Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Why Polyamory Will Gain Acceptance Faster

It’s not going to take as long for polyamorists to get our freedoms, including the freedom to marry, as it is taking (monogamist) gays and lesbians.

First, I need to have a bit of clarification here. Polyamory has always been around with some public awareness, whatever forms it has taken or whichever labels have been applied, especially if we go with the broad term ethical nonmonogamy instead.

What I mean is that in the US, as well as many other countries, there was a sustained period of trying to force everyone, or at least everyone but the elite, into heterosexual, gender-roled, married monogamy with spouses that were “acceptable” by class, race, religion, etc. Those deemed not suitable for marriage were often kept out of public life in general. For example, people with certain disabilities were expected to stay home or be institutionalized so as to not cause discomfort to people who would be uneasy around them. That oppression is in the process of being dismantled. We are ending the prosecutions, the persecutions, the stigmatizing, and everything else that makes it so people go into hiding (or hiding an important part of who they are) because of who they are and who they love.

Polyamorists haven't had a "Stonewall" moment. Many people cite the Stonewall Riots of 1969 as the start of gay and lesbian people fighting back against such persecution. It has been 44 years and same-gender couples are still barred from legally marrying in most US states and LGBT people still need employment protections (ENDA). But the momentum is rapidly building, especially with the recent Supreme Court actions on DOMA and PropH8 and the death of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for military service, and all of the public figures who are coming out in support of the same-gender freedom to marry. There have been so many advancements since 1969.

Note that earlier in the 1960s, the US adopted laws to protect racial minorities nationwide, and the Loving v. Virginia case struck down bans on the interracial freedom to marry, over a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Women got the vote nationwide in 1920 and have made much progress, but are still on the journey.

So will polyamorists have to wait a couple of generations?

Happily, the answer is no. Here why:



1) Momentum. Note that gay civil rights have made progress much faster than feminist and racial civil rights. Likewise, rights for nonmonogamists and people who don’t want to marry at all will not take as long as gay rights. Momentum is building, and polyamorists should be exceedingly appreciative of the work done by the racial, feminist, gay, and lesbian civil rights champions.

2) Smaller opposition. Opposition to polyamory and the polygamous freedom to marry comes almost entirely from specific segments of religious conservatives, more and more of whom are warming up to the fact that civil marriages are not a threat to their churches and that it is destructive and wasteful to concentrate on trying to control adult relationships, especially when it comes to people who are not members of their church. There are some who oppose the polygamous freedom to marry out of concern for tax/benefit issues, but those concerns can be addressed without denying any adults the freedom to marry.

3) Less motivated opposition.
Most of the above considered “line in the sand” to be the same-gender freedom to marry and are already resigned to polygamous freedom to marry upon national establishment of the same-gender freedom to marry. While some monogamist LGBT people bristle at the connection, what matters is that a connection exists in the mind of those who oppose the freedoms and they do not want to continue fighting one freedom if the other is established. Those who identify as LGBT monogamists have much more in common with those who identify as heterosexual monogamists than some heteros realize, but in the prejudiced mind, monogamist LGBT people and polyamorists are in the same big “other” category.

4) More existing understanding. Some strictly heterosexual people are disgusted by the thought of gay sex and much of the now-diminishing opposition from heterosexuals to the same-gender freedom to marry came from that. Or, if not disgusted, they (especially males) simply couldn’t understand how someone might find someone of the same gender sexually or romantically attractive. But almost everyone can understand (or has personally experienced) being romantically or sexually attracted to more than one person at the same time. They’ve had the feelings themselves; this is one reason they bring up polyamory when discussing the freedom to marry. While someone may not personally want to pursue polyamory, they are more likely to avoid opposing those who do. Also, for religious conservatives, there is a heritage of polyamory in their traditions and clear scriptural prohibitions are lacking in most traditions’ scriptures.

5) Strict monogamy is rare. Most people are mostly or strictly heterosexual in how they see themselves and live, even if they’ve had some experiences with someone of the same gender. Very few people are truly and strictly monogamists sexually, emotionally, romantically over the course of a lifetime. Extending rights to polyamorous people, including the polygamous freedom to marry, deals with a reality that everyone has experienced. For example, if someone has children with more than one person, and they are all agreeable to a marriage structure involving three or more people, why deny them that? Relationships, including marriage, usually involve more than one bond (erotic, romantic, friendship, cohabitational, parental, legal, financial, professional, shared interests) between the people involved, and sometimes one of those bonds may diminish or end with one person and begin or increase with another, but there is no reason to end the earlier relationship; there could be good reasons nobody wants to end the relationship. For example, a woman might share sex, residence, children, and a business with one man, and sex, romance, friendship, and a love of theatre with another.

6) Political compatibility. Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives can all find much to like in polyamory, which is why you can find polyamorists in just about all areas of the political map. Polyamorists who are progressives see cooperative and efficient living in polyamory. Libertarians (who generally oppose government restriction on adult behavior that doesn’t violate another’s property or person) and conservative polyamorists like the idea of people relying on each other rather than a government program.

7) Increased compassion. More and more people now recognize that letting consenting adults have their relationships and love each other as they want is the right thing to do, and opposing relationships between consenting adults is not only mean-spirited, but a waste.

8) Experience. While many LGBT people are monogamists, some socially/politically active LGBT people are polyamorists or poly-friendly, and they are already motivated and working towards full marriage equality, and experienced in advancing these civil rights.

While some people fighting for LGBT rights or the same-gender freedom to marry only care about LGBT rights and monogamy, or even reject association with or comparison to polyamorists (including LGBT polyamorists) others have shown solidarity. Polyamorists owe a great deal of thanks to those in the racial, feminist, gay and lesbian civil rights movements for opening minds and establishing rights for adults, as well as continuing solidarity in the fight for those rights. Polyamorists will get their rights faster not because the movement is stronger than the LGBT rights movement, but rather exactly because the LGBT rights movement has been so strong.

Relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults is going to happen. We’re trying to make it happen sooner rather than later.

