Image for Polyamorists defend parade spot

Polyamorists defend paradespot

This year’s Sydney Mardi Gras theme is universal and infinite love – but with a politically-charged parade helping to promote marriage equality, is a group endorsing polyamorous relationships still allowed in?

This week the Sydney Polyamory group was concerned that Mardi Gras had gone too conservative as Australia’s gay marriage battle heightens, and would now no longer endorse the idea that relationships involving more than two people can be natural and ethical.

The group’s worries were highlighted on Victorian HIV prevention worker Daniel Reeders’ blog by a member of Sydney Polyamory who said he’d consulted Mardi Gras about their float.

“Sydney Mardi Gras does not include us as part of the LGBTIQ community,” said the Polyamory member’s alarming message to others in the parade group. “While we can express our support for the LGBTIQ community, we cannot have any signs that talk about polyamory or say things like ‘polyamory is ethical/natural’ etc.”

This attitude came as a surprise to the group’s float organiser, as she believes “our group is primarily composed of LGBTIQ members.”

“I am pretty angry and insulted about this… we were already not considering participating because a large number of community members were upset at not being considered part of the LGBTIQ community.”

The situation seems a little ironic, considering how much the widely-accepted symbol (below) for polyamory resembles Mardi Gras’ current ‘infinite love’ hearts logo…

When asked by Same Same for an update on the situation yesterday, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras CEO Michael Rolik said a dialogue was open.

“We’ve been talking with the Polyamory Australia about their entry,” he confirmed.

“We’ve made no decision yet, we’re still consulting with the organisers and in respect to them we can’t really comment more at this time.”

But the latest comments by another Sydney Polyamory member on Reeders’ blog suggest that after some discussion, Mardi Gras has approved the group to march as long as they make clear they are “Queer Polyamorists” – therefore meeting the criteria of being LGBTIQ enough to march in the parade.

This appears to be a welcomed result, with the group seeming to understand the current sensitivity around their message, but making it clear they do not want it to be left out.

“Polyamorists have universally supported the equal marriage issue,” the commenter reflects. “There is some concern that in order to get that issue the recognition it needs for legislative change, there has been some distancing by equal marriage activists from the large chunk of the queer community that doesn’t practice monogamy.

“We generally understand the need to focus on one issue to get it through, but there’s a concern that we may then find ourselves ostracised by the people we have supported.”

Social

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
26703
rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012

But we are talking about Polyamorists not Polygamists Dsquare...get it right.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

your a complete fruit cake, band wagon fringe dwellers" GTF out of my community you nazi. are you kidding me. You've been a very bad queer.

go to you room and don't come out till you learn to play nice

children

Gay/lesbian/bisexual does not = polygamous
Polygamous does not = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Gay/lesbian/bisexual does not = "queer"
"Queer" does not = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Gay/lesbian/bisexual does not = transgender/intersex
Transgender/intersex does not = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Mardi gras used to = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Mardi gras no longer = Gay/lesbian/bisexual

^funny how that's totally logical.

Gay and lesbian rights are not a bandwagon. Telling gays and lesbians "we don't fit into mainstream society so we're just going to latch onto gay and lesbian events because we can't be bothered doing anything for ourselves" is bigoted, lazy and arrogant no matter what fringe dwellers you're dealing with

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

people really need to shed the gay inc

no better then hetro bigots

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

any body who thinks cis queer is the only queer is categorically wrong.

G&L is just scratching the surface.

Irene

Irene said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Dat, Argue the point, not the person.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

ok the point is ignorance, you know that thing the straight community perpetrates on the gay and lesbian community.

double standard

even the wider hetronormative community can see that

ensign-charlie

ensign-charlie said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Gay/lesbian/bisexual does not = polygamous
Polygamous does not = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Gay/lesbian/bisexual does not = "queer"
"Queer" does not = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Gay/lesbian/bisexual does not = transgender/intersex
Transgender/intersex does not = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Mardi gras used to = Gay/lesbian/bisexual
Mardi gras no longer = Gay/lesbian/bisexual

^funny how that's totally logical.

Gay and lesbian rights are not a bandwagon. Telling gays and lesbians "we don't fit into mainstream society so we're just going to latch onto gay and lesbian events because we can't be bothered doing anything for ourselves" is bigoted, lazy and arrogant no matter what fringe dwellers you're dealing with

Funny how you say that the T ought to be excluded by that calculation as trans* people were pretty much the original instigators of the gay rights movement.

