A love “bigger than two”: one polyamorous relationship

(A woman wrote to share with me that, in all ways but legally, she is equally married to both a man and a woman. I asked my new acquaintance if she would be willing to let me interview her about that. At first she was reticent—but, as she put it, “the opportunity to share with others a glimpse into our life is too good to pass up.” So here’s our interview.)

Could you give us a quick definition of what polyamorous is/means?
Honestly, the term “polyamorous” wasn’t on our radar when we fell in love. It was later that we discovered there was a term for what we were. If we need a term, we consider ourselves “poly-fidelitous,” which is what poly’s call those who love more than one person in a long-term, faithful kind of way. Some people consider themselves polyamorous because they believe they need and/or want to be in multiple relationships at any given time. This is not a good description of us. We all feel we could be satisfied with just one person. It’s just that we fell in love with two, pretty much all at the same time . . and we discovered (through lots of open and honest communication!) that we were all not just okay with it, but that it was something we wanted.

Truthfully, we don’t think of ourselves as polyamorous. We just think of ourselves as us.

 

How many people are in your relationship?
Three. One man, two women.

 

How long have you guys been together?
We have been dear friends for a very long time, with children who grew up as babies together.

 

How old are you guys?
38, 39, 41.

 

Were any two of you in a relationship before the third one of you joined it?
I was a (divorced) single mother, and they were a happily married couple. After my divorce, I had the joy of finally being free from an abusive marriage. I was supporting four children with very little support, but managing. She had been my best friend for years, and we’ve always been closer than sisters. People used to always comment on how close we were, but we never realized that could be sexual, too. Both of us were raised to not even be aware that was a possibility.

Long story short, the three of us began doing more and more things together and it just . . . worked really well. We got along incredibly, the three of us, and at some point, my best friend realized she had feelings for me. She was the one who began the conversation about, “What if . . ?” A lot of talking, a lot of thinking, all of us talking together as well as doing a lot of thinking on our own, individually. I realized I had feelings for her (and for him), all feelings that were completely buried (since it was impossible to love either them like that, right?) . . .

 

So it was something the three of you consciously worked out together.
Yes. We all felt very excited when we realized that we were in love and that we all wanted the same thing (a long-term committed relationship as three). And then there was a LOT of open and honest communication, of course. There has to be with any successful couple, and so with three people, even more so. It was very important to us that every single person was on the exact same page, or there was no way we were doing anything. No one felt pushed or coerced into anything. We really tried to look at this from a number of different angles, including the potential problems we could have, and kept feeling okay about taking another step forward. Every step forward just felt so right on so many different levels, and doors kept opening up right and left. There were numerous points where we would look at each other and say, “It’s so weird, but if I was still a fundamentalist Christian, I would say that God is blessing us…”

We took very small and careful steps forward, hesitantly, every inch of the way being shocked at how nice, how perfect, how healthy, how “just right” it always felt. Our fears about each next step were always replaced by fearfully taking it and then finding it delightful.

We laughingly still can’t believe we had the guts to even try this in the first place!

 

Do you all live together?
Yep. Wouldn’t have it any other way. The year that we lived apart was HORRIBLE. Fun, in that it was a new relationship, so it was exciting, but totally exhausting. The minute we bought our big house together, we all breathed a collective sigh of relief. Then came the adjustment of blending two families. That takes time, but we parent in very similar ways, and the children and teens already were very close, so it all meshed together well, too. If we didn’t think the two families had the ability to blend well together, we never would have done it in the first place, because we feel very strongly about our kids and want the best for them.

 

How long have you been living together?
Two years this spring.

 

Is jealousy a problem? Like, if one of you feels left out of something the other two are doing or feeling?
Jealousy was something we struggled with at first. We were excited that we all loved each other, but it was easy to feel insecure. If I saw them being super affectionate, I might worry, “Oh, no! They have all these years of marriage together. There’s no way I can ever compete!” If he saw us being affectionate, he might worry, “Oh, no! They have been best friends since forever. They probably won’t even want me around!” If she saw us being affectionate, she might say, “Oh, no! They are going to hit it off and decide they don’t need me!”

That was what we would worry about, but it wasn’t ever actually true, as we would discover when we would share our fears with each other. We had yet to learn that love can be bigger than two. The realization that each leg of the relationship must be strong or the whole thing falls apart was a major discovery for us, and one that helped us shift into a truly solid loving relationship as a three.

We learned that if I am deeply in love with him, it strengthens and supports my loving relationship with her (and her relationship with him, too), and so on. Normally, you think that if your significant other is in love with someone else, it weakens your relationship with them. In our case, since we are a three-person relationship, seeing my lovers relate happily together means that our three-person relationship is stable and supportive. Their love strengthens my individual relationships with them both and our relationship all together as a three.

It took a little while for us to wrap our heads around that one, because it is so different than how we grew up thinking about the way love works. Once we learned to see our partner’s individual relationship together as a strength and not a threat, we found ourselves released from the trap of jealousy and insecurity and that let us nurture and grow a deepening love. Insecurities still arise from time to time, just as they do in any relationship, but it’s on a much different level now—just normal occasional stuff. Mostly, we just have a lot of fun together.

 

To what if any degree do you guys feel compelled to hide your relationship from the rest of the world? Is that hard on you psychologically, not being able to be open about who you are and how you live?
I personally feel very compelled to be in the closet, almost entirely because of our children and for the safety of our professional careers. There are eight kids in our house, and we live in an extremely conservative town in a very Republican part of the South. The kind of town where a gay kid will probably commit suicide one of these days. There is a conservative church on almost every corner, and the few people who have been brave enough to be openly gay have experienced a lot of trouble.

We decided we didn’t want to risk our children being persecuted for our choices. Also, employment-wise, we are all professionals in our careers and while we do great work, we know that many employers are openly right-wing and openly homophobic (and so we can only guess what they would feel towards us, if they knew). One man I have to work with sometimes, someone with a lot of power in my field, openly expresses that he believes gay people have a psychological illness.

So we live as just “house-mates,” including in front of our children. We have differed a little bit on this, as I mentioned, and I am the one who is the most hesitant about coming out. My two lovers have been really kind about respecting my fears about the children and agree to keep it private for now, but we all look forward for the day when we can just be open.

The teenagers know that we are all in a relationship together, since it’s pretty hard to keep anything from teenagers, but the younger children do not. They just know that we are all best-friends. The teenagers were upset at first, but have grown to like it. One of them recently said, “I can’t believe I ever thought it would be weird for you all being together. I love having two moms!”

