Gay Marriage - Can we have *one* week

[Aerows]

where we get to celebrate that we got the right to marry without every fucking RW trope in the universe being dragged out?

"Oh ha ha ha ha, now *those* queer folks have to accept polygamy!"

"Hardee har har."

If you want to marry everyone in your damn neighborhood, then you can march, witness the beating and murder of your sisters and brothers that marched for gay rights. We stood tall despite the horrible things that happened to those among us that spoke up.

Ride on our fucking coat tails, but can we get half a minute to be happy about it, for pete's sake, before the "OMG SLIPPERY SLOPE, MARRYING DOGS" bullshit starts?

Of course that is too much to fucking ask.

[randys1]

1. No you cant because they HATE you that much. Sorry, not here, not in judeo christian America

[bravenak]

2. Really though.

It's bullshit.

[cwydro]

37. Bravenak said it.

Ditto.

[Aerows]

60. She's a good friend

and states it plainly.

[stevenleser]

150. Yup. I have strong opinions on the poly thing, but it is inappropriate to raise them now IMHO.

[Aerows]

155. It isn't that it is inappropriate to raise them now

it is that the intent behind it is absolutely *NOT* sincere.

That is what is the real milieu here.

[Humanist_Activist]

157. For some it is, for others it isn't. n/t

[Hekate]

159. A band of merry pranksters yelling "Look at MEEEE!" is not helpful or kind....

I am really happy for my family and friends in the LGBT community. At one time I thought this day might never come. I'm so happy.

And really disappointed in DU. Your OP is spot on.

[sabrina 1]

165. It isn't the timing, it is the intent. I agree with Aerows, she is absolutely correct.

[BeanMusical]

190. I agree with you and with Aerows.

[blm]

160. Bullshit is their default position.

On just about everything.

[RKP5637]

3. Ain't god's country great, so fucken loving, so kind, NOT. n/t

[Aerows]

5. I don't know

a single gay person that hasn't either been or knows someone that has been gay bashed.

I had a friend whose boyfriend was nearly beaten to death on the street, and could not even VISIT him in the hospital, much less ride in the ambulance with him.

This making a fucking mockery of what way too many people have suffered makes me angry.

And that's exactly what it is - it makes a mockery of every single person that was bashed, denied even the god damn ability to go to funerals, never mind property rights.

Children ripped away from the only two parents they have ever known - my GOD.

[RKP5637]

9. I've been attacked a couple of times, but fortunately not hurt. I have another friend, super

straight, not even remotely gay, but he was beaten nearly to death because he was professorial looking, a doctor, and assumed by the thugs to be gay. He almost died in the hospital, for doing nothing wrong, not at all, just walking down the street.

I can certainly see why people join Pink Pistols. I had another friend that carried a 45, shoulder holster, permitted and everything. There are many aspects of America that are not very pleasant, at all. Many stick their heads in the sand about it or make stupid remarks, 'till it hits them too, then they say, WTF, how could this happen.

[Aerows]

16. And then to see this victory get diminished

with gleeful posts about everything under the sun - except what this is about. Two consenting adults allowed to finally get the benefit of marriage. Children being legitimized that are raised by two people. Property rights where before you had to have an iron-clad will, power of attorney, and even then it got challenged.

It's just sorry and sad that some think this is an opportunity to tweak people because they are too immature or worse, bigoted, to imagine it as anything other than a playground for them to get their hateful imaginations going.

[RKP5637]

28. I liken it to the civil rights era. There is still so much endless hostility and hatred in this

country about that. Marriage equality will see the same IMO. The bigots and hateful ones never go away. Even women are still fighting for equality if one can F'en believe that is still going on. It's incredible.

I find it so damn immature and depressing. Many in America have the maturity of a seventh grader. It's not a very mature country in some ways, just looking at the republican presidential hopefuls well demonstrates that. That all said, this was a major hurdle, imagine if the decision had been reversed.