They're not bigoted bandwagoners. They're people who want equality - true equality. Not "we're special because we're gay gtfo our pedestal" equality, but genuine "we are all people and all deserve the same rights and being off in separate cliques that are against each other helps no one" equality. As far as I can see the people who get uppity about "they're not gay and lesbian enough for this" are just as bad as "you're just not straight enough to be allowed to have marriages and children" because the thinking is the same - they're different so they need to gtfo.

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012


Some people push this story but it isn't substantiated by the documents and memories of the people involved in the week-long riots

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/stonewall/player/


.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Some people push this story but isn't substantiated by the documents and memories of the people involved in the week-long riots

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/stonewall/player/

No there not properly remembered because people mistook them for drag queens, which still happens today and a lot of transphobia is sadly reinforced be the drag industry.

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012



The video records and all the testaments say drag/trans etc, etc were involved in the initial arrest but the rioting went on for the full week.

Mama Catastrophe

Mama Catastrophe said on the 12th Feb, 2012



To be fair Ash its not just drag queens that confuse folks. Trans folks can also be mistaken for transvestites and in the case of female to male trans folks, they can be mistaken for maculine appearing lesbians . Simalry it also works in reverse with drag queens, transvsetites and masculine appearing lesbians being mistaken for trans folks.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 12th Feb, 2012



You are right there Mama.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

erm because they were in jail getting there heads shaved and beaten.

it was always the trans/drag folk who got arrested and beaten first.

Stonewall was like Sydney's Taxi club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEiwmybJWRU

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

G&L always trying to erase trans history.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRm1zhBdXUY&feature=related

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Sylvia was a Transwoman of Latino (Peurto Rican and Venezuelan) background and she was the one who threw the first molotov at the police when the riots started...that has been documented in various accounts of the events that took place then.

She continued to be active with the Latino movement as well as the GLF in NYC and was at one point running a refuge for Queer youth who were living on the streets...it is still called Sylvia's Place and has been run by the MCC since her death.

Like many in the movement the more mainstream elements pushed her to the side and under the proverbial carpet because they were worried that somebody who wasn't cis-gendered, male, middle class and white would scare off support from the rest of society...I'm sorry but just because you have segments of the community who may be a tad confronting for narrow minded people to deal with, doesn't give any grounds to exclude them completely, whitewash their involvement and make them practically invisible but only bring them out when you want something to sensationalise and laugh at.

trina2004

trina2004 said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Sylvia was a Transwoman of Latino (Peurto Rican and Venezuelan) background and she was the one who threw the first molotov at the police when the riots started...that has been documented in various accounts of the events that took place then.
.


.... yay?

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012


:confused: Who do you mean by 'you'? I'm talking about the week-long Stonewall riots and I'm not laughing.

Dsquare

Dsquare said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Why does everyone keep bringing up Stonewall? I thought we were talking about Mardi Gras.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Mark were there non-cis folk at the 78 riots here in Sydney? You apparently were there so you should know.

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012



'non-cis' and 'cis' did not exist in 1978

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012

And this variation of polygamy didn't exist then either. Wiki tells me it's from America (of course!) and it refers to parrots! :eek: and to Star Trek and Vulcans! :eek:

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012


only because certain vested interests are continuing to push this legend about Silvia and the Molotov which is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

yes they did, the word cis didn't exist till julia serano's - Whipping Girl

Julia gave us a language that allowed us a cis people to make the destination. The non cis experience is very alien to the cis experience and visa versa. So just because the word didn't exist at the time doesn't mean its not relevant now in a historical sense. Its very relevant. And yes there were non cis folk there in 78. I know and met a trans person from that time who is a 78er.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 12th Feb, 2012

keep trying to erase trans history, many have tried and failed. :cool:

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012



First Mardi Gras in Sydney was on 24 June 1978 at 10 pm which was as a night-time celebration following a morning protest march and commemoration of the Stonewall Riots.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012



Polyamory has existed through the ages and in various civilizations. Not sure what exactly you've been reading Mark but there is plenty of literature on human sexuality that acknowledges this fact.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012



http://oldschoolreviews.com/rev_80/before_stonewall.htm

http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2011/03/31/womens-history-month-sylvia-rivera/

http://www.transadvocacy.org/?p=177

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=t_EK8GjtytMC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=sylvia+rivera+first+molotov&source=bl&ots=P1nDIeUekb&sig=C3yRJl20Sf9AkPmCUxlzfRjkTm8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DUE4T9qLBI-hiAePs-SIAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sylvia%20rivera%20first%20molotov&f=false

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transgendernews/message/778

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Oh yes, she either threw a brick or she threw a Molotov. :rolleyes: I wonder how long it takes to mix up a Molotov?