Monday, December 30, 2013

Porno Pete Has The Rose Bowl Sadz

"The 'gay wedding' float is symbolic of America’s ongoing moral disintegration: in the name of  'tolerance,' 'diversity' and 'inclusion,' we proudly parade our sin down our streets – defying our Creator and aggressively corrupting the minds and souls of future generations. As historians have documented, sexual immorality, escalating fornication and the abandonment of fidelity in marriage bring about the collapse of civilizations; the United States will be no exception. No wonder developing nations like Jamaica don’t want to emulate us." - Porno Pete LaBarbera, from a press release published today by Christian Newswire.

More US Hate Exported To Jamaica

J. Lester Feder reports at Buzzfeed:
Brian Camenker, founder of MassResistance, was the keynote speaker at an event organized by the Jamaican Coalition for a Healthy Society in the Jamaican capital’s Emancipation Park on Dec. 10. The organization has led a campaign to preserve the sodomy provision — known locally as the “buggery law” — following Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller’s suggestion just before her 2011 election that she might allow a vote on its repeal. “I am here to warn you that [repeal of the buggery law] will have terrible consequences,” Camenker said, according to a video of the event uploaded by MassResistance on Saturday. “A law that contradicts God’s law is the beginning of a slippery slope that you cannot imagine.” Camenker described a series of events that he said flowed from the decriminalization of sodomy in Massachusetts, including the “indoctrination” of children in schools and the suppression of religious people opposed to LGBT rights.
Camenker was there just three days after Porno Pete.

Bill Clinton To Swear In Bill De Blasio

Via the New York Times:
Former President Bill Clinton will swear in Bill de Blasio as New York City’s 109th mayor at the inauguration ceremony on Jan. 1, the mayor-elect’s transition team announced in a statement on Saturday. Mr. de Blasio served in Mr. Clinton’s administration as a regional director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and was the campaign manager for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s successful run for the Senate in 2000. Mrs. Clinton will also attend the inauguration. “I was honored to serve in President Clinton’s administration and on Secretary Clinton’s campaign for U. S. Senate, and I am honored again that they will both join our celebration for all of New York City,” Mr. de Blasio said in the statement. “Wednesday’s ceremony will be an event for every New Yorker from all five boroughs, and Chirlane and I couldn’t be more excited to have President Clinton and Secretary Clinton stand with us,” he said, referring to his wife, Chirlane McCray.
De Blasio's camp gave out 1000 free tickets to the inauguration last week. Some of those tickets are now appearing on Craigslist.

Ted Cruz: I'm Above Partisan Politics

Via Mediaite:
ABC White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl sat down with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) at Tortilla Coast, the now-infamous D.C. restaurant where Cruz held one of his meetings amidst the government shutdown, and was quite visibly taken aback when Cruz told him that he was trying to stay out of the political fray. “This is a city where it’s all politics, all the time,” Cruz said, “and I’m trying to do my best not to pay attention to the politics.” “Really?” Karl asked, incredulous. “I know that’s hard to believe, because no one in this town does that,” Cruz said. “This is a time for people to stand up and do the right thing.”

HomoQuotable - Josh Barro

"Being open and unashamed about being gay is just one small thing I can do to change the culture and make life easier for people who haven't had my luck. And that's why I'm mystified by prominent gay people in business and media and Hollywood who choose to be in the closet. They have the ability to help lots of people who don't have their advantages, and they're selfishly passing on it under the guise of 'privacy.' Often, they do this while living quite gaily in places like New York and Los Angeles and reaping the benefits of social acceptance in their non-professional lives.

"Imagine, for example, that you were a prominent daytime news anchor on a national cable news channel aimed at a conservative audience, and you were gay. You would have the potential, by coming out of the closet, to change millions of viewers' perspective on gay people for the better. You'd make it easier for your closeted gay viewers to love themselves, and easier for your viewers' gay children to come out. Or you could live a fabulous gay life with your boyfriend in New York City while staying closeted to the national audience. Wouldn't that be a pretty decadent choice?" - Josh Barro, in a Business Insider piece that continues his reactions to hateful emails from Duck Dynasty fans.

Obama & Hillary Top Gallup's Most Admired Persons Of 2013 Poll

Gallup reports:
For the sixth consecutive year, Barack Obama ranks as the Most Admired Man among Americans, and Hillary Clinton is again the Most Admired Woman. Both won by comfortable margins. Hillary Clinton has been named Most Admired Woman a total of 18 times, more than any other woman in Gallup's history, including each of the last 12 years. Clinton first won the distinction in 1993, when she was first lady, and has continued to rank at or near the top of the list while serving in a variety of public roles including as U.S. senator and as secretary of state. The 15% naming her this year is down from 21% last year and is the lowest figure for her since 2006.

Linda Harvey Publishes Anti-Gay Book

Jeremy Hooper tips us that anti-gay crackpot Linda Harvey has published a new book which (surprise) endorses the torture of LGBT youth. From the book's description on Amazon:
“I’m gay.” As more and more young people decide this is their identity, it’s time to take a closer look. It’s a profound declaration, a new civil right (they are told) and it’s “who you are.” But there’s a problem. Are we sure this is the truth? Does this identity bring the promised liberation and the key to a whole new life? Does it lift the burden of secrecy – or begin a different kind of struggle? Maybe He’s Not Gay: Another View on Homosexuality by Linda Harvey addresses these critical questions. This book is for America’s youth and the bright future they can all have, regardless of the turmoil of adolescence, which for some, may include same sex attractions or gender confusion. What do those feelings mean? Is there another possibility that transcends the seeming finality of a homosexual identity? Teens, college students, parents, youth group leaders and many others will appreciate the practical insights and faith perspective of Maybe He’s Not Gay.

Pope "Shocked" By Gay Adoption

From the Times Of Malta:
The Pope is “shocked” by Malta’s Civil Unions Bill, which will allow gay couples to adopt children, Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna has told The Sunday Times of Malta. Defending his decision to use his Christmas homily to reiterate that a family had to be built around a man and a woman, Mgr Scicluna said he had aired these concerns with Pope Francis when he met him on December 12. “We discussed many aspects...and when I raised the issue that’s worrying me as a bishop [the right for gay couples to adopt] he encouraged me to speak out," Bishop Scicluna said.
Over the weekend the bishop's claim got widespread coverage on anti-gay sites, most of which then mocked the Advocate's person of the year selection.

Teabagger To Challenge Eric Cantor

Virginia Tea Party activist Peter Greenwald spent the weekend asking hate group leaders for their support in his campaign to unseat House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.  Bryan Fischer happily retweeted the above yesterday afternoon.

