<center>mY bLoG & i</center>

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

A Growing Family Denied Their Rights

People in polyamorous relationships are everywhere, as are people in consanguinamorous relationships, though consanguinamorists are usually closeted. Fortunately, some are willing to be interviewed for this blog. And sometimes, people in what amounts to a polyamorous consanguinamorous marriage are willing to be interviewed. As a result, Full Marriage Equality has featured scores of exclusive interviews with lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are, by law, denied the freedom to marry and have that marriage treated equally under the law.

The people interviewed below should be free to decide whether or not to legally marry, yet they could be harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, and stripped of their children if they were open about their love. They are consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone; why should they be denied their rights? In much of the world, including all but a couple of US states, they could be criminally prosecuted for their love.

Read the interview below and see for yourself what she has to say. You may think this relationship is interesting, or it might make you uncomfortable, or you might find it ideal, but whatever your reaction, should these lovers be denied equal access to marriage or any other rights? Please note that as usual, names have been changed to prevent the innocent from being persecuted.

*****

FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe yourselves.

Tabitha: The three of us live together in a city in the UK at the moment, although ethnically, I am from Eastern Europe. I moved here as a child. I'm working in an office not far from our home.

My partners are a British couple, and while Natalie is a stay at home mother, John works at the same place as me.

They are the only siblings of their family, and I am an only child. They currently have a 7-year-old son, 5-year-old daughter and twin 1-year-olds. I'm pregnant with my first child, by John. John is 29. Natalie and I are both 27.

FME: Are you married or have you ever been legally and/or ceremonially married?

Tabitha: None of us have had any kind of wedding, but we'd definitely like to have one in the future. We are, however, 'living as married' and have exchanged promise rings together. There was no ceremony, though.

FME: How would you describe your gender(s)? How would you describe your sexual orientation and your relationship orientation... are you heterosexual, bisexual, what? Are you a monogamist, polyamorist, or....?

Tabitha: I'm a pansexual, panromantic, polyamorist cisgender woman.

Natalie: I'm a bisexual, biromantic, cisgender woman. I originally believed I was monogamous, but I'm in a polyamorous relationship. I don't think I would be with anyone else though, so I consider myself flexibly monogamous, willing to make exceptions.

John: I'm straight, cis, poly.

FME: You currently live with...?

Tabitha: Each other, as well as their children.

FME: This is a polyamorous triad between a woman and a brother and sister? Are the brother and sister full blood siblings, half siblings, adopted siblings, or stepsiblings?

Natalie: We're full blooded siblings, raised together from birth.

FME: What was your childhood like? What was family life like? Were alternative lifestyles/sex discussed in your family, and if so, how? Can you describe your sexual awakening? When and how did you realize your sexual orientation? Is polyamory your relationship orientation or simply a preference or just something that works with the three of you?

Tabitha: I think my childhood was relatively normal, besides being a foreign child. I grew up with both my parents and they were reasonably open about sex and lifestyles, in the respect that they answered any questions I raised and supported me when I was questioning/coming out, though I don't really recall the details. I'm polyamorous as an orientation.

Natalie: We were also raised by our parents, but they were very religious and conservative. When we began exploring with one another in our early teens, we kept it under wraps. I think our sexual awakenings took place during the early stages of our exploration, but I didn't realize I was bisexual, and my brother not realize he was polyamorous, until much later, as adults.

In my case, polyamory isn't an orientation, and only works with my current partners. However, everyone else here is polyamorous as an orientation.

FME: When/how did sexual affection become a part of your relationship(s)? How did this triad form?

Natalie: My brother and I have been active and exploring sexually since we were young. It was a process that led to us falling in romantic love, too. Later, when he wanted to explore with polyamory, unsure of his relationship orientation, I was hesitant, but agreed so long as he was okay with me exploring my bisexuality, which I was unsure of at the time. In our case, there was no clear initiator, but within the triad, I would say my brother initiated, as he began exploring with his friend Tabitha and later invited her to join us, then we all began dating.

FME: Can you describe your feelings during those processes and events?

Tabitha: It was a happy time for me, as I'd had a crush on John, my long term friend, for awhile, and while I hadn't met his sister yet, I knew I was polyamorous and pansexual, so it was good to get to date him, and to explore properly for the first time since coming out.

Natalie: I was nervous at first, but became happier as I became more comfortable. It was confusing to start exploring more, but it was also pretty exciting.

John: Difficult to describe, but looking back, I think it was a wonderful time.

FME: Before this had you ever thought this would be possible or enjoyable; did you have any opinion one way or the other about close relatives or family members being together?

Natalie: I never considered it possible prior to beginning a relationship, sexual and later romantic, with my brother. We were conservatively raised and the subject was kept away from us. I don't recall feelings for other relatives.

John: No, I didn't think about it, but now I think if I had, we would have been together sooner. Don't think I could feel this way or do this with any other members of our family, though.

FME: How do you describe the sex/lovemaking now? Taboo? Natural? Especially erotic?

Natalie: To me, it feels very natural, as though we fit together perfectly. Perhaps that's just because I've been with my brother for so long though.