Fortunately, America is not as dumb-fuck and immature as many other places in the world, so that makes me feel a lot better.

[awoke_in_2003]

20. So sorry to hear this...

the hospital visits, medical decisions, property rights, etc, should all straighten out soon. Far too many idiots refuse to see that this isn't just about a marriage ceremony- it is about a whole lot of legal things we straight folks have taken for granted.

[Aerows]

33. It is

but the folks that think it is some sort of experiment in being outrageous don't see it that way.

[pinboy3niner]

4. Congratulations to all of us, gay and hetero, on the occasion of this civil rights victory

Yes, this is a time for celebration.

[Aerows]

8. This kind of shit HURTS.

It hurts the people that have been on the front lines, made personal sacrifices, and know others that have made personal sacrifices to have this demeaned and turned into exactly what assholes like Rick Santorum want to make diminish this victory into.

[pinboy3niner]

10. I drink their tears. nt

[Aerows]

14. I've drank too many

of people that I cared about to see this in a place that I thought valued me and my input.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. Most of us do value your input...

you are one of my favorites here. Don't let the idiot minority pull you down- we got your back.

[RKP5637]

15. K&R! I am still amazed any of this happened. The timing was just right. Never, did I ever

think there would be marriage equality in the US. In my life all I've often seen is endless bigotry and religious freaks.

[blm]

182. With the pin boy…...

and Leonard Cohen…...Allelujah.

[Cleita]

6. You deserve more than a week, a lifetime, to enjoy finally getting

your rights after a long hard struggle.

[Aerows]

12. It's to the point, on DU

that they are trying to outdo each other on who can be the most immature and/or disrespectful and get away with it.

I've fucking had it.

You want to run me off from DU? Well this is the gay purge shit all over again.

[niyad]

36. I hope that does not happen.

[roody]

44. Ignore is your good friend.

Use it!

[Aerows]

193. I do

but in order to vociferously stand up to something, you have to argue against it.

Certain trolls have gotten listed in my hall of infamy, but for the most part, I prefer to ride out to meet the enemy, not wait for them to cross my borders.

[DemocraticWing]

7. They never let us have anything

Straights (or at least some of them) can't help themselves, they always have to view our progress as some great imposition.

[CTyankee]

11. Here's one straight who does NOT. I thank the gay community for its courage and

wisdom from which I have learned a lot in my straight life. I am committed to the cause of gay rights forever...thank you, all...

[Aerows]

13. This is stuff

that is going to be the gay purge all over again - not because we get banned, but because we leave the community because it is becoming toxic as hell.

This shit needs to stop. I've had to many friends that have gotten the shit beaten out of them for being who they were to let this get reduced to "Ha ha, we've got the gays now!" bullshit.

[CTyankee]

24. oh, god...

[csziggy]

68. It seems to be a serious effort to divide the DU community

And drive us apart. Between the idiotic reactions to legalizing marriage for all and the claims that it will allow some sort of plural marriage (most of THAT I have just trashed the threads) then the relentless South bashing, I wonder if there is an organized trolling going on.

The really depressing part is so much of it is coming from long time DUers, many of which I have respected for years. Whether or not they are sleeper trolls, they are coming across as trolls - and trolls that are serving a right wing agenda of voter suppression and splitting up a Democratic community.

I am still so happy that every loving couple that wants to marry can now I smile whenever I think about it.

But this fucking divisive trend that is going on here pisses me off. Some days I spend more time on DU trashing threads than I do reading any of them.

[Aerows]

71. You and me both.

I live in the South, and I'm also a lesbian.

Just facts about my personality. They don't make up the sole contents of my personality, but they are a part of it.

It's just weird to see how it is being used to badger and drag down allies. Shaming allies into thinking we are destroying the party or something.

[csziggy]

72. It's so relentless I think they must be trolls

Honestly, it is wearing me down and I am not part of your targeted group, just from the South.

