The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these ==> *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirely of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity,terminology

Bus Sighting at Media Matters

Luke Brinker at mediamatters.org, in responding to an anti-equality column by twice-divorced-now-in-third-marriage radio talk show host and author, Dennis Prager, threw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus.

Prager's prediction dovetails with those of other marriage equality opponents who similarly suggest that necrophilia and bestiality might become commonly accepted practices if gay couples are allowed to marry. But in the 10 years since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize marriage equality, there hasn't been a rush to legalize polygamous unions. Meanwhile, most states that allow incestuous marriages are right-leaning states where same-sex marriage currently isn't allowed.

As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has observed, the problem with "slippery slope" arguments of the kind advanced by Prager is that they ignore the deep differences between allowing a committed, loving same-sex couple to get married and permitting, say, a brother and sister to get married. Incestuous relationships, Lithwick notes, are often exploitative and psychologically destructive, with severe consequences for children's health.

Here is how I responded in the comments (with links added here for further reading)...
 
The response to bigots when they bring up polygamy and consanguinamory is "What's wrong with letting consenting adults marry?" Please note that under our broad legal systems, corpses and other species (necrophilia and bestiality) are not considered consenting adults. However, a consenting adult might want to marry more than one person, or marry a close relative. When (white) women got the right to vote, there wasn't a rush for voting rights for people of color, and when Loving v. Virginia knocked down bans on monogamous interracial marriages, there wasn't a rush to grant to same-gender freedom to marry, but there should have been.

It is unfair to say that incestuous relationships are often exploitative and psychology destructive. That is ABUSIVE relationships in general, which can include complete strangers and interracial couples same-gender couples. Also, it is the abusive relationships that tend to come to the attention of law enforcement and counselors. Nobody in a good relationship is calling up a shrink or law enforcement and saying, "Hey, I just want to tell you I'm in an incestuous relationship and it is great!"

The "mutant baby" argument is a smokescreen. First of all, some consanguinamorous relationships involve only people of the same gender. Yes, they are gay marriages, so to speak. I have interviewed people in these relationships myself. Secondly, marriage shouldn't be equated with baby-making. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. Thirdly, contrary to myth, most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems (I know some of these children, and so do you, whether you know it or not); while births to
other parents do sometimes have birth defects. Heterosexual couples with obvious, series genetic diseases are not prevented from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying, so the "mutant baby" argument is not a justification for stopping genetic half-sisters who didn't even grow up with each other from marrying.

I expect more from Media Matters than to throw some consenting adults under the bus to assuage bigots. There is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to marry any and all consenting adults. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality "just for some" is not equality. Let's stand up for EVERY ADULT'S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,children,consanguineous,freedom to marry,incest,marriage equality,media,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,solidarity,stigma

Now is the Time - Solidarity is Best

This recent piece coincided with something I had meant to write. It is about solidarity.

This blog, and the related Facebook page, calls for relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality. When we say that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults, we actually mean it. We have not hidden that.

I've had more than one polyamorous person think that this is great... when they realize it means I support the polygamous (or polyamorous) freedom to marry... then react negatively when they realize it means I support the consanguineous freedom to marry.

Yes, I do. I support the right of an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to marry any and all consenting adults. So yes, I support the right of a white woman to marry a man of African ancestry, or 30-year-old man to marry a 60-year-old woman, or a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry two men, or a woman to marry the half-brother she first met when they were both adults. None of these marriages hurt anyone else. None of these marriages hurt anyone, at least not in and of themselves. There are people who aren't right for each other, there are abusers, but that has to do with the individuals involved, and not the general freedom to marry.

There are patriarchal polygynists who want support for their "plural marriages" but do not want to associate with anyone or anything standing up for the rights of LGBT people, or polyandrists, or any non-polygynist polyamorists.

There are monogamist gays and lesbians who dismiss someone else's need for polyamory or for the need of cousin couples to marry.

There are cousin couples who grew up together as much as any siblings who do not support the rights of half-siblings who did not grow up together to get married or even just be together without being criminally prosecuted.

There are many other examples like this. Everyone has their own interests, priorities, likes and dislikes, prejudices, and biases. Some people care only about their needs, not those of anyone else.

But we (including many LGBT people, and many people who are in or seeking plural marriage, a polygamous marriage, a polyamorous relationship, or a consanguineous relationship) are people who support the rights of all adults. We support full marriage equality, not just a freedom to marry for this group or that group. A decent person does not have to like the idea of every one of these relationships to support the rights of adults to have the relationships they want. A person doesn't have to want something for themselves or a loved one to have compassion for others who do need it.

Solidarity is:

1. The right thing to do

AND

2. It will prove to be the most effective way of securing rights.

Even some people who agree with #1 do not agree with #2.

