Equating or aligning polygamy with gay marriage is bigotry and has no place here....

[joeybee12]

If you think people should have polygamous relationships fine, make that argument...but do not offend people by implying that because marriage equality is now the law of the land, this somehow means polygamy is the next step or that polygamists now have ammunition for their fight.

Being gay is an inherent trait as is being black, being male or female, Asian, etc...these traits you cannot change. Gay marriage means you cannot discriminate against a group of people because of who they are...they must have the same rights as everyone else. Polygamists are not born polygamists...that is not an inherent trait. It is a behavior, got that, a behavior. The Supreme Court did not just recognize a behavior, they recognized a group of people, not a behavior. No, we are not in uncharted waters as far as polygamy goes because of this recent decision...polygamists have not gained one inch in their "cause" because of this decision...nothing, not one fucking thing has changed.

[djean111]

1. Thank you. I agree.

[demmiblue]

2. K&R

[MADem]

3. Should be grounds for PPR, IMO. It's a rightwing, bigoted argument, and it's a huge FAIL. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

8. You may not see it

But by your statement here, you are working to validate the same right wing talking point you are rallying against. I would preffer to invalidate that talking point.

[MADem]

11. Say what? Trying to "marry" the polygamy argument to the equality one is utter bigotry.

It's a rightwing trope. You don't argue with that kind of discriminatory attitudes--you aren't going to persuade a wingnut to adopt an inclusive stance with discussion. They are convinced that gay people are BAD and WRONG and EVIL and "destroying the family unit," and they will not be "invalidated."

They need to be mocked, derided and given a healthy kick in the ass.

It has been a right wing argument for the last DECADE, along with bestiality and other horse-shit "sky is falling" arguments. It's offensive, and we shouldn't have to "tolerate" that any more than we should have to listen to Big Fat Lies about which religions are better than others, or which races are better than others.

There's no talking to bigots. They should be jettisoned. They can shop that shit over at their wingnut homes.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. Their views on gays has been invalidated

by the supreme court. Their slippery slope to "man on dog" is complete bull. On that we agree. Where we differ is that I see no path to "man on dog" from a poly marriage either.

[MADem]

20. Good grief. There's no path from marriage equality to poly marriage, either.

It's apples and oranges. The equality argument was already there. The poly thing is a different construct, one that has not had a legal framework in USA since the 1870s, and it is a regressive, bigoted, patriarchial one, too. There is no benefit to our society by re-introducing that construct in USA.

[PowerToThePeople]

25. I agree

Under the current marraige construct (monogomy) there is no path to poly. My point is that the construct is still unjust, even with marriage not being orientation specific.

[MADem]

46. Polygamy is a patriarchial, sexist, often abusive construct that often

preys upon very young girls and ignorant and ill-prepared young women. It is a power play that is the equivalent of indentured servitude. It's no accident that countries practicing polygamy have some of the worst human rights records on the planet.

We don't allow honor killing or revenge murders in USA either, even though other nations have a path to those constructs in their (backwards) laws. Those are bad ideas, too.

[oberliner]

65. So has monogamy been for hundreds of years

In fact, in many communities, that is still the case.

Would polygamy be more acceptable to you if everyone involved were adults who freely gave consent to enter into such a relationship?

[MADem]

75. You're free to enter into any little relationships that float your boat, but the state does not have

--nor should they develop--a mechanism to accomodate and solemnize such a backward, regressive, and sexist construct.

It's not part of our legal system, and it should not be, either.

[oberliner]

85. Loaded statement

Polygamous relationships need not be backward, regressive, and sexist.

Monogamous relationships sometimes are backward, regressive, and sexist.

The state solemnizes them anyway.

Some pretty damn awful things go on within the solemnity of many a "traditional" marriage.

[MADem]

89. I've never seen one--not even on reality TV--that wasn't just that.

There's a difference between picking a bad partner and entering into a relationship where one party holds all the cards, and all the authority over the rest of the participants in the relationship. It's indentured servitude. As I said, you can jump in, but you can do it without the imprimatur of the state.

There is no construct to accommodate plural marriage, and I would be very surprised to see such a thing ... one of these things is NOT like the other.

[oberliner]

103. Fair enough

I would assert, however, that there are good and genuine people who are in loving and healthy (but illegal) polygamous relationships, and there would really be no harm (and possibly some benefits) in said relationships receiving the imprimatur of the state.

Certainly, you will agree that countless harmful, destructive, and abusive monogamous relationships have received said imprimatur.

[MADem]

180. I would have to disagree. The nature of the relationship is inherently unequal.

When you strip away "personalities," the patriarch has the power and authority. It is a senior-subordinate construct, where the "sister wives" (a sick allegory, that) must share, lack authority to make change, and are alloted less.

People who indulge in that kind of relationship have issues. The relationships are always harmful, destructive and abusive--even if these insults are subtle--regardless of the personalities of those involved, simply because of the power dynamic. The playing field is not--and can never be--level. The state should never sanction indentured servitude.

In a monogamous relationship, any insults to either party are strictly as a consequence of PERSONALITIES, not as a result of the unequal basis of the relationship itself.

All you have to do is look at the human rights records of the nations where polygamous relationships are legal and you have your answer as to how "loving and healthy" they actually are. The only person who feels like they're in a loving and healthy relationship is the boss man, who brooks no dissent from his subordinate spouses.

It's a sick thing--and it says nothing good about the people who engage in it. It's a marriage of bullies in authority and insecure, abused and debased people who need help. Nothing "healthy" about that at all. USA is smart to eschew it.

[eggplant]

112. Well, clearly since you've never "seen" one, they don't exist.

Uh huh.

[MADem]

179. Oh, I think if they DID exist, on an equal level with no exploitation, the media would

have monetized such a chimera by now. The best they've been able to manage are these patriarchal clown cars on reality TV, and that hot mess of dysfunction known as Big Love--we saw how that ended up for the 'head of the family!'



To my view, it would seem that people who are so intent upon finding a legal and binding construct for an unequal, unfair and potentially psychologically abusive relationship have some issues, themselves. All one has to do is look at the countries--and their repressive human rights records--where this construct is legal, and you learn so much about those who favor this kind of thing.

So yeah, "uh huh" and all that.

[JackInGreen]

193. I think

That my wife and girlfriends, and their significant others would have serious issues with your argument that these are still the tenets of a modern polyamourous relationship but don't let me trouble you in insulting the lot of us. Pray, continue.

[Chan790]

195. +1!

[MADem]

206. Oh yeah, sure!!! You and your wife and girlfriends, yes, of course....

[JackInGreen]

215. Used to that bit of witty hate too

But I'll forgive the mockery as something you don't believe or have other issues with. You don't know my life cousin. It doesn't sound like you'd mesh well with it either.

[MADem]

216. No hate--but a large dose of healthy skepticism, to be blunt.

A fellow with that busy a life wouldn't have much time to be farting around on the internet!

[JackInGreen]

217. I work graves

And mostly mobile. Being that involved can also involve lazy Sundays sitting around numbing our brains with cartoons or doing chores or, yep, goofing around on the Internet (2 of the women I hold dear are insistent I bail on the thread entirely because it's pointless but I persist.) Its a lot like 'normal' life but we've more hands to take care of the necessary, and that is when we're not working or just getting along with the day.

[MADem]

222. Sorry, it sounds like a cool story though. nt

[JackInGreen]

224. It's not a story

That's part of the problem. This is my life. I've got a wife I adore and is truly my better half. A girlfriend who is an an Hr workhorse for her employees, her wife who I go to fights and concerts with and is one of my best friends. I have another girlfriend (amazing artist) and her husband who is also my boyfriend and we are a roving pile of laughter. These people are my life, my world. We fell into this at different points in our lives and discovered slowly we were something even our most liberal friends found abhorrent. We found our peace even with the derision and skepticism of folks where you are. It takes work. It takes time, just like any relationship. I hear it constantly tracked over with mud from people who I otherwise adore on this and other boards. We try and set a good example but damn does the opposition (unfortunately here, you) make it hard to exist or be as out and free as we could be. As we everyone ought to be.

[Major Nikon]

244. Neither should any marriage for that matter

The government really has no business licensing(or refusing to license) any marriage.

[MADem]

305. Indeed. Further, no one is stopping anyone from engaging in those "arrangements" of which you speak.

What they aren't given, under our system, is a legal construct, because they are inherently unequal arrangements.

The whole purpose of bringing up this 'outlier' conduct is to try to associate it with the equality movement for the purposes of disparaging the latter. It's a bit more subtle than turtles and vacuum cleaners, but it's the same shit, in essence. Doesn't belong here on DU.

[still_one]

29. except if you read the OP you would realize that polygamy is a choice, being gay isn't

[PowerToThePeople]

30. Monogamy is just as much a choice. n/t

[joeybee12]

67. Time to ignore...

All that's wrong with DU has come out with your posts.

[Rex]

71. A lifestyle choice and an inherent trait are not the same thing.

I must agree with most here; people are born gay but they are not born inherently knowing if they are monogamous or polygamous.

[JackInGreen]

194. We're never really

Offered any options other than monogamy or 'be one of those'. Some people find out over time "monogamy isn't something natural for me." Qualify it however you'd like, I still hear the same arguments that have stopped people who are in love from sanctifying or certifying it.

[Chan790]

199. Actually...

the science is solid on a genetic basis for non-monogamy. We can tell you exactly what gene on which chromosome alters a specific dopamine receptor called D4 that makes a person biologically oriented towards non-monogamy (and risk-taking and a compulsive need for novelty) So...you may agree with "most here"...but you and they are factually-incorrect to call non-monogamy a choice...for at-least some people.

[JackInGreen]

218. +1

And +1000 more.

[cstanleytech]

286. Except the court case was about a persons 14th amendment rights not if gay is or isnt a choice.

Do I have any interest in ever marrying one wife ever let alone two or more? I would rather eat an entire acre full of ghost pepper chilies than marry even one wife let alone two or more but that aside I personally believe that its wrong to tell consenting adults that the 14th amendment does not apply to them because I dont happen to want to get married or believe in marriage at all.

[Dustlawyer]

19. While the bible doesn't say much regarding Gays, it is all down with Poligamy.

Maybe we should accuse the RW of supporting Poligamy.

[MADem]

21. It's also down with smiting, raping, crucifying, and cutting little children in two.

It's also against wearing garments of two different materials, so anyone with a rayon - cotton blend on should be stoned to death.

If we start using the Bible to construct new law, we may as well just all line up and march, like lemmings, into the sea.

[JackInGreen]

220. Please don't

If I get asked if Im a Mormon one more time...I will be very cross and probably write a nasty post at worst tbh.

[cleanhippie]

43. Agreed 100%. Here is a perfect example...

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?

I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.

