Translate

Monday, October 20, 2014

Winning Rights for the Polyamorous


Professor of Law Hadar Aviram has some advice for polyamorists who want their rights recognized and protected, pointing to the success of those seeking the limited same-gender freedom to marry. She references the Supreme Court's recent move to deny review, without comment, the state court decisions overturning bans on same-gender marriages. Then writes...
Shortly after the first San Francisco round of same-sex marriages in 2004 I interviewed polyamorous activists, who at the time expressed little interest in legal activism... More recently, however, with the success of marriage equality, the community is exhibiting more interest in legal recognition of polyamorous relationships. 
As I've said before, the only thing all polyamorous people have in common is that they are people and they are polyamorous. Some polyamorous people do not care about marriage equality in general, or government documentation of (their) relationships. Some do not care about marriage at all, even just ceremonial. Others very much want the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry and other protections for their rights.
Some of this renewed interest in legal mobilization is inspired by same-sex marriage, and some of it relates to the increased public visibility of polyamory; nonmonogamous relationships have been highlighted on several popular television shows, like Big Love, Sister Wives, and Polyamory: Married and Dating.
Momentum and visibility help. Aviram notes the incremental path to the limited same-gender freedom to marry, then adds...
Clearly, polyamorous activists are not solely benefitting from the success of the marriage equality struggle; they also have to overcome the hurdles that success has created for them. If their success is to follow a similar pattern, there may be other victories, in areas of adoption, custody and employment discrimination, that need to be won first. And a crucial component of their struggle’s success would be a significant improvement in public opinion of nonmonogamous relationships, which is complicated by anti-Mormon and anti-Islamist sentiments.

I've written about this before under Why Polyamory Will Gain Acceptance Faster and How You Can Help.

One way we're going to win full marriage equality is by getting people to remove that invisible asterisk. Of course, it would be nice if the Supreme Court made a definitive move for national civil rights.
— — —

Do These Relationships Work?

A search phrase that once brought someone here on which I want to focus is…
"do incest relationships work"

To answer that, one must describe what means for a relationship to "work."

For some people, a relationship only "works" if it is heterosexual and always monogamous, involves religious and civilly affirmed marriage, produces (or at least raises) children, and lasts until one of the spouses dies.

For me, a relationship "works" if you are, as a whole and excluding artificial negatives like prosecution and discrimination, better off as a result of having been in the relationship. What makes you "better off" is up to you. It could be strictly that you enjoyed this person's company, but it could also be that you had children together, or helped each other grow as people, or made new friends through the other person, or helped each other's careers, or... well, any number of things. A relationship doesn't have to last until death to leave you better off.

A sure sign a relationship isn't working is if one of you is abusing the other, or you're abusing each other.

Over the years, I've been fortunate enough to talk with countless people who've been involved in consanguinamory. A few of them have even been generous enough to be interviewed. For most of the people I've talked with, the relationships have worked. If the consanguinamory is in the past, they have fond memories of the great times that were shared and the emotional growth they had as a result, even the sexual confidence they developed. For many, the relationship continues and provides times of unmatched bliss and intense intimacy, even shared parenting that they have found fulfilling.

So yes, they can and do work.

And, by the way, some of them are heterosexual, always monogamous, produce and raise great people, and last until death, and it is an injustice that they are still discriminated against under the law.
— — —

Sunday, October 19, 2014

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #20

"It is sick! These relationships are dysfunctional!" This is almost always a thinly disguised variation of Discredited Arguments #1, #3, or #19. There are many mentally healthy people in healthy, functional, consanguinamorous relationships.

As this blog and others have repeatedly shown, there is no good reason to keep laws, discrimination, or stigmas against consanguinamory (consanguineous or consensual incest sex or relationships) that is consistently applied to other relationships. One of the grasping-at-straws assertions that one might make when all of their justifications for denying rights fails is "people who do that are sick" or "those relationships are dysfunctional."

Before we do anything else, let's make it clear that we're talking about consensual sex and relationships, not abuse. It's not fair to point to abuse, assault, child molestation, etc. by a close relative as an example of how "incest" is "sick".

— — —

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Have a Look Around

Are you new to this blog? Maybe you've been here before, but have missed some of the features here.

Over there in the column on the right you can find ways to connect and to follow this blog.

There at the top of the page are tabs with drop-downs of some important pages, entries, and links.

There's a Welcome message and there's an About This Blog page, and you can read about the triad that originally inspired this blog.

There's a Glossary so that you can become familiar with terms frequently used here.

