise that they get to pick sides first, will not be allowed to change the rules to remove all boots midway through.

MaxedOutMama said...

From the article:
"I educated myself about peaceful parenting and became determined to treat my daughter as a free, autonomous person with inalienable rights, not as my property."

Yeah, like that ever worked with a young kid. Children need parents.

Otherwise, I wouldn't care, but I wonder what's going to happen to the poor kid!!!

Monkeyboy said...

Those who insist on dividing humanity into faces and boots on the premise that they get to pick sides first, will not be allowed to change the rules to remove all boots midway through.

That should be written in letters of gold...or perhaps in iron over the gates of the camps. (I call the top bunk.)

gerry said...

It's your life, lady. There's no legal issue, no role of government that needs to be figured out.

That was an argument against redefining marriage. Of course the redefinition of marriage was never about the possible sadness of being alone, and inventing a right where none existed; it was and is an effort to force everyone to approve, morally, of certain behavior, to impose a belief system upon others.

Leave me alone. It is ironic and hypocritical that you want to be left alone, when you have so actively supported NOT leaving most of us alone.

Darcy said...

So. What shall we (all!!) "celebrate" next?

Gahrie said...

why America should have to grapple with it. It's your life, lady. There's no legal issue, no role of government that needs to be figured out. We don't need to "grapple" with what makes you "tick."

This is exactly how most of us think about homosexuality and transgenderism.

David Hampton said...

To 'Brad' Thad and "Gladys, or whatever your names are, a scanning electron microscope could not discover how small my interest is in your sex life. Control your exhibitionism quietly.

jimbino said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meade said...

She must have taken Justice Scalia's advice and asked the nearest hippie.

jimbino said...

Blogger jimbino said...

I wonder how long it will take for a case to arrive at the Supreme Court claiming that granting 1000+ special privileges to couples on the basis of marriage that are denied to singles alone or living together in various combinations including grandmother-grandchild and sister-sister be deemed a violation of the equal-protection clause of the XIV Amendment.

The "dignity," "personal choices" and
"individual autonomy" parts of the Obergefell opinion would certainly apply to singles and the traditional family combinations that are not recognized as "marriage." It would seem silly to solve the discrimination by merely allowing the parties to get married. Simpler would be to abolish gummint recognition of marriage altogether and distribute gummint benefits on an individual basis.

The religious and superstitious could continue to get married in their private ceremonies and those of us, like Jesus and St Paul and all the world's animals and plants who didn't buy into their strange inclinations could be left alone.

Can we imagine a gummint that set up tennis clubs around the country limiting the subsidized play only to mixed doubles?

MayBee said...

Ha, Darcy! My thought exactly! Everybody wants to be celebrated these days!

JPS said...

I began the article curious about what argument she was going to make. Then I read about some very bad foreplay or sex, not sure which, and her laughter and explanation (in media res?) about bonobos, and I felt I was invading these poor people's privacy, even if she had set them up for that. I read on in a growing spirit of WTF? Then I read this:

"The first authority I came to see as illegitimate was government, shortly after discovering Ron Paul in 2008."

Ah.

"Soon after, I started to question my religion—Christianity….Along with the fear of God, I cast off any respect for parental authority I once had. Since the punitive, authoritarian man in the clouds was no longer real to me, who was to say children should obey their parents?"

Normally I would say children should obey until they've acquired the ability to make sound decisions, and to appreciate their consequences, that their parents have. In this case, not a high bar.

tim in vermont said...

Can we imagine a gummint that set up tennis clubs around the country limiting the subsidized play only to mixed doubles?

Sure, if tennis clubs were successful and time-honored ways of producing, socializing, and caring for the next generation of the country.

What you don't seem to get, jimbino, is that your belief that white Americans should not breed and all new workers the economy requires should be recruited from the peasant classes from Latin America is, shall we say, somewhat idiosyncratic.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said....It's your life, lady. There's no legal issue, no role of government that needs to be figured out.

