Seen so many folks make that comparison.

The only music I like is classical, so I see no difference between rap, rock, jazz, etc.

will get exactly nowhere in the court system except maybe a trip to jail.

As I understand it, the decision was based on the argument that marriage is a fundamental right and thus, that it could not be denied to someone based on gender. I may be wrong, but I think that is the decision.

The decision did not change the definition of marriage as recognizing only unions between two people.

The decision was more about gender discrimination than about changing the definition of marriage as a union of two people.

So I don't think that at this time the polygamy and polyandry arguments will be based on discrimination. I don't see how that would work.

There is no discrimination in limiting the number of people in a marriage. There is discrimination in limiting the genders of the parties to a marriage.

I could be wrong, but I think the polygamy and polyandry claims would take a sea change in social and cultural thinking. And I doubt that will happen. But, who knows???

In reality there is discrimination in limiting the number of people in a marriage. It's hard for you to see because you're part of the belief system that defines marriage as only between two people. I'm of the belief if something is preventing us from exploring what makes us happy, as so long as we are not violating other's property or persons, then that something is discrimination by proxy. This conversation will soon reach mainstream as it's the next phase of moral awakening in this country. Peace.

It means differentiating based on some inborn and unchangeable, some immutable, that is unchangeable characteristic or based on religion or the exercise of some fundamental right.

If society wants to redefine marriage to include polygamy or polyamory, it can.

But for many reasons, I don't think it will in the near future.

In more detail:

Marriage is defined as a commitment between two people.

The problem with the bar against gay marriage was that it defined the two people by gender and thus discriminated based on gender.

The right to marry one person (of a different race) was deemed fundamental in a case entitled Loving v. Virginia. Race is considered to be an immutable characteristic. We are born into a particular race supposedly. (Actually, most of us in the US, depending on how long our families have been in this country are probably multl-racial.) So the right to marry could not be refused by the government on the basis of race.

Gender is also an immutable characteristic. Therefore, the fundamental right to marry (one person) cannot be denied based on gender.

Society changed its attitude toward gay marriage and that paved the way for the cases and the changes in laws in certain states. But the basic legal principle that played out in the gay marriage case before the Supreme Court was there beginning with Loving v. Virginia.

Society has not changed its attitude toward polygamy and polyamory. But the right to marry as defined as a union between two people has also not changed. And I don't think it will in the near future. Only if there were for some reason such as war, a lack of men, do I think it would change. The economic aspects of polyamory and polygamy and the social consequences would not be accepted widely. Not now.

But I could see that families might choose to live in communities of couples who give each other support in many respect. I especially do not think that polygamy will ever be accepted in the US unless we have a situation in which the disparity in wealth becomes very, very great and women seek a rich man to support their children. In that case, poor men would not be able to marry. Or if we had a situation in which there was a scarcity of men due perhaps to war or imprisonment or disease or something. This is hard to imagine.

It details the real-life application of polygamy in America.

I understand your point: why not have plural marriage if all parties agree? But do you understand mine: that the "agreement" is usually gender-based exploitation by another name. Look around the world. You want to reinvent a very crappy wheel?

( It's like saying that labor protections should be abolished because, if workers "agree" to work sixteen hour days for twenty cents an hour, heh, that's their choice and we shouldnt obstruct this fine ard voluntary arrangement.)

People who want to have creative lifestyles should be left alone to enjoy themselves. Nothing less. Nothing more.

None of my business as long as everyone involved is good with it. I have friends who have been in long term poly relationships.

they don't need the government to legalize it

or any kind of penalties.

But polygamy isn't legally recognized marriage.

It's not legally recognized marriage. So what?

Really? News to me.

Seriously, how do you not know about that? The police used them to terrorize the LGBT community for decades.

I just don't recall any states actually enforcing them.

Creative movement of the goalposts...

I seem to recall a case not too long ago where cops broke into a house where two gay men were having sex and arrested them.

Gay bars and nightclubs have been raided and the men or women there arrested. If you're completely unaware of this, you need to do a little research. Or ask older gay men and lesbians about what they faced.

ad declaring how it infringes on their so-called "religious belief", urging idiots to call a number to fight it.