I was hoping that once GD-P opened, a lot of the nastiness would be confined to there but it seems as though that let loose a new level of obnoxious, hateful behavior. I think we know who is destroying the party and it not any group you and I are a part of.

[Nite Owl]

103. I'm not here much

During the day so I've never seen those threads. Guess I'm lucky. Hard to believe that there are people like that on DU . Sad, really sad.

[romanic]

110. I so agree.

All this Poly stuff that came out of nowhere after gay marriage victory by people who never even said anything before is driving me crazy! It's definitely a set up to try to get people to argue or bait them when someone calls these trolls out for daring to claim plural marriages are a "civil right". I refuse to trash them; ill go into every Poly thread and say my piece without sugar and a lot of SPICE!

[MADem]

152. All I can say is, consider the source.

Look at the full picture--who is making the argument, what they've had to say (if anything) about other subjects...it's pretty clear if you look. Some things are just obvious.

[Aerows]

161. Consider the source.

Indeed.

You and I might disagree at times, but you are consistent, and I know that it comes from the right place with you - you care.

Thank you

[hunter]

135. Yes, I think it's organized disruption.

Posters engaging in it are not necessarily trolls themselves, but the "conversation" is prompted by mass media which no longer has the best interests of "We the People" at heart and is controlled by people who fear any organization of the Left.

The polygamy "debate" is meant to disrupt alliances on the left, and is a big "fuck you" to both LGBT people and polyamorous people.

Chief Justice Roberts said as much in his opposition opinion. It was deliberate flamebait, and he knew it. He and other "conservative" leaders, most especially the big money interests who now control our mass media, are weasels.

[Aerows]

154. You got right to the heart of it - it is flamebait

I don't appreciate being baited, either.

Nobody does.

But that is what they are doing, and it makes DU suck.

I can't put it anymore succinctly than that.

[redwitch]

26. My sentiments exactly! nt

[Humanist_Activist]

17. I don't understand why we have to automatically accept homophobic framing...

whenever I advocated for same-sex marriage on other boards, people always, always, brought up polygamy, beastialtiy, and pedophilia, as if they were slippery slope arguments. I always conceded that with polygamy, there's no issue as long as everyone involved in the relationships are consenting adults. The other two are invalid arguments based on lack of consent by the other parties. Its abuse and rape, in other words.

I do find the timing of this suspicious, but frankly, I'm being reactionary to the blatant defamation of poly relationships that is occurring on this board. A lot of irrational arguments with no basis in fact or evidence, and indeed, many of them are the exact same arguments used against same-sex marriage, just with different adjectives used.

[Aerows]

47. Suspicious of the timing?

Why isn't everyone suspicious of the timing?

It is specifically by people that have deliberately lectured gay people on what they can and cannot do. Yet they get their arguments tarted up and debated as though they have nothing whatsoever to with each other.

Want an example?

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026433169#post12

Of course, that was in March. Now that we are here in July, they are suddenly not telling gay people to shut up and sit down, but are championing poly rights.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. The fact is that some of us do both, and I don't want us to tear down poly people to prop up...

LGBT people, in fact, most of the poly people I've known are LGBT.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. But you are a straight person and you minimize the 'timing' which is the entire point.

You minimize the timing 'it's suspicious' then you glide on over and continue to support that suspicious position. It's mean, it's nasty and it is being done with intention. And you legitimize it.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. There's nothing wrong with the position itself. n/t

[LanternWaste]

137. There's nothing wrong with allowing a hard-won victory to stand as is for the time being, either...

There's nothing wrong with allowing a long-fought, hard-won victory to stand as is for the time being, either.

[Humanist_Activist]

142. True, but that doesn't excuse the over the top, hateful attacks on poly relationships that I saw...

on this board. That shit could NOT be unanswered.

I'm sorry the timing sucks, but it isn't my fault, and its no excuse for bigotry and ugliness.

[Aerows]

145. All of the sudden

people are experts on what is bigotry and ugliness.

Hurray.

