Thursday, May 30, 2013

Barbara Kay Doesn't Like Polyamorists

With Polycon underway and in the news, Barbara Kay at decided write and let the world know that she thinks being polyamorous makes you immoral and promiscuous (and being promiscuous is very bad). However, she never bothers to cite exactly what is wrong with enjoying loving relationships or sex with more than one person. She probably doesn't care that some polyamorists will have fewer sexual partners over their lifetime than many people who claim to be monogamous.
Should we be surprised that “polyamorists” — mixed-sex threesomes or foursomes in open “relationships” — have come out of the closet, clamouring for their slice of the matrimonial pie?

No, you shouldn't. It's called treating adults as adults.

I’m no Cassandra. But in 2006 I warned in a column: “Don’t panic … about polygamy … Save your panic for “polyamorous” marriage … Thanks to such ‘advances’ as the recent Supreme Court of Canada’s ‘swingers’ ruling [which legitimated group sex as a for-profit business that did no “harm”], polyamory is acquiring respectability, thus paving the way for public acceptance.”
Oh no! Consenting adults loving each other! Oh, the horror of it all!
At the time, there were already Unitarian clerics in the United States who defined themselves as “poly-welcoming,” performing “joining ceremonies” for polyamorous families. In The Netherlands in 2005, one Victor de Brujin and his wife Bianca took “their” bride Miraim Geven in soi-disant marriage, white bridal gowns and all, via a binding “cohabitation contract.”

And the problem with these things is...? Is...? She never says.
In Canada, the seeds for polyamoristic rights were planted as far back as 1997, when the Law Commission of Canada recommended that traditional marriage be put on a level playing field with all “close relationships,” stating that they saw “no reason in principle” to limit registered partnerships to two people.

This conflation of the right to marriage with sexual desire — even promiscuous desire — is not, as we see, an entirely grassroots phenomenon; rather it is top-down activism rooted in theories generated in ivory towers.

Hardly. Polyamory has always existed.

She then goes on to complain about studying and citing the behavior of bonobos.
No, they were not kidding. The presenters made no attempt to disguise their underlying thesis that bonobos have lessons to teach human beings.

What? Next you'll tell us that bats have been using sonar! I wonder if Ms. Kay tells people not to use terms like "nesting" or "leaving the nest" or "building a nest?" And, by all means, stop all lab tests that involve observing behavior in rodents.

She never does explain why polyamorous people should be denied their rights. Throwing up your hands in fear, clutching the pearls, and accurately predicting that civil rights will progress does not demonstrate that such things are bad.

Ms. Kay doesn't want a polyamorous relationship. That's fine by me. But Canada and every other country should keep evolving towards relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.
— — —

No comments:

Post a Comment

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.