Australian Leadership Can Make a Bold Move for Equality

The people of Australia have made it clear they support the rights of more people to marry. Those of us on the right side of history are happy to see more people around the world being free to have the relationships to which they mutually agree and to live out their gender identity. The leadership of the country can make a bold move for equality and take a leadership position in civil rights by bringing about full marriage equality.

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.

As we see, there is no good argument against full marriage equality. So let's stand up for the rights of ALL adults to have the relationships to which they mutually agree.

BREAKING: Australians Vote For More Freedom to Marry

Hooray for Australians for voting to increase the freedom to marry!

Keep evolving towards full marriage equality!

Solidarity Helps

Over and over and over again, this blog has called for solidarity between marginalized communities and their allies so that we stand up for the rights and dignity of all adults to be themselves and have their relationships. So a headline that reads "The great divide: polyamory, 'throuuples' and the LGBTI community" caught our eye. It's from something written by Corey Sinclair at starobserver.com.au.

AS the battle for marriage equality wages on for lesbian and gay men, and the popularity and awareness of the polyamorous lifestyle continues to rise, the divide between the two communities seemingly grows larger.

That's a sad way to start.

It is not uncommon to encounter ‘throuples’ in the gay community, but for many polyamory has become a dirty word. One that is seen as a possible obstacle to achieve their ultimate end goal – marriage equality.

The freedom to have polyamorous marriage is an essential part of full marriage equality.

When relationship coach Anne Hunter co-founded polyamorous community group PolyVic in 2004, it was much more of a queer collective. But as time passed, “queerphobic” heterosexual members joined, and the push towards marriage equality meant more and more LGBTI felt uncomfortable associating with the term.

Shame on those queerphobes.

“What is really disturbing is the growing experience of condemnation that queer people are getting from other queer people about ethical non-monogamy,” she tells the Star Observer.

Ugh. How about SOLIDARITY???

Polyamorous.com.au is the latest addition to an ever expanding online poly community, gaining almost 50 new users a day.

Great.

Originally coming from a swingers background, it wasn’t until Ashleigh met someone who was poly that she felt as though she had found her place.

It's important to know the difference between swinging and polyamory. Many, probably most, polyamorous people do not swing, and many swingers would not identify themselves as polyamorous. Some polyamorous people will have fewer partners over their lifetime than some people who identify as monogamous, and other polyamorous people swing.

Some of the people quoted in the article have less optimism than we do. Full marriage equality will happen sooner or later. We're helping to make it sooner. There's no good reason to deny it. Let's work together instead of allowing the bigots to divide and conquer.

Solidarity is Needed Now More Than Ever

There are two major political parties in the US, and due to the recent election, the party that has consistently opposed progress when it comes to diversity (especially when it comes to gender, sexual orientation, and the freedom to form marriages and other relationships) will, as of January 20, 2017, have the Presidency and control both houses of our bicameral Congress. The other branch of the federal government is the Judicial (the courts) will have judges appointed per the whims of the leadership of that party when there are vacancies. That includes the Supreme Court, where there is currently one vacancy.

The good news is that it is extremely unlikely that there will be any loss in the advancements of the freedom to marry. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled for the limited, monogamous, nonconsanguineous freedom to marry nationwide. To change that to take away that freedom, it would take 1) the same court (albeit, with some different justices) overturning itself or 2) a Constitutional Amendment. Neither is going to happen. The Supreme Court is very reluctant to flat-out reverse itself, and I don't think they've ever done it in a way that takes away rights from people. So even if a court case could get into the system, which I doubt will go to the federal level, it isn't going to result in a reversal. Constitutional Amendments are very difficult to pass, and the political will to do it just isn't there. More and more people are seeing that same-gender couples being married is a good thing.

The bad news is that 1) progress may be slowed, and 2) federal agencies may drag their feet when it comes to protecting the civil rights of people who have or are involved with gender, sexuality, and relationship diversities, such as LGBTQ, polyamorous, and consanguinamorous people. It would be great to see the Brown family's case against Utah's ban on polyfidelity reach the Supreme Court and be decided in the best way possible, but that's less likely than it had been before the election. It could  still happen though.

If a few Senators switch parties or Senate seats change parties due to Senators being removed, control of the Senate would switch. Even without that, a third of the Senate will be up for election in 2018, and the entire House of Representatives will be up for election. It is also possible both major parties will get on board with seeking progress in these areas, realizing that pandering to prejudice is, in the long run, a losing strategy. It would be great to have people running for office who will take this pledge.