Michelangelo Signorile Vs HRC

"It's not really a reversal [to reinstate Phil Robertson]. We think it's actually a positive outcome, and we want to thank A&E for their attentiveness and collaboration over the course of the last few weeks. We've received assurances also that the Robertson family is now open to working with African-American and (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people to address the real harm that such anti-gay and racist comments can cause. That's been our 'ask' since Phil's comments ran in GQ, and while it's a positive step, it certainly cannot and should not be the last one." - HRC vice president Fred Sainz, speaking to CNN.

Brian Brown Appears On MSNBC

Brian Brown appeared on an MSNBC panel this weekend where he declared that if a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage were to make it onto the Indiana ballot, "We'll see North Carolina all over again." Josh Barro gets in some good shots.

3D Printed Human Livers?

A fascinating item from Computer World:
Advances in the 3D printing of human tissue have moved fast enough that San Diego-based bio-printing company Organovo now expects to unveil the world's first printed organ -- a human liver -- next year. Like other forms of 3D printing, bio-printing lays down layer after layer of material -- in this case, live cells -- to form a solid physical entity -- in this case, human tissue. The major stumbling block in creating tissue continues to be manufacturing the vascular system needed to provide it with life-sustaining oxygen and nutrients. Living cells may literally die before the tissue gets off the printer table. Organovo, however, said it has overcome that vascular issue to a degree. "We have achieved thicknesses of greater than 500 microns, and have maintained liver tissue in a fully functional state with native phenotypic behavior for at least 40 days," said Mike Renard, Organovo's executive vice president of commercial operations.
(Tipped by JMG reader Ray)

Brian Brown's Final Money Beg Of 2013

"Dear Joe, Today, more than ever, marriage needs a vibrant and vigorous defense. New assaults seem to be popping up every month — like the recent one from the Obama-appointed judge in Utah — and we must dig deep and engage in the battle with increased fervor. The good news is that 2014 promises to be a year full of opportunity for the marriage movement to regain ground and seize back the momentum! We'll be working to energize and engage grassroots, citizen-led efforts to defend marriage in states where it's strongly supported, like Indiana and Ohio. In addition, we are aiming to win crucial victories on the federal level — like working to win back the United States Senate, and to rally support behind the ‘silver bullet' of a federal marriage amendment. Please, if you haven't donated recently — or even if you have — I'm humbly asking you to click here right away and make a generous donation to support NOM and our work to defend marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." - Hate group leader Brian Brown, via email.

Gay Marriage and Incest in the US

Gay marriage (or same-sex marriage, or most accurately same-gender marriage) and incest (consensual, not talking about rape or molestation) are usually two different things.

In the US, the bigotry against marriage equality currently extends to preventing first cousins from marrying in a little over half of the states. As of this updated writing, bigotry still prevents any same-gender couples from marrying in all but eighteen states and Washington, D.C. There are currently fourteen states (including Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, and Utah which have very limiting restrictions) and D.C. that allow first cousins to marry and also has the same-gender freedom to marry. If you consider cousin marriage incestuous, then those are the only places where gay marriage and incestuous marriage have an overlap, as same-gender first cousins can marry.

There are some states that do not criminalize consensual incest between closer relatives than cousins, but they will not marry those lovers. Most US states still have laws against consensual incest (consanguinamory), and in most of them, people do continue to be prosecuted for simply loving each other.

Laws against gay sex have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So, gay sex is legal nationwide, consanguinamory isn’t.

Mixed-gender consanguinamory (such as brother-sister sex) involves sex between consenting adults of who are closely related.*

Gay marriage is a commitment between consenting adults of the same gender.

Those are usually not the same things.

What they do have in common: 1. They are between consenting adults. 2. They don’t hurt anybody. 3. Both have been subject to discrimination and being banned by the sex-negative busybodies who like to interfere in the love lives of others. 4. There is no rational reason, consistently applied to other relationships, as to why either of these are banned where they are banned.  5. Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born.

Otherwise, they are two entirely different freedoms to marry. I support both freedoms to marry, and others, because I support relationship rights for all and full marriage equality.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Don't like it? Then don't do it. (That’s a good, easy response to bigots that doesn't throw anyone under the bus.)

Different people have different likes and dislikes, different biases and prejudices than others. Some LGBT people are in consanguinamorous relationships. Other LGBT people are supportive, some neutral, and some disgusted by the idea. Just like everyone else. But nobody's disgust should interfere in another's life.

Consenting adults may do things with each other that might disgust a majority of other consenting adults, but that disgust of others should not prevent the consenting adults from having their sex or love lives. Each of us should stand up for the relationship rights of all consenting adults. Gay sex may disgust someone. Heterosexual sex may disgust another. BDSM may disgust someone else. Interracial sex may disgust someone else. Polyamory may disgust one person. Consanguinamory may disgust another. So what? The disgusted person doesn’t have to do it, but should recognize that other adults should be free to have orientations, feelings, and relationships they may not understand, and free to express their sexual desires with, and affections for, other consenting adults in the ways they want.


I was originally inspired to write this by the comments by Nick Cassavetes and the reactions to it.

*Some places include adoptive or step relations under the criminalization of incest, even though there is no biological relation between the participants.

Gay Marriage and Incest in the US

Gay marriage (or same-sex marriage, or most accurately same-gender marriage) and incest (consensual, not talking about rape or molestation) are usually two different things.

In the US, the bigotry against marriage equality currently extends to preventing first cousins from marrying in a little over half of the states. As of this updated writing, bigotry still prevents any same-gender couples from marrying in all but eighteen states and Washington, D.C. There are currently fourteen states (including Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, and Utah which have very limiting restrictions) and D.C. that allow first cousins to marry and also has the same-gender freedom to marry. If you consider cousin marriage incestuous, then those are the only places where gay marriage and incestuous marriage have an overlap, as same-gender first cousins can marry.

There are some states that do not criminalize consensual incest between closer relatives than cousins, but they will not marry those lovers. Most US states still have laws against consensual incest (consanguinamory), and in most of them, people do continue to be prosecuted for simply loving each other.

Laws against gay sex have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So, gay sex is legal nationwide, consanguinamory isn’t.

Mixed-gender consanguinamory (such as brother-sister sex) involves sex between consenting adults of who are closely related.*

Gay marriage is a commitment between consenting adults of the same gender.

