Poly is the "new gay"

RedPanda

New member
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/specialreports/archives/2014/03/20140313-215357.html

While I'm glad that the poly movement is picking up steam (apparently?) I'm not so sure about the common theme of comparing poly acceptance to gay acceptance.

Okay, maybe there are some parallels. I believe that homosexuality is mostly innate (genetic, biological, etc) and I also believe that monogamy/non-monogamy are also largely innate (sexual dimorphism) but I dunno...

Maybe it's because as a white, cis-gendered male I don't see any need to assert that polyamory is oppressed. Legally speaking it is not acknowledged. Socially speaking many people do not understand or accept it. But oppressed? Drawing parallels between the homophobia of the mid-20th century? That's going a little far and I think it's unfair to gay people.

Seriously, gay people still get beat up in school and on the street in NYC! Ever hear of a poly person getting beaten up for being poly? I haven't.

Then again, I'm fairly young and I've never had to hide my lifestyle out of fear of repercussions.

Thoughts? I'm just lacking perspective and/or lucky for not having experienced trouble? Is it fair to draw a parallel between gay rights and poly rights?
 
I think it may be more accurate to say that while poly/mono isn't innate the way that sexual orientation is, it's not a choice either. Perhaps it's more like being vegan or atheist. I became an atheist because I looked at the arguments for and against God and found the arguments lacking and found the ones arguing against God to be pretty good. I didn't choose to be an atheist, but I was faced with what seemed to me to be a truth I just couldn't deny. And I would assume a similar thing happens to people who decide to become vegan. It's just a realisation of something they can't deny.
 
Polyamory, as a term, is new. Poly relationships are not new, but have been surpressed if not oppressed, for a long time.

Sadly, that article promotes the usual misunderstanding of polyamory. It shows a male hand and 2 different women's hands, who seem to want to all marry each other.

Nothing new or particularly controversial about that! Polygyny is still quite common. It was only outlawed in the US back in the late 1800s, when Mormon men were marrying multiple wives, often against the womens' will.

As a poly woman, who is also bi, and was married monogamously for 30 years, I definitely felt oppressed by my culture at large, and husband specifically, for having feelings towards others (sexual or emotional). Heck, my ex was even jealous of my platonic girlfriends taking up my time.

The ability for women to have more than one male sexual partner in her life was suppressed and outlawed as far back as the time when society changed from horticultural to agricultural. Homosexuality was also suppressed in Hebrew culture as a means of encouraging reproduction. But in more secure cultures, such as large empires, Greece, Rome, homosexuality was seen as a good thing.

So you could say, the autonomy of women is linked to the taboo of polyamory, specifically one woman with more than one man. This has been going on for longer, worldwide, than the taboo of homosexuality.
 
I think it may be more accurate to say that while poly/mono isn't innate the way that sexual orientation is, it's not a choice either.

Whoa! That might be accurate for you, but not for every practicing polyamorist. For many, including myself, it is a practice and approach we consciously choose, even though we could also be perfectly happy to practice monogamy.
 
Whoa! That might be accurate for you, but not for every practicing polyamorist. For many, including myself, it is a practice and approach we consciously choose, even though we could also be perfectly happy to practice monogamy.

A bit of a misunderstanding here, I think.

I meant that I didn't choose to think that poly is acceptable. I just learned about it and realised that it made sense to me. I can't choose if something makes sense to me or not.

There are people out there who think that poly is just wrong and shoupld never happen. Could you "choose" to believe this? Do you think that those people could just "choose" to believe that poly is suddenly alright? In this sense it isn't a choice. That's what I was getting at.
 
I agree with the OP. While there are similarities between the two fights for acceptance, poly is starting way, way ahead. Homosexuality starting with people being killed over it, going to prison over it. This doesn't happen with polyamory. Homosexuality, when considered wrong, is usually considered wrong even when the person is single. Here again, no such problem with polyamorous people that I've ever been the target of.

I think the concepts are similar, of "let people have relationships with who they want, provided the other party feels the same way" but we don't need to defend our basic human rights the way gay people have.
 
but in terms of how we are treated

I do find a lot of parallels. For example, my lesbian sister has a trans boyfriend, and my parents fall all over themselves to welcome him into the family. I have been told that they are not interested in meeting my boyfriend, as I have a husband already, and that should be enough for anyone. (I should mention, my mother is a family therapist). My boyfriend is afraid to introduce me to his daughter, in case it got back to his ex-wife that he is dating someone who is poly. He is nervous that she might use that info to limit his access to his child. No, I haven't been beat up for being poly, but i do think there is a pretty intrinsic discrimination, that many people don't even question.
 
There are parts of the world where people, especially women, are still stoned to death for having multiple lovers. Those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones have their genitals mutilated and their faces melted with acid so that no one else will want them. There was a woman in Ontario who was killed by her own family (husband, father, brother) a few years ago, because they discovered she'd been having an affair. Granted, that's not "consensual polyamory," but it's hard to be open and honest with your husband when the reward is having your face melted off.

