As most regular readers of this blog know, I’m a strong supporter of gay rights, and gay marriage. Straight but not narrow and all that. I’ve been trying to figure out where I stand on the issue of Polyamory. On the one hand you have a small group of people trying to be happy in the relationships that bring them the most joy, i.e. relationships with multiple members. I think those relationships are legitimate and should have some kind of legal standing. On the other hand, there are fundamentalists like the Mormons and Muslims, where the women in polygamous relationships usually have very few rights. I think those “relationships” should have no protection under the law, in the interests of protecting the rights of women. How would society balance the rights of both of these groups?

To clarify: I’m not a polyamorist, however, I do think people should be able to freely be in the kind of relationships that bring them happiness.

Continued below the fold.

I had a conversation with a friend recently about this issue, which I’ve included in this post with her permission. However, to give you an idea of the issues involved with polyamory, and of the concept itself, please read the excerpt from an article written by a polyamorist below.

I’d like to call your attention to another group of people… …who could use your support: polyamorists.

Polyamory is a catch-all term that describes any relationship that involves more than two “loves” in a romantic/sexual context. It includes polygamy in both its traditional forms (polygyny and polyandry), as well as other patterns of relationships, such as those that only include people of the same sex and those that involve all partners being sexually linked to one another. Having multiple significant others is usually associated with fundamentalist Mormon groups, at least in America, as various polygamists who illegally marry underage girls make the news now and again. It’s easy to forget that polygamy isn’t unique to Mormons — it’s still practiced in many areas of the world, including Middle-Eastern and African countries. Still, there are stigmas attached to those practices too, due to their association with the abuse of women and their incompatibility with most modern Christian beliefs about relationships.

What many people don’t know is that there is a fairly secretive population of people in the Western world who practice polyamory — not for religious reasons, and not for the purposes of having orgies, but rather because they have found that it’s the kind of relationship that makes them happiest.

While the term “polyamory” is broad, I’m not focusing here about people who have “open relationships,” a relationship style that allows partners to have outside sex as an agreed-upon part of their relationship. I would like to concentrate on so-called “poly-fidelitous” families who are committed to one another for the long haul. Groups of three or more people who are attached by romantic and sexual bonds (although not all people in the relationship are necessarily sexually involved) exist as strong, stable units. They raise children together, they often all share a house, and they usually have to hide their relationships to at least some degree. These relationships can include a wide variety of formats — two couples where the women are both sexually involved with both men (or vice versa), two men involved with the same woman but not with each other (or vice versa), three members of the same sex all sexually involved, and many more configurations.

Polyamorists cannot legally marry more than one of their partners (and if all members of the relationship are of the same sex, they probably can’t even get that much recognition), because our laws don’t accommodate such arrangements. People in relationships with multiple partners are sometimes left without access to health insurance, visitation rights, and even custody rights due to cultural prejudice and current laws. Would new laws have to include limits to avoid abuse by people trying to “cheat the system” in areas like citizenship and health care? Certainly. Is it possible to recognize and legally legitimize these relationships while blocking opportunities for that kind of abuse? Again, I think the answer is yes.

Some polyamorists see themselves as having a polyamorous “orientation,” but I would guess that’s a minority position. Most simply acknowledge that humans are complicated animals who aren’t always fulfilled by or equipped to handle monogamy. Different people will find that different types of relationships make them happy — some people can’t stand the thought of sharing their partner, and others are completely happy to see their partner in love with another person, with most people falling somewhere in-between. Polyamorous relationships form in many ways, with some people knowing from a young age that they want more than one partner in life, and others deciding to include someone new in an already long relationship.

Most members of polyamorous relationships and families aren’t activists for reform — they would be assuming too much risk by being publicly “out,” and they are often too busy with the demands of extra spouses and children to spend time organizing rallies or writing petitions. They are likely to be “out” to their friends and families about their unusual relationships, but they fear letting co-workers, employers, teachers, and other public figures find out. They have to face a difficult choice: face the ramifications of telling someone their secret, or lying about something that’s very central in their lives. Many poly families pass one or more members off as “friends” or “housemates” which can become painful and limiting over time.