I explain why we need solidarity in supporting full marriage equality and I debunk all the arguments that you'll ever hear made against equality.

On the Case Studies page I feature interviews with people who have been denied their rights, so you can "meet" people who are, or have been, in consensual loving relationships who have are harmed by the lack of equality under the law.

Are you here because of polyamory or polygamy? Perhaps you're here because this blog covers Genetic Sexual Attraction or consanguinamory (consensual incest)? Do you need help?


Whether you're a family member or friend who is looking for more information, or a journalist, or are someone who is looking to help the cause, I hope you are helped by what is here.

This blog is a labor of love. There's no advertising and we don't accept monetary contributions. Want to help? Spread the word. Also, this blog DOES accept content submissions (fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com), but makes no offer, implicit nor explicit, of compensation nor guarantees that it will be used.

A very kind person improved this blog's template. I hope you are liking the new look. I still need to take care of a couple of things.

Tell me what you think!
— — —

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #19


“There are so many people outside of your family. Go marry/have sex with one of them, instead. It creates friendships between families.” There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. I have many friends outside of my family to whom I’m neither married nor married to a relative of theirs. On the other hand, don't we all know unrelated married couples who actually drive their relatives apart from each other? Let adults marry the consenting adult(s) of her or his choice.

Telling someone who is happy with their lover that they should dump that person (or even be prosecuted for being with that person) and should be denied their right to marry because there is someone else they can be with instead is an arrogant and usually, very much a cruel intrusion into someone else's life. How would the person who says this like it if someone told them they had to drop their lover (if they have one) and go find someone else, even though they are consenting adults who want to be together and are happy together?

There are people in consanguinamorous relationships who could never find as much love and happiness with someone else, and trying to force them to do so isn't fair to anyone, including the person for whom they "settle."

There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #18

— — —

Facebook and Twitter and More

Have you joined the Facebook group yet? Join "I Support Full Marriage Equality."

You should also like this page, Full Marriage Equality, and we meant that.

Are we Facebook friends? I want to be friends with all who support full marriage equality and relationship rights for all adults. Here I am.

Are we connected on Twitter? Here I am.

Are we connected on Tumblr? Here I am.

If you don't want to connect, still feel free to send me a note. I can be reached at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com

— — —

Friday, October 17, 2014

Successful GSA Relationships


There is a split in the Genetic Sexual Attraction community, as I have noted before. I checked out a certain other site's posting with the same title as this entry. Below, I analyze what was written.
We often get this question- Are there any successful GSA relationships?
To answer the question... YES!

Are people in such relationships willing to do interviews that reveal their identities? Almost never.
Or the media will inquire about speaking with GSA couples living in the shadows of society afraid to announce they are actually reunited family members living as lovers.

I don't think many of those couples (or triads) are likely to keep in friendly contact with these negative naysayers. I know some who don't, and they ceased contact after they took over an established forum where people had long been contributing.
The more I work with the GSA community the more I hear about heartbreak and pain, because most often these relationships do not work.
Because that is that is who you attract! You take a negative attitude towards GSA and you offer sex-negative counseling for people who are having problems. What happy lovers are going to bother to come to you, especially if they have to pay money (leaving an clear, easily obtainable trail of evidence some ridiculous prosecutor could use) just to use your forum?

Most romantic/sexual relationships do not "work" if you mean by that "lasting for a lifetime and that lifetime not ending in the murder of one by the other." Most relationships break up, or most of us would still be in our first relationships. But there ARE lasting, happy, loving and very passionate relationships initiated through GSA.

— — —

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #18


“There is a power differential.” Power differentials in consanguineous sexual relationships do not provide a good reason to deny the rights of lovers to be in these relationships and to marry, if that is what they want. The power differential allegation applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to marry.

There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. One person is more emotionally needy than another. One earns more than the other. One is more educated than another. One has more friends and family than another. One has more life experience than another. On and on it goes. A 21-year-old woman can consent to group sex with three 40-year-old cage fighters she just met, or sex with an older man who boarded in her family home for most of her life, or the President, or a married billionaire sultan, but not her half-brother or her genetic father who she first met a year ago and has been falling in love with? To question if consent is truly possible in consanguineous relationships is insulting and demeaning. If someone her age can consent to join the military, operate heavy machinery, or be sentenced to life in prison or even to death for their actions, how can we say she can't consent to love another adult the way she wants?

There are sober, functional, healthy adults who consent to consanguineous sex with an older relative, and many of them want to marry. It shouldn’t be illegal or questioned, unless you would do the same to any intergenerational relationship between adults.