Those are usually not the same things.

What they do have in common: 1. They are between consenting adults. 2. They don’t hurt anybody. 3. Both have been subject to discrimination and being banned by the sex-negative busybodies who like to interfere in the love lives of others. 4. There is no rational reason, consistently applied to other relationships, as to why either of these are banned where they are banned.  5. Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born.

Otherwise, they are two entirely different freedoms to marry. I support both freedoms to marry, and others, because I support relationship rights for all and full marriage equality.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Don't like it? Then don't do it. (That’s a good, easy response to bigots that doesn't throw anyone under the bus.)

Different people have different likes and dislikes, different biases and prejudices than others. Some LGBT people are in consanguinamorous relationships. Other LGBT people are supportive, some neutral, and some disgusted by the idea. Just like everyone else. But nobody's disgust should interfere in another's life.

Consenting adults may do things with each other that might disgust a majority of other consenting adults, but that disgust of others should not prevent the consenting adults from having their sex or love lives. Each of us should stand up for the relationship rights of all consenting adults. Gay sex may disgust someone. Heterosexual sex may disgust another. BDSM may disgust someone else. Interracial sex may disgust someone else. Polyamory may disgust one person. Consanguinamory may disgust another. So what? The disgusted person doesn’t have to do it, but should recognize that other adults should be free to have orientations, feelings, and relationships they may not understand, and free to express their sexual desires with, and affections for, other consenting adults in the ways they want.


I was originally inspired to write this by the comments by Nick Cassavetes and the reactions to it.

*Some places include adoptive or step relations under the criminalization of incest, even though there is no biological relation between the participants.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

A Loving Couple Denied Their Freedom to Marry


By my count, this is the twenty-sixth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are denied their fundamental right to marry.


"Joe" and "Jamie" (assumed names) grew up in a little town in middle America in a large, religious family, which included five girls, with Joe being the sole boy. As they say, "We both are very passionate about music and giving to those who are without." They live together with their dog. Joe is a little over nine months older than Jamie.


Read the interview below and ask yourself if there is one good reason their rights to love each other the way they want and to marry should be denied. And if you want to follow them on an ongoing basis, their NOT SAFE FOR WORK Tumblr can be found here: http://ataleof2siblings.tumblr.com


*****


FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Are you married or have you ever been married?

J & J: We have both been married but neither marriage lasted too long. While being married, we talked daily and honestly tried to help each other work out whatever problems were had with the spouse.


FME: How would you describe your sexual orientation and your relationship orientation?

Jamie: I would say I am bi-curious. I've never been with a woman and would love the chance to do so, at least once. Our relationship orientation would be monogamist.

Joe: I would say I'm pansexual; I can find attraction, both sexually and just from a beauty aspect in just about anything.


FME: You are biological siblings in a relationship that includes sex?

Jamie: Yes we are. Given how close we are in age, we know where our high sex drive comes from [laughs].


FME: Do you have any children together?

Joe: No, we do wish we could have children together but Jamie lost a baby (late term miscarriage) in her marriage and it did a lot of damage both physically and emotionally. Jamie is currently unable to have any children.


FME: What kind of relationship did you have while you were growing up together?

Jamie: We had pretty normal relationship growing up. We were quite close and really had a great friendship with each other. We were inseparable. Normal except for our explorations of each other [laughs].


FME: When/how did sexual affection become a part of your relationship?

Jamie: It was very gradual from an early age. We shared a bedroom and bathed together every night. Joe definitely made the first move while we were bathing.


FME: Can you describe your feelings during that?

Jamie: It felt safe. There were feelings that I can only describe now as it was comfortable, natural and very safe feeling. Like I was complete.

Joe: In regards to the first move while bathing, I felt a large amount of curiosity. It was fun, exciting, and so many other things, but at no time did every cross my mind that it was "wrong."


FME: How do you describe the lovemaking now?

Jamie: I would describe our lovemaking as very erotic. We know our relationship is frowned upon by the outside world and that's a big turn on [laughs]. We have an amazing sex life and can honestly say that Joe is the only person that knows my body well enough to make me orgasm...several times during sex. As far as our relationship goes, we live our lives as a "normal" couple.

Joe: I would definitely say it's a natural thing. It wasn't until early teen years we really became aware it's taboo, but for me it just always felt right. You hear everyone talking about finding the "one", I can't help it that I did and she just happens to be one my sisters. I still find it strange that so many have the incest fantasy/fetish. We fantasize about being a "normal" couple. I am aware that the nature of our relationship does make it kinky to most, though I don't see it that way. We do have a kinky side and do other things that would also put our lovemaking in a kinky context, but though those nights aren't an everyday thing. We cuddle, we are very affectionate, and I think we make our friends sick with the amount of love we have - these friends only know us as a couple.



FME: Describe your relationship now.

Joe: Our relationship now is a very healthy one. We argue, we kiss and make up, we have a pretty great life.

We are in a closed relationship but were inspired by a Tumblr blog to let others into our lives. It's been great to see all the support some people have for us.

We have been living together for just over 6 years now following our divorces. We share a bedroom but have a spare room set up for Jamie as a "cover" for when company comes to visit. We would absolutely say the two roles of being siblings and lovers are inseparable! Here, we live one life but when we go back home, we have to assume the sibling roles.


FME: Does anyone in your life know the full, true nature/history of your relationship and how did they find out?

Jamie: Nobody knows the true nature or the full story of our relationship. We would be disowned by our family. Our friends where we live only know us as a married couple.

The easiest steps we took for our privacy was to move far away from family, where they can't just drop in at a moments notice. We are both at an age where we prefer to stay home, watch a movie, and hang out than go out to the bar or other social settings.


FME: Having to hide the full nature of your relationship from some people can be a disadvantage. Can you describe how that has been? Conversely, do you think consanguineous relationships have some advantages and some things better than unrelated lovers?

Jamie: The hardest part is how we talk to each other. Little pet names are the hardest but everything else has been pretty easy. The advantage to it is how well we know each other.


FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship? What's your reply to those who would say that this is one of you preying on the other (and that you can’t truly consent)?

Joe: We don't get to pick the ones we fall in love with, it just happens. No sense in forcing something away just because it's seen as wrong to others.

