General Discussion

TM99

(8,352 posts)

36. Bold statement there Greek!

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 12:31 AM

Jul 2015

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 06:06 AM - Edit history (1)

The marriage bond between a two-person couple is more special than the bonds between members of a ten person arrangement. Thems the breaks.

You have proof of that? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. Most incest and rape occur in state sanctioned marriages or the standard two person couple.

Does the Bible tell you a two-person couple is more special? Why is it so special? As a therapist, I have seen multi-partnered relationships that are far healthier and happier than two person couplings.

This is the type of shit that right wingers said about denying marriage rights to gays. Straight marriage is a sacred bond. Hell Clinton spoke about that in a video that has been posted numerous times here.

Be careful your bigotry is starting to show.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

278 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gay people can have multipartner relationships too. [View all] Kurska Jul 2015 OP

Do they want to get married? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #1

Who? Gay people in multi-partner relationships? Kurska Jul 2015 #2

Yes, I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #6

Part of why I stress it so much. Kurska Jul 2015 #8

It's that concept of dignity that has Jonathan Turley worried Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #11

Tell us something we don't know. People can set up whatever snagglepuss Jul 2015 #3

Why, because you said so? Kurska Jul 2015 #4

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

In many cultures its acceptable. Why are you being ethnocentric? snagglepuss Jul 2015 #16

So you're really making the argument that marrying more than one person is the moral equivalent of Kurska Jul 2015 #18

Cultures that practice don't consider it rape. You are placing snagglepuss Jul 2015 #22

I'm not justifying this with a response anymore. Kurska Jul 2015 #24

Girls aren't abducted as the parents make the arrangements. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #38

So, you are being disingenuous, and Kurska hasn't argued for some stupid, mindless.. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #37

We're assuming that age of consent laws stay in place Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #42

The concept of female having consent is culturally determined. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #48

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

India may not consider it rape, but it is indeed, by definition rape. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #134

Looky here. An ad hominen attack. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #29

Looky here. An ad hominen attack. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #31

If the shoe fits, wear it. Kurska Jul 2015 #35

The premise that all behavior of consenting adults is equal is actually debatable kcr Jul 2015 #147

You do realize you are being disingenuous, no one is saying that people should be free... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #153

I'm not saying that anyone is claiming that kcr Jul 2015 #226

The behavior of consenting adults is none of your business. Kurska Jul 2015 #164

Regulating consenting adult behavior is everybody's business. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #167

Consenting sexuality is not something that needs restrictions. Kurska Jul 2015 #170

Nobody is suggesting laws regarding sexuality. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #174

Those studies are examining cultures and religions that are extremely misogynistic and abusive... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #178

But those are all about polyamory. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #180

How does polyamory become bad if the government extends some marital rights.... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #225

Only if you don't believe in or care about community and society. kcr Jul 2015 #227

"Not every relationship is entitled to equal dignity". Quackers Jul 2015 #204

Three man can write out a contract if they want to legalize a snagglepuss Jul 2015 #221

I heard a lot of people pushing that same bullshit line when same sex marriage came up. Quackers Jul 2015 #230

Listen to you. You're the bigot. I support same sex snagglepuss Jul 2015 #231

How nice of you to call me names! Quackers Jul 2015 #236

You are the one who called me bigoted for no reason other than you not snagglepuss Jul 2015 #238

No, not every relationship is entitled to equal dignity. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #27

I don't think the OP was talking about incest Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #30

"two- person marriage are more special, unique and committed" Kurska Jul 2015 #32

It's by definition. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #58

The idea that you can only "truly" love one person or that love is some sort of limited resource Kurska Jul 2015 #64

So my prince charming isn't coming? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #79

Not at all, just be prepared that there might be two of them. Kurska Jul 2015 #80

Now that's an interesting thought! Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #82

This is amusing. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #125

So basically your argument boils down to prejudice. That's nice. n/t Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #39

"I don't like it, don't allow it" Kurska Jul 2015 #47

Even worse, they are using the exact same arguments against same sex marriage to criticize... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #49

It really is amazing isn't it? Kurska Jul 2015 #68

Not really all that amazing The2ndWheel Jul 2015 #133

Well spoken Hydra Jul 2015 #5

Polyamory has been legal for quite some time. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #7

