I missed most of the "Poly Wars" here on DU recently, but I'd like to weigh in now...

[The_Commonist]

I missed most of the "Poly Wars" here on DU recently, but I'd like to weigh in now...

This is going to be long and personal and a bit of a ramble, but the tl;dr version is this:

Many of the negative things that have been said and attitudes that have been expressed here about poly people and poly issues sound EXACTLY like the kind of bigotry that homosexuals have had to deal with over the years. Often, to the word. It's sad, but not surprising. When people feel threatened by things that are outside of their experience, they can sometimes behave badly. EXACTLY like what happened for so many people who felt threatened by homosexuality. It's fascinating to witness, seeing DU members who are otherwise intelligent, caring and well-spoken people turn into, well, regressives when discussing this issue. Sort of like all those regressives over the years who simply could not fathom loving, long-term homosexual relationships.

I'm not sure how poly relationships began to be an issue around here lately, and it is my understanding that there are some "bad actors" in all this, using it as way of... well, I can't even figure that out. I've seen people complaining about "bigots" using the SCOTUS ruling to piggyback in favor of poly rights. But I haven't seen what they are referring to. Maybe things that were hidden or removed? I also saw a lot people saying that homosexuals shouldn't "piggyback" on African-American civil rights, and this feels the same to me. Civil rights are civil rights. Period. There may be legal complications, but we're smart people. We can figure it out.

I'm sorry if this is going to offend the sensibilities of some of the members here, but I think it's time you hear it from a poly person. And when dealing with civil rights issues, is there ever a wrong time? Or a right time, for that matter? It's not my intention to "piggyback," or even to particularly advocate for any kind of change in the law at this point. Really, I just wanted to address the bigotry I've seen here lately.



To begin:

I am a hetero poly person. I was born that way. I've known it since long before I had sex for the first time. You simply are not in a position to tell me that this is not true. Particularly if you are someone who will say that "homosexuals are born that way." That just reeks of hypocrisy!

I was a member of the Kerista Commune in San Francisco in the late 80's and early 90's. We were the group that coined the word Polyfidelity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerista

Now... (and that's a hint for any ex-Keristans who might be reading this) there are many kinds of poly relationships, and I will be the first to admit that some of those are coerced, exploitative and very unhealthy for most or all involved. I think this is a given. Unfortunately, too many people are only aware of the Mormon/Muslim model of exploitative "one man and many women" type of poly relationship, and have allowed that to color their perception of the whole issue. Similar to how some people would see what was happening in the gay "anonymous hookup" subculture, which led to the rise of AIDS, and would assume that that was the entirety of the "homosexual lifestyle."

But back to the Kerista Commune for a moment. We called our practice "orthodox religious polyfidelity." Yes, it was a religious community, and we made up our own religion. You can too! It's very easy and the tax breaks are awesome. Basically the religion was "nobody really knows what's going on in this universe, so let's just take the best of each tradition, create our own sexy hippie deities, and celebrate existence!" I never took the religious part of the community all that seriously, but I did identify as a monk in a religious order. "Orthodox religious polyfidelity" was an experiment to try to root out sexual jealousy. I think it worked for some people, and not for others. Actually, I think it worked for those members who were born poly, but not for those who were not, but tried it anyway.

But that was all a while ago for me, and that commune broke up for a variety of reasons 25 years ago. I've been in two smaller-scale poly relationships since those days, as well as a couple of monogamous relationships.

Right now, I'm in a hetero monogamous marriage, have been for several years, and I expect that we will be together for the rest of our lives, because she's totally amazing. When she and I got together, I made it very clear that I'm poly, and she made it very clear that she is not. However, the door was left open, and I think that she thinks that I am so terrific, that she was willing to deal with whatever may arise. And I haven't walked through that door yet. Oh... but she did! She had an affair with a friend of ours, and she wanted to continue with it. But he did not. I think it was too far outside of his realm of experience for him to continue, having an affair with a married woman with the knowledge and support of her husband, who was also his friend. But we all remain good friends. And I still might walk through that door myself, if the right situation arises. It hasn't, and I'm OK with that.