One set of our parents found out, through extremely disrespectful snooping, and pretty much disowned their adult child. They told my partner that they wished she had died in a car accident because at least then, she would have still gone to heaven. They said and did some pretty horrible things, along with then spreading “Christian” rumors (you know, asking for “prayer”). So, um, that was fun to go through. With family like that, who needs enemies, right?

I haven’t had the joy of my family finding out yet, but I expect the reaction may be fairly similar. Maybe I am wrong. That would be nice, but I’m not getting my hopes up. It’s strange to think your own relatives would rather see you in an abusive marriage than be in a healthy, happy and stable relationship with two partners. That’s the world we live in, though. It’s just how people are trained to think. It helps if I don’t make it personal and instead just remember that this is how our culture teaches us to think. I was plenty judgmental myself, before I began questioning the religious views I’d grown up believing to be true.

As for being “out” at home, we have a great time at our house and it’s very open that we are all best friends. There is always something to laugh about going on. The three of us are very light-hearted and playful and loving and it makes for a fun living environment. The kids are supported by three adults who love them, and there’s always someone there for the kids when they come home from school or someone to attend the important school event (we arrange work schedules so that the kids are always taken care of).

We consider our home a gift from God to us. Best of all, the master bedroom and office bedroom are attached by a bathroom, so that allows us an adults-only “wing” of the house to be in privately. It will be nice, someday, to be out completely, but that will have to wait until the kids are grown and we can move. For now, the adult wing is our slice of heaven at the end of each day.

 

How does it work socially? To the world, are you pretending to be really just ONE couple—with, like, a roommate? So that if, say, a married couple asked you out, would just (the same) two of you go, or would all three of you show up, or what?
We often show up as a three. I am the best friend, and they are the married couple. That really bothers my two partners, but, like I said, it’s what I prefer for now. Just as often I will go with one of them to something, and the other adult will stay home with the kids (whether it’s a sporting event or an activity at one of the kid’s schools). People are now pretty used to the fact that we come as an interchangeable unit of three.The other thing is that we really don’t go out all that much. Between raising this many children, all of whom are very active, and working in our professions, which can be demanding, and somehow keeping up with the gigantic amount of laundry our house produces, we don’t have a lot of spare time to go out to social events, even if we wanted to.

 

What’s the sexual deal? Are each of you bisexual? Do you all sleep in the same bed?
He is not bisexual. I suppose that both of the women are. Well, honestly, I don’t even know if we are. I just know that I love her. And she loves me. And being intimate feels like it makes sense, given the depth of our feelings for each other. We had been incredibly close friends for years, prior, and it never seemed close enough. Now, it feels just right.

We all sleep together every night. The person in the middle gets seriously snuggled on. It’s fun.

Sexually, we have learned a lot about how three people can have an amazingly wonderful experience that feels like making love for everyone. We occasionally joke about the best-selling book we will write about “how to have amazing threesomes” one day. It was delightful to learn that you can have that feeling of being “one” with three. You totally can. That was one of the things we worried about at first—what would we do about sex? Now, my mind automatically assumes that making love takes three.

We are sexual as couples, too, just not as often. We prefer three, as the norm, but enjoy time as couples on occasion, when opportunity allows, which is maybe once a week or so for each of us.

 

The world is pretty set up for couples. Do you ever feel a desire to be just a “normal” one-on-one coupley relationship? You know what I mean? Does it ever get kind of lonely knowing you’re living out such a radically different kind of love/relationship from the rest of the world?
The only reason I would want to be only a couple is just to be able to walk outside the door of my home while hanging all over my partner. If I wanted to, anyway. I can’t do that. I always took that for granted, as a straight woman in a heterosexual marriage. I never thought about the fact that I “got” to hold my partner’s hand in the grocery store. I just did it if I wanted to. I never thought about the fact that he “could” put his arm around me in a social setting. I just took it for granted. Now, I don’t take those things for granted anymore. It is something that bothers us all. One of my partners swears that this whole experience might just turn her into a full-on gay rights activist marching in parades. We felt bad for gay couples before, but we never actually understood what it FELT like. It’s horrible.

In the beginning of all of this, when we were first talking and wondering, I realized that the only reason I would not be willing to do this was because my society did not approve of it as a valid choice. It just seemed a shame to turn down something that felt so right on so many levels, all because of wanting to maintain social approval. On my death bed, am I going to gasp out, “Well, turned down a joy-filled life with my two best friends, all so that the world would like me!” Never! I like social approval as much as the next person, but it’s not worth choosing over love.

And I do I love my two partners. I love our life together. I love our big happy home. But I do not love the fact that I live in a community that would rather me live as a struggling single mom to four children than to have the support of two adults who love me dearly as a life-partner. The fact that my community would believe wholeheartedly that my sexual relationship with my abusive ex-husband was righteous, but that my sexual relationship with two committed life-partners (if they knew about it) is unrighteous, just seems so hypocritical. It especially makes no sense how they define “biblical marriage,” when the Bible is full of life unions with multiple partners. “One man, one woman,” really? What Bible are they reading, anyway?

 

Do you know any other polyamorous, or poly-fidelitous … relationship units? (I guess couples isn’t the right word, is it?) But do you know any others like yourselves?
No. I’m sure they are out there, but we don’t know of any personally. That’s okay. Honestly, I don’t think this would work for very many people. The reason it does for us is that we are just the right three people for each other. It’s hard enough to find just the right one person for yourself, much less two! When I think about my relationship as a three, I mostly just feel incredibly lucky, like God is smiling at us. I get to be loved by two best friends and lovers. I get to love two amazing people back (and they really are amazing). I get to love a whole house-full of children. It just feels like so much goodness. When I come home from work and pull into our drive, I smile. I love us!

We knew of a couple who were recently trying to be polyamorous, but, honestly, it seemed like trying to make it okay to have an affair. One partner really wanted to bring in a third, while the other partner pretty much cried and cried and cried about it, and then reluctantly agreed to it only because she felt like she had to. There were kids involved too, to make it even worse. This made us mad. This is not at all what we are or who we are. We felt like it was 100% not okay to force a partner into something like this. We work because we ALL wanted it—no coercion, no pressure, no pushing down the needs of one partner to meet the needs of another. To us, it is not loving or respectful to try and make three when one partner only wants two.