This is an English-language blog, and as such, we are especially interested in and able to follow developments in countries where English is a common language. For example, Australia needs to step up and get moving on marriage rights. They are behind other English-speaking countries such as Canada, the US, Ireland, the UK, South Africa, and New Zealand. Progress continues to be made all of the planet, and we are interested in that, too.

What is needed more now than ever, within nations and internationally, is solidarity. The civil rights of all adults need to be advanced, not stalled or rolled back. Standing up for all adults at the same time, rather than focusing on limited advancements for this group or that group, is what is needed. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage, and any other legal arrangement offered, and any of those things without the others, with any and all consenting adults, without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.


Here's how to help.

I answered a question on Tumblr regarding the election that discusses some of the same things.

Here's Jane's open letter to President-elect Trump.

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.

Another Example Why Different Words Are Needed

Trigger Warning: SA

Australian GSA Couple Dragged Back Into the News

Recently, someone in a newsroom decided it would be a good idea to drag out old news in an attempt to be sensational. They talked with someone who had been connected to a genetic father and daughter who became one of the most famous situations of Genetic Sexual Attraction in history... so far, anyway. It is classified as GSA because he did not raise her. I'm not going to link the articles, but I did want to post this response by the woman who is the genetic daughter, as I'm doing with her permission...

For those on here that do not know yes I am the Jenny Deaves the media choose talk about from time to time and proud of who I am.

I was touched by Genetic Sexual Attraction back in 2000 and it changed my life, not in a negative way like most would think but in a positive. I loved deeply and in a way most will never understand and as a result of that I have a beautiful daughter who I love dearly. No she does not have two heads and yes is healthy thank you

Genetic Sexual Attraction is NOT incest as it stands in the eyes of society. Instead it is the finding of a soul mate, the other half of you, that was taken from you when you were young. Those who are in GSA relationships are consenting adults who are harming no one. Society can keep their head in the sand but these relationships are worldwide and new ones are happening daily. With the rise in divorce, unplanned pregnancies, adoption and IVF it is only happening more often.

I am proud of the fact I spoke to the media years ago and was given the opportunity to make documentaries worldwide. I have supported many who have been touched by GSA, made many friends and contacts and grown personally.

I support the right for all to love as they find it as long as their is no abuse or hurting of another. Love should be celebrated not condemned.

Only yesterday someone unfriended me because they saw this article and did not know. They had been my friend for nearly 3 years, had coffee with me and been to the movies with me. I had also worked with them on a professional basis. Suddenly I am not worthy of their friendship!

I thank them for unfriending me and knew before they did that they are the sort of person who would. I also know who on here will stay my friend and who will choose to unfriend. I do not want judgemental false friends, instead I want friends who are here because they like the person I am not my past or future. What I have experienced does not change me as a person or a professional, instead it gives me the strength, experience and knowledge required to go forward. To those who unfriend me or no longer wish to work with me I say thank you for showing me who is the better out of the two of us. For those who accept me I say thank you for seeing me as a person not a situation and for not judging others. The world needs more of you.

I am here to answer questions on Genetic Sexual Attraction. I am here to educate not to judge. Do not believe what you read in the media about me as it is mostly cut up, hyped up and twisted information made to sensationalize. Oh the stories I could tell you about 60 mins and what they cut and pasted to change what was said, but that is a story for another time. A book maybe?

Sending love to all regardless of your opinion on GSA or myself xxxx

What a courageous and loving woman! She has long been willing to endure the thoughtless persecution and the small-minded hate in order to help others. She has been one of the greatest friends to anyone experiencing GSA.

There is no good reason to criminalize or discriminate against GSA relationships. If you need help, see here. If you want to help, see here.

Australian Judge Garry Neilson Causes Firestorm

Recently, Australian Judge Garry Neilson has made headlines and upset a lot of people. For example, there's this report at independent.co.uk from Antonia Molloy...

District Court Judge Garry Neilson has been criticised for espousing the view that sexual contact between siblings or between adults and children should perhaps no longer be viewed as “unnatural” or “taboo”, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. 

Neilson drew parallels with widely changing attitudes towards gay sex. In the same way, he said, “a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner”.

According to that report, he said a jury might might think that. It didn't say he did. Keep in mind all of this is a reaction to news reports of what he said, which may or may not be accurate.