I have friends in more than a half-dozen same-sex marriages now, and 4 of those couples have kids. They all seem very happy. I don't think anybody here doubts that or has a problem with it. I also have friends in about a half-dozen poly relationships. 2 of those groups have kids. They all seem very happy. Does anyone here have a problem with that? If so, what? I'm curious to know.

I've known a number homosexuals, who because of societal and familial pressures, got married and had kids and tried to play that whole role, and it did not work for them. Some of them remained miserable "for the kids" and careers and because "that's what is expected." One inspiration from my youth, was the father of a girl I was interested in. He was happily married to the girl's mother, owned a local business, and was flamboyantly gay. He and his wife had "an understanding." He had a boyfriend and would mentor young gay kids, give them jobs, and let them know that they were gonna be OK. As far as I know, he and his wife are still together, at least they were the last time I checked.

I also think there are lots of people, probably many more than you can imagine, who are poly people in mono relationships. They deal with it by having affairs, "secret Canadian families," serial monogamy, and other types of acting out. I don't think the divorce rate is as high as it is simply because someone "chose the wrong partner the first time." Depending on where you get the figures, 1.5 or 3-5 or 8-10 per cent of the population is homosexual. Isn't it possible that one of those figures is also true for poly people? We just haven't "come out of the closet" yet?

I've seen a number of people in the poly threads here simply shut down. "Now I know who to ignore," "Put it on the back burner." "Nobody is BORN poly." "Polygamy is an excuse for rape." "Anyone who is involved in such a discussion should be led to the gulag." OPs simply being hid for no logical reason. Again, I think it's because it's a shock to the system for many people. And the perception that ALL poly people are bad actors, who want to exploit women. Didn't we hear all these same things about homosexuals?

OK, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I would like to get some feedback, and see what people think about this. There is so much more to say, but I want to hear from you...

[closeupready]

1. It's a free country. Advocate for yourself and your interests.

I won't be joining you in doing so at this time. Cheers.

[bvf]

4. +1

[luvspeas]

2. I'm glad you know yourself. but that's not the point. ..

How many of the people you have known including yourself wanted to all get married together?

[ibegurpard]

3. wow a completely new perspective!

Not.
Poly marriage does not equate to same sex marriage. Do the years of work necessary to change the public opinion and build the legal case.

[geek tragedy]

5. Stop comparing yourself to the same-sex marriage movement. It's reprehensible and dishonest.

It is a choice, not an immutable characteristic from birth. Free country, you are free to be polyamorous. You're free to stop being polyamorous.

You said you're in a monogamous marriage and living a monogamous lifestyle. Ergo, choice.

Yes, stop trying to piggyback on the efforts put in by actual civil rights movements.

If you think you're so oppressed, start your own movement. Hold Poly Parades. Lobby your local legislatures.

But don't try to coast on the coattails of an actual oppressed minority who have been persecuted with violence, murder, "conversion therapy," and being denied the benefits of an already existing legal institution.

You don't get to say "we deserve to get whatever the GLBT community got."

Nope. You disparage and diminish the entire GLBT movement when you try to equate lifestyle choices to identities they have at birth.

[bigwillq]

6. This is a good post.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

13. +1 (How is someone born poly?)

We are all born with the ability to be sexually attracted to numerous people. Poly folks choose not to limit themselves to one, or choose not to limit their partner to one person.

It's a choice, not an innate characteristic.

[craigmatic]

7. I've said some of the samethings and agree with you. Good luck with some the trolls here.

[uppityperson]

8. In reply, it is difficult to have the discussion because....

Marriage between consenting adults is fine with me, don't care about gender or #.
There is so much more to the bigotry against homosexuals than marriage equality.

