Quantcast

Woah...Polygamists fight for marriage too!

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
Source

BAY AREA
Committed to marriage for the masses
Polyamorists say they relate honestly to multiple partners

Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer
Tuesday, April 20, 2004

Unitarians from Boston to Berkeley have opened another front in the liberal crusade to expand the definition of marriage and family in America.

It's the new polygamy, and according to the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, their relationships are at least as ethical as other marriages -- gay or straight.

"Polyamory is never having to say you've broken up,'' said Sally Amsbury of Oakland, whose sex and love life openly includes her husband and two "other significant others," known in polyamory parlance as "OSOs."

Amsbury serves on the national board of directors of the Unitarian Universalist organization, which defines polyamory as "the philosophy and practice of loving or relating intimately to more than one other person at a time with honesty and integrity.''

"Polyamory is not an alternative to monogamy. It's an alternative to cheating,'' said Jasmine Walston, who lives in Louisville, Ky., and is president of the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness.

"For some of us, monogamy doesn't work, and cheating was just abhorrent to me,'' she said.

To some, the polyamory movement is reminiscent of the "free love,'' swinging and open marriages of the 1960s and 1970s.

AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases dampened that sexual liberation movement in the 1980s and 1990s.

Today, Walston said, many people mistakenly believe that polyamorists are careless in their sex lives.

"When everything is out in the open, and your husband knows what is going on, you're going to be more careful about safe sex,'' she said.

John Hurley, a Boston spokesman for the 183,000-member Association of Unitarian Universalists, says the views of polyamorists are not necessarily endorsed by the denomination's board of trustees.

Polyamorists themselves are divided over whether to push for more formal recognition from the Unitarians, or to begin public lobbying for some of the same rights granted to heterosexual couples. "We're where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago,'' Walston said.

Amsbury says she favors expanding the legal definition of marriage to include three or more people, but she doesn't expect to see it anytime soon.

"We're lovers, not fighters,'' she said. "We don't want to get people's backs up.''

Other polyamorists are concerned that their cause will be used by opponents of same-sex marriage.

Just last week, a group of conservative evangelicals asked San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom whether his support of same-sex marriage applied to multiple-partner marriages.

"What possible reason could you find for discriminating against or denying equal access to threesomes, foursomes, etc.?'' they asked in a letter to Newsom.

Rebecca Parker, the president of Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, says many Christians find polygamy even more sinful than homosexuality.

Monogamous heterosexual marriage, she says, is ordained by God through the creation of Adam and Eve.

Even though polygamy is practiced by some of the heroes in the Bible -- and in many non-Christian cultures around the world today -- it remains a Judeo-Christian taboo.

Starr King is a seminary of the Association of Unitarian Universalists and part of the Graduate Theological Union, a consortium of Protestant and Catholic seminarians in Berkeley and Marin County.

Unitarians -- who encourage their members to seek spiritual truth based on human experience, not allegiance to creeds and doctrines -- have been around since 1782. They merged with the Universalists in 1961.

Many of the students and faculty at Starr King see the polyamory movement as a threat to gay and lesbian couples.

"In the Protestant denomination, the movement to accept same-sex couples was built on the idea that they, too, can have lifelong monogamous relationships,'' Parker said. "Gays and lesbians found safety in saying, 'We can have families. We're normal -- just like everyone else.' That became the basis for them asking for social acceptance and equal protection under the law. ''

Very few polyamorous Unitarian Universalist ministers are "out of the closet." They fear it will wreck their chances of getting or keeping a job with a congregation.

Jim Zacarias, interim minister at the First Unitarian Church of Albuquerque, recently came out to his congregation as bisexual.

"People who choose a polyamory lifestyle in our denomination are doing it with an ethic of responsibility in their relationships,'' he said. "People in polyamory have the same struggles as people in gay and lesbian relationships.

"Our denomination has been welcoming to gays and lesbians and transgendered people,'' Zacarias said. "Bisexuals have not received the recognition they deserve.''

"Some people in polyamory are bi, some are homosexual, some are heterosexual. We are serving their needs,'' said Barb Greve, a transgender person who likes to be called "he."

Greve is a program associate with the Association of Unitarian Universalists' Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns in Boston

"There are people who want to be in committed relationships -- whether it's heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage or polyamory -- and that should be acknowledged religiously and legally,'' he said.

According to Amsbury and other Unitarian polyamorists, most of the people in their movement are bisexual or heterosexual.

Amsbury is bisexual, her husband of two years is heterosexual, and her current "other significant others" are bisexual.

One of them, Peter, lives in West Hollywood with his boyfriend. The other one, Conly, lives in Santa Rosa and has been her lover for seven years.

"I wear a wedding ring for my husband," she explained, "and a bracelet for Conly.''