The judge went on to say that incest is only criminalised because of the high chance that any resulting offspring will be born with serious birth defects, but added that “even that [risk] falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.

That's not why it was criminalized, but it is an excuse used now to deny legalization or the freedom to marry, although it shouldn't be.

Neilson made the astonishing comments during the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister. The man had earlier pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting his sister when he was 17 and she was 10 or 11 in 1973 or 1974 – but pleaded not guilty to the charge of sexual intercourse without consent, with an alternative charge of incest, for the alleged 1981 offence. 

10 or 11-year-olds are not considered able to consent to sex with a 17-year-old, by law and by all or virtually all relevant therapists. If this whole thing had started when she was 18 and she did consent, this would be a different matter.


Let's get something clear. Abuse/assault/molestation and sex are two different things. They are two different things whether the people involved are complete strangers, casual acquaintances, old friends, an item, or close relatives. Sex, which is consensual, and abuse, which isn't, should never be confused.

Abuse is not OK if the people know each other or live together.

Sex should not be criminalized just because the adults consenting to it are close relatives.

There should be no laws, no taboos, no stigmas, no discrimination against people for loving each other or playing with each other in sexual way. There is no good reason to persecute people for loving a close relative. It's a waste of energy to try to keep lovers apart. It is a waste of government resources to prosecute lovers. It is a travesty of justice to deny them rights, such as marriage, if they want to marry.

It is when people abuse children or assault other adults that they should be prosecuted.

However, Neilson refused to admit the evidence from the earlier case. He claimed that the sexual abuse that happened in the 1970s was of a different nature to that which occurred in the 1980s when the girl was 18 and the man 26.

He may have a valid point there or he may not, depending on her recovery, although I can't imagine consenting to sex with someone who abused me when I was a child. In criminal court, past crimes can be kept out of the case unless a direct connection can be made. There's a good chance a direct link could be made, but I'm not involved so it is just speculation on my part.

Neilson said: “By that stage they are both mature adults. The complainant has been sexually awoken, shall we say, by having two relationships with men and she had become ‘free’ when the second relationship broke down.

He's out of his mind there, I think. Having been sexually active with person A in no way implies consent to sex with person B. It doesn't even mean you consent to sex again with person A.

“The only thing that might change that is the fact that they were a brother and sister but we’ve come a long way from the 1950s … when the position of the English Common Law was that sex outside marriage was not lawful.”

He's right about that.

“If this was the 50s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”

Being interested in a man and being interested in a boy are two different things. Actually, being interested is not the same thing as acting with/on someone, either.

So now he's in hot water and a lot of people are calling for his head.

Dr Cathy Kezelman, the president of Adults Surviving Child Abuse, said the comments were “outrageous”.

“The relational betrayal of the horrors of incest between a brother and sister of any age is abhorrently criminal,” she said.

If she's saying that two grown siblings are unable to consent to sex with each other, she's being ridiculous. If she's saying that is always wrong for someone to force themself on another person, I'm with her. That is why the word "incest" alone is not a good word to use, because it can mean either. Sex (consensual) should be referred to as consanguineous sex or consanguinamory. Abuse should be sexual assault by a sibling.

I would hope that the judge is right in juries refusing to punish people for (consensual) sex. I would hope juries would continue to send abusers to prison.

Today's Example of Insufficient Reporting

From news-mail.com.au comes this headline....

Jail threat for incest sex offender who broke order

As we know, where consanguinamory is still criminalized, "incest" can mean a variety of things. Unfortunately, the text of the article doesn't shed much light on the situation.

A REGISTERED sex offender who failed to comply with his reporting conditions before missing two court dates now has two months of jail hanging over his head after facing court.

The 24-year-old man, who can not be named, became a reportable offender in 2008 after being convicted of incest.

No more information about the original case is given. In 2008, he was 18 years old, give or take. Assuming the original case was about something that happened in Queensland, it isn't criminal to have sex with someone who is 16 years or older unless "sodomy" is involved or unless they are closely related, which are ridiculous restrictions. So, it is entirely possible this man to have been convicted of "incest" for having had consensual sex with a 17-year-old sibling, half-sibling, nephew or niece, whether they were raised together or not. If that is what happened, it shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place,  he shouldn't be a "sex offender," and nobody should care that he didn't report.

On the other hand, he could have been molesting or assaulting a 3-year-old, in which case he shouldn't be walking free at all right now.