WTF is wrong with these people? Why do they care how someone lives their lives, and who they choose to share it with?

It is troubling that the SC court ruling was that close

What if in a 3-way relationship A wants a divorce from B, but wants to stay with C, and B and C also want to stay together?

Seems like legal polygamous marriage would just open up a whole can of worms.

by all means turn it into a series of mergers, acquisitions, and spin-offs.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It's allowed in Brazil, Switzerland, and Holland. It's a weird technical legalization, but it counts. It's illegal but ignored in many Asian countries, too, because of cultural traditions.

It's illegal but ignored in America, too: there hasn't been a polygamy trial since the forties or fifties.

My radically leftist wife literally wrote a book on the legal aspects of polygamy, so I've been hearing about it for years. I'm not such a big fan myself, because of the treatment of women and children (which often, but does not always, suck), but I'm a big fan of letting consenting adults do what they want as long as no one gets hurt. Women and children always seem to get the shit end of the deal regardless of how many people are in the relationship.

Cite your sources or stop making false claims.

Please note that the article is 10 years old, and not from a very noted source. In fact, the journalist just didn't do her homework.

There is a law for civil unions in the Netherlands, first introduced in 2000, but that one
a) does explicitly NOT presuppose a sexual relation between the two civil partners (which is why the LGBT community was not overjoyed when it was introduced as "gay marriage&quot
b) does not allow any contemporaneous unions or marriages on the part of either partner, so still enforces the laws against bigamy

The Dutch law does allow a private contract between more than two individuals. And just like the Mormon marriages, these have absolutely no recognition as marriage OR civil union, but they are not outlawed either, since - and this is the important part - no civil servant is asked to warrant the validity of the contract.

So what these three have (or had*) is nothing more than a private contract between three citizens.

* Dan Savage: "I've been to a few poly-amorous weddings, but I've never been to a poly-amorous fifth wedding anniversary."

I read about it already

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samenlevingscontract

It does sound functionally like a civil union

But that is an entirely private matter. Legally, it has no recognition from the state.

Marriage is about recognition.

It's marriage in all but name (or can be), except in the eyes of the church. What makes it different than American "domestic partnerships" is that it not only includes statutes governing joint property, but wills, estates, taxes, and child custody. It might have a different name, but that's not "domestic partnership" in the American sense, it's marriage. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Plus, they recognize other nations' polygamous marriages (as do many countries in Europe, although not the United States).

Marriage means recognition. Private arrangements between consenting adults are undoubtably a great thing, but unless a civil servant warrants it, it is NOT a marriage.

Both reflect the sexual norms established by those societies. Gay marriage became more accepted and therefore went from illegal to legal.

The same is happening with polygamy. Already there are open polygamists on reality tv shows. Like gay relationships 30 or 40 years ago, it's gone from a criminal offense to unenforced law.

Society in the west is becoming more sexually liberal with no sign that it will stop any time soon.

According to Henrich, monogamy’s main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems.

We want to be more like Norway, less like Saudi Arabia.

Louisiana went blue, but I imagine the map hasn't been updated just yet.

And these consenting adults should have the same protections if they chose to marry as anyone else.

express a number of these things via contact.

but they're not entitled to rewrite the entire US legal system

it's a novelty, clickbait discussion point, not a civil rights issue

Almost word for word.

we're called homophobic(I'm glad gays got the right to marry btw). The point is you don't get to say where the social acceptance movement stops. It's no telling where we go from here. 2004 wasn't that long ago and I remember bush running on hating gays. Oh what a difference a decade makes.

battle for civil rights.

One isn't a homophobe for pointing that out.

If someone says same-sex marriage isn't a matter of civil rights, or that same-sex marriage is bad for society and an attack on marriage itself, well then they probably are a homophobic asshole, regardless of race or ethnicity.

Polygamy is a culturally backwards, anti-equality practice. Look at the map and read the studies. Getting rid of polygamy is a step forward for equality. No reason to revisit that decision.

Sounds pretty euro-centric to me and just because it's not something you want to do doesn't automatically make it wrong.

as the US and Canada.

