The Boston Globe does a story on polyamory.
Shockingly, a conservative site takes issue with the concept.
PSH ensues in the comments.
For those of you who don't believe in Christian morality...
Polygamy increases the odds of terrorism. If 20% of men take 4 wives each, this leaves 80% of men to fight for 20% of the women. This gets competitive, creating a culture where violence is acceptable.
This is also why most terrorists are Arab/Muslim, since they are the only ones who (currently) practice it.
Lawdy-lawdy... Subsequent commenters hit on the obvious problems with this insanity: it's not like supposedly monogamous* cultures are necessarily less competitive, there's no shortage of violence outside the Muslim world, there are far more persuasive reasons for the prevalence of Muslim terrorism, and--most importantly--modern polyamory ain't historical polygyny: a woman can have multiple husbands as easily as a man can have multiple wives. My own experience backs that last bit up, incidentally, as I've _known_ as many FMM triads as MFF triads; and as rare as stable quads are, there doesn't seem to be any specific shortage of quads with multiply husbands _and_ multiple wives.
But past all the silliness about "family values" (which usually seems to actually mean "families like mine") and the scaaaawy "redefinition" of marriage, the Spectator's point is entirely valid: as the gay rights train steadily progresses (provided they don't derail themselves taking the turns too fast), you will start to see poly families starting to demand equal protection under the law. Hell, the earliest rumblings are already starting in Canada.
All social movements past the "stop turning dogs and firehoses on us" stage have to use incrementalism to achieve their goals. I don't care whether your goal is gay rights, poly rights, gun rights, or banning guns, for that matter; if you demand everything up front, you lose. And the big players who actually drive policy know this. I think gay rights groups are making three critical errors overall: insisting that gaiety is genetic, and thus homophobic policies are racist (hanging their movement on an unproven and falsifiable assumption); demanding too much too fast (pushing marriage and pro-gay school curricula when most states still give no legal protection whatsoever); and answering "next it'll be plural marriages" with "nyuh-uh!"
Don't knock the slippery slope: it works.
A mature movement knows how to pace its demands, but there will always be less politically savvy folks who demand gay marriage, plural marriage, or paperless machine gun sales at the hardware store right now. The mature movement needs to figure out a practical way to deal with those committed-but-misguided people, even if it amounts to ignoring them. Ultimately, insisting that they don't exist can only ever show the public that you're a liar.
[* - We're all clear on the fact that most cultures are far less monogamous than they think they are, right?]