But we have no way of knowing, because "incest" is applied to both situations, and the journalists who put this story online were probably just repeating what an insufficient court announcement said, without anyone asking for clarification.

There is Big Difference Between Love and Abuse

Candace Sutton had an article I found at heraldsun.com.au under the headline "The Australian Families That Hold Dark Secrets of Incest and Abuse." Unfortunately, for the sake of sensationalism, responsibility went out the window. This might contain triggers for some of you. Here's how the article starts...

BEHIND the door of an ordinary house in a working class Australian suburb, a man abused his three daughters over two decades, offering them to other men for sex and making them perform acts with animals. 

Inside at least three suburban houses in towns nestled in a major industrial Australian valley, one man started raping his 11-year-old daughter and then told her she was "damaged" and unlovable.

Sometimes he forced himself upon her twice a day.

For almost 30 years he kept her a virtual prisoner, fathering her four children who were all disabled.

A third case unfolded over four generations of a family which moved from state to state, always stopping in remote communities to avoid detection.

Eventually they came to rest in the hills behind a quiet rural village, where decades of inbreeding exploded into a horror story of degradation, squalor and rampant child sex under the approving gaze of three family matriarchs - a story which has shocked the world.

These are all terrible cases of child abuse, which involve various forms of abuse in addition to child rape. In this last case, the children would have had plenty of problems even if there has been no inbreeding.

Every week in communities big and small across Australia, children are sexually abused by their relatives.

And by people who aren't relatives. Either way, it is unacceptable.

The article goes on to detail child abuse situations. In the middle of all of that comes this...

Father and daughter John and Jennifer Deaves confessed on television their sex life was “absolutely fantastic”. Picture: Channel 9 Source: News Limited

Uh, What in the world is a picture and caption of a couple of ADULTS who had a CONSENSUAL relationship generated by Genetic Sexual Attraction doing in the middle of an article like this? I know Jennifer. You know what she is a victim of? Bigotry enshrined in law! In more than one way. This is not only offensive to adults who have loving, consensual relationships, it is also offensive to assault and molestation victims, because there is no comparing the situation of the Deaves to the abusive situations listed. This is highly irresponsible journalism. I doubt it was Sutton's decision, to be fair. She's just the person whose name is on the article and she probably didn't to the layout or headline.

Australian Couple Denied Their Freedom to Marry

[This interview has been removed at the request of one of the interviewees. We apologize for any inconvenience.]

Writer of Into My Arms Interviewed

I mentioned the novel Into My Arms previously on this blog. The author, Kylie Ladd, was interviewed for a broadcast in Australia. You can listen to it or download it. Ladd is an egg donor, and she talks at length about that.

Kylie's latest novel deals with one of our deepest taboos: sexual attraction between blood relatives.

It's an idea that has come from the phenomenon of 'genetic sexual attraction', which suggests long-lost siblings, who first meet as adults, have a very high possibility of being sexually attracted to each other.

I want to clarify that Genetic Sexual Attraction can happen not only between siblings, but between parents and their adult children, and between aunts/uncles and nieces/nephews. I'm glad that the subject was mentioned on the program.

You'll Shoot Your Eye Out

Or perhaps pluck them out? Actually, while Oedipus Rex is famous ancient theatre that includes what today might be described as mother-son Genetic Sexual Attraction, I haven't heard of anyone in modern times having this reaction. But then, the guy did kill his own father, and maybe that had something to do with it? Chris Boyd reviews a theatrical production that is another take on this ancient tale and the review can be found at theaustralian.com...

Anne-Louise Sarks and Benedict Hardie in By Their Own Hands. Picture: Pia Johnson 

THEATRE
By Their Own Hands
By Benedict Hardie and Anne-Louise Sarks.
The Hayloft Project, Melbourne Theatre Company Southbank Theatre, The Lawler, June 14.

THE Hayloft Project's take on the Oedipus story obsesses over the nuts and bolts of the incestuous relationship with the same kind of lurid curiosity that the Learning Channel showed to "extreme cougar wives" and their three, four and five-decade-younger lovers.
Like last year'sOn the Misconception of Oedipus this play fingers incest as if it were a bruise, as if there were things to be gleaned from re-experiencing the pain. Implicitly, mother on son incest is "nicer", apparently, than father on daughter.

Hmm. If anyone reading this blog sees it, please report back.

Tickets $25. Bookings: mtc.com.au or (03) 8688 0800. Ends June 23.

