Wow, we're not actually fucking doing this, are we? Polygamy?

[NuclearDem]

[shenmue]

1. Apparently

[niyad]

2. of course we are. you did know it was coming, yes?

[Renew Deal]

3. Don't know. Have you asked your husband?

[NuclearDem]

6. Right, had that one coming.

[Renew Deal]

7. lol

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Here and I thought someone left their speech to text app running.

[Skittles]

4. reference the third panel

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

yes INDEED

[bravenak]

5. It's crazy.

[ismnotwasm]

8. It's fucking weird man.

I mean, at the very least, the discussions could have waited right? But no--right on the back of a major Human rights victory, not even a week, and people want to play little games.

[Starry Messenger]

10. +1

[Behind the Aegis]

23. "and people want to play little games."

That they do. I have found using DU's search feature to be very informative and enlightening. It is interesting to see the "devil's advocates" skulking about, as well as though who didn't approve of "gay" marriage, if they ever discussed it, those who mock the idea of "privilege", and those who spent their time (and still do) telling gay people how to advocate for their civil rights by not being so "pushy". I knew this type of nonsense would erupt on the right, I am a little surprised how it has taken hold here.

[ismnotwasm]

26. Interesting that they're all of a type isn't it?

This current little trend is particularly disgusting--nauseating even.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. You have noticed it too?

I am sure there are more like us who are seeing this for what it is...sour grapes, among other things.

[randys1]

79. Yeppers

[NanceGreggs]

34. "I knew this type of nonsense would erupt on the right ...

... I am a little surprised how it has taken hold here."

I knew it would erupt on the "right" as well. As for it taking hold here, I am not surprised in the least.

[shaayecanaan]

40. Googling outside of DU is even more interesting

it occasionally leads one to now-defunct websites dedicated to slagging off members of DU along the lines of "XXXX is just jealous that she can't get jihadis willing to stick it in to her cavernous old vag".

We all remember those websites, don't we?

[Behind the Aegis]

42. It is indeed interesting how the goalposts are moved.

Also interesting is the "bait and switch" used to indicate someone said something they never said. But then, you knew that, right?

[geek tragedy]

118. notice also the "get government out of the marriage business" types at DU

after marriage equality passes.

Which is just how the anti-equality bigots reacted to the SCOTUS decision.

[brewens]

30. Playing right into their hands. I'd say we could at least let the dust settle before opening up

that can of worms. Not that I really would be all that much against it.

I believe we know of some matriachal societies that seemed to work just fine. Before we discovered them, missionaries went in, killed most of them with disease destroyed them. Women owned everything, the children were theirs and no one really cared who the fathers were. So I can see being hunter/warrior, doing what you do to bring home food and defend the village and not having to give a shit about anything else but being nice to all the women for obvious reasons. Not what we are used to, but how freakin' bad could that be?

[JI7]

38. it's so fucking obvious and offensive, reminds me of those bringing up transgender people when the

rachel Dolezal thing came up . and usually by those who have had issues with blacks and gays.

[DawgHouse]

60. True!

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. +2 n/t

[brush]

83. Well we may as well include polyandry and multi-partner marriages as well

or how about inanimate object marriage, or actual animals while we're at it .

This is getting ridiculous.

[mindwalker_i]

9. Just out of curiosity

Who the fuck cares?

I am married, to a wonderful woman, and that works just great for me. What or who other people do doesn't affect me. If people want to get it on with farm equipment, I don't fucking care! What about preserving the "family?" You mean those families that end in divorce? The families that fill up their SUVs, then go buy bigger ones to fill up, so they can buy more gas in a world of 7 billion?

There are more important things to spend processor cycles on.

[RichGirl]

11. Everyone has a right to be happy....

And define happiness on their own terms. They'll do what they are going to do whether legal or on the sly.

