It's not really connected to the marriage equality decision. For Utah to become a state they had to agree to outlaw it. There are still some pockets in Utah that still practice it under the radar but it's kind of a vestige of the Mormons settling the area prior to becoming a state in 1896. It just seems odd that it's coming up now. I'm just a curious person.

That is how it all started last week.

I have no clue why they are keeping this up.

there's a lot to be said.

That hardly makes it a topic worthy of discussion, IMO.

with a restaurant every time you walk into one and order a meal.

around here is no less ridiculous.

I see you've ceded on the contract argument. One for me.

practices. It was a classic slippery slope logical fallacy, that and man on dog sex.

It has a certain appeal to libertarians (because it should be left to individuals to decide) and certain religons (mormons mostly though other religons have their groups that practice polygamy.)

I think it is strange that so many would take it up here, but libertarian concepts and libeal concepts do, at time, meet (as with legalizing pot).

I've seen more comparisons of polygamists to child rapists and dog sex people on this board in the last week or so than I've seen from Republicans in years.

I have no problem with it.

The problem arises where disgruntled Mormans, Religous fanatics like those at Wacco, and other right wing religous groups use God to justify male domination of women. Polygamy and various types of plural marriage have been used this way for several thousand years.

And the very nature of that kind of coercive dominating relationship makes it very dificult for women who are coerced into plural marriages, often at very young ages, to escape.

should be at least 18, and preferably 21. I just don't think the human brain is really developed enough to give the same level of consent at 16 or some of the other overly low limits certain states allow for marriage.

And such marriages need to be held to the same standards as any other marriage. Abuse is abuse, and needs to be treated as such, no matter your 'tradition'.

I am old, and this kind of relationship would never work for me. But the world changes, while I walk in place, and it is not fair to the those younger than me if I try to stop the change because I am not comfortable with it.

the 'lefts agenda for polygamy' on conservative boards and get the base to come here and see that it is in fact true: the left wants polygamy. It is what psychopaths do when they set up 'reality tests' for their cult followers.

While being emboldened and outraged by the vicious dog whistle comparisons of polygamists with child rapists.

They will be hosted here, and it won't be a fluke.

You can probably find better information by searching for polyamory rather then polygamy.

Just because you don't like what I am saying.
Get a grip. This is just a forum.

US and outside the South it has been legal for decades. Polyamory was legalized at the exact same time as all other sexual activity by consenting adults. Polygamy is a different matter, but if you speak of 'rights' for poly people, you mean polygamist marriages because they already have the right to polyamory to any extent they desire. It is very much worth noting that polyamory is strictly punished in every single existing polygamist society. Polygamist countries and cultures are punitive toward any sexual activity that is outside their dictated heterosexual marriage paradigm. Polygamist countries and cultures never permit a woman two husbands, nor do they permit her a husband and a wife. Polygamy is an actual thing which is not the future, but the rejected past for most of the planet. The reasons for that rejection are very clear to see, such societies can not function with equal women, nor with any sort of sexual liberty or freedoms.

Polyamory is illegal in polygamist countries. Digest that fact. 10 of them punish some forms of polyamory with death. Conflating the two is an insult to the people who are executed for bisexuality or polyamory under polygamist rule.

and they are.

...be a long, long time...if ever...it's legalized. Gay marriage didn't happen over night.

But, I'd be okay with it. Marriages, regardless of what combination...is all about the people in the marriage. If you think the ideal marriage is heterosexual...consider the Duggars. Not just the molester son, but the parents hit the kids from 6 months old. Based on reality shows...the Browns (who are polygamists) seem like a much nicer family and very good parents...all five of them! And the Browns, having 20 some kids assume that based on the odds, some of their kids will be gay...and they are okay with it. The Duggars would probably beat the gay out of their kids. So...judge not...

The world is overpopulated already, we need more people raising fewer kids.

Seems rather conservative to me.

Like I tell the right on gays and gay marriage - not your business. If it isn't what you want, don't participate.

And if someone (and there are a few) claims people are being forced into it then alert the authorities - don't try to punish others because your personal ideals/lifestyles/choices.

And thankfully most DUers aren't having it.

'Poly' posts naturally arrive in unexpectedly large groupings...

People with that burning desire will never relent in their quest to show the word what clever smartasses they are. Even if it hurts people's feelings or is totally inappropriate or it sounds like the raving bullshit spewed by RW lunatics.

One of the posters has a history of calling a thread for religious comfort and support of LGBT "DU is now advocating atheism".

or Rightwing undercover agitators who are trying to promote the "wingnut" talking point that "gay marriage will lead to multiple spouse marriages".

Hell, I'm surprised that some haven't started questioning whether or not the Supreme Court ruling now legitimizes "man on dog"...as Santorum puts it.

Anyway, I could be wrong. There could be hundreds or thousands of DUer's who want to marry multiple spouses, or it could just be a thinly veiled attempt to foster opposition to the SC ruling.

Notice how all these "poly" people have never gone on about their rights before the SC decision on marriage equality for same sex partners. Now all of a sudden, it's an issue.

...hence even the most open-minded of us feel a need to nail down just exactly we are promoting. At the other end of the spectrum are the wingnuts chattering in fear at the prospect of any change in the status quo (pecking order).