Though Amsbury and her husband, Terrance Roff, did not involve Peter and Conly in their Alameda marriage ceremony, other polyamorous Unitarians have proposed church ceremonies to bless threesomes, foursomes or moresomes.

One set of guidelines for church blessings of polyamorous partners suggests that the officiating minister try to put people at ease by saying, "We are from many different faith traditions, and we have many different experiences of love. What made us say 'yes' to being here was the love among these people.''
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
this has to be a rip-off from theOnion or a subverted story from a right-wing propoganda media outlet.

Silver assured me months ago that this would never, ever, ever happen. When i suggested it, Silver instructed me that i was employing faulty logic: the slippery slope.

go, you charlatan & take your flamebait tales elsewhere!
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
Originally posted by $tinkle
this has to be a rip-off from theOnion or a subverted story from a right-wing propoganda media outlet.

Silver assured me months ago that this would never, ever, ever happen. When i suggested it, Silver instructed me that i was employing faulty logic: the slippery slope.

go, you charlatan & take your flamebait tales elsewhere!
Lol...well until RM darlin, I'd never even heard of the Onion...and I didn't visit the Onion until I heard of a parent group using their satirical flaming articles as a reason to oppose the current sex ed curriculum that included information about homosexuality.

Sorry to say darlin, but I get my rather entertaining news from dailyrotten.com, where they simply quote the original source and link you there. I highly recommend it for lunchtime perusing.

As for their right to marriage, free love and happiness and all the rest of the hippie bs...well...if it works for them great I guess, but I sure as hell have no intention of hopping on the "free love" train. ;)
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
As for their right to marriage, free love and happiness and all the rest of the hippie bs...well...if it works for them great I guess, but I sure as hell have no intention of hopping on the "free love" train. ;)
in that same vein, it seems to be reasonable that if they want the right to do that, then i want the right to not have to legally acknowledge it.

c'mon, it's in the name of love - what's law got to do with it?
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
Originally posted by $tinkle
in that same vein, it seems to be reasonable that if they want the right to do that, then i want the right to not have to legally acknowledge it.

c'mon, it's in the name of love - what's law got to do with it?
Lol...you're an argumentative bastid today, aren'tcha? (a good reason to stay out of the other threads methinks ;) ).

Anyways, I agree...what's law got to do with it? For this reason, I think I'm swaying more towards the opinion that marriage of any kind should not be something that must be legally sanctioned by the state. Why not leave it as a religious thingy and have done with it?

Afterall, I may disapprove of certain heterosexual marriages that result in offspring that involve multiple forms of abuse. I don't wanna legally recognize it, and I don't want it to be so darned legally difficult for the individuals being abused to get out of it. :)
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Lol...you're an argumentative bastid today, aren'tcha? (a good reason to stay out of the other threads methinks ;) ).
it's springtime & we're under a winter storm watch.
call it my time of the month, if you like.
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Anyways, I agree...what's law got to do with it? For this reason, I think I'm swaying more towards the opinion that marriage of any kind should not be something that must be legally sanctioned by the state. Why not leave it as a religious thingy and have done with it?
so much for arguing.
i'm starting to mull the idea of having marriage on par w/ bar/bat-mitzvah, christening, confirmation, or baptism. These are all religious representations & expressions of faith, just like a marriage is. Atheists choose to marry, but not engage in the previously named ceremonies. Everyone seems to be happy w/ that. Would making marriage a church-only event leave them in the lurch?
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Afterall, I may disapprove of certain heterosexual marriages that result in offspring that involve multiple forms of abuse. I don't wanna legally recognize it, and I don't want it to be so darned legally difficult for the individuals being abused to get out of it. :)
so, b/c my pops beat me w/ a sockful of nickels & called me worthless, my family should be split up? (he stopped beating me since i moved out in '87).

Hmmm. Not sure i can tackle that one.
 

Jr_Bullit

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!
Sep 8, 2001
2,028
0
North of Oz
Originally posted by $tinkle
it's springtime & we're under a winter storm watch.
call it my time of the month, if you like.so much for arguing.
i'm starting to mull the idea of having marriage on par w/ bar/bat-mitzvah, christening, confirmation, or baptism. These are all religious representations & expressions of faith, just like a marriage is. Atheists choose to marry, but not engage in the previously named ceremonies. Everyone seems to be happy w/ that. Would making marriage a church-only event leave them in the lurch?so, b/c my pops beat me w/ a sockful of nickels & called me worthless, my family should be split up? (he stopped beating me since i moved out in '87).

Hmmm. Not sure i can tackle that one.
Well...how is not being legally recognized reason to break a family up? I mean, afterall, homosexual couples have had to survive without legal acknowledgement for years and they seem to survive okay...and I can think of other examples of heterosexual relations that aren't legally sanctioned but work for those involved.