If the author had added a sentence at the end that said: "Based on the recent S. Court ruling the government must allow us to marry each other on the grounds that not doing so would violate our right to dignity." would that have made the article worthwhile to you? (I have only read your excerpt so far)
Would it be unreasonable to guess that articles like this might be battlespace prep for a push for legalized polyamory/a ruling from the Court that it's unconstitutional to prohibit poly marriages (recognized by the state)? Do you see a parallel to the many positive stories about committed gay couples the Media covered in the recent past? Don't you think that coverage helped influence the massive shift in public opinion toward legalizing gay marriage, and thereby helped influence the Court's ruling? Mightn't poly marriage supporters want to pursue a similar tactic?

furious_a said...

Dismantling the guard rails. Mind the plunge!

furious_a said...

The Author is confusing Libertarian with Libertine.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...Libertarians! I thought they're supposed to want to be left alone. Leave me alone.

Well by your own comments it sounds like she's not advocating any government action, and if so she's sticking pretty closely to the Libertarian stereotype so I'm not sure what the problem is there. If you just prefer not to have to read about it I'll point out that when other people said (about the gay marriage issue) that they were bored of the topic or didn't really want to discuss it you used those assertions as evidence that people were closeminded, angry, or possibly hateful. At the very least you pointed out that someone saying "I don't care about this issue" communicated something else--and if I recall correctly you weren't very sympathetic to those assertions.

Maybe the author believes you should think deeply about how we should feel about her situation (and emotions, etc) and how that should inform our feelings about recent legal changes (and possible future challenges).

jimbino said...

Tim in Vermont:

your belief that white Americans should not breed

No, just that Whites should not enjoy subsidized breeding at the expense of the planet, as they now do. Latinos breed at much lower cost, at least, and their brood promises to place a much lower burden on the planet. In fact, if White breeding were not so well-established by the socialist state, it would probably be banned by the EPA.

tim in vermont said...

Good luck selling your version of libertarianism jimbino.

Alexander said...

Nonsense. The current policy of the international organizations is that Europe and North America have a duty to, over the next century, allow tens of millions of non-whites into those places to live. It is our land, infrastructure, accumulated wealth, medical advancements, and civilization that is subsidizing the rest of the world, not the other way round.

Nigeria alone has more than quadrupled its population since the British were kicked out. The grow about a fifth of the food they did at that time. Who is subsidizing those births?

Hint: It ain't China, and it ain't Chad.

In short, the growth of third world population is entirely dependent on the west slavishly producing the food and other necessities to support them, and giving up the land for them to live on. Without western subsidization, there would be an enormous contraction in those populations.

tim in vermont said...

BTW jimbino, I freely admit that subsidies intended to create an incentive to grow the nation are socialist in nature. That's why I am not a libertarian, and why almost everybody isn't one.

clint said...

"jimbino said...
Civil marriage of any kine is an affront to libertarianism."

Not just to libertarians.

I think you'd find that marriage to farm livestock has extremely low support in nearly all non-rural demographics in this country, across party lines.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

jimbino said... Civil marriage of any kine is an affront to libertarianism.

Is it? Libertarians hate consensual contracts, or gov recognition of what amounts to a basket of mutual contracts between consenting individuals?

Perhaps you mean to say the gov giving special benefits to people who are married is an affront to libertarianism?

jono39 said...

I see no way that the Supreme Court or any other legal entity can resist polygymy.Mormonism is going to explode. Just watch.

Doug said...

Well, if you have never been to Asheville, this nut job is a moderate in her community.

Rick said...

Gabriel said...
There is no libertarian who can make statements on behalf of other libertarians, because libertarians do not agree on what libertarianism is.


So in this way it's just like conservatism, liberalism, and progressivism then?

EMD said...

Funny thing is that this is not a country founded on libertarianism.

Not founded by socialists, either, but that's certainly not stopping them.

n.n said...

