I came across this toast tonight, and since I have a few shots and beers in me I’ll give my ideas on it.

Here’s to a long life and a merry one.

A quick death and an easy one.

A pretty girl and a loyal one.

A cold beer and another one.

- Louis Henry

I read this and thought to myself: “Self, how about a ‘Pretty girl and an easy one’ or ‘A pretty girl and another one’. I’m okay with a not so loyal one.”

The arguments against polyamory, polygamy and other plural relationships almost always comes down to religion in this country: Mormons and Muslims are wrong, one man / one woman Christians are “right”. You see this on every comment forum on every article about polygamy or polyamory on the Internet. So when I came across this article on AccessToInsight.org, a Buddhist resource, I found it interesting and thought I’d post a passage of the article here since it deals with non-monogamy, and more specifically ethical non-monogamy. In other teachings, the Buddha promotes personal responsibility for your actions and ethical treatment of others. The Buddha taught that those in relationships should not have secrets between them because secrets lead to mistrust, suspicion and jealousy; which we all know makes a relationship unbearable at best, and deadly at it’s worst.

There’s much more in the teachings of the Buddha and the writings of those that have come since, but here is the passage I came across tonight.

From “A Happy Married Life, A Buddhist Perspective, by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda”

To the question of whether Buddhists can keep more than one wife, the direct answer is not available in the Buddha’s teaching, because as mentioned earlier, the Buddha did not lay down any religious laws with regard to married life although he has given valuable advice on how to lead a respectable married life.

Tradition, culture and the way of life as recognized by the majority of a particular country must also be considered when we practice certain things pertaining to our lives. Some religions say that a man can have only one wife whilst others say a man can have more than one wife.

Although the Buddha did not mention anything regarding the number of wives a man could have, he explicitly mentioned in His discourses that should a married man go to another woman out of wedlock, that could become the cause of his own downfall and he would have to face numerous other problems and disturbances.

The Buddha’s way of teaching is just to explain the situation and the consequences. People can think for themselves as to why certain things are good and certain things are bad. The Buddha did not lay down rules about how many wives a man should or should not have which people are forced to follow. However, if the laws of a country stipulate that marriages must be monogamous, then such laws must be complied with, because the Buddha was explicit about His followers respecting the laws of a country, if those laws were beneficial to all.

“You complete me.”

-Tom Cruise as “Jerry Maguire” in Jerry Maguire

 “If you look to others for fulfillment, you will never be truly fulfilled.”

-Lao Tzu

This is a fundamental element of all relationships, but even more-so in open relationships such as polyamory.

You cannot look to others to make you whole or to fulfill you. You must be a whole, self-fulfilled person to have a healthy intimate relationship with anyone else. Looking for fulfillment from others is self-sabotaging: eventually they will fall short of your expectations and disappoint you, leading to resentment and unhappiness with them and the relationship.

To have a healthy relationship with someone else, you must first have a healthy relationship with yourself. To be with someone else you must first be okay with being alone. Because only then have you chosen to spend your time and emotional energy on someone else, rather than out of codependency.

When you are okay with being alone because you think you are pretty good company, so will others think you are pretty good company and want to be with you also.

So now that Kody Brown and his four wives have retained well-known liberal and civil rights attorney Jonathan Turley to sue the State of Utah, challenging the anti-polygamy laws here, state attorneys want the case dismissed because they suddenly aren’t prosecuting Kody Brown. They feel that  since they are not currently prosecuting the Brown’s, the Brown’s should not be challenging Utah’s laws against plural relationships (and bringing national attention to Utah on a subject that Utah doesn’t want to be in the spotlight for).

Well that is their argument at least. I think the fly in the ointment is that they haven’t pressed charges “yet”, the Lehi Police Department have not ceased their investigation of the Brown’s and the Utah County Attorney’s office has not said that they will not prosecute.

Now I have to hand it to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and his crew for leaving polygamists alone unless there are cases of child abuse, welfare fraud, domestic abuse, etc. But, Lehi City’s investigation and promise of pending charges against Cody and his family have driven them from a comfortable, custom-built home where they were all under one roof to Las Vegas, NV where they are living in three separate homes.

Also, the issue of the laws used to prosecute polygamists – bigamy, adultery, fornication and sodomy –  are still on the books and can be used to prosecute a lot of people, including polyamorists, swingers, gays (which the sodomy law between consenting adults is really about), single heterosexual people and couples that have a threesomes, etc.

Here’s what I think should be stricken from Utah Code:

Utah Code 76-7-101. Bigamy – Defense.

(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.
(2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

I’d like to see the whole of section 101 stricken, but I doubt it will. The least they can do is change the law to someone is guilty of bigamy if they actually marry more than one person, and get rid of that whole “purports” and “cohabits” part. This law right here puts any household with more than two non-family adults in jeopardy of being prosecuted if the State so wishes.

Utah Code 76-7-103. Adultery.

(1) A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.
(2) Adultery is a class B misdemeanor. 

Adultery needs to be stricken from the law completely. Not only are polyamorists and swingers guilty of this and could be prosecuted if the State wished to (I’ll lump couple’s who have the occasional threesome with swingers), but cheating happens in around 6 out of 10 marriages, whether discovered or not (and statistically probably around 40% of our lawmakers cheat on their spouse). It’s a law that is just plain outdated and unneeded. The AG says: “We never prosecute for adultery anyway.” Well than good. Get it off the books. Save some paper.

Utah Code 76-7-104. Fornication.

(1) Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication.
(2) Fornication is a class B misdemeanor.

Yes, in Utah, sex between people who are not married, and married to each other at that, is a Class B misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine and/or up to 6 months in jail,or both. That seems a bit harsh and outdated doesn’t it? With 7 out of 10 teenagers  having sex before they graduate high school, and almost all college kids and single adults having sex without being married, this law seems just plain silly.

76-5-403. Sodomy — Forcible sodomy.

(1) A person commits sodomy when the actor engages in any sexual act with a person who is 14 years of age or older involving the genitals of one person and mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant.
(2) A person commits forcible sodomy when the actor commits sodomy upon another without the other’s consent.
(3) Sodomy is a class B misdemeanor.
(4) Forcible sodomy is a felony of the first degree

How about we drop the consensual oral and anal sex thing and stick with just the Forcible sodomy part? Look, almost everyone does oral on their partner and many have consensual anal sex. People should not fear prosecution if the Attorney General’s office got a bug up their butt (in which case the bug would also be charged with sodomy). Besides, I’m sure every member of the Utah Legislature love’s their lover going down on them. But, when it happens our lawmakers are breaking the very laws they make. Every cop whose partner goes down on them is breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold. This is a covert law particularly for gays, also.

So lets get these stupid sex laws aimed at polygamists and gays off the books and let consenting adults structure their relationships in any way they see fit without the fear of prosecution or having their children taken away from them. Then if the State wants to go after polygamists than let them do so for real crimes wherein people are harmed physically, emotionally and financially, such as: sex with minors, domestic abuse, welfare fraud, etc.

Whenever general society talks about polyamory and other multiple relationship styles they always focus on the sex part as if plural relationships are all about the sex.

However, aren’t most relationships in the Western world about sex? We’re brought-up from the day we’re born being told that the only legitimate sex is sex between a married couple. Sex is dangled in front of us as the reward for getting married. So we have people getting married before they are ready just to legitimatize the sex they are having, or want to have, with someone else. And the two biggest issues behind the ensuing divorce? Sex and money differences.

So people get married for sex and divorced because of it also. Yet the anti-plural relationship folk never see the hypocrisy in their beliefs. The fact that what brought them together in a monogamous relationship (at least it is for a while) was the lust goggles blurring their clear view of the other person. And as time goes on and the lust subsides and real life sets-in, they all of a sudden realize that other than parts that fit together they have nothing in common, and the fights ensue with every little thing the other person does annoying the hell out them.

So yes, all relationships are about sex to some extent. To apply that aspect to only polyamory is simply faulty logic.

NOTE: As a response to comments from others I thought I should clarify the meaning of this post; many thought it was about polyfuckery. However, Dear Abby answered a question about polyamory this week and the responses to this person’s relationship choice were nauseating, if not common and stereotypical amongst general society. Being a woman who is married and also has a male partner living with them, the comments ranged from “slut” to “her husband must not be a man because she needs someone else to satisfy her”. The usual stuff by those that are insecure and thus threatened by and judgmental of other’s relationships that don’t look exactly like their own. The root of the issue being that the reason they are not monogamous is because of sex. This it got me thinking, and thinking, and I don’t think this subject is done yet. Stay tuned.