Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: Media Pressing Into Polyamory
“Gays” in committed relationships have a “partner.” Polyamorous people like Diana Adams, who runs a Brooklyn-based legal firm that fights to offer traditional marriage rights to untraditional lovers, have a “primary partner.”
Primary partners because, well, polyamorists subscribe to the philosophy of being head over heels in love—or at least romantically involved—with more than one person at the same time. The Polyamory Society defines the practice as “the nonpossessive, honest, responsible and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultaneously.”
“I remember from a very young age realizing that I was bisexual and that I tended to be attracted to many different people at the same time,” Adams told Roc Morin in a recent article in The Atlantic entitled “Up for Polyamory? Creating Alternatives to Marriage.”
I really think that polyamory for me is an orientation, like being heterosexual or homosexual,” Adams said. “Humans in general have a hard time with monogamy. That’s always been the case. We used to have a sense that it was acceptable for husbands to go out and have other lovers, but with the shift to egalitarianism, rather than to say that woman could do that too, we’ve gone in the other direction.
This mainstream media reporter went on to ask Adams the intimate details of her polyamorous love life, such as: What are the consequences of polyamory? What do your other lovers give you that your primary partner can’t? How do your different lovers get along with one another? What role does jealousy play in your relationships? How do you deal with those emotions? and How does your family view your lifestyle? Morin left few rocks unturned—and may have turned them if the answers weren’t potentially too pornographic for a mainstream publication.
Yes, the mainstream media is setting out to push polyamory into the mainstream in much the way it pushed “gay” rights. On Valentine’s Day, The Week magazine ran a piece headlined “Everything You Wanted to Know About Polyamory but Were Afraid to Ask.” Yesterday, the Globe and Mail served up a Q&A about how one couple saved their marriage by embracing nonmonogamy and having sex with others. And just this morning, the Mail & Guardian published “Polyamory: Two’s Company, Three’s a Charm.”
Meanwhile, sites like Live Science are working to debunk the myths around polyamory. And—would you believe it?—Scientific American last week put out an article called “New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You“ that reveals about 4 to 5 percent of Americans are looking outside their relationship for love and sex—with their partner’s full permission. It goes on and on.
Of course, it didn’t just start. Woody Allen’s 2008 film Vicky Cristina Barcelona celebrated a polyamorous relationship. Slowly and steadily, the push for polyamory is rising in the media, in many ways taking a page from the “gay” agenda’s playbook.
In The Atlantic article, Adams made her polyamorous relationships sound like the path to enlightenment. Even her religious family is warming up to the notion of the immoral lifestyle, finding it wonderful that she has “not just one smart, compassionate, great boyfriend, but two” after two of Adams’ sexual partners went to visit her “fundamentalist deacon” father in the hospital.
Notice how the polyamory agenda introduced acceptance by strict religious people into the article. It’s subtle, but it’s there—and it’s no coincidence how many media outlets ran stories about polyamory right before, on and right after Valentine’s Day, either. Make no mistake, the polyamory push is on. Polyamory people will begin coming out first in strategic drips and later in droves.
Some have called polyamory the next civil rights movement that will vie for full “marriage equality.” Polyamory is already a legislative issue in Canada. Rest assured, the U.S. is next. The shadow of Sodom and Gomorrah hangs over America. The question is: Will churches bow to polyamorous immorality like they did to the “gay” rights movement? When is enough finally enough?
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More