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
Editorials & Other Articles
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: Gay people can have multipartner relationships too. [View all]Kurska
(5,739 posts)112. Part of why supporting this is so great is you get to stick it to people like Scalia
"What if letting gays marry opens to door to all kinds of consensual activities between adults that I don't like?"
Good, I hope it does.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
278 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
Not every relationship is entitled to equal dignity, for instance the law prevents
snagglepuss
Jul 2015
#12
Comparing the behavior of consenting adults in relationships based on love to child rape is wrong.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#14
So you're really making the argument that marrying more than one person is the moral equivalent of
Kurska
Jul 2015
#18
So, you are being disingenuous, and Kurska hasn't argued for some stupid, mindless..
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#37
The concept of females having self-determination and rights is not a cultural determinant.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#54
The concept of anyone having consent is culturally determined, and has little to do...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#57
You do realize you are being disingenuous, no one is saying that people should be free...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#153
Those studies are examining cultures and religions that are extremely misogynistic and abusive...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#178
How does polyamory become bad if the government extends some marital rights....
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#225
I heard a lot of people pushing that same bullshit line when same sex marriage came up.
Quackers
Jul 2015
#230
The idea that you can only "truly" love one person or that love is some sort of limited resource
Kurska
Jul 2015
#64
Even worse, they are using the exact same arguments against same sex marriage to criticize...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#49
Are you gay? Are you familiar with things like denied hospital visitation and a host of other issues
Kurska
Jul 2015
#9
Would it really be so horrible to you if they had basic things like HOSPITAL VISITATION.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#21
And you should be aware there are a host of other legal rights that come with marriage.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#61
I actually would like to see us able to legally create our families from our friends
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#55
Immediate dissocation or association with individuals based on simple legal work.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#93
Think, what if it is the partner outside of the marriage that is in the hospital.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#122
I say everyone in the US gets married in one giant ceremony to each other
The Straight Story
Jul 2015
#10
You got anything in your bag of tricks besides "You fail" or "You don't make sense."
Kurska
Jul 2015
#33
I would say that reasonable restrictions would be similar to those allowed for two person marriages.
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#44
Exactly, marriage is a contract with certain expectations, indeed, there are some that...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#63
You still haven't said what you consider should be the maximum number of spouses
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#101
I think polygamist marriage wouldn't be so common that it would represent a huge burden.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#106
Except they would have the legal argument that their marriages shouldn't be subject
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#108
But people trying to immigrate here have a reason for possible fraud -- to obtain citizenship.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#116
A marriage between 3 people maybe, but a marriage of 10,000 people would certainly draw additional
Kurska
Jul 2015
#117
Again, the law would have to define a limit. How would you justify a particular number of marriages
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#118
Why? Some marriages to foreign spouses draw less or more scrutiny based on circumstances.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#120
Because laws have to have a rational basis. There is a rational basis, based on a multitude of
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#123
They could go with Biblical precedent. That would be 701 total spouses max per marriage.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Jul 2015
#130
Why do you say the religious 'cults' are 'bad behavior'? If it is bad, then how would you prevent
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#135
The same way you do for monogamous relationships, domestic abuse and exploitation is not...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#154
"Gay men have the same rights that straight men have, they are free to marry any woman of their
Kurska
Jul 2015
#78
There is a key difference. No one is born polygamous. It actually IS a "lifestyle" choice,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#81
I think if we are predicating the right to marriage inborn sexuality (which I do not do).
Kurska
Jul 2015
#89
How would that work on a practical basis? Would you set any limit on the number of spouses?
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#94
But note the OP, chatting away with the big fake and carrying on as if they had some big
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#274
I don't want to step over any line here, but Kennedy's decision seems to not be concerned with
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#95
And the polyamorous do have the right to marriage. And to any other additional relationship
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#98
Oh, you mean they have the right to marry one person. I don't think that's what
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#102
Well, Turley actually analyzed the decision in a professional capacity here
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#105
Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg disagreed with Roberts's dissent,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#119
Er, you are posting Constitutional analysis from Utah's Attorney General--posted on fox13now.com?
Romulox
Jul 2015
#128
Seriously? You're seriously arguing that Turley, who's preparing for an important legal case,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#195
No, I'm arguing that Kennedy's own words would be enough for Turley's argument
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#201
This is correct. Kennedy's opinion sounded in "Dignity", not "Equal Protection".
Romulox
Jul 2015
#127
The Court specifically did not make Lesbians and Gays a Protected Class. That's what a
Romulox
Jul 2015
#139
That's because "due process" was in the Kennedy decision, not protection of gays as a class
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#192
Actually, Turley is very clear that it is due process, and not a protection of gays as a class
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#200
Turley is saying that not relying on civil rights legislation makes the future unclear
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#234
Thank you. It's been very confusing with a number of articles giving opinions.
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#251
Except that Turley has a case and a client that could push the envelope
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#187
If Turley can make an effective argument based on Kennedy's concept of dignity
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#191
So then what is the 'rationale' for telling three consenting adults who love each other
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Jul 2015
#143
If a majority of people wanted to support expanding legal marriage to include polygamous groupings,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#146
There's just as much harm to women and children in monogamous relationships.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Jul 2015
#149
Modern egalitarian cultures evolved AWAY FROM polygamy, and that helped them become
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#163
I'm abandoning the term polygamy because most of these posters refuse to make distinctions.
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#175
But what about legalizing or recognizing polyamorous relationships? Since polygamy is a loaded term.
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#172
"If a majority of people wanted to support expanding legal marriage to include polygamous groupings"
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#199
The court is not elected and constitutional issues are not decided by ballot measures
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#206
When deciding on a "rational basis" for a law, the Court relies on research provided to it by the parties.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#209
Research is the key word: academic journals, amicus briefs from interested parties
Tatiana La Belle
Jul 2015
#210
Yes, and the published, peer-reviewed, academic research agrees on the negative effects of polygamy.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#213
I never argued that popularity was the sole basis for approving laws. It's just one basis.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#220
the same as any other non-discriminatory legislation--that the recognition and encouragement
geek tragedy
Jul 2015
#148
Do you really not see how you arguements are recyled word for word from gay marriage opponents?
Kurska
Jul 2015
#173
No, I am stating facts. The rightwing talking point is that offered by yourself and Samuel
geek tragedy
Jul 2015
#263
Part of why supporting this is so great is you get to stick it to people like Scalia
Kurska
Jul 2015
#112
I'm shocked, SHOCKED by people who not only auto-trash, but tell everyone they are auto-trashing.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#261
Actually I've been making a several year sustained argument in favor of sexuality liberty.
Kurska
Jul 2015
#165
So I've read the thread and here are my questions and comments to the OP. First, you mention
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#138
Its a reaction to the anti-poly posts, look at geek tragedy as an example of this.
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#155
Yes it does. If shitty people exploit my community as a device to insult another I will stand with
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#160
So you are saying that all the poly members of DU and their allies should just sit back...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#161
Is that what I said? No, it's not. Any poly members of DU should speak for themselves and
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#216
I'm not the one throwing out wild accusations and generalizations here. n/t
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#223
Doesn't matter, you are advocating for legal recognition of poly relationships, that makes you an...
Humanist_Activist
Jul 2015
#168