So It Begins: Polygamy And Barbarism
The Daily Caller? - 3 days ago

'Sister Wives' Star Nathan Collier Plans to Push for Legalization of ...
Christianity Daily-11 hours ago
'Sister Wives' star Nathan Collier and his two wives seek to legalize polygamy

How gay marriage paves the way for legal polygamy
The Week Magazine-Jul 6, 2015

Analysis: Support for polygamy is rising, but it's not the new gay ...
Salt Lake Tribune-Jul 7, 2015
Once you let gay people marry, the argument goes, it could open the door to things like polygamy — or even bestiality.

WATCH: To Rick Santorum, Marriage Equality Proves He Was Right ...
Advocate.com-Jul 7, 2015
Asked specifically about polygamy, Santorum said the court has left the door open to legalizing that.

Montana Polygamist Seeks 'Legitimacy' After Supreme Court Ruling
TIME-Jul 2, 2015

Fredrik deBoer Says Polygamy Should Be Next
The Federalist-Jul 7, 2015

About 122,000 results (0.30 seconds) you can use search

there are a number of people who believe that the numerical limit on marriages is just as artificial as the gender limits were, and are fine with allowing consenting adults to marry the people they love.

And that polygamy is not the same as bestiality or pedophilia, even though a number of DUers have adopted those RW talking points to use against polygamists.

As you can see from the responses, the people posting about it are not self advocating, they are following another agenda. None of them have ever brought this up in the past on DU, not in any of the many many threads about marriage, not during the decades of organizing by LGBT people. No such community of people has reached out to other minority groups in solidarity or to seek support.

The fact is, these folks get very upset if you suggest that all human cohorts have the right and the duty to self advocate. It is wrong for people outside any group to claim to set agenda for that group.

marriage rights being granted to LGBT citizens.

We have in the last 50 years decided in this country both cultural and legally that it does not matter what color your skin or which gender you love and have sex with, you are constitutionally protected and may marry in all states. No one can legal stop that or deny you the benefits of marriage.

That is a HUGE step forward. So now, a minority yes, but still a growing group of polys want to ask and begin the process of looking at the number of individuals allowed in a marriage. Must it always be two and only two. Is that right or just when there are polyamorous relationships that want the same societal acceptance of legal marriage and full financial benefits that will entail?

It is not trolling. It is not right wing agitating. No one is advocating for non-consensual relationships. No one is advocating for the legalization of chid brides or bridegrooms. No ones is supporting religious cults or equating polyamourous relationships with repressive theocratic countries.

Yet, there are apparently many who feel this question is not one that should be asked, let alone rationally considered. We should just shut the fuck up and remember they got theirs, so now we have to get our's without any progressive support. Never mind that polys are straights AND LGBT individuals. Never mind that polys have supported marriage rights for decades. Never mind that we are still advocating for strong civil rights in supporting the addition of sexual orientation to the list of federal anti-discrimination laws.

Thank you for you coherent and thoughtful response.

I have gotten to the point after the last few days that anyone who conflates polyamory and the polyagmy we are seeking with countries like Saudi Arabia or with Mormon cults, accuses me of being a right wing troll or agitator, calls me a rapist, sexist, pervert, homophobe, or any other line of shit, I am putting their asses on Ignore.

It is bigotry, ignorance, and selfishness.

I don't treat others that way on here. I don't expect to be treated that way on here either.

There is so much more to homophobia than just marriage. I see discussing polymarriage as a different issue from all that goes along with dealing with homophobia, extending from the right to marry laws.

the number of polygamy threads on DU?

One OP can't satisfy them.

And they knew it would be offensive to start talking about polygamy, even before the ink dried on SSM. So they did, because they hate the LGBT community THAT much.

They could not wait a mere day or two to start insulting the LGBT community, the ruling pissed them off that much.

Best to just let those threads sink.

1) it's trolls trying to prove a point
2) it's social justice protest as a lifestyle and an identity in its own right, even when the cause is personally abstract
3) it's people who are personally invested in the idea who legitimately think it's a good idea

Personally, I think it's a shitty idea. Marriage is a social good because it promotes pair bonds and supportive families. Polygamy fails on both accounts.

Isn't arguable that the more people with whom one feels "bonding," the better?

-- Mal

As per my earlier post today, and even attempted bump, DU doesn't give a frak about public defenders, civil rights for the poor in an over-birdened fee-and-fine supported court system, remedies for longterm unemployment, the ongoing inattention to the collapse of the welfare infrastructure from all political representatives and Primary candidates, and American practices that amount to torture such as keeping a person in prison for 3 years who hasn't been charged so that they commit suicide when they finally get out.

There is serious, heavy stuff going on at the poorest levels of American society. Yet it seems the heavier the situation, themore overtly people look away. Even if the OP is offering a solution.

Yep, should have put "polygamy" in the title. If poor people were resorting to polygamy to survive (which quite a few probably do in major urban areas) then someone might have an opinion about that!

An it harm none, do what ye will -- but swarming another group's well-deserved and long-awaited celebration is bad form. Kinda tasteless, imo.