Are you gay? Are you familiar with things like denied hospital visitation and a host of other issues Kurska Jul 2015 #9

Simple solution: pick your favorite and marry that one. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #17

Would it really be so horrible to you if they had basic things like HOSPITAL VISITATION. Kurska Jul 2015 #21

Lobby for it. Seems like something a person could stip to. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #23

I'm asking if you are opposed to that. Kurska Jul 2015 #26

Not opposed to people being able to designate hospital geek tragedy Jul 2015 #51

Gay people had a hell of a hard time with that for decades. Kurska Jul 2015 #53

I'm aware. People should be able to designate their own geek tragedy Jul 2015 #60

And you should be aware there are a host of other legal rights that come with marriage. Kurska Jul 2015 #61

There is no liberty interest at stake. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #126

I actually would like to see us able to legally create our families from our friends Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #55

Free association under whatever terms consenting adults decide. Kurska Jul 2015 #59

For people who have "normal" lives that work, they just don't get it. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #62

Exactly, family is who you choose. It is the people most dear to you. Kurska Jul 2015 #65

Yes yes yes yes yes! Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #66

I can't speak as an expert on aids history. Kurska Jul 2015 #67

So they would fight the AIDS victim's will? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #69

Yup, not just with aids. Kurska Jul 2015 #70

And the family had nothing to do with them, I'll bet Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #71

Yup, kick someone out when they are a teenager Kurska Jul 2015 #72

This is why you should be able to divorce your abusive parents Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #73

Bingo Kurska Jul 2015 #90

We'd be in affinity groups? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #92

Immediate dissocation or association with individuals based on simple legal work. Kurska Jul 2015 #93

Maybe. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #96

What kind of hospital visitation problems are you talking about? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #121

Think, what if it is the partner outside of the marriage that is in the hospital. Kurska Jul 2015 #122

Bold statement there Greek! TM99 Jul 2015 #36

... Kurska Jul 2015 #45

I say everyone in the US gets married in one giant ceremony to each other The Straight Story Jul 2015 #10

I don't want to be married to Donald Trump Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #13

LOL You just me me snort my Radler. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #15

Facebook could add a "marry" button. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #19

Word salad. romanic Jul 2015 #20

This response reminds me of a quote Kurska Jul 2015 #25

Is this some attempt at a comeback? romanic Jul 2015 #28

You got anything in your bag of tricks besides "You fail" or "You don't make sense." Kurska Jul 2015 #33

Considering romanic Jul 2015 #41

I'm gay, it is my victory to. Kurska Jul 2015 #43

Polygamy romanic Jul 2015 #52

Keep saying that over and over again. Kurska Jul 2015 #56

Tide? romanic Jul 2015 #100

Huh, I had no problem understanding it. uppityperson Jul 2015 #46

Was concise and easy to read LittleBlue Jul 2015 #75

Please define any and all limits to what you propose...the we can discuss. pkdu Jul 2015 #34

I think the tax code is a special issue. Kurska Jul 2015 #40

Tax code, social security spousal/survivor benefits, JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2015 #262

I would say that reasonable restrictions would be similar to those allowed for two person marriages. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #44

Yup, people who don't understand marriage always throw that out Kurska Jul 2015 #50

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

Same way you justify them for marriage to non-citizens. Kurska Jul 2015 #111

I had a friend who married a man from overseas Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #113

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

Thanks for at least trying pkdu Jul 2015 #243

People looking for polygamous relationships are rare mythology Jul 2015 #74

Rights are not something that is doled out on a practical basis. Kurska Jul 2015 #76

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

But it is a problem in polygamy. bravenak Jul 2015 #229

Wrong it is associated with Polgyny Kurska Jul 2015 #260

No. It is because they are right there and noticeable. bravenak Jul 2015 #265

How is homosexual polygamy associated with any of those? Kurska Jul 2015 #266

Prove to us that we should allow you to marry a bunch of people. bravenak Jul 2015 #267

Of course they can. And if they want, they can select one person to marry, pnwmom Jul 2015 #77