 

What do you want people to know about people like you, and relationships like yours?
That we are normal solid citizens. That we are professionals that you work with at the office. That we are the teacher in your child’s classroom, the person who delivers your mail, the doctor who looks at your injury. That we are the mom at the soccer games. That we are the dad at the geography bee. That we are the people with the really huge cart of groceries ahead of you in the supermarket line. That we grew up in conservative Christian America and certainly never imagined that we would do something like this. That we certainly weren’t looking for something outside of the norm, but that love found us, and we were willing to step outside of the norm to meet it.

We are not monsters. We are not weirdos. We are just normal every-day people who found that, for us, love could be bigger than two.

 

This post was originally published on John Shore’s blog. Find John on Facebook.

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here), and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog.  (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME,  The Washington Post, and others. His website is JohnShore.com. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. Don't forget to sign up for his mucho-awesome newsletter.

  • Charles

    John, this was a great article. I shows the enormous diversity of “love” and “relationship” that is possible out there. Just as there are many ways to do relationships destructively, there are many ways to do it constructively and beautifully. It’s time we began to formulate morality around basic principles – compassion, respect, non-coercion – vs a rigid rule set that is really just an attempt to define good relationships with one size fits all rules and taboos.

    Much like we need to do with religion – reformulate our individual faiths critically by honoring those parts that elevate us as humans, and reworking or discarding those taboos and rules that make us less loving, honest and compassionate.

    • Charles

      I also think these ideas and this article will scare the H..l out of most people outside of this site. And that most people are not nearly ready for other alternatives to marriage – their maturity level can barely cope with a healthy one partner relationship – And I am probably in that group.

  • Charles

    There is a wonderful sci fi book about the future of relationships – multiple partners, whatever people choose, with “marital contracts” based primarily on caring for the needs of offspring. The book is “Woman at the Edge of Time”

  • http://www.malakhgabriel.net/ Gabe

    I too am a polyamorous Christian (and recovering fundamentalist) in a three-person relationship, so it’s so exciting to see some positive exposure for people like me. My thanks to John and to the woman who was interviewed.

    My relationship is a V, not a triad. That means that I am in two relationships with people who are not in a (romantic) relationship with one another. We all live together as family. Because of that I have to take issue with the interviewee’s definition of poly-fidelity as ” those who love more than one person in a long-term, faithful kind of way.” I guarantee that our family is both long-term and faithful, despite our agreement of being able to date outside of our family. I am faithful to my loves, but that does not mean that none of us can have outside relationships. Faithfulness should be defined by staying true to one’s relationship, not by exclusivity.

    And while I am grateful for the empathy that this family has learned to have toward gay, lesbian and bisexual people, I do wish they would refrain from using the disgustingly common tragedy of queer suicide as an illustration for how bad their town is.

    I too am astounded at the people who would condemn me for leaving an abusive marriage and for having a healthy, polyamourous relationship. I assure them that the three of us are more of “what God has joined” than my previous relationship ever was, no matter what the priest may have said.

    And I must echo the interviewee on how awful it is to coerce a partner into a polyamorous marriage. Consent cannot exist with coercion, and polyamory can only be a good thing if it is done with the full knowledge and informed consent of everyone involved.

    While may family may indeed be made up of weirdos (perhaps even monsters), I am happy to read the stories of people like us, despite their “normal every-day”ness. I thank her for telling her story, and the folks at Unfundamentalist Christians for publishing it.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      LOLOL

      “I am faithful to my loves, but that does not mean that none of us can
      have outside relationships. Faithfulness should be defined by staying
      true to one’s relationship, not by exclusivity.”

      That is not faithfulness. That is unfaithfulness. And there is no need to redefine anything just because you are totally unfaithful according to the correct version of the word.

      A three-some, a four-some, a dozen-some is not a couple and will never be acceptable or wholesome. Being incapable of having a couple-relationship is just what it is: unfaithful.

      • Anon

        I think Gabe probably meant ‘committed’ rather than faithful, as in committed to maintaining his relationships and partners in a family unit.

        As for whether a threesome or foursome will ever be acceptable, for whom do you presume to speak for? Certainly not me. Please do not put forth your opinion as fact.

        • http://www.malakhgabriel.net/ Gabe

          No. No. I meant exactly what I said. Faithful. Adhering firmly and devotedly. Loyal. Having or showing true and constant support or loyalty. Full of faith. Keeping promises. Honoring agreements and people.

          Faithful.

          • The_Physeter

            But, but, Gabe didn’t you hear what she said? She said the “correct” version of the word is the one where it means something very specific that she wants it to mean! Don’t try to confuse with “definitions” and “what words actually mean,” she’s already made it clear that “faithful” means “whatever I approve of”, and that’s that.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            she’s already made it clear that “faithful” means “whatever I approve of”,
            ============
            That’s Gabe’s exact definition. Project much?

          • Anon

            I never said anything of the sort and I would fact check before trying on your wit….I am actually PRO Poly…..

            dumbass

          • Anon

            Look, I was trying to help you out by giving you an alternative word that has not been warped into a meaning that is counter to the idea you wish to project. Yes Faithful is correct but is more commonly used to suggest exclusivity within monogamy. Whereas you can be committed to whatever you choose,

            But hey….turn on another poly person if it makes you feel smarter……

            Good grief…..

          • http://www.malakhgabriel.net/ Gabe

            I’m not turning on anyone, just explaining where I’m coming from. It’s important to me that we look at the overwhelming bias toward monogamy that’s inherent in defining “faithful” as “sexually exclusive.” I’m not willing to hand over a word like that to folks like Alessandra, who think people like us are “incapable” of her sort of relationship.

          • Anon

            I see, that’s understandable,but you supported the post of someone who misunderstood my intent so I thought I would make my intentions clear.

      • Wonder

        umm let’s see…. is anyone lying to anybody? breaking any promises? to be unfaithful a promise must be broken.

  • http://sheridanvoysey.com/ Sheridan Voysey

    Feeling just so grieved reading this…

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      Why? She seems content.

    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

      I found it completely gross.

      • kenofken

        Then don’t do it!

      • The_Physeter

        And I found it completely sexy. So what’s your point.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          For a pervert nothing is perverted.

          • The_Physeter

            For a prude nothing is fun.

    • gimpi1

      I have to second the why of John. She feels her life is enriched by her relationships. If she’s happy, I’m happy for her. And anything else is none of my business.