Jamie: If love is such a beautiful thing then why do so many hate on where that love comes from or who that love is?


FME: Aside from the law, which I think is ridiculous, can you think of anything that would make relationships like this inherently wrong?

Jamie: Absolutely not, as long as it's consensual by both parties.

Joe: as long as there is no abuse no forced situation, and both parties are able to understand what is going on, then absolutely not.


FME: If you could get legally married, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you?


J &J: ABSOF---INGLUTELY


FME: What advice do you have for someone who may be experiencing feelings for a sibling or some other relative? What advice do you have for family members and friends who think or know that relatives they know are having these feelings for each other?

Joe: the only way things will ever come out for discussion is to suck it up and talk to the other person. As family, they should be able to listen. Also, be observant. If you know how to read the opposite sex you might get your answer just from their reactions to things. If you are a family member who suspects other members might have something going on put all ingrained disgust aside, realize you do love those people for who they are regardless of what they do, have that uncomfortable talk with them let them know you love them, and even if you don't understand, you still support them.

Jamie: [Sighs] This can be a touchy subject in most families. The best advice I can give is to be honest, compassionate and understanding. People with open minds have the most open hearts.


FME: Any plans for the future?

Jamie: We take it a day at a time and try to enjoy each day for what it's worth.


FME: Do you know in-person others who have had relationships like yours? Are you in contact online with others online?

Joe: We don't but it would be nice knowing others who live their lives like we do.

Jamie: We do have our Tumblr page and the amount of support we have received has been amazing!


FME: Anything else you want to add?

J &J: Thank you for allowing us to be apart of this. Hopefully it will help to make steps forward for anyone and everyone in a relationship the mass majority will say shouldn't be allowed.



*****


There you have it. Two consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, but who have to hide their love. Like others, they have found Tumblr to be an outlet and a way to connect with others without revealing their identities.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to recognize that all adults should be free to be with any and all consenting adults as they mutually consent, and part of doing that is adopting full marriage equality sooner rather than later. People are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

If you are a family member or friend of someone who is in or may be in such a relationship, please read this.

Thank you to Joe and Jamie for doing this interview!

A Loving Couple Denied Their Freedom to Marry


By my count, this is the twenty-sixth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are denied their fundamental right to marry.


"Joe" and "Jamie" (assumed names) grew up in a little town in middle America in a large, religious family, which included five girls, with Joe being the sole boy. As they say, "We both are very passionate about music and giving to those who are without." They live together with their dog. Joe is a little over nine months older than Jamie.


Read the interview below and ask yourself if there is one good reason their rights to love each other the way they want and to marry should be denied. And if you want to follow them on an ongoing basis, their NOT SAFE FOR WORK Tumblr can be found here: http://ataleof2siblings.tumblr.com


*****


FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Are you married or have you ever been married?

J & J: We have both been married but neither marriage lasted too long. While being married, we talked daily and honestly tried to help each other work out whatever problems were had with the spouse.


FME: How would you describe your sexual orientation and your relationship orientation?

Jamie: I would say I am bi-curious. I've never been with a woman and would love the chance to do so, at least once. Our relationship orientation would be monogamist.

Joe: I would say I'm pansexual; I can find attraction, both sexually and just from a beauty aspect in just about anything.


FME: You are biological siblings in a relationship that includes sex?

Jamie: Yes we are. Given how close we are in age, we know where our high sex drive comes from [laughs].


FME: Do you have any children together?

Joe: No, we do wish we could have children together but Jamie lost a baby (late term miscarriage) in her marriage and it did a lot of damage both physically and emotionally. Jamie is currently unable to have any children.


FME: What kind of relationship did you have while you were growing up together?

Jamie: We had pretty normal relationship growing up. We were quite close and really had a great friendship with each other. We were inseparable. Normal except for our explorations of each other [laughs].


FME: When/how did sexual affection become a part of your relationship?

Jamie: It was very gradual from an early age. We shared a bedroom and bathed together every night. Joe definitely made the first move while we were bathing.


FME: Can you describe your feelings during that?

Jamie: It felt safe. There were feelings that I can only describe now as it was comfortable, natural and very safe feeling. Like I was complete.

Joe: In regards to the first move while bathing, I felt a large amount of curiosity. It was fun, exciting, and so many other things, but at no time did every cross my mind that it was "wrong."


FME: How do you describe the lovemaking now?

Jamie: I would describe our lovemaking as very erotic. We know our relationship is frowned upon by the outside world and that's a big turn on [laughs]. We have an amazing sex life and can honestly say that Joe is the only person that knows my body well enough to make me orgasm...several times during sex. As far as our relationship goes, we live our lives as a "normal" couple.

Joe: I would definitely say it's a natural thing. It wasn't until early teen years we really became aware it's taboo, but for me it just always felt right. You hear everyone talking about finding the "one", I can't help it that I did and she just happens to be one my sisters. I still find it strange that so many have the incest fantasy/fetish. We fantasize about being a "normal" couple. I am aware that the nature of our relationship does make it kinky to most, though I don't see it that way. We do have a kinky side and do other things that would also put our lovemaking in a kinky context, but though those nights aren't an everyday thing. We cuddle, we are very affectionate, and I think we make our friends sick with the amount of love we have - these friends only know us as a couple.



FME: Describe your relationship now.

Joe: Our relationship now is a very healthy one. We argue, we kiss and make up, we have a pretty great life.

We are in a closed relationship but were inspired by a Tumblr blog to let others into our lives. It's been great to see all the support some people have for us.

We have been living together for just over 6 years now following our divorces. We share a bedroom but have a spare room set up for Jamie as a "cover" for when company comes to visit. We would absolutely say the two roles of being siblings and lovers are inseparable! Here, we live one life but when we go back home, we have to assume the sibling roles.


FME: Does anyone in your life know the full, true nature/history of your relationship and how did they find out?

Jamie: Nobody knows the true nature or the full story of our relationship. We would be disowned by our family. Our friends where we live only know us as a married couple.

The easiest steps we took for our privacy was to move far away from family, where they can't just drop in at a moments notice. We are both at an age where we prefer to stay home, watch a movie, and hang out than go out to the bar or other social settings.


FME: Having to hide the full nature of your relationship from some people can be a disadvantage. Can you describe how that has been? Conversely, do you think consanguineous relationships have some advantages and some things better than unrelated lovers?