"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

You contradicted yourself Kurska Jul 2015 #83

No I didn't. Polygamy refers to a marriage relationship, specifically. pnwmom Jul 2015 #84

How is someone being nautrally gay and wanting a gay marriage Kurska Jul 2015 #85

Because being naturally polyamorous is just being human. pnwmom Jul 2015 #87

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

May I refer you to the sub-thread that started with post 34. Kurska Jul 2015 #97

All my THIS. JackInGreen Jul 2015 #109

You know, the way I read the Washington Post article Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #86

It really does amaze me. Kurska Jul 2015 #88

I think Justice Kennedy may agree Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #91

Tatiana La Belle-Posting Privileges Revoked 7-10, just fyi. Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #270

Good riddance. bravenak Jul 2015 #272

But note the OP, chatting away with the big fake and carrying on as if they had some big Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #274

I very much did notice they had a rapport. bravenak Jul 2015 #275

It's not, that Titiana was also Wella who started it all. Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #277

True. bravenak Jul 2015 #278

Ugh, what a waste of time. Wtf is wrong with people? prayin4rain Jul 2015 #273

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

Well not yet. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #99

Oh, you mean they have the right to marry one person. I don't think that's what Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #102

Yeah, that's Turley's opinion. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #103

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

Turley never mentions Roberts Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #183

He doesn't but he parrots Roberts's arguments. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #189

Maybe Turley just read the text and came to similar conclusions Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #190

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

Well, Turley's argument is just a rehash of Roberts', and that point of view pnwmom Jul 2015 #203

Turley, I am sure, came to his own conclusions Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #205

This is correct. Kennedy's opinion sounded in "Dignity", not "Equal Protection". Romulox Jul 2015 #127

WHAT?? The court LITERALLY stated: prayin4rain Jul 2015 #136

The Court specifically did not make Lesbians and Gays a Protected Class. That's what a Romulox Jul 2015 #139

The Fourteenth Amendment does not just protect prayin4rain Jul 2015 #145

The word "just" didn't appear in my post. nt Romulox Jul 2015 #150

Good. So, you agree that the Court held that States must prayin4rain Jul 2015 #151

Fourteenth encompasses Due Process as well as Equal Protection. Romulox Jul 2015 #152

Point is the Court determined it was required under the fourteenth prayin4rain Jul 2015 #156

That's because "due process" was in the Kennedy decision, not protection of gays as a class Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #192

Well, I disagree. The court, in my opinion, makes it clear that prayin4rain Jul 2015 #196

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

It doesn't take a protected class to invoke the prayin4rain Jul 2015 #208

But that's not what the decision says. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #211

I am, actually. Lawyers argue over what opinions mean prayin4rain Jul 2015 #212

That is very helpful then. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #215

Sure, I can, but it will take time and I'm currently typing prayin4rain Jul 2015 #217

OK. Thank you. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #218

Not at all! prayin4rain Jul 2015 #219

Ok, so how do you do that wavy smilie guy? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #224

I've finally prayin4rain Jul 2015 #232

Thank you for the link. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #233

Turley is saying that not relying on civil rights legislation makes the future unclear Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #234

Yes, he's prayin4rain Jul 2015 #235

OK. So that's the basis of Turley's argument Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #237

Well, kinda. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #240

I'm going through this very slowly Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #241

I think that's where Turley's article prayin4rain Jul 2015 #242

I see. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #245

So to make it possible for "marriage" to be the actual term used Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #244

Sorry, prayin4rain Jul 2015 #246

OK, so it was really procreation that was the fundamental right? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #247

I want to take prayin4rain Jul 2015 #248

So my difficulty in understanding it is not unusual? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #249

No, it's not unusual prayin4rain Jul 2015 #250

Thank you. It's been very confusing with a number of articles giving opinions. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #251

Yep, that's what I think. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #252

Thank you for your time. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #254

Yeah, of course, thank you for your time. :) n/t prayin4rain Jul 2015 #256

Just trying to understand. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #257

OH! You already have a smilie. See, I am tired. :) n/t prayin4rain Jul 2015 #253

I was using a colon and parentheses Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #255

That's what Turley is saying. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #184