    • kenofken

      Suck it up, soldier. There’s no crying in blogging! :)

  • Chris Hyde

    Here in the Pacific Northwest, polyamory is becoming much more prevalent. We have a very open and accepting society up here so I think that has allowed for more openness about this issue.

    Just this week I watched a YouTube “documentary” about this subject matter. Here’s a link for anyone that would like to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci6t5jGR_Zo

    This is a very interesting subject matter for the Church to wrestle with. As a pastor, I am trying to take a posture of “learning and understanding” rather than being quick to declare a stance. My former “fundamentalist” brain is learning how to think more broadly than it used to!

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    One man I have to work with sometimes, someone with a lot of power in my
    field, openly expresses that he believes gay people have a
    psychological illness.
    ===============
    Certainly, it is profoundly dysfunctional and perverted. People with a homosexuality
    problem need to go investigate their
    problem and try to treat it. Denying problems doesn’t make them
    go away.

    There is something that is incestuous, promiscuous,
    and sexually perverted in a lack of monogamy. It’s deformed. Any
    relationship that is not monogamous is necessarily a cheapened form
    of relationship. Monogamy is a special type of bond, because it
    doesn’t cheapen and degrade the other involved, nor the relationship
    itself. A triangle is never equal to a couple. There are no good
    reasons to forgo a monogamous relationship. Everything that is good
    and healthy is inherent to monogamy (but not to every kind of
    monogamous experience). There aren’t good reasons to have
    promiscuous relationships or polygamies.

    • Thin-ice

      Are gay people hurting you directly? No? Is any polyamorous person hurting you? No? Then shut up and quit judging.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        So you are a jerk because of them. That’s already a problem caused by them -directly and indirectly. If there were no sexuality pigs in society, you would just shut up yourself. A great improvement.

        • Thin-ice

          ??? Weird, your reply is totally incomprehensible.

        • Wonder

          are you saying you’re a jerk because other people have sex in ways you disapprove of? because you have a lot to say about it. “sexuality pigs?”
          try not thinking about it so much. take up a hobby, maybe go fishing.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Are you being a jerk because you hate healthy and wholesome standards for relationships and sexuality?
            All sexuality pigs want is to do harm and violence in society with impunity – and getting people not to think about what they are doing, and the consequences, is what guarantees that impunity.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Alessandra, your tone here is out of line.
            Are you able to participate with civility?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Can you clarify what your civility rules are? If a person tells me to shut up and I say they are being a jerk, you believe their tone is civil and mine isn’t? And so, if instead of pointing out they are behaving like jerks, I just told them to shut up, I would go up to your level of civility?

            “Thin-ice to Alessandra”

            7 days ago

            Are gay people hurting you directly? No? Is any polyamorous person hurting you? No? Then shut up and quit judging.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            That person isn’t still commenting here. You are.

      • Concupiscurd

        Are necrophiliacs hurting you directly? No? Is any necrophiliac person hurting you? No? Then shut up and quit judging.

        • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

          LGBTs just want to do harm and violence in society with total impunity. They hate decent people because we have a conscience and ethical standards.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            How does the LGBT community desire to harm and violence on society? What is their methodology, who are the ones being injured, subjected to these supposed acts of violence? How are they lacking conscience and ethics? what proof of this is there?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Is there any type of violence that you know of that LGBTs don’t do in society? Or are you asking me to list for you all the types of violence that exist in the world, because you’re too hypocritical to do it yourself?

          • AtalantaBethulia

            She asked a reasonable question, which you have not yet addressed. Please moderate your tone.

            Re: “LGBTs just want to do harm and violence in society with total impunity.”

            This is quite a broad sweeping claim still lacking evidence of proof.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Sorry, I misunderstood how unreasonable her question was. Because if you know that LGBTs perpetrate every kind of violence in the world, and what that list of violent actions are, why would you ask someone to tell you what violence they are perpetrating? You already know it! When I read her question, it seemed nothing but stupid trolling to me. From the way I had understood her question, it seemed so hypocritical and stupid to ask. Thanks for clarifying that she was trying to be reasonable and not hypocritical.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            No. I was asking an honest question. What types of violence? I know of the well documented acts of violence committed against people who are LGBT, including murder, slander, beatings, wrongful incarceration, rape, being forced into homelessness, prostitution and suicide. I am just not hearing where the opposite is a common, well documented occurence.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            So, back to my first question that you didn’t want to answer: Is there any type of violence that you know of that LGBTs don’t do in society?

          • AtalantaBethulia

            No, that’s not how this works. She asked you a question first. You have to support your claim that “LGBTs just want to do harm and violence in society with total impunity. They hate decent people because we have a conscience and ethical standards.”

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            If you need to tell me how to argue my statements, then the only thing that is not going to work here is the marketplace of ideas and the very exercise of robust debate. If you are here to censor people from making points you don’t like, and then claim they can’t support their arguments, then it seems the problem is on your side.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            The rules of civil discourse are simple. Be respectful of views that you may not hold, if you have a claim, be prepared to back it up with something tangible, admit when something is your opinion, be prepared to share what had you come to that opinion. If asked a question, be prepared to ask it, without assuming that the asker is being snarky. Understand that in such a setting, its not always as easy to get a point across, especially when someone is trying to comment via a smart phone. Accept and respect that not everyone is going to agree, and that they may have excellent reasons to do so. Admit when you are wrong.

            As for support of one’s arguments, Twice in this discussion with others, I have stated related statistics along with some places where people can get information on population make-ups, violence, etc. The CDC, WHO, the census beareau, health and human services. organizations that gather data on violence, particular in sexual and domestic violence all provide excellent resources.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            It’s funny that on the Internet in particular, many people state these rules and don’t follow them themselves. And nothing precludes snarky, stupid, and hypocritical people to participate in the Internet. I’ve noticed a lot of that.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Are you able to rise above that and not be one of those people?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra
          • AtalantaBethulia

            I’m here to moderate the discussion. Civility counts; so does facts. If you can provide facts and be civil you can stay. If not, you can go.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            That’s funny because I see dozens and dozens of statements on here, and no supporting facts to the majority of them. Yeah, so that’s not a problem. In other words, you just want to censor people who expose how problematic your views are, along with the views of other liberals.

