I see right wing arguments on both sides

[PowerToThePeople]

of the poly no poly argument. They are loving this. Troll fest.

I believe we should allow any relationship between consenting, non-related, human, adult persons that they desire.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Polygamy isn't about what is 'allowed'; it's about what gets different legal recognition

It's whether legislatures should re-write laws to give rights or responsibilities to relationships with multiple members.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. I think it is needed

Laws should be writen as general as possible to do what they are designed to do without creating unintended consequences. When uninteded consequences are seen, the laws should be rewriten to remove those. I thought that was the point of having a legislative government.

[U4ikLefty]

40. Legislatures already wrote laws to remove that cancer from our country.

good thing

We do not need to go backward.

[tymorial]

3. If we got rid of state sanctioned marriage, this problem goes away

Of course, it would require rewriting portions of the tax code, not to mention estate and property law.

[PowerToThePeople]

4. I agree.

This may be the best course of action.

[demmiblue]

5. Warren Jeffs salutes you!

[PowerToThePeople]

6. Who is that? n/t

[demmiblue]

7. Methinks that you do not know a lot about the subject, conceptually. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

8. Methinks you are trolling me bro.

In fact, after googling Mr. Jeffs, I am quite sure of it.

OP specifically states "between consenting adults."

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. No, if you bring up pro-polygamy arguments, you don't get to say others are 'trolling'

when they mention Warren Jeffs. Jeffs claims his followers consent. That's no excuse for your OP, or for you accusing others of trolling.

[PowerToThePeople]

15. Minors can not consent.

This is not a legalize child rape thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. He's a polygamist; probably the most famous American one alive

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/23/warren-jeffs-mormon-utah-arizona

Of course Jeffs is going to come up in discussions of polygamy.

[PowerToThePeople]

20. He is a rapist hiding under the guise

of polygamist to hide under the guise of religious freedom.

He is a monster.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. So you're getting to realise what polygamy ends up like, then?

This is why you need to think things through before advocating wholesale re-writing of American law to accommodate polygamy. And you should be grateful someone brought up Jeffs if you hadn't heard of him.

[PowerToThePeople]

24. My view would not validate Jeffs

No where have I advocated for child rape.

This is the old right wing slippery slope argument.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Remember, you said a DUer was trolling, by mentioning the most famous American polygamist

in your thread about polygamy. It's your post that may well get alerted on soon, for being rude to a fellow DUer. No-one accused you of advocating for child rape.

"This is the old right wing slippery slope argument."

Yes. Yes, it is; the old right wing slippery slope argument is that allowing same-sex marriage must lead to allowing polygamy. So was it a complete coincidence that you started a thread about polygamy a week after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage?

[PowerToThePeople]

31. That is NOT the end of the slope

The end of the slope is child rape, incest, toaster sex, and marry your mom.

My point is that poly marriage does NOT lead to any of those, just like gay marriage does not lead to any of those.

[demmiblue]

23. No, he is not hiding under any guise... he is a polygamist.

And, yes, he is a monster.

You should really do some research into the subject.

[PowerToThePeople]

25. I believe it is a guise.

You do not.

How can we sort this out?

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. A few minutes ago, you hadn't even heard of the guy

Now you think you're an expert on his motivations.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. Probably as much as you do.

Since we both got our information on him via the internet.

And I had heard and read about him prior to today, I just did not recognize the name.

[demmiblue]

28. We can't. Go to your public library, download some books, take a class...

[PowerToThePeople]

30. Why don't you do the same

[demmiblue]

33. I already have. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

34. Wow, funny thing

I have too.

[Orrex]

41. That *is* a funny thing, because you seem the least informed of anyone in this thread.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. So the law used to disallow some relationships, it was illegal to engage in homosexuality and

some heterosexual behaviors, adultery was often against the law, oral sex, anal sex, group sex. Then, starting in 1975 in CA, States passed laws permitting all sexual activity between consenting adults while repealing their 'anti sodomy laws'. As of 1975 any consenting adult relationship was allowed in CA. This very obviously did not create the right to marriage for same sex couples, as such marriages continued to be outside of the law. The relationships, perfectly legal. Allowed. Unhindered. And yet marriages were not part of that paradigm.
Currently, anyone is free to have any relationship between consenting adults they wish to have. Polyamory is perfectly legal. It's that other poly, polygamy, which is not legal nor is it synonymous with polyamory.