It's illegal in China. It's illegal in India. It's illegal in Brazil. It's illegal in South Africa.

I'm biased against backwards cultural practices and goverments that deprive women and GLBT citizens of their civil and human rights.

these countries wrong for holding on to their traditional cultural practices which is not wrong and at the same time you're trying to condemn them for not embracing gay marriage when we just got it here last week ourselves.

because they're "traditional cultural practices."

What the fuck are you doing on a liberal discussion board?

But it seems the "we should allow polygamy too" is a way to stigmatize marriage equality... It's akin to asking why somebody can't marry their mom if they are both of the age of majority.

theirs too, why stop them if they're adults?

You seem to be arguing that polygamy is just another lifestyle so why isn't marriage between an adult parent and adult child just another lifestyle?

Isn't that just an extension of polygamy, it wouldn't even require the mom or dad to divorce.

but if they're adults they're going to be having sex anyway and now that I think about it marriage wouldn't be necessary for them to share benefits but if they want to do it anyway well that's them.

I'm saying if people don't like polygamy they shouldn't do it and that if they are involved in it they should get divorced if the don't like it. It's not our job as Americans to force our will on the rest of the world. That's what neocons do. Oh and this isn't really a liberal discussion board it's a democratic one.

partners. the government is not regulating that.

what the government is not doing is opening up the legal can of worms of poly marriage, nor is it encouraging people to adopt a practice with a long and really shitty track record, one that was rightfully dumped.

And, to address another one of your stupid fucking arguments, supporting women's rights and GLBT rights as universal human rights does not make one a Neocon imperialist.

And, to address another one of your stupid fucking arguments, supporting women's rights and GLBT rights as universal human rights does not make one a Neocon imperialist.

no it doesn't but going around the world forcing your will on others does.

state?

Incest is wrong because the offspring are at high risk for inherited genetic disorders but in the past the state has condoned it for the nobility. To answer your question I don't know. Probably not although it did seem to work out well for the Roosevelts.

So what if they're consenting adults? The marriage contract should not be dismantled and completely reorganized in order to accommodate them simply because they're consenting adults.

together they can get this made into the new status quo.

That's a rule?

We are talking about US law.

And I feel perfectly free to criticize the abuses other cultures visit on some of their own (usually the female, the poor, the minority). That's not "telling people how to live", it's recognizing injustice.

It's like saying oh you people don't have the ability to reason issues out like rich Americans because you're not smart enough so we'll decide things for you even though you didn't ask for our help.

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

me how to live: I must live by the laws which they (the government) see fit to impose on women in the name of their theocracy. In china or Ghana or France I must abide by local laws. So yes: 'people do it to Americans.'

And, you really don't think other governments and people in other lands criticize Americans, or decry our uncovered women and heathen ways, or our kapitalist exploitation of the proletariat, or our shallow Karsashian lifestyle? Of course they do. Various governments and and movements work very hard at criticizing American behaviors - and while this is generally propaganda meant to manipulate their own follpwers, more than actual concern or desire to improve our sorry American lives, it is atill their right to spout anti-American criticism.

More to the point: surely there are people out there in Ecuador or Thailand or Sri Lanka, shaking their heads over the plight of American old folks in nursing homes or Ametican families in which upward mobility has replaced kinship bonds. And I might or might not agree with them - but I would still think it nice that they care about America's problems, like I care about problems in their countries, too.

insulted if somebody came here and tried to do that to us. Sure care what other countries do but don't try to tell them what to change culturally. It only creates backlash and makes them cling to it harder. Change has to come from within to be effective anyway.

Are based on enforced sex discrimination: women in such societies have far less freedom than men to choose their own spouses or make their own living or defy parents and tradition in order to achieve happiness; they are also trained to obey and submit and not fight God's will, etc. They are also living in poor countries with scant resources, and the poorer they are the more exploitable they are.

(Women who have a choice generally will not choose to have a husband only half-time or less, and see him spend half his money and energy on another wife-and-kids set, and see her own children get less money and less attention and a dimmer future, etc.)