The immediate exclusion with "equal" is not polygamy, but other relationships comprised of two parts. Despite Kennedy's emotional outburst, and Obama's celebration of selective exclusion, the civil rights violations of the "equal" ruling include arbitrary denial of equivalence right to other "loving", non-traditional, and platonic relationships.

redcybra said...

Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license

By: Simone DeAlba - MTN News
Posted: Jul 01, 2015 9:10 AM EDT
Updated: Jul 01, 2015 9:22 AM EDT

http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

viator said...

What's fair is fair.

"Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act."

KRTV

n.n said...

redcybra:

Civil rights leaders.

Rick:

Libertarianism was established with classical liberalism. American Conservatism was established with The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which have a classical liberal orientation tempered by Judaeo-Christian religious/moral philosophy. Classical Progressivism was established with the Progressive Party in the early 20th century. Liberalism is a chaotic ideology. Progressivism is simply an ideology of unqualified, monotonic change. Both liberalism and progressivism characteristically develop with generational thresholds. They are also notably degenerative (i.e. unprincipled) with each succeeding generation.

cubanbob said...

I tried reading the article but the density of its stupidity gave me a headache. Basically as I understand it the author confuses libertarianism with libertinism and somehow is trying to make swinging sociably acceptable. Did I miss something?

Michael K said...

"Time for remedial-anti-rape lessons."

You remind of the old story about warriors. Some one said, "If they are gone all the time and risk getting killed, what about the next generation? The answer was, "They get to rape the losers' women."

Rhythm and Balls said...

Anti-Gay-Marriage Bait!

Titus said...

Hillary is in Ptown tomorrow. This is an abs huge international gay week for monied fags around the world in Ptown.

The memo has been delivered and the torched pass to all of homosexuals. We are now going to be delivering the White House to Hillary.

We determine what you watch, wear, and think politically. Well, not actually you oldies here because you don't have any real style and will be dead soon and as a result are not a demographic that anyone gives a shit about. Yes, you won't see the designs of us fags on the runways but eventually they filter down to WalMart. We even produce and direct Duck Dynasty!

Sorry, but we have decided, and Hillary will be your next president.

You all should forget about thinking if Bush or Rubio or Walker or Carson could actually win an actual general election, because they don't have a chance in hell....sorry.

take care and have a super 4th!

tim in vermont said...

We determine what you watch, wear, and think politically. Well, not actually you oldies here because you don't have any real style

LOL, the people they tell what to wear are the ones with "real style."

John Cunningham said...

I figure in about 3-5 years, our Black-robed rulers will legalize polygamy, incestuous marriages, and bestiality as a constitutional right.

TCom said...

Notice that jimbino has no concept of quality vs. quantity when it comes to Latino immigrants.

They raise their kids cheaper, and that's all that matters. They live more poorly, that's what matters.

What actually matters is the cost of a child vs. what that child does to benefit the society.

Urban blacks are pretty cheap, too.

Danno said...

I totally agree with Althouse on this article at The Federalist, but they have a much more interesting one on Chuck Todd at

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/01/sorry-chuck-todd-but-reporters-are-not-the-referees-of-politics/

That's all for now.

n.n said...

John Cunningham:

They have already legalized all "marriages" as a constitutional right, but not as a legal right. That is to say, they have to be forced to oppose other marriage relationships, in order to expose their unprincipled denial of equal rights. It's the same as their ruling for elective abortion that established a constitutional right to kill a human life for causes other than self-defense, followed by the abortion industry and lobbyists effort to legalize and normalize it as a pro-choice or selective-child policy.

The question today is not whether polygamy, incest, platonic, etc. relationships are constitutional, but how they intend to deny others equal rights under their newly conceived "marriage equality" policy. The rainbow is lackluster and they are scrambling to justify selective violation of civil rights under their chosen interpretation of the constitution.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do think that it is going to be quite hard to justify keeping polygamy, etc. illegal, with the legalization of homosexual marriage. Polygamy has long term historical support. It is mentioned in the Bible, and is legal with one of the largest religions on the planet, even today. Homosexual marriage is modern, and is frowned upon by major religions throughout history.

eric said...

