"Two in a marriage is enough"
A columnist for England's progressive New Statesman (April 17, 2006) looks at the polygamy kerfuffle that has U.S. conservatives "all asplutter" over "a future in which a man might marry his sister, his mother and his Labrador." Kira Cochrane has an upfront outsider's view of polyamory.
When it comes to questions of discrimination, some polyamorists (people who openly have more than one lover, but are not married) are arguing that their need for more than one partner is as innate and discrete as a "gay" disposition, and should be recognised as such. But let's face it this is going to take some proving. Most people in a long-term relationship have felt a strong need for another partner a sudden, blinding attraction for a girl in a bar or a guy at the office whether they pursue it or not. The sheer prevalence of this "disposition", this yearning for more sexual partners, would seem more a justification for abandoning marriage altogether than a case for extending its constructs.
Don't get me wrong: if people want to live communally, forming a long string of relationships, picking up new partners and discarding old ones, or remaining for many years in a stable collective of three or four or 27 people, that's entirely their call.
It would make no sense, however, to write this into law. Liberal polygamy is just too variable. What happens if one partner in a group of three decides to leave, for instance?...
Given the inherent differences, it is to be hoped that [the] conflation of gay marriage with polygamy will end in the US. To claim that there is an overlap or a "slippery slope" is entirely specious. The polyamorists will likely continue, separately, to try to convince us of their cause, and they are welcome to give it a go.
If they should ever succeed, after all, it could be one helluva wedding party.
Read the whole article.