            And if Allegro wants to see right here one particular kind of harm that people with a homosexuality agenda do in society is exactly to censor information and arguments that exposes how shoddy their agenda is.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Alessandra, you are the only one interacting right now. You seem bent on being non-objective and unreasonable. No one is censoring you. They are simply pointing out how shoddy your own argument is.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I answered your question. Why can’t you answer mine?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your answer. I didn’t see you list any kind of violence or harm that LGBTs do in society! None, not a single one. You did go off to list violence committed ***against*** LGBTs, which has nothing to do with the question asked. Because the question you asked was what kind of harm and violence did LGBTs perpetrate in society. That is LGBTs perpetrating violence against ***any other person***. Then you said:

            “A person who identifies as LGBT is no more prone to acts of violence than anyone else. ”

            In other words, it seems to me, you were completely aware that LGBTs do every kind of violence in society. And as it’s plain to see, it made me wonder why you were asking the question of what kind of violence they do if it seemed obvious you already knew the answer. As I explained, that’s what made me think you were a complete hypocrite.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Exactly, someone who is gay, can be just as violent as someone who is straight. Someone who is gay can be just as non-violent as someone who is straight. There is utterly no connection between violence and sexual orientation. People from all walks of life are equally capable of great atrocities and great good. One’s sexual orientation have nothing to do with one’s penchance for violence. Your statements have me wondering if you think that LGBT people are more violent, yet there is nothing that you’ve stated or that is evidenced anywhere that proves it…hence my line of query.
            .

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            You are very misinformed. Yes, there are plenty of connections regarding the fact that the more deformed, dysfunctional and perverted a person’s sexual psychology (which includes sexual orientation), the more prone they are to commit harm and violence. The more a person with a dysfunctional psychology believes they have no problems (including ethical ones), the more prone they are to doing harm.

            “There is utterly no connection between violence and sexual orientation.”

            Horsefeathers. Here is an interesting example:
            http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/violence-against-lgbt-individuals/

            “People from all walks of life are equally capable of great atrocities and great good.”

            No, there are specific reasons why people do harm and violence. A person with a healthy psychology does not have the same reasons as a person with a perverted psychology to do violence.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Your take on the data is so skewed. First of all your link to the UCLA study is broken. So I’ll just provide data for you.

            the 1 in 6 partner violence? 1 in seven in men..Did it occur to you that when it comes to men that their female partners were the offenders? Yep it happens..al the damned time. http://www.cpedv.org/Statistics. Nationwide, 85% of domestic violence victims are women. One in 6 women are victims of rape, nationwide, 1 in 33 victims are male. http://www.sccadvasa.org/resources/information/sexual-assault-facts/

            Bisexuals are much more likely to experience partner violence, but the CDC notes that the vast majority of them — 89.5% of bisexual women and 78.5% of bisexual men — reported that an opposite-sex partner was the perpetrator -So that meanst that of all reported DV, less than 20% for women and 25% of men victims were abused by their same sex partners. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-partner-abuse-ten-times-higher-same-sex-relationships#sthash.8XlS1380.dpuf

            Syphillis spread tends to be more regional an income matter, with it affecting more blacks and hispanics than white. Guess who tend to be less affulent? So this is not exactly a gay thing. amdhttp://www.cdc.gov/std/media/FactsSyph11-28-01.htm

            True, in the US gay males are the largest group of new HIV patients. Yet they are a small portion of the population. The second largest group are drug users who are probably more dangerous as people who use intraveneous drugs tend to engage in more risky behaviour including prostitution, and unprotected sex. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/hivaids/who-risk-hiv-infection-which-populations-are-most-affected

            And sexual assault is not sex. Its just an act of physical violence. Male rapists are almost always heterosexual and the rape is an act of power and dominance, not an act of love and intimacy. True it exists in the military. 90% of rape victims in the military were female. Let’s not forget that.

            As for what is healthy psycology. Do not assume that an unhealthy psyche automatically means violent tendancies. Most people with a mental disorder…of which being gay is most definately NOT, which has been proven repeatedly by medical science, geneticists and psychologists… are not violent at all.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Allegro said: Your take on the data is so skewed.
            ==============
            If you don’t have the study and the data, how can you say that my take on it is skewed?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I said your link was broken, not that I didn’t read the study. And I stand by my statements and the data I provided to back it up.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I guess you didn’t understand. How can you say **my** take on a study’s data is skewed if you don’t have the study. Is it based on your imagination?

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            I read the study and your thoughts on it. Then I countered with more data, that backed up the study and rebuffed your opinion and misrepresentation of the data it presented.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            That’s funny because I didn’t see you rebuff anything.

            Let’s start with this:

            Which is the group that most perpetrates violence against LGBT individuals? LGBT individuals themselves.

            ================

            You said:

            Did it occur to you that when it comes to men that their female partners were the offenders?

            ================
            Were you saying that homosexual men mostly have heterosexual female partners? And it’s these women who do violence to homosexual men? I didn’t see you prove that. Not at all.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            If you would just bother to follow the several links provided….but I guess you’d rather just not learn something new.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Thanks for not answering my questions. In any case your answer would prove that your claims are quite wrong and that you didn’t disprove my take on the study.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            You can’t just go around making false claims like: “LGBTs just want to do harm and violence in society with total impunity.” without hard evidence. She’s asking you to back up your claim with proof. This is a reasonable thing to ask.

            Equally false and inaccurate is your second statement: “They hate decent people because we have a conscience and ethical standards.”

            This is not how to engage in reasonable discourse and civil conversation.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            A person who identifies as LGBT is no more prone to acts of violence than anyone else. I know several people who identify as such, and am related to one. In each case, they are gentle, kind souls, who wouldn’t dream of purposely causing harm to anyone. As I tend to prefer to surround myself with those gentle kind souls, be them gay or straight, I find them no different than other friends or most of my family.

            To assume that someone who is gay is more likely to be violent or hateful to society, or to plot the demise of “good, decent folk”, is like assuming that just because its a dog, its going to hump your leg, chew up your couch and defecate on your favorite shoes.

    • The_Physeter

      Yep. Just keep plugging your ears and say that over and over and over. Maybe then all those bad gays and naughty polyamorous people will stop looking so damn happy and making you look like an angry, frustrated old goat.

      • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

        Hitler was extremely happy at the height of his madness. Many sexual abusers and white collar criminals are too. I’m sure so are you and most of your crowd of people with perverted sexualities and relationships.

        The more deformed your mind is, the happier you are in being deformed. It’s having a conscience that you hate the most.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          What proof is there of Hitler’s extreme happiness? What proof is there that a sex abuser (who, by the way< are almost always heterosexual) or a church secretary cooking the books to feed her QVC habit (example of white collar crime) are extremely happy?
          And if that is how to become extrememly happy, I've been doing it wrong my whole life.