I agree, a lot of the language concerning people who are homosexual and people who are in poly-marriages has sounded similar (it's a choice, it's all about sex, etc etc etc

[backscatter712]

9. The poly wars have gone completely batshit here.

I suggest drawing the line at adult, informed consent, as I'm a supporter of same-sex marriage, and think polyamorous people are also deserving of rights. If consenting adults agree to it, what's the harm?

As a result, one character called me a "blatant homophobe." On the bright side, that post put that character on time-out...

But I'm done with the poly flame-fests. Let me know when we can discuss this topic rationally.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. Again, if it works for you and yours, have at it. But don't come up in here preaching about how

this is an institution that will liberate women from misogyny and sexism. In this society, no matter how "enlightened" one is, this is STILL a patriarchal society. So all of our institutional arrangements reflect those values.

But again, if it works for you and the people you know, good for you.

If there are some of us who vehemently disagree, there's no need to call us names and accuse us of being "bigots". We simply do not agree.

[whatthehey]

11. All kinds of pouty inferences are being imagined, by either real or "convenient" supporters of poly.

I'll take you at your word you're the former. Others have been otherwise. Here's my response.

I don't care. I have not the slightest interest in, concerns about or desire to discriminate against or regulate anybody's consensual adult relationships. Couldn't give a toss.

But that doesn't mean you get to claim "me too" on SSM, a ruling that simply extended marriage rights to individuals previously denied them, and specifically concerned couples. Polys have never been denied marriage rights. You just had to pick one official spouse and then manage your relationships beyond that like anyone else does outside marriage.

The reasons it just doesn't translate are legion, from probate to A-B-C-D..... divorce complexity to tax law to next of kin medical decisions to parental rights to leases and other contracts.

Even if you could magically wave a wand and have 50 states agree on all those things, you still don't get a "me too" any more than any other group outside the power structure does even if (and this is debateable) you are right and this is a civil rights issue driven by immutable genetics. Because majority acceptance is not and cannot be like a balloon that is either intact and closed or popped and fully open. Anything that forces the majority beyond their willing acceptance is guaranteed a short life and a bloody backlash.

You need to change hearts and minds before you change laws, and polys have done not one damn thing to make that happen (with the exception of the Jeffs loon who changed them in the wrong direction for your goals). Have your Stonewall, your Haines, your Milk, your Pride Parades, your celebrity role models, then try to change the law. On your own terms. Not riding on anyone else's coattails.

[The_Commonist]

12. Yep... Pretty much what I expected so far...

Quite a bit of anger, and some encouraging support.

Questions:

1 - Who are you to decide what is or is not an "inherent trait?"
We (most people here, "liberals" in general) have come to accept that homosexuality is something you are born with. Why can't the same be true for being a poly? Because you say so? Like I said, I knew before I ever had sex for the first time that I was poly (though of course I was not able to articulate it that way). But I knew, and I remember walking to school when I was 8 years old holding 2 girls' hands. When I was 13, I liked 2 girls who were best friends, and managed to "date" them both for a short time. Quite a few other examples of things like this. I was never happy about having to "choose" between people I was attracted to. And I never had a problem with sharing.

2 - Doesn't this sentence sound like bigotry:

"Anyone who is involved in such a discussion should be led to the gulag." There have been plenty of others.

3 - You do know, of course, that the United States fought a war against Polygamists? Isn't that persecution? I'm not going to defend the Mormons and their brand of polygamy, but they have been persecuted for their lifestyle.

4 - Why is it that "Poly marriage does not equate to same sex marriage"? Aren't both issues about adults in consensual relationships? Why is one OK and heartily defended here and the other is not? Because it's "icky?"

5 - When did I ever "come up in here preaching about how this is an institution that will liberate women from misogyny and sexism"? What does that have to do with I said?

And finally, on edit - Regarding coattails: Isn't that how the law works? A precedent is set, and then others in similar but not the exact situation test the law? There's a triad in Montana now who will be testing this precedent. Are they not "allowed" to do that? Why not? Are people's rights really about what is popular right now?