Recently, a polyamorous person expressed to me her concern that my support for consanguinamorous relationships is a threat to the rights of poly people. Consanguinamory just isn't supposed to be how a relationship works, she said to me publicly. But haven't we heard these same things from some monogamist LGBT people about polyamorists? Shoot, we hear it about the "BT" in "LGBT". "Drop the bisexuals and transgendered in order to further the rights of lesbians and gays!" It is not only an awful thing to do, it is a false promise. There's the real slippery slope: allowing those who oppose equality to deny rights to anyone. 

But I was told that I was asking for too much in asking for full marriage equality, that by insisting that consanguineous lovers have their rights, too, that I was going to hurt the cause for poly people and there could be a swing of the proverbial pendulum, essentially back to the hetero-monogamous married only climate of condemning and denying rights to poly people, LGBT people, unmarried lovers, etc. Texas was cited as an example because of the recent vote on abortion restrictions. Texas is an outlier, though. Texas criminalizes consensual adult sex between first cousins, who can legally marry in about half of the states. Remember it was Texas law criminalizing "sodomy" that was stuck down in Lawrence vs. Texas. That was as recently as 2003. Meanwhile, just a year later, the limited same-gender freedom to marry began in Massachusetts after a long-building momentum.

Momentum is strong and increasing. We're not going to see a reduction in LGBT or poly rights; we're going to see a continuing advance. Including rights for the consanguinamorous will not jeopardize this; rather, standing up for relationship rights for all will strengthen the rights for LGBT and poly people. That is true because the people are evolving, for the most part, not because they no longer have their own aversions to relationships different than their own (many of them still do), but because they can think and they have thought through it and realized that consenting adults should be themselves and have their relationships and not be treated as second class citizens for doing so. When someone says we should support rights for consenting adults ...except for consanguinamorous relationships they are actually undermining LGBT and poly rights and the related freedoms to marry, because the people to whom they are making their appeal find the appeal insincere.

Almost all who do oppose or have opposed interracial, same-gender, polyamorous, and consanguineous sexuality/relationships/marriage have done so for two primary reasons:

1. personal disgust
2. their religion

Sometimes those two reasons are indistinguishable.

But when people are calmly but firmly asked to think it through, and their concerns are addressed, they realize that there is no good reason to oppose consensual relationships between consenting adults. When someone insists that it is still OK or right to oppose consanguineous relationships, they are almost invariably bringing back an argument that they just dismissed when it comes to other freedoms to marry, as Greenfield points out. To say that it is permissible to deny consanguineous lovers their rights, someone actually undermines the case for their own rights. Specifically, a polyamorous person runs a risk because the consanguineous freedom to marry takes less paperwork and adjustment than adjusting for polyamory. Also, more people have experienced consanguineous experimentation (at the very least) than have experienced polyfidelity or open coupling. 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a siblings. The percentages increase in older age groups (due to more opportunities as time goes by.) That doesn't include contact with cousins, aunts, uncles, or parents. Some of those people enter into lasting relationships.

Now is the time to push for the rights of ALL adults. The bigots are in retreat. There's no going back. There may be some isolated backlash, but this kind of prejudice is dying out... literally. When we respond to the stubborn bigots by saying yes, discrimination against some adults is OK, the remaining observers, who are the ones who can be persuaded to support rights for polyamorists and LGBT people, are going to lose respect for the argument for equality. So the best response to "What's next?" is "Rights for all consenting adults. Why is that a problem?" The bigots won't have a good reason. Put them on the defensive, and they'll lose.

Consenting adults of any relation can be together in Rhode Island. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to marry, and no reason why first cousins, who can legally marry in California, should not be free to be together in Texas. There's no reason for Utah to criminalize polyamory. There's no good reason for any state to deny consenting adults their fundamental rights to be together and to marry.

Those who oppose equality and have cited my blog have never explained what is wrong with what I have argued. Conversely, people have told me that I have opened and changed their minds about same-gender relationships, about polyamorous relationships, and about consanguineous relationships. I have received relieved and thankful messages from people who are so happy to find that someone speaks for them. I will not throw these people under the bus.

These disputes are nothing new to the civil rights movement. Going all the way back to when African-Americans were still enslaved, there were disputes about what rights to seek and how to seek them. "Do we fight for desegregation? For interracial marriage?" Those fighting for women's rights have had similar disputes. "Do we fight for lesbians or not?"To this day, there are people who say civil rights are for African-Americans. Not for gays, not even for Mexicans. Don't play that game. Stand up for the rights of all adults. You don't have to like the idea of interracial relationships, or same-gender relationships, or polyamorous relationships, or consanguineous relationships to realize that people should have their rights.

Standing up for full marriage equality is not only the principled thing to do, it is the practical thing as well. There are people who are suffering right now because their loving, lasing, happy, healthy relationship is denied equality or even criminalized. This is not right, and it needs to end.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,myths,solidarity

Rinella on Rights

The brilliant, talented, and lovely author Diane Rinella has just blogged about why we deny people their rights.