I'm just saying, why should we legally recognize any of them if we're going to be choosy about it? Leave to be a religious/cultural thing.

And if so-called athiests get married all the time, well gosh, seems kinda funny don'tcha think? Seems to me to be an argument that perhaps in part of their souls they aren't a true athiest because they do place value on their christian morals that say they should get married.
Besides...wouldn't it be awfully nice in this modern day and age for a family to easily separate if they DO want to? I mean, if your mom likes getting beat with a sockful of nickles, well then good for her...but most women might stick it out because of how damned hard it is to get out of the legal snare...
 
Nov 28, 2001
56
0
GWN-ON-TO
Marriage is a legal contract.

personally, i wouldn't get into a contract like that again, but it's essentially just that: a legally binding agreement that provides rights and responsibilities to those parties involved.

I think the contracts should be a lot easier to get out of, but also more detailed in what is and isn't covered.

i don't think gender is relevant. the babble of 'sanctity' is a relatively modern conceit. previously, marriage was specifically designed to strengthen and expand private estates (when Masai man gets goats and cows it is just a primitive variation - Anna Nicole was more modern and more effective)

polyamorous behavior allows for a diluted 'contract' since many of the emotions inherent in exclusive marriage are avoided - jealousy, possessiveness, blind faith, etc.

i don't see the problem with a contract that ignores race, religion, gender, quantity for the purpose of building a harmonious home and lifestyle.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Well...how is not being legally recognized reason to break a family up? I mean, afterall, homosexual couples have had to survive without legal acknowledgement for years and they seem to survive okay...and I can think of other examples of heterosexual relations that aren't legally sanctioned but work for those involved.
in this case, it would be the revocation of what's already been sanctioned, and as such, this would break up the family (or at least make for some awkwardness at the dinner table).
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
And if so-called athiests get married all the time, well gosh, seems kinda funny don'tcha think? Seems to me to be an argument that perhaps in part of their souls they aren't a true athiest because they do place value on their christian morals that say they should get married.
to add, i'm sure there are a lot of folks who are disenchanted/spurned by "the church", yet still have belief. So, i'm just saying i'm mulling this over.
Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Besides...wouldn't it be awfully nice in this modern day and age for a family to easily separate if they DO want to? I mean, if your mom likes getting beat with a sockful of nickles, well then good for her...but most women might stick it out because of how damned hard it is to get out of the legal snare...
actually, that would be quite horrifying to gut a family in such a glib manner. Sure, the parents can move on emotionally, but the kids, man. Think about the kids. I realize your example is void of kids, so allow me to swing back on topic (but, you did use the 'f' word).

Yeah, it's rough & i do realize that some women are financially enslaved & pursuing a divorce can seem like the lesser of 2 evils, if only barely. Beyond this, I'm at a loss for comment at this time.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
Marriage is a legal contract.

personally, i wouldn't get into a contract like that again, but it's essentially just that: a legally binding agreement that provides rights and responsibilities to those parties involved.
originally, it was; but now, we have 'no fault' laws, so that's out.
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
i don't think gender is relevant. the babble of 'sanctity' is a relatively modern conceit. previously, marriage was specifically designed to strengthen and expand private estates
and previous to that, it was to form a family. The saudi royal family is a remnant of your example, and is a great example of why there shouldn't be lineal consanguity
Dr. Walsh's success is partly a result of his research strategy: he has focused on populations and regions, like the Middle East, where the deformities are more easily found because families are large, marriage among close relatives is common and the people stay in the same villages or cities for generations.

In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for example, 58 percent of women marry blood relatives, Dr. Walsh said, so researchers need to find only 10 affected families to have enough cases to study instead of the thousands of families that would otherwise be required.

NY Times
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
i don't see the problem with a contract that ignores race, religion, gender, quantity for the purpose of building a harmonious home and lifestyle.
what about age, mental difficiency, or genetic proximation (specifically, first cousins)?
 
Nov 28, 2001
56
0
GWN-ON-TO
age: laws are already in place to protect children from exploitation, including the one where minors can't sign contracts.

mental deficiency: same thing already there vis-a-vis legally binding contracts and court-determined 'incompetence'

genetic proximity: ditto the above.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Wait a sec $tinkle...are you sure I said that? I don't have a problem with polygamy, as long as all the parties are adults and consent.

I'm not saying I didn't say that, but I really don't remember that argument.

I have issues with religious plural marriage...but that's another subject.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
age: laws are already in place to protect children from exploitation, including the one where minors can't sign contracts.

mental deficiency: same thing already there vis-a-vis legally binding contracts and court-determined 'incompetence'

genetic proximity: ditto the above.
so you would be for enforcing the current (state) laws against homosexual marriages?

