Polymarriage deserves a defense

[Wella]

Regardless of your personal feelings.

The polyamorous are currently in both married and long term relationships and raising children without the governmental benefits of marriage for each of the parties involved. This is a form of discrimination and needs to be addressed.

Some blogs and articles on the topic (and yes, some of them quote Justice Roberts. You can agree with someone's logic without liking the rest of their politics.) All of these sites are left or libertarian. There are no conservative or RW Christians among them.


Poly Marriage Law?
http://www.jefftk.com/p/poly-marriage-law

PolyFamilies
http://www.polyfamilies.com/polymarriage.html

Legalize Polygamy!
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

Four clueless denials that a poly marriage issue exists
http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2015/07/clueless-denials-that-poly-marriage.html

After Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?
http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy

Polyamorous Paganism
http://thorandthoth.blogspot.com/2013/03/fighting-for-polyamorous-marriage.html

Natalie Bennett is ‘open’ to polyamorous marriages and civil partnerships
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/05/01/natalie-bennett-is-open-to-polyamorous-marriages-and-civil-partnerships/

Should Plural Marriage Be Legal?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/12/17/should-plural-marriage-be-legal

Is There a Right to Polygamy? Marriage, Equality and Subsidizing Families in Liberal Public Justification
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1346900

This paper argues that the four most plausible arguments compatible with public reason for an outright legal ban on all forms of polygamy are unvictorious. I consider the types of arguments political liberals would have to insist on, and precisely how strongly, in order for a general prohibition against polygamy to be justified, while also considering what general attitude towards “marriage” and legal recognition of the right to marry is most consistent with political liberalism. I argue that a liberal state should get out of the “marriage business” by leveling down to a universal status of “civil union” neutral as to the gender and affective purpose of domestic partnerships. I then refute what I regard as the four most plausible rational objections to offering this civil union status to multi-member domestic partnerships. The most common objection to polygamy is on grounds of gender equality, more specifically, female equality. But advancing this argument forcefully often involves neglecting the tendency of political liberalism (by whatever name it goes in contemporary, complex, multicultural societies) to tolerate a certain amount of inequality in private, within the bounds of robust and meaningful freedoms of choice and exit. Properly understood, polygamy involves no inherent statement about the essential inferiority of women, and certainly not more than many other existing practices and institutions (including many expressions of the main monotheistic religions) which political liberals regard as tolerable, even reasonable. Arguments from the welfare of children, fairness in the spousal market, and the abuse of family subsidies are also considered and found insufficient for excluding polygamy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. Why are these polygamy, plural marriage threads popping up everywhere on DU now?

And alongside "killing women" threads?

What's going on here?

Are we talking about putting women in slavery and treating them like baby-making machines?

Just what are we doing here?

[Wella]

3. I can't speak to the "killing women" threads. I've neither seen nor participated in them.

My threads are in response to how skewed the discussion is on DU. Apparently those supporting (or participating in) polyamory and supporting legal protections for it are now, inexplicably, being labeled as right wingers, prejudiced, etc.

[Zenlitened]

101. Inexplicable? No, people are being labeled rightwingers...

...when they use rightwing narratives to mischaracterize the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

[Wella]

103. So it's not about the facts or the logic: it's about which story you agree with.

That's a dangerous place to be.

Logic is logic. Sometimes, an ally can be wrong and an enemy can be right. If Judge Alito told you it was raining, would you decide to disbelieve him because he wasn't Justice Ginsberg? If it's raining, it's raining.

[Zenlitened]

108. Facts and logic? Sure. Outright lies? No.

Example of a lie: Claiming society is in some sort if uncharted territory now, because the supreme court acknowledged the right of all couples to wed.

There is no truth in that premise, no logic to the idea that strengthening existing law regarding couples automatically has direct implications for polygamy. It doesn't.

Make a case, by all means. But people wishing to advocate for polygamy would be well-served, I think, to distance themselves from rightwing talking points deployed not for poly benefit, but to denigrate gay and lesbian couples.

[Wella]

109. We ARE in uncharted territory. Take a look at what Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy introduces a new concept of "dignity" in marriage law as part of his decision. First time in US history, dignity will be part of future argumentation in marriage cases. Kennedy also cites "loneliness" and, I guess, the right not to be lonely, in his decision. Both of these add new arguments (and new wrinkles) to the legal arguments for marriage. Uncharted? You bet your ass!

Your opinion--that marriage law was somehow "strengthened"--is an opinion, not a legal fact.

So basically you accused me of lying because my opinion, based on Kennedy's OWN WORDS in his decision, disagreed with your opinion based on--well, NOT the decision itself, but some kind of free standing prejudice of yours.

To accuse someone of lying over a difference in opinion is wrong. To accuse someone of lying when that person's opinion is based on support of original documents AND YOURS IS NOT, is just unethical and dishonest.

[Zenlitened]

110. You are distorting Kennedy's words.

[Wella]

111. I am absolutely NOT distorting them.

Everything a Justice uses as support for a SCOTUS decision becomes an important part of legal precedent throughout the country.

[KittyWampus]

9. Well, the OP'er has posted FOUR of them and keeps them going.

[Skittles]

32. reference the third panel

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6945802

[bravenak]

2. Not really. It's very dangerous for women and children.

And the young men who are cast out so that the old lechers can keep all of the brides for them selves. If they want their relationship legal they can form a corporation or business partnership and sign a contract.

[Wella]

4. There are many Americans in polyarrangements raising children

Other than some weird cult people, there hasn't been reported violence against women and children in these situations.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. Of course there haven't been reports; these women are probably being threatened and/or

brainwashed by these men who want to treat them and their children as chattel.

Honestly I can't believe DU is talking about legally subjugating women in this disgusting, patriarchal manner.

Really, I'm getting sick over this.

MEN: WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE YOUR SEX SLAVES, SO STOP!

WE WILL NOT BE YOUR SLAVES, PERIOD!!

YOU WILL NOT SUBJECT US TO UGLY, PATRIARCHAL BULLSHIT. And you will NOT mistreat our children!

PERIOD!!!

[Wella]

8. Any evidence of that?

I didn't think so.

[Baitball Blogger]

162. Plenty of evidence, actually.

It's good to get informed before you start pushing such an unpopular position. And many of these cults DO add to the welfare burden. Here's an easy read for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborger

[Katashi_itto]

10. Lol! I don't deny there are cults out there. But I know several couples in poly relationships.

Of various types. Very stable people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. How are the women (mis)treated? No one can convince me that somehow these arrangements are

beneficial to women and children. They are patriarchal in nature. And by their very nature, dangerous to women and children.

[Katashi_itto]

29. They do quite well.

Lets see in one poly couple, one woman is a Professor. I forget what the others do. All professionals of various stripes. One couple has kids and the kids are very well adjusted. I think the majority of the couples vote of stuff, or have meetings.

Personally it seems to me you are letting your own perceptions about the cults color your views. No denying them but that's not a consenting plural marriage from what I have seen.

The multiple people seem to make it easier for chores/duties and more income overall flowing into the household.

I know one of the poly groupings has been going on twenty plus years. So they seem to be doing something right.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. One man can fuck around on many "wives" and be sexually free? That's not liberating to women at all.

That sounds like allowing men the freedom to mistreat women, fuck around on them, and they're supposed to sit there and take it.

If they're happy, good for them. I'll never understand it. I think it's sick for anyone to participate in their own subjugation.

[Katashi_itto]

43. Wow. They are quite faithful to their own pairing.

Mistreat? You...don't get out much do you.

One pairing has two men one women. Explain how the guys are fucking around on her?

Let me guess she is some sort of slave. I will have to mention that one to her when they get back from vacationing in Haiti. Should be good for a laugh.

Personally I think it's sick how people make judgments colored by their very own prejudices. Without taking in all the facts.

No one denies there are cults.

But Plural Marriages are not that, it's a consenting long term relationship between whatever groupings of adults.

Currently Americans could be said to practice serial monogamy. One partner after another.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. I don't get out much? NO. I just don't agree that men should treat women like sex slaves or

mistreated at all, whether you think these institutional arrangements are beneficial or not.

You can't convince me otherwise. No one can.

It's not about me not getting out. It's about me using common sense and critical thinking skills.

I do not support oppression in any form...even when it's tied up in a pretty little ribbon.

I ribbon tied to shit is still SHIT!

[Katashi_itto]

52. I honestly could give two shits what your convinced about.

Personally, I and my girlfriend who is millennial are quite happy mono a mono we plan on keeping it that way.

But what I do know is among millennials I know is that it's accepted, not even raised an eyebrow about.

So really, since they are the ones that will be mold society downstream, who cares what you think.

Eventually accepted customs will shift and it or something like it will be accepted.

The very fact it's now openly discussed should tell you something.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. Well, good for you! I don't give a shit about your relationship. That's a private thing. Keep that

shit to yourselves.

[Fumesucker]

118. Relationships are now a private thing, "shit" that must be kept secret?

Seriously?

Where have I heard that sort of talk before?