[Humanist_Activist]

149. I'm sorry, according to some here, people in poly relationships are swingers, want to molest...

children, their relationships harm women(somehow), or harm the welfare of kids, etc. I'm not even exaggerating.

Is that not ugly or bigoted?

[pnwmom]

220. Yes, there is. Because it's a deliberate blurring of the distinction

between a practice or lifestyle -- like monogamy or polygamy -- and a trait like race or gender or orientation.

Being LGBT isn't a lifestyle. Living monogamously or in groups IS a lifestyle and a choice.

[historylovr]

69. Ah, yes, the picture suddenly makes sense.

I was wondering why all this talk of polygamy and polyamory was popping up. Now I see one of the main advocates was recently spewing stuff about how "mean" LGBT people were being to poor bigoted businesses. As you say, everyone should indeed be suspicious of the timing.

I'm sorry, Aerows, that people are not letting you enjoy your hard-earned, well-deserved victory by glomming onto it so soon afterwards.

[Aerows]

73. Easy to connect the dots

isn't it?

[Bluenorthwest]

79. Humanist Activist will not acknowledge what you showed him, count on it.

They don't want to connect the dots.

[Humanist_Activist]

84. Of course I acknowledge it. And who is this "they" I'm a part of? n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

132. You did not acknowledge what she linked to, which is a 'flagged for review' gay baiting jerk

you seem to be defending. 'They' are mean people who piss on a celebration after having never brought this issue up in the past. That's assholery.
You are not polygamous. Nor polyamorous. Nor gay. But you are here in this thread taking the side of those who taunt us.

Why were you not advocating for this years ago? Months ago? Why this week of all weeks? The timing is suspicious indeed because polyamory has been legal as long as homosexuality has been. Why are we out and organized and they are not, why are they coming here at this time, in this way after never coming out or forward in the past?
Why did that cohort never seek an alliance? What sort of a people would attack us like this if they supported us?
That is why it is important to note that most of 'them' are like you, not really 'poly' at all, just preaching sermons at gay people.
Reprehensible.

[Humanist_Activist]

144. Uhm, I was under a different username, but here you go...

Note, all these are under my username: Solon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2624934#2628438

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3773531#3775035

This has always been my position, as you can see it hasn't changed.

I freely acknowledge that its gay baiting jerk, but I didn't see the original threads, what I saw were threads and posts attacking poly relationships in the most hateful way possible, lifting their arguments, pretty much verbatim, from sinkholes like NOM. Those had to be answered.

Also, I don't "advocate" for polygamy, I'm reacting to current threads and posts. I have, however, advocated for Same Sex Marriage for quite a long time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2683912

A post I made against "Civil Unions for all".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3675203#3675222

I could find quite a bit more of my posts, or you are free to google them yourself if you wish. Oh, and I was banned because I called a Mod a homophobic baiter and jackass during the LGBT purge.

[Aerows]

175. You got right to the heart of it

Thank you.

[Aerows]

88. It isn't about gay people getting married

it is about proving how flawed it is that gay people *CAN* *NOW* finally get married.

And doing everything under the sun to de-legitimize it.

[Humanist_Activist]

107. How is advocating that polyamorous relationships get some type of legal protection/recognition...

a way to de-legitimize SSM?

I don't understand this leap of logic you are making.

[LanternWaste]

138. Singing happy birthday to your own guest at someone else's wedding is poor form

Singing happy birthday to your own guest at someone else's wedding is poor form, and takes away from the wedding. How incredibly obtuse does one have to be to fail too see such an obvious point...?

I don't understand your failure to recognize the obvious. Or maybe I do...

[Humanist_Activist]

143. Like I said, the timing sucks, doesn't mean that polygamy delegitimize SSM...

that's a leap of logic that makes no sense, regardless of context.

[Aerows]

180. Oh I am so sorry

you beleaguered straight male that suddenly is concerned with the rights of polygamists and polygamist-wannabes.

