Polyamory

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Patrick

... honestly, open and maturely.

Again we have the buzzwords without any explanation why we should abandon our minds and accept the extraordinary use of these adjectives. Would it be possible to "honestly, open and maturely" murder someone? Would it be possible for me to type here "honestly, open and maturely murder someone"?

... if someone starts to feel the same strong feelings towards another person ...

Then, if he persists in them as you recommend, he is flouting Jesus who said not even to behold another with desire.

Listen, friends -- there are very few people in the world who can accept Jesus and the Envoy's teachings. This is copacetic. This was the way of the world then and always will be. And this is perfectly fine with me. But when someone, such as our young friend Christopher, is actively seeking Jesus on a matter, God forbid that I hold my peace! That would not be right, not honest, not fair -- and certainly not loving to him or to Jesus.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Again we have the buzzwords without any explanation why we should abandon our minds and accept the extraordinary use of these adjectives. Would it be possible to "honestly, open and maturely" murder someone? Would it be possible for me to type here "honestly, open and maturely murder someone"?

No, because there would not be an honest, open or mature way to go about murdering someone. Poly relationships have that capacity, however.

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Then, if he persists in them as you recommend, he is flouting Jesus who said not even to behold another with desire.

I'm not doubting this, just not sure what in scripture your talking about, could you give some specifics please?

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Listen, friends -- there are very few people in the world who can accept Jesus and the Envoy's teachings. This is copacetic. This was the way of the world then and always will be. And this is perfectly fine with me. But when someone, such as our young friend Christopher, is actively seeking Jesus on a matter, God forbid that I hold my peace! That would not be right, not honest, not fair -- and certainly not loving to him or to Jesus.

The reason there is a conversation happening still on this topic is that some of us think you can be a disciple of Christ and be in a poly-relationship and some don't. We know that you don't, but this comment implies to me that you don't even find it open for conversation which would be a real shame because I'd like to know the entirety of your viewpoint.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Patrick

I'm not doubting this, just not sure what in scripture your talking about, could you give some specifics please?

The scripture I am talking about is the Sermon on the Mount. Read Matthew's Goodnews, chapter five, verse twenty-eight; there may be parallel quotations elsewhere.

[njtom]

For me, the sexual part of a relationship is so small in significance relative to the other parts that I don't see it as a hardship in any way to abstain.

But I do believe that the polyamorists are on to something significant: in the typical marriage, the idea of one party providing emotional or material support to someone outside of the marriage is frowned upon. This constraint limits the ability of each marriage partner to follow the love (agape) mandate of Christ. Love becomes a limited, inward-directed, family-centered thing when it should be an unconstrained, expansive, and outward-directed thing.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Patrick

The reason there is a conversation happening still on this topic is that some of us think you can be a disciple of Christ and be in a poly-relationship and some don't.

By all means, continue the topic! But don't weep with shock that you are contradicted.

I'd like to know the entirety of your viewpoint.

My view could not be simpler: Love is no love that is not monogamous and uxorious (e.g. Mat xix.5, Eph v.25); but more blessed is he who loves all he sees, without romance at all in his life (e.g. Mat xix.12, I Cor vii.8); this Jesus and Envoys and Spirit support (v.s.); few there be who can accept it (Mat xix.11).


[Edited to make clear: In "Love is no love ..." above, I intend "Romantic love is no love ...".]

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by njtom

... But I do believe that the polyamorists are on to something significant: in the typical marriage, the idea of one party providing emotional or material support to someone outside of the marriage is frowned upon. This constraint limits the ability of each marriage partner to follow the love (agape) mandate of Christ. Love becomes a limited, inward-directed, family-centered thing when it should be an unconstrained, expansive, and outward-directed thing.

Amen!

Paul continually spoke his love and stirred up the love of the Followers he wrote to. John could not write a paragraph without tender, tender words of love.

Christians might do well to study the character of Socrates.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

The scripture I am talking about is the Sermon on the Mount. Read Matthew's Goodnews, chapter five, verse twenty-eight; there may be parallel quotations elsewhere.

Looking upon another lustfully is adultery, yes, Jesus let's us know this. This implies though that it is a personal want and sexual desire, one gone undiscussed with whom your are in a relationship with. If you are to grow intimate feelings for another third party and indulge them in secret, or even continue to look upon and consider them just to yourself this is adultery and sin. But to go about it by discussing it with all parties open, honestly, and maturely and then to engage a relationship from there with all parties knowledgeable, in consent, and satisfied with what is going on, it is not adultery and not sinful. This is the nature of polyamory.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

By all means, continue the topic! But don't weep with shock that you are contradicted.