I don't think plural marriage will become legal. I think it's more likely that we'll get to a place where there are no legal unions. No marriages. 50% of them don't last anyway. If people can't live up to their vows, for better or worse, til death do us part...why bother. I'm okay with how anyone wants to live with one condition...if they have children they need to put their well being and happiness first.

[cwydro]

12. I sure hope not.

Smh.

[niyad]

13. betty bowers explains traditional marriage

[Lucky Luciano]

14. She is one amazing Christian. nt

[niyad]

71. a truly brilliant satirist.

[Journeyman]

74. Very much . . .

[riderinthestorm]

15. Low post count posters suddenly claiming to be poly

all righteous...

But with absolutely zero response when asked to specify HOW family law, child custody, visitation, welfare etc can/should be re-drawn...

Nah, just a lot of anecdotes about their blissful poly families.

Ya know you're just a "polyphobe" if you haven't supported the myriad of poly families out and proud in your community!111!!!1

[JackInGreen]

18. I'll give you that most of em

Dont have detailed plans on how to legalize or regulate it. I'm poly and I really havnt given it any detailed planning because it seemed a bit too far to hope.
I think most of the oppositional backlash (low post count or not) was focused on the attack on the idea that people take inspiration and boldness from the recent decision and wish to stand up and be counted not only as the allies many of us have always been, but for our own happiness aswell.
Mock all you'd like about blissful anecdotes, it's one of the reasons most of us havnt been strident. When you're consistently held up as the worse alternative by friend and enemy alike you tend to be more reserved.

[riderinthestorm]

24. It smacks of RW troll bait

many of us aren't newbs and know it when we see it. This is grotesque RW despicable embrace of the worst sort.

"Suddenly" low post count newbs are all for polygamy?1! With fresh-faced "family" stories of poly love they've never shared before, all eager to share who've just been waiting to get married....

Yeah right.

Here's looking at you babe...

You and yours need to march your asses into public life if you're real. Fight that battle just like the GLBT community did but armed with the legal frame work to resolve the formidable legal challenges ahead. This crazy and (generously framed) attempt to ride SSM is offensive.

[JackInGreen]

27. I think you're making a few assumptions

About the people supporting this idea. It smacks of troll bait to be sure, but not everyone that shares the opinion that plural families or polymatrimony are something to be considered or embraced are right wing or trolls. If you're looking at me as one of those let's talk more personally and you can learn differently. My low post count is something you can hold against me if you choose.

And on that last you're right. We need to be more out and loud. Care to turn down the heat while we do that? We have been slowly but surely and to the derision of left right and center alike. I don't think most of the folks I knew or marched with (or officiated at the weddings of) knew or cared about all the finer details but we lent our voices to the GLBTQ fight anyway.
As to 'riding ssm' I can't see where we're asking for more than the right to discuss it in light of the recent decision. Why we're trying to shut down all discussion and accept the rights framing is beyond me.

Oh...um...the only persons that get to tell me and mine to 'get my ass' somewhere aren't you. It doesn't mean you're wrong but ffs the hostility is daunting.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Turn down the heat so you can speak for yourselves? LGBT got more heat the more we spoke.

Anyone who saw and supported our struggles would have learned that facing the heat is part of the process. It is a useful element if properly addressed. If you were such an advocate you would know this, not expect kid gloves from your opponents.
None of the people yapping about this on DU have been strong proponents of marriage equality, further none of them ever mentioned that they were 'poly' in any of those discussions, what most of them bring up in marriage equality threads is religion.

[ibegurpard]

48. amen

[notadmblnd]

105. being poly- does not equal a liberal nor Democrat

I assume you are aware this is not a sight for conservatives?

[JackInGreen]

108. Yes quite

In fact i prefer it as I'm not a conservative.

[notadmblnd]

109. poly has never been a liberal, democratic or progressive issue.

It has always been advocated for by conservatives- IMO, extremely conservative. Again, this is not forum for conservatives.

[JackInGreen]

110. If you say so chum

I'd think we probably have more in common than not politically but don't let that keep you from making up your own mind.