It is unfortunate that your imagination was harmed and you suddenly thought of things you never dreamed possible.

[Humanist_Activist]

186. I'm sorry that your happiness is dependent on the misery of others...

I'm not doing this for myself, after all. You are the one unfairly attacking all poly relationships and families because you apparently cannot find happiness without tearing down others. Its sad.

[Bluenorthwest]

245. Here is the status of the poster from Aerow's link: Posting Privileges Revoked by Earl G

The reason he was banned is wildly ironic: "Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review."
'multiple accounts'. He was a Polyaccountist. And now he's gone.
I wonder if you will ponder this newly revealed reality and what it says about your own level of gullibility?
More than one of us tried to tell you. You could thank us. But you won't.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=317022&sub=trans

[Change has come]

108. Thank you.

That should enlighten a few.

[closeupready]

128. THAT one's account is "flagged for review", so

he can't post right now. I presume after review, his account could be PPR'ed.

[Hekate]

163. +1

[PowerToThePeople]

48. ^^THIS

+1000

[eggplant]

81. +10000

I am ecstatic that gay marriage is now the law of the land. This is truly a wonderful thing.

I am also able to not defame people who genuinely support polys, while simultaneously being ecstatic that gay marriage is the law of the land.

It is truly awful that the far right lumped polys in with child molesters and beastialists, particularly as a way to bash gay marriage supporters. It is awful because it (successfully, it seems) drove a wedge between "pro-gay" and "poly-friendly" people.

Nobody seems to like having it pointed out that poly marriage *REQUIRES* gay marriage. It has to. You can't have one until you have the other. Poly friendly people LOVE that gay marriage is the law of the land. Why wouldn't we?

I have yet to see any poly-friendly posts that attempt in any way to belittle the amazing step forward we have taken regarding gay rights. I foolishly hoped that the illustrious people that make up DU could see through the right-wing claptrap and ALSO be poly-friendly while we all celebrate that binary marriage is now the law of the land. Perhaps someday poly marriage will be.

I would just like to ask that the people doing all of the shouting just take a breath and realize that the poly-friendly folk here aren't your enemy.

[awoke_in_2003]

18. This straight guy is right there with you...

it is disappointing it (polygamy) showed up at DU, but I guess that was expected. We got a lot of trolls in 08 thanks to Operation Chaos, and far too many of them know where the line is and have managed to hang around. K&R

Note to people who joined in 08 or after- I said "a lot", not "every". Unless you're feeling guilty, I am probably not talking about you.

[Aerows]

196. I think you nailed it

and then you have a few who are new who think they can prove something.

[awoke_in_2003]

197. Yep, you have some trolls

who feel they have to prove their creds by being more liberal than liberals. They somehow think that siding with polygamy will give them that platform.

[Yo_Mama]

19. I guess not - in part because there's already been a polygamous legal issue

I sympathize with you, but apparently events move quite swiftly.

Polygamy and same-sex marriage are not the same thing, but there are aspects of the SC ruling which may offer those who want to be in polygamous marriages some hope, so it erupted into the news.

In a bit this will die down, and you'll get a couple of years, if that makes you feel any better.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. They found a new way to gay bash, that's why this 'issue' dropped out of the blue so suddenly

One poster tried to pull the 'they are too fearful to come out' crap. It has been legal to be poly as long as it has been legal to be gay. If they are too fearful, they are not motivated by love. It's been 40 years. LGBT people instantly organized the moment laws were repealed, we elected officials and set an agenda under great duress and in the face of enormous opposition. I came out at 18. But 'your poly neighbors' are just too scared to do what club kids and accountants have done, men and women, old and young, for decades now?
So I found that particular bit of verbiage to be insulting to millions of brave people who won this victory for a very real community of men and women of all races who are part of a proud international community.
40 years to speak their minds, and they pick this week to do it? I don't think so. It's manufactured bullshit. No actual community would be so callous . It's just so freaking mean.