I didn't...

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Looking upon another lustfully is adultery, yes, Jesus let's us know this. This implies though that it is a personal want and sexual desire, one gone undiscussed ...

There is no room for implication -- he gives us a declarative in its simplest form; there is most definitely no room for your implication:

I say to you that any man who looks at a woman so as to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

However, if you can direct me to other teaching of Jesus that contains this principle of sin being no sin unless "undiscussed", then I am eager for it.

[Porter Doran]

(Dare I ask if BackAlleyRadio and Patrick are in the same polyamorous relationship? No, I daren't.)

[lostboy]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

(Dare I ask if BackAlleyRadio and Patrick are in the same polyamorous relationship? No, I daren't.)

what a rude thing to say...

in case you were misled... putting parenthesis at opposite ends of a statement/question/remark does not relegate said statement/question/remark to some realm of cyber personal thought or private viewing... so i have to assume that you meant for anyone who happened to be reading along with this thread to see that...

two people taking part in an otherwise civil discussion are trying to explain their views, beliefs or perhaps even something as simple as their ideas to you, you disagree with them, and you just go ahead and make an assumption such as the statement that i quoted above? i can not for the life of me, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" concerning these matters, understand how a statement such as that is a reflection of the love of Christ. But forgive me... i must be mistaken... i must not be understanding correctly... you've got Jesus on your side and they don't, right?

to be completely honest i have no real interest in taking part in a discussion concerning matters such as those discussed within this thread with people thousands of miles away... but i for myself take offense at your statement porter... that is all that i have to say on the matter.

[Andy Alexis-Baker]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

(Dare I ask if BackAlleyRadio and Patrick are in the same polyamorous relationship? No, I daren't.)

Originally Posted by lostboy

what a rude thing to say...

I agree. That was not really called for. I agree with you Porter. This whole poly whatever is kind of stupid. But whatever. No need for cheap shots like that. But of course, I am not immune to doing that myself, so I guess take it from one person who sometimes hits low to another.

[Pigmalia]

Originally Posted by Andy Alexis-Baker

This whole poly whatever is kind of stupid.

Ya, Porter they're total nut cases but try and be civil :P

[Andy Alexis-Baker]

[Pigmalia]

Elton John says Jesus was gay.

It's quite interesting that people seem to project themselves onto Jesus, it's happening to some degree in this thread.

People tend to reject the Christian religion rather than Jesus specifically. I think an important part of Christian anarchism is as Tolstoy, we brutally set aside everything and examine Jesus on his own terms and see what we really think of what he said and did. Not to create our own personal Christianity, but to seriously consider him without the distracting trappings of religion.

[Mark Fish]

A few years ago the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church in Indianapolis, with support from Faith in America (a national gay advocacy organization) had several billbboards around town as part of $100,000 campaign supposedly giving biblical support for homosexual life style by twisting scripture inside out and around. The billboards proclaimed, Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve Genesis 2:24, Ruth 1:14; another said David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26; another, Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Matthew 8:5-13; another, The early church welcomed a gay man. acts 8:26-40. and another, Jesus said some are born gay Matthew 19:10-12. The local pastor who is gay defended the billboards and believes that Jesus was very likely gay. Not an unusual belief evidentially. Is there no limit to how far people will go to rationalize their favorite peccadilloes. I recall a book written supporting the idea that Jesus and the apostles smoked opium and took psilocybin (psychadelic mushrooms).

[nabsy]

BackAlley I think will begin with your posts as the original poster on the topic. I know you in person and don't want to type in ways that would be harmful to our acquaintance. If I do call me on it.

I think my biggest problem with polyamory is that I have no clue what it is trying to be in resistance to or what the problem is that they are defining. Take the statement you made that

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

The benefits of poly are many. It allows you to give your love to more than just one person at a time. Our culture tells us that it is cheating to love more than one person, but exclusivity may also be seen as cheating yourself and others, as it limits the amount of love you are allowed to give. It's more complicated than that, but that's kind of the premise. It doesn't work for everyone and shouldn't. There is obvious value in exclusive relationships, and obvious complications with polyamory.

I see this and the only thing I can come up with at first read is "What?" Think about families. A single mother loves both of her children and she loves her mother and her siblings. The child in that family loves her mother and loves her sibling and loves her grandparents and loves her teacher at school. If there is a pet in the house, she loves the dog as well as her best friend. People give their love to one another all the time. So what "culture" is it that calls it cheating if you love more than one person? I've never heard any of those things be called cheating. If anything I've heard it referred to by a term called agape. No one calls loving more than one person cheating that I know of that has any sense. The term cheating is referred to for romantic, monogamous relationships and personally I think the term cheating has its place given what monogamous relationships are supposed to be about.

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

Another idea is that it is too much pressure to put on one person to think that they could provide all your needs for you. It leaves space for imperfection. Instead of just breaking up with someone because they are not the ONE, it allows you to let them be who they are and cherish that, as well as fulfill all your unmet needs with someone else.

The idea of thinking one person can provide "all your needs"--whatever that means--is not a result of the practice of monogamy. It's the result of people with bad, unhealthy relationship skills of which there are many. Polyamory seems to think that it is inherent to the monogamy structure and that, to be frank, is false. For example, my partner does not enjoy dancing and so he does not meet my "need" in that area. Yet neither of us think it is "cheating" that I go out with male and female friends to dance once in a while. He would think it was cheating however if I was to engage in behavior with those friends that we've promised not to do given the vows of fidelity we've made before our faith community and to God. And given the fact that I freely made that covenant with him, I would think it was cheating too and therefore I don't do it.

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

I am in a poly relationship and it's hard. It really challenges my instinctual feelings of possessiveness and jealousy. It teaches trust and requires open communication. It's been by far the most healthy relationship I have been in, in terms of communication.

I don't understand this. It is not "possessiveness" if two people voluntarily enter into a union together in which certain expectations are present. If I enter into a friendship with someone, and I understand friendship to be something in which we do not lie to one another and we are there for one another, and the other person does not do that at all for me but does that for everyone else they call friends, then I have a right to be angry and to be "jealous" and to say that is not acceptable and to disengage from that harmful relationship. That is not an issue of possession. It is the issue of breaking a particular kind of covenant and the need for self-care when that occurs. Again this is why I am perplexed about what polyamory is supposed to be solving. Furthermore, I will say that it is a no-brainer that if you enter in a relationship in which certain strings have been unattached and certain expectations have been thrown out of the window then you will have different ideas on jealousy and possession. What is there to be jealous of if you've basically said all bets are off? And how is that any different from two parties saying they are simply dating and that they are free to date other people? In fact that's what polyamory sounds like. Perpetual dating. So why give it some new name to confuse the issue?

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

I can't see any reason why poly would be immoral from a christian perspective. But if anyone can, i'd love to talk about it.

I don't think you can find anything in the teachings or example of Jesus or the practices of the early church that would advocate people who are in bonded relationships step outside of those to "meet their needs" with their partners permission. And if there is anything that the old testament teaches us, it is that most polygamous relationships or I guess polyamorous relationships are usually disastrous and do not automatically result in jealousy- and possessiveness- free relationships. Again I think polyamory is missing the point. There are unhealthy relationships out there and unhealthy people in unhealthy relationships. But healthy people (and by this I mean people who are self-aware, who are able to communicate, who realize their weaknesses etc) in a healthy relationship need not engage in possessiveness and jealousy just because they are monogamous. I know this from experience.

[nabsy]

Originally Posted by christopher

I would argue that most people who practice polyamory would say that engaging in sexuality with multiple partners is inherent to polyamory, which is why most users here disagree with it. Polyamory is not loving more than one person at the same time, it is sexuality with more than one person at a time. Remember, definitions come about by how society uses them. People do not conform to the definition of a word or term; the dictionary conforms to people's use of it.
I do not have the right to judge you if you agree with polyamory or not, but do not try to redefine it - it's definition has been made clear by the English speaking collective.

Thank you christopher--the little bit I know of it that seems to be the crux of the issue. How can I engage in sexually charged relationships (and not simply talking about having sex) with more than one partner and feel free enough to do so. Well I should get into a relationship with another person who wants to engage in sexually charged relationships with other people, we set ground rules for that and then talk about it. Well that is good and well but I find it disingenuous that people are trying to make the people who advocate or practice monogamy seem like we are just stuck on sex and missing the point about "loving everyone" when really polyamory has the same sort of "hang-up."

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

So I hear you all saying that poly is inherently sexual. I would say that you are correct, but that is because sexual behavior is the nature of intimate relationships (for most people). Sex is not exclusive and definitive of poly. Most people would say that sex is inherent in monogomous relationships too, and if you dont think so, leave your christian bubbles once and a while. It's definition has also been made clear by the English speaking public. Poly can be practiced sex free. Friendships can be sexual or sexless, regardless of the terminology used to describe them.

