American Psychological Association Task Force Promotes Multiple Sex Partner Status as Legally Protected Class

Redefining marriage was never about a “slippery slope” so much as it was changing principles and definitions to attack real marriage.

The seeds of acceptance of this has already been sewn deeply into the leftist mindset in my opinion. (Institutionalizing this bacchanalian behavior will be a piece of cake for the leftist mindset after an adequate PR campaign.)

APA Task Force Promotes Multiple Sex Partner Status as Legally Protected Class

Dr. Susan Berry 11 Jul 2019


Getty Images

The American Psychological Association (APA) has created a task forceto promote “consensual non-monogamous relationships” (CNM) and a petition seeking legal protected class status of individuals with multiple sex partners.

APA’s division on sexual orientation and gender diversity created the task force whose goal is to “generate research, create resources, and advocate for the inclusion of consensually non-monogamous relationships in four areas: 1) basic and applied research, 2) education and training; 3) psychological practice, and 4) public interest.”

Dr. Andre Van Mol, a physician in Redding, California who co-chairs the committee on adolescent sexuality for the American College of Pediatricians, told the Christian Post the task force “is the entirely expected and predicted consequence of what happens when ideology replaces science.”

“The APA is yet again showing us that they are a professional guild and not a scientific organization,” Van Mol added. “Their sexuality divisions have long since been taken over by extremists. Unless parents push back, it won’t be long before this will be taught to our children in school with the usual emotional blackmail . . . .

It’s not clear what they need protection against? If they want to generate methods for counselling those in such arrangements, fine I suppose.

1 Like

That cover picture is just so wrong. Any dude who lets his girl sleep with another dude is just totally emasculated. The woman is just using him- this is usually the case of a couple in a relationship who bring a third wheel in, so to speak, to “spice things up”. From what I understand.

And vice versa for a woman who allows her man to add another woman to the bedroom.

“Polyamory” is nothing more than a movement to mainstream more sexual and emotional exploitation. Oddly from what I have read in the past it is usually women trying having a relationship with multiple men. I don’t think they will have the success that the gay marriage agenda had though. The massive majority of people believe in monogamy of some form or another. People were convinced to extend that to SS partners. But multiple partners has never been a widespread human relationship system (outside the super wealthy/powerful in the Bronze Age or some wealthy Muslims up to today). But who knows. I never thought people would seriously accept that a man putting on a dress and calling himself Stacy made him a woman, yet here we are trying to codify that into records and law.


Judging from the complaints that my female friends have made about guys not being discouraged in trying to peruse them even if they declare they are already dating someone I get the feeling that there are is a significant number of guys that while not identifying as poly would not hesitate to enjoy such an arrangement. Some of the guys are surprisingly honest in saying they just want sex and she can date whoever she likes.

I can’t really tell. They either want to focus on LGBTQ+ that are also poly or they want to add P to the LGBTQ+.

As much, as a Catholic, I don’t agree with any redefinition of marriage, I’ve always found it problematic as to how it is an attack on real marriage. People can marry goats, if that’s what they wish, but it does not “attack” the sanctity of my marriage.

1 Like

I had the same problem until I realized that at least 75% of the redefinition had already taken place with the acceptance of artificial birth control.


It is a subtle lie, that undermines the truth.

School will teach this
TV will promote this
People will see nothing wrong with this

What do we have left?
When we speak the truth, that Marriage is between a man and a woman, well… We are bigots, hateful, oppression. And it might even end up in Jail. And people will not be able to see the truth because well, they will see no difference between marring a goat than marring a person of the opposite sex.

So yes, every time you accept a lie instead of the truth. People are hurt.


Well isn’t that just special. Sad and sickening. Nothing is Sacred any more. Marriages and families are becoming “whatever suits at the moment goes”. God have mercy on us and ont he whole world,

1 Like

That’s why I said it can happen to women too. Scumbags exist in both sexes. But their cover picture is a girl with two men so that is why I focused on that.