Anyway, this is all very interesting, and kind of sad. I'm not particularly advocating for anything at this point, but it is coming down the pike. Get ready for it, folks. And PLEASE!!!! don't use the same kinds of arguments that the people opposed to same-sex marriage used. You're better than that!

[prayin4rain]

17. A plural marriage preference has nothing to do with marriage equality.

Plural marriage arguments would fit better with religious freedom arguments. Free to believe and practice what you want.

Marriage equality is about applying the current marriage laws equally to all people, which is a no brainer and should have been done decades ago. Finally, now, everyone is treated equally under longstanding marriage law. Whether you like the current marriage laws is a different issue from whether the current marriage laws are applied equally to all groups of people.

Trying to equate your preference to have more than one woman with your sexual orientation towards women is ridiculous. If you could only have one woman the rest of your life, you'd be fine right? Not your preference, but you'd be fine. Would you be fine if you had to switch from women to men for the rest of your life? Sexual orientation is not comparable to a plural marriage preference. Sexual orientation is not a take it or leave it preference.

[riderinthestorm]

14. You don't understand the marriage equality ruling that just came down

to quote WestCoastLib:

I'm not here to discuss the merits of Polygamist relationships.

The fact is that legalizing Polygamist Marriage is simply not even the right argument based on anything that happened with Gay Marriage and anybody trying to equate the two is not only parroting the right-wing talking points of equalizing Polyamory and Homosexuality as "lifestyle choices", but is also failing to fundamentally understand the basis of these supreme court rulings in the first place.

Homosexuals weren't "legalized" by these rulings, so perhaps it's the terminology being used in headlines that is confusing some people. The supreme court didn't "legalize" Gay Marriage. That would suggest that they were illegally marrying somewhere and thereby breaking a law that they could be punished for. Marijuana has been legalized in some states. Marriage Equality didn't legalize anything.

The Supreme court (rightfully) ruled that these rights already existed and, as an already recognized protected minority group, these rights could not be denied.

Are polygamists an already recognized and protected minority group? Nope. Sorry. This argument doesn't apply to this group then. If you want to fight this battle, that's where you need to start. Not with marriage, but with getting the group protected minority status.

After that status is gained, this group must prove that they don't currently have the same rights as others to marry (as currently they still aren't preventing from marrying a single person, the same as anyone else). In order to do so there will then be further battles needed to be fought over the changes to the actual definition of marriage being between only 2 persons and the legal, financial, parental rights, and taxation implications of such. But really that's an argument that needs to come much further down the line after this group has obtained protected status.

This doesn't need to be about any one group "looking down" on polyamory. The fact is that plural marriage is a non-sequitur to Gay Marriage.

Polyamory isn't polygamy. I have zero problem with polyamory but until would-be polygamists identify how they'd construct a new legal framework that protects women, I'm deeply skeptical based upon the current and historic examples we have already of polygamy in real life.

[Fumesucker]

15. I was married once for a long time, have no desire at all to be married ever again

That being said I think this entire issue is a textbook example of "being right too soon is socially unacceptable".

I've been quietly amused at the familiarity of the arguments made against polyamory.

At one time I probably would have said I thought humans are naturally monogamous, it was the most painful lesson I ever learned that they are not.

[geek tragedy]

16. If people had a strong natural compulsion towards

monogamy, marriage wouldn't have been necessary.

[laundry_queen]

18. I'm not sure you can be born poly

and people ARE born gay...however, it is my opinion that people who are gay are given the right to marry because they were born human and deserve the same rights as all other humans. And that same 'condition' (being born human) applies to poly people as well. I've shared it on many threads now and I've had several friends who are poly. A couple of them are raising children together and I believe they should be able to marry if they want to. And my (born) gay daughter agrees.

I'm not that surprised about the regressive views here. It's been creeping in for awhile and it's always the same posters. The only way to counteract it is for people like us to keep posting our own viewpoints so it doesn't get drowned out. I've changed my mind about many topics online when reasonable people calmly explain things and help me see issues in a different light. I can't say I've ever had my mind changed though by being called names.