[laundry_queen]

74. So you are saying you are unwilling to listen to anyone

because you are right and damn the facts? That's not very conducive of critical thinking but YMMV.

I also know several people in long term poly relationships. Yes, a few of the relationships are 1 woman with 2 men. In one friend's case they have children together (the woman has birthed kids from both men). They are all raising the kids together. The woman and one man teach dance for a living and the other man stays home with the kids. Who is oppressed in that relationship I ask?

I am laughing my ass off that you think these are institutional relationships....aforementioned people are big anti-authoritarian hippie types. They have lived in a yurt ffs. Critical thinking skills indeed.

Yes, you do need to get out more. I don't have a huge reservoir of friends, but I happen to know several people in poly relationships. And I'm definitely not a poly anything so it's not like I know these people because I move in those circles. And I'm quite hetero. Perhaps it's the generational thing again. Although I'm really not that young. I'm really sad that you would call my friends' loving families "shit". I feel sorry for you, just like I feel sorry for my dad when he yells at me that he 'doesn't want to hear it' because it's just more comfortable to keep believing everything you've always thought to be true than to challenge yourself. Well, I guess not everyone has the capability of introspection.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

83. You mad? I don't agree with women being oppressed and will NEVER support that.

I'm sorry that you can't deal with it, but you'll be o.k.

[Katashi_itto]

121. Just not alot of

critical thinking skills going on there with you is there?

Keep up on the "get off my lawn" motif it works for you.

[laundry_queen]

141. I will never support women being oppressed either.

But nice dishonest twist of words there. Now I understand your "critical thinking skills" or lack thereof.

[Wella]

59. I think a lot of people have no idea what modern polymarriage is about.

And I don't think they really know anybody in that situation.

And spot on about the serial monogamy.

[Katashi_itto]

120. Thanks, yeah its like talking to

a freeper with that person.

[Wella]

123. No kidding.

This is going to be unpopular to say, but for many gays, marriage equality is for themselves only and it allows them to "pass" for straight, in some kind of odd way. Not that they're heterosexual, but that they're now "normal"--they can get married, have kids, and basically imitate the straight life. And soon, they'll be able to do it with the sanction of many churches in the US, so they can even have a church wedding.

It's like they're suddenly members of the club and, from that newfound perch, they can spit on the rest of us.

I think that's why they're sounding like freepers. They are no longer outsiders to marriage: they're inside the country club gates and the rest of us rabble don't belong there.

[Katashi_itto]

125. Yep, its the same "I got mine so fuck everyone else." Scratch the surface of a lot of the

"liberals" here and you find they aren't really liberals at all, very eager to pass the oppression to the next group. If not help it themselves.

[Wella]

127. I can see that. Someone just said that "bigamy" shouldn't be legalized.

They don't see that they're acting exactly like those people who oppressed them. I have taken to calling them polyphobes--not a great coinage etymologically, but I needed some kind of word for it.

[Katashi_itto]

131. Yeah not sure what you would call it.

Polyphobes seems to work. But it doesn't seem to capture the fact these "liberals" are using the exact same argument that was used again gay marriage.

[Travis_0004]

67. Why does it have to be multiple wives?

What if one woman wanted multiple husbands?

What if a gay couple wanted multiple partners?

If it was allowed, I think all parties should have to consent to adding an additional partner.

I am happily married. I have no desire for a second wife, and If my wife wanted a new husband, I would rather file for divorce then see her get a second husband, but if it works for some couples, and all parties consent, who am I to tell them what is right or wrong.

[tazkcmo]

156. That's just crazy talk!

All open minded, let individuals decide for themselves. All on a "liberal" message board, too! Look, it's simple. If what ever it is you might support makes people question long held beliefs or makes them feel "oogy, it's wrong! Just wrong! And I won't listen to any well thought, clearly explained or logical arguments to the contrary! Now, where's my box of sand? My head is cold.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

153. I admit I don't know a lot of poly folks.

In the only 3some I know, one woman is a lesbian, the other is bi. So the bi woman is the one 'fucking around' with both of the others, not the man. I'm not sure who is 'sitting around and taking it' in that case.

[Chan790]

233. Well, I can't speak for Katashi...

but of the many I know of (It is my community after-all)...about 30% are polyandries (1F, 1+ M), a few more are "puppypiles" (quads, closed polyfidelitous circles, etc.--1+ M/F/I:: >3 people) and a few are 3F...so I'd say fairly well.

That's entirely anecdotal...but the general reality is that the meme/trope that committed polyfidelity and polymarriage are disproportionately bad for women and children, excluding those resulting or relating to religious cults, is observationally-false and evidentially-unlikely in a not-cherry-picked subject-pool. Religious polygamists just the highly-visible extremist minority...it's like arguing that monogamous, heterosexual marriage is morally-problematic and citing the Duggars.

If "nobody can convince you..." then you're close-minded and part of the problem. This meme comes to mind:

[eridani]

115. How does that apply to a relationship of one woman with two men?

That's the set-up for the only two long-term polyamorous relationships that I personally know of.

[bravenak]

6. Most polygamy in the USA is within those 'weird cult people' communities.

You know that, right? And yes, there is significant reportage of abuse in those communities including forced marriages between young teenagers and old men. That is Polygamy in America.

[Wella]

11. Religious-based polygamy, yes. But polyamory, especially among progressives and libertarians? No

You should try and read some of the online blogs about polyamory.

polyamorydiaries.com.

[bravenak]

16. No. If we legalize it for them then we cannot say shit when the fdls starts more polygamy towns.

It's stupid sexist bullshit. The patriarchy. I swear I never find use for that word patriarchy but you have given me reason to use it. You need to read up on how polygamy is actually practised in the USA before you keep on with this shit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America

[Wella]

21. True. But it will be OPEN, not hidden, and that tends to reduce the power of abusers

Think about when homosexuality was illegal and the cops could drag you to jail for it (and did). All kinds of abuse flourished in secret since sick, sadistic people could threaten a gay partner with exposure. Openness has made it more possible for gay partners to report abuse, go to domestic violence shelters, involve CPS. The same will happen here.

[bravenak]

25. No thanks. The risks to the women and children are too great.

We don't have to accept that sexism and abuse towards our women and children and award the man by making his victimizations of them legal. What do the young men do when they have no young women because the old dudes bought all of the teenage girls for their harems? Well, they get cast out with no idea how to survive. And no support.

You need to study polygamy as it is most practised in the USA. It is nothing like your links. Check out Warren Jeffs.

[Wella]

33. You need to check out the million or so Americans practicing polyamory

Not just the weird cult guys.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201405/how-many-polyamorists-are-there-in-the-us

[bravenak]

42. Uh huh.

http://listverse.com/2014/04/19/10-polygamist-wives-who-escaped-unbelievable-abuse/

[Wella]

60. Polyamory: Personal stories

http://www.anunconditionallove.org/personal_stories.htm

[bravenak]

61. And some ex-slaves missed the Plantation.

[Wella]

62. These women went into polyamory by choice

No one forced them.

[bravenak]

66. Stockholm syndrome.

[Wella]

68. Nonsense! They were looking for different partners and sexual experiences.

You need to read what they write and why they get involved.

Also, you might try this by a lesbian woman:

IT HAPPENED TO ME: I Realized I Was Polyamorous… While Engaged to A Monogamous Person
http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/i-was-polyamorous-in-a-monogamous-relationship

[bravenak]

70. I'm fine with polyamory. Just not plural marriage as a system.

They can sign a contract. A love contract.

[Wella]

71. Or maybe a "domestic partnership"?

How generous.

[bravenak]

72. Not even that.

[Wella]

75. Wow.

Just.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. They don't give a shit about women or children. Just their dicks.

[bravenak]

41. Exactly.

[Bluenorthwest]

151. Check out this link, the OP has very different language about LGBT equality....

Wella: " Does standing with LGBT mean standing against God and the sacred in life?
That's certainly the implication of your post. Is the Democratic party now being redefined as the party of atheism?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026096444#post8

And yet here this week he is posing as a great liberator of equally free sexuality. This person is less than honest.

[bravenak]

160. Wella also doesn't like boycotts against anti gay businesses.

[Bluenorthwest]

168. Of course not. Wella has been very clearly not on the side of marriage equality on several

occasions. Additionally, when marriage has been the subject, Wella has never once introduced polygamy or polyamory into the discussion and always introduces religion into the discussion.

[bravenak]

170. Wella has developed a strange affinity for polygamy that I have never seen before.

Wella always pops up with the new anti gay meme whenever gay people get too uppity and equal and stuff. It really seems to upset Wella. I got mad last time, but this time I can tell I'm being trolled maliciously.

[bravenak]

201. This was the one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026291771#post11

[Wella]

56. There are polyamorous bisexual women who have a male and female partner

Are they just trying to abuse women and children?

[TM99]

58. Your incredible bigotry is astounding.

You think this is only about abuse or men's dicks?

Cults exist. No one has denied that.

But here is the kicker.