We don’t deny people their rights because we want to, we do it because they are in situations that either we don’t understand or can’t comprehend. We all know of the struggles that homosexuals have faced to gain the right to marry and be treated as equals. Every day we see it on the news and we experience it with our friends. Therefore, it is very easy to analyze the subject. However, what if the situation is something that you don’t think about? It’s a type of relationship that is happening around you, yet you’re completely unaware of it because those involved are living in shadows. The truth is, not only do you know people who are or have been involved in relationships you can’t fathom, you also know people who are being denied of their rights.

Go read the whole thing. Please!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,children,consanguineous,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,solidarity,stigma

Why Not Solidarity?

Here's an older entry on the blog that is still relevant, so I'm bumping it up.

Here’s a question that touches on prejudices and solidarity as they relate to marriage equality.

How come the right to marrige fight only includes gay marriage and does not include the right for bisexuals to marry both sexes, or adult incest marriage and even more so polygamy? It obviously is not about the right to marry, so why do we lie.

I am here, fighting for full marriage equality. But it is true that there are people who only want the freedom to marry extended in a way that benefits just them or their friends. You’re right; they aren’t really fighting for the right to marry or for marriage equality, just their own freedom to marry. But there are others who fight for full marriage equality.

The question got some responses.

Mike Jones says…

Equality marriage is not about marriage equality at all. It is about promoting the gay agenda and they do not support bisexual or trans gender issues either.

The “gay agenda” - ? – You mean, like going to work, paying taxes? But even Mike can see that others are being thrown under the bus.

A polygamy according to them, should have the right to marry all that he loves and the mother of all of his children. An adult incest couple should have the right to consummate their love inmarriage, both father adn daughter and mother and son. This is all under the equality marriage banner, but they dare only raise their gay flag.

We do need solidarity. Even if someone can not tell us what "a polygamy" is.

Smooth T says…

Simply because polygamy is not our fight and neither is incest.

I see. So Martin Luther King, Jr. should have only asked for civil rights for African-Americans, not Asian-Americans or Latinos?

Incest is disgusting and it’s A FAMILY LINE THAT SHOULD NEVER BE CROSSED

Some people say that about two men having sex. You don’t have to like it to recognize that consenting adults should have their rights.

polygamy is just a patriarchal thing that puts the woman as a slave to her husband and isn’t beneficial for anyone but the man.

That would be your concept of polygyny. Full marriage equality would also allow polyandry and group marriage, and again, what consenting adults do in private should not be subject to the prejudices of others.

Alexis says…

Bisexuals *already* have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just not the same sex.

They should have both.

Second, incestuous and polygamous marriages being denied is not a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. I’m not even necessarily saying that I have a problem with them being allowed, but it’s simply not a matter of Constitutional law being broken. Denying same-sexcouples the right to marry, on the other hand, *is*.

Why is that so? Merely stating that doesn’t make it true. I’m still waiting for a good reason.

Wolfie says…

Incest marriage is self-destructive and goes against how families work.

No proof is offered, just an assertion.

Nothing wrong with Polygamy, if it is regulated and everyone is treated equally.

Well at least Wolfie is open to that.

In discussion after discussion, we fail to see a good reason why the freedom to marry should be extended to some, but not all adults. Get on the right side of history and support relationship rights for ALL adults! Support these lovers and so many others. Here's how.

Read more »

Posted in: marriage equality,prejudice,solidarity

Hope

Bumping this up...

Earlier, I posted a roundup of comments recently left here on the blog. This one needed an entry all its own. It was a comment left after a recent entry I wrote on Successful GSA Relationships, responding to negativity from people at some GSA websites.

Sounds a lot like what I was told when I went looking for advice though I don't know if that was the particular place I got it or not. Essentially I was told to not to make any moves, just wait and eventually my feelings would go away as if it was just a phase. I was also pretty much told to be silent with regards to my condition. I actually complied, because it wasn't like I really had much of a choice. I mean, adults face 25 years [in prison] where I live, and while I am sure a minor would face less, I don't know how much. There was also the social stigma, to which I was already acquainted with from when I was even younger.

But let me tell you one thing, that advice was useless, and basically amounts to bottling up your feelings and throwing them under the bus. Their support was even worse, because after hearing them I felt even more alone than I had before. Everybody was out for themselves, all of their advice was basically to maintain the status quo of doing nothing, I was even told that it would be detrimental to tell anybody, which it could very well have been but many who might not want to go through with it would probably do a lot better if their family understood and was willing to help them. Such advice may have in fact isolated me and many others from help we need, either in regards to avoiding going through with it, or to actually go through with in as a minimally damaging way possible. Even worse, if somebody is looking for a way out then telling them there is no way out and you're basically f**ked regardless, and the only thing you can do is wait and pray your heart gives up on them, can you really call that advice? Can you really call that support? How is anybody suppose to get help when the helpers are just as condemning and demonizing as everybody else.

Either they hated themselves and it showed through their writing, or they were inexperienced in the area masquerading their trolling as advice. I felt that had they just told me that I was better off dead that it wouldn't have changed their antagonism much towards me (yes it felt as if they had something against me as a person rather than toward my question).