          • Concupiscurd

            “are almost always heterosexual” you do realize that somewhere around 95% of the population is heterosexual. This weird fascination with beating the other team is perverse. I have a feeling you wouldn’t be so happy to tout the percentage of same sex child abusers.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            12 out of every 1,000 children up to age 18 in the United States were found to be victims of maltreatment in 2005 (USDHHS, 2007) 79.4 percent of perpetrators were parents and 6.8 percent were other relatives. The largest remaining categories of perpetrators were the unmarried partner of a child’s parent (3.8 percent) and other perpetrators (4.1 percent). In 3.6 percent of child maltreatment cases the perpetrators were missing or unknown. In under 1 percent of child maltreatment cases the perpetrator was a foster parent, residential facility staff, the child’s daycare provider, a legal guardian, friends or neighbors, or other professionals (USDHHS, 2007).

            That is statistics on child abuse. Note who the actual usual perpetrators are. Most child rapists identify themselves as heterosexual regardless of the gender of the child they abuse.

            As for that 5% of the population that is gay, and the figures vary wildly depending on statistics. The world population is at about 7.133 billion. So that means that 5%…if we settle on that percentage of that population, is 356.65 million people that are LGBT…or close the the population of the US. The US population is about 360 million. 5% of that population is 18 million, or slightly more than the population of the world’s most populous city, Shanghai. This isn’t just a few random people out there, but a vital part of our population. Men and women who live among us, work among us, own homes, run business, pay taxes, raise families, attend houses of worship, buy groceries, volunteer for charitible organizations. They deserve as much as we demand for ourselves.

          • Concupiscurd

            These are fascinating statistics but to what end? “Most child rapists identify themselves as heterosexual” as i mentioned earlier 95% of the population identify themselves as heterosexual so i’m not sure what you’re getting at. I’m inclined to believe that homosexual people abuse at the same rate as heterosexual people unless proven otherwise. And I’m for gay marriage and all other civil rights for LGBT. As far at the polyamorous their lifestyle will never be accepted in any meaningful way by the culture at large. And any growth in that ‘lifestyle’ will be among the Saudi and Mormon example i.e. man with multiple partners – i don’t see any reason why the culture should accept this.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            What proof is there of Hitler’s extreme happiness? What proof is there
            that a sex abuser (who, by the way< are almost always heterosexual)
            or a church secretary cooking the books to feed her QVC habit (example
            of white collar crime) are extremely happy?
            ================
            What they tell us about how they andhow many other such people feel. People with a perverted and/or perverse mind feel great pleasure and happiness in acting out their perversities.

            "And if that is how to become extrememly happy, I've been doing it wrong my whole life."

            The liberal argument is that if a person feels happy from their own perspective, no matter how deformed or dysfunctional they are, especially regarding many issues of sexuality and relationships, then it justifies their deformed psychologies, relationships, and behaviors. Getting warped pleasure trumps dealing with perverse psychologies that generate those warped pleasures.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            This is simply not true.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            For a very interesting example of how deformed the mindset of liberals are:

            The APA’s and the Pedophilia Controversy:

            http://narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html

            this episode highlights how scientifically and morally corrupt the APA is in regard to sexuality issues. NARTH, on the other hand, has been a beacon of light all along, while the APA drove itself into its current deplorable state.

            Lastly, what is clear to any sane person is that you can take the LGBT out of the DSM, but you can’t take the profoundly deformed (DSM) psychological problems out of the LGBT folks.

            Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/haemtza/of-homosexuals-pedophiles-and-differences/2013/07/30/

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Narth is nothing but a gay reparative site. They don’t work, sell false hope and do loads of damage to their “clients”. California has already banned such agencies, and others are following.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I recommend everyone read the NARTH site, their publications, and see for themselves how false your statement about them is. They are doing some of the best research concerning the etiology and treatment of homosexuality. And, as far as being reported, they do not do damage to their clients. Given that their professionals work with hundreds of clients, it should be easy for you to provide actual data related to this claimed damage to all the people they work with, otherwise you have just smeared them with imaginary allegations. Also, California has not banned NARTH and they continue to be active in the entire country.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            At the site. Being appalled. I hope and pray for the day when places like this are shut down for good.

  • swordcrossrocket

    You know, when conservative Christians warned about the societal acceptance of homosexuality leading to a slippery slope of acceptance of other behaviors, we were told we were wrong, paranoid, etc. Now that we have polyamory and polygyny in the news, you wonder how paranoid we really were.

    Consensual adultery doesn’t make it any less adultery. The fact that forty year old women can’t get men easily so they try and “share” them doesn’t either. If this is being unfundamentalist, you are making the case for fundamentalism far more attractive than you think.

    • Thin-ice

      This is one person’s isolated experience, and practiced by a rare, small segment of society. It probably will never be mainstream, and you religious conservatives are blowing it up waaaay out of all proportion. Or, as the British would say, “don’t get your knickers in a twist”.

      • swordcrossrocket

        You could have said that for LGBT 20 years ago. In real numbers, they make up what, 5% of the population? Despite this I think one could argue that they have had significant effect on our culture.

        Or say BDSM. Polyamory could easily surpass these two if seen as the next cause celebre of the avant-garde.

    • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

      Polygamy is an ancient practice, as is polymory. Sure its a familial variation from Western cultural norms, but it is something that has been a part of relational life for eons. It has yet to cause any society to disintegrate.

      I also find it very ironic how conservative Christians bemoan the reality of non-heterosexual or polysexual unions when this is the same group that has been shown as one of the largest consumers of porn in the US. The divorce rates, the sexual and domestic abuse, the teen pregnancy rates in this same group, could definately stand serious attention as well. Maybe they need to concentrate on sweeping out the trash from under their own beds before looking for dust bunnies under other people’s.

      • swordcrossrocket

        It’s a variation from human norms. Polygamy is almost always a plaything of the rich and powerful, who monopolize women and create a large underclass of males prone to violence. This works great for barbaric societies, but anything else not so much. This is why no major society embraces it on any large scale now.

        The latter is just a silencing tactic. Oh, did you know that LGBT abuse drugs at a rate 2 to 3 times higher than the normal population? And higher domestic violence, STD, and abuse rates than heterosexuals too? Should they shut up about anything that’s bad in society and get their own houses in order first?