[notadmblnd]

111. I doubt it.

Because I'm not conservative anything and polygamy is a conservative issue.

[shaayecanaan]

33. complete bullshit

I think we all agree that, for instance, child custody and visitation should not be affected in any way by the marital status of the parents, whether they are monogamous or polyamorous.

To imply otherwise would be to say that a bastard is somehow worth less than his brother.

[MADem]

53. BINGO....

Seems a bit obvious to me, as well! Oh well, it's ammo for their eventual PPR day, I suppose.

[JoePhilly]

62. I ask them when the "Pural Parades" will be held in major cities ...

... they generally don't respond.

[krispos42]

16. It's right after gay marriage but right before...

... people marry major appliances.

Minor appliances will continue to be illegal, for reasons.

[Iggo]

19. Not if I put it on my trashed word list, we ain't.

[GoneOffShore]

78. Perfect - And no snark intended

[Hekate]

20. Joyful news for the enslaved wives of fundamentalist Mormons, I'm sure

[JackInGreen]

22. I can't speak for any others

But we're not Mormon and the only slave here is me at the pancake griddle Saturday mornings.

[StevieM]

39. I wish you and your family all the best. I am sorry that people here are giving you such a hard time

I don't doubt your sincerity or the veracity of your story.

[JackInGreen]

54. Thanks Stevie

I'll take that at face value, and gladly.

[AngryAmish]

51. I apologize for DU for the hate you are undergoing

No one is free until everyone is free.

[JackInGreen]

55. Thank you!

I'm used to seeing the flames creep up from general discussion, I've just never seen them turned so viciously against polyamourous people or polygamists. I expect it from the right. Here....I've been shocked, but I'm trying to be friendly and open about who we are.

[PoliticAverse]

56. Slavery would still be illegal. Glad I could clear that up for you. n/t

[pinboy3niner]

21. Not me. I'm still doing poloponies...

[awoke_in_2003]

129. But can it core a apple? nt

[FairWinds]

25. Hey People - chill . .

happy poly-whateverness is biblical. So it's totally fine.

Just don't tell my (for now, one and onlyiest) wife.

I want it to be a surprise.

[betsuni]

31. I think this sudden polygamy thing is just another way to call us prudes and authoritarians.

[Wella]

32. It's actually polyamory or polymarriage.

It's not your Mormon grandpa's polygamy.

http://polyamorydiaries.com/
http://polymomma.com/

[JackInGreen]

35. Careful wella

Dint you know we're all right wing trolls trying to coattail ssm and we've got no legal framework so we should stay quiet? We should head back to the Kremlin and report, THEY'RE ON TO US!

[Wella]

36. Quick! Hide the Ronald Reagan commemorative coins!

(And the Ann Coulter books)

Oh and hide this too:

&list=PLum50h_rWpG7wB0StyK6-_Bs61Pmlfp6c

[cprise]

41. You jest, but bored privileged people do tend to

converge on similar goals to the far Right.

"With friends like this..."

[cprise]

37. So what??

You think that makes it any better?

I'm not against polyamory if people want to engage in that. But the liberal democratic version of polygamy is even more of a non-starter than the bronze-age version. Anyone can have N-number of marriages. Blows all established legal-familial relationships out of the water.

Brilliant.

Well, Steampunk was getting tired, anyway... What else could some bored miscreants latch on to?

[JackInGreen]

43. The echo is amazing

"With friends like these..."
We'd have you as a friend if you could come down and talk instead of writing us off as privilaged miscreants.
The "x will blow y out of the water if x get married" was old coming out of the right, bit more shocking coming out of the left. I guess it's excusable to belittle people's lives as long as you've can make a witty pop culture retort.

[cprise]

44. NO THANKS

You come down off your high horse. Demanding more of what you already have is some kind of moral crusade, eh?

How is a point "old" if it doesn't have an effective counterpoint?

[PowerToThePeople]

64. Be careful when jumping into conserva-dem threads

Where they are hippy/liberal/other left wing type bashing. They like to gang alert on anyone not "in the fold."

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Odd - you were starting threads in favour of *polygamy* just 3 days ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6940256

And already, you're scolding other people for the term you were using.

[JTFrog]

77. Some obvious trolling going on. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

92. Take a look at this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026406757

[Aerows]

96. Well doesn't that

just say it all?

[JTFrog]

107. I have no words.....

[Bluenorthwest]

115. Not only less than supportive of LGBT, never a mention of this 'poly' stuff in all the many threads

about marriage and LGBT issues he chimed in on. Never once did this person mention anything like any of this. This whole sudden interest just materialized like a talking point out of Rush Limbaugh's ass.

[geek tragedy]

121. Also note this dead giveaway from their bigoted OP from the other day:

In the end, we are witnessing the end of marriage as a social institution with its focus on social stability. Marriage is now a legal way to protect individuals who have chosen, for reasons of love and companionship, to combine their lives and incomes, with or without children. Polygamists certainly fit this definition.

The inference on display being that allowing gays and lesbians to marry means that marriage is no longer about social stability.

[awoke_in_2003]

130. I tuned in

to talk radio the night of the decision. The RW talking point was about what's next- polygamy, marrying your sibling, etc. So, yes- most of the poly talk is born of the RW hate machine.

[geek tragedy]

117. it's as if the whole polygamy thing was a talking point invented by bigoted opponents of same-sex

marriage . . .

[Betty Karlson]

46. I don't mind fucking or doing this.

But I despise the bigots who drag my boyfriend's and my newly confirmed rights into their arguments.

[alp227]

47. Yep, playing in the right wing's hands.

Brent Bozell & Tim Graham:

Santorum was made to look like a conspiracy nut, or just a fool in 2003. But within hours of the terrible new Supreme Court decision, Politico had posted an op-ed plainly titled "It's Time to Legalize Polygamy."

So where is the line to be drawn? Here's the awful truth: The left wants no lines. If you doubt us, show us the line — as they have drawn.

Our "progressive" media never ask where a line should be drawn. President Obama routinely offers this formulation, as he did in May, to "underscore that all people deserve to live free from fear, violence, and discrimination, regardless of who they are or whom they love."

Applying the Santorum quote, Obama's very inclusive definition of "love" could include bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. It draws no line about an age of consent.

[PoliticAverse]

58. Is there a list of things people shouldn't advocate because of what the right wing thinks? n/t

[AngryAmish]

52. Disgusting.

[BKH70041]

50. 60 years ago this same thread would have read...

"Wow, we're not actually fucking doing this, are we? Same Sex Marriage?"

Only a very, very, very small corner of the liberal/progressive community would have even considered speaking about it, and then in only closed circles.

Knowing that, then it's easy to predict that future generations will look back to 2015 and say about those opposed to multi-partner marriages "Wow, those so-called liberals were a bunch of RW bigots, weren't they?"

[Bluenorthwest]

68. And yet the countries that have polygamy forbid all homosexuality, and 10 of then have a death

penalty for homosexuality. This makes the argument that a continuum exists between the two highly specious. Why is it that the polygamous societies tend to such extreme authoritarianism around all sexuality outside the proscribed and legally enforced paradigm? Why is it that not one polygamous society has any sort of equality for LGBT people, their relationships, any sort of equality or autonomy for women. Why is it that all the polygamous societies are 'many wives' and never, ever 'many husbands'? Not one of the polygamous nations allow a woman to have more than one husband, nor allow her a wife and a husband. Why is that, if it is all about polyamory and pansexual liberation?

[BKH70041]

80. Irrelevant

What other countries permit or don't when it comes to marriage has nothing to do with the USA.

The only argument worthy of consideration is the expansion of the definition of marriage. It was 1 man and 1 woman. Now it's 1 man and 1 woman, or 2 men, or 2 women. So things change.