Around ten years later, and my feelings haven't "gone away" they weren't just a phaze, instead they have grown. My silence and and being alone in my struggle had a dramatic negative effect on my life. For several years I struggled with my depression. The past couple of years and especially the past few months I decided to discard my silence. Even if I stay anonymous, speaking out has helped me tremendously. I've found people that have supported me (though not personally due to anonymity), and I don't feel anywhere near as alone as before. By the same token, there have been people that have judged me (same as before, not personally due to anonymity), but I can see that their inexperience with the subject has clouded their judgment, their bigotry has lost most of it's power. Those that support tend to have had experience with consanguinamory, or knows somebody who has, and they learned that the arguments are inconsistent hogwash, while the bigots only have hearsay of cases where not all facts are known and bias is presented. Everything else is filled out with ignorance.

If anybody is reading this, know that whether you pursue a relationship with a relative, or you choose to avoid it: There are people that respect and support your choice. It's all about environment. I've been to both good and bad sites, and the good sites, I've stayed at, the bad ones I don't visit anymore or avoid as much as possible. This has taught me that there is more than one choice for environment, if you seek help and they tell you rubbish, there are other places that are far more helpful. You'll know a good environment is one you don't fear speaking in.

This is exactly why this blog is here: to let people know they are not alone, and to help them. There is a desperate need for counselors who have a supportive understanding of Genetic Sexual Attraction, and there will be even more need as the reality of today’s world mature into an increase in reunions and introductions. I am not a counselor by profession nor training. But I like to help others in whatever way I can, and I can do it by blogging and networking.

There is no good reason why the consanguinamous, whether brought together by GSA or not, should face discrimination for loving each other.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,persecution,prejudice,solidarity

Is There Any Sexuality You Don't Support?

Someone asked me that question privately.

If by sexuality, one means gender identity or sexual orientation… I support people being free to be themselves, as long as they don’t force themselves on others (like predators of children).

Regarding sex…

I believe in the basic human rights of freedom of religion, association, expression, and assembly. Anything consenting adults do together should be up to them, and should not be something to be subjected to criminal prosecution, discrimination, or bullying. Nor should minors close in age be prosecuted or forced into “treatment” for having sex with each other.

I don't consider rape, assault, or child molestation to be "sex." I'm all for prosecuting for those.

I think if someone is at the age of consent for sex, that age of consent should also apply to being recorded or photographed. If someone wants to make videos of themselves to take pictures of themselves or let someone else do it, and they want to show it to others, and another person of the age of consent wants to view it, fine.

Regarding marriage…

I support the right to marry for everyone. An adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults.

But…

My support of legal rights and protections does not mean I personally support all sex or marriages.

For example, I think it is a bad idea for, say, a woman who needs monogamy to have sex on the first date, and if a friend like that wants my "support" I would tell her no, it is a bad idea.

Another example… I think it is safe to say we’ve all known people who announced they were going to get married and we cringed (if only inside) because we didn’t think they were right for each other, or perhaps in a place in their lives where they were ready to be married.

I am also against cheating (but again, I don’t think it should be a criminal matter). Cheating is when someone breaks an existing vow to another through action, rather than informing the person(s) with whom they have the vow that the agreement is ending. There are married couples who have agreements that allow one or both of them to have sex with other people, and per those agreements doing so would not be cheating.

However, if someone tells me they are happily involved with their close biological relative, or two close biological relatives, and none of them are cheating to do it, then yes, I support them. I support happy, healthy same-gender relationships, interracial relationships, polyamorous relationships, intergenerational relationships (adults), and consanguinamorous relationships.

I am sex-positive. Sex is a good thing for many reasons. We’d be better off if more people were having more sex and sex that was more satisfying to them. So generally, I “support sex.” Those who don’t think sex is a good thing or talk as though it isn’t may be doing it wrong, or may have forgotten what it is like.

What about you? Are you sex-positive?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,FAQ,law,marriage equality,solidarity

Solidarity From Kim LaCapria

Recently at the dailyglobe.com, Kim LaCapria had the piece "Is Polyamory The New Gay Marriage? I Hope So."

The angry response to this concept that is so intriguing manifested after xoJane published what appears to be a controversial post by Angi Becker Stevens, titled simply “My Big Polyamorous Wedding.” In it, Stevens explains her plans to marry her boyfriend of several years — but plot twist: she’s already married, and planning to remain wed to her first husband.


Now, xoJane is a site where most posters and commenters are feminist and “sex positive,” but the response was overwhelmingly negative in the comments section. A small level of grudging acceptance was often appended with a “I don’t really like this, but …”, and even that was rare. Most posts demonstrated a visceral level of discomfort, fear, or otherwise disapproving assessment of Stevens’ life. (A life, we might add, that all parties involved seem to have chosen happily.)

Some people consent to, and want, things other people do not want. Why is that so hard to understand?

She points out that people quite often approach romantic or sexual relationships differently than they approach anything else in life...