Straight men can marry women they love. Straight women can marry women they love. Lesbian women can now marry lesbian women they love. Gay men can now marry gay men they love. What about bisexuals?

My first wife was bisexual. My current partner of ten years now is bisexual. She has been in another loving relationship with a women now for 4 of those years we have been together. She would love to be able to marry both of us. Why shouldn't she be allowed to do so especially if all three of us agree to the arrangement? Poly-amorous relationships already exist in numerous communities from neo-pagans to business executives. In almost all instances, one or more partners is bisexual.

I wish people would stop with this type of bullshit and listen now to them. What the SCOTUS did for gays and lesbians now opens up future possibilities for all that love and want legal & civil protections in long term committed relationships.

She and I understand each other deeply. I am not fully black or fully white so I have gotten racism from both sides. She loves not only women but also men. She has been told by both straights (her ex-husband) and gays (her first lover in college) that she is really just straight or gay but not both. That attitude is changing. Culture is catching up finally. But obviously from threads like this that are discussing poly marriages from a serious and respectful place, the bigotry, fear, and judgements still exist.

It chaffs my balls that it is happening here with supposed progressives!

[Wella]

63. Thank you.

Just thank you.

[TM99]

76. You are welcome.

[Mojorabbit]

77. well said! nt

[StevieM]

78. Excellent post. I wish you and your family well. (eom)

[JackInGreen]

112. BRIL. thank you.

from a couple of those bisexual men and women that are happily involved.

[NorthCarolinaL]

65. If they just cared about their dicks,

then they would not get married to even one person. Men are often hesitant to marry one woman, let alone many. A guy can screw around all he wants without getting married. The real screw-arounds are not going to get involved in formal relationships where it's easy to trace all the children back to him. The whole idea of getting women and moving around is NOT to acknowledge and support the consequences of one's actions.

[Wella]

80. I agree: polyamory requires multiple commitments.

It's not just about a quick screw.

[StevieM]

79. What about polyamorous women? You seem to be assuming that it is only men.

Every time that society tries to regulate consensual sexual behavior it is a disaster.

And yes, sometimes polyamory is a choice that people make of their own free will.

[Chan790]

235. Actually, it's likely that the risk-mitigation is in the direction of legalization.

Much like it is with drug laws. It's the illegality that drives the worst of behaviors and allows them to remain undocumented and unremedied. Prohibition is the driver of the empowerment of the Warren Jeffs of the world...much like gang-related drug-related violent-crime drops when drugs are easily and legally obtainable. When you're involved in something scandalous and/or illegal, you're less likely to be able to call the police when it leads to your exploitation and less likely to be able to find help to extricate yourself from that exploitation.

There is a larger error here though that needs to be noted as it's the source of a lot of issues in an honest discussion of this topic. Trust me as a poly person when I tell you that the number of poly people in the US vastly dwarfs the number of members of the FLDS. We're here but we're in the closet--we're your friends, your neighbors, your teachers and your accountants, we're silent because a lot of people are judgmental of our relationships; some of us (not a majority of us, admittedly) someday would like to marry the people we love, perhaps. I can't see me married but it would be nice to know that I could.

A smaller error too...outside of religious cults that practice polygamous marriage, committed closed polygyny (1M, >1F) is not substantially more common than committed closed polyandry (1F, >1M)...and open-relationships vastly outnumber both. People keep talking about harems and male-displacement when neither should be a substantial actual concern for anybody based in reality. It's about as problematic (and offset) as concern that some women are going to marry up all the young men and displace young women out of the marriage market.

[Orrex]

48. Hmm...

[oberliner]

12. Most polygamy in the USA is among Muslims

They make up by far the largest number of polygamist families in the United States.

[bravenak]

20. I consider most religious people cult people.

But you just made my point. It's religious bullshit used to subjugate even more women than a regular marriage. Not only can they mistreat one wife, they can kick around as many women as they want. Legally!! No thanks.

[Wella]

22. Figures and stats, please.

,

[oberliner]

26. Estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

Here is an interesting NPR piece on the subject:

Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy

Although polygamy is illegal in the U.S. and most mosques try to discourage plural marriages, some Muslim men in America have quietly married multiple wives.

No one knows how many Muslims in the U.S. live in polygamous families. But according to academics researching the issue, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818

[Wella]

31. Thank you. This refers to traditional religious polygamy and it's done illegally and in secret

The polyamorous in actual arrangements number into 1 million:

How Many Polyamorists Are There in the U.S.?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-polyamorists-next-door/201405/how-many-polyamorists-are-there-in-the-us

The most reasoned estimate of the number of poly people in the U.S. comes from Kelly Cookson, an independent academic who looked at a lot of research and then compared the percent of bisexuals in poly research to the percent of bisexuals in a national survey to inform his estimate. In an email interaction, Kelly Cookson summarized his results for me: “It appears that sexually non-monogamous couples in the United States number in the millions. Estimates based on actually trying sexual non-monogamy are around 1.2 to 2.4 million. An estimate based solely on the agreement to allow satellite lovers is around 9.8 million. These millions include poly couples, swinging couples, gay male couples, and other sexually non-monogamous couples.”

[oberliner]

35. That is really interesting

I've definitely learned a lot about this subject over the past few days.

[Wella]

39. I think we're all going to be doing a lot more learning

A lot of experimentation came with the 1960s and polyamory seems to have come out of that.

[840high]

57. No reported violence that we know of.

[asturias31]

107. When you say "weird cult people"

do you include Muslims?

The two women I know in poly arrangements are Muslim. They were miserable over it but the religion backs a man's right - and tells women to submit and obey - and piles on lots of rules and customs that punish them for pushing back against a husband's or father's demands.

Polygamy happens, legal or not. My concern is that making it legal will make it more prevalent.

Of course in a perfect world, any dissatisfied woman could simply leave her marriage and, if she wishes, ditch her religion too - and go off and make a fine living in a nice home with her children, and not be ostracized, impoverished, threatened, stalked, or left despondent and alone.

But do you think most women born into a patriarchal and fundamentalist religion actually live in that perfect world?

[Bluenorthwest]

220. asturias31

Posting Privileges Revoked
Revoked on Jul 7, 2015
Reason: returning malicious intruder.

[Lee-Lee]

144. The "they can sign a contract" is the same crap homophobes said too...

They also restored to calling it bad for children and cherry-picking worst case examples to prove their point.

If you swapped gay marriage for polygamy your argument would almost be an exact fit. Interesting. I didn't really think it was a good idea before but when I see the same patterns of opposition for it we did for gay marriage I get swayed more and more toward supporting it.

[underahedgerow]

181. No it's, not the same. People are born gay. People choose how many other people they want to schtup

at the same time. (restricting that of course to people over the age of consent)

I have no interest in encouraging patriarchal domination over women and children and I don't see any reason to validate this by changing the laws across the entire United States to 'benefit' a few thousand people at most.

I don't even know why the State in any form has to adjudicate marriages/partnerships anyway. It's just contract law at the end of the day, and pretty much restricted to taxation issues, property law and child custody and obligations issues.

Maybe it's time to float the idea of basic partnership contracts.. that would ruin the wedding planner racket though.

[kcr]

7. The argument in that last paragraph sure is weak

He seems to claim that there is no inherent statement about inferiority of women in polygamy as it is properly understood, so no problem. Well, even if that is so, in practice it's a different story. He then goes on to say that political liberals regard other practices as tolerable. Well, even if that's true. Why does that mean legalizing a practice that is terrible for women? That is some of the worst justification I've ever seen.

[oberliner]

15. Monogamy has been pretty terrible for women for centuries

Certainly an awful history there.

[kcr]

17. Life has been terrible for women for centuries.

The mere existence on the planet has been terrible for women for centuries. Ignoring facts and shackling women with polygamy before true equality has been achieved will not help anyone.

[oberliner]

30. If women given consent freely then it would not be shackling

It would simply be a choice.

[kcr]

40. Is it okay to pay people below minimum wage if they consent?

It would simply be a choice. Hey, they're consenting adults. They want to work for cheap, it's their choice. They need the job, right? They're adults. Freedom. Hey, she wants to stay in the relationship. She doesn't want to move out on their own and the kids need a father. She's an adult, who's to tell her otherwise? He just shoves her a little too hard. Just slight bruising. The police should leave well enough alone, it's a family matter. It's simply a choice. Hey, if someone wants to pollute on their own property, why should there be laws to say otherwise? etc.

Come on.

[oberliner]

44. This is with respect to marriage

If two people who love each other want to get married and they are both adults and both give consent then they are able to get married. I'm suggesting that it could be reasonable for three people to want to enter into a marriage under those same circumstances.

[kcr]

45. There's suggestion and then there's the reality of what would actually happen.

I'm not against the theory in principle. I'm against what would actually happen in reality.

[oberliner]

49. I understand where you are coming from

And I know that polygamy has been practiced that way in reality.

However, I do think that is not the only model for how a polygamist marriage could work.

I think they could potentially be as healthy as any monogamist marriage (and healthier than many).

[kcr]

51. Okay. But why should we destroy the current model of marriage

and subjugate women and children just to see what would happen?