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Speaking of vested interests...the following comes from the link posted below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Rivera#Controversy

Rivera refused to have the drag culture erased from the gay rights agenda by assimilationist gay leaders who were seeking to make the community look more attractive to the heterosexual majority. Rivera's conflicts with mainstream gay and lesbian advocacy groups were emblematic of the mainstream gay rights movement's strained relationship to transgender issues. After her death, Michael Bronski recalled her anger when she felt that she was being marginalized within the community:

After Gay Liberation Front folded and the more reformist Gay Activists Alliance (GAA) became New York's primary gay rights group, Sylvia Rivera worked hard within their ranks in 1971 to promote a citywide gay rights, anti-discrimination ordinance. But for all of her work, when it came time to make deals, GAA dropped the portions in the civil rights bill that dealt with transvestitism and drag—it just wasn't possible to pass it with such "extreme" elements included. As it turned out, it wasn't possible to pass the bill anyway until 1986. But not only was the language of the bill changed, GAA—which was becoming increasingly more conservative, several of its founders and officers had plans to run for public office—even changed its political agenda to exclude issues of transvestitism and drag. It was also not unusual for Sylvia to be urged to "front" possibly dangerous demonstrations, but when the press showed up, she would be pushed aside by the more middle-class, "straight-appearing" leadership. In 1995, Rivera was still hurt: "When things started getting more mainstream, it was like, 'We don't need you no more'". But, she added, "Hell hath no fury like a drag queen scorned".


According to Bronski, Rivera was banned from New York's Gay & Lesbian Community Center for several years in the mid-nineties, because, on a cold winter's night, she aggressively demanded that the Center take care of poor and homeless queer youth. A short time before her death, Bronski reports that she said:

One of our main goals now is to destroy the Human Rights Campaign, because I'm tired of sitting on the back of the bumper. It's not even the back of the bus anymore — it's the back of the bumper. The bitch on wheels is back.


Rivera's struggles did not relate exclusively to trans people, as they intersected with issues of poverty and discrimination faced by people of color. The transgender-of-color activist and scholar Jessi Gan discusses how mainstream LGBT groups have routinely dismissed or not paid sufficient attention to Rivera's Latina identity, while Puerto Rican and Latino groups often have not fully acknowledged Rivera's contribution to their struggles for civil rights. Tim Retzloff has discussed this issue with respect to the omission of discussions about race and ethnicity in mainstream U.S. LGBT history, particularly with regard to Rivera's legacy.


Cis and Trans people have been around throughout history as well...its the terminology that is relatively new.

The term transgender (TG) was popularised in the 1970s (but implied in the 1960s) describing people who wanted to live cross-gender without sex reassignment surgery. In the 1980s the term was expanded to an umbrella term, and became popular as a means of uniting all those whose gender identity did not mesh with their gender assigned at birth.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012



In a bar? A bottle of high-proof alcohol and a rag tied to the neck of the bottle or shoved down the top of the bottle...considering both of those things would have been readily available in a bar I would say that it would take less than a minute to make one in haste.

They are really very simple things to make Mark.

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Wiki says it's NOT just vodka

Molotov cocktail Recipe

A Molotov cocktail is a breakable glass bottle containing a flammable substance such as gasoline or a napalm-like mixture, with some motor oil added, and usually a source of ignition such as a burning cloth wick held in place by the bottle's stopper. The wick is usually soaked in alcohol or kerosene, rather than gasoline.

In action, the wick is lit and the bottle hurled at a target such as a vehicle or fortification. When the bottle smashes on impact, the ensuing cloud of petrol droplets and vapour ignites, causing an immediate fireball followed by a raging fire as the remainder of the fuel is consumed. Another method is to place a reactive substance in with the gasoline, and treat the label or wrapper paper with another chemical; when the bottle ruptures, the two chemicals mix and ignite; this is safer to handle if done properly, and does not betray the thrower with a visible flame prior to the throw.