Jamie: The hardest part is how we talk to each other. Little pet names are the hardest but everything else has been pretty easy. The advantage to it is how well we know each other.


FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship? What's your reply to those who would say that this is one of you preying on the other (and that you can’t truly consent)?

Joe: We don't get to pick the ones we fall in love with, it just happens. No sense in forcing something away just because it's seen as wrong to others.

Jamie: If love is such a beautiful thing then why do so many hate on where that love comes from or who that love is?


FME: Aside from the law, which I think is ridiculous, can you think of anything that would make relationships like this inherently wrong?

Jamie: Absolutely not, as long as it's consensual by both parties.

Joe: as long as there is no abuse no forced situation, and both parties are able to understand what is going on, then absolutely not.


FME: If you could get legally married, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you?


J &J: ABSOF---INGLUTELY


FME: What advice do you have for someone who may be experiencing feelings for a sibling or some other relative? What advice do you have for family members and friends who think or know that relatives they know are having these feelings for each other?

Joe: the only way things will ever come out for discussion is to suck it up and talk to the other person. As family, they should be able to listen. Also, be observant. If you know how to read the opposite sex you might get your answer just from their reactions to things. If you are a family member who suspects other members might have something going on put all ingrained disgust aside, realize you do love those people for who they are regardless of what they do, have that uncomfortable talk with them let them know you love them, and even if you don't understand, you still support them.

Jamie: [Sighs] This can be a touchy subject in most families. The best advice I can give is to be honest, compassionate and understanding. People with open minds have the most open hearts.


FME: Any plans for the future?

Jamie: We take it a day at a time and try to enjoy each day for what it's worth.


FME: Do you know in-person others who have had relationships like yours? Are you in contact online with others online?

Joe: We don't but it would be nice knowing others who live their lives like we do.

Jamie: We do have our Tumblr page and the amount of support we have received has been amazing!


FME: Anything else you want to add?

J &J: Thank you for allowing us to be apart of this. Hopefully it will help to make steps forward for anyone and everyone in a relationship the mass majority will say shouldn't be allowed.



*****


There you have it. Two consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, but who have to hide their love. Like others, they have found Tumblr to be an outlet and a way to connect with others without revealing their identities.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to recognize that all adults should be free to be with any and all consenting adults as they mutually consent, and part of doing that is adopting full marriage equality sooner rather than later. People are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

If you are a family member or friend of someone who is in or may be in such a relationship, please read this.

Thank you to Joe and Jamie for doing this interview!

ABC Host Robin Roberts Comes Out

Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts came out publicly today in a message posted to her Facebook page, where she thanked her girlfriend, Amber Laign.
Roberts has been out to her family, friends and co-workers for years, but this is the first time she’s publicly acknowledged her sexuality. "I am grateful for my entire family, my long time girlfriend, Amber, and friends as we prepare to celebrate a glorious new year together." Roberts and Laign have been together for 10 years. Laign, a massage therapist who works with patients recovering from injuries, is originally from the San Francisco Bay Area. A year ago today, Roberts reached the 100 day mark following her bone marrow transplant. Her posting today is a message of thanks for all who helped her along the way.
Roberts has been one of the nation's most public faces of breast cancer since her diagnosis in 2007. Last year she took a leave from GMA after being diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome, which can be caused by chemotherapy. The National Marrow Donor Program reported an 1800% increase in donors on the day that Roberts revealed her latest illness to viewers. She returned to GMA in February of this year.

UPDATE: ABC News has released a brief statement. "We love Robin and Amber, who we have all known for a long time. We were so touched by her Facebook message today and so thankful for all the loving support she has in her life."

Tweet Of The Day - Matt Drudge

And way more people ate breakfast today than ever voted Republican. It's the SAME THING, people.

Marriage Equality Amendment

I once found this blog where someone was proposing a "Marriage Equality Amendment.”

The simple text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.

We are definitely in favor of lifting restrictions that prevent someone from marrying someone of the same gender. But this amendment would still leave on the books numerous laws that prevent full marriage equality. The people on whose behalf I am blogging would not only still be prevented from having their marriages recognized, but many could be imprisoned for openly living as married. Prejudice against one is prejudice against all.

A better wording for the amendment would be:
The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.

Haven’t we progressed to this point? Why prevent consenting adults from loving each other?

[This entry bumped up because it is as relevant as ever.]

Marriage Equality Amendment

I once found this blog where someone was proposing a "Marriage Equality Amendment.”

The simple text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.

We are definitely in favor of lifting restrictions that prevent someone from marrying someone of the same gender. But this amendment would still leave on the books numerous laws that prevent full marriage equality. The people on whose behalf I am blogging would not only still be prevented from having their marriages recognized, but many could be imprisoned for openly living as married. Prejudice against one is prejudice against all.

A better wording for the amendment would be:
The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.

Haven’t we progressed to this point? Why prevent consenting adults from loving each other?

[This entry bumped up because it is as relevant as ever.]

Alberta-Born Sen. Ted Cruz Is Finally Going To Renounce Canadian Citizenship

The Dallas Morning News reports:
Born in Alberta 43 years ago last Sunday, Sen. Ted Cruz was unaware of his dual nationality until The Dallas Morning News explored the issue in August. Since then, he said in a recent interview, “I have retained counsel that is preparing the paperwork to renounce the citizenship.” He expects to complete the process in 2014. That time frame jibes with predictions from Canadian legal experts. He doesn’t dispute holding dual citizenship. “Not at this point,” he said. When Cruz was born, his parents were living in the Canadian oil patch in Calgary. His mother is a native-born American. His father, a Cuban émigré who later became a naturalized American, was still a Cuban citizen. Under U.S. law, a child born with even one American parent is automatically entitled to citizenship, even if the birth takes place outside the country. Canada, like the United States, also confers automatic citizenship to anyone born on its soil, regardless of the parents’ nationalities. That revelation by The News startled Cruz and his parents.
I suppose it's some credit to the birthers that many maintain that Cruz can never be president.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor To Drop The Times Square Ball On NYE

The Associated Press reports:
The countdown to the new year in Times Square is getting some high-profile help — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The organizers of the annual celebration announced Sunday that Sotomayor will lead the final 60-second countdown and push the ceremonial button to signal the descent of the Times Square New Year's Eve ball. Sotomayor was appointed to the court in 2009. She is a native of the Bronx.
The Tea People will find a way to complain about this.

