Canada considers polyamory

[Rich_Olszewski]

You don’t? So I should go out and find some younger “babe” because my wife’s getting on in years? And you don’t find that shocking? I certainly think it’s shocking that someone would not find it shocking.

I trust that you haven’t been kept on ice over the years either, so that cuts both ways. Also, the new spouse doesn’t have to be a “young babe” or a “young stud.” She or he could just be a change of scene as it were.

I’m not saying that everyone will be doing serial monogamy, but I’m not going to be shocked if it becomes more regular. I look at life expectancies and see that some would consider it quite imaginable to do that.

Religious people would likely not consider it, but the secular world might. As they already do with ordinary divorce.

At my age, there’s nothing that shocks me anymore.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I hate to be right. I said in the past that this was the “natural” order of things once you lifted limits on marriage and allowed same-sex couples to marry. Polygamy is next. On my list I have pedophelia then bestiality as next.

I wonder why in Canada and in the US, the Supreme Court seems to be the one thats making the rules, instead of just interpreting the law. Or its the law to be interpreted to mean anything nowadays? Things like this should be put on a vote and let people decide. I still have faith in the people. But it looks like the people are not given a voice in these matters anymore.

 

[revert_jen]

It was easy to say “until death do us part” over the last two millenia when the life expectancy was only into the 40s - at best - but, with today’s life expectancies, there’s opinion that holds that expecting all couples to remain married, not for 20 years, but for 60 or so, is totally unrealistic.

With God, all things are possible.

In any case, your statistics are misleading. A life expectancy into the 40s at best is probably correct, if you calculate life expectancy from birth. But your life expectancy by the time you were old enough to marry would be much higher, due to the high rates of infant and child mortality. Life expectancy would certainly have been lower than it is now, but considerably higher than 40. If you add the fact that people used to marry something like ten years younger than they frequently do now, it’s more like a difference between 30 and 50 years, which doesn’t seem to make the difference between realistic and unrealistic.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your conclusion that it is not shocking that in the future some sort of planned serial monogamy would become the norm. I tend to disagree with the reason it might happen, however. I think it would be more likely the result of a greatly decreased sense of self-sacrifice and commitment.

–Jen

 

[Ridgerunner]

I trust that you haven’t been kept on ice over the years either, so that cuts both ways. Also, the new spouse doesn’t have to be a “young babe” or a “young stud.” She or he could just be a change of scene as it were.

I’m not saying that everyone will be doing serial monogamy, but I’m not going to be shocked if it becomes more regular. I look at life expectancies and see that some would consider it quite imaginable to do that.

Religious people would likely not consider it, but the secular world might. As they already do with ordinary divorce.

At my age, there’s nothing that shocks me anymore.

C’mon now, Rich. I’m as fit as a fiddle! You know, washboard abs, bubble derriere. All that. (I wish)

Given not so much your age as your profession, I would not think anything would shock you anymore. No, I sure wouldn’t.

 

[Nec5]

For those not hip to the new lingo, that’s a multiple partner relationship where everybody “loves” everybody else.

So they take the Barney theme song, and make it a sexual lifestyle.

 

[TMC]

Rather than a new thing, isn’t this more of a return to truly old-style marriage? Seems like polyamory was all the rage in OT times.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Wonderful news! Simply wonderful!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Rather than a new thing, isn’t this more of a return to truly old-style marriage? Seems like polyamory was all the rage in OT times.

Not really. Only royalty would truly have many wives. Concubinage is part of slaves being property of the wife. So if the wife cannot bear a child, then having a child with the slave is treated the same as having a child with the wife since the wife owns the slave, therefore the child is hers also.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

C’mon now, Rich. I’m as fit as a fiddle! You know, washboard abs, bubble derriere. All that. (I wish)

I haven’t been like that since I was in Basic Training and Officers’ Training School. Age does a number on you, though, both in the looks and weight department. Alas.

Given not so much your age as your profession, I would not think anything would shock you anymore. No, I sure wouldn’t.

Right on both counts. I’ve learned that there’s nothing new under the sun and nothing to be shocked by.

 

[exoflare]

It seems like there were quite a few people here before ridiculing anyone who predicted this would be the next step after gay “marriage”. Or am I just recalling incorrectly?

 

[cyberwolf001]

It seems like there were quite a few people here before ridiculing anyone who predicted this would be the next step after gay “marriage”. Or am I just recalling incorrectly?

Personally I was fine with this from the start. An still am.

 

[exoflare]

Personally I was fine with this from the start. An still am.

I think a lot of people doing the ridiculing were, too. They just sounded convinced that it would never actually happen. Either that, or they really thought it could happen but were just desperate to label their opposition as “paranoid”.

 

[josie_L]

C’mon now, Rich. I’m as fit as a fiddle! You know, washboard abs, bubble derriere. All that. (I wish)

Given not so much your age as your profession, I would not think anything would shock you anymore. No, I sure wouldn’t.

What’s his profession?