You are making generalizations here that you are not backing up and if this is the heart of the polyamorist argument I find them to be weak at best. Sexual behavior is not the nature of intimate relationships "for most people." In fact families ("neutral and exteded") are ones in which ideally love abounds and sex/sexuality among members (mothers and sons, aunts and nieces, fathers and daughters) is intolerable, immoral and abusive. I love my mom very deeply. I love my sister deeply. I have women friends who I love deeply. I have male friends I love deeply. I meet people for the first time and find a connection there that is so awesome I call it a spiritual kind of love. I have various forms of physical contact to demonstrate those loves. And lo and behold we are intimate, and yet we are not sexual. And I can participate in those relationships freely and I practice monogamy. Again it seems to me that polyamory has set up some strawman claims that it then turns around and knocks over to make its case. "Poly can be practiced sex free" seems to me to be a "duh" kind of argument. Of course you can love people without it being sexual. Folks have been doing it for millenia without calling it polyamory. So what really is the issue at hand if it is not a question of how to handle eros love or how to handle the desire for physical touch that would be considered unacceptable in a monogamous relationship?

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

And about sex, there are PLENTY of christians out there who do not consider pre-marital sex sinful. There are denominations who are sex positive. So please do not slap an "unchristian" label on the idea, or on me for thinking it. It's like a fundamentalist church saying that the bible is clear on the fact that the rapture is going to take us all away. It may seem clear to them in their reading of the bible, but there are countless others who see no evidence of such things in the pages of Scripture.

Plenty of Christians out there think it is okay to torture terrorists and drop bombs on Muslims in the name of Jesus. I don't want to be presumptuous here but I don't take it that you are actually saying that what the majority of Christians do or don't say about a particular issue should determine what is faithful....

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

Sex is feared, and such fear about sex can be traced historically back to the church's rise to state power. If you can suppress someone's sexuality, you can control them. Pagan holidays honored the sexual (with some practices that are obviously sexist and immoral, but...) The new moral government of church and state used their power to hit people where it hurt, if you know what i mean. The first story in history about sexual shame is in our Hebrew-Christian Scriptures. The tale of adam and eve gives us a glimpse into a perfect world, the one that g-d intended, in which our bodies were honored and beautiful and we were not ashamed. It's a story about sexuality as much as it is about anything else.

This is simply not true. There were certain mores about sex in the Jesus movement when it was still a forbidden and atheist religion long before the political rise of the church and the persecution of the empire's religions. In fact I did a paper on this in seminary and the things that we would now find restrictive pertaining to sex were some of the most liberating for men and especially for women given the context in which they were adopted. Take celibacy for example. The fact that celibacy was celebrated as something that was an acceptable goal to strive for equally by both men and woman was a boon for women and was one of the many reasons they came to the Christian faith in droves. In a social situation in which the empire was always concerned about sustaining and increasing the population, women were being used to pump out babies, the fate of their children were decided by whether the man would acknowledge the child a birth, and female children and those with deformities were unceremoniously tossed on garbage piles, for a woman to be a part of a community where she could refuse to have sex and refuse to be married--and in which this kind of behavior was encouraged as the highest form of glorifying God--was a huge act of liberation. I can send you the paper if you are interested in seeing it but if we are going to use history then we need to use history well. As for Adam and Eve, to say that sex is best practiced in the context of marriage is not the same as to devalue ones bodies. Furthermore, to say that nakedness is inherently sexual is to reflect modern values of the body. There are lots of tribal societies in which its members walk around naked or near naked. It was the colonizers who entered into those spaces who sexualized nakedness when the fact of the matter is the decision to be unconvered probably had more to do with climate, with tribal movements (much easier to pack up and go without possessions, including clothing), with the groups tasks, than it had to do with sex. Though I am sure being naked facilitates easier sexual activity it probably wasn't the main reason they did it.

Originally Posted by BackAlleyRadio

I used to think pre-marital sex was wrong too. I know all the reasons that you all are convinced that it is wrong, or destructive, or unwise. let me challenge you by saying that there are other ways to think about it. Don't let your minds be kept in a box. I also know people who abstain for spiritual reasons, or because it just makes the most sense for them. That's cool too. But let's not fault those who have different ideas about sexuality, morality, or different interpretations of scripture.

You continue to say a lot about interpretations of scripture and morality and yet have used none of this to make your case that sexually charged/sexually involved relationships outside of a covenanted union are actually acceptable or deemed positive in the Biblical text or elsewhere in the tradition. The burden of proof is on you. It is easy enough to find scripture and practices in the tradition before Constantine that would support my position. There is little that you have given us besides Wendy O Matic and generalizations to demonstrate your point.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by lostboy

what a rude thing to say...