You know who isn't discussing losing their religion to gay sex? Iran.

Some guy in Tennessee just posted a sign on his business that said no gays allowed. Of course, he will be mercilessly mocked in the media. He will be mocked because decades ago we bought the argument, "homo sex needs to be tolerated."

But they don't tolerate homo sex in Iran, do they?

Huge mistake tolerating sin. They just want more and more. I've learned the lesson now.

Aussie Pundit said...

It's your life, lady. There's no legal issue, no role of government that needs to be figured out.

The same could have been said to gay couples, prior to the SCOTUS ruling.

Kirby Olson said...

Librarians want to be left alone.

Renee said...

A man should have a legal relationship with all his baby mamas.

On geesh then but then baby mama should have a legal relationship with babies daddies.

If a star can be a part of more then one constellation, then a woman can be married to two men each who have several wives.

Unknown said...

Although I believe in the traditional view of marriage as one man and one woman, now scotus says otherwise and there is no good faith basis to exclude polygamy from the new defintion of marriage as defined by the constitution. Elections have consequences

jimbino said...

Unknown: there is no good faith basis to exclude polygamy from the new defintion of marriage as defined by the constitution. Elections have consequences

The right to enjoy the benefits of civil marriage have nothing to do with sex and breeding. Why shouldn't a cohabiting grandmother and grandson or two elderly sisters have a right to SS, Medicare, insurance, and other financial, inheritance and immigration benefits accorded a married couple?

These arrangements are as natural and traditional as "traditional" marriage and had a status equal to that of married couples before our socialist gummint started handing out special benefits to a chosen few. Now that most Amerikans are single, we can expect a XIV challenge to their exclusion from enjoyment of the 1000+ special benefits granted to married couples.

CatherineM said...

Expat-ish. I went to Roberson HS and then lived in Weaverville if that helps you. While you had Rainbow people (where were they?h with their dwindling communes and you could find the granola crowd if you looked (as a teenager I found a meeting supporting the Sandinistas! I think they though bad BO was a requirement. They freaked me out and I never went back), it was very rural and I was called anti-American a lot for having a liberal view point in classes. I had teachers who defended the South in the civil war ("we treated our slaves well! Why would you hurt a slave any more than you would crash a car you owned."), railed against uncle Tom's Cabin and would refer to people from "neeeeeew Jerzeeeeee" to make fun of "Yankees." There was always tobacco spit in the water fountain, there was a lot of flannel and boots. I had to order my Cure and other teen standard new wave music of the day special as it wasn't in sold in stores. It was important what Church you belonged to! I was constantly questiioned about being Catholic (what idols do you worship) and I was invited to be saved by those who believed I was not really a Christian. They considered Italians and Greeks to be as "swarthy" as African-Americans. All of the "Democrats" voted Republican for Reagan and Bush. Some girls got married in HS or the last days of Sr year included bridal showers in the home ec room. These were my contemporaries and their families. Not outliers.

So I don't know who you hung out with in the 70 or 80s, but you can't tell me Rastafarians were common. I never saw someone in punk gear and piercings downtown around the Pack Library (I loved that place! But it was an empty downtown then) or someone in tin foil for their art project. I wore army boots (normal teen gear then) and was considered "out there." UNC Asheville was not the artsy school it is now either.

The growth of Asheville the last 30 years has been astounding, in particular the downtown area which was nearly a ghost town in the 1980s. Now it's a great place for restaurants and small stores.

tim in vermont said...

The right to enjoy the benefits of civil marriage have nothing to do with sex and breeding. Why shouldn't a cohabiting grandmother and grandson or two elderly sisters have a right to SS, Medicare, insurance, and other financial, inheritance and immigration benefits accorded a married couple?

Ummm. Greece?

jimbino said...

Tinm in Vermont grunts Ummm. Greece?

What is that supposed to mean? Is Greece more libertarian than the USSA in recognizing civil rights?