Someone needs to explain why it needs to be limited to only 2 when discussing consenting adults agreeing to enter the marriage relationship. Limiting to only 2 isn't liberal/progressive at all. People have suddenly said "This is the line in the sand and no further" without considering that had others not ignored that type of viewpoint, the USA wouldn't have same sex marriage today.

It's a choice some people might choose, and that's all. No reason to forbid consenting adults from making that choice. They aren't making a marriage of only 2 people any less valid.

[Bluenorthwest]

100. It's totally relevant as it is the whole of the argument you are making that the two things are

connected logically and naturally. The fact that all polygamous countries forbid homosexuality entirely along with basically any form of sexual activity that is not a man and his wife or wife among wives is extremely relevant when you are claiming that having marriage equality for couples of all sorts extends to polygamy in some obvious fashion. What we actually see is that polygamy in practice is very bad for equality, sexual liberation, pansexual people, or those who would have a multiple marriage with more than one man in it. Polygamy is something we have left behind with great intention, the entire democratic world, the entire sexually liberated world, the entire gay friendly world is a world without polygamy. It just is. Polygamy is in fact bad for polyamory in every culture that practices polygamy.

Marriage in the US has always meant two people, we extended that right to any two people. No definition has changed.

This routine of wanting to pretend there is no history of the rejection of polygamy by the bulk of the world is just absurd. It's a thing, we know all about it. It's not pansexuality, it's not polyamory. It has existed for all of human history, and that means it is a thing we know about in great detail. 85% of humanity has polygamist past or present. And it's almost all in the past for the places that really are more sexually free and tolerant of all variations.
It is not an accident that the only places where one can be safely bisexual are monogamous countries while in polygamist countries it is a crime to be bisexual. The behavior itself is illegal in all of those countries. That means something. It does not mean nothing.
Do you think it is just happenstance that the countries that retained polygamy are ravingly autocratic around sexuality, women, gay people and such while the cultures that rejected it are always becoming more liberated around sex and gender equality and sexual identity? I sure don't.
I think the world and our human history is mine to learn from and I do not think it is happenstance.

[DonCoquixote]

113. Thank you

I got smacked about in a thread that pointed out that Islamic countries do not allow gay marriage, then got treated like I was a pariah.

It should also be pointed out that even IN Islamic countries, 4 is the max, and there are very defined parameters to be able to have four. They sure as hell would not allow the crap the self-declared "mormons" on sister wives would pull. There is a good reason Utah labels these folks as apostates.

[Bluenorthwest]

119. Islamic countries do not allow polyamory. They do not allow multiple husbands to a woman, nor a

wife to a woman. They do not allow 'a bit of whatever' on the side. They allow nothing. Anyone who is attempting to claim polygamous cultures are in some way sexually advanced or liberated is either delusional or lying about their own religious devotion. No polyamorist would survive Saudi Arabia. Not while practicing polyamory. It's illegal.

[BKH70041]

116. But that's not the argument I'm making.

Marriage, in time, will be expanded to be more than 2 people. The train has left the station.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. What's not the argument you're making? You have made no argument at all. No train has left

any station. You can't even discuss the facts reasonably. You want to pretend that polygamy is some new evolutionary leap when it is in fact an atavistic holdover which oppresses the sexuality and liberty of all who live in the countries which allow it.

If polygamy is the same as polyamory and this is an identity inherent to them all, if they are a global community then you know what? Fuck that community because they are running countries that jail my people, execute women for having autonomy and their US counterparts have never raised any objection to that crap as a people. The US 'poly community' has never addressed the poly countries that savagely oppress others for sexual identity. If they are a people, a community born that way, then they are shitty fucks for having gay people in the jails of the nations they run, for the way they treat women, trans people, gay men and yes indeed those who are bisexual or pansexual. They punish adultery yet you claim it's 'polysexuality'?

[BKH70041]

123. It will eventually become law.

And then what will you do?