I realize this is based on a classic work, but I'd like to see more neutral or positive portrayals of relationships that exist today and always have.

Update on Veto Situation

The hopeful bride-to-be has updated me on the situation I blogged about here.

She received a latter from someone in authority of the facility where the intended groom is held. That person with veto power will making a decision soon. In the mean time, the lovers who want to marry can submit things like:

• evidence that they have lived together (what if they don't want to do that until they marry?)
• letters of supprt from members of both immediate families expressing support for the union (really? other people in your family have to approve?)
• statements from both lovers of intent to get premarital counseling (generally a good idea, but required?)
• official documents and informal personal statements about the bride-to-be's criminal record (again, it was the "crime" of loving another consenting adult, so it sounds like they want her to say her relationship was all wrong and she deserved her criminal sentence)
• a plan about how any children, theirs or otherwise, will be protected from the groom-to-be (the implication being a woman who has no kids and hates having kids around would be more likely to pass this test)

The implication is that if they do these things, they might be allowed to marry. This is despite the fact that if the groom-to-be was not incarcerated, nobody would look into criminal records or require passing any of these other tests. The bride-to-be is now asked to submit paperwork as though she is asking for parole, despite the fact that she finished her sentence years ago.

What is the harm of letting them marry?

If you're free to marry the person you love, realize how fortunate you are that nobody else can have a veto over your marriage, because so many people in the world, even in supposedly modern countries, aren't allowed their rights.

Australian Producer Seeking GSA-Experienced

I found this ad at a website that appears to be one for all sorts of ads...

Wanted: Looking for people who have experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction

Camperdown NSW 2050

Date Listed:

04/06/2013

Last Edited:

04/06/2013

Looking for people who have experienced GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction)

A Sydney production company is researching GSA for a documentary aimed at raising awareness and removing the stigma around GSA. They would love to hear from you if you have had any experience with GSA or know someone who has. Full privacy and anonymity is guaranteed if required. Financial compensation will be considered depending on the participants level of involvement with the project.

Please contact: mygsastory@gmail.com

My immediate question is, why didn't the production company identify themselves? Is that against the rules of the site where the ad appeared? Even if this "production company" turns out to be just one person, wouldn't a serious producer at least have a Facebook page?

Anyway, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in that respect, for the sake of moving on...

I would very much like to see a good production that deals with Genetic Sexual Attraction honestly and in a positive way. Although the ad gives the impression that is their plan and promises privacy an anonymity, I always caution anyone who responds to ads or solicitations like this to be very careful. Media productions are often edited for an agenda that might not be supportive or ethical. If the producers think it is to their benefit, they may portray GSA in general in a negative light or any given person or relationships in a negative light. Also, the kind of attention one might garner from being involved can bring many challenges and complications, especially since consanguinamory is still illegal in Australia.

If the producers handle things well, this could be a very good thing for people who are experiencing or have experienced GSA and for relationship rights in general, including full marriage equality.

Here's an update.

Meanwhile, in Western Australia

A production in Perth features a FFF polyamorous triad, as noted by Nadine Walker at outinperth.com...

Imagine a consenting relationship between three people, now imagine them all being women.  The Fringeworld production Poly offers an insight into what that would look like…

It seems three women in love makes for an interesting show.

I would think so.

Showing at the Moonhouse Tent just outside the Court Hotel, the previously sold out production attributes it success to a number of key aspects, actress Ann-Marie Biagioni explained:

‘It’s relatable to everybody, the context doesn’t really matter, which is why I think we’ve drawn a really great crowd. People who are gay are coming to see it, to appreciate the fact that this is something not prominent here. There is not a lot of theatre about this kind of thing. I think places like this need that kind of stuff.’

 I agree.

Poly will be showing at the Moonhouse Tent at Fringeworld from February 20 – 24. Grab your tickets at fringeworld.com.au

As the producers are finding out, poly people are everywhere. It is important to have some theatre and some media reflecting that reality. For some it is a something new to look at, but for many people it is life. They are polyamorous, always have been, and always will be.

Will Queensland Regress?

The Australian territory may regress by changing the law to interfere more in consensual relationships. See this article from Rae Wilson at qt.com...

A LOOPHOLE enabling de facto partners a legal defence to incest in Queensland through marriage is a step closer to being shut.

Two petitions against the defence, enacted in Queensland during 1997 to legalise "Brady bunch" relationships among step-siblings, have been lodged in Queensland Parliament.