Force or coercion is generally considered to be poor form, and socially discouraged — but if partners are not on the same “marriage timeline” we are, we’re advised by nearly everyone to force their hand on the matter or bail, never to consider that the decision is heavy and one to be arrived at when both parties are comfortable.

And if you question these unshakeable tenets — that there are minefields full of dealbreakers, that it’s “a breakup because it’s broken,” that “he’s just not that into you,” that tactical plays are the best route — you’re seen in one of two ways. Females are repeatedly told that it’s about “self worth,” and are called “doormats,” while men are accused of being “commitment-phobic,” “manchildren,” or simply are labeled cads.

In our strangely unformed collective opinion, you’re either the player or the played, so best to be on the offensive — a proposition we imbue with the collateral of divorce, expensive jewelry, or simply punitive use of affection. As a standard!

As such, we’ve arrived in 2013 with a post-women’s lib society and an adversarial playing ground for love. Or, at its bare bones, we no longer need the “sexual economy” on which marriage was based for so long. And in the absence of the sex for security exchange, we cling to the bizarrely dated, long-obsolete truths of monogamous marriage like some old harvest sacrifice, adhering to superstition and divination to declare certain certainties for which there really is no hard and fast rule.

Again, it isn't true that every person wants exactly the same thing when it comes to relationships as everyone else. And that's OK!

She cites the negative comments left after the article, bashing polyamorous people.

It goes on — but the ambient theme in the discussion of polyamory vis a vis gay marriage is fear. Fear we will be forced to “share,” fear that the promised happy ending will look different than what we’ve seen on Pinterest, fear that, most of all, our commitments will be tested time and again rather than a foregone conclusion, a Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling kiss in the rain, a post-script to the story of how we “got” the guy or girl — as if a person were a thing to get.

It seems the question of whether polyamory is the next gay marriage is secondary to the real question — why does every major divergence from “one man, one woman” terrify us so intensely, and why do we continue to indulge the idea others’ choices disrupt or even threaten our own?

BINGO!

Gay marriage has, in reality, always existed. So has polyamory. It is just that we're no longer going to force everyone into a closet unless they stick with a narrow heteromonogamous stay-within-your-race mold. Those days are over. Good riddance! Get used to it.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,LGBT,media,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,solidarity,stigma

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.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,coming out,freedom to marry,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,prejudice,same-sex,solidarity,USA

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.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,FAQ,freedom to marry,incest,law,LGBT,marriage equality,myths,prejudice,same-sex,solidarity,USA

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.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,FAQ,freedom to marry,incest,law,LGBT,marriage equality,myths,prejudice,same-sex,solidarity,USA

Hate Adds Pain to Genetic Sexual Attraction and GSA Relationships

I'm bumping up this entry I wrote a while back because there are people who need to see it.

Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) is a condition that may be experienced when close genetic relatives who have been separated for significant amounts of time, often since birth or before puberty, are reunited or introduced. It describes an intense physical and/or emotional attraction, and may include sexual attraction or be expressed through sex. The attraction may or may not be mutual. Even if mutual, not all GSA results in sexual contact. (Some people prefer the term "Genetic Attraction.")

Reading accounts or watching documentaries about those struggling with GSA feelings or related actions can be heartbreaking. There are many reasons as to why.

First of all, there are all of the problems that come with any attraction or any relationship. One person is attracted to someone else and that attraction is not mutual, or is mutual only for period of time. Relationships involve at least two different people who are trying to get along with each other and to deal with those outside the relationship as well. This can all be increased when the individuals are biologically related.

This new attraction and resulting relationship can bring change, disruption, and uncertainty to someone’s life, which is again something that may happen in general relationships as well, but can be more of an issue with biological relatives and the strong pull of GSA. This is especially a problem when someone has made a life and perhaps has existing vows with someone else. For example, a married, monogamous woman who gets in contact with a biological half-brother and finds herself strongly attracted to him and wanting to spend time with him, with or without sex. The time and attention taken from her marriage may be enough of a problem, but add sexual cheating to the mix, and it is even worse. She may love and value her husband, but feels this intense connection or draw to her half-brother that must be suppressed if she wants to have a chance to save her marriage. In that case, either choice is painful. Or what if she doesn’t want to save her marriage? What if it was dying before the GSA issue surfaced? Divorce is usually a painful experience anyway.

Some people experiencing GSA are disturbed by their feelings (or the feelings of their relative) because they feel a need to have that person in their life as a sibling, a parent, or a child, and they see sexual attraction or sex as incompatible with that role. They may feel like they finally had something they were missing for so long, only to have it taken away by unexpected or unwanted feelings and resulting tensions. Just the unfamiliar nature of these feelings may be bothersome.

In addition to all of the usual problems someone with an unrequited attraction or a mutual attraction between people can bring, one that is different with GSA is, of course, the legal, familial, social, and religious prohibitions imposed against sex with and marriage to close relatives. Incest between consenting adults is still criminalized in many places, including most US states, and bigotry against people in such relationships or experiencing such attraction continues to be perpetuated, sometimes in the most hateful and harmful ways.