There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #17

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #19
— — —

Thursday, October 16, 2014

A Few Words About More Than Two

Have you read More Than Two yet? I have to admit I have not. One of the authors is Franklin Veaux, whose websites I have visited and whose Facebook postings and other online comments I have regularly enjoyed. Here is Jennifer Levin's take on the book, found at santafenewmexican.com...


— — —

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #17


Consanguineous sex, relationships, or marriage ruins, confuses, or distorts family relationships.” First of all, this does not apply to adoptees who reunite as adults, or people who resulted from gamete or embryo donation. They already have families.

People only say this about sex and marriage. They don’t say it about friendships, working together, or any number of additional relationship dimensions family members might have with each other, or at least this objection is not enshrined in law, as it is with laws that deny marriage equality. It is as if these people think sex and marriage are bad things and about doing bad things to the other person(s). Are those who oppose equality frustrated? Are they doing sex wrong?

Many people have many relationships that have more than one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too? When someone gets married, nobody from the government asks if this will ruin their friendship or their business, and it should not ask if it will ruin their fraternity, either.

Some people do also apply this to same-gender relationships. Friendships, these people say, become potential sexual relationships; it confuses relationships because men are supposed to be friends and not lovers, they say. If that is the limitation people want to place on themselves, they can. They should not be able to place such limits on other consenting adults.

When people are functioning socially in their biological roles, sex would create an additional bond. For some who are not functioning socially in those roles (as is often the case with Genetic Sexual Attraction), that bond may not exist in the first place and this is a way to form one. It should be up to them what kind of a relationship they're going to have.

People who are related through birth, adoption, or marriage (stepfamily) may or may not get along. They may be cruel towards each other or they can be best friends. The law can't force adults to love each other, regardless of their relation, and it shouldn't stop them from loving each other however they mutually agree.


There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/discredited-invalid-arguments.html

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #16

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love #18 
— — —

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Peter Singer Looks at German Report on Consanguinamory

There continues to be commentary on recent news from the German Ethics Council we last discussed in this entry. Ivy League professor Peter Singer checked in on the topic again, and his thoughts were printed in several places and I was tipped off by a Friend of Lily and Friend of FME. You can find Singer's thoughts at project-syndicate.org...
Incest between adults is not a crime in all jurisdictions. In France, the offense was abolished when Napoleon introduced his new penal code in 1810. Consensual adult incest is also not a crime in Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, Côte d’Ivoire, Brazil, Argentina, and several other Latin American countries.
This map should be of great help.
The report does not attempt to provide a definitive assessment of the ethics of consensual sexual relationships between siblings. Instead, it asks whether there is an adequate basis for the criminal law to prohibit such relationships. It points out that in no other situation are voluntary sexual relationships between people capable of self-determination prohibited.
Singer notes that the report goes on to talk about Discredited Arguments #18, 19, and 20.

The taboo against incest runs deep, as the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt demonstrated when he told experimental subjects about Julie and Mark, adult siblings who take a holiday together and decide to have sex, just to see what it would be like. In the story, Julie is already on the Pill, but Mark uses a condom, just to be safe. They both enjoy the experience, but decide not to do it again. It remains a secret that brings them even closer.
Haidt then asked his subjects whether it was okay for Julie and Mark to have sex. Most said that it was not, but when Haidt asked them why, they offered reasons that were already excluded by the story – for example, the dangers of inbreeding, or the risk that their relationship would suffer.
That's because they don't want to admit their reason is simply that they wouldn't personally want to do it. However, their personal disgust should not prevent other people from enjoying sex or loving as they mutually agree.
In the case of the incest taboo, our response has an obvious evolutionary explanation. But should we allow our judgment of what is a crime to be determined by feelings of repugnance that may have strengthened the evolutionary fitness of ancestors who lacked effective contraception?

Even discussing that question has proved controversial. In Poland, a comment presenting the views of the German Ethics Council was posted online by Jan Hartman, a philosophy professor at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. The university authorities described Hartman’s statement as “undermining the dignity of the profession of a university teacher” and referred the matter to a disciplinary commission.

That's terrible.

I would argue that it is immoral to use government resources to try to prevent consenting adults from loving each other how they wish, or to discriminate against them by denying them their fundamental right to marry. Germany, and many other countries, need to drop the discrimination against consanguinamory and embrace full marriage equality.
— — —

Now is the Time - Solidarity is Best


This 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.

— — —