It's never going to happen. This was brought up to piss on the SCOTUS decision. You know that, right? No state has made this legal for a very good reason. Children in particular would be harmed by this and states have no interest in adding more poor children to be financially burdened with.

[KittyWampus]

19. you're confusing patriarchy with monogamy.

[Wella]

64. Would you be ok with polyamory if the overriding system was not patriarchal?

It seems to me that most people assume a default patriarchal system underlying polyamorous relationships.

[Bluenorthwest]

143. You continue to use the world 'polyamory' when you mean 'polygamy'. The words are not

synonyms. Polyamory has to do with sexuality, polygamy has to do with marriage. Not the same at all. Most polygamy is religious and not polyamorous at all save for the husband having multiple female partners, he has no male lovers and they have only the one husband. That sort of polygamy requires a larger number of monogamous women to serve the 'polyamorous' men. Who are not really poly but just promiscuously heterosexual.

You conflate the terms with intention, as you clearly come to this from a religious point of view.

[TM99]

148. I am sorry but you are wrong here.

Polyamory is the type of sexuality and also the type of relationship discussed today. It is not legally recognized therefore it is not marriage at this point. Multiple partners in a relationship may have a spiritual wedding but it is not state sanctioned. Polygamy would be the correct term for a marriage (one that is state sanctioned) that involves more than two people. It can be polygyny or polyandry. You are conflating such religious polygamy as Mormons practiced and some Muslims today with something very different being discussed here.

In the polygamy we are discussing, it could be multiple men or women, straight, gay, or bisexual. It may involve a religious blessing or not but is rather about legal marital rights. It is not attached to a cult or any particular religious movement though some religious subcultures are far more accepting of its reality than others. It is not about abuse or illegal acts of any kind. It is simply about consenting adults and their choices of sexual AND marriage partners.

I would have thought being such a strong advocate of LGBT civil rights as well as marriage rights that you would be the last person I would have expected to wrongly conflate what is being discussed here and why it is now being done so more openly. The landmark SCOTUS case has opened up legal avenues not heretofore available. The OP has provided some excellent links on the reality beyond the conflation, the bigotry, and the misunderstandings.

[Bluenorthwest]

155. You do know that the OP has suggested that standing with LGBT people is 'standing against God'?

"Does standing with LGBT mean standing against God and the sacred in life? That's certainly the implication of your post. Is the Democratic party now being redefined as the party of atheism?"

The OP has shit all over LGBT rights for ages on DU. It is the OP and yourself who are doing the improper conflations.
When I discuss LGBT rights, I'm talking in the first person, you are talking about 'could be' scenarios that are not your own life. I have known 2 triad households, neither wanted any sort of marriage and frankly among them a few were adamantly opposed to marriage on principle, had big discussions because they thought it was 'wrong' for LGBT to seek marriage 'so retro' one of them said.
So the actual persons I have met did not advocate for the rights you and the OP suggest they are so badly wanting. People have the right to speak for themselves and the ability. I'm not going to dictate to people I do not know a pile of agenda I do not know if they support, particularly when the few I have known from that community were stridently opposed to marriage commitments out of a principle they said was inherent to their way of life.
The multiple partner people I have known would not in fact support polygamous marriages because they do not really believe in marriage at all and because they know that polygamy is very often misogynistic in practice in the US and all over the world. They were not religious people.
I do not agree with you that the SCOTUS case changes the landscape in any way at all. Sorry. That's your trip as a Straight person who is not in a poly anything.

[TM99]

161. That is bullshit.

They responded to an OP asking if supporting LGBT means denying being religious. In other words, you can be religious AND support LGBT civil and marriage rights.

You absolutely read that in such a way as to justify your beliefs about the OP but it is not what is actually written in context.

You use your own examples as proof positive that NONE want poly marriage rights? Wow that is rich. So because some polys don't want to get married, all don't? So because some gays and lesbians don't, none should? So because some straights don't, none shoud? That is a pathetically flimsy argument.

That's your trip as a Straight person who is not in a poly anything.

$! you Blue! Your arrogant assumptions about the relationship I am in is nothing more than bullshit. I have tried to be civil with you. I will not be trying so hard in the future.

[Bluenorthwest]

164. Hey, you are the one who is not speaking of yourself, that is your choice, I assume because you

do not speak personally. Why don't you? We are talking about relationships, you have a strong point of view but you speak only in 'what if' terms and not 'in my life' terms. That's your choice, if you are in a pansexual group relationship you should speak of it, that is how people get to know your life. If you refuse to speak of it even in the midst of such discussions that indicates you have no such relationship or that you are ashamed to speak of it or of the reasons for it.
I did not say that my experience means no one wants those rights, I said the people I have known do not, and on DU the people playing proponent are not speaking of their own lives openly or at all. It is not right to tell others what they want. They should tell us. If it is you, and you are not forthcoming, you are closeting yourself and I never, ever support that choice, it is self oppression.

That thread, Wella had all the openings in the world to speak up for LGBT equality or for poly rights, but all Wella had to say was 'what about God, are we now opposed to the sacred life'. Not a single word about relationships, not a word of support to LGBT. Anyone reading that thread can see what it is.

Intentionally obtuse and evasive people are not honest people. Wella has a long record on DU of not supporting LGBT rights when asked and also of chiming in about people he knows who are not homophobic but simply opposed to marriage equality on purely legal foundations.... he's full of shit and so are you.

[TM99]

165. If you actually read threads instead of spouting off half cocked

you might actually see that I have indeed talked about myself and my relationship in this very thread.

You assume shame or something else simply because I have boundaries and don't go around wearing my private life always on my sleeve. Sorry I am not a part of generation over-share!

The only person truly full of shit in this exchange is you.

[riderinthestorm]

171. In three years here you haven't advocated for polygamy AFAIK

In fact, is there any evidence you've even been a supporter of gay marriage? The burden of proof is on you methinks. Wella's statement on gay marriage has homophobia written all over it. What do you have? Or are you now suddenly an activist? How conveeeenient...

Because now, suddenly, in what appears to be homophobic piggy backing on the recent SCOTUS decision, we have fierce polygamy advocates on DU for the first time ever.

Excuse me but it stinks to high heaven and LGBT advocates like Blue who have been in the trenches here on DU and in RL are going to be after you to provide some evidence to back up your assertions or they're just internet bloviating.

[TM99]

179. This is the first time

I have seen serious discussions being put forth about it. It makes sense giving the Loving ruling. Any activism I do for or against anything is offline and really not something I go around touting. I am bi-racial and I don't wander around discussing it all of the time either. When something is germane, then I will do so. My posting history attests to that consistency.

As far as my private life goes, I will decide when I discuss it and how. Anonymous & arrogant fools don't dictate to me when I do or don't. I don't have to prove a damned thing to you, Blue, or anyone else. Take me at my word based on my congruency or don't. Your call.

You want to know about me, ask politely and respectful. I may choose to answer. I may not. It is part of the joys of being an adult. But don't come at me accusing me of shit, demanding respect from me whenit is not reciprocated, making up shit never communicated, and expect me not to push the fuck back.

The two posts Blue has presented by the OP from elsewhere hardly show a homophobic slant. They are taken out of context and twisted. Other than those, I don't know the fella. His OP resonates with me, and as this is a discussion forum, well, I fucking decided to discuss.

Capisce?

[riderinthestorm]

180. So you got nothing. Noted.

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And FWIW, the Loving decision was handed down in 1967 and dealt with interracial marriage, o Ye fierce LGBT advocate whose been standing shoulder to shoulder with the gay community on gay marriage...



The Obergefell decision just came down in June 2015 and legalizes same sex marriage. Fyi social justice warrior...

[TM99]

184. Go away.

I misspoke. I know the difference. Thanks for the condescension though.

[riderinthestorm]

186. Uh huh. Sure you do... nt

[TM99]

187. Done.

On Ignore you go.

[msanthrope]

198. well hell just froze over.....you and I agree completely on something. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

189. Boudries? This is about self advocacy, it's yours to do, no one else's. You have never brought it up

in the past. Here is an entire thread about LGBT rights and Russia, in which you dismiss LGBT issues and by the way, never claim that you are part of any 'poly' movement or that you yourself are involved in relationships that involve members of both sexes. Seems very odd that you would make no mention of these important and defining aspects of your self in such a context.

Here is a quote from a thread in which you could have, but did not, mention your own poly advocacy...you did say this:
"While Civil Rights are important,they are not the only issue in politics today.

We can chew gum and walk at the same time.

Besides, the US of A is hardly a bastion of civil rights for LGBT individuals. Obama had to 'evolve' on his position on gay marriage. More states oppose gay marriage than are for it. And several states are trying to codify into law discrimination against LGBT individuals as we speak."
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10024588299

Like all the threads about LGBT or marriage issues, you simply don't mention any personal connection and you take the side of those who are oppressing LGBT people. You parse, mitigate and dismiss extensively but never do you mention any of the materials you are currently pushing like it was a fire sale.
Why is that? Why did you closet this subject only to bring it up now?

[TM99]

193. Blue I am done with your bullshit games.

You distort conversations constantly.

I did not dismiss LGBT rights in Russia. I criticized an article on the issues between Ukraine and Russia that don't have anything to do with LGBT rights. There is a difference, and you fucking know it.

I have mentioned my connections numerous times, and you personally have dismissed them. You are quick to label and dismiss instead of read and comprehend.

I don't have to prove anything to you. My words stand as they are written. If you or others want to actually read them, you will see my consistency and congruency on support of ALL civil rights issue. I don't separate them from economic rights issues which has pissed off some of the members of this site. But I am not alone there.

I do not like the internet's constant defining of everyone by labels and advocacy. It is narcissistic and lacking in healthy boundaries. As a straight man, I know that all of my support and advocacy are as an outsider. I can marry my partner if I so choose. She, however, has no options if she wants to marry both myself AND her female partner. My first posts in this thread are about her and what is like being in relationship with her. I will speak to those things that are directly about me when I so choose. And I have done so here in various Groups.

But I am done defending myself against your accusations and distortions. You want to ask me about my personal history, then do so politely. PM me if you want really private information. I maintain my anonymity for a reason, and it is both personal and professional.

[riderinthestorm]

194. TM99 is such a LGBT justice warrior he forgets the Obergefell decision

and refers instead to Loving v Virginia...

Can't/won't come up with any proof of his DU LGBT activism before Obergefell but yeah, now he's all activist for polygamy.

Oh wait but he can't/won't provide any links to any DU activism on the part of polygamy either pre-Obergefell...

I agree with him that his RL persona shouldn't be exposed but this is anonymous message board posting. Surely there'd be some posts out there in 3000+ posts and three years of dialogue....

[Bluenorthwest]

223. Considering Wella was banned for running many accounts the term 'RL persona' might not apply

I think a draw full of socks stank so badly we all smelled them and that scared the socks.
Wella PPR: 'Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317022&sub=trans

[Chan790]

237. In that sense, the OP is wrong.

In return, I would point out that some of the staunchest marriage-equality activists I know are poly people and we always explicitly expected that the LGBTQ community was the one group of people we weren't going to have to hard-sell on our right to expand marriage to include our families too when the time came for this fight.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in a lot of you. Some of the most passionate marriage-equality activists I know have outed themselves are vicious polyphobes. There's a real strain of "We got ours now so fuck you" which is disheartening.

[Bluenorthwest]

232. I address Wella, you answer for him. Wella has now been banned as an operator of multiple accounts.

Why is it that you leap in to cover for a person who is being openly deceptive?

We tried to tell you. Over and over. But you shouted at us and sided with a fictional construct, a liar, a cheater of the system, a propagandist.

Had you given even the slightest respect to the LGBT DUers and our allies who were trying to warn you off that choir of socks, your reputation would be in better shape this morning. You have to admit you were told by many people, many times that all of this timing was suspect and malicious. But you would not listen to us.

[Skittles]

37. if the choice is to be married to one man or be one of several wives of one man

I opt for BEING SINGLE

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. Exactly! No thanks. I value my pussy too much to allow some infected dick in there. No thanks, sir!

Take your infected dick somewhere else.

[Skittles]

53. I.....er......well, I didn't think of it THAT WAY

I'VE HAD IT WITH MEN.....but.......I like it too

[Hutzpa]

13. Agreed on all front

Some here feels it is okay to continue the degradation of gays by mixing it with polygamy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. And some here feels it is okay to continue the degradation of women by mixing it with polygamy.

This is an institution that is detrimental to women and children and does not allow them choices and agency over their lives and children's lives.

Prove that these relationships are not patriarchal; that the men don't treat women like shit.

[Hutzpa]

24. You're talking to a society that have pimps that controls

who a woman should have sex with, isn't that hypocrisy?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Can we stick to the topic, please, and stop with the straw men. We are discussing polygamy/plural

marriage. How are these arrangements beneficial to women? How are they non-patriarchal? Detrimental to women/children?

You are supporting this bullshit. Make your case for this further oppression of women.

[Wella]

27. Something to read:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/01/all-about-eve-rochelle-siemienowicz-on-her-polyamory-memoir-fallen

All about Eve: one woman's journey from original sin to open marriage

In contrast to their “united as one flesh” upbringing, Isaac and Eve begin to see other people. Like most polyamorists, their central relationship is guarded by clear boundaries that emphasise knowledge, consent and emotional literacy. Eve details the rules guarding their hearts: “Complete disclosure and mutual decision-making. If one of us said ‘stop’, we’d stop; if one of us said ‘no’, we wouldn’t.”

The couple experiment with playmates and affairs. Isaac sleeps with Eve’s best friend, and Eve acquires a long-term lover, Jay, who Isaac meets for the occasional beer. For a while, they are fulfilled – until Eve visits her hometown and break the rules. This is the 90s, before the word “polyamory” entered common conversation, before articles and podcasts and TedX talks discussed it, before organisations such as Poly Vic were vocal in the media. Eve and Isaac’s only guide is Nena and George O’Neill’s 1972 book, Open

With a laugh, Siemienowicz says she was a bit of a pioneer. But polyamory is not a radical concept, she adds. “Historically, there have been many people who don’t agree with the monogamous ideal. Once you start researching it, you realise how much this idea is tied to religious values.” In the west, certainly. The notion of our “other half” has its roots in the Adam and Eve story, and the normalisation of monogamy, institutionalised by Christianity in the Middle Ages, continues despite the separation of church and state.

“It’s a sentiment that survives in most popular love songs, poems and films and certainly in almost all romantic comedies,” says the film fan. “Those movies often end with a wedding, or a declaration of commitment.”

[Wella]

23. There are gays and bisexuals in polyamorous situations, but also many straights

This is not a gay issue--it goes beyond that.

[tammywammy]

46. Your current shtick is tiresome.

You've made your support for poly marriages very apparent.

[Skittles]

54. don't you understand, tammywammy?

it's GOOD for us wimmin - yes INDEED!!!

[Wella]

69. And is that a bad thing that I support polymarriage?

Why?

[Bluenorthwest]

145. You suddenly constantly post about polygamy, but you were not a strong advocate for marriage

equality. In an thread asking this:
"Have you ever met an opponent of gay marriage who wasn't also opposed to homosexuality in general?"

Your answer was:
"Actually, yes; some are opposed to the legal arguments that got us to gay marriage but do not begrud
gays and lesbians committed relationships and safety from discrimination in the workplace."
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10026326746

It strikes me that a passionate proponent of alternative marriages might have mentioned that when asked about anti marriage equality people they know. You rationalize the bigoted views. You do not mention that you know lots of people in homo/hetero poly group relationships, a thing you never mentioned on DU until marriage rights for same sex couples became the law, but you sure as shit offered up that you know 'some' how have purely legal objections to same sex marriages.

It's odd that a person who knows so many cutting edge relationships also knows so many who oppose same sex marriages.
Also odd that you seem so perfectly accepting of that bigoted view of same sex marriage even as you take the role of liberator of marriages for groups. Lots of understanding you had for anti equality views.

[ibegurpard]

147. yup

Transparent as hell

[zappaman]

200. I'll just leave this here...

[Starry Messenger]

208. *snort*

That should be pinned at the top of this forum.

[Whiskeytide]

55. If your husband...

..., upon whom you depend for support, announces that his girlfriend is moving in and if you don't like it you can leave, are you really consenting to the arrangement?

And I understand maybe a good divorce lawyer could take up your cause, -- but I think we should be very careful about advocating a policy so fraught with potential abuse because "some people" - even if it's a million people - say it works for them.

[Hekate]

73. No

[AZ Progressive]

81. these are trolls baiting DUers

don't fall for it. Let the thread die out.

[Wella]

87. Baiting them to do what? To support polymarriage?

The right wing is no friend to polymarriage. Despite the Mormons and Sister/Wives, there's not much support anywhere in Christiandom for polymarriage. The movement is coming out of the free love sixties and acknowledges that monogamy is not for everyone.

[Bluenorthwest]

229. Good spot to insert the fact that Wella has been banned for operateing multiple accounts

"Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317022&sub=trans

[JackInGreen]

84. Thanks for this Wella.

K&R and +1000

[Wella]

85. You're welcome.

I've been reading a lot about polyamory and knew three women in relationship many years ago when no one really talked about it. I get sick and tired of people talking about polymarriage as if it's all Mormons or Saudi princes or Sister/Wives--not that they shouldn't have the right, but there's so much more out there.

My hope is that we can pull some of these DUers from their objections to at least a little understanding of how modern polyamory works.

Peace.

[JackInGreen]

86. Fingers Crossed

and standing with you . Lets get these folks some education.

[Wella]

89. If they don't clobber us first.

Also fingers crossed...

[JackInGreen]

92. Remember the rules we fight for with everything else

First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win.
Thing is, I don't know if they realize we're all on the same side and want to increase freedom and love for everyone. They only see the horror that came before, not what people are trying to make of themselves now.
They can clobber us all they'd like. We'll still be here.