This is sometimes compounded by a lack of solidarity. Even if there is a GSA relationship that didn’t break up any existing families, marriages, or relationships, and the individuals are happy together and able to share their lives in a functional way despite legal and social challenges, they may be rebuffed or judged when they reach out for understanding and support from others. Other people experiencing GSA who have decided not to have sexual relationship or have ended a sexual relationship or want to end their sexual relationship may disapprove of those who want to engage in or continue their sexual relationship. Or, if the GSA relationship is intergenerational, interracial [biracial with non-biracial], same-sex, or polyamorous, other people experiencing GSA may express disapproval based on one of those factors (in addition to all of the other people who disapprove based on those factors). Finally, those who have recently struggled or are still struggling for their own freedom to marry or just the basic freedom of association, such as LGBT people or poly people, may express contempt for consanguineous sex and love, including in cases where GSA is factor, or may be unsupportive of those in GSA relationships gaining the freedom to marry. Thus, instead of finding comfort from those who have also been targeted by those who want to control the sexuality of other adults, people experiencing GSA may find some more vitriol or at least a cold shoulder.

All of these things can bring pain and hardship to GSA relationships. Laws and public attitudes can be changed. There is some help for those struggling to deal with their feelings or the feelings of someone else or just to be themselves, but that help would be greatly aided by a change in the laws and public attitudes. That is one reason I call for solidarity. Someone who is struggling with GSA does not need the added burden of laws and finger-wavers that treat them as second-class citizens or with hate and impede their ability to make decisions in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones.

For help, see here.

[Edited for typing errors and clarity.]

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,family reaction,freedom to marry,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,law,love,persecution,prejudice,solidarity,stigma

Hate Adds Pain to Genetic Sexual Attraction and GSA Relationships

I'm bumping up this entry I wrote a while back because there are people who need to see it.

Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) is a condition that may be experienced when close genetic relatives who have been separated for significant amounts of time, often since birth or before puberty, are reunited or introduced. It describes an intense physical and/or emotional attraction, and may include sexual attraction or be expressed through sex. The attraction may or may not be mutual. Even if mutual, not all GSA results in sexual contact. (Some people prefer the term "Genetic Attraction.")

Reading accounts or watching documentaries about those struggling with GSA feelings or related actions can be heartbreaking. There are many reasons as to why.

First of all, there are all of the problems that come with any attraction or any relationship. One person is attracted to someone else and that attraction is not mutual, or is mutual only for period of time. Relationships involve at least two different people who are trying to get along with each other and to deal with those outside the relationship as well. This can all be increased when the individuals are biologically related.

This new attraction and resulting relationship can bring change, disruption, and uncertainty to someone’s life, which is again something that may happen in general relationships as well, but can be more of an issue with biological relatives and the strong pull of GSA. This is especially a problem when someone has made a life and perhaps has existing vows with someone else. For example, a married, monogamous woman who gets in contact with a biological half-brother and finds herself strongly attracted to him and wanting to spend time with him, with or without sex. The time and attention taken from her marriage may be enough of a problem, but add sexual cheating to the mix, and it is even worse. She may love and value her husband, but feels this intense connection or draw to her half-brother that must be suppressed if she wants to have a chance to save her marriage. In that case, either choice is painful. Or what if she doesn’t want to save her marriage? What if it was dying before the GSA issue surfaced? Divorce is usually a painful experience anyway.

Some people experiencing GSA are disturbed by their feelings (or the feelings of their relative) because they feel a need to have that person in their life as a sibling, a parent, or a child, and they see sexual attraction or sex as incompatible with that role. They may feel like they finally had something they were missing for so long, only to have it taken away by unexpected or unwanted feelings and resulting tensions. Just the unfamiliar nature of these feelings may be bothersome.

In addition to all of the usual problems someone with an unrequited attraction or a mutual attraction between people can bring, one that is different with GSA is, of course, the legal, familial, social, and religious prohibitions imposed against sex with and marriage to close relatives. Incest between consenting adults is still criminalized in many places, including most US states, and bigotry against people in such relationships or experiencing such attraction continues to be perpetuated, sometimes in the most hateful and harmful ways.

This is sometimes compounded by a lack of solidarity. Even if there is a GSA relationship that didn’t break up any existing families, marriages, or relationships, and the individuals are happy together and able to share their lives in a functional way despite legal and social challenges, they may be rebuffed or judged when they reach out for understanding and support from others. Other people experiencing GSA who have decided not to have sexual relationship or have ended a sexual relationship or want to end their sexual relationship may disapprove of those who want to engage in or continue their sexual relationship. Or, if the GSA relationship is intergenerational, interracial [biracial with non-biracial], same-sex, or polyamorous, other people experiencing GSA may express disapproval based on one of those factors (in addition to all of the other people who disapprove based on those factors). Finally, those who have recently struggled or are still struggling for their own freedom to marry or just the basic freedom of association, such as LGBT people or poly people, may express contempt for consanguineous sex and love, including in cases where GSA is factor, or may be unsupportive of those in GSA relationships gaining the freedom to marry. Thus, instead of finding comfort from those who have also been targeted by those who want to control the sexuality of other adults, people experiencing GSA may find some more vitriol or at least a cold shoulder.