In the western world, I definitely think the discrimination against homosexuals is more widespread and violent than that against non-monogamists. However, that doesn't mean non-monos don't face discrimination. There are people who fear losing their kids, their jobs, their friends, all because they feel trapped by monogamy.

There are two levels of choice. There's the level of acting out on your desires, and then there's the level of having those desires in the first place. While I do agree that any of us can choose what relationships we form, and whether to form relationships that do not satisfy our desires, the same is true of homosexuals. Gays have been faking it with the perfect wife and white picket fence for longer than there have been white picket fences.

I can't choose to be fulfilled within the confines of monogamy any more than a gay man can choose to be fulfilled with a wife and two kids. I would prefer to choose no relationship at all over a monogamous relationship where I'm not free to express my desires.
 
I do find a lot of parallels. For example, my lesbian sister has a trans boyfriend, and my parents fall all over themselves to welcome him into the family. I have been told that they are not interested in meeting my boyfriend, as I have a husband already, and that should be enough for anyone. (I should mention, my mother is a family therapist). My boyfriend is afraid to introduce me to his daughter, in case it got back to his ex-wife that he is dating someone who is poly. He is nervous that she might use that info to limit his access to his child. No, I haven't been beat up for being poly, but i do think there is a pretty intrinsic discrimination, that many people don't even question.

Yes, I have seen some of that sort of behavior; It's just wrong and that's all there is too it!

I've seen many more detractors of polyamory instinctively make the comparison between homosexuality (marriage equality) and ethical non-monogamy. One famous quote sums it perfectly: "If you give a shit about the future, then yes, non-monogamy is wrong."

This person's implication was that non-monogamy is destructive to natural reproductive cycles (and to hell with what science has to say about mixing genes!) But he was also drawing a parallel between homosexuality - obviously two same-sex individuals generally will not naturally procreate. Of course this is a pretty sterile argument as there are things such as adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Furthermore, it's not anyone's responsibility to procreate.

I call those people moral imperialists - they want to impose responsibility onto everyone else for some strange reason.

There are parts of the world where people, especially women, are still stoned to death for having multiple lovers. Those are the lucky ones. The unlucky ones have their genitals mutilated and their faces melted with acid so that no one else will want them. There was a woman in Ontario who was killed by her own family (husband, father, brother) a few years ago, because they discovered she'd been having an affair. Granted, that's not "consensual polyamory," but it's hard to be open and honest with your husband when the reward is having your face melted off.

In the western world, I definitely think the discrimination against homosexuals is more widespread and violent than that against non-monogamists. However, that doesn't mean non-monos don't face discrimination. There are people who fear losing their kids, their jobs, their friends, all because they feel trapped by monogamy.

There are two levels of choice. There's the level of acting out on your desires, and then there's the level of having those desires in the first place. While I do agree that any of us can choose what relationships we form, and whether to form relationships that do not satisfy our desires, the same is true of homosexuals. Gays have been faking it with the perfect wife and white picket fence for longer than there have been white picket fences.

I can't choose to be fulfilled within the confines of monogamy any more than a gay man can choose to be fulfilled with a wife and two kids. I would prefer to choose no relationship at all over a monogamous relationship where I'm not free to express my desires.

My stepbrother came out as gay just before I came out as poly. He comes from a very religious community and his wife + her entire family showed just how horrible they could be.

The thing that struck me the most was the total disregard for HIS wellbeing. They didn't care that he's been suffering with severe anxiety and depression for nearly a decade due to this struggle. All they cared about was their flaming idiotic standards and ideals.

One thing I cannot stand are those people who put their notions of what "God wants" before all else. As if it is their job to enforce what god wants.
 
This person's implication was that non-monogamy is destructive to natural reproductive cycles (and to hell with what science has to say about mixing genes!) But he was also drawing a parallel between homosexuality - obviously two same-sex individuals generally will not naturally procreate. Of course this is a pretty sterile argument as there are things such as adoption, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Furthermore, it's not anyone's responsibility to procreate.

Right. Because the human species is facing a dire risk of running out of babies any time soon.

Oh sorry. We're just at risk of running out of "the right kind" of babies. That is, perfect little white Christian ones. No loss, if you ask me.

I mean, that argument may have held some weight some, oh, 3,000,000 years ago when humans were spread out and tribes were limited to 20-30 people over several thousand acres. But seriously... gay is wrong because we need more humans?
 
Yeah, the children argument is one of the most stupid ones. If two people of the same sex shouldn't get married because they can't procreate, why was it legal for my grandfather to remarry, when his second wife was way past menopause? And should people take tests before they get married to make sure they're not sterile, in which case the right would be removed? What about people who don't want children, are they not allowed to get married either?

All these people are allowed to marry even though they can't or won't have children. So quite obviously, being able to marry has nothing to do with whether you can have children or not.

Not to mention in the US, adoption by same sex parent is allowed in many places where marriage isn't. So the people who want to get married, in many cases, already have children. I fail to see how it's good for the children that their parents aren't allowed to get married.
 