I read a study about this phenomenon a few years ago and if I remember correctly, it is usually women who ask for these polyamorous relationships. The men you speak of, that want to sleep with multiple women, typically just sleep with multiple women without committing to any relationship. The women “commit” but want something extra. Could be more 50-50 though, like I said I don’t remember all the details.

I thought P already is there and it means “pansexual” (like Miley Cyrus according to herself).:no_mouth:

I’d also reiterate that if the government recognizes no difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a goat, the institution of marriage can not be anything but cheapened. Marriage has a meaning and a purpose. If the state recognizes no meaning nor purpose, then a state marriage license is meaningless and not worth the paper it is written on.

Such a cheapening also further damages society as a whole. If marriage has no meaning, and in this instance does not even stand for fidelity, then the marriage rate will drop even further than it already has, out of wedlock births will climb even higher, and broken families will become an even greater proportion of society. Which aside from damaging souls leads to massive social and economic problems. So yeah, it matters.

Stolen from an opinion piece I read; If sexual fidelity, loyalty, stable parenting, and relationships of mutual support are a social good, why should we remove those elements from the social institution that does the most to promote these goods- marriage. It is self-destructive.

I kind of pity Miley Cyrus.

When I was a kid I used to love “Achy Breaky Heart”, but I guess Billy Ray wasn’t really a great role model for her and she was kind of thrust into the Hollywood scene as a young teenager where her dad pretty much sexualized her image for profit.

Still odd seeing the daughter of a guy who made some popular country line-dancing songs twerking and carrying on like a stripper.


This was bound to happen and the pace of change has picked up in recent years. Saint Augustine explained what the Church believed about marriage with his famous three goods of marriage. A valid marriage requires fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life.

Martin Luther and other reformers declared that marriage was not a sacrament.
Henry VII reversed himself to declare himself head of the church and allowed divorce.
The Church of England decided that contraception was acceptable for married couples in the 1920’s.
In the 1960’s the sexual revolution promoted the idea that “If it feels good, do it.”
Then came no-fault divorce.
Then came contraception as a right for anyone.
Then abortion became a human right, so sex does not need to have consequences.
Now we have same-sex “marriage”.

Since our culture has already rejected all three of the essentials of marriage, nothing is unthinkable. It is safe to predict that incest will soon be pushed on us. About half of the states already allow first cousin marriages without conditions. Will that be ruled a human right by a progressive court? Why stop there if two people say that they love each other?

1 Like

Henry VIII (and I know it was a typo) reversed himself? Unsure what that means but Hank no more trafficked in divorce than did Rome. It was declaration of nullity. And the concomitant concepts of impediments and dispensations.

Supreme Head, per the 1534 Parliamentary Supreme Head Act. That lasted until the 1559 Elizabethan Act of Supremacy.

Back before I knew about EWTN, I listened to Protestant radio, and around the same time I returned to the Church, there was some sort of “attack on marriage” that the people on the radio station were all aflutter about, and I had to chuckle at the irony.

The problem with destroying something just a little bit is that once you breach the boundaries, it starts falling apart. Things take work to maintain.

1 Like

Now I have to reverse myself, and not just for the typo. Of course Henry wanted an annulment from Catherine of Aragon, and granted himself, with the help of Thomas Cramner, two other quick annulments. Executions required about the same amount of paperwork for a king and were more final. He did set in motion a church that would become more Protestant and allow divorce eventually for almost any reason. Most people see little difference between divorce and an annulment where the fix was in.

Which is why I always mention it.

The fix was in, whenever it was necessary, back in the day, it being a matter of intertwined politics and theology. Which is why the net of impediments was spread so wide.

And I would argue closer to 100%.

It could be that much, which is why I said at least 75%. I think a certain but smaller amount can be laid at the feet of no-fault divorce. I won’t argue against almost 100% either.

I agree.
And I think that this has important ramifications of this in thinking about the abortion issue.
I think that very few, if any people want abortion as and end unto itself. (Who aims to get pregnant to satisfy the desire to have an abortion?) They want legal abortion to protect what they actually want: sex that is not open to life.

As long as that idea seems not only morally acceptable, but obvious, we will make little progress, beyond some virtue signalling, on the abortion issue.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit