Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy [View all]joeybee12
(56,177 posts)223. Offensive and totally wrong...gay is trait, black is a trait,
anything inherent in a person cannot be cause for discrimination, and denying anything because of a trait is wrong. Polygamy is behavior...see the obvious difference? FFS, if it were a snake, it would have bit you
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
297 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy [View all]
Wella
Jul 2015
OP
Warren Jeffs ran a cult similar to the Branch Davidian. The cults like Jeffs controlled are nothing
Thinkingabout
Jul 2015
#96
Agreed. Marriage should be about love, not a tool to enforce societal expectations
LittleBlue
Jul 2015
#2
why should marriage be about "love"? People marry for all kinds of reasons.
KittyWampus
Jul 2015
#212
We have an astronomical divorce rate, people running around on their 3rd and 4th marriages
LittleBlue
Jul 2015
#227
actually, the claim about love is no longer credible. You think people who get divorced didn't love
KittyWampus
Jul 2015
#245
It would be used mostly to enslave women, just like it's used everyplace it exists.
gollygee
Jul 2015
#293
Poygamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property
Agnosticsherbet
Jul 2015
#4
What about this decision suggests marriage between more than 2 persons must be required by a State?
elleng
Jul 2015
#6
Sotomayor suggested it that polygamy could be a result during the Prop 8 hearings.
Wella
Jul 2015
#14
The issue remains the same. Sotomayor basically said if marriage is a fundamental right...
Wella
Jul 2015
#24
No one is being discriminated against by the government's sanction of 2-person marriages.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#139
And the vast majority of other Americans. I'm not saying the law could never change, no matter what.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#144
No, it's the same as telling a gay man he can only legally marry 1 gay man, not several.
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#149
No, you're telling someone who deeply loves two people and wants legal recognition
Wella
Jul 2015
#152
You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished.
Zenlitened
Jul 2015
#13
The social purpose of marriage has NOT been redefined. It has been reaffirmed.
Zenlitened
Jul 2015
#16
What is the purpose of alerting on my post? Just because I disagree with you that the social
Wella
Jul 2015
#32
I didn't say "marriage" was redefined. I said that society has redefined the purpose of marriage
Wella
Jul 2015
#121
I'm not talking about your personal subjective view--there are 7 billion of those, quite literally
Wella
Jul 2015
#254
Then why have there always been marriages of older people that would not produce children?
DebJ
Jul 2015
#267
You didn't answer my question. If the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate and
DebJ
Jul 2015
#297
If you actually read some of my posts through this thread, you'd see that you're wrong
Wella
Jul 2015
#129
They are not prevented from making a personal commitment to do so. They are only prevented
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#153
Yes, and in uncharted waters with regard to MAN-TURTLE MARRIAGE TOOOOOOOO~!!!!!!!!!
MADem
Jul 2015
#29
You really should take your right wing tropes elsewhere--this one is painfully obvious.
MADem
Jul 2015
#51
I consider your source(s), which are fonts of anti-Democratic invective on a routine basis. nt
MADem
Jul 2015
#58
Yes, my ideas. They are logical ones based on the legal theory of marriage as a civil right.
Wella
Jul 2015
#75
Sure, whatever you say--it's just a COINCIDENCE that right wing websites say the very same thing!!!!
MADem
Jul 2015
#84
3 times you've linked to that, but it doesn't say that there; it's from a RW website
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#165
I have given the link and it's from NBC. I don't know why you keep trying to lie about my "sources"
Wella
Jul 2015
#166
No, it's not from NBC. You can go and read the fucking thing at both links.
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#176
"Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson ..."
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#203
So you now give the link I gave in #165; a 2012 pdf that doesn't use it; 'opinion-conservative'
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2015
#214
I'm not smearing--I've provided facts. You're just parroting rightwing memes, and I've linked to
MADem
Jul 2015
#117
Well, he did say them. This isn't about closed minds--this is about your deployment
MADem
Jul 2015
#160
This isn't about smearing people--it's about pointing out ideas that have long been discredited and
MADem
Jul 2015
#164
You are so hell bent on smearing me that you're missing the liberal sources with the same info:
Wella
Jul 2015
#167
You keep repeating the word "smearing" as though repetition will make your argument fly--it won't.
MADem
Jul 2015
#169
I have provided you links to prove what I've said. You reply by falsely calling my linked proof
MADem
Jul 2015
#172
You've "provided links" to sites I've never used nor seen. That's not proof, that's a smear tactic.
Wella
Jul 2015
#174
The idea--in case you're unclear--is for you to READ THEM so you can see where your rightwing
MADem
Jul 2015
#177
The idea is for you--in case you're unclear--is to look at the logic of the argument itself
Wella
Jul 2015
#182
Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery--but I am most certainly not your mother. nt
MADem
Jul 2015
#192
He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I take him more seriously than a politician.
Wella
Jul 2015
#250
Two things, first no, it really does not. Second, where the fuck is this alleged mass of group
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#33
It's your bogus assertion. Back it up. I'm not here to think for you, chum. First, you have to
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#47
But there is not a fundamentai different in the civil right to marriage in each person
Wella
Jul 2015
#170
That's the polygamy community as it is known in the US. Show me this polyamory, group marriage
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2015
#97
I understand "the issue" quite well--and I understand where you got your "argument"--even if you
MADem
Jul 2015
#86
I've offered several links in this thread, and if you read them, you'd have slinked away by now.
MADem
Jul 2015
#179
Obviously, you're standing by your poor logic--but you really SHOULD slink from it.
MADem
Jul 2015
#185
Equal protection can be extended to plural marriage through a civil rights argument
Wella
Jul 2015
#78
It is the marriage equality movement that argued the civil/fundamental right aspect
Wella
Jul 2015
#69
Because this has happened in every country that's legalized same sex marriage?
herding cats
Jul 2015
#72
That's what it is in it's whole, but for a tiny fringe it's a pretend window.
herding cats
Jul 2015
#107
No, the plan is a PR program to promote the idea the poly relationships are not always oppressive
Wella
Jul 2015
#175
There were famous out gays who helped to legitimize marriage equality...
DemocratSinceBirth
Jul 2015
#263
Up until recently, women were treated like second class citizen in monogamous cultures
Wella
Jul 2015
#201
We still have domestic violence, we still have a pay gap, we still have street harassment
Wella
Jul 2015
#207
The one thing we all seem to forget is if the State has a compelling interest.
Peregrine
Jul 2015
#104
Actually, the are considered, in some quarters, as a "sexual minority" (Psychology Today)
Wella
Jul 2015
#270
Marriage to ONE person -- an adult, consenting, non-related person -- is a civil right,
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#137
The Loving decision made marriage a civil right but it was limited to heterosexuals
Wella
Jul 2015
#143
The state has no obligation to confer the benefits/responsibilities of legal marriage
pnwmom
Jul 2015
#146
The "overhaul of the system" excuse is going to wear thin as an argument as time goes on
Wella
Jul 2015
#208
Because the Sister/Wives guy filed for a marriage license, citing the SCOTUS decision
Wella
Jul 2015
#209
Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness
Wella
Jul 2015
#246
I wouldn't go so far as to say an inherent trait and a lifestyle choice are the same thing.
Rex
Jul 2015
#231
If humans are inherently poly, polyamorists can argue that they are "born this way."
Wella
Jul 2015
#261
No, it's the real deal. The polyamorous are now slowly coming out of the closet.
Wella
Jul 2015
#241
Poly-amory is a choice. Sexual orientation, even when at times fluid, is never a choice.
Betty Karlson
Jul 2015
#244
Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness
Wella
Jul 2015
#249
"arguing it was genetically fixed" is a turn of phrase that implies the sexual orientation was not
Betty Karlson
Jul 2015
#264
Interesting Blog by a Polyamorist (for people who are not familiar with the community)
Wella
Jul 2015
#239
Not really, there's no chance the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of polygamy...
PoliticAverse
Jul 2015
#253