[etherealtruth]

45. +infinity

i know the + infinity is kinda "hokey" ... but, I agree completely

[Aerows]

58. It's freaking mean

and any way to piss on our victory. To diminish it. The make it shitted on.

We've risen up before though, despite this backhanding bullcrap.

A shame we have to endure it here on DU, though.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. This is part of how one can tell it is a created issue on DU, actual people self advocating would

never come on like that because it's mean, nasty and describes their community as cowardly jerks.

[bigwillq]

23. I don't let it bother me

Because at the end of the day, love won. Let them hate. It Doesn't change anything. I choose to celebrate instead.

[jtuck004]

169. Oh noes. That means YOU decide how much power your detractors have, and choose not to give them

any.

This won't do at all.

[Aerows]

29. I have no vested interest

in validating your argument. Step up to the plate like many gay men and women, many at the cost of their children, some their livelihood, and some their lives did.

You have not a damn thing to do with me. None.

If you want to marry your cousin, your dog, or your toaster, that has absolutely no bearing on a family that has two wives and children, or two husbands and kids.

Get busy and make it happen if that is what you want, because I really, truly do not give a shit what kind of relationship you want. If you think it is important to you, do it.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Your post is hateful bullshit.

If you are 'poly' and you want rights you have to do as the other poster said, just as others have done. It is your case to make. You have to come out, tell about your life, organize, and do the whole thing. Are you too afraid to speak? You can't do what so many others have done?

[uppityperson]

42. toasters and dogs are not consenting adults in any manner.

[Aerows]

53. I know

that post was so caustically ugly that I responded the best way I could.

[geek tragedy]

30. polygamous societies are also homophobic societies.

I would say "welcome to DU" but that would be disingenuous.

[jeff47]

46. Feel free to provide an example of a secular polygamist society. (nt)

[niyad]

38. and what flavour pizza would you like?

[jeff47]

40. Thank you for providing a perfect example of what the OP complained about.

May your homophobia continue to cripple you mentally.

[Aerows]

54. I didn't see all of it time

I'm kind of glad and grateful that I didn't.

Every now and then when the power goes out and your computer crashes - well, sometimes it is God telling an asshole to shut up and you never have to see their reply .

[JanMichael]

49. are you really that insensitive? do you really not care what your comparison invokes?

polyoff.

[etherealtruth]

27. I am truly sorry

I have been astounded b y a lot of what I have been reading. I have thoughts about their motivations (and they are unkind thoughts) ... but, all I can really say: I am sorry

[cwydro]

32. Yo

[smirkymonkey]

35. Hear, hear!

[SidDithers]

39. DU rec...nt

Sid

[riderinthestorm]

41. Yup. Agreed. It completely sucks.

[Texasgal]

50. GAH! YES!!!

Agreed!

It fucking sucks to have to STOP the meaning of it all and hash out the fucking RW bullshit that i've seen. I agree... this is monumental! We should STILL be sipping our champange!!!

K&R!

[hifiguy]

51. I am disappointed and amazed that this widespread spewing of santorum

has been permitted here.

1. It is reichwing troll bait of the worst kind and you KNOW some reichwing talking head is going to mention how lefty boards are "already agitating for polygamy, and we told you so."

2. People here know better than to spew this shit.

Yet somehow it is allowed, again and again and again.

With ya all the way Aerows.

[JohnnyLib2]

55. Recommended!

So much noise.....

[Tatiana La Belle]

56. Obergefell gives many people hope

Maybe it would help to be proud of that?

Peace.

[Change has come]

115. lol

You can't be serious.

Peace?

[Ed Suspicious]

57. I must be old and out of touch because I don't even want polygamy. I have enough to do trying to

have a relationship with my 1 wife and 2 kids. I don't understand what the drive is unless it's simply shit stirring.