I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

How this person still has posting privileges is almost unexplainable. almost.

[MADem]

44. WOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!! Supersonic right over the head.

The "self centered" comment is just flummoxing.

Have people been asleep at the wheel while the whole argument for equality was rolled out? Did noone pay attention?

I have to say, I am SHOCKED at some of the rightwing tropes we're hearing on this board about this issue--they're straight out of the Limbaugh-Rove playbook.

[cleanhippie]

59. Is that directed at me or the examples I provided?

[MADem]

64. The examples of course--wasn't I clear?

I was quoting the second clip you offered with that "self centered" comment.

I'm rather surprised that we've got people with this POV on an ostensibly liberal, "equal rights" kind of community....I guess some people are less equal than others...?

[MADem]

82. A relative newcomer posted a similar argument with no repercussions.

People aren't quite locked on to what is being said, here.

They're tossing women under the bus, is what they're doing.

[skepticscott]

183. This thread is full of more perfect examples

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218206371#post16

One of the purveyors of which I suspect wanted very badly to get you a hide for pointing it out.

[Rex]

81. I agree this has gone beyond idiotic and into the realm of concern trolling.

A person is born gay; later on in life, they get to decide if they will be in a relationship with more than one person. The two issues are nothing alike except in the fact that they deal with relationships.

This is stupid and rude to the LGBT community imo.

[MADem]

84. I am getting the upsetting impression that it's by design, as well.

I know that's the rightwing's goal--to "put down" the LGBT community by trying to conflate their fight with the desire of some of these pervy old guys to have a stable of handmaidens.

[Rex]

93. It was bad enough watching women get bashed here on DU3 and some still do.

Now they (you) are getting told that a 'harem is cool'...hey YOU can have one too! Nevermind the fact that the only places that still do such things...are still living 800 years in the past!

Probably get in trouble for saying that, but FUCK IT. The places I am talking about also don't allow women to have any rights and sell them off like cattle on the Flesh Market or murder them in the street for getting raped by their uncle!

SO this is offensive to women and the LGBT community imo. Agenda you bet indeed, it is sick to watch this go on.

[MADem]

95. Yep--under the bus with 'em! nt

[skepticscott]

182. Agreed

There are two people in this thread that your opinion should apply to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218206371#post16

Don't you agree?

And you can expect them to continue alert trolling this thread to keep their rather ugly implications from getting the criticism they deserve.

[Wella]

282. The Right Wing is arguing AGAINST polyamory and polygamous marriage

Read this to get a whiff of what the real right wing thinks:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/06/polyamory-is-bad-for-kids-polyamorists-and-society/

[MADem]

290. The right wing is arguing against EQUALITY, and using polygamy as if it is "equivalent."

Which it is not.

There is no groundswell of demand to legalize polygamy. It's a straw man to beat up on gay people.

[Wella]

291. They continue to argue against polymarriage.

And marriage equality should be equality for ALL.

[MADem]

292. No, they don't. Use your google and pay attention to "slippery slope" arguments.

It's quite obvious. There is no construct for polygamy in US law, and good thing, too.

[PowerToThePeople]

4. Love is a behaviour? n/t

[WestCoastLib]

164. Yes

[Jefferson23]

5. Highly recommend..thank you. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

6. One is an agreement the other is servitude, a world of difference .

[Bluenorthwest]

7. You are correct on all points.

It's getting tiresome.

[kiva]

9. "Not in uncharted waters"

Exactly.

[mountain grammy]

10. K & R

I don't even try to be nice about this anymore. When someone says something like this to me, I look them dead in the face and say "you're stupid" and walk away. Maybe it's counter productive, but, really, I just don't give a shit and don't want to waste my precious time on these bigots.

[HassleCat]

13. It's getting weird

Some people are claiming they were "born poly," which I take to mean they have DNA that determines they must be married to more than one individual. That seems odd to me, and I doubt there is any science to back up the claim.

Two things are happening here. (1) Genuine polygamists are taking various pages from the same sex marriage script, figuring, I suppose, "If it worked for them, it will work for us. (2) Right wing opponents of same sex marriage are still using the old argument, "You can't draw a line between same sex marriage and polygamy."

Concerning (1), let them go right ahead. Everyone wanting something has always copied the successful techniques of others. Polygamists will make the same claims of persecution discrimination, etc. that every other interest group has used. I mean, if Christians in the United States are claiming persecution and victim status, everybody else is going to do the same. I suppose polygamists see an opportunity here, if they can define themselves as citizens denied a basic right. They face a difficult challenge, because there is no prohibition against them marrying someone, and that gives them exactly the same rights as all other citizens. They're making a case similar to that of gays and lesbians, that the basic concept of marriage offends their civil rights because the present definition of marriage does not include them. But it does include them, so their argument is not the same.

But (2) is a serious problem. The issues is settled, but the scare tactics remain. This is the slippery slope argument, based on the false notion that it's impossible to draw line and stop this unholy slide into Sodom and Gomorrah. It has even been suggested we will have to allow people to marry animals. "If we allow gay marriage, your daughter-in-law will be a sheep." Of course, exactly the same argument was used to support bans on inter-racial marriage. This is the logical fallacy called "reductio ad absurdum," or reducing something to the absurd, usually known as the slippery slope. This argument works fine for stuff like alcohol and drug abuse, where the sequence of vents is likely to lead to a very bad ending. But it's not a valid proposition for legislating social behavior. Why don't they make the argument that allowing same sex marriage will lead to child marriage. "If we let lesbians marry each other, you'll be changing diapers on your son-in-law." We draw lines all the time, based on a legitimate government interest in regulating social behavior for the benefit of all.

[Chan790]

200. May be "odd" to you...but no, that's it almost exactly.

Nobody needs to be married at-all...but some people are born oriented towards non-monogamy. For example, me. Science can and has told us what gene on what chromosome results in a different formation of a dopamine receptor called D4 making carriers oriented towards non-monogamy.

Others just like the idea of non-monogamy.

I'm in favor of all non-monogamous people being able to enter into plural marriages if they want to as long as all parties to that marriage consent to it.

[JackInGreen]

249. Maybe it's time

We had our own forum here, Chan. I think by being quiet for all this time and helping other causes might have placed us in the "mythological beasts" section of their personal libraries. With all the usual "dangerous and troublesome to mortals" warnings in full illumination. Maybe we should integrate so out and loud that they realize we've been on the same side for a long time.

[SidDithers]

14. DU rec...

but DU's libertarian brigade are working hard to make them equivalent.

Sid

[bobbobbins01]

15. I disagree entirely

How is inclusion bigotry? Not only that, but multiple studies show that it is natural for humans to be both monogamous and polygamous. One trip to google will show you that:

http://www.livescience.com/49690-humans-naturally-monogamous-promiscuous.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/04/monogamy_is_the_natural_way_for_humans_but_so_is_polygamy/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201108/are-people-naturally-polygamous-0
http://scitechdaily.com/scientists-agree-that-classifying-humans-as-monogamous-or-polygamous-is-difficult/

So I really don't understand the outrage here, and I especially don't understand the cry of bigotry, nor do I appreciate being falsely called a bigot for being inclusive.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. I think it depends on the nature of the particular polygamous relationship.

Basically, on whether or not there is informed consent on the part of all of the participants. In some situations/cultures, women involved in polygamous marriages have little to no choice in the matter. Those situations are (obviously) repugnant. But absent coercion? Those relationships deserve equality in law...and they're not anyone else's fucking business.

[bobbobbins01]

31. Yes, non-consensual polygamy is wrong

Coerced polygamy as well. But anyone who tries to say consensual polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry, and calls those who believe they should bigots, needs to take a good hard look at their belief system and how they came to accept gay marriage at all, because their ability to think critically is incredibly fucked up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

145. I concur.

And while I understand and acknowledge the difference between behavior and essential nature, that difference doesn't negate the several similarities between polygamy and gay marriage, those differences largely lying in the area of informed consent.

[passiveporcupine]

151. Please do explain this

several similarities between polygamy and gay marriage, those differences largely lying in the area of informed consent.

In an advanced society, all marriage should be "informed consent between adults". No marriages should be forced any more. If polygamy were to be allowed, it would also fall under that "informed consent by adults" but it also applies to hetero marriage. You cannot try to put gay marriage in a group with poly marriage, that does not also include hetero marriage. But it does seem like that may be your intent here?

[Lizzie Poppet]

210. No, not my intent, but a fair question.

The similarity I see is that as with gay marriage, some types of poly marriage involve informed (and freely-given) consent on the part of all participants. In such situations, I don't consider it to be the State's prerogative to prohibit them.

[passiveporcupine]

212. but why exclude heterosexual marriage from that involvement?

You see, hetero marriage isn't tied to gay marriage by that criteria, so why use gay marriage and try to tie it to poly marriage with that criteria? Why not just use the universal term of marriage?

Gay marriage is no different that hetero marriage, in that it involves two consenting adults. But Poly marriage does differ in that it's not just "two" people committing to each other. They are willing to share that commitment with more than one spouse/partner. That makes it quite unique from hetero or gay marriage. Whereas gay and hetero both conform to the same "two person" criteria.

[Lizzie Poppet]

261. In practice, I actually do just use the term "marriage."

Unless it's a conversation in which aspects of the participants are germane...

There are some "devils in the details" with poly marriage, mostly tied to matters of contract law, etc. More than two parties make division of property upon dissolution of the marriage more complicated, and so forth.

[Exilednight]

39. The same is true about monogamous marriages, too.

To this very day there are still arranged marriages where the girl has no say.

[bobbobbins01]

77. Yup, exactly.

Plenty of two-person marriages are exploitative, but no one's trying to stop them from getting married. All the same tired arguments the bigots used against gay marriage are now being brought up against polygamy, but supporters of polygamy are somehow the bigots and not the other way around? It's a total farce.

[Lizzie Poppet]

146. Sadly true.

[joeybee12]

70. If you think being homophobic is inclusive...

time to ignore.

[bobbobbins01]

165. How is supporting polygamy in any way homophobic?

Please explain, because I'm scratching my head here. I'm pretty sure I never said anything homophobic.

[Jamastiene]

196. Supporting polygamy is not the homophobic part.

I'm gay and don't have any problem with polygamy. I prefer monogamy, but I believe consenting adults should have the right to be in a relationship with more than one other consenting adult if they want to.

What I do have a problem with is how it is being used on DU right now by a lot of people, not all, because of the way they are comparing it to gay marriage. A right wing meme for ages was that gay marriage would lead to polygamy and all sorts of other things. The way some are using the argument for polygamy has been homophobic, because they are basing it off of gay marriage in a way that just furthers that right wing meme. Simply being ok with polygamy, in and of itself, is not homophobic. It is how it is being used in a lot of these discussions to further that right wing meme that is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I thought about the issue some more...

I thought about the issue some more...

I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to marry their toaster and even if he or she wants to consummate the union with it.

As to polygamy don't expect me to stand behind you or in front of you. Just don't piggyback on the fight for marriage equality.

[DiverDave]

17. Thank you for writing what I couldnt articulate

I agree 100%.

[PowerToThePeople]

18. ..

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Certain groups will love the toaster argument.

Star Member DemocratSinceBirth (55,246 posts)
16. I thought about the issue some more...

I thought about the issue some more...

I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to marry their toaster and even if he or she wants to consummate the union with it.

As to polygamy don't expect me to stand behind you or in front of you. Just don't piggyback on the fight for marriage equality.

[Quixote1818]

24. Yes, there has been some confusion.

I didn't realize there was actually a thread or two using the gay marriage ruling to give credence to polygamy. When I saw those I cringed. I disagree wholeheartedly with those threads. I don't think polygamy is any more like gay marriage than "Traditional Marriage". But I also don't care if people want to marry more than one person if it makes them happy. Still, I don't want to see polygamy as you say "piggybacking" on gay marriage equality any more than it should be piggybacking on "Traditional" marriage.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Yeah, I was coming off as being hostile to the poly people...

It's just not a hill I am willing to die for. I do take exception to those that say their poly feelings come from the same place that being attracted to members of the same gender does and their battle for recognition is the same.

[eggplant]

108. Um, no.

"marry their toasters" is the same crap that was hurled in opposition to gay marriage. It'll lead to...!

Polyamory is something entered into by consenting adults. Not children, not toasters, not sheep. To equate polyamory to those things is to denigrate it EXACTLY as the right denigrated gay marriage.

THE ARGUMENT IS BULLSHIT.

[mythology]

113. Except polygamy has historically not been freely consentual and has significant

sociological negative impacts on men who can't get married, the women who are in those marriages and the children of those marriages.

Unlike same sex couples where there is no widespread history of negative sociological impacts.

[eggplant]

120. You are missing the point.

"polygamy has historically..."

See, this is where things break down. *Religious* polygamy isn't polygamy. The examples you point to are not the end all of the discussion.

The problem comes when trying to compare polyamory to gay marriage, instead of the more correct comparison, polyamory vs monogamy. Polyamory doesn't specify any of the genders, sexuality, or interpersonal relationships of the people involved. Just like marriage, now that gay marriage has become the law of the land.

I've known long-term gay triads, for example. There is no sociological issue with them, no hierarchical structure. Just three guys who love and care for each other. Are you trying to tell me that allowing them to form a legally-recognized union is bad for society somehow?

I've known long-term families with a woman married to a man and also "married" (in spirit only, unfortunately) to another woman. They have kids, they co-parent, and they live a happy, healthy lifestyle. Their kids have two mommies and a daddy. Is their family structure bad for society? Is someone being mistreated somehow?

The real problem I see in this discussion is that it sounds disturbingly like "well, some gay men are pedophiles, and we can't have that, can we?" And I agree -- pedophilia is a crime of violence and cannot be tolerated. But it isn't the "gay" part that is the issue. There are polygamous groups that are horribly abusive to the women and children involved. Those are crimes. But if there was a monogamous couple with kids with the same family dynamics, it would be just as criminal.

Don't conflate the two. Polyamory can be just as viable as monogamy. *Individuals* can be abusive.

[Warren Stupidity]

156. can you provide an example of a progressive democratic polygynous society?

[eggplant]

160. no, and that is irrelevant.

can you provide an example of a progressive democratic gay society?

[Warren Stupidity]

238. I can't provide any examples of predominantly gay societies.

We don't have that data. We do have data about polygynous societies as there are quite a few. Uniformly women are treated horribly, there is a large disenfranchised young male population, and the society in general is authoritarian, repressive, and extremely patriarchal. We have that data. We know objectively that this is not a family structure that we should promote.

[JackInGreen]

236. Can we get a chance

To make one in the light of day without everyone shitting on us?

[Warren Stupidity]

237. There are plenty "in the light of day" and they are all repulsive.

[JackInGreen]

240. Thanks

Love you too.

[eggplant]

242. I'm sure that you don't mean to insult all of my friends.

Or maybe you do. Regardless, you now get to fall into the class of polyphobe. Congrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. Um, yes...

Stop conflating homosexuality with polyandry and polygamy .Matthew Sheppard wasn't beaten and left to die in a Wyoming field because he was a polygamist.

Oh, you don't like my toaster analogy. I don't care if people marry their motorcycles and try to consummate their union with them, lol

[eggplant]

126. Ugh.

Aren't you just so cutesy in your dismissiveness of a legitimate discussion.

Matthew Sheppard was beaten and left to die because violent criminals did this to him. It happened because he was gay. But this same crime has happened because of skin color. Or because of professed religion. The gay community doesn't have a right to special victimhood here.

The ruling basically says that consenting adults can marry regardless of what's in their pants. That heteros don't get special privilege.

The question is, why don't triads of consenting adults get the same privilege?

And don't give me some offensive bullshit about toasters and motorcycles. Answer the fucking question.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Hoisted on your own petard:

Hoisted on your own petard:

"Matthew Sheppard was beaten and left to die because violent criminals did this to him. It happened because he was gay. But this same crime has happened because of skin color..."

Eggxactly. Skin and sexuality are immutable characteristics, polyandry and polygamy aren't.

You have dismissed my toaster and motorcycle analogy, How about a person marrying one's vacuum cleaner...That is one appliance that offers both genders an equal opportunity to consummate their unions, lol

[PowerToThePeople]

278. You truly need to get the ban hammer for this post

You have dismissed my toaster and motorcycle analogy, How about a person marrying one's vacuum cleaner...That is one appliance that offers both genders an equal opportunity to consummate their unions, lol

This is EXACTLY the same right wing bullshit spewed by freepers in regards to gay marriage. Just because the target is different now does not make the argument any less right wing.

[passiveporcupine]

272. Read what you said again

The gay community doesn't have a right to special victimhood here.

You are wrong here. Gay people are targeted and scorned, bullied or even "killed" just because they are gay. Polygamous people are not hated and feared as a group and killed because they are polygamous. There may be an individual who kills someone who is having an affair with their spouse, but that is not the normal social reaction. That is a personal reason, not a societal reason. Many people are married to a single spouse and still secretly polygamous (having affairs), or even having second secret families with multiple marriages. Hell, even preachers do it. And they aren't scorned and hated the way that gays are. They are forgiven for their sins, while gays are held up as evil and "God Hates FAGS". I don't see people doing that to polygamists.

Can you seriously say that if you announced publicly that you were in a polygamous marriage, you would suddenly have to fear for your life because some people think that polygamists should be "stoned" or feared, like some people think gays should be?

[eggplant]

279. I was not comparing gay people to poly people. That would be silly.

I was comparing them to other equally targeted people, based on their perceived color or religion. Religion, of course, being a "choice".

But much more to the point you raise, there is usually (not always, but much of the time) at least one gay person in a poly group. So yes, I *do* think the same amount of fear can easily and legitimately exist.

[passiveporcupine]

280. but not for being poly...for being gay.

[eggplant]

281. I'm sure that makes all the difference to them.

[PowerToThePeople]

149. Exactly.

This poster has been using this right wing tripe all over the place today.

Men and toasters married.
Moms and sons married.
Brothers and sisters married.

It is sick.

[eggplant]

163. They're being quite the troll.

Obnoxious, condescending, insulting, and all while accusing those who disagree of the very same things. In the OP. Before anyone could disagree.

They aren't even making an argument -- purely trolling.

It is appalling to read. And it is appalling how many people are piling on. I guess tolerance is too much to hope for.

[Jamastiene]

188. Actually, polygamy was hurled in opposition

to gay marriage the same way too. That is why many of us find it offensive the way it is being used on DU by a lot of people right now.

Personally, I don't care if someone wants to be in a polygamous relationship. If it is consenting adults, go for it. I have had several groups of friends who were in relationships with multiple people. They were and are loving families.

My opposition to the topics the way they are being discussed on DU right now is that quite a few of the posters are furthering that right wing "It'll lead to" argument. Not all, of course, buy some of them have been doing it just to be trolling with more anti marriage equality nonsense just like we heard before gay marriage became law.

The rest of us are talking past each other and not communicating well at all.

[GeorgeGist]

141. The toaster has no choice?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. You notice I referred to a toaster and not an animal.

A toaster is an inanimate object and is incapable of giving or withholding consent, an animal not so much...

[davidpdx]

189. Consummating a union with a toaster would be an electrifying idea

[DemocratSinceBirth]

197. I would hope they would unplug it first...

If one wants to marry an inanimate object and consummate the union a vacuum cleaner is the best bet.

[The CCC]

23. Equating or aligning polygamy with gay marriage is bigotry and has no place here....

Monogamy is not the standard in the natural world or in humans in general. It is simply an acculturation. Do I want to have more than one wife? No! But I see no reasonable argument against making it legal.

[joeybee12]

74. Willful ignorance deserves an ignore...nt

[treestar]

26. Exactly

And there is no significant push for polygamy from any large enough group in the US.

[4now]

27. It is shocking when you see liberals behave like Conservatives

and using some of their old tired arguments.

[still_one]

28. Absolutely. Polygamy is a choice. Being gay isn't, and that is why some of these threads that

have crept up spewing a false equivalency are nonsense

Excellent point. I am glad you brought up that distinction, and I am amazed it wasn't more widely expressed

[PowerToThePeople]

32. Monogamy is a choice. n/t

[jeff47]

62. Yep. But monogamy isn't marriage.

Believe it or not, some people who aren't even married practice monogamy.

[still_one]

109. Excellent critical thinking

[JackInGreen]

250. But people

That are polyamourous don't even get that choice. It's 'stay in your bineries and don't fight for more (especially not now) or you're bigots and reinforcing right wing memes'.
Wait, why are we letting the right frame the issue?

[jeff47]

253. Then they can make a different discrimination argument.

Wait, why are we letting the right frame the issue?

Nope. We're just actually paying attention to the arguments in the case instead of blindly arguing it means other marriage forms must be recognized by the government.

The case was about some couples getting benefits, and other couples not getting those benefits. Plural marriage will need a different argument, because no marriages of 3 or more people receive benefits.

Blacks being able to eat at the lunch counter did not require all stores to install lunch counters.

[JackInGreen]

257. I'm not seeing most posters or OP

discussing associated case law. I'm seeing them shit on a group whose only done them the harm of being a 'worse option' with right wing pundits.

[jeff47]

259. And I'm seeing most posters claim the decision immediately requires poly marriage

instead of making an argument for poly marriage other than "It's my business!!".

When you want us to give you something (via the government), it becomes our business. So you're going to need to address concerns people have about poly marriage. Like the fact that the only places that practice polygamy are quite bad for the women involved.

[JackInGreen]

262. So when would be the right

Time and place to defend it? Not here where it's under a very palpably under attack? It is my business and I'd gladly keep it to myself (and often do, this threads about the longest I've posted repeatedly), but I'll be damned if I'll be quiet when someone says that I'm a bigot and homophobe because I see my friends free, a hard fucking fight we fought side by side, and that fight won and would see others given the same freedom.
As to what I want you to 'give' and how I must address concerns. Granted. Be happy to go into it here or anywhere else. If you're going to equate that to getting rid of all the nasty misogynist polygamists and their sisterwives (even we recoil from those folks) or rectifying a couple thousand years of marital abuses at the hands of patriarchs...well man, we're all working on that first one and I'm not going to be able to help much on the second outside of QA and living as best we can. Want more?

[jeff47]

263. Any time is the right place and time.

My point is poly marriage does not immediately flow from the "gay marriage" decision. So you need to make another argument.

And "it's none of your business" is not going to work, since getting the government involved makes it our business.

[The CCC]

53. Absolutely. Polygamy is a choice. Being gay isn't, and that is why some of these threads that

Marriage is a choice. What shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to choose?

[kcr]

276. Because people don't live in a bubble where their actions don't affect others.

That's why. That's why Libertarianism might seem great as an idea but isn't practical in the least.

[Tipperary]

33. I agree.

It is hard to fathom that some on the Du are making the same argument as the right.

[PoliticAverse]

38. You mean the argument that polygamy should be outlawed? n/t

[Tipperary]

42. I am sorry. Is it not already against the law?

I think it is.

[PoliticAverse]

47. Yes, and conservatives certainly argue that should (continue) to be the case. n/t

[AuntPatsy]

34. Recommending, I appolgize if I offended anyone on DU, until I read this, I did not see it..

It makes perfect sense and furthers my understanding, we learn everyday, so thank you

[smiley]

35. I couldn't disagree more

and I fail to see how it reaches the level of bigotry.

I do agree with your point that that it is not an inherent trait, but so what? Why should that disqualify it? Should a person be allowed to change their sex even if they didn't always feel "that way". What if 3 women wanted to marry one another? Why would you have a problem with that? What societal harm can come from that bond?

I'll also agree that polygamists have gained nothing. At least as long as people such as yourself continue to set the bar for an individuals personal liberty.

I honestly can't understand how this is grounds to call everyone who supports the right of 2 or more people to marry, a bigot.
You're statement to me, comes across as very close-minded and childish. And unfortunately I've been seeing way to much of it on this so-called liberal forum.

[oberliner]

51. Great points

Hats off to you!

[smiley]

130. thank you

The level of hypocrisy surrounding this subject is amazing to me.

[joeybee12]

55. Pathetic...

If you read my post I said equating the two is bigotry, and it is...the argument for gay marriage is not about personal liberty, it's abut discrimination...you seem determined not to understand that...you're a good person to put on ignore.

[smiley]

128. okay fine, resort to childish name calling.

I already assumed you to be close-minded. And I understand you're point completely. All I'm saying is currently the law dictates the number of people in a marriage. I disagree with that. Whether it's about discrimination or not, it just doesn't and shouldn't matter how many people are in a marriage.

But I disagree that gay marriage is not about personal liberty. That is the sole argument of discrimination. That a person's, personal and constitutional liberties were being infringed upon. Is this not correct?

However, I am curious how you would feel about 3 women getting legally married?

Have a wonderful day! (if don't already have me ignore.)

[Marrah_G]

36. I agree

[libodem]

40. I think so too

But if polygamy is a choice and people want to feely engage in a lifestyle of shared resources and religious expression, have at it, Hoss.

[guillaumeb]

41. I would never equate a biological trait with a choice.

But what is wrong with using the opportunity after the marriage equality decision to argue for even greater marriage freedom.

There have been societies that practiced plural marriage. There is no reason to assume that plural marriage MUST entail child brides/grooms or greater inequality for females. There are plenty of "traditional" monogamous marriages where violence against women is evident.

And yes, there would be legal issues to be decided if plural marriage was legal, but there are also legal issues among the multiply married.

And as to behavior, and plural marriage being &quot only) a behavior", marriage is a behavior also. So why cannot behavior be changed or modified?


(On a personal note, I have been married for 36 years to one person. It is difficult enough for me to deal with one person, I do not feel that I could handle two people.)

[jeff47]

83. Then give an example.

There is no reason to assume that plural marriage MUST entail child brides/grooms or greater inequality for females.

Well, every current implementation of plural marriage that I know of does have massive inequality for females. You want to provide a current implementation that doesn't?

And as to behavior, and plural marriage being &quot only) a behavior", marriage is a behavior also. So why cannot behavior be changed or modified?

That's because you're thinking about the court case backwards.

Before the recent decision, we had laws that conferred benefits on two people if they married, and other laws that said certain people can't marry. That was discrimination because one group of people could not access those benefits because of an inherent trait of that group of people.

One fix is to make it so any two consenting people can marry. An alternative fix would be to remove all the benefits. The court chose the former.

As a result, the argument that made "gay marriage" legal is inherently different than one that makes plural marriage legal. We do not have laws that confer benefits on any marriage of 3 or more people. So there is no discrimination against one particular set of 3 or more people - it's not like Mormons get benefits and Saudis don't.

[The CCC]

119. Then give an example.

Of course we can can and do change the laws. Just make marriage in whatever form between consenting legal adults a legally enforceable contract.

Mormons living in the US are legally entitled to all the benefits/protections under the law as any other religion or no religion in the US. Saudis living in Saudi Arabia are not entitled to the legal protections of US law.

[jeff47]

124. Yet you didn't manage to give one.

Odd.

Of course we can can and do change the laws. Just make marriage in whatever form between consenting legal adults a legally enforceable contract.

"Changing the laws" is not what the SCOTUS does. That's up to the legislature. They have not created any benefits for 3-or-more marriages. So there is not one set of 3-or-more that get benefits and one set that does not.

Thus extending benefits to 3-or-more marriages is not the same as removing the laws that blocked benefits for some sets of 2-person marriages.

Mormons living in the US are legally entitled to all the benefits/protections under the law as any other religion or no religion in the US. Saudis living in Saudi Arabia are not entitled to the legal protections of US law.

Did you know that people do not stop being Saudi when they leave Saudi Arabia?
Did you also know that Mormons do not exclusively live in the US?

[tjl148]

152. I thought SCOTUS did change the law in several states. nt

[jeff47]

168. Nope. The laws are still on the books.

However, those states can not enforce those laws via the courts, and courts will order states to violate those laws.

There's still sodomy laws in many states, despite the SCOTUS decision in 2003.

[guillaumeb]

166. Perhaps not an example, but some reasoning:

When you wrote:
"Well, every current implementation of plural marriage that I know of does have massive inequality for females. You want to provide a current implementation that doesn't?"

Does that mean that polygamy is inherently unequal for females? Are all two person marriages equal for both partners? Are a majority of two person marriages necessarily equal for both partners? Your argument can be made, and has been made, that, because of social and societal issues, marriage is inherently an unequal proposition.


There is no ultimate, definitive definition for what constitutes a marriage. Marriages had been arranged affairs for far longer than current practice. There have been societies where plural marriage was the norm. Marriage is a social construct, and every society is constructed differently.

[jeff47]

170. If it were so easily done, don't you think it would have been done?

Reasoning is not reality.

For example, reasoning says racism should not exist. Reality demonstrates it does exist.

[jeff47]

245. The point is pontificating on theory does not create reality.

If it's so easy to make plural marriages equal, how come nobody has done it?

[guillaumeb]

247. I missed your response to my statement about 50% of marriages ending in divorce.

Does this not "prove" the unworkability of conventional 2-person marriage?

Would you accept a 50% failure rate in anything as evidence of a good design?

[kcr]

274. 50% divorce rate a myth

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html
http://qz.com/306166/the-divorce-stat-that-just-keeps-cheating-50/
http://jezebel.com/that-50-percent-divorce-statistic-hasnt-been-true-for-a-1665833364
http://www.truthorfiction.com/divorce/

[guillaumeb]

308. 40-50% divorce rate in the US as of this source:

http://www.divorcepad.com/rate/

or an average of 19.4% according to THIS source:
http://www.divorcesource.com/ds/main/u-s-divorce-rates-and-statistics-1037.shtml

or up to a 45% rate according to this source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/27/divorce-is-actually-on-the-rise-and-its-the-baby-boomers-fault/


Plus, according to this source, the % of American who are married has dropped to 52%, the lowest ever recorded.
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2010/usmarriagedecline.aspx


So no matter if the rate of divorce ranges from 19.4% to a high of 50%, the fact that the rate of marriage among the US population is only 52% MUST mean that 2-person marriage is neither functional nor lasting for a huge portion of the population. Correct?

[kcr]

310. The 50% is a myth. Correct?

You were wrong. If you expect 100% of marriages to last and think the argument that marriages aren't perfect bolsters your claim, then your style of debate needs work.

[Faygo Kid]

45. Polygamists were not born that way.

Period. Also, this isn't about "redefining marriage." The laws of marriage have not changed, and heterosexual marriages remain the same, as troubled as they have been (I know; married twice). Now homosexual marriages will have the same strains. No redefiniton.

It's really about equal protection under the Constitution, not "redefining marriage," as the mainstream media uncritically accepts it. Watched the Sunday talk shows this morning. Sad, sad, sad. More to come.

[oberliner]

49. Neither are monogamists

There is no reason to assume monogamy is any more "normal" than polygamy. These old assumptions ought to, at least, be examined, if not questioned.

[pnwmom]

121. The issue is legal marriage, not the practice of monogamy.

Go ahead and examine the practice of monogamy vs. polygamy all you wish, but that doesn't mean that marriage equality requires approving multiple marriages.

[oberliner]

48. This is absolute BS

There is no bigotry involved whatsoever.

Getting married is a choice - no one has to be monogamous. Polygamous marriages could involve people of any gender or sexual orientation.

There are polyamorous people who are a lot happier than monogamous ones - and they aren't hurting anyone. Often they are also not heterosexual.

If a bisexual woman, for example, feels love for a man and a woman then why she should not be allowed to enter into a polygamous relationship with both parties assuming all are consenting adults?

We are living in a world where people are questioning heteronormative assumptions and gender binaries. It is worth questioning other potentially antiquated assumptions as well.

If nothing else, the success of gay marriage advocates has helped people understand that things can change. Just because things always used to be a certain way doesn't mean they must continue to be that way.

[guillaumeb]

54. We agreed again. Perhaps only possible away from the other group.

see my reply 41

[oberliner]

56. Yeah I was going to post something similar in response to your post in this thread

I thought you made really excellent points.

[guillaumeb]

58. The same to you O. Nice when we can agree.

[oberliner]

63. Regrettably, we appear to be in the minority

At least in this thread so far.

[DeadLetterOffice]

96. I have pretty much given up.

Kudos to both of you for being able & willing to stay articulate on the issue. I can't anymore -- too much nastiness being hurled in the general vicinity of my position.

[joeybee12]

57. Your true colors have shown through...

I'll put you on ignore after I alert on this.

[oberliner]

61. What do you mean?

I thought those were reasonable points presented in a respectful manner.

[reorg]

91. BS

On Sun Jul 5, 2015, 06:48 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

This is absolute BS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6941749

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling someone's argument BS is against the rules, I believe

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 5, 2015, 07:01 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: BS alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope that's not against the rules. Now, calling someone bullshit...that's against the rules. I don't really agree with the post, but it's not hide-worthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calling someone's argument BS AFAIK is not against the rules

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[oberliner]

100. Encouraging to see that

Thank you to all the DU jurors who voted to leave the post alone.

[LittleBlue]

111. Lmao looks like someone lost their alert privileges

[Capt. Obvious]

241. LOL

Poor Joey

[geek tragedy]

73. Are you really not comprehending that the same-sex marriage case was about

discrimination against people based on something over which they had no choice?

[oberliner]

79. Of course

But can you not acknowledge the larger picture? That things that used to be taken for granted as being "traditional" can and should be challenged? The success of gay marriage shows that changes that seemed impossible a few decades ago are in fact possible. That isn't a bigoted notion.

[geek tragedy]

88. That's the rightwing "slippery slope" argument--if

we stop discriminating against gays and lesbians, why not allow people to marry the everyone in phone book, their own children, their dog, or their John Deere tractor?

There is NOTHING about the same-sex marriage decision that indicates that the viability of institutionalized monogamy has been diminished. Quite the contrary.

[oberliner]

98. Let's not let the right wing set the terms of the debate

Just because right wingers say "next they will legalize polygamy" - with the implication that this would be something terrible - doesn't mean that it actually is something terrible.

Similar to the right wing reaction to the Confederate flag debate. They would say things like "next they will do X" when X is actually maybe not such a bad idea even though it is startling and offensive to the right winger.

[geek tragedy]

122. There is nothing rightwing about supporting

institutionalized monogamous marriage and opposing polygamy (as opposed to polyamory).

Polygamy is actually terrible. Been there, done that.

[oberliner]

154. Monogamy has been pretty terrible too

Women treated as property, children being abused - we've been there done that with monogamy. In fact these are still major problems in societies which practice monogamous marriage exclusively.

[geek tragedy]

159. Monogamy did not make all problems go away.

But monogamous marriage has a vastly superior record.

[Chan790]

203. That "slippery slope" argument never did make any sense.

If we legalize gay marriage, next it'll be polygamy.

...and I remember thinking "Yeah...right...so...how is that a bad thing?"

It's just holding up something either not that bad or even desirable as a boogieman.

It's like when conservatives act like being a "liberal" or "socialist" are bad things.

[fasttense]

97. Because time and again history shows that societies that allow polygamy

Make women into possessions and encourage child abuse. The wives get younger and younger. The boys are expelled from the family at younger ages or become sexual objects for their father's peers. Why this happens I can't explain. But in the real world, polygamy leads to the abuse and political downfall of women.

It rarely involves one woman with several male partners. It usually involves multiple women with one male, a set up for an unfair and unequal distribution of rights and privileges to begin with. It sounds good on the surface. Everyone can love and have sex with anyone thy want. But in the real world women get the short end of the deal whenever polygamy is involved.

[oberliner]

101. Monogamy has had a similar history

Certainly in terms of women being made into possessions. Monogamy has a long history in that regard. And of course child abuse has sadly been rampant in every monogamous society for centuries (and still is).

There is no reason why polygamy cannot be limited to consenting adults, thus alleviating those issues that you bring up.

Again, I would emphasize that "traditional marriage" - even today - oftentimes involves an unfair and unequal distribution of rights and privileges - with women often getting the short end of the deal.

[fasttense]

129. Polygamy can never be about equality. If it was, there would only be 1 wife and 1 husband

Polygamy pressures men into buying more and more wives. There is no such pressure with monogamy. Because men seem to want younger and younger wives, frequently little girls are pressured to marry rich old men under polygamy because there is more demand for multiple wives. When men can only have one wife, there is less pressure to find enough young girls to satiate a rich man's desires. Eventually a polygamous societies runs out of marriage age women and leaves poor and young men frustrated, without wives and without children. This means poor girls are married off younger and younger, or young men without hope of a stable family life lash out at the society.

Yes, abuse has happened with both types of marriages but abuses are more frequent under polygamy because of its built in inequality. It's a fantasy to think polygamy is about a fair and equal relationship between a man and his many wives.

[oberliner]

136. Little girls have been pressured to marry rich old men under monogamy

Men in monogamous marriages also seem to want younger and younger wives, often times resulting in cheating on their current wives and/or divorcing them and/or treating them abusively out of frustration and other similar behaviors born out of the tradition of monogamy and those desires that you identify.

A rich man's desires to be with young girls is not limited to those in polygamous relationships. Rich men will find ways to satiate those desires such as the ones described in the first paragraph or other even more unpleasant and damaging behaviors.

There is no reason why three consenting adults who all feel love for one another and wish to be part of a polygamous marriage would not be able to have a fair and equal relationship among them - certainly no more or less so than a monogamous marriage.

[fasttense]

148. You fail to ever address the inherit inequality of polygamy

Monogomy does NOT have any such systemic problem. You can not have more than one wife and declare men and women are equal. With monogomy you do NOT run out of women and have to go looking for wives among the children. You do NOT have rich old men needing to buy more and more wives in monogomy. Rich old men can only marry one young girl at a time in monogomy. They can have mistresses but mistresses are usually free to marry others as are divorced women. Even in polygamy men have mistresses and affairs though divorce is curtailed - otherwise all the first wives would get divorces. The marriageable women do not run out with monogamy. Poor and young men are not forced to do without women and children in monogamy.

Polygamy is an inherently unequal relationship that leads to many more inequalities in the real world. An equitable relationship between one man and several wives is a male fantasy that even women sometimes buy into. No matter how many people espouse the fantasy, it is still NOT real.

[oberliner]

150. You present only one model of polygamy

consider a model that starts with everyone involved having to be consenting adults. Marrying someone against their will or marrying a child would continue to be illegal. The only people then who would be involved in these arrangements would be doing so willingly. Can you acknowledge that there are situations where a marriage involving three consenting adults who each love one another can be one based on equality?

[fasttense]

157. The nature of humans to be possessive and jealous

To want power and control over others, I find it difficult to see an equal relationship developing from the marriage of 3 people. I suppose it is possible. But since we are a mostly monogamous society and allow divorce I think a 3 way marriage based on equality would have the best chance of developing here in the US.

As long as ALL the people involved are freely allowed to divorce. Not like the Mormon sects that have 15 year old girls mated for life to 60 year old men with 20 wives, none of them allowed to divorce.

[oberliner]

158. Fair points

i do certainly agree with you that the child abuse going on among the jeffs cult whatever they call themselves is absolutely despicable but I do think it's important to acknowledge that another model is possible

[mmonk]

50. Agreed.

[smirkymonkey]

52. +1000

[Comrade Grumpy]

60. Nope. Not going for that bigotry claim. That word gets used excessively around here.

This thread is an example.

[joeybee12]

66. Amazing...

Ignore.

[oberliner]

69. Thanks for posting that

I totally agree.

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. Yeah, I'm kind of disgusted with the number of people making this offensively stupid argument.

Letting any two people marry is not the same as polygamy. There is no argument whatever that it's the same as polygamy. You have to be a moron to think there's any kind of equivalence. (Or you have to be the sort of fuckwit who thinks that allowing gay marriage is "opening the floodgates" for allowing polygamy, bestiality, incest and paedophilia, but I repeat myself!) This is fundamentally a right-wing argument made by idiots who are all "but we can't legalise same sex marriage, because then what about (polygamy/paedophilia/incest/bestiality/something else that's totally different to marriage between two people)?"

[joeybee12]

76. Exactly...although the good thing about all these idiotic

posts, is it calls them out of the woodwork.

[Kip Humphrey]

78. Since bisexuality is often a characteristic of polyamorous people, the question arises,

is bisexuality a trait or a behavior?

[LittleBlue]

80. Denying polygamous people the right to marry is small-minded conservative bigotry

The inability to see the principle behind gay marriage, that consenting adults should be able to marry, is an intellectual mega failure that I wouldn't expect from people who are sexually liberal. Between this and the 50 Shades outrage, DU has shown its sexual conservative streak that unfortunately runs deep. It's no different than conservatives who say "gay people shouldn't marry cuz (insert reasons that all apply to hetero marriages)"

Embarrassing.

[joeybee12]

86. Emabarssing that something so basic escapes you...

The intellectual mega failure is that you cannot see the obvious...ignore.

[LittleBlue]

92. Yet you can't explain why

Except to mentally flee to a marriage tradition imposed in the west by ancient Rome and enforced later by the Catholic church.

Madness. Faux liberalism at its worst. Sexual conservatism sucks, it is the basis for denying gay and trans rights. Thanks for contributing to the problem.

[mmonk]

102. If polygamy is one man, multiple women, seems more like exploitation

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)

than a union of mutual benefit. Unless they are doing it for Darwinistic reasons of spreading one man's progeny (which I doubt), seems like exploitation. Who am I to judge it? No one in particular. The similarity to marriage equality as currently achieved, I don't see it. Something someone wants to take up (and already have throughout history), go ahead.

[pnwmom]

123. The principle is that any single adult, no matter what his race, gender, or orientation,

has the right to marry another single adult. Period. Not to marry ANY NUMBER of other people at once.

[LittleBlue]

134. And before that standard, any single consenting adult could marry someone of the opposite sex

I cannot understand how rational people can correctly identify one medieval church dictate (one man and one woman), see that it is based on illogical traditions, and yet defend vigorously the other illogical medieval religious tradition.

[pnwmom]

139. You are free to engage in whatever relationships you want.

The issue is which relationships the government decides to legally recognize, with specific rights and responsibilities.

[hunter]

87. Gentle poyamorous families and their supporters need to back away from this right wing rat fuck.

Assholes like those on the Supreme Court who voted against equal rights hate polygamists as much as they hate LGBT people, and this latest media outrage is manufactured to fracture left, liberal, and libertarian communities.

Chief Justice Roberts is a weasel beholden to the oligarchy. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote his opinion. This outrage is a Republican campaign against their opponents.

Personally I support any co-equal consenting non-abusive polyamorous adult relationships. Any legal harassment of people in such relationships is unethical.

On the other hand, polygamy has a sordid history... just as monogamy does, when women and children were essentially the "property" of men.

Creating a legal framework that protects polyamorous adults and their children isn't so simple as expanding marriage to include any two consenting adults, not just a "man and a woman" as the Supreme Court decision does

Playing these politics on the Republican defined playing field, with Republican referees, and a Republican press, won't benefit anyone who considers themselves progressive, liberal, or even libertarian.

People who consider themselves progressive, liberal, or libertarian are already getting caught up in this Republican rat-fuck, saying things offensive to LGBT people, and people in non-abusive and co-equal polyamorous relationships.

The right wing considers any relationship where the wives and children are not entirely subservient to the "Man of the house" to be against the wishes of their cruel miserable humorless and ineffective god, but most of all a threat to their own political power.

[fasttense]

104. Polygamy is based on making women subservient to men

And making children into sex objects as older rich men try to accumulate more and more, younger and younger wives to demonstrate their wealth and sexual prowess. To think the supremes would object to polygamy based on making women equals is to be blind to the history of polygamy and its consequences in the real world.

It's a great fantasy to think polygamy is about equal. It's all about inequality.

[oberliner]

107. So was/is monogamy

Historically monogamy has always been about inequality since the beginning.

[fasttense]

114. Actually not

Monogamy can at least be turned into a marriage between equals. Where polygamy can never be about equality. And monogamy does not pressure men into buying more and more wives. It's a fantasy to think polygamy is a marriage between equals. If it was about equality, there would only be 1 wife.

[oberliner]

155. Actually yes

women were definitely considered the property of their husbands for many centuries across innumerable monogamous societies including our own

[hunter]

116. I have an ancestor who was a mail order bride to Salt Lake City.

She didn't much like sharing a husband and ran away.

Yep, that "traditional" form of marriage is well discarded, as are many forms of "one man, one woman" marriage.

But the Republicans here clearly want to smear LGBT marriage and many other co-equal modern relationships with their garbage, even though they themselves often have relationships that are "sinful" according to their own professed religion and moral codes.

[Bluenorthwest]

144. Beautifully said.

nt

[Jamastiene]

198. Thank you.

Well said.

[JackInGreen]

252. +1

And again to infinity.

[we can do it]

90. Thank you.

[Starry Messenger]

94. It is bigotry.

It also just shows that several people are still in total ignorance of what this court ruling means. Nothing *changed* about the institution of marriage. It was shown that the state has no interest in discriminating against same-sex couples who wish to marry.

[AngryAmish]

99. Next you will say that being Poly is a lifestyle.

You will regret your words and they will not be forgotten.

[99th_Monkey]

105. Enough with these piggy-backing polygamists!! nt

[customerserviceguy]

304. I remember when

some people of color accused gay rights supporters of piggybacking on their movement.

In any case, when (not if) the issue comes before the SCOTUS, it will be used, plus the fact that polygamy has an historical tradition that same gender marriage simply does not.

[backscatter712]

106. Shouldn't the word be polyamory?

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Polygamy conjures images of inbred fundamentalist Mormons marrying one asshole guy to a harem of female cousins who didn't exactiy ask to be in the relationship.

Polyamory brings up images of consensual relationships between more than two human beings, which SHOULD be legal, and if all parties consent, SHOULD even be able to be formalized with a marriage.

[eridani]

175. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[JackInGreen]

302. +1

And another +1

[Comrade Grumpy]

110. What about gay polygamy? Gay polygamists disagree with you.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gay-Polygamy/149105315143535

http://www.gaypolygamist.com/

[Rex]

117. A dating site and a facebook page with a post from Feb 9th?

Seriously?

[Comrade Grumpy]

137. The issue has been around for awhile. The Advocate did a cover story on it in 2006.

https://books.google.com/books?id=82QEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=polygamy+gay+men+dirty+laundry&source=bl&ots=LR7cKEVJTq&sig=HTox-XrhG8ZXklSfXDMBtSPKAVk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=43yZVerWCNTVoATy0qXoDQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=polygamy%20gay%20men%20dirty%20laundry&f=false

Sorry, that's the best link I could find.

[pnwmom]

125. They also, if they want to be married, must choose a single partner to be legally married to.

But they can have whatever relationships they wish besides the legally recognized marriage.

[H2O Man]

118. Thank you.

I agree. And I question the motivation of those attempting to equate the two.

Definitely recommended.

[Maedhros]

127. They are separate issues, linked only by their involvement with "marriage."

The Supreme Court decision regards the existing structure of marriage as between two individuals. The decision simply took away a restriction on who those individuals could be.

Polyamory is a separate issue that involves changing the structure of marriage to allow for more than two individuals.

It is not necessary to cast judgement on anyone to recognize this difference.

[Enthusiast]

132. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

This was one of the memes pushed by the right as a reason to fight against equal rights for gays. We heard it again and again.

[U4ikLefty]

133. If in 2008 I were to tell you that some DUers would be equatiing polygamy and

gay marriage and NOT be banned, I would be laughed at.

But here we are.

[restorefreedom]

135. to poly fans: find a dataset of well adjusted, adult,

non religious inspired poly families which are not patriarchal, are not teaching female children to be subservient to men, women work and have equal rights in the marriage, and are in long term, mutually respectful, successful group marriages and i would consider supporting it as a concept.

hint: don't spend much time researching, cuz it is not there.

[JackInGreen]

246. We'd love a chance

We can't create a new dataset to supercede or amend the old ones until we're allowed out of the hole both left and right have shoved us in.

Want to come over for a bbq? I'm sure the fam would love to show you a better example. We don't exactly fit into any of what you mentioned above.

[restorefreedom]

266. agree that "non traditionals" are marginalized

and if your family is happy, i am happy for you. it is definitely the devil or the deep blue sea. you don't want to come out of the hole for fear of persecution (i am guessing) until you are given some legitimacy in society. but society is unlikely to accept and live and let live unless they see happy, functioning families that are not patriarchal religious nuts. i really don't have a solution. i do think that the legal system is unlikely to rewrite family law to accommodate this without numerous examples of well adjusted families and their allies fighting for it. and i can understand their reluctance. it would require many changes to marriage and family law as we know it. my fear is that legalizing it opens a door for the pedophilic, religious themed wackos who will use it as a means to exploit women and children. i don.t know how we would get around that. these people want to marry 16 year olds off to 50 year old men. if we can find a way to protect them and still allow for families like yours, i would not have an issue with it. as usual, the bad kids in the class get everyone in trouble.

hope the bbq was nice

[riderinthestorm]

284. The GLBT community had to "come out of the closet" and fight for it

if you want that, you're going to have to come "out of the hole" (is that how the poly community refers to their situation?) and find your own arguments for changing the laws.

You can't just hitch your wagon to the GLBT community's successes especially when the arguments for polygamy are so homophobic.

If you can't see why folks are so outraged by this issue being co-opted now by some vast, hidden polygamous community residing in the US, you and yours have been deliberately, disingenuously obtuse.

Want to change the laws? Actually come up with real solutions to the rats nest of divorce law, child custody, visitation, welfare etc.

[JackInGreen]

288. I'm not seeing a lot of coopting

I'm seeing a lot of hate at people that have stood beside their friends and family and would have the same courtesy or at least be indulged in dialogue.
That rats nest is a beast no mistake and I don't have any tangible answers for it but that shouldn't stop us from talking about it.

[riderinthestorm]

289. What?! These discussions are proof it's been hijacked

by the worst sorts. It's homophobic trying to hitch polygamy to SSM. If you purport to be a "friend and family" and some sort of supporter of SSM, you know specifically how badly this plays.

It's despicable.

You want "dialogue" but provide no leadership in public for your issue, moan about being in "the hole" without pointing to a single activist action you're a party to, and offer ZERO input on resolving tremendous legal roadblocks.

You're a polyamorist which I have no problem with, but one who can't even begin to wage a fight on why you deserve legal recognition even as you rail against anyone who dares question your position. You don't really want to talk about it. You simply want "us" to go along with you.

[joeybee12]

299. Wow, gee...you all get your same talking points from the same

source, don't you...makes one wonder...polygamy has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage or any civil rights issue as I pointed out...do whatever the fuck you want, but don't equate your choice with an inherent trait...trying to do so is disgusting and offensive, and I'm done with people like you...ignore.

[JackInGreen]

300. And welcome

To ignore me. I'm pretty sure you've been paying more attention to your anger than to the people you've been cutting out so it's not a huge loss.

[Chan790]

318. Actually, there are entire groups of them on FetLife.

Given, based on the smaller user-base of that site and accounting for overlap in membership between different groups that may only be a thousand people in total but it's more than your acknowledged the existence thereof. (Well, except the "marriage" part since plural marriages are illegal...but there is no shortage of >2-people stable, supportive, non-sexist, non-religious, equality-based polyfidelitous relationships to serve as templates for potential plural marriages, some of whom would like to be legally plurally-married.)

[The_Commonist]

138. Here's where I think you are completely wrong...

First, you are equating "polygamy" with "polyamory."
There are many types of "poly" relationships, and not all of them are of the Mormon one man and many women kind.

Second, yes, being poly is or can be just as much "an inherent trait" as being gay or any of those other things you mentioned. I knew I was poly long before I had sex for the first time, as did many other polys that I've known.

I was in a poly "marriage" of 8 women and 6 men for a number of years. It was an "inherent trait" in all of us, and the only reason it was a "marriage" instead of a marriage is because of anti-poly bigotry.

You might want to rethink this...

[joeybee12]

162. You might want to rethink that sweetie...

You think just because you have chosen something it's "inherent"...it's not...you can argue all you want about your right to polygamy and your word du jour, polyamory, but trying to link this to a civil rights issue is offensive beyond words.

[The_Commonist]

167. Oh, so now we're "Sweetie"ing, eh?

Should I not "worry my pretty lilttle head about it"? Are "the grownups talking here," and my perspective is irrelvant because it doesn't meet with your approval?

You do realize, of course, that you sound just as aurhoritarian as all those fundies who for all those years insisted that same-sex marriage was "wrong" because of "the word of god," or whatever their reason du jour was?

Do you find plural marriage icky? Or just the coerced kind? Just because there are bad actors, will you insist upon throwing the whole idea away because again, it doesn't meet with your approval?

If I choose to have two spouses, and only one of them is allowed to visit me in the hospital but the other isn't because that would be "icky" to some random nurse, doesn't that also become a civil rights issue? Seriously... Your arguments sound EXACTLY like the ones opponents of same-sex marriage used, minus the "word of god" stuff.

Why do YOU get to decide this for me?

[joeybee12]

169. Bigotry is bigotry, and I take that tone when confronted with it...

I don't give a flying phuck who you do or don't sleep or love with...that is none of my effing concern...but how dare you equate that with civil rights, would you have said that about inter-racial marriage when that finally became legal...no, because that is blatant racism, but still on DU homophobia is still ok, an accepted bigotry...so don't get so high and mighty with me trying to shame me because of your prejuidices...go ahead and put me on ignore because I've already done that to you

[The_Commonist]

171. My prejudices?

And what are my prejudices?
I'm certainly not and have never been prejudiced against homosexuals or people of color. Are you suggesting that I am? Based on what?

And now you're going to shut down because I've said something you don't like? That reeks of that same authoritarianism.

So I want to ask you a serious question... If I chose to have 3 wives and share them with 2 other husbands, and we're all in a committed, loving, consensual relationship, who gets to visit me in the hospital when I get sick?

[Tien1985]

213. ^ This

Monogamous pansexual trans person here. I know too many long term poly couples to want to get in the way of their happiness. On top of the fact that I see no evidence that humans are hardwired for monogamy over polyamory--seems like we are inherently wired for all types of attractions and arrangements.

And the institution of marriage hasn't been good to women and children no matter how it's sliced, so I don't think anyone can just point to polyamory for that one. If that's the argument we might as well abolish marriage all together.

I'd prefer to change it rather than get rid of it, though, personally.

[Betty Karlson]

140. K&R

I agree to any OP with this simple message.

Maybe some of the Mods want to set a simple rule about these matters, because the persistent emergence of ever new OPs making those equations / alignments suggests that homophobes are out in force and looking for a flame war.

This is heading for juries all over DU.

[DirkGently]

143. That's pretty hard to support logically.

It's true right-wingers make all kinds of bad analogies to gay marriage, comparing it to people marrying dogs or furniture or what have you. But polygamy isn't about people marrying dogs or furniture any more than gay marriage is, so THAT comparison is bullshit as well.

The big blindspot everyone's overlooking in our zeal for better human rights for gay couples is that "marriage" WAS a religious idea, codified by a tangle of inconsistent laws all over the country.

So while we're about untangling law and religion, there's no reason not to look further into what exactly "marriage" is supposed to be in a post-religious body of law.

We've agreed it's not just about codifying heterosexual couples having biological children together. People also want health benefits, inheritance rights, property rights, and all of the other benefits we've woven up into what "marriage" means in every state.

But given we've agreed "marriage" isn't just for hetero couples, it might not be a bad time to examine the rest of it, and decide what legal relationships committed people can have with each other.

I don't readily see why people would want polygamy, given the extant examples tend to be a whitewash for sexual slavery and child abuse, but it's at least conceivable that normal adults might want the legal rights and benefits that convey with "marriage" within a group.

If they want it, can they have it? If not, why not?

[joeybee12]

161. And when marriage between two races was considered legal in the 1950's...

was the logical extension that polygamy was next...no, because you would not equate the two, yet somehow you think "logically" polygamy comes next after gay marriage...that's not logic, that's homophobia trying to masquerade as something else...I'll have to see some of your other posts to see if this homophobia runs deep...it sure does here at DU...and those have just found a new vehicle to attach it to.

[DirkGently]

172. No. Not the "next logical step."

But it's not somehow intrinsically ludicrous, like right-wingers talking about people marrying their pets or whatever.

Polygamy is a thing that people have done. It is an existing conception of marriage. It does not involve right-wingers' visions of people marrying livestock or household items.

It may be unworkable or a bad idea, or be objectionable in any number of ways, but it's not a facetious, crypto-homophobic attack for someone to simply bring it up for Pete's sake.

If you want to argue against it, do that. Don't make up a conspiracy theory where the people whose ideas you don't like are all "bigots."

That's just gross, and you can do better.

[joeybee12]

173. Pathetic...

Yes it is bigotry...and what is gross is trying to rationalize bigotry....where were all the pro-polygamy threads prior to the gay marriage ruling? They came out of the woodwork parroting right-wing talking points trying to equate that lifestyle with a civil rights struggle...you apparently are offended by the wrong things so I'll end this now and put you on ignore.

[DirkGently]

174. Doors do open by degrees.

We didn't talk about gay marriage when we were still arguing about interracial marriage.

I don't know that polygamy is something with the power to move the culture, or whether it even should, but I can recognize people talking in good faith about something and not lump everything in with the goats and toasters the rightwingers blather about.

Moreover, we ought to be having a full-on, secular examination of what marriage -- the non-religious, government granted interpersonal contract -- should really be.

We're talking about a big, inconsistent web of legal rights and privileges all over the country. It's a mess because it was a essentially a codification of religious ideas, mixed with secular rights over time.

We don't have to just correct the biggest problems with traditional structures once they reach critical mass. We can actually discuss them intelligently and determine how we should be doing things and why.

[pnwmom]

211. It's not hard at all. Being polygamous isn't a biological trait, unlike being gay.

In choosing the one person to legally marry, no one is being discriminated against because of their skin color or gender or any other personal trait.

[DirkGently]

243. No. The right to marry is not based on "biological traits."

Not that it isn't possible someone could be biologically polyarmorous -- that might well be the case. But we won't be testing same sex couples for "biological traits" before issuing their marriage licenses. Biology is not the basis of having rights.

It's actually pretty grotesque to suggest that human rights of any kind would be based on some assessment of people's "biology."

Marriage in the law is just a mishmash of legal rights and privileges wrapped around the old relgious idea of regulating how men and women would live together and have children.

Traditional legal marriage was full of horrible, religiously sourced ideas, like the idea that a man couldn't be convicted of the rape of his wife, or that he could abandon her for failure to serve his sexual needs. We got rid of those, and the limitation to different sex couples, because those traditions don't make any sense and have no bearing on a modern understanding of the law of human rights.

So if you want to argue that marriage can only involve two people, you have argue why that should be. We have already established that marriage isn't what religion says it is, it isn't based on what body parts people have, and it isn't based on what kind of sex people think other people should be having.

Marriage is what we say it is. So the question remains open:

Can multiple consenting adults be married together, if that's what they want? Why or why not?

[pnwmom]

258. Of course -- the right to marry is NOT based on biological traits. It would be discrimination if it were.

But no similar problem exists with respect to limiting LEGAL marriages to a couple of people only. That is discriminating against no one. Every single adult, no matter what their skin color or gender or orientation, can select ONE other single adult to marry.

There is no legal obligation to accommodate groups of people in marriage, because it is not discriminating to define a legal marriage as a specific set of responsibilities involving two people. The legal permutations and complications of opening up marriage to multiple people would be endless. Theoretically, if three people could be married, then so could 10. So could 100. The members of a fraternity could decide to marry each other. So could a work group.

Maybe someday the world will have changed enough and the word "marriage" will have evolved and multiple concurrent marriages will be legal because of popular demand.

But don't hold your breath.

[TubbersUK]

147. I entirely agree - thanks.

Those posts are puerile and offensive - I was aghast when they began to crop up.

[arely staircase]

153. very well put nt

[Fearless]

177. As long as no one is hurting anyone, I don't give a flying fuck what they do.

That's basically all I have to say about this whole topic.

[Skittles]

178. CORRECT

these bigots do NOT fool me one bit

[Spitfire of ATJ]

181. Who the hell wants TWO mother-in-laws?

[JackInGreen]

248. If we could

Several of us would have a couple. Thank gods they get along and love their children.

[Calista241]

184. I disagree

We're talking about people and their choices here.

[joeybee12]

187. Wrong...

And see Jasmatine's post #185...she has you pegged.

[Calista241]

207. So because i disagree with you i'm somehow now a Freeper.

You're the one trying to say that relationships between consenting adults are deviant and therefore not valid. Seems i've heard that kind of messaging before, and it was last fucking week from Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee.

[joeybee12]

221. Not at all what I said...not even close...

So you proved my point...ignore.

[Jamastiene]

185. The thing that gets me is that

I don't have a problem if other consenting adults want to be in a relationship with more than one other person. That's their life and I believe in live and let live, as long as it is consenting adults.

But, the way it has been used on DU these last few days is just exactly like the right wing meme against gay people and against gay marriage. The people that have brought it up in this way are not fooling anyone with their real purpose here. I guess they know they can't bring up marrying their pet turtles without being obvious that they are trolling. So, instead, they are using the polygamous tactic.

If they really want to be able to have polygamous marriage that bad, they know there are religious sects that do it and they can just go do it there. So, there really is nothing to it. No one is really being denied the right to marry more than one person, at least in those areas in those religions.

I believe people should have a right to do with their own relationships as they see fit, assuming they are consenting adults, but using polygamous marriage the way it has been used on DU the last week or so has been outright anti-gay trolling, imo.

[joeybee12]

186. It's pretty obvious, too...where were all the pro-polygamy posts

prior to the SCOTUS decision..they're not fooling anyone.

[Jamastiene]

192. Exactly.

I think that is what a lot of people do not realize. It is about how the topic is being used right now on DU. I think that is the difference between experiencing life as a member of the GLBT community and not. Those who are not in the community are not putting two and two together, because they didn't really hear those types of things said over and over again to them and about them for ages like those of us who are in the GLBT community did. We experienced that argument as an argument against gay marriage for ages and ages until we got sick of it. Now, it is being touted on DU in a very obvious way. We are not fooled.

[joeybee12]

234. Sunrise at the Kremlin apparently...

Take a gander...they all showed up at once this morning...similar post counts...you'd think Putin would try and make his minions be a little less obvious.

[Behind the Aegis]

209. Nailed it.

I will also just say...the search feature is a useful tool and oh so enlightening.

[JackInGreen]

230. "Just go there"

Why should I have to go to people I loath to ve with people I love without hearing about how shitty we are? Maybe the reason we're more vocal is that we can see our friends, our families, ourselves, more free with this decision and feel more comfortable talking about it?
I wouldn't put it past the wingers to plant ringers (totally unintended rhyme ) but please don't insult the rest of us.

[davidpdx]

191. I totally agree

I got into an argument about this a few days after the SCOTUS decision came out with someone here. It just makes me shake my head that people will say these things on here.

[PatrickforO]

201. Yeah. Separate issue. To equate polygamy with gay marriage is not comparing apples to apples.

I'm surprised though, that these Christian crazies aren't actually advocating polygamy, since the bible endorses that many times.

I guess being a right wing evangelical is a lifestyle choice.

[cstanleytech]

268. Except you and others are are forgetting that this case was really

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

about the government violating the 14th amendment and refusing to treat people equally under the constitution and there is no where in the constitution or in the amendments to it that allow the government to exclude certain people for whatever reason from having those protections.

[Lordquinton]

202. I never expected to see this level of hate here at DU

Of course marriage equality should open the doors to more equality, we need to keep this ball rolling, not grab it and run home!

I also see tons of right wing talking points being leveled against poly people, like the "It's a choice" got any backup for that assertion? do you recognize that line from anywhere?

I see people trotting out the toaster argument, those people should be banned.

I also suggest people read up on what a poly relationship is actually like, and not rely on outdated, racist/anti-Mormon stereotypes.

[Wella]

204. +1000

,

[JackInGreen]

219. Preach it right out loud

Said better than I can articulate.

[joeybee12]

225. Thanks for posting...I like to know who to ignore...nt

[Lordquinton]

264. Well you can start with the guy talking about marrying toasters

Then go down the line of actual RWTP such as it's a choice and the slippery slope argument.

[goldent]

205. I didn't see anyone equating them

What I saw was people speculating whether the recent SCOTUS ruling could be used by polygamy advocates to advance their cause. Doesn't this kind of thing happen all the time?

[joeybee12]

226. Thanks for posting...I like to know who to ignore...nt

[goldent]

235. Well, when you post opinions, you take the risk of getting opinions posted back

[cstanleytech]

208. Part of the SCOTUS ruling said

"The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. "
I didnt see any part in this decision where they said that they made the ruling because its an "inherent trait so if we go by the quoted part it could be argued by some consenting adults who want to enter into a polygamist marriage that its just as much a violation of their 14th amendment right as it was a violation of the 14th amendments rights for same sex couples.


Edit: And no, I would not be willing to wager money on scotus agreeing with that argument especially considering how close the vote was in this recent ruling were all it would have taken was one judge to switch their vote differently and we would have had an entirely different outcome.

[joeybee12]

227. Thanks for posting...I like to know who to ignore...nt

[cstanleytech]

265. Ahh, my apologies for hurting your tender little feelings with facts, heres a hug *hug*

[joeybee12]

267. Nothing factual about what you posted...

Just another right wing meme trying to be polished so it doesn't look like you know what...adios...give my regards to Vladimir.

[cstanleytech]

269. Check post #268 then.

[Android3.14]

214. Inherent trait? Not so fast.

Anyone who has done any research on this topic understands sexual orientation, for many people though not all, is far more complex than a simple "I was born that way."

[joeybee12]

228. Thanks for posting...I like to know who to ignore...nt

[Newxtor]

223. In the next poll on polygamy...

Do you predict more conservatives than liberals to agree with polygamy? Or more liberals than conservatives?

[joeybee12]

229. Thanks for posting...I like to know who to ignore...nt

[brett_jv]

231. Realistically, as I've said a number of times on DU and other sites ... 'I'm born that way ...'

Is REALLY not the best 'justification' for gay rights, be they the right to marry or otherwise.

Reason I say that is that I believe as time goes on, we are very likely to find that all manner of 'orientations', be they sexual, or violent, or whatever ... COULD well be just as 'inherent' ... as being attracted to one's own sex.

Pedophilia is a rather obvious potential candidate in my eyes ... I believe it's likely that someone could be 'born' ... attracted to young people. But that wouldn't make it 'okay' ... to engage in intimate relations with them, would it?

The 'reason' the homosexuality is 'okay' ... is because homosexuality (between age-appropriate partners) is freaking OKAY for fucks sake. WHO GIVES A SHIT whether people are 'born that way'? That is NOT the argument that anyone (IMHO) should fall back to on behalf of gay folks.

To my mind, it just opens the door for potential hypocrisy on our part later on down the line ... when something else that we DO NOT feel is 'okay' ... for example, like if being pedo (which I don't know EITHER WAY ... but neither do any of us) ... turned out to be a 'in-born' trait.

And so could 'being a killer' or 'being a thief' or all manner of other bad behaviors turn out, someday, to have a 'genetic' basis. We just don't know.

So to me, I argue that being gay is okay because there's nothing wrong with having sex with, or loving your own gender. PERIOD. And in this regard ... it's really pretty much the same argument as one could make for consensual polygamy being legal.

If this 'outlook' paves the way for polygamy, then honestly ... so be it. I refuse to hang my hat on the idea that being gay is 'okay, cuz you're born that way' ... it doesn't need that kinda justification. And frankly we play into the Right's hands when we make that argument, cause we got no idea what 'ways' people could eventually be found to 'be', according to their genes.

[joeybee12]

232. And you made this case prior to SCOTUS, right?

You're not like the others typing from the Kremlin about this issue, the same people who go on about Putin being a God...about the Ukanians all being Nazis and murderers...you're not like them, right?

Amazing that you're all chiming in at the same time...ignore.

[DirkGently]

251. Yes. "Biology" is a right wing argument.

What they're trying to say, apparently, is that marriage is still a religiously based "institution," to which we will simply append "and gay people" and pretend it was always that way so maybe eventually people will forget that tradition and superstition lost and human rights won.

But that's not the rationale that won at all. We won't be testing anyone's "biology" to see who can marry whom. We'll just be asking consenting human adults what they want to do, and deciding as a culture what's going to work and what isn't, with the assumption people can do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone.

Apparently that's incredibly threatening to very conservative Democrats, somehow.

[Katashi_itto]

233. Conserva-Dems flipping out.

[Warren Stupidity]

239. !

suddenly they are all polygynous too!

[joeybee12]

256. I never knew polygamists were the majority now...

can't be that the computers were turned on at the Kremlin with today's meme, can it?

[get the red out]

254. Thanks for posting this

I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't rightie trolls out in cyber-armies spreading that kind of thing as far and wide as possible. I may be wearing a tin foil hat here, but I've seen so much nauseating stuff thrown around as "liberalism" on the web in general, that no one can convince me that trolls from the right aren't responsible for a tremendous amount of it.

[joeybee12]

255. Actually, I'd be surprised if there weren't...

All of a sudden there are tons of people pro-polygamy, and they all know hundreds in such relationships...it's gotta be paid disrupters who got their most recent marching orders...this thread was fizzling out then this morning a whole low-count posters started chiming in about how I was wrong and how pro-polygamy is the new civil rights and progressive issue.

[get the red out]

260. You are spot on

I didn't even bother to read the rest of the comments. I've seen that rubbish before as it slimes out from under the dark crevasses in Mamma's basement, trying to get a little cash to run down to the liquor store.

[cstanleytech]

270. Fine, please quote the part of the 14th amendment that says

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)

"except this amendment does not apply to (fill in the blank for whoever you want to exclude) people"

If such a clause existed the majority of SCOTUS would not issued the ruling that they did because the far right on the court like Roberts would have been all over it and we would be facing a SCOTUS ruling instead that would have made it ok for the states to behave like assholes still and discriminate against people just because they want to marry someone of the same sex that they are.

[eggplant]

283. I really don't think you have any right (or basis) to accuse me of being a paid disrupter.

[cstanleytech]

285. Trust me you arent the only they have accused of that and eventually they will lose it and say that

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

or similar to that to the wrong person in the wrong way here on the DU and end up having their posting privileges revoked, its just a matter of time.

[joeybee12]

293. And yet I didn't mention you specifically and you chime right in

with your faux outrage...thanks for outing yourself...ignore.

[Katashi_itto]

287. Someone listens to Alex Jones to much.

[JackInGreen]

303. Didn't you know

We've been hiding this whole time or we're winger plants and we deserve to get the shit knocked out of us so we can bleed too. I swear one of these polyphobic threads are going to start with telling the sheeple how the pimps and misogynists are plotting the downfall of monogamous relationship for straight and gay people.

[eggplant]

307. Shhhhh! They'll be on to us.

Oh, wait, we're safe because all of us are on ignore now.

What sort of upside down universe is it when someone posts an incredibly hostile baiting missive, then refuses to actually defend it, but instead chooses to belittle and disrespect those who aren't willing to get behind them and see the world as they do, in black and white? "I don't like that you disagree with me, so I'll simply ignore you while I continue to rant."

Why is angry, unprovoked ranting perfectly acceptable, but rational dialog isn't? Isn't that the kind of crap we're supposed to be against? What's next, a return to McCarthyism? Those who disagree are clearly enemies of the state?

Seriously, WTF?

[d_legendary1]

271. Polygamy is another word for Pimp

Plain and simple.

[kcr]

273. This gets a rec from me.

Well said.

[backscatter712]

275. Why is it so hard to draw the line at adult, informed, consent?

If a group of men and women want to have a polyamorous relationship, they're all consenting adults, and they all consent to formalizing the relationship into a marriage, I think you owe them a reason why they should be denied the right to marry.

"Because I don't like it" is not a good reason. That's called bigotry.

Consent. It's not that hard to understand the concept.

[backscatter712]

309. Blatant homophobia?

[tomm2thumbs]

314. You can count them on one hand

I think that was 5

[eggplant]

315. Finally.

Fifth hide means one fewer hateful voices, at least for a little while.

[Sparhawk60]

301. Amen!

My response to poly marriage is the same as gay marriage...how does it hurt me, and how is it any of my business? I will never enter a gay, or a poly marriage, however; that is my PERSONAL belief and in no way impacts on other peoples rights and choices.

Seems a simple concept to me.

[eggplant]

313. The haters on this thread can't seem to accept the idea

that poly marriage always includes gay marriage. How could it not? When you have more than two people marrying, at least two of them will be the same gender.

But apparently, haters gonna hate. Rational discussion isn't their intent. Just abuse to all who disagree.

Enough already.

[HFRN]

277. some people may raise the issue motivated by an agenda

but that doesn't per se make it bigotry to raise the issue. because that's the way the law works, that decisions and precedents do have side effects, and the consideration of polygamy is one of the side effects of this decision, IMO

i haven't posted anything on this issue until now, because frankly i don't have strong feelings about it. but i do have feelings about punitive classifications for those asking what i would consider to be a legitimate academic question, even if there are some who are asking it with an agenda

[joeybee12]

296. Same tired talking points I'm seeing...

Some people get their marching orders from the same spot...thanks for the blatant homphoba...I was going to say you don't get it, but I'm sure you do and that's the point...adios.

[HFRN]

306. good example of 'punitive classifications'

do you have anything in your intellectual arsenal, beyond ad hominem and guilt by association? i thought that sort of thing went out of style with Senator McCarthy

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

312. Don't bother and congrats

This person puts everyone on ignore as soon as they say anything he/she doesn't like. Especially if you say something bad about his beloved Patriots.

[eridani]

294. What about equating polyamory with gay marriage? n/t

[joeybee12]

297. Give it a rest...your puerile tempts at making this a civil

rights issue are a huge fail...ignore.

[eridani]

316. Because nothing oppresses women like having more than one husband n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

317. And Joey is off on summer vacation