Christianity Today does article on Polyamory: The Next Sexual Frontier

[JustAGuy]

Polyamory: The Next Sexual Frontier

These once-taboo relationships are showing up in churches across the US.

PRESTON SPRINKLE AND BRANSON PARLER

A pastor recently told me (Preston) about Tyler and Amanda (names changed), high-school sweethearts raised in Christian homes, living in the Bible belt. After getting married, they seemed to be living the American dream with a house, good jobs, and two kids. Then Jon, a friend of Tyler’s, began living with their family. Amanda developed a close relationship with him, but their flirtation soon developed into something more, and Jon and Amanda proposed to Tyler that they begin exploring polyamory, with Amanda adding Jon as a significant other. They also encouraged Tyler to develop a relationship with another woman he’d met at the gym. He agreed.

When Tyler and Amanda came out as polyamorous, their parents were shocked. What seemed like a fringe practice of the sexual revolution had settled into the heartland of Middle America.

Making the situation even more complex, Tyler and Amanda sought counseling from a Christian counselor who advocated polyamory. Tyler’s parents were disturbed by what their son and daughter-in-law heard there: “It’s only adultery or cheating if someone is kept in the dark. If you are open and honest, this is a God-honoring relationship. And this is good for the kids! It takes a village to raise a child, so a polyamorous relationship actually brings more support and ‘family’ into your kids’ lives, much like the extended families in the past.”

Over the last several years, my (Preston’s) full-time job at The Center for Faith, Sexuality & Gender has been helping leaders and pastors engage questions about sexuality and gender with theological faithfulness and courageous love. Naturally, I often get asked, “What’s the next discussion Christians need to have about these issues?” My answer is always the same: “Polyamory.”

Can't post whole article here due to copyright infringement but here's link to article:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2019/fall/polyamory-next-sexual-frontier.html

And there's some good discussion on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/PrestonSprinkle/status/1179510223507058688

Of course this isn't necessarily "us" but others see this as one in the same so IMHO it's good to be engaged in these discussions online.

 

[eye4them]

The throuple pictured at CT had a video done about them two years ago...

 

[rockfox]

They call this polyamory but what it is is open cuckoldry. It's something being increasingly pushed into our culture by the propagandists.

Technically, it's polyandry. And if you think about that, you'll realize many other aspects of our new social system are also polyandrous.

 

[rockfox]

The throuple pictured at CT had a video done about them two years ago...

I wonder if anyone here has considered doing a formal divorce of their first wife (legal divorce, but not physical) to avoid any legal complications in adding a second?

 

[FollowingHim2]

I wonder if anyone here has considered doing a formal divorce of their first wife (legal divorce, but not physical) to avoid any legal complications in adding a second?

We did. Not just so Samuel could legally marry again, and therefore marry someone from another country, but also because we didn't agree with the contract we'd signed with the government when the government kept changing the definition of what marriage was. Unfortunately we found that we couldn't actually legally divorce without being physically separated for a minimum of two years, so that option was out.
While I'm annoyed that we signed that bit of paper in the first place, and frustrated we can't easily get out of it, I'm also relieved that it's not something we will be doing. I know it would only be 'divorced' on paper, but the idea was hurtful, painful, and produced a lot of fear and tears.

 

[rockfox]

but the idea was hurtful, painful, and produced a lot of fear and tears.

Kind of like poly eh?

Isn't that a benefit though? It forces you to put your trust in God and @FollowingHim, not in the state or some piece of paper.

 

[FollowingHim2]

Kind of like poly eh?

Isn't that a benefit though? It forces you to put your trust in God and @FollowingHim, not in the state or some piece of paper.

Yes. It was early on in our poly journey too, so I've learned a lot since then, and become a lot stronger. It was more that I didn't want to have to tell people that I was divorced. In the forms where you need to tick those boxes, when the government does want to know whether you're legally married or not. I still never want to have to say that.

 

[FollowingHim]

We have a strange divorce system over here. It's a "no fault" system, so it is not based on any specific fault - you cannot divorce a spouse for adultery, or for burning your toast, or any other specific fault however serious. Rather, the only reason for divorce is "irreconcilable differences", for any reason. And the only evidence required, or accepted, is separation for 2 years. The idea being that anybody separated for 2 years can divorce. So it's a really simple law, as it takes all arguments of "why" off the table, and simply makes it a question of "do you want to divorce, yes or no?". But in practice it also puts the government completely in charge of deciding whether that divorce actually occurs...

I have considered just posting back our marriage licence with a legal declaration that this contract is declared null and void by the signatories, as the full terms of the contract were not disclosed at the time of signing, and have been changed without consultation with the signatories post-signing, which are two clear breaches of contract law. But it's really not a fight that I can be bothered with, it would achieve no practical benefit in our lives whatsoever, and would be emotionally difficult for Sarah as she outlines above, so I have far more important things to put time into. But it would be a very interesting theoretical legal test if someone had a lot of spare time and money to waste on lawyers and court fees...

 

[Cap]

We have a strange divorce system over here. It's a "no fault" system, so it is not based on any specific fault - you cannot divorce a spouse for adultery, or for burning your toast, or any other specific fault however serious. Rather, the only reason for divorce is "irreconcilable differences", for any reason. And the only evidence required, or accepted, is separation for 2 years. The idea being that anybody separated for 2 years can divorce. So it's a really simple law, as it takes all arguments of "why" off the table, and simply makes it a question of "do you want to divorce, yes or no?". But in practice it also puts the government completely in charge of deciding whether that divorce actually occurs...

I have considered just posting back our marriage licence with a legal declaration that this contract is declared null and void by the signatories, as the full terms of the contract were not disclosed at the time of signing, and have been changed without consultation with the signatories post-signing, which are two clear breaches of contract law. But it's really not a fight that I can be bothered with, it would achieve no practical benefit in our lives whatsoever, and would be emotionally difficult for Sarah as she outlines above, so I have far more important things to put time into. But it would be a very interesting theoretical legal test if someone had a lot of spare time and money to waste on lawyers and court fees...

Your divorce system is similar to what's here in the US, except for the 2 year thing. Some states may have something like no cohabitation for six months or something like that, but nothing that long.

I am interested in knowing how NZ handles divorce with children, child support? That's a factor that families with children would have to face even if they are just trying to get rid of the marriage licenses alone. Here somebody is going to pay someone for child support. And typically is the husband paying the wife and it all really boils down to wife support.

 

[FollowingHim2]

I am interested in knowing how NZ handles divorce with children, child support? That's a factor that families with children would have to face even if they are just trying to get rid of the marriage licenses alone. Here somebody is going to pay someone for child support. And typically is the husband paying the wife and it all really boils down to wife support.

Normally the wife gets the children for most of the time, and the husband sees them for weekends etc and pays child support. It's not always the case, there's 50/50 arrangements and many other options out there.
The whole system is quite unfair though, and needs a decent shake up. For example, I know a man where he chose to leave his wife and children and marry another woman. He then was very careful to hide the money he had (which was a lot), so he only paid $40 per month for 2 children. The wife was very poor, struggled, and basically did it on her own while having been abandoned.
Then there's the story of a man who was paying child support quite happily, but his ex got remarried, and pregnant again. When she took time off work to have the baby her income went down, and so his child support went up. So he was basically paying for her to have another man's baby.

 

[Cap]

Normally the wife gets the children for most of the time, and the husband sees them for weekends etc and pays child support. It's not always the case, there's 50/50 arrangements and many other options out there.
The whole system is quite unfair though, and needs a decent shake up. For example, I know a man where he chose to leave his wife and children and marry another woman. He then was very careful to hide the money he had (which was a lot), so he only paid $40 per month for 2 children. The wife was very poor, struggled, and basically did it on her own while having been abandoned.
Then there's the story of a man who was paying child support quite happily, but his ex got remarried, and pregnant again. When she took time off work to have the baby her income went down, and so his child support went up. So he was basically paying for her to have another man's baby.

Sounds like here. And I agree it's all screwed up and is really an industry that the legal system benefits from while families, children, suffer the most. Everyone trying to game the system just to survive. Interesting how the swedish (I think it's the swedes. Somebody over there) have basically no child support but yet have joint custody where both parents are responsible. There is nothing the lawyers can fight for so it truly becomes the best interest of the child. Wish other countries would go that route.

$40 seems really low. Here we have it where, usually the man, has to pay at least a percentage of minimum wage. Bring underemployed is not an option.

 

[FollowingHim]

I know a man where he chose to leave his wife and children and marry another woman. He then was very careful to hide the money he had (which was a lot), so he only paid $40 per month for 2 children. The wife was very poor, struggled, and basically did it on her own while having been abandoned.

The flip-side to that is the man whose wife divorced him, refused to let him see his children ever, turned them against him, yet still tried to claim child support. He in turn responded by hiding his income to not send any money her way if she was going to treat him like that - but in that case, was completely justified in my mind... Almost identical legal situation, completely different morally.

The problem is that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Yet the father's responsibilities are enforced, but not his rights - while the mother's rights are enforced, but not her responsibilities.

I am interested in knowing how NZ handles divorce with children, child support? That's a factor that families with children would have to face even if they are just trying to get rid of the marriage licenses alone.

It's worth noting that once you're together for 3 years over here, married or not, the laws are basically identical. Marriage licences and divorces are virtually irrelevant - most couples don't get married anyway, so the law isn't built around the paperwork, but around the practicalities. Which also means that there's absolutely no need to get a marriage licence in the first place, and I wish we'd realised that before we did it.

 

[Cap]

The flip-side to that is the man whose wife divorced him, refused to let him see his children ever, turned them against him, yet still tried to claim child support. He in turn responded by hiding his income to not send any money her way if she was going to treat him like that - but in that case, was completely justified in my mind... Almost identical legal situation, completely different morally.

The problem is that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Yet the father's responsibilities are enforced, but not his rights - while the mother's rights are enforced, but not her responsibilities.

It's worth noting that once you're together for 3 years over here, married or not, the laws are basically identical. Marriage licences and divorces are virtually irrelevant - most couples don't get married anyway, so the law isn't built around the paperwork, but around the practicalities. Which also means that there's absolutely no need to get a marriage licence in the first place, and I wish we'd realised that before we did it.

So basically what you seem to be saying is that in your country the state creates a marriage on paper (in the eyes of the court) in three years whether you want it or not?

Do you have many couples that just live together with no commitment like we do here?

 

[Cap]

I got another question for you Samuel if you don't mind, what do you guys over there think of the political process going on over here currently?

 

[FollowingHim]

So basically what you seem to be saying is that in your country the state creates a marriage on paper (in the eyes of the court) in three years whether you want it or not?

Do you have many couples that just live together with no commitment like we do here?

Yes.

Yes, we have more couples who just live together - but that doesn't mean they have "no commitment", just that they have no paperwork about that commitment... I believe NZ has been ahead of the USA in that statistic forever, because back here the native Maori population never fully bought into the new white man's marriage registration system, so many continued to use the more informal, tribal-based recognition of who was or was not married and didn't bother to get the relevant paperwork. Over time, more liberal elements of the white population realised that if that worked ok for the Maoris, then it would work ok for them also. By today, approximately half (I think the majority) of kids in school are to unmarried parents.

Here, religious people tend to get married before they have children, while non-religious people tend to get around to getting married (if they do at all) after they've had a couple of kids.

I got another question for you Samuel if you don't mind, what do you guys over there think of the political process going on over here currently?

Which part of it? All this stupid nonsense about impeaching your president for making a phone call? Or something to do with marriage? Remember I'm not in your country so I don't follow your politics more than noticing those issues that make international headlines...

 

[Cap]

Yes.

Yes, we have more couples who just live together - but that doesn't mean they have "no commitment", just that they have no paperwork about that commitment... I believe NZ has been ahead of the USA in that statistic forever, because back here the native Maori population never fully bought into the new white man's marriage registration system, so many continued to use the more informal, tribal-based recognition of who was or was not married and didn't bother to get the relevant paperwork. Over time, more liberal elements of the white population realised that if that worked ok for the Maoris, then it would work ok for them also. By today, approximately half (I think the majority) of kids in school are to unmarried parents.

Here, religious people tend to get married before they have children, while non-religious people tend to get around to getting married (if they do at all) after they've had a couple of kids.

Which part of it? All this stupid nonsense about impeaching your president for making a phone call? Or something to do with marriage? Remember I'm not in your country so I don't follow your politics more than noticing those issues that make international headlines...

Basically the impeachment. And your answer that your in you own country and don't pay much attention is what I was really after. I guess in our country we think everyone pays attention to us. Your assessment that the impeachment is stupid is also the idea I was hoping others thought. It's all rather embarrassing.

 

[FollowingHim]

That impeachment thing is all over the international media, and the standard media over here is left-wing and takes all its USA news from your left-wing outlets. So the average person on the street tends to think what they'd think about US politics if they were glued to CNN - the average NZer hates Trump, moreso than the average American, because they have zero exposure to anything positive about him. Since your country is so remote it's easy to just believe what the TV says. So my opinion of the impeachment being idiotic is not necessarily the opinion of the mainstream NZer, who usually believes what's fed to them, and probably think Trump's actually done something terribly evil...

We do see the silliness in our news (ie daily tirades from media talking heads about how Trump is supposedly an idiot), so we do "pay attention" to that side of the USA. But only because the media thinks it's worth paying attention to and feeds it to us.

 

[Cap]

Interesting, thanks Samuel.

 

[rockfox]

We have 50 different divorce laws here; and if you don't like the one you have, just move to a different state and file there!

But sadly, none are just.

In some states, the woman gets a fixed % of your imputed income per child; regardless of how much she's getting from other men or how much she needs to care for the children. Imputed, as in what the court think's you can make; irrespective of reality. Literally can't do that and still eat? Off to jail, they'll feed you there.

 

[Cap]

One more thing, what do you guys over there know about the Q movement?