Translate

Friday, July 29, 2016

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

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

Thursday, July 28, 2016

More Than Friends

Although it has been over twelve years since series finale episode of Friends aired, it is still being analyzed in ways that are of interest to this blog. If you're not familiar with the show, it revolved around six young adults. Two were brother and sister, and the other four were connected with them through friendships, romance, and as roommates.

Josh Hill provided "The 5 worst moments on Friends" at ew.com...
5. The One Where Ross and Monica Kiss | Season 10, Episode 11
 

If there’s one thing that an objective observer can surmise about the mindset of the Friends writing staff late in the show’s run, it’s that they must have been obsessed with incest. Ross and Monica kissing wasn’t the most aggressive incest storyline, but the fact that it was a throwaway joke that they kissed was pretty lazy, at best.

In the 1970s, studies involving college students revealed that at least 10% of them had already experienced consensual sexual contact with a sibling. It is likely the percentage has increased since, including in the years the characters Ross and Monica would have been living at home and into their early 20s. It would have been entirely realistic if Ross and Monica had a history of experimenting with each other. There are siblings the ages of their characters during the show's run that also experiment and others who are actually in love. Including such scenarios in fiction would be nothing new. Such elements are in the Bible and Greek mythology.
2. The One Where Ross Tries To Bang His Cousin | Season 7, Episode 19

Ross did some pretty lame things over the course of the show’s run, but this might be the worst. Say what you will about things like thinking he was on a break with Rachel to his temper tantrums later on in the series, but trying to have sexual intercourse with his cousin is too far, even for Ross.
I'm not familiar with the plotline, so I infer from this (and nothing else being cited) that Hill's problem is merely the consanguinity of their relationship. That Hill would express such prejudice against this is astounding, given that first cousins can legally marry in about half of US states and only a handful of regressive states criminalize sex between first cousins. Moreover, marriages between first cousins are legal and common in much of the world today, as they have been throughout history.

Like other television shows, sitcoms need to touch upon consanguineous sex and consanguinamorous relationships. It is the right thing to do, because these relationships are part of life and yet are unjustly discriminated against. Are there creatives, producers, and executives with the guts to take this on sooner rather than later?

There is much comedy and drama to be mined from this subject, and it can be done in ways that are enlightening and affirming. Viewers need to see that these experiences and relationships can be positive and beautiful, that there's nothing inherently wrong with them, and that they're common enough that they know people who have been in relationships and situations like these. Representation would be the right thing to do for people who are in such relationships.
— — —

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

A Substantial Video About Consanguinamory

Jane Doe has created a wonderful video with basic information about consanguinamory and Genetic Sexual Attraction. It's over and hour long. If you can't spare your eyes for that long, how about your ears? Listening will give you the essential information. Share this video with anyone who could benefit from it.




Thanks, Jane!
— — —

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Are You Open-Minded?


Polyamory

Lucy Moore interviewed Brandon Wade, founder of OpenMinded, and it was posted at femalefirst.co.uk. Wade answered the basic question about defining a polyamorous relationship...

The word polyamory itself means multiple loves. Being polyamorous means having multiple relationships-there isn't a central relationship or partner as is seen in open relationships, and some varying levels of commitment can exist. There are also different configurations, where individuals can be involved in different relationships, while others are more interconnected with one of their partners having a relationship with someone else in the constellation or all of them being involved. It can be quite complex.
Yes it can.
Why should we all be more accepting of this lifestyle?
Because if we don't have the right to love other, mutually agreeing adults and to love each other how we mutually agree, what rights do we really have?
Judgement and stigma are among the main culprits that destroy individual identity, and create unsafe environments. When people are able to exercise their preferences openly, it improves overall quality of life and allows society as a whole to progress.
Yes!
Why is there such a stigma surrounding this type of relationship?
It's been stigmatized as a sexual kink or simply "experimenting," because there is not enough information out there about being polyamorous. Many people assume it's a choice and that it's driven by selfishness, when it's the complete opposite.
It's important to remember that a polyamorous relationship isn't necessarily the same thing as an open relationship. Some polyamorous relationships are closed, including some that started that way and will always be that way. Some polyamorous relationships are at least partially open. And many polyamorous people would exclude, say, a married couple in which one or both spouses are free to have casual flings from being classified as polyamorous, but place them under the larger umbrella of ethical nonmongamy, which would include swinging, swapping, or a couple having a sexual threesome every once in a while.

Click through to read all of it.
— — —

Monday, July 25, 2016

Glossary Addition: Friend of Lily

[Bumping this up.]