[Wella]

94. Good point.

I get the feeling that for some in the gay marriage movement, it is not about increasing freedom and love for everyone but about getting to join the "marriage countryclub." Once they're in, they're trying to keep the rest of the "rabble" out. That's how it feels, anyway.

[JackInGreen]

97. It reminds me

of the hostility between parts of the civil rights movement and La Raza back in the day. All on the same side in essence, but divided.

[Wella]

99. People are afraid that the pie is limited

And they get scared. Maybe that's it.

[ibegurpard]

88. So work to change hearts and minds.

Sorry you don't get to piggyback on gay marriage which, although is between people of the same sex, is still a legal commitment between TWO PEOPLE (and not some non human entity...)

[JackInGreen]

90. Which one of the people

in a poly relationship isn't the human entity?

[ibegurpard]

93. That's the other false equivalence argument that comes up

If we allow gay marriage then we must make allowances for polygamy or people marrying their pets.

[JackInGreen]

98. I always thought the fallacy in thought there

was comparing either polygamy or SSM to beastiality, but I suppose we bought their arguments and wanted to get so distanced from them that we've forgotten that one of the 'disgusting other' were allies to and often within the SSM movement.

[ibegurpard]

100. sorry I have no interest in helping you promote

A philosophy that has been typically objectifying, degrading, and damaging to women. And the fact that these arguments are cropping up to coincide with gay marriage is no coincidence. You want polygamy? Do the work to change the hearts and minds of the public that the gay community has done on behalf of same sex mariage. They aren't the same thing. At all.

[JackInGreen]

102. You obviously didn't read OP or any of the information provided there

and the fact that it's 'bad timing' by your lights is an excuse I'm used to hearing about gun laws and shootings, not equality or civil liberties.
We are doing the work, educating people and winning hearts and minds appears to be OPs point. Ignore it if you choose and maintain your assumptions if they suit you. We can hope to change your mind in time and welcome you to help us establish a new paradigm.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

157. "A philosophy that has been typically objectifying, degrading, and damaging to women"

You just described marriage.

[Wella]

91. "Piggyback on gay marriage"? The legal arguments have a great deal of overlap.

Do you feel special that you've arrived but that others are left out in the cold?

[ibegurpard]

95. make the case

Build the public support and maybe you'll have the same result. They are not equivalent.

[Wella]

96. The social case--the legal one has pretty much already been made.

I do think Justice Roberts is correct about that.

[ibegurpard]

106. No it hasnt

Gay rights advocates have worked for years to build a case that there shouldn't be a difference between TWO people of the same or opposite sex entering into a marriage contract. You want to immediately equate that with multiple people? You've got a long climb ahead of you... and I'm not interested in helping legitimize an institution that has served only to objectify, damage, and dehumanize women in all instances I've seen it. If consenting adults want to live in multi partner committed relationship situations then there's not much I can do or say about it but it's NOT equivalent to same sex marriage and you'd do well to lay off that paticular argument if you want to generate sympathy for your cause.

[Wella]

117. You're talking again about the social case, not about the legal argumentation

The gay marriage movement has set much of it in place. Yes, there will be a hurdle arguing that limitation on the fundamental right of marriage in regard to the number of spouses is not a compelling interest of the state, but much of the groundwork has already been laid.

The biggest hurdle legally will be the "born this way" or immutability argument. The idea that homosexuality is inborn and immutable (although there is no definitive biological proof of this) leads to the notion of a protected class being discriminated against.

This hurdle is not insurmountable. First, as I mentioned, SCOTUS was able to grant gay marriage without definitive proof of immutability. Poly activists can certainly bring this out. Second, there are studies that actually show quite a bit of mutability (sexual fluidity) in gay men and lesbians. Dr. Lisa Diamond is one such researcher:

\

There are a number of others.

If gays can be a protected class without necessarily being immutably and unchangeably gay in all cases, then polyamorists can argue that immutability is not the real issue, nor did it have to be to extend marriage rights.

Everything else in the gay marriage argument actually is useful to the polymarriage movement.

[TM99]

134. My understanding is that

it is not just 'gay rights' advocacy but rather LGBT advocacy.

Why is a bisexual's desire to marry both of the sexes that they love illegitimate now?

[ibegurpard]

146. Why don't you start an OP

With your understanding of bisexuals' marriage desires and see how far you get? Unmitigated bullshit.

[TM99]

149. Wow.

Nice to know where you stand. Jesus!

[ibegurpard]

182. you have a.completely warped view of bisexuality

It doesn't equate to multiple partners at the same time. So you're either ignorant or trolling...neither option makes you look good.

[TM99]

185. Are you obtuse?

Having multiple partners in a single committed relationship is a choice, just as having only one is. Being attracted to both sexes is not. Some will make one, others will make another.

But I will be sure to let my partner know that some internet asshat thinks that her identity and relationship choices are fucked up and the wrong one.

The arrogance, bigotry, and narcissism on display in this thread proves to me once and for all that it does not matter what political label human beings slap on themselves. Mostly human beings are just big fucking assholes.

[jonno99]

188. Hmmm...you came right out and said it - good. I've come to the same opinion... nt

[ibegurpard]

209. I'm not the obtuse one here.

Bisexuality does not equate to how many partners you choose to have simultaneously. Bisexuality is an orientation. It does not follow that because you are equally attracted to members of either sex that you are incapable of monogamy. And the fact you claim to have a bisexual partner and are still throwing out this ancient and insulting view of bisexuality casts doubt on your claims.

[TM99]

210. Oh FFS!

Yes, it is an orientation. Yes, some are monogamous. Yes, some are not monogamous. My partner is monogamous with one woman and with one man, me. Monogamy is a choice no matter what your orientation is. It sounds like your only definition of a relationship demands strict monogamous sexual connections.

Sorry to burst your little fucking close-minded bubble, but human sexuality is diverse, expressions are many, and marriage as an institution today will eventually change to accommodate healthy, consensual, sexually diverse legal unions that reflect that reality.

[ibegurpard]

217. I wasn't the one conflating

Bisexuality definitions with relationship definitions. Climb off your cross.

[TM99]

218. You are too funny.

You, then, did not understand a word I wrote.

I ain't on any crosses!

[pinboy3niner]

104. Poloponies deserve a defense

They're putting them in STRINGS!

[Betty Karlson]

105. Polymarriage deserves a defense? Maybe. But that defense is not and will never be

gay marriage.

Because sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. Bigamy is a choice.

You want to defend polymarriage? Do it. My boyfriend an I are fine with that. But don't you dare drag us into your argument!

[Wella]

113. Both gay marriage and polymarriage are based on extending marriage rights

It's all about marriage equality in its broadest sense. They are both based on marriage as a civil right and the removal of restrictions.

What fascinates me in your reply is this sentence:

"But don't you dare drag us into your argument!"

I'm not dragging you and your boyfriend into an argument for anything. I am demonstrating that they SCOTUS ruling will definitely apply in the fight for polymarriage and ultimate marriage equality.

However, the fact that you take it personally is fascinating, in a car wreck kind of way. It's like you and your boyfriend have gotten into the special marriage country club and the rest of us "rabble" have to keep out. Your philosophical support for marriage equality is restricted to your soclal-climbing needs.

[Betty Karlson]

116. How dare you? How dare you take that tone with me?

LGBT have fought for God knows how long to have the right to marry according to the existing definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is still the same it was before 26 June 2015. It's just that more couples now have the right to be recognised in their commitment, under a better application of that definition. They were married in all but name, and now they can be married period. It's not about social climbing. Seeking equal rights is not some vaneglorious quest for club membership. It's homophobic to imply as much.

All through the decades LGBT people sought dignity and recognition, the right-wing has been spewing filth: gay marriage would lead to polygamy, incest, child abuse and bestiality.

And now you and some others take this newly bestowed dignity of gay people, and say: this should lead to polygamy.

Bigamy is a choice, sexual orientation is immutable. What planet are you from that you think those two characteristics have anything in common? What kind of legalistic mind do you have that you think this is just about court precedents?

You are no rabble, or whatever. I place no restrictions on your lifestyle choices. But let this be clear: bigamy has NOTHING in common with the commitment between me and my boyfriend. Those two had nothing in common when the right wing said it, and they have nothing in common when you say it.

And we certainly have nothing in common with the Latter Day Saint, multiple-wife-marrying, child bride abusing, misogynist and gender-conformist haters who spent millions of Dollars to deny us our rights.

[Wella]

119. Hit a nerve, did I? Now you're the excluder of the rest of us.

And you don't like that I called you on it.

In regard to immutability:

1. There is no definitive biological proof that homosexuality is immutable.
2. There is no definitive biological proof of a gay gene.
3. SCOTUS did not need actual scientific proof to remove the limitations to gender in marriage.
4. SCOTUS relied on the idea of immutability, not its proof.
5. There are many studies that actually demonstrate that homosexuality is not entirely immutable. This researcher, a lesbian herself, has done work in this area:

When polymarriage advocates go to SCOTUS, we can point these things out: namely, that the court removed limitations on the fundamental right of marriage without having biological proof of immutability or of a gay gene. We will be able to argue that the important issue may not be immutability at all but one's status as a sexual minority.