Stepsiblings, adopted siblings, half-siblings, or full siblings... if they are all consenting adults or are minors close in age who are acting with mutual interest with no coercion, should not be subject to criminal charges or discrimination.

Child safety advocate Beryl Spencer collected the 252 signatures after becoming closely involved with an Ipswich family in a case where the Court of Appeal quashed an incest conviction through this defence in 2008.

The man was initially convicted after a trial in Ipswich for having sex with his de facto wife's 17-year-old daughter, making her above the consenting age but not yet an adult.

However, the Court of Appeal found the man and teen were "lawfully entitled to be married".

The Court of Appeal did find his actions "morally reprehensible" though, noting he regarded the girl as his daughter and she regarded him as her father.

Prosecute predators for abuse, neglect, assault, etc. Leave lovers alone. If the law allows her to consent to have group sex with five strangers in their 40s or 50s, should it prevent her from having sex with someone who married her mother? Either we take her ability to consent and her decisions over her own body seriously or we don't. I am not arguing against age of consent laws, but they should be applied consistently. Nobody has to think any given relationship or sexual encounter is a good idea to see that if others choose to do it, that should be their right.

Queensland, and Australia as a whole, should adopt relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all. If someone does not have the right to decide with whom she can share her body and her love, what rights does she really have?

ADDITION: I should have noted that there are current, former, and future stepsiblings and stepparents/adult stepchildren who have had sex or ongoing romances. To criminalize their relationships is absurd. Also, what will the legal restrictions be? If a John legally weds Jane, it will be illegal for him to have sex with Jane's 30-year-old daughter Helen even though Jane is supportive? But it would still be legal for John to have sex with Jane one night and Helen the next and live with both of them as long as he doesn't legally wed Jane? Would two people who met in their late teens be forbidden from getting together because their parents then married? Isn't is much more simple and fair to stick to prosecuting assaults/molestation, rather than consensual sex?

Love Should Not Have to Hide

If you are a regular reader here, you know I think the Kindred Spirits forum is a great place for people who are in, have been in, or are considering getting into a consanguinamorous relationship. Here's a recent posting by someone from Australia.

Polygynists in the Media

Slowly but surely, I'm clearing the desk. There were a couple of articles on polygynists I wanted to point out. Unless an article is filled with lies and venom against marriage equality, then I consider it good that an article has raised awareness of alternatives to the narrow relationship model so often presented in the media, which is heterosexual, monogamous, nonconsanguineous, along racial lines (usually), and married.

This article by Deborah Arthurs at dailymail.co.uk featured the Dargers. Joe Darger, you may recall, is married to twin sisters and their cousin.

Prejudice Towards Polyamorists

Polyamory is a hot topic in Australia these days, with some people calling for solidarity between polyamorous people & their allies and monogamous LGBT people & their allies as we push for full marriage equality and relationship rights for all adults. Craig Harper wrote about polyamory recently, or more precisely, prejudice towards the polyamorous...

The conversation got really interesting when a lady called in to talk about her polyamorous approach to relationships.

Now, I’m not really sure what I would expect such a person to sound like on the radio (never considered it) but this particular caller soundly highly intelligent, articulate, balanced and very comfortable with her life and her choices. She certainly didn’t sound like the weird, immoral, evil, nutcase that some of the subsequent callers made her out to be. In fact, she sounded much happier and nicer than all of the venomous haters who phoned in (following her call) to unleash their judgment, vitriol and condemnation on the “amoral slut”. As one charming listener labelled her.

There are amoral monogamists as well as amoral polyamorists, though polyamorists can't pull off being amoral for very long as they have more people calling them on their bad behavior. When two or more people simultaneously confront you, it is much more difficult to conclude it is the other person who has the problem and not you.

There are polyamorists who lead lives of very strict morality compared to many self-proclaimed monogamists.

To be honest, her choices would not be my choices but that doesn’t make them wrong. Or mine right. As I drove and listened, I wondered why so many people were obsessed with ‘being right’ and criticising people who don’t concur with their thinking, theology or life choices. Interestingly, some of the most venomous calls came from religious people who apparently skipped over that bit in their (insert preferred theological text here) about love, tolerance and not judging. Some religious types (not all) do way more harm than good for their brand.

So to speak.

Yes. They are an embarrassment to all of the other people in their faith traditions who don't spend their energy pointing fingers in judgment of people they don't even know.