John: I agree. It's also special though, in a way I can't really describe.

FME: Is sex or sleeping arrangements generally scheduled? If it happens unscheduled, is there someone who usually initiates more than the others? Is the sex and/or sleeping arrangements always, sometimes, or never one-on-one?

Tabitha: Sometimes scheduled, sometimes not. Natalie is the general initiator out of all of us, but when it's just me and John, he tends to initiate. Again, sometimes it's one-on-one, sometimes not.

We all share a bed every night regardless of sex. Unless one of the children is ill or can't sleep or needs to be with a parent.

FME: Describe your relationship now. Is this a marriage, a union, girlfriends and boyfriend, what? Are the siblings more like spouses or siblings-with-benefits or something else? Do the siblings see each other as family or lovers, or are those two roles inseparable at this point?

Tabitha: We're not married, but we are cohabiting and our relationship is spousal. John and Natalie have been together since early teen years. I joined them 8 years ago, and now we all live together.

Natalie: I think that the roles are inseparable, since we've been family and lovers for such a long time.

John: Agreed.

FME: Is this triad closed or are there any of you open to new partners?

Tabitha: Our relationship is closed.

FME: Does anyone in your life know the full, true nature of your relationship and how did they find out? How have they reacted? What kind of steps, if any, have you had to take to keep your privacy?

Tabitha: The three of us are all fully out to each other, our parents, and the children only in order to protect ourselves. My parents were wonderfully supportive, although unfortunately my mother passed away recently, but my father continues to support us.

To protect ourselves, John and Natalie's children, who, at home, refer to us all as their parents, refer to me as their mother and Natalie as their aunt in public, such as when we go to pick them up from school, etc. It makes it easier as they look related, and "incest" isn't legal here. And technically, it's true.

FME: Having to hide the full nature of your relationship from some people can be a disadvantage. Can you describe how that has been? Are there any other disadvantages? Conversely, do you think polyamorous and/or consanguineous relationships have some advantages and some things better than unrelated lovers or monogamy?

Tabitha: The discrimination and lack of ability to marry and to all be recognized as parents as we're raising children together are disadvantages, but other than that, I'd say it's an equal relationship to any other. It's down to orientation and/or choice.

Natalie: I do think there's an added bonus to the sibling relationship, but not really in a way I can describe.

John: Having a poly relationship does feel like I have double love. And being with my sister is of course special.

FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship? What's your reply to those who would say that this is one of you preying on the others (and that you can’t truly consent)?

Tabitha: I'd like to ask people for a true reason. All the reasons I've heard against polyamory and consanguinamory have been biased and badly backed up. I'd like an actual, intellectual debate for once, rather than someone repeating their argument that "it's immoral."

Natalie: I don't think my relationship is anything to do with anyone else, so I'd like to tell them to mind their own business.

John: Agreed. We hurt no one.

FME: How are the children?

Natalie: Our children are all perfectly healthy.

FME: What would you say to something who says polyamorous people or siblings shouldn't be allowed to have children?

Tabitha: Why not? Who is it hurting? John and Natalie's children, also in a way my children, and my unborn baby are all so far healthy, so who are we hurting? The only people who shouldn't be allowed to have children are those who abuse them.

FME: Aside from the law, which I think is ridiculous, can you think of anything that would make relationships like this inherently wrong?

Tabitha: No, nothing.

FME: If you could get legally married, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you? Or is this a different kind of relationship than that?

Tabitha: Considering that our relationship is already spousal, I think marriage would be the final wonderful thing to cement our relationship.

John: Yes, I'd want to marry them both.

FME: What advice do you have for someone who wants to be with two siblings? What advice do you have for someone who may be experiencing these feelings for a relative or family member, especially a sibling?

Tabitha: Talk to them about it, and don't let society put you off. Just explain your feelings as you would with a normal crush and take it from there.

FME: What advice do you have for someone who thinks they might be polyamorous or thinks they want a polyamorous relationship? What advice do you have for family members and friends who think or know that relatives they know are having these feelings for each other?

Tabitha: Explore if you need to to discover your relationship orientation. As for knowing about someone else's consanguineous feelings, leave them be and they'll come out to you when they're ready. Please don't make them feel uncomfortable by bringing it up prematurely.

FME: Have you met in-person or do you know anyone else who has experience with consanguinamory or consanguineous sex that you know of? Would you like to join a free online forum where you can remain anonymous and discussing things with others involved in consanguinamory?

Natalie I've never met any other families like ours, and I'm glad safe communities for them exist, but I'm quite private and would prefer not to discuss our relationship often. I may check the forum out and see though.

John: Apparently, I'm a "technophobe," so I probably won't join the forum or anything, but I have spoken a couple of times with an acquaintance who was involved with a relative.

FME: Any plans for the future?

Tabitha: Well, we'll see once the baby is born, but for now, just continuing with our lives I imagine.