        I’d think we’d both agree not. If we’re going to ask moral exemplars to be the only ones to speak on subjects, no one will speak on anything. I’d also dispute your points in general, because I find studies that suggest this refuse to control for income, location, and other factors. But ideas are what need to be considered. I doubt if a morally perfect Christian showed up, you’d accept his arguments because he didn’t do any of the above things.

        • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

          Drug and alcahol abuse is often a symptom of a larger issue. In this case, it is often mental illness which is triggered by existing in an environment that is hostile to them. Live in a world where you are told that you are hated by God, where you risk losing a job, a home, a family just because of who you are, and the chances that depression hits is pretty significant.

          Your domestic rate statistic is way off. In all recorded statistic on the matter, it is women who are 78% of all domestic abuse incidents recorded. Those women are abused by male partners. Gay domestic abuse is only at 15%. In both cases, children are also victims, 40% of all homeless youth have been kicked out of their homes, when parents learn they are gay. The CDC, WHO and Southern Poverty Law Center are excellent resources for accurate statistics.

          Yes there is higher STD rates. I think part of that is fear, fear of being outed, by health care professionals, friends, partners, family, so they may keep silent. Thankfully, now that society is changing in their favor, these rates can start falling.

          As for polygamy. It is only slightly true that it is a plaything of the rich and powerful. The reasons why families have been constructed thus is as varied as the cultures we have had throughout human history. It is more true that it is falling out of favor. Society changes along with the needs of that society. The study of human culture is a fascinating thing.

        • Guest

          well you’ve gone from snarking on 40 year old women’s presumed unattractiveness to whining about rich guys getting all the girls in only 2 comments, lemme guess, fortysomething and divorced?

    • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

      We weren’t/aren’t making any case at all. We’re simply sharing this one woman’s experience.

      • swordcrossrocket

        The way you share it makes me think you approve of the practice. There isn’t a single hard question in the bunch, and she ends with a cry for her behavior to be seen as normal, and a natural expression and extension of love. She talks about how fun it is, and how awesome it is. It’s puffing the behavior.

        • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

          The “way” I share it? You mean the part where I opened by expressing absolutely no opinion whatsoever and then asked the best questions I could think of to help me/us understand how she lives and where she’s coming from?

          For a decade I made my living as a journalist. I put on my journalist hat when I did this piece. You have no idea how I feel personally about her or anything she said.

          What “hard question” do you wish I’d asked her that I didn’t?

          Your (anonymous) complaint isn’t with me. It’s with her, for sounding so sane.

          • swordcrossrocket

            You can tell what a journalist feels by how they select their subject, the questions they ask, the questions they don’t ask, and the words they choose to print. The fact that this entire interview was framed around understanding her and didn’t once even touch upon Christianity except for those bad fundies always not affirming her says a few things to me. A puff piece doesn’t mean the journalist is a big fawning presence in the work, but that he selects and arranges for best effect favorable to the subject. Sometimes that means staying out of the way.

            Anyone sounds sane when they are justifying their life choices. To be honest, polyamory seems like the progressive reflection of conservative fixation on homeschool. Both sides swear its the best thing ever, but its usually only one side talking about it. When you ask the kids or the ex, it’s a lot different.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            So, again, what would be an example of the sort of “hard” question you’d have preferred me to ask her?

          • swordcrossrocket

            Is she still a christian? How does she reconcile her faith with this if so? How much of this is tied with her abusive past, and is it right to eroticize a friendship like this? Do her children really blend as well as she thinks, or are they telling her what she want to hear? Does she think her church should recognize the plural marriage?

            Is it bigoted for a church not to? If this helps.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            This is a human interest story, not the breaking of a political scandal. This woman didn’t have to answer any of my questions; she’s was being kind enough to. If I had asked her either your third, fourth, or fifth questions she’d have instantly shut down on me, knowing me to be nothing more than yet another self-righteous sanctimonious Christian coming at her with a Bible in one hand and a knife in the other.

            Such questions aren’t “hard.” They’re utterly expected—and manifestly designed to imply their subject has no moral compass. Questions like that have no place in an interview like this. Unless you want to interview to suddenly end. Then they’re perfect.

            Again: you’re confusing hard-hitting scandal with human interest story. Different concerns. Different purposes. Different styles.

            Your questions asking about her faith are good–but, alas, there’s simply no room for them in a format as brutally brief as blog posts necessarily are. Those don’t strike me as particularly “hard”—but they do demand long answers, and this post was already crazy long. And for the concerns of this post they’re essentially superfluous. I was after more the what’s and hows than I was the whys.

            Just recently I got in a letter from a young woman in a committed polyamorous relationship in which she is the sole Christian. She talks quite a bit about that. I’ll be answering her letter in an upcoming post; perhaps you’ll there find my response more satisfying than you did mine here. I’m guessing not, but one never knows.

          • Matt

            “Is it right to eroticize a friendship like this?”

            Oh look, the latest technique from conservative Christians to demean LGBT and non-traditional relationships–we’re just “friends” who’ve ruined our friendship by insisting on adding a (sinful) sexual component. It’s not like any of the happily married straight couples I know consider themselves to be friends or anything. Nope. They just plod along not even liking each other’s company except to procreate. But it’s cool with them, because they’re pure and holy and proper. Who needs a best friend when you’re sanctified?

            And that abuse question? Just plain rude.

          • Wonder

            purity culture presents difficulty with the idea of “eroticizing” a heterosexual friendship as well, even for the purpose of marriage. partly accounts for the high divorce rate amongst evangelicals

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Does it matter what her religious preference is? Does it really matter what her church thinks as they are not the deciding factor as to the private workings of her family? Is this not just a version of a harmoneous relationship, albeit a different one than most of us would choose? Who is it hurting?

          • swordcrossrocket

            Is this a Christian blog? I think it matters. Even a progressive or non-fundamentalist blog can’t throw out basic sexual morality and accept polyamory without more justification that zomg snuggling is more fun.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Of course it is a Christian blog. Christianity is a very diverse faith, representing a wide spectrum of ideals, theories, practices and mindsets. This site and our Facebook page represent just part of that wide spectrum. It doesn’t pretend to uphold all the beliefs within Christianity, rather like any other Christian organization in any format on the planet. That is because Christianity is a very diverse faith, representing a wide spectrum of ideals…..

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Interesting, that there are a variety of views that are presented on his blog in the comments section, including yours. John is also not the only contributor here, so it is not just his point of view that is represented.