All of these things can bring pain and hardship to GSA relationships. Laws and public attitudes can be changed. There is some help for those struggling to deal with their feelings or the feelings of someone else or just to be themselves, but that help would be greatly aided by a change in the laws and public attitudes. That is one reason I call for solidarity. Someone who is struggling with GSA does not need the added burden of laws and finger-wavers that treat them as second-class citizens or with hate and impede their ability to make decisions in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones.

For help, see here.

[Edited for typing errors and clarity.]

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,family reaction,freedom to marry,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,law,love,persecution,prejudice,solidarity,stigma

Bisexual and Polyamorous

Alexandra Caldwell, who is bisexual and polyamorous, wrote a great piece on polyamory and how it is painted by others, including some in the LGBT community. This was published in July 2010. How does it hold up today, with awareness of polyamory rising?

While being bisexual, lesbian or gay seem to be slowly gaining acceptance in “mainstream” America, there is one part of my life that still begets misunderstanding or hostility from even those within the LGBT community.

It is a shame when people from a community that has been persecuted stand by and allow others to be persecuted, or even join in the persecution. One example of this is when some of those seeking same-sex marriage throw people seeking polygamy or consanguineous marriage under the bus.

She writes about her awakening...

I hadn’t thought of people loving more than one person at the same time, everyone knowing about it and being okay with it. But when my husband mentioned it, it seemed both so natural and obvious that I couldn’t believe I hadn’t thought of it before.

Also, the timing seemed right. I had just figured out that I wanted to kiss girls. Initially, it had seemed I’d only had two choices: I could stay married and try to ignore this new, huge part of me or I could get divorced so I could exclusively pursue relationships with women. All of a sudden there was an appealing option three: I remain married AND I date girls - either together with my husband or separately. For me, the last choice was by far the best option.

Happiness all around instead the misery of fighting and divorce. Isn’t that better?

Polyamory is not spouse-swapping or about casual, fleeting sexual encounters. It is an actual relationship, just like any other romantic relationship, just with more than one person. These relationships take work and commitment, and you have to feed the relationship - all branches of it - just as you have to with any successful relationship. It is not about one-night stands or casual threesomes or swinging.

A polyamorous couple, triad, or quad may or may not engage in those things too.

That I am polyamorous does not mean that I am easy.

Do you see that, bigots?

Polyamory does not threaten monogamous relationships - for either straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual relationships. We in the LGBT community validly argue that our homosexual relationships (and our desire for marriage) do not endanger heterosexual relationships and marriages. They are separate but the same - we all are just two people who love each other and want to share our lives together. The same goes for polyamory - we are just a group of people in various combinations who love each other and want to share our lives together.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,polyamory,prejudice,solidarity,triads

The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these ==> *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirely of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity,terminology

The Simple Test

Ginny pondered “slippery slope” concepts, and explained why having the same-gender freedom to marry and the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry does not justify things like marrying children.

Consent is the watchword of modern sexual ethics. It’s the difference between BDSM and abuse. It’s the difference between polyamory and cheating. It’s the difference between rape and… sex. Anything two (or more) able, informed adults give consent to in private is generally considered okay.

It’s simple enough, but some people want to make it more complicated than that.

“That’s not natural” really just means “That makes me uncomfortable.” And I hope we can all agree that an individual’s sense of comfort or discomfort makes for a really lousy moral guide.

Besides, good arguments can be made that polygamy is natural. Discomfort is definitely not a good guide for law or morality. Heart surgery is uncomfortable and looks disgusting to many people, but it can be a very good thing. Sticking up for civil rights can bring a whole lot of discomfort, but it is the right thing to do.

Someone might say, “But that goes against my religious code!” Fine, then don’t do that, and encourage your religious brethren not to do it either. But that has nothing to do with whether a thing should be legal or acceptable in the culture outside your religion.

Couldn’t have written a better answer to Discredited Argument #4 myself.

We hold very highly the rights of heterosexual people to live, love, and create families as they see fit. In time, I hope that consenting adults of any number and gender are given the same level of respect.

Let’s make it happen!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,marriage equality,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,religion,solidarity,stigma

The Simple Test

Ginny pondered “slippery slope” concepts, and explained why having the same-gender freedom to marry and the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry does not justify things like marrying children.

Consent is the watchword of modern sexual ethics. It’s the difference between BDSM and abuse. It’s the difference between polyamory and cheating. It’s the difference between rape and… sex. Anything two (or more) able, informed adults give consent to in private is generally considered okay.

It’s simple enough, but some people want to make it more complicated than that.

“That’s not natural” really just means “That makes me uncomfortable.” And I hope we can all agree that an individual’s sense of comfort or discomfort makes for a really lousy moral guide.