Phil Robertson In 2009: Men Should Marry Girls When They are 15 Or 16 Years Old

The right wing regularly calls Harvey Milk a "predator pedophile" because he allegedly dated a teenager. Liberty Counsel spokesdouche Matt Barber: "Harvey Milk was demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his rape of teenage boys."  Let's see how Barber and his ilk spin THIS message from Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson.

UPDATE: More from the original source.
What you want to do, according to the Duck Dynasty patriarch, is “marry these girls when they’re about fifteen or sixteen.” Robertson is no stranger to doing just that. He began dating his wife Marsha when she was fourteen and he a legal adult. They married two years later when she was just sixteen. The age of consent in Louisiana is seventeen years old, and it is a crime for anyone regardless of age to engage in sexual relations with a fourteen year old (though there is no word on if they had premarital sex). If a person is under seventeen, it is illegal for anyone more than two years older to have sex with them. No matter what, it is likely (but not proven) that Robertson broke at least one law.
Dating a 14 year old while a legal adult? C'mon, Matt Barber. Let's hear about this godly relationship.

AMC Theatres To Host National Screening Of Movie Featuring Anti-Gay Activists

On May 6th, AMC Theatres will host a one-time national screening of Irreplaceable, a movie produced by Focus On The Family. Among the anti-gay talking heads in the film is Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, who is perhaps best known for his campaign against the publication of gay wedding announcements in Jewish newspapers. Also in the movie is ex-gay torture advocate Dr. Miriam Grossman, the author of You're Teaching My Children WHAT? Other anti-gay figures that appear in the film include right wing talker Eric Metaxas and film critic/Prop 8 proponent Michael Medved.
IRREPLACEABLE follows one man’s journey to determine if traditional families are still relevant to our world. The documentary explores the importance of family with a diversity of experts who enlighten audiences on whether the concept of the traditional family is meaningful, or in fact outdated. IRREPLACEABLE asks families of all faiths and backgrounds to consider the questions, “What is a family?,” “Is today’s family dynamic in trouble?,” “Are families relevant in today’s society?,” and “Is my family worth fighting for in an era where divorce is so prevalent?”
JMG reader Jim reports that a brief trailer for Irreplaceable began playing in AMC multiplexes this week. Here's a longer trailer posted by the studio in October. You'll note that there is only a fleeting mention of same-sex marriage.

RELATED: The second-largest exhibitor in the United States, last year AMC was acquired by the Chinese conglomerate Dalian Wanda Group. The $2.6B deal made the Chinese company the largest movie exhibitor in the world.

Breitbart Headline Of The Day

Because Muslims don't go to church, obviously.

#Candygram

Via GrindTV:
Large sharks off Western Australia are now doing their part to keep surfers and swimmers safe–by sending tweets warning of their presence. Scientists have fitted 320 sharks, many of them great whites, with transmitters that automatically issue warnings to the Surf Life Saving Western Australia’s Twitter feed when the tagged sharks approach within a kilometer of the coast’s popular beaches. The twitter feed has more than 14,000 followers and the real-time warnings, it’s hoped, will help people make more informed decisions when choosing to venture into the ocean.

Katy B - Crying For No Reason

Sounds like a gay club hit.

UTAH: State GOP To Spend $2M On Outside Counsel To Fight Gay Marriage

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart (R-Duh) says that the state GOP is willing to spend $2M to fight same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court, if necessary.
"We need the best we can get," House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, said after a House GOP leadership meeting Friday with newly named Attorney General Sean Reyes. "He's coming into this, frankly, in the middle." Reyes laid out his case for bringing in help to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court of last Friday's ruling striking down Amendment 3, a decision resulting in same-sex marriage being allowed in Utah. He has said he also intends to use the outside counsel to bolster the state's appeal of U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby's ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly to the Supreme Court. After hearing Reyes' strategy and the projected cost, Lockhart said the House Republican majority leadership "felt comfortable telling him, 'Move forward with what you think is in the best interest of the state.' "
Lockhart: "To go through the court process on an issue that, on a 2-to-1 vote the people of our state felt was important to have in our constitution, I think is of value."

January 1st: Boy Scouts Of America To Begin Admitting Openly Gay Youths

The Boy Scouts of America will begin admitting openly gay scouts on January 1st.
Under the new membership policy, youths can no longer be barred from the Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts or coed Venturers program solely on the basis of sexual orientation. However, gay Scouts will face some limitations. "Any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting," says one BSA document. "No member may use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda, including on the matter of sexual orientation." Trying to anticipate potential friction, the BSA has distributed extensive explanations and question-and-answer documents related to the policy. Could a Scout march in uniform in a gay-pride parade? No, says the BSA. "Each youth member is free as an individual to express his or her thoughts or take action on political or social issues but must not use Scouting's official uniforms and insignia when doing so."

Saturday, December 28, 2013

HomoQuotable - Robert Oscar Lopez

"Since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States. In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations. In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag's 'Faith and Reason' show in Los Angeles have interviewed me. And I'd been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers. Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none. Prior to GLAAD's blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches. Three were working with me to set up dates. Since GLAAD's blacklisting, none. Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy. That is the power of GLAAD." - Anti-gay activist Robert Oscar Lopez, writing for American Thinker.

RELATED: In addition to appearing on stage at an anti-gay Manif Pour Tous rally in France, Lopez has testified against LGBT equality before several state legislatures and he co-signed an anti-gay homocon brief to the Supreme Court.  You really must read the Media Matters take on Lopez' trilogy of gay erotica.

OMG! Gay Wedding! Boycott!

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is sponsoring a same-sex wedding to take place atop a float in the coming Rose Bowl Parade. And that has some busybodies very upset.
Karen Grube, of San Diego, said the Tournament of Roses should remove the AHF float from the parade. She has also called on corporate sponsors to remove their support of the parade if the wedding goes on as planned. And, she has set up a Facebook page seeking support for her cause. “Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?” Grube said. “That’s just stupid.” The 2014 Rose Parade is the first where gay marriage has been legal in California, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that deemed Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Grube also said she didn’t think the Tournament should be involved in a group’s “political agenda.” “It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade,” she said. “It no longer is.”
Here's the Facebook page for the boycott.