Other flammable liquids such as diesel fuel, methanol, turpentine and E85 have been used in place of or with gasoline. Thickening agents such as Styrofoam, baking soda, tar, strips of tyre tubing, sugar, blood, XPS foam, egg whites, motor oil, rubber cement, and dish soap have been added to help the burning liquid adhere to the target and create clouds of thick, choking smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 12th Feb, 2012

Wiki says it's NOT just vodka

Molotov cocktail Recipe

A Molotov cocktail is a breakable glass bottle containing a flammable substance such as gasoline or a napalm-like mixture, with some motor oil added, and usually a source of ignition such as a burning cloth wick held in place by the bottle's stopper. The wick is usually soaked in alcohol or kerosene, rather than gasoline.

In action, the wick is lit and the bottle hurled at a target such as a vehicle or fortification. When the bottle smashes on impact, the ensuing cloud of petrol droplets and vapour ignites, causing an immediate fireball followed by a raging fire as the remainder of the fuel is consumed. Another method is to place a reactive substance in with the gasoline, and treat the label or wrapper paper with another chemical; when the bottle ruptures, the two chemicals mix and ignite; this is safer to handle if done properly, and does not betray the thrower with a visible flame prior to the throw.

Other flammable liquids such as diesel fuel, methanol, turpentine and E85 have been used in place of or with gasoline. Thickening agents such as Styrofoam, baking soda, tar, strips of tyre tubing, sugar, blood, XPS foam, egg whites, motor oil, rubber cement, and dish soap have been added to help the burning liquid adhere to the target and create clouds of thick, choking smoke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

Wiki seems to be failing to mention a lot of things because the last time I made one at a friend's farm it was done with a very high-proof vodka and it went up like a charm...wouldn't have done it if he hadn't had a huge fire extinguisher but it was worth it. Grappa and Tsipouro are also good for making them.

mark_

mark_ said on the 12th Feb, 2012



Hmmm…just last week we were talking about people making bombs on farms

http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=526233

Dsquare

Dsquare said on the 13th Feb, 2012



That still doesn't explain what the relevance of whether or not a transgender person threw a molitov cocktail at the Stonewall riots has to the Sydney Mardi Gras. You and DAT seem to be saying that because thie Rivera person was at the Stonewall riots the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is and always has been a transgender event. I say bullshit.

And, from the same source you got your little snippet from, in reference to the first Sydney protest (which was the beginning of Mardi Gras):

"following a morning protest march and commemoration of the Stonewall Riots more than 500 people gathered calling for an end to discrimination against homosexuals in employment and housing, an end to police harassment and the repeal of all anti-homosexual laws"

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 13th Feb, 2012

so your saying it was only gay men then

NewFarmer

NewFarmer said on the 13th Feb, 2012

I'm just not sure what the outrage is, the article clearly states that negotiations are taking place and seems to also indicater that the float will be going ahead. Happy to be corrected but 'exclusion' seems to have not occured.

That said, for reasons pointed out by earlier members I'd be comfortable with SMG preventing this entry. I don't have a problem with them keeping the focus of the LGBT community and just being generally into a different type of relationship isn't necassarily a same sex thing. I accept that there is a contestability to what SMG ought to be, but that's my two cents. But if I was particularly exercised on it I'd write a letter or volunteer or something...

mark_

mark_ said on the 13th Feb, 2012


I'm responsible for this 'irrelevant' tangent back at post #154. But I think it shows how faddish we are.

trina2004

trina2004 said on the 13th Feb, 2012

When did this become about trying to get rid of the 'T' from LGBT?

I don't think polygamy is relevant....but trans people have always been part of this community and will always be.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 13th Feb, 2012

because the same thing happened to us years back, it was thought that the trans community didn't belong. Even many trans people were saying that and then the intersex community had to lobby to be included. I have never held the belief that exclusion is a good thing but I can see the same thing happening with queer pollies. Lesbians experienced resistance in the early days and this is just another example of attempted dis inclusion from the homonormative purists.

Dsquare

Dsquare said on the 13th Feb, 2012

When did this become about trying to get rid of the 'T' from LGBT?

I don't think polygamy is relevant....but trans people have always been part of this community and will always be.