The legalization of polygamy is something that’s often mentioned by gay rights opponents as the next step of a slippery slope that leads to people marrying their pet lizards or underage children. It’s not something that most people see as a serious civil rights issue, but it’s taken quite seriously by those of us who live in such relationships. We’re consenting adults, choosing our own path in life, and we have nothing to be ashamed of ethically. Still, we’re often essentially forced to hide in a culture that considers us adulterous, immoral and dangerous.

I know that the legalization of polygamy in America won’t happen for a long time — if it ever happens. I’ve accepted the fact that I’ll be old and gray if I live long enough to see the day when I can be married to both my partners, but the first step towards that ultimate goal is awareness. Legalization aside, the important issue here is tolerance (and hopefully general acceptance) that the poly community hopes to gain in society. We’d like to be honest about our relationships without fearing hate or reprisals at work. We’d like to be seen as perhaps a quirky, but normal part of our neighborhoods and our countries. We don’t want to be demonized.

What I’m asking here is that you will remember, in your conversations about civil rights, the struggle facing polyamorous families, and bring up the topic of plural marriage — not as part of a slippery slope, but as a rational extension of marriage rights and a way to make our society a more equal place for those who choose to live in ways that might not match the religious right’s morality. I hope that when topics like relationships, marriage and family come up you’ll spread the knowledge that polyamorous families exist. Every person who learns about polyamory and comes to accept it as something non-threatening brings us one person closer to a world where polyamorous people won’t have to “come out” or fear exposure — a world where we’ll just be another accepted part of society.

You can read the entire thing here.

Here is part of an online conversation I had with a friend about this. I post it here with her permission.

…
hoopy: was thinking of writing a post about polyamory

Ms. Fob: why polyamory

hoopy: it interests me
I don’t know whether I’m for or against it in law

Ms. Fob: i think most men would like to be polyamorists

hoopy: I’m for it in principle. but don’t want to extend the same rights to mormons and muslims. polyamory is ok, but I find it hard to allow self-actualized, liberal people to be in marriages of 2+ people while making sure things like muslim marriages with multiple wives aren’t allowed. Can’t mentally reconcile it.

Ms. Fob: but there doesnt have to be matrimony involved
in fact i think maybe society will move away from marriage

hoopy: there doesn’t have to. but the polyamorists want the same rights as normal married couples. hospital visitation, inheritance etc

Ms. Fob: but i thought by definition it is only having consensual intimate relationships
Ms. Fob: and that its different from polygamy
Ms. Fob: which is multiple marriages

hoopy: no
hoopy: you should read this: http://bit.ly/dxydU
hoopy: it’s a misconception

Ms. Fob: sounds complicated dude

hoopy: yes
I think people like the person who wrote that post should have all those rights
but not the mozzies (editor’s note: muslims)

Ms. Fob: why dude

hoopy: or the mormons

Ms. Fob: why discriminate against us

hoopy: but how to differentiate

Ms. Fob: i think the mozzies should have it
and that women should be allowed multiple partners as well

hoopy: muslims are going to allow one woman to have multiple partners? good luck with that
it’s always the other way
hoopy: usually to the detriment of the women

Ms. Fob: but that already exists
Ms. Fob: legally

hoopy: not in the US or canada
well, can you honestly say that muslim women in polygamous marriages are happy and self-fulfilled?

or because they’ve been conditioned to be subservient to men all their lives and their fathers or brothers married them off.
whereas people in polyamorous relationships are happy individuals, usually self-fulfilled. with the opportunities to leave if they want

Ms. Fob: dude
i think you give the average american too much credit

hoopy: I’m not talking about average people. I’m talking about a small subset of people.
would you say people like the person who wrote the article would stay in a relationship where they were abused? or which they weren’t allowed to leave?
they know what they’re doing. and they have options. so why not be allowed to have the fulfilling relationship they crave with the protection of the state

Ms. Fob: i’m just saying that there a lot of societies even within western culture where patriarchism is still rampant
and this could turn into another way to legally cheat
and besides, i think that most women would like to be monogamous

hoopy: ya. but not with this crowd. therein lies the problem. I think its ok for one group of people but not for another group of people. but how would you distinguish between them legally?

