COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
entertainment

U.S. TV show creates buzz with 'throuple' episode

23 Comments
By Frederic J. BROWN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

It’s not fair that this man is denied the right to marry the two women he loves.

The 3 of them make such a happy family.

Marriage equality for all.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I actually agree. If all parties are consensual, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to marry .

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The irony is that eventually, Mormons and Muslims will eventually get their religious marriages of 1 man and 10 wives back.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The irony is that eventually, Mormons and Muslims will eventually get their religious marriages of 1 man and 10 wives back.

How is that ironical?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

How is that ironical?

In was the left that took polygamous marriage rights away from the Mormons in the name of women’s rights.

Now we’ve gone so far left that we’re coming around full circle and Mormons are going to get polygamy back.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Again, how is that ironical?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

throuple

It's threesome.

Brian, Lori and Geli need to star in a new version of Three's Company.

Come and knock on our door

We've been waiting for you

Where the kisses are hers and hers and his

Three's company too

1 ( +4 / -3 )

 "It was, as I said, less a 'slippery slope' than a simple unfolding of the logic of social liberalism."

Liberalism/Progressivism can often be a slippery slope. If gay marriage is a human right - all other kinds of marriage must logically be as well. If the standard is that it is none of the government’s business who we love, it follows that absolutely anything goes. No arbitrary government prohibition on love and marriage can be seen as legitimate to include polygamy, multi-party marriages, age restrictions, and family relations.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The only reason you people bring up polygamy when homosexual marriage comes up, is because you have no logical argument about why homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry that doesn't require you trying to equate it with something else.

“You people”?

No actually this article is the exact reason for opposition to government sanctioned gay marriage. I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives. If there is a church that will marry a gay couple or throuple - none of my business.

When the government endorsed gay marriage it removed the special place in society of traditional marriage. That was the point of gay marriage advocates to achieve greater social acceptance. It follows that the removal of the special status of traditional marriage means that no marriage can be logically prohibited. That is what happens when government involves itself in all aspects of society. To prohibit threesome marriages and polygamy is just as arbitrary as opposition to gay marriage. Slippery slope. There are no guardrails anymore to marriages and relationships. That was the point of gay marriage.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

TV actors acting out scripts designed to break down society's power bases (the family) in ways we didn't think were possible, as Burning Bush pointed out (repeatedly).

If indeed people like this do exist, they are in such a tiny minority that they are and always will be an anomaly. But here they are being acted out on a TV show like heros or something.

Just because something is (purported to be) consensual doesn't make it right, correct, socially acceptable, good for your children, etc. ie: the slippery slope mentioned above.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

They are likely in for a world of pain LOL, its hard enough for two people to successfully pull off marriage these days! Three...…..good luck they will need it!!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Strangerland

If all parties are consensual, I don't see why people shouldn't be able to marry .

If so then should there be any legal limit to the number of members in a marriage?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If gay marriage is a human right - all other kinds of marriage must logically be as well

All other? Nope. Your ‘logic’ is rubbish. The key is consent. Children for one, cannot and should not be able to consent to marriage.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The key is consent. Children for one, cannot and should not be able to consent to marriage.

Aye. Unfortunately, this is the default "logic" from those who are uncomfortable with LGBT rights. They seek to ridicule the concept of equality by conflating gay marriage with "anything goes".

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Learned my new word for the day, though I'm not sure how to pronounce it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@BartFargo I guess it's supposed to be pronounced "thruple" / th-rup-pull.

I wouldn't worry about it, just call it a threesome.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Thanks! Sounds like "trouble" to me.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It’s not fair that this man is denied the right to marry the two women he loves.

But it could be a legal nightmare, for example, regarding inheritance and divorce. Is it a single marriage among three people (A-B-C) or a set a separate marriages (A-B, A-C, and/or B-C, and what about C-D)? They are not stopped from living together. It seems reasonable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

We knew this was coming. It's only a matter of time before Mormons, Muslims and other polygamists agitate for their right to marry under the banner of 'love is love', 'non discrimination' etc. Under recent marriage equality laws passed at the insistence of the gay community how can anyone protest against the next group?

So how many people in the union is the limit? Two? Three? Four? Will the third, fourth or fifth, etc person/s cry 'discrimination!' if we set limits? After all 'love is love' right?

How people want to live their love lives is up to them and I don't want legal impediments, but I do want the law to outline the gold standard for child raising to be one man and one woman who provide loving role models of both genders to their kids. Other arrangements can occur outside the law and children of any such unions should also be supported with child benefits etc. But society, through the law, should set the gold standard of what is best for children: heterosexual marriage of two people.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

A few years ago I saw on this trash afternoon show a 4-some. That's right: two heterosexual couples where the wives were lovers of each other. IOW, each woman had a husband AND a lesbian lover at the same time! On top of that, each man sometimes had a threesome sex act with the 2 women. A romantic 'chain' one could say. Man, this is sick + crazy + over the top.

Even in the Middle East and Africa where polygamy and concubinage still exists it's disappearing because it's unaffordable for many people. And in Islam itself, they inherited that from the days of the Prophets. Modern day monogamy (at least in the Christian tradition) came from the pagan Roman Empire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But society, through the law, should set the gold standard of what is best for children: heterosexual marriage of two people.

Luckily, for all of us, you don't get to chose what you believe to be "best".

Single parents, grandparents, same sex couples... all can raise and love children just fine.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Toasted Heretic

Statistics show that generally, children raised by both mother and father do better. Other arrangements can also raise fine children, but it is more difficult and these arrangements are not the ideal. Thus society should promote the ideal of biological mother and father raising their children.

Grandparents? I think most 60-90 year olds will have a tough time with a baby/toddler/teenager. But again, better than nothing.

Same sex partners? Sure, they can do very well. But the child will miss out on the mentoring and qualities of one of the genders.

Throuples? Quadrouples? Or more. etc? Maybe a man and two wives might be Ok. But still not the ideal.

Obama Sharply Assails Absent Black Fathers

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html

*63 percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. Of Health/Census) -- five times the average.

*90 percent of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes -- 32 times the average.

*85 percent of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

*80 percent of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes -- 14 times the average. (Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

*71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes -- Nine times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

*75 percent of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes -- 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God's Children)

*70 percent of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes -- 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)

*85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes -- 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Dept. of Correction)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Thus society should promote the ideal of biological mother and father raising their children.

And tough luck if you're adopted, eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites