Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy [View all]Wella
(1,827 posts)152. No, you're telling someone who deeply loves two people and wants legal recognition
that he or she should just follow existing law and that they should be content with this.
That's what the RW told gays (up until last week): you have the right to marry under existing law. You don't need the special right of marrying someone of the same sex.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
297 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy [View all]
Wella
Jul 2015
OP
Warren Jeffs ran a cult similar to the Branch Davidian. The cults like Jeffs controlled are nothing
Thinkingabout
Jul 2015
#96
Agreed. Marriage should be about love, not a tool to enforce societal expectations
LittleBlue
Jul 2015
#2
why should marriage be about "love"? People marry for all kinds of reasons.
KittyWampus
Jul 2015
#212
We have an astronomical divorce rate, people running around on their 3rd and 4th marriages
LittleBlue
Jul 2015
#227
actually, the claim about love is no longer credible. You think people who get divorced didn't love
KittyWampus
Jul 2015
#245
It would be used mostly to enslave women, just like it's used everyplace it exists.
gollygee
Jul 2015
#293
Poygamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property
Agnosticsherbet
Jul 2015
#4
What about this decision suggests marriage between more than 2 persons must be required by a State?
elleng
Jul 2015
#6
Sotomayor suggested it that polygamy could be a result during the Prop 8 hearings.
Wella
Jul 2015
#14
The issue remains the same. Sotomayor basically said if marriage is a fundamental right...
Wella
Jul 2015
#24
No one is being discriminated against by the government's sanction of 2-person marriages.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#139
And the vast majority of other Americans. I'm not saying the law could never change, no matter what.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#144
No, it's the same as telling a gay man he can only legally marry 1 gay man, not several.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#149
No, you're telling someone who deeply loves two people and wants legal recognition
Wella
Jul 2015
#152
You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished.
Zenlitened
Jul 2015
#13
The social purpose of marriage has NOT been redefined. It has been reaffirmed.
Zenlitened
Jul 2015
#16
What is the purpose of alerting on my post? Just because I disagree with you that the social
Wella
Jul 2015
#32
I didn't say "marriage" was redefined. I said that society has redefined the purpose of marriage
Wella
Jul 2015
#121
I'm not talking about your personal subjective view--there are 7 billion of those, quite literally
Wella
Jul 2015
#254
Then why have there always been marriages of older people that would not produce children?
DebJ
Jul 2015
#267
You didn't answer my question. If the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate and
DebJ
Jul 2015
#297
If you actually read some of my posts through this thread, you'd see that you're wrong
Wella
Jul 2015
#129
They are not prevented from making a personal commitment to do so. They are only prevented
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#153
Yes, and in uncharted waters with regard to MAN-TURTLE MARRIAGE TOOOOOOOO~!!!!!!!!!
MADem
Jul 2015
#29
You really should take your right wing tropes elsewhere--this one is painfully obvious.
MADem
Jul 2015
#51
I consider your source(s), which are fonts of anti-Democratic invective on a routine basis. nt
MADem
Jul 2015
#58
Yes, my ideas. They are logical ones based on the legal theory of marriage as a civil right.
Wella
Jul 2015
#75
Sure, whatever you say--it's just a COINCIDENCE that right wing websites say the very same thing!!!!
MADem
Jul 2015
#84
3 times you've linked to that, but it doesn't say that there; it's from a RW website
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#165
I have given the link and it's from NBC. I don't know why you keep trying to lie about my "sources"
Wella
Jul 2015
#166
No, it's not from NBC. You can go and read the fucking thing at both links.
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#176
"Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson ..."
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#203
So you now give the link I gave in #165; a 2012 pdf that doesn't use it; 'opinion-conservative'
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#214
I'm not smearing--I've provided facts. You're just parroting rightwing memes, and I've linked to
MADem
Jul 2015
#117
Well, he did say them. This isn't about closed minds--this is about your deployment
MADem
Jul 2015
#160
This isn't about smearing people--it's about pointing out ideas that have long been discredited and
MADem
Jul 2015
#164
You are so hell bent on smearing me that you're missing the liberal sources with the same info:
Wella
Jul 2015
#167
You keep repeating the word "smearing" as though repetition will make your argument fly--it won't.