I'm not suggesting that trans people be excluded. Trans people have always and will always be welcomed by the gay community. But that is not the same as trans people demanding that every gay and lesbian event is a a trans event, nor demanding that every gay and lesbian event, website etc be re-branded with a meaningless acronym.

It's also relevant to the discussion regarding whether or not polygamists should be part of the parade because it's this silly rebranding and the insistence that everything needs to be labelled with the alphabet that got us to the situation we are in now. If we are to believe the Mardi Gras board, the reason the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras has become the generic mardi gras is in the almighty name of inclusiveness and the current belief that anything labelled gay and lesbian is evil. So they changed the name and now every Tom, Dick and Alice that wants to think they're special thinks it's their parade.

So to me it seems simple, we either reclaim Mardi Gras as a gay and lesbian event, or we let anybody and everybody be part of it and the gay and lesbian community can dissappear back into the shadows from whence they came.

nickdisco

nickdisco said on the 13th Feb, 2012

My beliefs are based on personal experience, not religion, really.
You can't 'study' love, Mr. Ash. You feel it. You simply discover love, express it, receive and share love.


Then to deny the very notion that someone with different beliefs and experiences cannot love more than one person is ignorant.

How can you make such blatent claims about polyamory without being a polyamorist?

I am currently in a relationship with a man I love, and yes we do have that side where on occasion we have sex with other people, but that isn't what we are about.
We are simply open to the notion that sometimes you fall in love with another person. It doesn't make either of us love each other any less it just happens and we are both open minded enough to embrace that situation and make it suit us.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 13th Feb, 2012



Ye we weren't intending on taking over the country though...we were being boyish and stupid...I used to love making things to blow up...was heaps of fun at the time...in the same way that some of our parents used to collect fireworks when they were kids.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 13th Feb, 2012

When did this become about trying to get rid of the 'T' from LGBT?

I don't think polygamy is relevant....but trans people have always been part of this community and will always be.

Polyamory

http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=7384746

Polygamy


GET IT RIGHT PLEASE.......

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 13th Feb, 2012

you have become what u hate, congrats

I'm not suggesting that trans people be excluded. Trans people have always and will always be welcomed by the gay community. But that is not the same as trans people demanding that every gay and lesbian event is a a trans event, nor demanding that every gay and lesbian event, website etc be re-branded with a meaningless acronym.

It's also relevant to the discussion regarding whether or not polygamists should be part of the parade because it's this silly rebranding and the insistence that everything needs to be labelled with the alphabet that got us to the situation we are in now. If we are to believe the Mardi Gras board, the reason the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras has become the generic mardi gras is in the almighty name of inclusiveness and the current belief that anything labelled gay and lesbian is evil. So they changed the name and now every Tom, Dick and Alice that wants to think they're special thinks it's their parade.

So to me it seems simple, we either reclaim Mardi Gras as a gay and lesbian event, or we let anybody and everybody be part of it and the gay and lesbian community can dissappear back into the shadows from whence they came.

Irene

Irene said on the 14th Feb, 2012

Atm, society is not ready for polyamorous marriages. Society is ready for same sex marriages. Having the polyamourists climb on board, is not helping our cause - in fact it sets us back and creates a new 'reason' why same sex marriages shouldn't be legal (in the eyes of the conservative straight community). Let's get same sex marriages legal first. They have to be legal before polyamourist marriages can even be considered. Then the polyamourists can start their own campaign independent of the LGBT community. At the moment they're sabotaging us for their own selfish ends.

mark_

mark_ said on the 14th Feb, 2012


I don't keep up with the fads but reading wiki made me think that the Californians invented polyamory in the 90s because they didn't like the notion of polygamy. Polygamy implies legal contracts and financial responsibility for one's actions.

ensign-charlie

ensign-charlie said on the 14th Feb, 2012



Polygamy has been far more commonly accepted historically in conservative religious communities than same sex marriages. It has been commonly accepted in both the Jewish, Islamic and Christian religions in the past that polygamy was a man's god given right. So while polygamy, as opposed to polyamory, is far more patriarchal-oppression-of-women than polyamory, the concept, as shown in this thread, is quite often linked. Since marriage is primarily a Judeo-Christian institution, doesn't it follow that polyamorous marriage would be more readily accepted than same-sex marriage in the conservative straight community? Especially since the acceptance and celebration of homosexuality in history has occurred prior to, or outside of Judeo-Christian influenced cultures, and the primary culture/religious ideals of the 'conservative straights' is Judeo-Christian?