Ms. Fob: exactly
its too complicated

hoopy: most women yes. why should a minority be denied rights because of what most women want?
hoopy: most men would rather not be fucked in the ass but that doesn’t mean sodomy should be illegal

Ms. Fob: but what rights are they denied?
Ms. Fob: so you are saying that polygamy should be legalized? or that a new form of ‘bonding’ should be defined and declared legal

hoopy: polyamorists are denied:
- right to have a marriage with all partners legally recognized
- includes hospitalization and insurance benefits
I’m not saying anything
I’m saying I’m for one form but against the other and I don’t know how to reconcile it in my head
or legally

Ms. Fob: i have no issues with people who want to live their lives in a certain way. in fact i feel like you should be able to say who can visit you in the hospital and inherit your money regardless of the definition of your relationship with them
but i don’t foresee it happening anytime soon - one step at a time. gay marriage first

hoopy: ya
I’m just trying to mentally reconcile it
like how I can support certain rights for one group of people but not for another
based almost exclusively on a religious context

Ms. Fob: also, you cant deny any group those rights
like mozzies as you say

hoopy: ya. but I think I would have to, as part of my support for women’s rights
it’s complicated

Ms. Fob: yeah it is
besides, most mozzies are normal people
like me
so are you a polyamorist (or aspire to be one?)

hoopy: no dude. while I think it possible to love more than one person, I don’t think I am or could be a polyamorist

Ms. Fob: why not dude

hoopy: perhaps it’s the way I’m wired. I just don’t have the inclination. and I haven’t met one woman I’ve fallen in love with, two would be excessive. Think I’d want to be with the one I love, without sort of splitting myself.
most people are like that, I think. monogamous I mean.

Ms. Fob: but most research shows that people are not meant to be monogamous

hoopy: and if it were the other way around, where one woman two guys, I don’t think I could share the one I love with another man
perhaps it’s societal conditioning

Ms. Fob: maybe in the sense of being in 1 relationship at any given point of time, but multiple partners over time

hoopy: I have a materialist outlook, I do believe emotions are caused by chemicals in the brain, so love is partially that. and partially the shared experiences we build over time.

Ms. Fob: but the love wanes over time
in most cases

hoopy: yes, evolutionarily, we may be wired for multiple partners. but we overcome the urge to fuck around (at least the ethical ones among us do) and stay committed. It’s one of the things that separates us from the beasts of the field.

Ms. Fob: no dude

hoopy: well, that strong sense of love might fade, but the relationship you forged while under it’s influence can be pretty stable. and the shared experiences help

Ms. Fob: having the aptitude to be monogamous (and by this i mean in your mind too, even though you may not voice it or act upon it) is like being a mozart
its possible, but rare

hoopy: well I’m not saying people aren’t tempted. but most people overcome their temptations.

Ms. Fob: besides, most middle aged women lose interest in sex - it’s a hormonal thing - they just want to be cuddled. men, not so much

hoopy: however, being monogamous and being in love with multiple people and wanting to be in a recognized relationship with them are completely different things.

Ms. Fob: it would be nice if both were equal in their desire for intimacy
yeah sure

hoopy: I think people who fall in reciprocated love with multiple partners should be allowed to follow through on it.

Ms. Fob: not saying anyone should be denied any right

hoopy: well, the role of the state in the bedroom doesn’t matter. they shouldn’t be social engineering anyway.

Ms. Fob: but turning polyamory into polygamy isnt the way to go about it

hoopy: yabbut marriage, civil or otherwise isn’t going anywhere.

Ms. Fob: i think people should be able to define who is important in their lives, without having to forge a legal bond

hoopy: for sure
but realistically…
this is what we have to work with

Ms. Fob: i think realistically it would be easier
rather than have multiple relationships be recognized as an entity
easier to just say in a document somewhere - that this is my declared family

hoopy: it would be for the people in it. but its not going to change. this status quo isn’t going to be shifted substantially. only tinkered with

Ms. Fob: well not in our lifetimes for sure
i think most people dont care what adults do
its when children come out of these families - and not to say that they are abused or messed up in any way - but when society frowns upon their family structure (and this wont change), childhood can be very difficult

hoopy: yeah
“Heather has two mommies”
(End of conversation)

In case anyone missed the point: This is a complicated issue, I don’t know where I stand, and I’m not advocating any course of action.

In conclusion:

___
Edit:
I’ve decided I’m against legally recognized unions of more than two people. I discuss the reasons in this followup post: http://hoopyfrood.org/relationships/on-polyamory-part-two/