*****

Clearly, these lovers are consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, living as though they are married, and yet they have to stay closeted and can't even exercise their basic human right to marry, even though they are living as spouses and raising children.. They are happy and in love, yet they are denied that fundamental right to marry.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to recognize that all adults should be free to be with any and all consenting adults as they mutually consent, and part of doing that is adopting relationship rights for all, including full marriage equality sooner rather than later. People are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here. As you'll see, there are people from all walks of life who are in consanguinamorous relationships.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.
If you want to be interviewed about your "forbidden" relationship, connect with me by checking under the "Get Connected" tab there at the top of the page or emailing me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com.

If you are concerned about pregnancies between close relatives, read this.If you know someone who is in a relationship like this, please read this.

Thank you to Tabitha, Natalie, and John for doing this interview! We wish you well in your polyamorous consanguinamorous marriage and your parenthood.

Hong Kong Still Prosecuting Comsenting Adults

Jane analyzes a criminal case against adults for having sex. If one person was victimized by the other, why would both be prosecuted? Assualt should bring very tough sentences. Consensual affection should not be a matter for law enforcement.

I believe I am a true mango lover! I love mangoes in all shapes and forms: raw, ripe, cut, curried, juiced... Pretty much anything.Check out some of my mango recipes on my blog: During summer it is nice not to slave at the stove, to sit down on the terrace in the evening and enjoy the view. I made this mango salsa the other day to go with some leftover tortilla chips. This is very simple and easy to make and will vanish right in front of you. It is a perfect dish for your table during BBQ parties or to bring it to one.

Do try it before mango season is done!

Servings: 3-4

Prep time: 5-10 mins Cook time: 0Total time: 5-10 mins

Ingredients:

Ripe Mango, chopped : 2 cups

Onion, finely chopped: 1/4 cup

Chopped Bell pepper/capsicum: 1/4 cup.

Tomato, chopped fine: 1/2 cup

Green chilli: 1 small, finely chopped( you may deseed the chilli if you don't want it to be spicy).

Cilantro, finely chopped: 2 tbsp

Lemon juice: 1 tbsp, can be adjusted based on taste.

Sea salt: 1/8 tsp

Honey: 1/2 tsp

Method:

Add all the above ingredients to a bowl. Mix thoroughly.

Refrigerate until ready to use.

Serve chilled.

Cooking made easy:

If you have a party, you can make salsa like this the day before so that you are not stressed on the day of.

You can vary the amount of lemon juice and honey based on how sweet the mango is and how you like your salsa: more sweet or more tangy.

Tip for healthy living:

Freshly made salsas are much better than store bought ones. Use produce that is in season for the salsa. These are much fresher than produce that is not in season.

Food for thought:

If you do wrong and try to prove you are right, TIME will smile at your foolishness.

Being Consanguinamorous After Abuse

As the title of this entry indicates, abuse will be discussed, so if that is likely to be a problem for you, please skip to another entry.

Some people in consanguinamorous relationships were previously abused. So were some of the people in relationships that aren’t consanguinamorous or who are in no relationship at all.

Sadly, some people try to dismiss the love, happiness, comfort, and ecstasy someone has found in a consanguinamorous relationship with a statement like "You're just doing this because you were abused." This is cruel and attempts to rip away something that is very often a healing experience and the best relationship someone will ever have.

Many people who were never abused get into consanguinamorous relationships, so the generalization doesn’t work.

These statements come from people who are biased against consanguinamory, and this can be demonstrated. You never ever hear people say, "Oh, you're just getting into a monogamous heterosexual marriage with that person of the same race who is about your age that you met a couple of years ago... because you were abused!!!" They disapprove of the kind of the relationship and they try to attribute someone getting into one to their being abused. They assert that there must be something wrong if someone else doesn’t want the same thing as they say they want. Whether it is asexuality, being gay, interracial relationships, adult intergenerational relationships, polyamorous relationships, open marriage, or consanguinamorous relationships, if it isn’t what they feel or do or want then it has to be wrong or the result of something bad. This is very narrow thinking.

Yes, some people get with people all wrong for them. That happens to people who haven't been abused, too. Each relationship has to be evaluated independently. There’s no good reason to dismiss all consanguinamorous relationships as bad. Some are clearly the best possible thing for all involved and very healthy and happy.

But even in situations where it is likely that at least part of the reason someone has entered into their relationship was because of being abused in the past, so what? Consanguinamorous relationships often provide a basis of existing bonds and trust, and if that is what someone needs, why try to deprive them of it? There are people who sleep with a night light because of a fear of the dark. Do you obsess over getting them to stop that? No, because they can live a full life and there's nothing wrong with them having a night light.

A woman who was abused as a child can pick her job, and her home, and whether or not to join the military or take out a loan, and she can decide for herself what she's going to do with her time, heart, and body. If she can pick a stranger for a date, or a friend to start a romance she should likewise be free to choose a close relative to be a lover. She can’t erase the past. What matters is what she is doing now, and as we’ve pointed out before, consanguinamorous relationships are not inherently abusive. (This applies regardless of gender.)

There's a lot of abuse out there. One of the reasons we want consanguinamory decriminalized where it still against the law because we believe it will be easier to prevent abuse and prosecute abusers if love and recreation between adults isn’t criminalized.

Nobody should put up with being abused. Dependent children and dependent elderly or disabled often have no choice, so it is up to others to stand up for them. If you are being abused, which can include, among other things, pushing, shoving, slapping, hitting, kicking, stomping, hair pulling, scratching, arm twisting, choking, biting, physical restraint, them putting any part of their body inside any part of yours (I’m talking about against your will, not as part of mutual sex play), remove yourself (and any other potential or actual victim) immediately. Nothing matters more than life. I’m not talking about if you’ve gotten into a mutual fight and you slapped the other person and they slapped you back and it was an incident, not a pattern. An escalating pattern is a major red flag, about the biggest there can be.

If the relationship you’re in now is not abusive, then whether or not you were abused before shouldn’t mean you should not have your relationship. If someone treats you right, if you are basically compatible, and you’ve mutually agreed to your relationship, nobody else should try to stop you from sharing your love and finding your happiness.

People who insist monogamy is the only acceptable relationship model, or that polyamorists should not have the same rights for their relationships as monogamists, almost always cite a few often-repeated reasons as to why. If you're polyamorous, you’ve probably heard most of these reasons, whether from coworkers, family, or complete strangers. Although I’m going to focus on polyamorous relationships, most of these are also applicable to open relationships, swinging, swapping, nonmonogamous sex, and ethical nonmonogamy in general whether the people involved identify as polyamorous or not.

Just about any objection people have to polyamory or other forms of ethical nonmonogamy fit into these common arguments, perhaps with different wording. Just so that you know, when I use the term “polygamy” I am referring to a subset of polyamory that involves marriage (whether by law, ceremony, or declaration of those involved), involving three or more spouses, whatever the structure of the relationship or the genders involved, as long as all involved are consenting adults.

1. “It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argumentwould not want to have a polyamorous relationship, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from having a polyamorous relationship. Some people are disgusted by the idea of heterosexual sex, or their own parents having sex, but obviously this is not a justification to ban those things. Obviously, the consenting adults who want a polyamorous relationship aren’t disgusted by it. An effective response to this is “Don’t want a polyamorous relationship? Don’t have one.”

2. “Not a lot of people want to do it”or “I don’t want to do it.” This is not a justification for continuing discrimination. We don’t deny minorities rights based on majority vote. Also, people would be surprised to know just how many people around them are in, or want to be in, or have been in, a polyamorous relationship or one that is forbidden by law or discriminated against, despite being between consenting adults. This is also one of those where an anti-polyamory person should be reassured that they don’t have to have a polyamorous relationship.

3. “It goes against tradition.” This should draw something along the lines, of “So did the abolition of slavery and allowing women to vote.” In reality, polyamory is nothing new. Anyone who has a cursory understanding of history or anthropology knows this. This argument may be phrased as something like “It’s not the way things are supposed to be” or even “It’s against the law” or “It is unsupported by the law.” Don’t let someone get away with that. It is precisely the matter in dispute: the law should not discriminate against polyamory.

4. “My religion is against it.” To this I again say, “If you don’t want a polygamous marriage or a polyamorous relationship, then don’t have one.” But we should all have the freedoms of religion and association, as I am supposed to have under the US Constitution.

5. “It's not natural." Many people have been embarrassed by making this argument, because it is so easy to refute by a cursory survey of sexual, mating, and partnering habits of various animals. But invariably, the person saying that a relationship should not be allowed because they think it is unnatural constantly enjoys things that aren’t natural, from their smart phones to their toiletries to their food to their clothing to their transportation to their housing… on and on it goes.

6. “Your relationship will hurt children.” This is usually said by people who themselves hurt children by denying rights to the parents of those children and telling the children that their parents are wrong for loving each other, perpetuating a stigma about the children and their families. A good response is “Don’t want children of these relationships to be hurt? Then stop hurting their families.”

Adults having a relationship with each other, adults reproducing together, and adults raising children together are three different things. Adults can do any one of those without doing the other two, or any two of those without doing the third. Or, to put it another way, we’re talking about sex, relationships, and marriage, not about reproduction or adoption or parenting.

We don’t deny people their right to be together because they can’t or won’t reproduce. We don’t deny people their right to be together because they won’t be good candidates for adoption. We don’t test people on their parenting skills before we allow them to marry, but if we did, a lot of the prejudiced people who want to deny rights to others would fail, while many people who are still fighting for their relationship rights would pass with flying colors.

So this reason to oppose equality already fails. But for the sake of argument let’s assume there will be children. A polyamorous relationship generally means a child is going to have more supervision and additional role models in a cooperative environment. How is that bad, especially in comparison to “monogamous” parents who had a contentious divorce and now have brought stepparents into the situation?

It is legal to reproduce and raise children alone, or with others in the home who aren't monogamous spouses. In many places, a woman can live with both fathers of her children, but can't legally marry both even though that is what everyone wants. Why deny polyamorous people protections, including marriage?

Anti-equality people may try to claim that a study shows children from polygynousfamilies have "considerably lower" survival rates, but the data is from nineteenth century frontier areas of the US and places in Africa where diseases and genocide are significant problems. The study doesn’t address polyandry, same-gender polygamy, polygamy consisting or multiple men and women, and other forms of polyamory. The other claim is that adolescent boys are driven from polygynous (again, just polygynous and not any other form of polyamory) societies, but again, they are citing communities with a monolithic patriarchal religious culture that only allow a specific form of polygyny. It’s akin to banning sports because Lance Armstrong cheated.

There are children being raised right now by people who want to get married, and yet are denied their right to marry.

7. “What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” What's wrong with letting consenting adults have the freedom to love each other as they want and agree? Who has a problem with that? Rather than coming up with convoluted schemes for which groups of people will get which rights, why not support the rights of all adults?

8. “Polyamorous relationships are not the same thing as same-gender marriage.” So what? We’re talking about consenting adults who want to be together, and there’s no good reason to stop them. Some same-gender relationships and marriages are polyamorous. A man should not only be able to marry another man, but two or more other men.

Strictly speaking, whether a marriage is same-gender or heterosexual isa different category than whether it is monogamous or polygamous. Some heterosexual marriages are monogamous, some are polygamous. Some same-gender marriages are monogamous, some are polygamous. Bisexuals may be in monogamous marriages or polygamous marriages. That monogamous/polygamous is a different category from heterosexual/same-gender is not a justification to deny the freedom to marry to consenting adults, or deny them marriage equality. Relationship rights belong to all adults.

It should be noted that when there is a polyamorous relationship, whether a "V" or a triad or more, chances are that at least two of the people involved are the same gender, even if they are no more than metamours to each other.

Something does not have to be immutable or inborn, like sexual orientation, to be legal. However, there are people who are obviously unable to be monogamous, to the point of being willing to suffer loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of wealth, and figurative and literal loss of life, and they should not promise monogamy nor be pressured to pretend to be monogamous. Some people simply are polyamorous.

That a polygamous marriage are not the same thing as same-gender marriage does not explain why there are still laws against them or a lack of relationship protections in the law.

9. “They’re abusive.” Polyamorous relationships are notinherently abusive. It is the abusive relationships in general that are more likely to make news, or come to the attention of therapists or law enforcement. There are many people in polyamorous relationships that are lasting, happy, healthy relationships.

Abusive people are the cause of abuse, not a relationship or marriage. There are many monogamous relationships and marriages in which someone is abused. We have several examples showing that outlawing or discriminating against consensual behavior correlates to an increase in problems as people try to avoid law enforcement or other authorities, or neighborhood disapproval. Recognizing that adults should be free to have their relationships will most certainly reduce abuse, as abuse victims can go to the authorities with much less fear. So the solution isn’t the status quo, it is in bringing the relationships out of the shadows, allowing them to be protected and made official, and prosecuting abusers. Abuse victims will be much more forthcoming.

10. “This oppresses women.” This may also be posited as “No sane woman would want this.” Well, yes, there are sane, intelligent, confident women who do want and enjoy polyamorous relationships, and some specifically enjoy polygynous ones, just as there are men and women who enjoy polyandrous relationships. 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.

In most places, 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 being together or marrying.

11. “Polyamory spreads sexually transmitted infections.” Unprotected sex with someone who is infected is how such infections may be transmitted. Twenty people could have a polyamorous relationship for fifty years and if none of them brings an infection into the mix and they only have sex with each other, none of them will get a sexually transmitted infection.

We do not deny people their freedom to marry or other relationship rights based on which diseases they have. Polyamorous peopletend to be more careful about prevention, safer sex, and actually talking about the issues involved.

12. “It will be a legal and paperwork nightmare as our system is set up for couples.” That’s what bigots have said about any civil rights laws. Of course it is easier for those who already have what they want to keep things as they are. But what about all of the people who are denied their rights?

Adopting the polygamous freedom to marry under full marriage equality will take much less adjustment than adopting many other laws necessary to for equal protection and civil rights. Contract and business law already provides adaptable examples of how law can accommodate configurations involving three or more people, including when someone joins an existing relationship or leaves a relationship.

13. “What about child custody and child support?” This is an especially flimsy objection to the polygamous freedom to marry. As we have noted before, adult relationships don't always involve raising children. Even so, nonmonogamous relationships between adults who are parents have always existed, and in most places, it isn't criminal to be nonmonogamous. So this issue is already being handled. Notice we could ask the same question about children from one night stands, donated sperm, surrogate mothers, affairs, brief flings, or supposedly monogamous relationships and marriages that end. What about children born to a woman whose husband wasn’t the man who impregnated her? All of these situations are entirely legal in most places. A mediator, arbitrator, or court decides custody and child support disputes that aren’t resolved amicably. That would still be the case if polyamorous relationships had legal protections, including marriage.

14. “This will cause inheritance disputes.” This can’t be a reason for the continued denial of the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry. Again, if we're talking about children, not all polyamorous marriages will have children. But even with today’s restriction of monogamy-only for marriage, we see inheritance disputes all of the time. Widows and widowers who were married only once get in fights with their own children, who may fight with each other. Then, in some cases, there are children born outside of that marriage. There’s divorce and remarriage with or without stepchildren or making more children, there are people who were never married who have kids, there are childless people whose inheritances are disputed, "monogamous" and polyamorous people who had children with multiple people without having been married to any those partners, on and on it goes. If anything, legalizing polygamy would make it easier to sort out inheritance. There can be default rules in the law, and people can come up with their own documented, legal agreements.

15. “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? This is something the law and/or employers and unions can figure out.

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 polygyny 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, where I live, are getting married for the first time later than ever, and 2) Crime rates in the US have decreased.

17. “You can only love one person at a time.” What a sad world this would be if that statement as true for everyone! Many people throughout history have proven they can love more than one person at a time. If the person objecting to the polyamorous relationship feels they can’t love more than one person a time, that is their own limitation and it doesn’t necessarily apply to anyone else. Any parent who has more than one child knows they can love more than one person in much the same way at the same time.

18. "You'll change when you find the right person. Then you'll settle down and be monogamous." My mother thinks I'm just going through a phase. I point out to her that I'm am quite settled down in the sense that I have a very stable life, I'm mostly happy with the way it is, and I have no intention of making major changes to my life. I work, I pay my bills, I love and am loved, I have great friendships, I try to do right and be kind, and I try to be a good neighbor and citizen. There are people much older than me who are "settled down" and are polyamorous. Many of them have found the right person. And another right person, or two. I try to explain it to my mother this way: she has more than one close friend who has been with her through the good times and the bad. Does that mean she hasn't found the "right person" to be her friend? Certainly not! As for my father, he leaves it at "Your love life is not mine. You're the one who has to live with what you do and who you bring into your life." I'm fortunate. It is terrible that some parents literally shun their children for being poly.

19. “I’m polyamorous, and I don’t want to get legally married.” There are some polyamorists who do not want to get legally married, and various reasons are cited. There are also polyamorists, like others, who say marriage shouldn’t be a matter of law at all. To this I say “As long as marriage or some form of personal union is legally sanctioned, it should not be denied to polyamorists who want such a union.”

There’s no reason to deny polyamorists the same protections given to monogamists. Prejudiced discrimination should be eliminated so that adults are not discouraged from having the relationships in which they best function; the relationships they want and mutually build. The more that polyamorists and their allies are able and willing to answer questions and concerns from others, the faster this will happen.

Tell Your Story

Are you, or have you ever been, in a “forbidden” consensual relationship?

Is one of your parents, children, or other family members in such a relationship, or have they been?

Are you the adult child of such a relationship, whether you were a biological child, adopted, or stepchild?

If you can say "yes" to one or more of those questions, I’d like to interview you. It doesn’t matter if the relationship is/was very casual, is a serious lifelong relationship, or somewhere between.

What qualifies as “forbidden?” While most of my interviews printed on the blog so far have been with people in consanguinamorous (consensual incest) relationships, I’m also interested in any consensual adult relationships that are forbidden by law, custom, tradition, community, or family and/or is subject to discrimination. This includes, but isn’t necessarily limited to, relationships with someone who is from an older or younger (adult) generation, or from a different race; gay or lesbian relationships; open relationships or marriages, relationships that include swinging, swapping, group, or polyamorous relationships; polygamous relationships or marriages, plural marriages, polyandry, or polygyny; and relationships often perceived as incestuous, such as between cousins, or Genetic Sexual Attraction relationships, or being with a close blood, step, adoptive, or in-law relative.

I’d like to interview you and publish the interview on my blog, and I can do so while protecting your anonymity.

What you get in return:

1. Loads of cash. Well, no, not really. I don’t accept funding for this blog and I won’t pay for participation. Sorry. This blog is a labor of love in every sense of the word. Also, I want people who just want to sincerely share their experiences, not someone who is will sensationalize for cash.

2. The satisfaction of knowing you are making a difference in the lives of many people around the world. People are relieved to read of other experiences like their own, and those who wonder about these relationships come away a little more enlightened.

3. Being able to tell of your relationship and experiences to someone who supports your rights and respects you.

4. A link to a website or profile of yours, depending on privacy issues.

The best way to contact me is via email. Check the Get Connected tab at the top of the screen or write me a fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com.

We Get Letters

Anonymous left a heart-warming comment after one of our most popular entries.

My brother and I have been together for 7 years. we love each other very much and we take very good care of our children. my oldest boy's dad abandoned us when he was small and my brother took over as his father figure. He is a wonderful guy and I can't imagine being with anyone else. Our family was not supportive at first. However, they have come around. We have a few friends that know, but for the most part, we just keep it to ourselves and everyone thinks that were married because we have the same last name.

Isn't it outrageous that in many places, they could still be imprisoned and the children taken away, just because they've formed a wonderful family against arbitrary, discriminatory laws?

We hope to hear more from Anonymous. If you want to share your story, you can do so by commenting below (you can be anonymous) or by emailing fullmarriageequality at Protonmail dot com knowing we'll never share more about you than you want. Your privacy is respected.

Are schools really being swept up in a "drug epidemic"? Have things really changed since we were teens?

Earlier this week the Herald Sun published an article titled 'Victorian schools swept up in drug epidemic as hundreds of children struggle with addiction'. Not surprisingly it attracted a great deal of attention, being picked up by most media outlets across the country, with radio and TV jumping onto the story very quickly. It came out just after I had written a blog on the fact that fewer Australian teens reported drinking alcohol (which some people refused to believe was true) and fed right into the belief of some that if indeed young people were drinking less then that had to be due to the fact that they were simply now using more illicit drugs (something that is not supported by the data that we have ...)

So what about this story and the fact that according to the Herald Sun (and I would presume data they received from Victoria Police), police "have been called to investigate more than 450 drug offences on school grounds, or at school events, since January 2014" - what does that actually mean? Do the figures that were provided to the paper really mean that Victorian schools are being 'swept up in a drug epidemic'?

Now, before I get into what these figures may or may not mean, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that we don't have a problem with illicit drugs in schools. As the Education Department spokesman Alex Munro is quoted as saying in the story - "Our schools are a reflection of our communities, and unfortunately, the problems that we see in our community sometimes affect our schools." It's a great quote and he's absolutely right - illicit drugs continue to be a problem in our society and it's no surprise that illicit drugs can be found in schools. That said, does the data provided in this story support the notion that Victorian schools are being swept up in a "drug epidemic"? Absolutely not! If that was the case we'd be seeing many other indicators such as increasing number of young people being hospitalised, more drug-related deaths amongst our teens, rising youth crime rates and sky-rocketing drug arrests and charges amongst our school-based youth. If any of this was happening I am sure the Herald Sun would be the first to let us know about it!

All the data we have suggests that use of illicit drugs amongst school-based young people is low, far lower than it was in the 1990s (where we have comparable data). That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Drugs are certainly used by some teens and in some parts of the country there are real problems. Small regional centres, particularly in Victoria and WA, with lots of social problems such as high youth unemployment and poverty have been devastated by methamphetamine (or 'ice'). In other parts of the country there is just greater access to some drugs and, for whatever reason, the use of these drugs have been normalised. It's also important to remember that in higher socio-economic areas where teens have access to money, as well as greater freedom in many cases, drugs like ecstasy and cocaine are increasingly being regarded as just part of what you do when you socialise.

So what do these police figures actually mean? At this point I need to say that I have not been able to access the data that the Herald Sun was provided. Based on similar data released from other states in the past, however, here are some important things to consider when trying to interpret what police investigating 'drug offences' on school grounds could really mean ...

Firstly, it needs to be stated that schools now have a legal obligation to contact the police should they find what they believe to be an illegal drug on the school grounds, regardless of whether the drug has been brought into the school by a student, an adult or whoever. If a drug or drug paraphernalia (e.g., a bong or an ice pipe) is found at a school on a Monday morning after a weekend, police need to be called. When the police are called to a school to investigate a drug issue it doesn't necessarily mean a student was using a drug or even found with one. As the article states - "Some of the drug offences had been committed by older perpetrators, who were caught dealing and using within the school grounds."

In many of these cases (particularly those involving primary school children) I can almost guarantee that the police were called because a child had brought a drug to school that they had found lying around at home. When I was a primary school teacher in the early 80s I can remember a couple of occasions over the years where very young students (Years 1 and 2) brought in drugs or paraphernalia for 'show-and-tell'. I can't imagine that has changed, although there would now be a greater range of drugs or equipment some children may now find. In the article the police are quoted as saying that "Kids aged 11, 12, 13 have been picked up with ice pipes on them" - without a doubt there would be some cases (particularly in areas with lots of social problems and disadvantage) where you may see drugs being used by this age group (many of these have been well-documented by the media), but for the most part children bringing pipes to schools would simply be doing that - bringing them to school - they're certainly not planning to use them!

What I found most interesting in the piece is the reluctance of the reporter to mention the word 'cannabis'. He talks about teens being caught with ketamine (twice!), LSD, ice, "dangerous new synthetic drugs", as well as ecstasy, but fails to mention the illicit drug that we know is most likely to be used by school-based young people. Now, as I have already said, I don't have access to the data that the Herald Sun was provided but I can almost guarantee that cannabis was the number one drug that police were called to deal with in schools. I can also tell you that if there had been a significant number of ice-related incidents the paper would have reported the actual number - there weren't that many, so they just made sure to mention that it was in the mix. In 2015 the Sydney's Daily Telegraph published a very similar story about police responding to drug-related incidents in schools. Once again, they highlighted the sensational, but at least they acknowledged that 75% of all the incidents were cannabis-related. Now I'm not trying to downplay the cannabis issue - it's an illegal drug, but you need to ask yourself why didn't the reporter mention it in the story ... It's simple, the other drugs sound so much more frightening and will grab attention. Cannabis is a drug that some readers may have used during their teens, it's not scary enough - let's throw in ketamine (twice!), parents reading the article won't know what that is and that's going to have more of an impact! Sad but true!

The article states that "drug-dealing charges have been laid in 78 cases". It is not clear whether they were school students or not. This, once again, feeds into the myth that there is a lot of drug dealing going on in school grounds. I get contacted by many parents who "have heard stories" of dealing going on, only to have their concerns confirmed when some students (usually Year 9s) have been suspended or expelled. It is important to acknowledge, however, that many of these students who get caught bringing cannabis to school are just 'silly kids' - we're not talking high-level drug dealers here. These teens usually don't have a lot of friends and are able to access the drug in some way (e.g., steal it from an older brother or parent) and simply take it to school to impress a group of their peers. In many cases, there was no actual 'dealing' and some of those involved had rarely, if ever, actually used the drug. They just wanted to make friends, made a stupid decision and then found themselves in great trouble. As much as the article talks about "sophisticated rackets" being uncovered (and without doubt that sometimes happens), for the most part it's just 'silly kids'.

In addition, the reporter throws sentences around like "some children have landed in hospital after taking drugs on school camps" - no numbers are given or what drugs were involved. If you're going to report a story like this, provide all the data - don't 'cherry-pick' it and try to terrify people ... No parent wants their child to be exposed to drugs when they go to schools and this story plays right into all those fears Mums and Dads have in this area.

Drugs have always found their way into schools. I went to a Catholic boys' school in Perth in the early to mid 1970s and I remember wondering why on earth a group of my peers in Year 7 were sitting at a bus stop spraying 'Pure and Simple' into a brown paper bag and then passing it around to sniff it. As for illicit drugs, I first saw cannabis in Year 9 in Brother Alphonsus's Social Studies class when someone handed me a matchbox and told me to pass it to the boy sitting next to me. I opened it up and saw a box full of what I thought was lawn clippings! It was also well known across the school that cannabis grew down by the school swimming pool. The group of older boys who planted and sold it had a thriving business ... None of my friends were involved in that scene at all - it simply wasn't a part of our lives and that's exactly the same today. Yes, there will be some who will get involved but the majority won't...

When I taught in the early 1980s I worked in a particularly tough school in a lower socio-economic part of Perth for a couple of years and we would often have to confiscate tins with small amounts of petrol or other products from Year 4s and 5s that they would bring from home, planning to sniff them at recess or lunchtime. I can also remember being given a small foil of cannabis by a Year 5 student I taught who had found it in the playground. My memory is that the principal simply flushed it down the toilet - we didn't call the police. That just wouldn't happen today ...

What has certainly changed is the range of drugs that are now available, as well as access. In addition to ecstasy/MDMA, amphetamine and other drugs that may not have been as popular or accessible when we were young, GHB and ketamine have been added to the mix. When you add the growing number of emerging psychoactive substances (EPS) or 'synthetic drugs' that are now around, together with easy online access to substances, it's not surprising that there is a great deal of fear in this area. It is important to remember, however, that most school-based young people don't use these substances - once they leave (or become disengaged from) school, that all changes and changes quickly - but while they're at school, for the most part they are protected.

I am fully aware that if a person reading this believes that drugs are spiralling out of control in our schools and classrooms, nothing I am going to say is going to change their mind ... The fact that police have to be called to schools to investigate drug offences at all, of course is a concern and, in a perfect world, it wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and drugs are around and can be accessed by young people.

What I find offensive is the headline and the reinforcement of the belief by many that today's young people are so much worse than previous generations, not only in the area of alcohol and other drugs but almost everything! There is certainly illicit drug use amongst some of our school-based young people and a small number who get themselves into great difficulty as a result of their drug use. But that is not a new thing - it's always been there and there is no evidence to suggest that the situation has changed dramatically in recent years (in fact, the reverse is true - illicit drug use has reduced!). Yes, there is a greater range of drugs available today and increased access, mainly due to the internet, but most of our school-based young people make good choices in this area ... but don't let that get in the way of a good headline!

Very Berry Smoothie; Vegan; Meatless Monday!

It finally feels like summer here!! Well actually too much summer!! It is officially not summer yet!! It was so hot all weekend long!! I couldn't bear it! All I did was drink fluids all weekend long. I didn't feel like eating anything due to the heat.

I made this mixed berry smoothie using the berries I had in my refrigerator. This is the season for berries and I have atleast 2-3 kinds on hand all the time. The kids love yo munch on berries and I use them in my oatmeal. For the smoothie I used some overripe strawberries, blueberries and raspberries. I added a whole banana to give the smoothie thickness and sweetness. Just to be extra sure, I threw in a tablespoon of honey. I am aware that smoothies are made with milk but I blended the whole thing with water. You could use coconut water to give additional sweetness or to substitute for honey. You could strain it if you wish. I didn't strain it! The kids and hubby loved it! I am sure I will make this all summer long! It is a great way to get people who don't eat fruits to eat fruits! My son couldn't keep his hands off!

Servings: makes four 8 oz glasses

Prep time: 5 minsCook time: 0 mins Total time: 5 mins