<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ruth Institute Blog &#187; polyamory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/category/polyamory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:12:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Monogamish</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/22/monogamish/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/22/monogamish/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gay and Lesbian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monogamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relationships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We often protest when homophobes insist that same sex marriage will change marriage for straight people too. But in some ways, they’re right. Here’s how gay relationships will change the institution—but for the better. By Ari Karpel When birth control pills were making Megan’s sex drive almost nonexistent, she told her boyfriend, Colin, what many [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/22/monogamish/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stuart Schneiderman on GGG</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/07/stuart-schneiderman-on-ggg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/07/stuart-schneiderman-on-ggg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:13:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Happy Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics & Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Radicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexual Integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual revolution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=8160</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8220;This is what happens when you take bad advice.&#8221;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/08/07/stuart-schneiderman-on-ggg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Polygamy: More Common Than You Think</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/06/polygamy-more-common-than-you-think/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/06/polygamy-more-common-than-you-think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polygamy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7008</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By ROSE MCDERMOTT Polygamy is a popular punchline these days, from HBO&#8217;s drama &#8220;Big Love&#8221; to TLC&#8217;s documentary &#8220;Sister Wives&#8221; and the Broadway musical &#8220;The Book of Mormon,&#8221; written by the creators of &#8220;South Park.&#8221; Yet plural marriage is as serious an issue as it&#8217;s ever been—and is even on the rise in the West. Warren [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/06/polygamy-more-common-than-you-think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Future Belongs To Those Who Show Up For It&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/02/the-future-belongs-to-those-who-show-up-for-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/02/the-future-belongs-to-those-who-show-up-for-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 05:20:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Demography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Legalities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics & Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popular culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Population]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Demographic Winter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex-selective Abortion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=6944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One has to wonder sometimes if Western Civilization is even going to bother showing up for the the future of the world. Well, not the way things are going in America lately, at least not according to recent government data as reported in the LA Times: LA Times: The maternity business has experienced a recession, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/02/the-future-belongs-to-those-who-show-up-for-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Same-Sex &#8216;Marriage&#8217; Law Cited in Canadian Polygamy Trial</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/01/same-sex-marriage-law-cited-in-canadian-polygamy-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/01/same-sex-marriage-law-cited-in-canadian-polygamy-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Legalities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics & Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polygamy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=6930</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[from WinnipegFreePress.com: The last time Canadians had a debate about the definition of marriage, it was over whether gays and lesbians had a constitutional right to marry. In the end, the courts decided they did. Now, as a British Columbia judge weighs whether polygamy should be decriminalized, advocates on both sides of the debate are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/01/same-sex-marriage-law-cited-in-canadian-polygamy-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>After Same-Sex &#8216;Marriage&#8217; the Sky&#8217;s the Limit</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/31/after-same-sex-marriage-the-skys-the-limit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/31/after-same-sex-marriage-the-skys-the-limit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Legalities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics & Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Radicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual identity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homosexual agenda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=6876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[LGBTweekly.com: The Irish edition of tabloid news magazine The Sun recently covered the story of Penny Lawrence, a 28-year-old woman suffering from Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) who is now pregnant with her father’s child. If you seriously don&#8217;t think there are folks waiting in the wings for same-sex &#8216;marriage&#8217; to set the legal precedent they [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/31/after-same-sex-marriage-the-skys-the-limit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are monogamy-only laws unconstitutional?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/are-monogamy-only-laws-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/are-monogamy-only-laws-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay lobby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage Legalities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics & Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homosexual agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=6212</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philosopher Francis Beckwith has posted a short, but incisive, comment on patheos.com concerning the legal implications of the &#8216;reasoning&#8217; undergirding the Obama administration&#8217;s refusal to continue to defend DOMA. This is the core of his argument: &#8230;there are sexual minorities, the polyamorous, whose sexual orientation requires more than one partner. But if sexual orientation requires [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/are-monogamy-only-laws-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The More the Merrier?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/09/11/the-more-the-merrier/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/09/11/the-more-the-merrier/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Newsletter articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex Radicals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Ruth Institute board member William C. Duncan While the United States is occupied with the federal challenge to California&#8217;s Proposition 8, Canada has its own pending marriage case, which is likely headed for the Canadian Supreme Court. Canada, which redefined marriage nationwide to include same-sex couples in 2005, against the backdrop of successful provincial [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/09/11/the-more-the-merrier/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Boston they call it polyamory</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/20/in-boston-they-call-it-polyamory/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/20/in-boston-they-call-it-polyamory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Betsy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gross. Like these relationships are really going to last. Clearly they&#8217;re in it for love of each other rather than for themselves&#8211;not! Carolyn Moynihan Africans have some excuse for polygamy &#8212; after all, it is traditional. But how do certain Bostonians justify what they are calling “polyamory” and what is just a polished-up version of free love? [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/20/in-boston-they-call-it-polyamory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on Polyamory: The kids will be fine, thanks.</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/06/more-on-polyamory-the-kids-will-be-fine-thanks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/06/more-on-polyamory-the-kids-will-be-fine-thanks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This puff piece promoting a non-judgemental approach to polyamory finally mentions children in the last 3 paragraphs.  Ah, yes, the kids will be fine. Except they&#8217;ll be upset when their parents&#8217; partners leave.  They look just like mundane blended families, (who have lots of problems we aren&#8217;t going to mention in our puff piece.)  Excuse me [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/06/more-on-polyamory-the-kids-will-be-fine-thanks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The new frontier: Polyamory</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/06/the-new-frontier-polyamory/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/06/the-new-frontier-polyamory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[polyamory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=951</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is a puff piece in the Boston Globe on the next phase of the Sexual Revolution: Polyamory, meaning &#8220;many loves.&#8221;  Just another day in the deconstruction of marriage and family. Marriage is whatever we say it is.  Kids will be fine, as long as we are all grown up mature people and don&#8217;t get [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/01/06/the-new-frontier-polyamory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 12/22 queries in 0.180 seconds using disk

Served from: www.ruthblog.org @ 2012-02-10 21:28:07 -->