[Bluenorthwest]

128. It won't happen, but it's not an issue I worry about. You can't even make an argument for it, global

cultures employing it are sexually repressive and they present no argument at all in favor of such legal arrangements, which means attempts to conflate a liberated sexuality with polygamy will not work. Polysexuality is at odds with polygamy.

If an American community of poly families wishes to claim they are part of a global community with those in polygamist nations, they are free to do so. But they will face great criticism for polygamist nations are autocratic and punitive towards virtually all sexual identities and behaviors outside the ruling paradigm. If the poly community is associating itself with that community they are siding with homophobic haters of bisexuality and they can't claim to be polyamorous or liberated sexually. If they do not wish to associate with the global ploygamy community, then they are hard pressed to argue that they are an inborn identity, a protected class.
So they are in a hard spot. Their global fellows are sexually atavistic and punitive toward homosexuality, bisexuality, any sex outside of marriage, and so on. If they are 'a people' then they have responsibility to stop their people from these horrible abuses of those who are not polygamist straight folks. It is shameful and horrible for them to be silent if they are indeed a 'people' or a global movement.

So shout a proclamation again. It's fun when you do that.

[MineralMan]

57. We sure seem to be.

I think it's pretty suspicious, frankly. I've seen some discussion about "liberals" promoting this on a couple of right-wing sites. Could be that some folks are introducing the topic to prove that allegation as true. I don't know, though.

Personally, I think it's a bogus concern and that poly-anything marriage is not even close to being in the same category as same-sex marriage. Marriage equality is about people marrying the person they love, regardless of any inborn characteristics. It has nothing to do with marrying multiple partners. That's a completely different matter, and has to do with choices, not how people are born.

They aren't equivalent in any way, really. Marrying multiple partners is not a "right" of any kind. Marrying your choice of partner is. I think it's that simple, and am certain the courts would rule the same way.

[BKH70041]

81. "I think it's pretty suspicious, frankly."

It's called using the current momentum.

This is another area where liberals/progressives too often fall short. When you have momentum on your side, you keep pushing. You think if conservatives had won a major battle they would just be sitting back enjoying it? Hell No!! They'd be pushing the issue even further since they would have momentum on their side.

[MineralMan]

82. What makes you think that "liberals/progressives" are

in favor of poly-marriage? Who says we want plural marriage? I don't.

[BKH70041]

89. I see.

Many years ago:

"Here's the line in the sand: Marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman."

Now:

"Here's the line in the sand: Marriage is only between 2 people."

One has already ended differently. The other eventually will.

And those opposed today will be viewed as RW bigots tomorrow.

[AngryAmish]

124. That is why I am bookmarkimg these threads

Their day will come.

[elehhhhna]

59. as long as muslims practice polygamy the U.S. won't endorse it.

I'm now dropping this subject.

[Xyzse]

61. Is it ok that I am going to ignore it for now?

I mean, I tend to think that I don't mind most things as long as those involved are happy and healthy. Given those, I could care less what they do in closed doors.

Granted, I feel like those that are pushing this at the moment are just doing it, to push another hot button issue in regards to marriage, just to annoy both supporters and those against this newly more inclusive marriage.

So, perhaps in a year or two, I'll consider them a bit more seriously, but for now, I will relegate them to the background.

[SidDithers]

63. Warren Jeffs would be proud...

Sid

[ileus]

65. Why not have open minds toward consenting adults???

This actually would offer protections to the "second" wife/husband. IMHO that's important.


Aren't we progressive or no???

[closeupready]

69. It's one or two members only.

As far as I've seen.

[hrmjustin]

70. K&R!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

72. It's all just part of the plan for avoiding a mineshaft gap.

[whatthehey]

73. Tends to..unsurprisingly...come from folks lukewarm on gay rights and/or highly religious

for the most part. Correlation or causation?

