Welcome to Gaia! ::

It looks like you've uncovered some of the infamous "whore-rats" of humanity! Congrats on your discovery, you now have the right to look down on them and poo-poo their offspring! *thumbs up* stare

Close-minded much?

While I agree that picking two people on the basis of their gender is pretty silly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being in a relationship with multiple people so as long as everyone involved knows and consents to the arrangement. It's not cheating if you're not breaking the rules of the relationship. You obviously aren't interested in this, so you're not affected. But if the boyfriend, the girl who asked you out, and whoever else ends up with her (or with both of them, such as the case sometimes is) all understand what's going on and agree to it, IT'S REALLY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Is it more committed to have only one friend, as opposed to more than one? If you want to be a parent, would having two children mean your love for each one is diminished, compared to having one child? Obviously the answer is NO. Why does it mean that someone is uncommitted if they can commit to two people instead of just one? There are plenty of people in loving, long-lasting relationships that involve more than two people.

Learn before you judge -- and think before you post. You're just as bad as the people who hate GLBT folk. stare

No, it's not. She says "sorry, not interested." The end. Same as if you're straight and a gay person asks you out.


Sure there's a difference, but going onto a forum and posting "Ugh, gays are so disgusting, they can't commit to anyone" wouldn't have been different from this at all, and I constitute both as hatred. It's targeting a group of people who have done you no harm and writing highly pejorative statements about them.


Obviously this is nothing like Fred Phelps. But it IS just like the average homophobe, and I think that it has no place in a guild centered around tolerance.


My reaction would have been far different if she'd said "I disagree with polyamory." Did you even read her post? And the posts of the people following? "Disgusting, promiscuous, unloyal, no commitment, cheaters, whore-rats, people to look down upon..." Aren't these the same words flinged at gay people? They're equally mistaken here.


Why not? It is personal.

So when someone posts something hateful about gay people, you can't call it close-minded? You can't say they're being hateful? You just have to leave it at "hey here's another opinion"? I hardly think it's bashing to say those things. If you think that's bashing, and that the words she and the others in this thread wrote are merely "a little offensive," I think your priorities are way out of order.

Homophobes will often say, "hey! I'm not a homophobe! I just disagree with gay people!" when what they do and say are exactly the characteristics of a homophobe. Is it bashing to call them on that? It's a judgement to call someone a homophobe, of course. But you have to judge at some point. What I said was to learn before making a judgement, not to never make them.

I say things bluntly because otherwise you're merely tip-toeing around the subject and never getting to the point. I'm just plain not interested in sugarcoating. And I understand the difference between someone being ignorant of their own accord, and someone who simply doesn't understand what's going on. The OP didn't come in saying, "I don't understand this," she came in with "This is disgusting."

If it's about free speech, then while they have the freedom to post about how they disagree, I have the freedom to say "you're a close-minded fool for saying that." If it's being nice and kind to others, then I hope you'd have been willing to write something 'nicer' lecturing about these things than I did to the OP. But I highly doubt that. So, sorry that I'm willing to call things what they are.

And for the record I never once said, "you can't have that opinion." I simply explained how that opinion was close-minded and offensive.

When I say it is personal, I mean that she shouldn't have barged in and made this thread without thinking about the fact that there probably would be people in this guild whose lifestyle involves multiple relationships and that they'd be offended by what she's saying. Just because she didn't take it into account when she should have doesn't mean it's not personal.

Just as a side note, "polygamist" isn't the right word. It refers to multiple marriages, specifically.


P.S.

Someone who has probably dealt with a lot of homophobia in the past? That just means you should know better. Unless you were referring to the OP, in which case... well, the same thing applies, but she's made her points pretty loud and clear.

Sorry if I sparked something sweatdrop , all I meant was that monogamy is one of the constants that I personally hold to. If you're already devoted to one person, what reason should you have to have another partner that can lead to potential heartbreak? Sorry again, I wasn't trying to seem judgemental... cry

Unless you honestly feel that polyamory is more worthy of insult than being gay, I think you've misunderstood me. I wasn't comparing derisive statements to bigoted actions. I was comparing the communities, and making a point that hatred against poly folk is no more reasonable than hatred against gay people. Like I already said, I wasn't comparing her to Phelps or Robertson -- just to the average person who might say "ugh! Gays are disgusting!" I also never called her an idiot, so I don't know where you got that from. :/

As far as being an, um... spokesperson of sorts for polyamory, that's sort of hard because there are so many ways in which a person can be polyamorous. I'll try, though: while the essentially definition of polyamory is "having multiple relationships," the polyamorous community nearly universally uses a definition of responsible non-monogamy. The non-monogamy part is obvious. The 'responsbility' part can have aspects that vary from relationship to relationship, but most universally it means that everyone involved in the polyamorous situation is fully aware of what is occurring and willingly consents. This is what makes polyamory distinct from cheating. When someone cheats, they are breaking their partner's trust, and breaking the rules of the relationship. A polyamorous person could, of course, cheat by deceiving one or more of their partners in some fashion, but that's cheating, not being poly.

This, of course, makes a situation where young girls are turned over to harems and similar situations (most widely known in a Mormon context) non-polyamorous. Anything that's non-consensual isn't polyamory.

As I already said, there are many different ways that someone could be poly. They might be in a relationship with one person, and a separate relationship with another person, and perhaps with more people. Those people possibly are in relationships with others. Sometimes people are dating together as a group, most often in a "triad" (three people who are each romantically involved with the other two people), but sometimes with more people. Sometimes people are involved in mixes of this.

Some poly people define one or more people as their primary partners, and others as secondary partners. Personally, this doesn't float my boat, but it's not as bad as it sounds. It's less about "this person matters more, and the other people are flings on the side" (because oftentimes that's simply not the case) and more about "this is the place we are in our relationships; this person has the main focus of my attention, but I'm romantically involved with others perhaps less deeply, as well." In some cases that could be described as an open relationship. You might think of it like how you could spend almost all of your time with one very best friend, but that doesn't mean that your relationships with other friends are meaningless.

One particular type of polyamory is called "polyfidelity". This means that you are in one relationship with multiple people and no one in the relationship seeks partners outside of it. Some people might be in non-polyfid relationships where they are free to seek any new partners, or where all new partners must be ok'd by current partners, or various other possibilities.

Others don't follow this primary-secondary thing. To me, it's too rigid, so I have no interest in it. The main thing that drew me to polyamory was that I felt it to be much more congruent with human nature, and certainly with the way that I form relationships. I can't see relationships, which are active and dynamic, as something that can be reduced to "oh, we're boyfriends, as we decided a week ago." I want my relationships to develop naturally to the degree possible, so as long as I can uphold my responsibility to the people I'm involved with. Obviously I couldn't be in ninety serious romantic relationships at once, nor would I want to be! But just because there's an upper limit doesn't mean that it has to be defined at "one."

Monogamy has its pros and cons, and polyamory is the same way. Personally, I just don't feel comfortable in a strictly monogamous setting, and I think that for me the pros of poly outweigh the cons. Some pros are that your love is more expansive and you're less likely to become dependant on one person. And if you do need extra support, you have more people you can get it from. Some cons are that you might have to deal with jealousy at some point (be it your own, or a partner's, or a partner of a partner's), and that it's more rocky if someone leaves a relationship.

*hugs* feel better.... heart