--- or ---

are you advocating changing the current laws to favor homosexual couples, but not those who fall one day under 18, one IQ point below imbecile, or one branch too close to a blood relative?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Silver
Wait a sec $tinkle...are you sure I said that? I don't have a problem with polygamy, as long as all the parties are adults and consent.

I'm not saying I didn't say that, but I really don't remember that argument.
checking...


EDIT: looks like you didn't fall for my jedi mind trick. Think it was opie, and he only alluded to it. I laid the question out, but no one took the bait. Damn!
 
Nov 28, 2001
56
0
GWN-ON-TO
Originally posted by $tinkle
so you would be for enforcing the current (state) laws against homosexual marriages?

--- or ---

are you advocating changing the current laws to favor homosexual couples, but not those who fall one day under 18, one IQ point below imbecile, or one branch too close to a blood relative?
do you have a point?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
do you have a point?
i may, depending on how you answer my question(s).

if my 2 questions were unclear, or if i framed them from having made invalid/inaccurate assumptions, please advise.
 
Nov 28, 2001
56
0
GWN-ON-TO
where do i sound like i am upholding a law preventing same-sex 'marriage'? how do you infer from my statements (all opinions, btw) that i might?

and the laws that prevent sub-18 year old from marrying (without parental consent) can be rephrased as 'blind to color, religion, gender, etc'.

what accurate form of measurement do we have that can give us 'one point below imbecile' etc.?

and i make no statement about cousins, etc at all. although it could easily be part of the 'contract laws' that each community agrees to.

so, what was your point?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
where do i sound like i am upholding a law preventing same-sex 'marriage'? how do you infer from my statements (all opinions, btw) that i might?
That's kind of where i'm headed: you're citing existing laws as a ready defense against the 3 classes marrying, however you're silent on homosexual marriage, but the law is not (in most states). If you are merely expressing an opinion which differs from the law, i'm wondering what your motivation is.
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
and the laws that prevent sub-18 year old from marrying (without parental consent) can be rephrased as 'blind to color, religion, gender, etc'.
completely agree. Same goes for polyamorous & gay marriages (where laws exist)
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
what accurate form of measurement do we have that can give us 'one point below imbecile' etc.?
judges' ruling
Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
so, what was your point?
i merely want to know why you think what you think.
 

Velocity Girl

whack-a-mole
Sep 12, 2001
1,279
0
Atlanta
Originally posted by $tinkle
i'm starting to mull the idea of having marriage on par w/ bar/bat-mitzvah, christening, confirmation, or baptism. These are all religious representations & expressions of faith, just like a marriage is. Atheists choose to marry, but not engage in the previously named ceremonies. Everyone seems to be happy w/ that. Would making marriage a church-only event leave them in the lurch?
Yes, I think it would leave them in a lurch. Some people get married and religion (as you pointed out in the Atheists case) has nothing to do with it. I am not an Atheist, but do not believe that my marriage is in any way a religous expression. By making marriage only a religous ceremony you've just crossed the line between church and state. Marriage is legal commitment. What religious values one places upon it is their decision.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by $tinkle
checking...


EDIT: looks like you didn't fall for my jedi mind trick. Think it was opie, and he only alluded to it. I laid the question out, but no one took the bait. Damn!
Cool, I thought maybe I had gotten ripped one night and posted some stupid stuff. That would be a bit of a hit to my social permissiveness credentials, y'know?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
just taking a peek over the hypothetical horizon, if this movement were successful, wouldn't that mean that this (now) equivalent lifestyle must be taught in school insomuch as today's "regular" marriage is (at least) alluded to? Howsa 'bout text books? They would have to depict all the flavors / permutations of marriages, much like they do today.

anyone with knowledge on text selection for public schools please weigh in.
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Originally posted by $tinkle
just taking a peek over the hypothetical horizon, if this movement were successful, wouldn't that mean that this (now) equivalent lifestyle must be taught in school insomuch as today's "regular" marriage is (at least) alluded to? Howsa 'bout text books? They would have to depict all the flavors / permutations of marriages, much like they do today.

anyone with knowledge on text selection for public schools please weigh in.
Look at the bright side: The children of Utah will be ahead of the curve...
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
Originally posted by $tinkle
just taking a peek over the hypothetical horizon, if this movement were successful, wouldn't that mean that this (now) equivalent lifestyle must be taught in school insomuch as today's "regular" marriage is (at least) alluded to? Howsa 'bout text books? They would have to depict all the flavors / permutations of marriages, much like they do today.

anyone with knowledge on text selection for public schools please weigh in.
I don't know if they would have to, but I am sure that politics would keep it out of the regular ciriculum for a very long time.