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. Agree. n/t

[HFRN]

84. same sex marriage and poligamy arent at all the same

whereas the former is a redefinition of marriage, and the latter is a redefinition of marriage

and everyone knows that anyone who sees similarities is a bigot

[NuclearDem]

85. All "redefinitions" of marriage have to this point been towards equality of monogamous marriage.

Interracial and samesex couples were unduly denied the right to monogamous marriage that intraracial/heterosexual couples had.

Polygamy is an actual redefinition of marriage to include more than one partner.

[HFRN]

86. so essentially, you're anti-muslim?

you do not tolerate their views of marriage?

[NuclearDem]

87. I find Islam's general attitude towards women backwards and abhorrent.

Polygamy is but a part of that.

I generally don't tolerate misogynistic world views. Do you?

[HFRN]

88. not a particular fan of their views

but i dont consider myself a judge of all persons on earth either

as you apparently do

[NuclearDem]

90. When it comes to beliefs treating women like trash, I'm just fine with judging.

You're taking cultural relativism to a ridiculous extreme.

[awoke_in_2003]

131. I am anti-Islam

and will continue to be for as long as they continue to treat women and gay people the way they do.

[jwirr]

91. I do not know but there are countries that have legal polygamy. I think we need to look at how

this has effected those countries before we encourage this any further.

[NuclearDem]

93. Countries in black have legal polygamy:

That really should say all you need to know.

[jwirr]

99. Well one conclusion we can come to with this map is that there is overpopulation in those countries.

However, not sure that is a result of polygamy. We should also wonder if the male dominance in those areas is a result of it or another factor. Some questions that need to be answered.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. It's also very easy to see that countries with polygamy are sexually repressive toward LGBT people

and toward women, and that their own laws would forbid any sort of polyamory other than one guy with a few wives. This makes the connection made on DU between 'polyamory' and 'polygamy' very dubious. Polygamist cultures actually execute bisexuals and women who have any sort of sex outside of marriage in some cases. They all punish these things harshly. Gay people, forget about it.

[jwirr]

106. Excellent points - I am thinking that after looking into what poligamy really involves we are not

going to want that again in the USA. Anyone know exactly what grounds were used to make it illegal here?

[Bluenorthwest]

114. You have phrasing problems. It wasn't made illegal in the US, in that it was never legal here at all

Mormons who were polygamists were breaking a variety of laws in doing so. It as very much against the law to have sex outside of a monogamous marriage. Of any kind. Ever. So there was not like an ongoing polygamy that they legislated against, Mormons who practiced it were considered outlaws and were in fact run out of towns and driven to the frontier and to Mexico and all sorts of stuff. That is the US involvement with polygamy, it's been entirely religious and in small sects. That's it.

[jwirr]

120. Thank you.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

95. Apparently we are, and ignoring the damage

to women and children!

Some sick shit here at DU!

[dumbcat]

97. I just find it interesting

that we democrats have people against sexual freedom.

[NuclearDem]

98. Being against polygamy is not being against sexual freedom.

[geek tragedy]

102. polyamory is 100% legal in the United States. One does not need federal tax benefits

to be free

[Bluenorthwest]

103. The opposite. Every country with polygamy is sexually repressive to LGBT people and to women

and in fact to heterosexual practices outside autocratic laws, which are very often enforced with jail, the lash or execution. So on planet Earth, the countries with the least sexual freedom are the countries with the most polygamy. This is an undeniable fact and not a coincidence.

[notadmblnd]

104. Well yeah, because we all need more than one spouse to make us miserable.

[Rex]

112. Wella what did you expect?

Seriously, as soon as I saw the few names shouting about gay people need to move over for polygamy...I knew what concern trolls we were dealing with and just SMH.

They didn't even wait, just pounced after the ruling on SSM.

No shame, none.

[JTFrog]

125. I see what you did there!

[Ruby the Liberal]

126. No. No, we aren't.

[mmonk]

127. Looks like it.

I would prefer rejecting the god lord of America, the corporate rule, and concentrating on becoming free. But I here that is too liberal. It's not a social issue.