I have made an addition to the Glossary:

Friend of Lily

Someone who is consanguinamorous or has experienced consanguinamory or consanguineous relationships or sex.

Usage: "After she was reunited with her long-lost brother, they fell in love. She loves where the flowers grow. She's a Friend of Lily."

This is a nod to Diane Rinella's character from her new fiction series.
— — —

Sunday, July 24, 2016

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.]
— — —

Friday, July 22, 2016

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
— — —

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Three Common Misconceptions About Consanguinamory

There are three very common misconceptions about consanguinamory or consanguineous relationships, also known as consensual adult incest. These misconceptions are often invoked when someone asks why such relationships are criminalized or why laws against such relationships haven't been repealed, or when someone asks why the consanguineous freedom to marry is still denied. Clearing up these misconceptions will assist us in reaching relationship rights for all and full marriage equality sooner rather than later.


1) "The kids will be mutants!" We've cleared this up many, many times. Although most consanguineous sex does not result in children, although most sex anyone has is not to reproduce (and often the chance of reproduction is ZERO), this is the old stand-by when people want to justify their position against letting consenting adults love each other how they mutually agree. It's a very weak argument. The fact is, even when consanguinamorous relationships do create a child, it is very likely the child will be healthy. People with consanguineous parents are literally everywhere. Chances are, one of your neighbors or co-workers is such a person, maybe even someone you admire or find attractive.
— — —

Monday, July 18, 2016

Australia Needs Full Marriage Equality

From the news I've been reading, Australia is considering moving closer to actually treating adults like, well, you know... adults. They need full marriage equality. Here's a recent report from theaustralian.com.au by Jared Owens...
Pauline Hanson will push Malcolm Turnbull for a referendum to hardwire a definition of marriage into the Constitution, warning the approaches advocated by Labor and the Coalition could lead to polygamy and child marriage.
Let consenting adults marry. Simple. I'm not familiar with Australia's Constitution, but here's what I'd like to see in the US Constitution.
The Constitution does not ­define marriage and allows parliament broad scope to decide which relationships are recognised.
However, the One Nation leader wants a “fresh and clear definition” of marriage built into the Constitution, so future parliaments cannot cave into demands to extend marriage rights.
“A plebiscite simply gives the green light for legislative change to include same-sex marriage. However, that legislation could run the risk of being revoked or further altered to pave the way for reducing the marriageable age or the introduction of polygamy,” a party spokesman said.
What would be the problem with three adults being married or one adult being married to two adults?

There's no good reason to deny consenting adults their rights to their relationships.
— — —

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Revisiting the Legal Nitty-Gritty of Polygamy

This entry is getting a bump-up because it is as relevant as ever.

A very kind reader sent along a description of the legal theory by which the polygamous freedom to marry can be accomplished, and I will offer my thoughts as well. It's a long essay, Ultimately, the thing to take away is that our laws can accommodate people in any form of polyamory who want legal recognition of a marriage (polyagamy). Since as far as the government involvement is concerned, marriage is mostly about financial and "who has responsibility for whom" issues, contract and business law has already demonstrated that three or more people can have legally recognized relationships. I had previous written about this here.
There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).

I think both should be offered. The basic paperwork can actually be rather simple.
Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.
Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.
What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.



— — —

Saturday, July 16, 2016

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, July 13, 2016

Game of Polo?

Critics and other journalists who cover movies and television shows seem to love to write about consanguinamory under headlines mentioning "incest," even as they insist that the idea is disturbing or disgusting to them.

Over at decider.com, Meghan O'Keefe wrote about Netflix's Marco Polo.

Game of Thrones gets a lot of flak from critics for its use of sex and nudity and violence to propel its storylines. To be fair, the show’s entire meandering plot is sparked when little Bran Stark stumbles upon twins Jaime and Cersei Lannister doing it “doggy style” in a tower.
Bonus points for working in Game of Thrones. Too bad she never gets Flowers in the Attic in there.

Still, Netflix‘s Marco Polo might have just made Game of Thrones look like the moral equivalent of Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood*. In a series of flashbacks, we discover exactly why Ahmad (Mahesh Jadu) is so hellbent on destroying his adoptive father Kublai Khan (Benedict Wong) — and it’s extremely disturbing.
Yes, yes, of course it has to be disturbing.

What follows is considered a spoiler, so if you're watching the show and you're not caught up to Season 2, Episode 5, you are warned.
— — —

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


“Some men will be left out as polygyny increases.” This is based on the assumption that in a culture with gender equality, polygyny would still be more plentiful than polyandry. Anti-equality people, based on this assumption, insist that this will result in unmarried men devolving into criminals.