The fact that you would call them selfish for wanting equality shows how narrow minded and bigoted you really are.

Irene

Irene said on the 14th Feb, 2012

Charlie - selfish in that jumping in bed with gays and lesbians to promote their own cause at the expense of the gays and lesbians.
Marriage is not primarily a judeo-christian practice butpervades all religions and cultures.
You're now defending polygamy on the basis of religion. Christian polygamy is straight polygmay, and irrelevant to the LGBT community.

ensign-charlie

ensign-charlie said on the 14th Feb, 2012

Charlie - selfish in that jumping in bed with gays and lesbians to promote their own cause at the expense of the gays and lesbians.
Marriage is not primarily a judeo-christian practice butpervades all religions and cultures.
You're now defending polygamy on the basis of religion. Christian polygamy is straight polygmay, and irrelevant to the LGBT community.

I was using an analogous example. I was not defending polygamy on the basis of religion, I was pointing out that it was more commonly accepted than same sex marriage in religious communities historically. Furthermore marriage as we know it is a Jewish institution. Other forms of it existed prior to that, but the common understanding of marriage today comes from Judaism.

It is not selfish for anyone to argue for equality - no matter who they do it along side. It IS selfish to deny them that right because you think only YOUR group deserves equality. It is not at the "expense" of gays and lesbians to ask for equality. Equality can only ever benefit, and numbers to your cause can only ever benefit.

To state that "christian polygamy is straight polygamy" is a) once again dismissing the difference between polyamory and polygamy (which I pointed out in my post) and b) ignoring all those members of the LGBT community who are also religious and may or may not be polyamorous.

Irene

Irene said on the 14th Feb, 2012

They're hijacking someone else's campaign for their own ends. That is selfish, regardless.
Ok, so now there is no marriage in hindu, budhist etc countries. Try telling them that!
You haven't dealt with the fact that christian polygamy IS straight polygamy. This has nothing to do with polyamory. In every case, it is one man with multple wives. The wives don't get to choose the new wives. Only the man can do that.

ensign-charlie

ensign-charlie said on the 14th Feb, 2012

They're hijacking someone else's campaign for their own ends. That is selfish, regardless.
Ok, so now their is no marriage in hindu, budhist etc countries. Try telling them that!
You haven't dealt with the fact that christian polygamy IS straight polygamy. This has nothing to do with polyamory. In every case, it is one man with multple wives. The wives don't get to choose the new wives. Only the man can do that.

I wrote a big reply going through each point once again, but then I thought "what's the point? She's intentionally dense, ignorant and bigoted." So go form a commune of homonormative purists and have your 'equality' that doesn't include anyone else.

I will say however, that duh marriage exists in non-judeo christian countries, but we only know it as such because it was the closest word to overcome language barriers and the practices, customs and rules around Hindu marriages are totally different to Western marriages. Why? Because they developed independently and are not the forms of marriage that we in the west are used to because of our Judeo-Christian backgrounds.

Irene

Irene said on the 14th Feb, 2012


Well, I could have said the same about you but added the words "deluded" and "gullible". But I'm too nice to do that to you. Because I'm not a christian, and I respect people, even if they are christians.

Our concept of marriage existed before christianity, the christians just took it over and added a little bit of their ritual - just like they did with Yuletide and Easter.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 14th Feb, 2012



But if the underlying issue is equality then it's everyones campaign, isn't it?

trina2004

trina2004 said on the 14th Feb, 2012

okay so what is the difference between polygamy and polyamory?

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 14th Feb, 2012

Irene knows nothing of equality, she just trolls. You really think she cares about equality its like trying to argue with a rattle snake.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 14th Feb, 2012

I know little of Polyamorism but I am taking the time and respect by using my google fingers to inform myself. Its not a Polyamorist's job to educate me.

Irene

Irene said on the 14th Feb, 2012




Polygamy is marriage between one man and several women. It generally happens over time. He marries his first wife, then continues to marry more wives. Mormons are the best known at this.

Polyamory is a group (3 or more) in a relationship. Polygamists are an example of polyamory, even though it may not be one of choice for the women. Polygamists are siding with the polyamorists to make polygamy legal. The way that polyamorists would like to be known is 3 or more in a sexual, loving relationship. (ie: at least 2 of the group would be gay or lesbian). That doesn't happen in polygamy atm. The only connection (legal or otherwise) between the women is that they're married to the same man. They're not married to each other.