MADem
Jul 2015
#169
I have provided you links to prove what I've said. You reply by falsely calling my linked proof
MADem
Jul 2015
#172
You've "provided links" to sites I've never used nor seen. That's not proof, that's a smear tactic.
Wella
Jul 2015
#174
The idea--in case you're unclear--is for you to READ THEM so you can see where your rightwing
MADem
Jul 2015
#177
The idea is for you--in case you're unclear--is to look at the logic of the argument itself
Wella
Jul 2015
#182
Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery--but I am most certainly not your mother. nt
MADem
Jul 2015
#192
He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I take him more seriously than a politician.
Wella
Jul 2015
#250
Two things, first no, it really does not. Second, where the fuck is this alleged mass of group
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#33
It's your bogus assertion. Back it up. I'm not here to think for you, chum. First, you have to
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#47
But there is not a fundamentai different in the civil right to marriage in each person
Wella
Jul 2015
#170
That's the polygamy community as it is known in the US. Show me this polyamory, group marriage
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#97
I understand "the issue" quite well--and I understand where you got your "argument"--even if you
MADem
Jul 2015
#86
I've offered several links in this thread, and if you read them, you'd have slinked away by now.
MADem
Jul 2015
#179
Obviously, you're standing by your poor logic--but you really SHOULD slink from it.
MADem
Jul 2015
#185
Equal protection can be extended to plural marriage through a civil rights argument
Wella
Jul 2015
#78
It is the marriage equality movement that argued the civil/fundamental right aspect
Wella
Jul 2015
#69
Because this has happened in every country that's legalized same sex marriage?
herding cats
Jul 2015
#72
That's what it is in it's whole, but for a tiny fringe it's a pretend window.
herding cats
Jul 2015
#107
No, the plan is a PR program to promote the idea the poly relationships are not always oppressive
Wella
Jul 2015
#175
There were famous out gays who helped to legitimize marriage equality...
DemocratSinceBirth
Jul 2015
#263
Up until recently, women were treated like second class citizen in monogamous cultures
Wella
Jul 2015
#201
We still have domestic violence, we still have a pay gap, we still have street harassment
Wella
Jul 2015
#207
The one thing we all seem to forget is if the State has a compelling interest.
Peregrine
Jul 2015
#104
Actually, the are considered, in some quarters, as a "sexual minority" (Psychology Today)
Wella
Jul 2015
#270
Marriage to ONE person -- an adult, consenting, non-related person -- is a civil right,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#137
The Loving decision made marriage a civil right but it was limited to heterosexuals
Wella
Jul 2015
#143
The state has no obligation to confer the benefits/responsibilities of legal marriage
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#146
The "overhaul of the system" excuse is going to wear thin as an argument as time goes on
Wella
Jul 2015
#208
Because the Sister/Wives guy filed for a marriage license, citing the SCOTUS decision
Wella
Jul 2015
#209
Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness
Wella
Jul 2015
#246
I wouldn't go so far as to say an inherent trait and a lifestyle choice are the same thing.
Rex
Jul 2015
#231
If humans are inherently poly, polyamorists can argue that they are "born this way."
Wella
Jul 2015
#261
No, it's the real deal. The polyamorous are now slowly coming out of the closet.
Wella
Jul 2015
#241
Poly-amory is a choice. Sexual orientation, even when at times fluid, is never a choice.
Betty Karlson
Jul 2015
#244
Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness
Wella
Jul 2015
#249
"arguing it was genetically fixed" is a turn of phrase that implies the sexual orientation was not
Betty Karlson
Jul 2015
#264
Interesting Blog by a Polyamorist (for people who are not familiar with the community)
Wella
Jul 2015
#239
Not really, there's no chance the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of polygamy...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2015
#253