That is one possibility. The other tack to take is that there IS biological proof that many humans are, in fact, polyamorous by nature. An argument can be made that it is far better to harness that polyamory in stable marriages in which children are cared for than in toxic adulterous situations or divorce/serial monogamy.

[Betty Karlson]

122. You, madam/ sir, are a homophobe for compairing homosexuality with bigamy.

If you hit a nerve, it's because that nerve has been hit by bigots time and again.

And I say you are a troll, for the way that you seem to pine for my distress.

[Wella]

124. You are a polyphobe. Using the word "bigamy" for polymarriage

indicates your bigotry and intolerance. You have no understanding of polyamory or polymarriage or what these entail.

[Betty Karlson]

126. I'd rather be called a polyphobe than give any credence to the homophobic memes

that you are so keen to perpetuate.

[Wella]

128. Your polyphobic memes are insulting and I'm frankly tired of them.

I get it: you got yours, so the rest of us have to shut up.

Even though Justice Kennedy talked about "dignity" in his decision, that only applies to you, not to polymarriage. You can feel free to throw the slurs around because "dignity" doesn't apply to the rest of us.

[Betty Karlson]

130. You are taking away my dignity by implying that my committed relationship

is no better than bigamy. The right wing was wrong to say so. And you are just as wrong.

You can have yours, if you want. But stop using me and my boyfriend to further your argument. You are a homophobe for doing so. Or a troll.

[Bluenorthwest]

159. Dig this thread: Wella has a whole different point of view going on...in a thread standing with us

in the face of religious bigotry, Wella's response was this:

"Does standing with LGBT mean standing against God and the sacred in life? That's certainly the implication of your post. Is the Democratic party now being redefined as the party of atheism?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026096444#post8

[Betty Karlson]

196. Ha! Now there is a clear right-wing talking point of ever I heard one.

And being a Christian, I have heard a lot of them (in church and outside).

Yes, thank you for alerting me to the thinly veiled bigotry. Now I know for sure.

And to think there are those defending this bigotry: "it's just an opinion".

Again, thanks for pointing me to that thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

150. Let's take a look at a comment from you about same sex marriage from the OP 'A Message to

the DU LGBT community."

Your response was:
"Does standing with LGBT mean standing against God and the sacred in life? That's certainly the implication of your post. Is the Democratic party now being redefined as the party of atheism?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026096444#post8


You sure as fuck were not defending the rights of all to marry as they wish, nor to even exist as equals, you pit God against LGBT, religious people against LGBT people, openly, aggressively and you were told off about it by many DUers from all over the DU spectrum, people who agree on few things agreed that your posts were worthy of derision.

I ask all who read this thread to read that one.

[SpartanDem]

206. You sure about that?

one the principal arguments in support of SSM is not regulating sexual behavior of consenting adults. Are the two exactly the same? No as you pointed out one choice the other isn't, but they do share some principals.

[Betty Karlson]

214. That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong for the right wing to suggest

that same sex marriage was akin to polygamy. And what was wrong for the right wing is wrong for Democrats too.

Poly-marriage may or may not deserve recognition on its own terms. But leave me and my boyfriend out of the argument. We are not and have never been terms of polygamy.

[romanic]

114. You're still on this tripe?

Read my words.

You are a piggyback troll.

Stop shitting on gay marriage with this harem pervert bullshit! I'm fucking sick of this shit popping up like herpes! GTFO.

[Wella]

129. You win for the most narcissistic post on the thread.

Guess what? Polymarriage isn't about YOU.

[RiverLover]

132. Why are you spamming us here with all these threads on polygamy though?

And how long will you keep it up?

[romanic]

142. Whatever prizes you got.

You can keep.

[snooper2]

167. so how many adults living under your roof currently?

[bravenak]

133. +1

[TM99]

135. So if a bisexual man wishes

to legal marry his male love and his female love, that is now 'harem pervert bullshit?'

This is no way delegitimizes lesbian and gay marriage. It is recognizing the human rights and civil rights hard fought for should exist for other sexual minorities who wish to be legally married.

You are telling my bisexual partner that she can either marry me or she can marry her girlfriend, but fuck her, she has no chance in hell of ever getting your support so that she can legally marry us both. It is not perverted. It is not disgusting. It is not abusive. It recognizes her inherent right to marry the one(s) she loves.

Fucking sad, and yet so not surprising. We have become a nation of narcissists only concerned with that that affects me and screw everyone else especially if I got mine.

[JackInGreen]

137. I think

we need to set a better example and be a bit more out and outrageously loud about who we are and what we mean we when talk about polymatrimonial matters.
It seems the only way to address it as a rights issue is to say "This isn't related to SSM at all, and I'm not talking about it because it just received a nod from the SCOTUS and I dissociate myself fully from the same sex marriage struggle in this context....so let me talk to you about poly' and pray gods that someone doesn't think you're a right wing plant or worse.

Best idea I think: Keep talking about it. Deal with the rejection. Talk about it some more. Put our lives so in everyones faces that they can't lie anymore about who we are.

We're going to run into hate from all sides. For the longest time we were the 'disgusting alternatives' that SSM could lead to and now that that's been settled we're going to get nothing but hostility for who we love and how, we're going to hear how we're misogynists, we're perverts, we're destroying everything they've fought for. I keep hearing the same arguments I'd fight against from the right about SSM coming from the left about poly. It's nauseating, but so was the birth of any rights struggle.

[TM99]

138. I don't disagree.

There is a great deal of stigma attached to polyamorous relationships outside of very small fringe communities. My partner is a neo-pagan. There is a great deal of acceptance there. I am more Buddhist and while there is some acceptance, it is hardly universal. We have never been able to tell either of our parents, and my father and mother were activists during the 1960's civil rights movement.

There are fears that it is somehow about misogyny, abuse, or strange religious cult behavior. And the reality is so much more boring and mundane.

I have shared with my partner some of the discussions on here over this. She wasn't surprised. I can't say that I am either. We have both supported LGBT civil rights and SSM since the 80's and 90's.

Frankly the animosity is rather pathetic. How can allowing polymatrimony take away from straight or gay marriage? That was one of the fucked up arguments from bigoted straight people about gay marriage - that it would somehow take away from or destroy marriage as well know it. Bigots on the right used outrageous arguments about marrying pets or incest. These things are clearly outside of the definition of consenting adult human sexual and loving relationships.

We also have the added stigma of being in a ritualized long-term D/s relationship.

Talking about these realities and showing that we are just as 'normal' as everyone else is simply going to be an ongoing cultural issue. Thank you for speaking up and sharing rationally in this thread.

[JackInGreen]

139. Standing together

Is the only way we've gotten things done for the causes we've fought for so far. We'll just have to keep on keeping on.
(insert bad D/s joke here about letting things off of leashes etc etc).

[TM99]

140. Very true!

[DiverDave]

136. Um, No

RW talking point.
Stop feeding the trolls. Off to the trash

[GoneOffShore]

154. ^This^

[romanic]

166. Sadly

some of them have defenders going alert happy. Just had a post hidden because i told it like it is and some didn't like it. I don't give shit, I said my piece and others have a right to say it HOWEVER THEY LIKE!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

152. My problem is not with polygamy, but with the timing.

Jumping on the bandwagon now simply gives backing to the Republican contention that giving gay folks equal access to the benefits associated with marriage was a 'slippery slope', or that it would ultimately lead to the 'destruction' of marriage, as people would simply fight vigorously to strip away all the associated business and governmental rights from marriage and make it simply a religious thing, with no associated 'extras' like survivor benefits or joint taxes or insurance, etc.

I would have said let people get used to 'gay marriage' and show that it was not the disaster that so many on the right feared, then, in a decade or two, when they're feeling more secure and mellow, start pushing. Pushing now helps the right more than it does the chances of actually advancing your cause.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. A thread to consider: In a thread titled 'A mesage to the DU LGBT Community' the OP had very

different views to express. DUer KMOD wrote this:
"Reading the many religion oriented threads the past few days, has prompted me to write this message.
I hear you. I stand with you.
I know that religions, and their teachings have been very hurtful, and bigoted towards you.
I would hope, and I feel it's true, that the overwhelming majority of DU members feel the same.
Peace and Love"

To which Wella responded with this gem:
"Does standing with LGBT mean standing against God and the sacred in life?
That's certainly the implication of your post. Is the Democratic party now being redefined as the party of atheism?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026096444#post8

When asked in another thread: "Have you ever met an opponent of gay marriage who wasn't also opposed to homosexuality in general?"

Wella responded: "Actually, yes; some are opposed to the legal arguments that got us to gay marriage but do not begrud gays and lesbians committed relationships and safety from discrimination in the workplace."
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10026326746

These cogs, they don't fully mesh.