I don't think the question could be odious to these friends' thinking. Surely to the polyamorist such a question must sound as routine as, "Are you two a couple?" does to monogamists. I am always grateful to be sincerely rebuked, however, for anything I say or do. (The parentheses were because the post was a digression.)


[Edited to add: I've reread what I wrote and the tone is boorish. I'm sorry.]

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Pigmalia

Elton John says Jesus was gay.

It's quite interesting that people seem to project themselves onto Jesus, it's happening to some degree in this thread.

People tend to reject the Christian religion rather than Jesus specifically. I think an important part of Christian anarchism is as Tolstoy, we brutally set aside everything and examine Jesus on his own terms and see what we really think of what he said and did. Not to create our own personal Christianity, but to seriously consider him without the distracting trappings of religion.

I noticed that the news-report included a statement from a Catholic activist, for balance. This made me wonder -- if I, or if some other Jesus Radical, had been called on to make a statement, what would that statement have said?

I think I would have stated for the press something like: "Jesus knew human desires as does any human being, but as a good man and the Son of God, he dedicated his short life to the work of his Father. His relationships were those of teacher to followers, savior to the despairing" &c. &c.

Anyone else?

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Mark Fish

A few years ago the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church in Indianapolis, with support from Faith in America (a national gay advocacy organization) had several billbboards around town as part of $100,000 campaign supposedly giving biblical support for homosexual life style by twisting scripture inside out and around. The billboards proclaimed, Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve Genesis 2:24, Ruth 1:14; another said David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26; another, Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Matthew 8:5-13; another, The early church welcomed a gay man. acts 8:26-40. and another, Jesus said some are born gay Matthew 19:10-12. The local pastor who is gay defended the billboards and believes that Jesus was very likely gay. Not an unusual belief evidentially. Is there no limit to how far people will go to rationalize their favorite peccadilloes. I recall a book written supporting the idea that Jesus and the apostles smoked opium and took psilocybin (psychadelic mushrooms).

I would instead say it is an unusual but an unoriginal belief -- certain rare critics have proposed it for a couple of hundred years now, but they have not made it credible.

As for the billboards -- scriptural casuistry at its most hectic. It would be easier to wag a finger or laugh if Christian denominations were not themselves so commonly practitioners of just such casuistries. Now, how such casuistry could convince anyone is a damnation of our melieu -- of our present culture's abject misunderstanding of human love. Another example of why so important a discussion such as the one in this thread.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

(Dare I ask if BackAlleyRadio and Patrick are in the same polyamorous relationship? No, I daren't.)

I'll come back to this when I have more time, but just letting your know Porter, that I thought that was funny not rude. Although, I don't know how you intended it.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Mark Fish

... David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26 ...

Now this one struck me, in light of this thread: It seems (to this monogamist, anyway) unavoidable that David should feel this way, since he had eighteen female sexual partners (that we know of).

[Marja]

Originally Posted by Mark Fish

A few years ago the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church in Indianapolis, with support from Faith in America (a national gay advocacy organization) had several billbboards around town as part of $100,000 campaign supposedly giving biblical support for homosexual life style by twisting scripture inside out and around. The billboards proclaimed, Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve Genesis 2:24, Ruth 1:14; another said David loved Jonathan more than women. II Samuel 1:26; another, Jesus affirmed a gay couple. Matthew 8:5-13; another, The early church welcomed a gay man. acts 8:26-40. and another, Jesus said some are born gay Matthew 19:10-12. The local pastor who is gay defended the billboards and believes that Jesus was very likely gay. Not an unusual belief evidentially. Is there no limit to how far people will go to rationalize their favorite peccadilloes. I recall a book written supporting the idea that Jesus and the apostles smoked opium and took psilocybin (psychadelic mushrooms).

I fail to see what this has to do with the topic.

[Patrick]

To Nabsy I would like to say that Polyamory is not, inherently, in resistance to anything, nor is it defining any problem. There are people who have had monogamy thrust onto them and have felt constrained by it that are polyamorists now who resist and try to define monogamy as problematic. It is simply an alternative union entered into with people. I would also like to say that in Matthew 5, verse 28, Jesus is addressing adultery directly, speaking to married peoples, couples who have already made their vows of fidelity to each other. Tradition of the Ekklesia has only seen and sanctioned Monogamous marriages, I think this is a tradition that can change.