The mistake here is assuming that the second, third, etc. wives in a polygynous marriage would have wanted one of those unmarried men rather than legally sharing the man they did marry, and that the unmarried men would in turn want to marry them. Some of those men may want to marry men, or not marry at all. Why not allow people to marry the person or people of their choice? Why try to force people to settle? Also, the system is not closed. There are billions of people in the world and more and more people are reaching the age and status of eligibility every second.

There was a study attempting to link polygny to criminal behavior in unmarried/unpartnered men based in part on nineteenth century frontier America. Things have changed a little since then. And guess what? Married men commit crime, too. Most of the men in prison have been married, were married or had at least one girlfriend at the time they were convicted.

Maybe men in the hypothetical polygynous community who don’t get married are violent people. Is it better that they have a wife to beat instead of committing crimes on the street? I don’t want to be the one who tells a woman she can’t marry the man/men or woman/women she wants; rather, she has to marry a less desirable man so that he can take his aggression out on her.

The warnings that polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry will result in an increase of violent gangs of unmarried men committing crimes falls flat when one considers the overwhelming data revealing both that 1) Men in the US are getting married for the first time later than ever, and 2) Crime rates in the US have decreased.

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 #15 

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

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Monday, July 11, 2016

A Specific Case in Which YOU Can Make a Difference

Two adults are facing criminal sentences for the "crime" of allegedly having private sex with each other. You can make a difference to help them, and hopefully, help others. Jane has the details.
Clearly this is unacceptable and unfair on all concerned. For this reason, this campaign is being launched, and it requires the participation of a large number of people. Below you will find letters and addresses to send them too.
Go to Jane's blog and help

UPDATE: There's another way you can help  the people being prosecuted for an alleged, victimless "crime."

Here is a video to share about this.


Spread the word!
— — —

Another Example of Why We'll Win

There are some comments I won't publish on this blog because they contain "language" that isn't polite to use. Basically, I want the text of this blog (including the comments) to be passable for broadcast television and radio under (US) Federal Communications Commission guidelines, meaning certain words like the "f" word and the "s" word won't be printed.

Another comment that I couldn't publish under such guidelines was recently left after this entry, answering a very frequently asked question, "Can siblings marry?"

Here it is, with dashes instead of the original letters...
You people are f---ing weirdos... please stay hidden under whatever rock you're hiding in, the world has enough weirdos who are half retarded and have HUGE foreheads... Freaks!!
My apologies to anyone who is offended, especially by the use of the word "retarded."

The ignorance expressed in this comment is all too common. We're not talking about breeding eugenics. We're talking about relationships between consenting adults.

Notice also that the person doesn't provide an argument other than the variation of Discredited Argument #18, but rather spews hate, urging people to stay in the closet.

I have news for this person. Entries like the one on which she or he commented are the most popular entries on this blog. Consanguinamory is common enough that the commenting person no doubt knows at least one person in such a relationship. It could be what brought that hater to this blog in the first place.

There really isn't a good reason as to why consenting adults should be denied their relationship rights, including full marriage equality. That's why we're going to win.
— — —

Saturday, July 9, 2016

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #15


“This oppresses women.” Gender equality and the right to be unmarried or to divorce are necessary components of full marriage equality. Anti-equality people often point to polygyny in certain cultures, past and present, where women do not have equal rights. However, this is not proof that polygyny, much less the larger scope of polygamy or polyamory, oppresses women. Women would be oppressed in those cultures with or without polygyny. If a woman wants to marry a man who has other wives rather than another man who is an unmarried man, and the other wives agree, why deny her that choice? If a woman wants to marry two men, or a man and a woman, or two women, she should have that right, too. Some women enjoy polygamy, including polygyny, and they should have the right to consent to the marriage of their choosing.

The law does not prevent a man from having relationships with, and children with, multiple women, but he can't legally marry all of them even if they all agree. The law does not prevent a woman from having relationships with, and children with, multiple men, but she can't legally marry all of them even if they all agree. Three people can have a loving, lasting triad, living together for years and years, but can't legally marry. What kind of sense is that?

Protections against gender discrimination, domestic violence, and child abuse should be the focus, not preventing consenting adults from marrying. Victims of abuse would be more likely to work with authorities to stop abusers if consensual relationships were not criminalized nor discriminated against.
 
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 #14

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

Thursday, July 7, 2016

The Road to Equality Has Been Long

We've noted before and will note again how Richard and Mildred Loving helped advance the US towards marriage equality, with their famous Loving v. Virginia court case that struck down bans on the (limited monogamous heterosexual) interracial freedom to marry. At milwaukeecourieronline.com I found this piece by Marian Wright Edelman that includes the letter Mildred wrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
Mr. Loving may not have known how the state would treat legal interracial marriages that had been performed elsewhere, but five weeks after their wedding the newlyweds received a very literal rude awakening. Acting on a “tip,” sheriff’s deputies surrounded their bed with flashlights at 2 a.m. demanding to know why they were there together. Their reply that they were husband and wife made no difference. The Lovings were arrested. Mr. Loving was held in jail overnight while the pregnant Mrs. Loving was forced to stay for several days. Both were charged with cohabitation and violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act. Under a plea bargain, in order to avoid a yearlong jail sentence, they were forced to leave the state and were prohibited from returning together for 25 years.
What an outrage!

It's a good thing they won, all the way back in the 1960s. Progress has continued. Let's make sure we get to full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, is free to marry any and all consenting adults.
— — —

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #14


“What about insurance/employment benefits?” There are many simple ways to deal with this. It is dealt with when an employee has more kids than the next, isn't it? It is not a good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry or polyamorous relationship rights in general.. This is something the law and/or employers and unions can figure out.

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 #13 

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Polyamorous) Love #15
— — —

Sunday, July 3, 2016

Equality, Life, Liberty, and Happiness


Monday is Independence Day in the US, considered our country's birthday. Connected to the day is the Declaration of Independence, which touts equality and notes that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, equality was reserved for white, landowning, heterosexual, Christian males. Great strides have been made to extend equality to everyone else. As we know, equality just for some is not equality. In recent times, we have seen the death of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for military service and we saw the burials of Prop H8 of at least part of DOMA, followed by many pro-equality court rulings ever since, now made even better with the Supreme Court ruling for the nationwide limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry.

More people are coming out of the closet, and more allies are coming out in support of equality. More people are getting married, and now we have more polyamorous and polygamous people speaking up for their rights.

But we’re still on our journey. Equality, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are, in many places in the US, and at the national government level, still denied to LGBT people. Even more so, these rights are denied to the polyamorous and the consanguinamorous.

Let’s keep moving forward so that an adult, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, is free to pursue love, sex, residence and marriage with any and all consenting adults, and not be denied liberty, employment, housing, or anything else.

This isn't just a philosophical thing or a principle. There are people, good people, who are hurt by ongoing discrimination, prejudice, and ignorance. There are people just being themselves, hurting nobody, and people who are in loving, healthy relationships who are being denied their rights, who have to hide who they are or their love for each other, who constantly endure people proclaiming that the love they share is sick or disgusting or makes them worthy of being subjected to abuse or death. There are teenagers who have simply behaved as normal teenagers with each other and haven't hurt anybody (including each other or themselves) who are being lied to and told that nobody else is like them and they are depraved. That's no way to have to live, it certainly isn't liberty, and it squashes the pursuit of happiness.

They need to know they are not alone, and there's nothing wrong with them.

We need independence from hate and ignorance. So let's keep evolving America, and encourage other countries to do the same.
— — —

Saturday, July 2, 2016

How You Can Make a Difference

There's a petition that has a chance to make a difference. [UPDATE: The link was down temporarily but is working again.]

As Jane says...
It doesn’t matter what country you live in you can still take part. It doesn’t matter if you’re consanguinamorous yourself or if you’re an ally who wants to see all consenting adults get equal rights… you should still sign this petition. Despite the official looking form, you DON’T even need to leave your real name, just leave a valid e-mail address, use a throwaway if you want to.

If we’re serious about this movement, and about getting the equal rights we deserve, then we ought to be doing these little things to help ourselves. We have solidarity within the community, but let’s show a little EXTRA solidarity in getting these outrageous laws repealed. It will take just two minutes of your time, and every signature is worth it’s weight in gold. Please share this page with all who may be interested, the more the merrier:)

As a final note, I will say a big thank you to Richard for getting his petition up and running again. I’m sure we will make a bloody good go of getting it signed this time around.

So, to sign it PLEASE CLICK HERE and follow the instructions.
Please, please, please sign it NOW and spread the link to the petition and urge others to sign it. Maybe you don't care about the laws of Scotland, but there are people there who are suffering under current law, and if the law is changed in Scotland, or even if there's just a serious discussion about changing the law, it can happen elsewhere, too.

There is no good reason to criminalize these consensual adult relationships. Please help end the prosecution of people who aren't hurting anyone.
— — —