Turley is John Boehner's lawyer nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #140

Turley is also Kody Brown's lawyer Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #185

the Utah ban on cohabitation is pretty clearly unconstitutional. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #186

Except that Turley has a case and a client that could push the envelope Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #187

Lol, no, Kody Brown doesn't get to have his harem subsidized geek tragedy Jul 2015 #188

If Turley can make an effective argument based on Kennedy's concept of dignity Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #191

he can't, and he won't. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #193

"Have not" is past tense. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #198

And rich people can't sleep under bridges, just like poor people! Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #131

Monogamy isn't an "orientation," it's a practice. pnwmom Jul 2015 #137

marriage is not an orientation, it's a practice. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #141

Exactly. And practices can be regulated. pnwmom Jul 2015 #142

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

That isn't what the research shows. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #157

There are a thousand Ray Rices out there for every Warren Jeffs. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #158

Your opinion on that won't be useful to the courts, but the research studies pnwmom Jul 2015 #159

Apples and oranges. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #162

Modern egalitarian cultures evolved AWAY FROM polygamy, and that helped them become pnwmom Jul 2015 #163

You're confusing polygamy with polygyny Kurska Jul 2015 #171

I'm abandoning the term polygamy because most of these posters refuse to make distinctions. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #175

No, I'm not. If group marriages were legalized, pnwmom Jul 2015 #181

But what about legalizing or recognizing polyamorous relationships? Since polygamy is a loaded term. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #172

What would the upper limit be on the number of spouses? pnwmom Jul 2015 #182

But that's not legal argument. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #194

What isn't legal argument? Research is often provided to the Courts pnwmom Jul 2015 #197

"If a majority of people wanted to support expanding legal marriage to include polygamous groupings" Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #199

This is a Democracy and that's how it usually works. pnwmom Jul 2015 #202

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

So you're conceding the point about popularity? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #214

I never argued that popularity was the sole basis for approving laws. It's just one basis. pnwmom Jul 2015 #220

OK. I can see you're not a person of integrity Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #222

Tatiana La Belle-Posting Privileges Revoked 7-10 Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #269

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

If one adopts the glibertarian approach to this issue, sure. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #176

" Polygamy advocates want to destroy the institution of monogamous marriage" Kurska Jul 2015 #259

No, I am stating facts. The rightwing talking point is that offered by yourself and Samuel geek tragedy Jul 2015 #263

You're stating opinions. Kurska Jul 2015 #264

Your glibertarian bent has caused you to confuse the liberty interest geek tragedy Jul 2015 #268

Who said they can't? ibegurpard Jul 2015 #104

It was even more specific JackInGreen Jul 2015 #107

Thank you Kurska JackInGreen Jul 2015 #110

Part of why supporting this is so great is you get to stick it to people like Scalia Kurska Jul 2015 #112

Me too, Kurska. Chan790 Jul 2015 #258

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #114

Enjoy your free pizza. EOM Kurska Jul 2015 #115

Crap. Now I have to trash "multi-partner" ismnotwasm Jul 2015 #124

I'm shocked, SHOCKED by people who not only auto-trash, but tell everyone they are auto-trashing. Kurska Jul 2015 #261

We are feeding the trolls again get the red out Jul 2015 #129

Actually I've been making a several year sustained argument in favor of sexuality liberty. Kurska Jul 2015 #165

Congratulations get the red out Jul 2015 #179

Good luck. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #132

So I've read the thread and here are my questions and comments to the OP. First, you mention Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #138

I guess it was too much to expect people to celebrate SSM now being legal. Rex Jul 2015 #144

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

That's what the author of this post was doing I think Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #228

Ah the PPR'd sock puppet... Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #271

I was confused by Kurska and motives. Not sure what is going on here. randys1 Jul 2015 #276

I've been vocally in favor of same sex marriage for years on here. Kurska Jul 2015 #166

Doesn't matter, you are advocating for legal recognition of poly relationships, that makes you an... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #168

Why does the world remind me so much of a video games sometimes. Kurska Jul 2015 #169

Video games are based on human psychology Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #207

Amusingly... Blue_Adept Jul 2015 #177

I am not surprised, though TM99 Jul 2015 #239