You can have a lifetime from me. I doubt I'll be working for the polygamist cause any time soon. I guess I could be convinced, I don't have anything in particular against it except that it seems to manifest itself in the form of 1 man and a harem of women which could seem pretty patriarchal and could be quite exploitative, but I'm just not even interested right now.

[Wounded Bear]

59. I hear you. It is truly beyond the pale...

I'm straight, so I can approach it from a different angle, so to speak. But hateful bullshit is hateful bullshit and should be pulled out and allowed to dry out in the light of day.

As far as I am concerned, gay rights are human rights, and any advance in human rights anywhere is a victory for all mankind over bigotry and the forces of darkness. Your huge win for your community is, in a small way, a win for me and everybody else everywhere, and we should all be celebrating together.

Congratulations that your hard work and sacrifice has been repayed, I salute you and support you in your outrage. I have basically refused to open any thread on the subject equating your struggle with other, unrelated ones. That will continue because I have no need for more aggravation and horseshit in my life.

[Aerows]

102. "As far as I am concerned, gay rights are human rights"

Thank you for this eloquent statement, Wounded Bear.

[Wounded Bear]

118. YW-I choose to believe that....

when anybody's rights are violated, mine are. IMHO all liberals should think this way, well, all people really.

[Aerows]

181. This would be a far better world

if everyone ascribed to that idea.

[get the red out]

61. I am so sorry

I wish so many weren't fall for trolling in the wake of a community of people who have fought so long finally getting the marriage equality recognition they deserve.

How do liberals fall for this Rush Limbaugh bullshit so easily?

[Skittles]

63. the bigots just cannot seem to help themselves, and they do not fool me for a minute

they can seriously fuck themselves

[tammywammy]

76. +a million

[zappaman]

64. I'd settle for just 2 fucking days!

Kick and rec

[LostOne4Ever]

65. K&R nt

[seveneyes]

66. Why stop at one week?

Marriage can last a lifetime.

[Ms. Toad]

67. Do you really not have LGBT friends who are polyamorous, who also want their families recognized?

I'm at an LGBT conference of a couple hundred of us at the moment, and I can think of six members of the group who are (or have been) in different long term triads. Without even trying. Each triad considers itself a family (or did, for an extended period of time). They have been celebrating the Supreme Court case - but they have also been reminding us that their families are not yet recognized.

They have been beaten alongside us, and they are not riding on our coattails because they ARE us. Their families are not recognized because their families include more than two adults.

It is a different question (legal recognition of a different family structure). I don't have a strong opinion about the outcome of the discussion, but to declare them right wing and to compare their families to marrying dogs is just as vile as it was when my family was compared to marrying a dog.

[PoliticAverse]

70. Best wishes to them, I hope some say they get the legal status they desire. n/t

[Aerows]

75. I have gay and lesbian friends

that have children, that also know people that marched and died to have the right for a child that is raised by a lesbian or gay couple to remain with the only parent they have ever known when the birth spouse dies.

I am grateful that you and your friends have never had that experience.

I am grateful that you have never been barred from the hospital room where your partner lies, and other people make decisions.

I am grateful that you never got thrown out of your home because you were not legally married, despite the fact that you went to court, got Power of Attorney and hand an iron-clad will.

[laundry_queen]

104. not one person here ever wants to take that away. everevereverever.

WE definitely had a party here in my house with every legal victory for gay marriage.

I'd really appreciate it, however, if you could explain to my teenage gay daughter who has been reading this and getting really upset - why she is a bigot because she believes all humans should be able to legally create the families they desire?

[Ms. Toad]

116. It's really nice that you think know what my life has been like

or what my friends have experienced. Frankly, you have absolutely no clue.

I just don't happen to think that I am some sort of special because my marriage was finally recognized, while the families of some of those fighting alongside me have not been. Comparing their families to bestiality is the same kind of right wing crap that has been spit at me more times than I can count in connection with my marriage. It has no place on a progressive board.

[JackInGreen]

78. Thank you

Our pride group was amazing. We had every letter present, and half of us poly.