Some People Have Attractive Cousins

Sigh. When will "we" stop broadly condemning the relationships of others because of our own personal dislikes or ignorance? At thegloss.com I found a bit by with the headline "WTF? People Are Tweeting Their Incest Fantasies." We're talking about cousins.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental by thinking people who find their cousins hot is totally creepy and wrong, but this kind of thing has been making people feel weird for a long time.
You are needlessly attacking people and you are wrong about people feeling weird about it. For most of human history, most people have married a cousin. It is still common in many places. Half of US states will legally marry first cousins.
Perhaps some people don’t consider kissing cousins to be as stomach-churningly horrifying as say brother-sister or parent-child stuff, but uh, whatever the degree of separation, finding your family hot is still something you might want to keep between you and your analyst.
Maybe if you reword that and make it about interracial relationships, you'll see why this statement is hurtful.

Maybe her cousins aren't attractive? But some people have attractive cousins.


She was referring to this huffingtonpost.com bit.

To read about a real family that is hurt by attacks like this one, I recommend checking out this blog.

Some People Have Attractive Cousins

Sigh. When will "we" stop broadly condemning the relationships of others because of our own personal dislikes or ignorance? At thegloss.com I found a bit by with the headline "WTF? People Are Tweeting Their Incest Fantasies." We're talking about cousins.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental by thinking people who find their cousins hot is totally creepy and wrong, but this kind of thing has been making people feel weird for a long time.
You are needlessly attacking people and you are wrong about people feeling weird about it. For most of human history, most people have married a cousin. It is still common in many places. Half of US states will legally marry first cousins.
Perhaps some people don’t consider kissing cousins to be as stomach-churningly horrifying as say brother-sister or parent-child stuff, but uh, whatever the degree of separation, finding your family hot is still something you might want to keep between you and your analyst.
Maybe if you reword that and make it about interracial relationships, you'll see why this statement is hurtful.

Maybe her cousins aren't attractive? But some people have attractive cousins.


She was referring to this huffingtonpost.com bit.

To read about a real family that is hurt by attacks like this one, I recommend checking out this blog.

Lies and Damned Lies About Polygamy

[Note: I am bumping up this previous entry because it is as relevant as ever. Polygamy is not something to escape from or fear. Abusive people are. The same goes for monogamy.]

Good ol’ tool of anti-equality forces, Professor Joe Henrich of the University of B.C., is back in the news. This article comes with a picture of Bountiful, B.C. (which is NOT the picture shown here) along with this text…

New research says that polygamy, which is practiced in Bountiful, B.C., leads to increased crime.

Right. Everyone avoids driving near Bountiful because of the high crime rate.

Prof. Joe Henrich found that when rich men take more than one wife, it leaves a deficit of women leading to increased fighting and competition for the remaining women.

Got that? You non-wealthy or unmarried guys are just a bunch of criminals.

Henrich is taking about women as though they have no minds of their own and are nothing but property, akin to cars.

Rich men can “take” more than one woman, marriage or not. Shall we ban all nonmonogamy? Or, since it might lower the crime rate according to this line of thinking, shall we require a woman to find an unmarried man and keep him busy so he won’t go around being a violent criminal?

"You have low-status men who are desperate for resources," said Henrich, a professor in the departments of psychology and economics. "More polygamy leads to a greater proportion of unmarried men, which leads to increased crime."

How does Henrich explain “low status” men who marry a woman and support her decision to not earn income as she tends to the children or earn less income than she and their children will spend? Wouldn’t it make sense, in Henrich’s view, for such men to never marry and have children, so as to be less “desperate for resources?”

Henrich and his co-authors studied societies where polygamy is prevalent, trying to discover the consequences.

Did they also conclude that polygamy causes high amounts of melanin?

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," said Henrich. "The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behaviour to gain resources and women."

I wonder why the article doesn’t cite examples?

I also wonder how much funding for this, or how much of Henrich’s pay, comes from the very government that has banned the polygamous freedom to marry and is actively attacking polygynous families?

We’ve already debunked all of this here, here, here, here, here, and here. We will need many more dung beetles to clear this pile up.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. These excuses to deny full marriage equality are flimsy masks that fail to hide festering bigotry.

Lies and Damned Lies About Polygamy

[Note: I am bumping up this previous entry because it is as relevant as ever. Polygamy is not something to escape from or fear. Abusive people are. The same goes for monogamy.]

Good ol’ tool of anti-equality forces, Professor Joe Henrich of the University of B.C., is back in the news. This article comes with a picture of Bountiful, B.C. (which is NOT the picture shown here) along with this text…

New research says that polygamy, which is practiced in Bountiful, B.C., leads to increased crime.

Right. Everyone avoids driving near Bountiful because of the high crime rate.

Prof. Joe Henrich found that when rich men take more than one wife, it leaves a deficit of women leading to increased fighting and competition for the remaining women.

Got that? You non-wealthy or unmarried guys are just a bunch of criminals.

Henrich is taking about women as though they have no minds of their own and are nothing but property, akin to cars.

Rich men can “take” more than one woman, marriage or not. Shall we ban all nonmonogamy? Or, since it might lower the crime rate according to this line of thinking, shall we require a woman to find an unmarried man and keep him busy so he won’t go around being a violent criminal?

"You have low-status men who are desperate for resources," said Henrich, a professor in the departments of psychology and economics. "More polygamy leads to a greater proportion of unmarried men, which leads to increased crime."

How does Henrich explain “low status” men who marry a woman and support her decision to not earn income as she tends to the children or earn less income than she and their children will spend? Wouldn’t it make sense, in Henrich’s view, for such men to never marry and have children, so as to be less “desperate for resources?”

Henrich and his co-authors studied societies where polygamy is prevalent, trying to discover the consequences.

Did they also conclude that polygamy causes high amounts of melanin?

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," said Henrich. "The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behaviour to gain resources and women."

I wonder why the article doesn’t cite examples?

I also wonder how much funding for this, or how much of Henrich’s pay, comes from the very government that has banned the polygamous freedom to marry and is actively attacking polygynous families?

We’ve already debunked all of this here, here, here, here, here, and here. We will need many more dung beetles to clear this pile up.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. These excuses to deny full marriage equality are flimsy masks that fail to hide festering bigotry.

Categories