You’ll have to forgive the fact that this article is not the original, but as I was already on the NRO reading on the IRS I figured I would just take this straight off there. You can read the original article in Slate.
“Lessons in Marriage from a Poly-amorist” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/362141/lesson-marriage-polyamorist-mona-charen
Beans, you were right. And…I don’t remember if it was Pat or Sloth that called it, but um…looks like it took less time than I thought for somebody to seize the line of argument.
[the article] elicited angry letters because Carey compared polyamorists with homosexuals. Polyamory (the desire â?? need? â?? for multiple sexual partners) is a choice, the letter writers protested, whereas homosexuality is innate, like skin color.
"Carey writes, â??For many polyamorists, the idea of a partner telling them that they can never, under any circumstance, embrace their feelings for a new partner feels terrifying and stifling.â??
In other words, polyamorists cannot find true personal fulfillment unless they are free to indulge in many sexual relationships. Heâ??s not saying he was born that way, merely that justice demands that his wishes be given the same legal recognition as monogamous heterosexuals â?? and in many states, homosexuals."[/quote]
The thread or argument is not fully evolved yet of course, but it looks like it is going to come up much sooner than I otherwise would have considered likely. Interesting.