Besides, good arguments can be made that polygamy is natural. Discomfort is definitely not a good guide for law or morality. Heart surgery is uncomfortable and looks disgusting to many people, but it can be a very good thing. Sticking up for civil rights can bring a whole lot of discomfort, but it is the right thing to do.

Someone might say, “But that goes against my religious code!” Fine, then don’t do that, and encourage your religious brethren not to do it either. But that has nothing to do with whether a thing should be legal or acceptable in the culture outside your religion.

Couldn’t have written a better answer to Discredited Argument #4 myself.

We hold very highly the rights of heterosexual people to live, love, and create families as they see fit. In time, I hope that consenting adults of any number and gender are given the same level of respect.

Let’s make it happen!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,marriage equality,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,religion,solidarity,stigma

Polyamory is Rising, Solidarity is Best

This piece at inquisitr.com asks, "Is Polyamory the New Same-Sex Marriage?" It starts with the rise in visibility of polyamory, then gets very strange...

The idea of not only tolerating but encouraging what we’ve been socialized to see as the worst possible betrayal of a partner is certainly jarring — even if a committed relationship survives what we see as “infidelity,” it’s considered one of the literal worst things an adult human can endure in their lives.

Say what? This is not cheating. If a polyamorous person is in a committed relationship, polyamory involves the agreement of the other person(s) in the relationship. And, sometimes, their participation. This is an entirely different dynamic than cheating.

The issue is a sticky one, threatening not only to create a ton of legal and societal quandaries,

Sounds like Discredited Arguments #2, 11, and possibly 12, 13, and 14. Adaptable laws are already in place.

but also — if we’re being honest, if someone curmudgeonly — undermine the shaky and tenuous gains made by the marriage equality movement.

That's like saying rights for Latino Americans undermined the gains made by the racial equality movement. Equality just for some is not equality. The polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry is part of full marriage equality just like the same-gender freedom to marry is, and sometimes they overlap as some LGBT people are polyamorous. Solidarity will help, not hurt, LGBT monogamists.

After all, didn’t opponents of same-sex marriage loudly predict that “polygamy” would soon follow, with men seeking to marry multiple wives once the institution of marriage was “destroyed” by extending the rights to our gay brothers and sisters?

Although broken clocks can be right twice a day, bigots who make such statements should be met with "What's the harm of letting adults marry any and all consenting adults?" Marriage equality strengthens marriage; it doesn't destroy it.

The piece ends with...

It seems polyamory is destined to present a redux of the same-sex marriage debate, and will shape up to be the same exhausting fight. But at the end of the day, are we arguing about whether to admit and accept a long-practiced thing, and does legal recognition make any change in how people choose to live their lives going forward?

It really isn't complicated. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

The polygamous freedom to marry, and acceptance of polyamorous people, will come about faster.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,freedom to marry,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,polygamy,same-sex,solidarity

Polyamory is Rising, Solidarity is Best

This piece at inquisitr.com asks, "Is Polyamory the New Same-Sex Marriage?" It starts with the rise in visibility of polyamory, then gets very strange...

The idea of not only tolerating but encouraging what we’ve been socialized to see as the worst possible betrayal of a partner is certainly jarring — even if a committed relationship survives what we see as “infidelity,” it’s considered one of the literal worst things an adult human can endure in their lives.

Say what? This is not cheating. If a polyamorous person is in a committed relationship, polyamory involves the agreement of the other person(s) in the relationship. And, sometimes, their participation. This is an entirely different dynamic than cheating.

The issue is a sticky one, threatening not only to create a ton of legal and societal quandaries,

Sounds like Discredited Arguments #2, 11, and possibly 12, 13, and 14. Adaptable laws are already in place.

but also — if we’re being honest, if someone curmudgeonly — undermine the shaky and tenuous gains made by the marriage equality movement.

That's like saying rights for Latino Americans undermined the gains made by the racial equality movement. Equality just for some is not equality. The polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry is part of full marriage equality just like the same-gender freedom to marry is, and sometimes they overlap as some LGBT people are polyamorous. Solidarity will help, not hurt, LGBT monogamists.

After all, didn’t opponents of same-sex marriage loudly predict that “polygamy” would soon follow, with men seeking to marry multiple wives once the institution of marriage was “destroyed” by extending the rights to our gay brothers and sisters?

Although broken clocks can be right twice a day, bigots who make such statements should be met with "What's the harm of letting adults marry any and all consenting adults?" Marriage equality strengthens marriage; it doesn't destroy it.

The piece ends with...

It seems polyamory is destined to present a redux of the same-sex marriage debate, and will shape up to be the same exhausting fight. But at the end of the day, are we arguing about whether to admit and accept a long-practiced thing, and does legal recognition make any change in how people choose to live their lives going forward?

It really isn't complicated. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

The polygamous freedom to marry, and acceptance of polyamorous people, will come about faster.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,freedom to marry,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,polygamy,same-sex,solidarity