And - if you don't care about women - as the OP points out, polygamy also is lousy for poor men, and for the polygamist society.

You're taking cultural relativism to an absurd degree.

whoever they want as long as it's consensual. I'm also not one of these people who feel like we have this duty to uphold the white man's burden of trying to go around the world and tell others how to live.

do things our way. I dislike that way of thinking because it leads to cultural imperialism and as a minority in this country I'm sensitive when white people think it's ok to strip other peoples of their traditional way of life and cultural identity. It's been done to blacks and natives here and aboriginals in Australia. You might see this as a positive thing you're promoting but to be it's the same attitude in a different shiny box. Let other people figure this out for themselves we did and it didn't take outsiders coming in to tell us right from wrong to do it.

Confederates of their traditional way of life and cultural identity by ending slavery.

Are you upset that we're oppressing ISIS?

Believing in human rights is not a white people thing.

People like you are the enemies of women in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, and GLBT activists in Uganda, fighting for their human rights. You side with the oppressor against the oppressed.

saying that this fight for LBGT rights should be decided by the people in their own countries so good on the activists.

people how to live.". (Though it's nice when we tell folks that rubbing mud on a cut umbilical cord isn't a great way of cleaning it. I am guessing they appreciate reduced child mortality, yes?)

We should, however, demand that in our land, abusive cultural practices are legislated against and equal rights and opportunities are protected as much as we can protect them.

Perhaps you like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, child marriage, wife beating, child labor, slavery, apartheid, religion-based and tribe-based discrimination, and bushmeat imports that risk Ebola?

These are all cherished cultural practices. In many cases the victims do not even protest - they want to fit in and obey, to avoid the punishment and ostracism their family and community inflicts on nonconformists.

You seem to believe that if other societies abuse their weakest members, we should allow them to do so even in America.

Please give it some thought.

Done.

Just done.

Polygamy is a culturally backward male dominated oppression of women. The women have no choice in Saudi Arabia for example. The men dominate the relationship and women cannot have more than one husband.

Polyamorous is consenting adults who love eachother all members have a voice and equailty.

Without directly saying it in a reply which would obviously be alerted on?


you rule bender you LOL

will be disappointed with the results.

Though I had two people suggest that it was racist to point out that Sweden has a better gender equality record than Saudi Arabia.

I hope some admins start to read the threads from today.

The former is an innate characteristic. The latter is a choice.

I was born heterosexual but I can choose to marry as many women at one time as would let me.

Women can have more than one husband too. But all members to the marriage must be of full knowledge and consenting.

Now people having secret lives and marrying multiple people without the knowledge of all involved should be illegal. Or people being coerced, manipulated, or taken advantaged of should be illegal.

But if its done for true love then i see no reason why i or you or the state should refuse them the same rights as anybody.

that's how it's practiced here, anyways.

"I love you, you're in a three-way tie for first in my heart" isn't quite the same institution.

You don't need to love them, or commit to any period of time or emotions or anything. It is about the legal protections of stuff during and after the partnership.

My mother could not understand why I divorced since I'd "committed" to my ex. I read the marriage statutes and was surprised at what I'd signed as it was about stuff. Assets, debts, children.

Consenting adults should be allowed the same rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

it's not just about love--you certainly don't need a certificate from the state to marry someone. But when you do marry, you're making it difficult/complicated to leave.

Even people with modest assets have a ton of complications when divorcing--how to divvy up retirement plans, who decides the school or the church, etc etc etc etc.

I can't imagine what that would be like with 3 people, or five--trying to sort things out. I'm married to divorce lawyer, and man the headaches.

Absolutely agree with the last sentence, can't improve on it.

I've known I'm non-monogamous as long as I've known I'm sapiosexual and attracted to both feminine females and feminine males.

like you did in the other thread.

Why are you against marriage equality?

And now we have marriage equality.

Poly marriage is anti-equality.

Everyone can marry someone of the opposite gender! Its EQUALITY! (NOT!!!)

If three men are in a sexual relationship with one another, they choose to be poly, they don't choose to be gay

polyamoury is strictly behavior, people aren't born that way and there is no discernible class of polyamoury people that's separable from their behavior