            That being said, I have a suggestion. Why don’t you do what many of us, including myself, do when we have thoughts or opinions, or things we find important to share. Start your own blog, get your own followers, put the time and energy that it takes to build the level of readership you wish, from the people who share similar views.

            Playing the “woe is me, I have comments that were deleted, I’m being persecuted” game is childish and utterly unproductive to any positive discourse. If you don’t like what is being said here, say it yourself on your own page, or on a page that better reflects your personal views. That will quite likely be a much more productive outlet for you.
            peace.

          • http://johnshore.com/ John Shore

            Yeah, because this post was all about justifying polyamorous relationships because “zomg snuggling is more fun.” What a bullshit thing to say. You have no substantive response to allegro’s question, “Who is it hurting?”, so you immediately turn to churlish sarcasm.

            If you want people to respect your belief system, you might want to rethink how readily you accuse those who don’t subscribe to your ideas about right and wrong (which, in this case, btw, are NOT supported by the Bible) of being nothing more than fundamentally immoral.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Me thinks, someone protests a bit too much.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            “How does she reconcile her faith with this if so?”

            Well, we can’t know for sure, so I am not speaking for her, but obviously for a lot of people like her (liberals who call themselves Christian), they are interpreting Christianity to say any garbage they want, so that they can feel good about how deformed and perverted their minds are. For a certain number of more liberal types of Christians/Catholics their interpretation of the Bible is saying more and more similar things as their porn magazines.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            How much of this is tied with her abusive past, and is it right to eroticize a friendship like this?
            ===================

            That is the question that other dysfunctional and perverted liberals cannot ask, because of how deficient they are regarding ethics and psychology, and consequently, they certainly cannot answer.

            Yet, those of us who aren’t on this same ignorance boat know very well that her abusive past is a major part of her life and psychology. It’s clear she hasn’t told us basically anything of all the mental and emotional problems she’s had, and what remains with her today.

            “Do her children really blend as well as she thinks, or are they telling her what she want to hear?”

            Who knows. Or maybe they wouldn’t express themselves in a way she doesn’t like, exactly because she doesn’t want to hear it. Or maybe they have tried and found it useless. Or maybe they need her approval too much to have any idea of how warped their mother’s relationship psychology is. Or maybe they were also very impacted by their abusive father and if these new two adults don’t directly abuse the kids, then it makes the kids feel like this is something good. It’s clear these kids have never known having a healthy, committed heterosexual couple as parents.

          • Matt

            Any person’s “mental and emotional problems” (if any exist) are none of our business. They are the business of that person and their healthcare providers.

            What’s more, mental illness by itself doesn’t speak much about a person’s character. It’s how the person manages and treats their condition that matters.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            As long as we have people doing harm and violence in society, which means to people in society, mental and emotional problems are certainly our business. Sticking your head in the sand only allows people who have deformed psychologies and ethical standards to do harm – and mostly with impunity.

            Mental problems are society’s business, just as sexuality.

          • Matt

            You did not make that distinction originally. You only mentioned “problems.” Yes, if a person is in imminent danger of harming themselves or others, it becomes our business. What we wrestle with as a society is how to minimize the possibility of harm if it exists without being cruel and curbing freedom unnecessarily.

            Using phrases like “people who have deformed psychologies” is, to me, hostile towards those people. Hostility is never helpful. I would say it’s even less helpful than burying our heads in the sand. The people you rail against (e.g. LGBT folks) are people–they have the same basic needs and desires that you do.

            I would know, since I’m one of them.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Using phrases like “people who have deformed psychologies” is, to me, hostile towards those people.
            =================

            So if someone has a problem and I state the problem I am being hostile. And if I am being hostile then I shouldn’t be hostile, so I should just shut up about all the problems that people have. Because people with psychological problems in all areas are here to dictate what anyone else can say or not say about society and other people.

            That’s ridiculous.

            “The people you rail against (e.g. LGBT folks) are people–they have the same basic needs and desires that you do. ”

            Any human being has some basic needs. My point with LGBTPSM (lets include pedophiles and S&Mers in the group) is that they have certain deformed aspects of their psychologies. The fact that they have some basic needs doesn’t change that.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            No pedophiles do not fit into that mix. Pedophiles abuse children, IT isn’t about sex, its about control, power, being stronger than their victims. They are simply rapists.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Sorry, but that is a tremendously ignorant notion of the complexity of the psychological problems of pedophiles and ephebophiles. More correctly I could have said LGBTPESM. Many kinds of pedophiles and ephebophiles have certainly perverse desires about the sex they want to have, so it’s always also about sex. Sex always involves power issues, because every human relationships has power dynamics in it. And there are plenty of pedophiles and ephebophiles that want to care for their victims in their own demented way.
            If it weren’t about sex, there would be no sex, just other forms of violence. They are certainly not simply rapists.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Sigh. I am not even going to go through the motions of posting the reams of data that prove that statement wrong, because I doubt you’ll bother reading them.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            I’m sure our moderator who says you can’t make claims without supporting them would be very interested. I mean that’s what she said I needed to do.
            And you don’t have to post reams of anything. Just one study if you can find it.

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Sexuality is none of our business, unless an act directly causes injury or harm to someone…of which it is no longer sex, but an act of violence we call rape.

            Mental illness however is our business and we need to be compassionate, accomodating, loving doing everything we can to give ill people as good a quality of life as possible, the best treatment possible and the respect and self worth so many desperately need.

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            Sexuality is everybody’s business because it’s exactly not paying attention to how deformed and unethical people are in the area of sexuality and relationships that enables them to do harm and violence – mostly with impunity.

          • AtalantaBethulia

            Alessandra, are you able to use terms that are non- inflammatory and are objective?

          • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

            What terms are you referring to? Can you define what you mean by “objective”? Isn’t “inflammatory” a subjective concept?

          • Wonder

            actually when journalists are doing their job, you can’t tell what they feel about a subject

          • http://allegro63.wordpress.com/ allegro63

            Which is the case. John asked a series of questions and allowed the person who was interviewed answer them. He puts no personal input into the matter. It was a well done, insightful and very respectful look into the life of someone who lives life a little differently.

          • Wonder

            yeah that was kinda my point :)

  • Alice

    I’m glad they are in this relationship because they all truly wanted to be, not because they grew up that way and felt pressured by their conception of “God’s will.” That seems to have been the Brown wives’ primary motivation, though not the only one.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X