The Boston Globe has a piece up about Polyamory in Boston. On the one hand, I'm tempted to agree with Marcel of the Aggie Catholics: this isn't "love." Mark Shea also has a bit to say about the subject.

I have a few thoughts of my own. First of all, this is exactly why the slippery slope argument against gay marriage is valid. Indeed, the slippery-slope argument applies more properly to divorce in general and no-fault divorce in particular more so than to gay "marriage." If marriage was recognized as an indisovable (or at least irreplaceable "until death do they part") union between one man and one woman, we would not be seeing what amounts to an endorsement of polyamory printed in a fairly major paper (let alone the outright praise given to gay "marriages" and other such unions lavished by a number of major media outlets). I won't further rehash Mr Shea's arguments regarding the "slippery slope."

Second, Mr Shea notes that this "is a philosophy for people with no children." Unfortunately, there are plenty of children involved in this mess. The article notes a number of the polyamorous--erm, couples?--have children, even young children. So why is this so bad? Will, the influence which this would have on the children for one. For another, this will ultimately hurt the children in the same manner as divorce (or even cheating within a marriage). Polyamory cannot provide a stable home for children--many of the "couples" had "committed" relationships involving 2-4 people, but often also had a number of men and/or women coming and going in the relationship--hardly a stable environment in which to raise children.

I would add another point, from my own experience. Given that I spend a good deal of my time at work, it is difficult to give proper attention to my fiance'--and we're not yet married, nor do we have children. When children come along, they require a great deal of attention. It's difficult enough as is to balance work with a committed relationship, and ultimately children. How could it possibly be easier when the number of commitments increases? I ask this, because in the article, the claim to some kind of commitment with multiple partners is made on a few occasions. For example, there is the allusion my Ms Gina Ogden: "With affairs, you get sex. With polyamory, you get breakfast.” She also notes that “Keeping one relationship vital is a lot of work, and if you start adding more relationships, it becomes more work.”

Where do these people find that extra time? Ask their children.