[riderinthestorm]

163. Wella's been here since August 2014 so less than a year

and now, suddenly, posting OP after OP after OP trumpeting polygamy after nary a word about this before?

Things that make you go hmmmm.

[Starry Messenger]

169. Good find^^^ everyone read this ^^^

[Egnever]

177. Why? it is taken out of context in an attempt at a gotcha

nothing revealing about those posts but the agenda of the person who re posted them.

[Bluenorthwest]

192. You should read the entire thread, not just the parts excerpted, get all the context that exists

it just supports my contention. I note that you have not even bothered to attempt to counter what I said. Because you can't. You know if people read those threads they will notice that the OP is not mentioning 'poly' anything when the subject is marriage rights, LGBT issues, he's more on the religious side, certainly not mentioning any plural pansexual living....

[Bluenorthwest]

221. This is what became of the OP, the guy you are maligning me for.

Wella's Profile

Information on this Transparency page is currently displayed to logged-in members because the member's posting privileges were revoked on Jul 10, 2015.

"Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317022&sub=trans

So there's your 'gotcha' Egnever. You were taken in by that fake. I tried to warn you.

So what does this say about YOUR agenda, Egnever? That you attacked me for being correct? I think it says your agenda is a nasty one that targets LGBT posters. That seems clear.

[PowerToThePeople]

172. DUrec.

Good OP

Doublegood that conservadems are flipping out and spewing right wing arguments against your OP.

[WinkyDink]

173. Says who?

[ibegurpard]

207. right wing trolls

Trying to equate same sex marriage with polygamy.

[whatthehey]

174. No you lazy bastards. You don't get to piggy-back on nigh a century of GLBT progress

There's no legal, logical, ethical or political shortcut through the steps from illegal underground subculture where polygamists are now and gays were in the early 20th century, through embattled brave individuals risking abuse and worse, to small open enclaves in liberal sanctuaries, then slow changes in public opinion as more and more come out and role models appear in politics, entertainment and culture like Harvey Milk and William Haines , then through a slow, grudging, brutally resisted growth in public acceptance and tiny baby steps in legal protection until, with bias and antipathy still rampant, you finally decades later get at least basic official recognition of your loving bonds.

Why the hell should troglodytic Mormon extremists who want a slave harem and a few hipper-than-thou swingers get to piggy back and leapfrog all that and say "oh yeah us too". No.

[bravenak]

175. Stated perfectly.

[Calista241]

176. Sounds like a passage from Ted Cruz's book. n/t

[Orrex]

191. What does that mean, exactly?

It's an entirely reasonable response to what is obviously going on here.

What strikes you as Cruz-esque about it?

[SpartanDem]

204. You seem very eager to regulate the behavior of consenting adults

[Orrex]

215. Well, that's an outright lie. Care to try again?

[whatthehey]

219. Don't give a sparrow's fart about your behavior

Truly couldn't give a crap how many people of whatever gender others share houses, beds or relationships with. No interest at all n banning or even caring about it. But to think every possible variation gets tax benefits, legal protection, probate assumptions, next of kin rights and everything else without it being a total clusterfuck is asinine, as is the feckless gall to try and do the RW dirty work for them of linking same sex relationships with polygamy and claim the same victory without putting in the decades of work and struggle to gain public acceptance and support.

[Bluenorthwest]

225. Hi, I'm posting on Saturday the 10th to let you know that the OP you are defending was posted

by a now PPR'd cheat who used multiple accounts at the same time and while he was flagged for review. Every criticism put forth of that fake was valid, accurate and on point. You got it wrong. Very, very wrong.

[Starry Messenger]

178. +a million

[backscatter712]

199. Your bigotry is noted.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

239. Does GLBT progress stand alone? ...

... or on the shoulders of previous successes, like Loving v. Virginia and other civil rights struggles?

Piggy-backing? or incremental progress?

But, go ahead, claim your stand-alone, insulated, isolated victory. You needed no help, and you extend none. Bravo.

[SidDithers]

183. Better Believe It!!...nt

Sid

[NuclearDem]

197. This one's fooling nobody.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

190. Not interested.

Polygamists will have to get there without my help.

[ohheckyeah]

195. The governments of at least 2

states are well aware of the illegal supposed multiple marriages within cults. They are aware of the abuse of the women and children, yet do nothing to put an end to the practce because they don't want another Waco. Until government is willing and able to prevent this abuse, I don't believe it is able to oversee multiple marriages to ensure all parties are truly willing.

[Hydra]

202. I can't speak for the other state

But the one I'm in fully supports what's going on in those towns that don't exist. MY town had to shine a light on it to get anything at all done about it.

Daylight and legality kill the Vampires. We need more of it.

[ohheckyeah]

203. What did you get done?

It enrages me that the governments don't do anything?

[Hydra]

205. Not me personally

But I fully approve. One of the local hotels had a strange guest a bunch of years ago- One of Warren Jeff's top flunkies and his new "bride" of 13, newly wed by Jeffs himself. He made it a little too clear that he was on his honeymoon. Someone reported him to the local police and got him arrested by our guys, who have no tolerance for that sort of thing.

It was a quiet watershed moment- most of what happens is under cover of total darkness and many doubt what's going on out in the non-towns. That was impossible to misunderstand, and there was no local public support for it.

The 400 child raid should have been one of those moments, but somehow it wasn't. I was always disappointed that they let that go.

[ohheckyeah]

212. I was disappointed, too.

I'm glad the police arrested that guy. In some areas all of the police are fdls and don't arrest these pedophiles.

I find the FLDS stuff infuriating.

[ibegurpard]

211. then polymarriage advocates can defend it

[akbacchus_BC]

213. Are you asking us to agree with you?

Frankly, I believe in live and let live. Whatever people do as adults is not for me to approve! However, if it involves molestation of
children and men marrying underage girls, then I have to disagree.

Women and girls need to be protected against men who think women are property. So what are you asking us women to agree with you?

[TM99]

216. Not one person in this or any other thread

is describing poly relationships or possible marriage as being anything other than fully consensual for all parties involved. This is not about fringe and cultish religious beliefs. This is not about rape or incest. This is not about sexism and ownership.

[Bluenorthwest]

222. Your pal Wella has been PPR'd for running multiple sock accounts and posting under them while

flagged for review. So Wella and several of the other 'poly advocates' were all the same guy, a dishonest, cheating liar who posed as people he was not in order to create a false cohort in agreement with him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317022&sub=trans

[TM99]

226. That has no bearing on me or the other polys

who have posted on the topic.

It is also irrelevant to those LGBT and straights who have posted support and stood up to the bigoted comments on this topic as well.

So enjoy yourself but this doesn't mean shit to me. Thanks for the concern though.

[Bluenorthwest]

228. Well, 'the others' were also wella, several of them. And the rest of you could not tell a faked up

trickster from those in your own cohort, which does not speak well for your discernment skills nor reasoning abilities. The fact that a fake set of socks instigated this whole thing and LGBT people who have been here for years tried again and again to point out that malicious intent and mean spirited timing of those posts and some of you did nothing but accuse us of being in the wrong while you praised fictional posters, liars who were not honest about who and what they were. It's that simple.
You guys were doing something mean to LGBT people, who told you so. We told you this was not authentic. You bought it all, or helped craft it, don't know which. But at best you accepted liars as your friends while calling LGBT people names for objecting to the rude, malicious timing of your rants and tirades. It totally has bearing. Most of those threads were socks chatting away with themselves and a few folks who were unable to see that they were socks.
The pie is in your face, the seltzer down your pants, the joke is on the patsies, the stooges, the schlemiels who were taken in by a poorly crafted drawer full of socks.

You and others sneered at known, honest posters who were in fact correct for several days while you declared great simpatico with fictional constructs, fake posters who suddenly showed up spamming this board with malicious intention.
You are the punchline, you are the dupe. Enjoy!

[TM99]

230. Yeah, I am so fucking done with you.

You just spew insults and arrogance.

Polys are mean to LGBT. Hell, a lot ARE LGBT's!

Off to fucking Ignore you go! Tada!

[Bluenorthwest]

234. Actual polyamorous LGBT people would not have done this mean ass crap, that's why a bunch of

right wing socks created it. That's what so many of us tried to tell you. It as a big fake. Look at the terrible things you and Wella have been saying to others. How dare you claim it's not mean. Look at the words you are endorsing out of that creep, who is now banned due to raging dishonesty and flouting of the rules, lack of respect for this place, the people here and the issues discussed.

Putting me on ignore is like sticking your head in the sand. I'm one of the people who tried to warn you off a fake by sharing with you actual life experiences. You fell for a right wing prank against LGBT people, it was mean, you were mean and you really should apologize. You were mean to people in service to some socks.
If that is who and what you want to be, fine but you should not be claiming to represent any community in that way because that is not good for any cohort to be seen as dishonest, manipulative and selfish.

[SidDithers]

224. Buh bye...

Sid

[Godhumor]

227. The poster was apparently a polyaccountist... n/t

[SidDithers]

231. Nicely done...

Sid

[LAGC]

236. Oh snap.