There is not the tradition of polyamory though, is there Bill; just the tradition of same-sex relationships as outlined on another Online-Opinion thread yesterday -

..... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13642&page=0#236174
.

A few thoughts…

This sort of attempt at satirical writing doesn't suit you – best stick to the usual. Even the only phrase that had me giggling "The power couple of Australia's increasingly open polyamorous community…" wasn't yours.

Surely if you were really genuine in your concerns you would have tried to join PolyVic, or adopted a position in Bisexual Alliance Victoria, in order to express your views – not the Greens.

Assuming your preference for male and female role models I might have thought a couple of spares around the house would be a good thing? Reinforcement if you will.

Nonetheless your outrage at the hypocrites motivated me to want to join the Family Council of Victoria in order to exercise my vote (or is it my right?), when you're next up for election as Secretary. But I couldn't locate the membership form on the website. So if you wouldn't mind posting a link here I'd appreciate it.

I'm still curious as to where and when in human history marriage met your ideal?

In the meantime, you have convinced me that neither the government nor any other organisation has a role in the marriage definition business.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equality

Equality- The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

When are groups like "Australian Marriage Equality" going to be honest enough to admit that they still want to maintain marriage inequality, because they are ONLY pushing for marriage equality for ONE group of people only?

The marriage laws are exclusive and thus unequal in several ways. Once the door is opened for these laws to be changed, on the basis of equality, what basis is left to deny the other groups who are currently excluded?

Once gay marriage is established, it will only be fair to open the marriage laws up to children and polygamists. And it isn't just liberal minded hippies who support polygamy, what about Muslims?

For anyone who thinks this is simply a slippery slope, alarmist position....all I have to say is this: Wait ten years. Just wait.

The wheel will turn faster than you or I can imagine. In the 1960's, bars still closed at 6pm!

Once we make this misguided notion of "equality" the be all and end all, there will be no reasonable basis left to preserve any kind of exclusivity in the concept of marriage.

What sort of society do we want in the future? Do we want one where polygamists and minors have the same rights and government support behind them as committed, monogamous men and women? I don't, and I don't believe that makes me a bigot.

(Note: I'm not against bars opening till the early hours at all. My point was to get you to consider how quickly things do in fact change. I'm sure there are many other examples you can think of).

McReal wrote:

>>There is not the tradition of polyamory though, is there…>>

But there is.

Muslim men are allowed to take up to four wives.

It was only with great reluctance and after much pressure that Mormons gave up on polygamy.

At last count the president of South Africa had half a dozen or so.

Perhaps some women prefer 25% of an "alpha male" to 100% of a "beta" or "gamma."

Perhaps some men would be happy to share a woman who might like being shared.

Why shouldn't consenting adults be permitted to enter into whatever sorts of relationships suit them?

And who are you or Sarah Hanson-Young to say they may not?

And once we move away from marriage as being between one man and one woman does anyone seriously doubt we'll give other sorts of relationships the legal stamp of approval?

Of course we will because there'll be no reason not to.

The author may have been trying to be satirical but he does have a point. The Greens are being ingenuous on this issue