HubbaHubba

HubbaHubba said on the 15th Feb, 2012

Polyamorists aren't all necessarily in a relationship with each other. That would be quite restrictive. It's more that they allow each other to have mutiple relationships.

Mormons and Islamic polygamists ARE polyamorists. It's just that they only allow the man to be mutiple relationships. The women in these relationships freely choose to allow their man to take on more wives. Just like those lefties claim that Islamic women choose to wear a headscarves and face coverings......

mark_

mark_ said on the 15th Feb, 2012

I know this thread is about the PAs wanting to dance about in the parade but what is next on the agenda? Do they want legal recognition in civil matters?

When the participants have stopped having their 'non-restrictive relationships', will the Family Court be asked to clean up the messes @ $165 million pa?

I notice on Judge Judy there are endless cases of fighting between "the mother of my child" and "the father of my children" etc. Rules have to made for cost-splitting, visiting relations, AVO's, retrieving furniture, petty theft, the cost of parenting of a mutual child versus the cost of parenting some other man's child, etc

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/
http://familycourt.gov.au.master.com/texis/master/search?query=annual+report&x=11&y=5

.

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 15th Feb, 2012




The concept of polygamy relies on marriage to make it work. It is an extension of the oppressive nature of marriage because it tends to be one man with multiple wives as opposed to one woman and multiple husbands.

Polyamory does not require marriage for it to work at all and it is more free as a relationship than one person with multuple partners in the way that Polygamy is.

That is the shortest explanation I can give you right now...I have cooking to do.

HubbaHubba

HubbaHubba said on the 15th Feb, 2012

The concept of polygamy relies on marriage to make it work.



no it doesn't.

There are plenty of Islamic polygamist households operating in Australia.

So much so that Islamic groups are asking the federal government to recognize the 2nd, 3rd and 4th marriages so that when the man dies the secondary de facto partners are legally protected in the same way the legal wife is.

You can't just define away the problem. Polygamy is a form of polyamory. It's just that most polygamists aren't friendly to the glbt community.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 15th Feb, 2012

here comes the fear monger squad.

HubbaHubba

HubbaHubba said on the 15th Feb, 2012

You mean the logical bunch?

I don't know why you queer lefties defend conservatives so much, when they'd just as well as have you dead (or at least sterilize you). U really should wake up to yourselves.

mark_

mark_ said on the 15th Feb, 2012


I think there's a a couple of reasons.

The most obvious as that some look sexy and ultra macho and we're so used to consuming fantasy erotica that we can't distinguish our wishful thinking from the very real possibility that these dumb brutes are more likely to be gay-bashers than not (I know from personal experience).

Irene

Irene said on the 15th Feb, 2012

So why the hell would we want muslim and mormon gay-bashing polygamists to be in MG?

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 15th Feb, 2012



We are NOT asking for that mob to be in MG....The Polyamory group is a totally different demographic, it isn't the people you seem to think are involved.

Why don't you do your fucking homework on the Polyamory group marching at MG or the one that marches every year without an issue at Pride March Victoria.

Every PolyVic social I go to has never been filled with muslim and mormon gay-bashing polygamists...they are for the most part Queer people who are in polyamorous relationships.

Both you and Mark are blowing this out of fucking proportion and that is simply due to your own deliberate ignorance on the matter.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 15th Feb, 2012

We are NOT asking for that mob to be in MG....The Polyamory group is a totally different demographic, it isn't the people you seem to think are involved.

Why don't you do your fucking homework on the Polyamory group marching at MG or the one that marches every year without an issue at Pride March Victoria.

Every PolyVic social I go to has never been filled with muslim and mormon gay-bashing polygamists...they are for the most part Queer people who are in polyamorous relationships.

Both you and Mark are blowing this out of fucking proportion and that is simply due to your own deliberate ignorance on the matter.

I agree Rudeboy. As far as I'm concerned Mark and Irene should just get married, they are like Fred and Elaine Niles on these threads.

Also there are so many GLB folk out there who are in polyamorus relationships, yet don't define it that way for many reasons and the main one being prejudice and bigotry and a lot of the negative comments on this thread certainly prove that.

To be honest I feel I am a polyamorist at heart.