I just think it is supremely bogus to conflate polygamy and polyamory when most US and global polygamy is not polyamory. The women are monogamous, denied any polyamory. Denied the pleasures of their fellow wives, allowed only the one partner, who is in turn allowed as many as he wants. I'm not going to call that polyamory for you. Because that's not what it is.

[PowerToThePeople]

10. I agree.

The polygamy you describe does not sound like a situation in which all parties are consenting of the relationship.

Polygamy should be nothing more or less than marriage of the polyamorous.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. And are you seeking such a marriage with your partners? Or is this just fiction you are crafting

to serve an agenda? Where are the self advocates?

[PowerToThePeople]

17. Not currently

I am single without any partner currently. In the past I have had both monogamous and polyamorous relationships though.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Hey, lots of people have had group sex in the past, that's not what we are talking about here

We are talking about, according to you, marriages. And that's not the same thing. It's you conflating polyamory with polygamy.
And to be very blunt with you, the polyamorous people I have known were not interested in confining their polyamory to a formal relationship, that is they were not seeking polygamist marriages, but rather no marriages or very open marriages, situations, ways of living that would never limit their ability to put the poly in the amory. That's what I know in life, polyamorous folks who do not wish to be tied to specific persons. I have see polygamy in practice and it is not polyamory in the vast majority of places globally or in the US. It's a guy who marries younger wives every couple of years. Can't get around that fact. I'm telling you that the Polyamorous people I have known would not in fact advocate for polygamy as it is practiced in the US because it is the very opposite of a liberated and autonomous polysexuality.
So there is no such movement as you try to describe because there is not any sort of unity between the polygamists and the polyamorous folks. The people I know who are pan sexual or polysexual do not look at Mormon based or Islamic polygamy and think 'these are my people, we must free my people'. This is in part because those religious polygamists are stridently opposed to polyamory, pansexuality, and to those who practice these things. Nations with legal polygamy almost always outlaw homosexuality. So claiming those are some Rainbow Tribe free love enthusiasts is a shitty lie. A big, agenda based lie.

[PowerToThePeople]

35. I agree with your assessment.

I guess that my whole point here is a runaround argument to the tax code, etc that promote monogomy over polyamory or other consenting adult relationship. Why should one be more advantagious over another. Why shouldn't all citizens be equal under law? Maybe I am nitpicking a bit. I do that.

[smirkymonkey]

36. +1000

[SidDithers]

11. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026932930

Sid

[Agschmid]

19. You got alerted on for this, FYI.

[SidDithers]

21. Thanks for the heads up...

Sid

[geek tragedy]

39. Results? nt

[Adrahil]

12. I dont have a philosophical objection to polygamy...

A far as i'm concerned, consenting adults, yada, yada...

But it is NOT as a simple as the issue with gay marriage, since the the laws involving marriage benefits and rights are comsteucted with 2 people in mind. Assumed benefits (social security survivor benefits, for example) assumed parentage, and parental rights (do all spouses have parental rights, or just the biological parents), even divorce law. It's a huge deal, and not one that I think that can be legally claimed as equivelent to the call for marriage equality. It would require a major restructuring of domestic law, not merely an extension of rights. Because of that, the concept of equal protection of the laws simply will not apply.

Eliminating civil recognition of marriage will not solve the problem. All those right mentioned above, and many more are involved. After all, we established civil marriagerecisely becuase we needed a simple way to extend a whole host of rights to one's spouse.

But imwish my polyamorous friends good luck!

[PowerToThePeople]

14. I agree with this

The current laws were writen extremely oppressive and narrow. As we continue we should take the effort to remove narrow minded views from the law books. It will not be simple.

[Adrahil]

37. It may happen some day....

but the polyamorous will not be able to depend on a Constitutional argument.

But I want people to be happy. Good luck to them. My guess is that it will not happen within the next 20 years, but maybe as time goes by. It will be an uphill battle for sure, requiring effort at both the state and Federal levels.

[LWolf]

38. I haven't even looked at the argument.

I have a position, but I know it stems from bias, and I haven't looked carefully enough at the issue to state that position, and I find it to be not simple at all.

I've been more focused on other issues.