I would definitely say that gays have it worse than polys, however I'm just as sure that polys experience persecution which, while not on average being as severe as anti-gay persecution, is certainly comparable to anti-gay persecution in the sense that it is fundamentalists' way of trying to pressure people into living the "right" way (that is, as red-blooded God-fearing church-attending heterosexual monogamists).

It would be an overstatement to say that poly is the "new gay." First of all because gay people's struggle for rights and equality is far from over (e.g. especially in Russia and parts of Africa, and same-sex marriage is a major legal and ideological battleground in the U.S.). But it does seem likely that once gay people do have their due rights, then the fight for poly rights will be next on the agenda. And I suppose there'll be (or rather already is) some overlap between the two battles.

Note that when (I'm an optimist) poly marriage is legalized, many poly people will decline to take advantage of it, because it's not their style to cement themselves that much to a particular poly partner. Though we (read: we = our great-great grandkids maybe) may also see a complexification in marital law where people have more options as to which and how many ties a given marriage will entail.

Just some thoughts,
Kevin T.
 
Even though I'm poly, I disagree with legalizing multiple marriages. It would provide advantages to poly people that are not allocated to mono people. For example, having multiple people on your health insurance, receiving multiple tax breaks, etc. I would prefer to see the abolishment of marriage as a legal institution, allocating no special legal rights to people just because they live together and/or signed some paperwork. Then poly people and mono people alike are free to live with and commit to whomever they wish, without any other members of society paying an extra premium for their life choices.

Even though I enjoy the tax benefits and free dental care provided by being married to someone with health insurance through his job (being Canadian, I already have free basic health coverage), I fully acknowledge that it's basically bullshit. I'm not the one who works there, why should I get the health insurance? And why should single hard-working citizens pay "more" tax than my husband just because they aren't married to someone who's making crap wages as a grad student? He's basically getting paid to invest in my future earning potential.

The underlying assumption for declaring your unemployed spouse as a deduction is that they're home with your kids. I don't have kids, and many people who claim this deduction do not have underage kids either. Meanwhile, the people who could really use that tax break, i.e. single parents and minimum-wage earning young bachelors, are not getting much help at all. Where's the logic there?

The difference with gay people is that they just want what everyone else has: the right to marry the one person they choose to marry and claim them on their taxes and/or health insurance.
 
I'd be fine with each person being only allowed to have one person on their health insurance. However, if you can add unlimited kids, it seems weird that you could only add a single adult. But sure.

I think the health system is completely broken in many countries. Everyone should have health coverage, employed or not. Until it works that way, though, being able to add someone is definitely helpful for people who are unemployed or homemakers (with or without children). I would be in support of it having nothing to do with marriage, so that you could have a friend on your health insurance for instance, while your spouse is on their own because they have one too.

If I could marry a second person, though, I have to be honest, I couldn't care less about things like health insurance. I don't need to be on two people's health insurance (or three if I include my own). But allowing my partners to visit me at the hospital, giving them the right to speak for me, that kind of things, that would definitely be nice. I'm fine with creating contracts for that replacing marriage, but I think people would probably still call them marriages.
 
While I am part of the "identity" camp, I don't want to speak for those among our number who are in the "choice" camp.

Part of my realization as a bisexual woman was realizing that I was in complete denial of my sexual identity because I was a serial monogamist with many long-term relationships with men. Coming to terms with my ability to have romantic/sexual attraction, intense emotional connections, and even love for multiple people helped me come to terms with my bisexuality.

I don't think polyamory is a direct comparison, because we are not a targeted minority for persecution; and I think this is mostly because many of us can "pass" because of the heterosexuals and bisexuals among us.

I think SchrodingersCat has a good point about stoning, but I wanted to elaborate a bit further: how many times have you had the "cheating" accusation thrown at you from people who don't understand polyamorous relationships? I have had this accusation thrown at me from homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Living with a third adult when you are married is illegal in most parts of the country, even though it isn't enforced. I agree that we don't have it nearly as bad as other minorities. I wouldn't even go so far to say that we are a persecuted minority. But I am very concerned with the laws on the books that make parts of poly life illegal.

My fiance wants to get into politics, and he's not a die-hard liberal. Let's be honest, there are plenty of journalists on both sides of the aisles who would love to ruin a politician's career if they aren't heteronormative and entirely liberal.

I want to have the conversation about polyfidelity, multiple marriages, in the terms of marriage equality. To date, none of my liberal, LGBT-friendly friends and acquaintances will even have that conversation. I don't care about tax breaks and insurance benefits. I'm okay with having one spouse benefit from those things. I just want it to be legal for multiple people to marry, and for it to not be illegal for poly folks to live with their lovers or spouses. I want poly folks to be able to visit their spouses in the hospital, to have funerary rights, not to worry about losing parental custody, etc.
 
Re:
"I just want it to be legal for multiple people to marry, and for it to not be illegal for poly folks to live with their lovers or spouses. I want poly folks to be able to visit their spouses in the hospital, to have funerary rights, not to worry about losing parental custody, etc."

Right on.
 
Back
Top