HubbaHubba

HubbaHubba said on the 15th Feb, 2012



Both you and Mark are blowing this out of fucking proportion and that is simply due to your own deliberate ignorance on the matter.

no they are just taking the issue to it's logical conclusion. Ie that unless it's a homo or bi polyamorous group, they don't belong in the parade. Straight polyamourists have got nothing to do with our communities because straight polyamorists are STRAIGHT.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 15th Feb, 2012

lmao^ blah blah blah discriminate blah blah objectify blah blah exclude blah

Irene

Irene said on the 15th Feb, 2012



Mr Ash, That's unfair. At no point have I criticised polyamorism. I've always defended it. I've merely said that their issues (in particular, those of the straight polyamorists) are not those of the LGBT movement, and that promotion of their issues could harm those of the LGBTs. Meanwhile, others have slammed polyamorism, but that's apparently OK? It seems like you've been paying too much attention to Anarchist Dat.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 15th Feb, 2012



Straight marriage has nothing to do with our communities because straight marriages are STRAIGHT. :)

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 15th Feb, 2012



Who the fuck said they are straight? Who are you to determine what their sexuality is as well? Have they come out and said they were straight???

Irene

Irene said on the 15th Feb, 2012



How can straight polyamorists be anything but straight? :confused:

rudeboy86

rudeboy86 said on the 15th Feb, 2012



Who said the group is straight...you are not answering the question which was actually about the Polyamory group marching at MG who's Victorian chapter march in Pride here.

mark_

mark_ said on the 15th Feb, 2012


Yes I'm ignorant of Polyamery. I've read this complete thread and Wiki and I'm still ignorant.

I did ask two questions in post #47 and was ignored and there were three questions in post #59 which were also ignored. And, again, two questions in post #209 were similarly ignored.

Quid pro quo.

We're having as much communication here as the Wallsend minister and the night-time vandals.

Irene

Irene said on the 16th Feb, 2012



Go back and read what Hubba said (don't skip words). Then read your reply to it. You'll see what I'm getting at. ;)

JayTee

JayTee said on the 16th Feb, 2012



Rudeboy, Mardi Gras wanted to ensure that the group was indeed a GLBT/Queer group as they didn't see straight polyamorists as being relevant to the purpose of the parade.

Personally I think it's important for the distinction to be made in the parade. Its just ironic that the current board are the ones to defend the glbt-ness of the parade in this of all years.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 16th Feb, 2012

yes the GLB has done a wonderful job including the T coff

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 16th Feb, 2012

at one stage it was just G, an acronym of one.

Irene

Irene said on the 16th Feb, 2012

Hmmm ... just read a post (not in SS) of a straight bloke (who likes having multiple women) bragging he can march in MG this year

Barrin

Barrin said on the 16th Feb, 2012

Yes. MG is inclusive instead of gay & lesbian. Please keep up.

Irene

Irene said on the 16th Feb, 2012


He says he doesn't mind gays, but they shouldn't be able to get married blah blah blah religion blah blah blah, but he wants to marry multiple women.

Irene

Irene said on the 16th Feb, 2012


Oops, sorry Barrin. It's now Straight MG, isn't it? Can't be "exclusivist" :eek:

Lazzarus

Lazzarus said on the 16th Feb, 2012



AAARRRGGHHHH!!!! :mad:

Fucking wanker.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 16th Feb, 2012

gl ......................... b .......................................... t ............................ i

HubbaHubba

HubbaHubba said on the 16th Feb, 2012

^ cryptic message that doesn't really make a point.

datkindagal

datkindagal said on the 16th Feb, 2012

only makes sense to people who can see

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 16th Feb, 2012

AAARRRGGHHHH!!!! :mad:

Fucking wanker.

Irene is female. :rolleyes:

Dsquare

Dsquare said on the 16th Feb, 2012



I think Lazz was referring to the heterosexual polygamist who thinks that homosexuals are good enough to put on a parade for him but not good enough to have the same rights as him.

Irene

Irene said on the 16th Feb, 2012

MrAsh, I think you got it wrong.
Edit: yes, I am female, but Lazz was referring to the straight polygamist bragging about going to MG as the wanker, not me!

mark_

mark_ said on the 16th Feb, 2012

No one has bothered with my post #225 so hopefully there's something here in this site decorated with lots of non-restrictive bubbles and stuff about tantric sex

http://polyamory.org.au/debanapol

There are 144 more comments. View them all