[TM99]

82. Thank you Ms. Toad.

I agree.

I can celebrate with my sister who finally after 20 years in a long term committed relationship has married the love of her life.

I can also wonder how long it might take for my partner who is bisexual and loves me and another woman that we are in a poly relationship with before our union can be legally recognized.

These are inline with each other. I celebrate the ruling because it is another step forward. My parents married during a time when it was still not legal for blacks and whites to marry. I have advocated for my LGBT friends, cousins, aunts, godparents, and sibling for 40 years and applaud the cultural changes that took so many so long to evolve on.

I can be working towards my own goals AND still be advocating and supporting the next step which is getting sexual orientation added to the federally protected non-discrimination laws so that everyone is safe at work, at home, everywhere from institutionalized oppression.

Frankly, the animosity is getting to me. I am strongly considering just not ever discussing my own personal relationship issues again on these boards.

[riderinthestorm]

85. I don't see where Aerows compared poly families to marrying dogs

Aerows wants the piggybacking to stop since polygamy is not at all analogous to SSM..

Furthermore, if you haven't been watching the DU threads in the past few days on this, then let me assure you, they are filled with RW trolls who are getting banned and hidden left and right.

[Aerows]

90. Thank you

I appreciate you sticking up for ALL of us.

[riderinthestorm]

94. .

[Ms. Toad]

117. I don't see any other way to interpret this:

In response to the poly threads recently:

Ride on our fucking coat tails, but can we get half a minute to be happy about it, for pete's sake, before the "OMG SLIPPERY SLOPE, MARRYING DOGS" bullshit starts?

No one on DU suggested that the Obergefell decision should legalize marrying dogs. What a few brave souls have said is, "what out our families?" So when the response to "What about our families?" is "slippery slope, marrying dogs," I don't see any other possible interpretation.

I have been watching - and what I see are members of progressive (many times LGBT) poly families sharing their stories - or those of their friends - and being told that their families are inherently patriarchal, rapists, misogynistic, and akin to marrying dogs or toasters. That is why I spoke up. And, I find it particularly offensive when those comments are made by people within the LGBT community - given that the poly families I know personally are all within the LGBT community; people who have have worked alongside us to support legal recognition of same gender marriage even when it did not directly benefit them.

I don't particularly care what arguments right wing trolls make. I do care when bigotry is used to keep less "socially acceptable" members of the LGBT community in their place so as to avoid rocking the boat. If we hold our mouths just right, and say the things that most closely mimic straight society, then maybe - just maybe - we will be accepted. And far too often that means stifling the less socially accepted members of our community - the most flamboyant gay men, bisexuals, trans individuals, individuals who don't identify as gender binary, and now individuals whose families don't fit the mold. It is that eating our own I was reacting to - both as progressives, and as members of the LGBT communities.

As for being analogous - I agree it isn't legally analogous. Obergefell cannot be directly applied to poly families, in the way the Loving has been directly applicable all along to same gender marriage. But recognition of different family structures is a conversation progressives should be having - and my friends in poly families began reminding me the day the decision was announced that the fight for equality was not over just because marriage now includes same gender couples.

Do I enjoy being reminded that it might not be appropriate to stop and rest - not particularly. I've had my moments when I wished my friends would just pipe down and let me enjoy the fact that after 34 years my spouse and I are finally recognized as married - and my spouse will be legally related to our daughter as soon as we can get the adoption papers finalized. But they are right, and the vitriol on DU directed at people like my friends in poly families reminds me just how selfish it is to sit on my laurels and rest. I recognize the language being used against them, the arguments being used against them, the moralizing being used against them. It was all used against me for the last 34 years - and for others for far longer. The least I can do is speak up and name what I'm seeing.

[Jamastiene]

123. The "slippery slope" argument is a RW talking point.

She is saying she is against the "slippery slope" argument. Don't twist her words.

[riderinthestorm]

134. So you understand the Obergefell decision has nothing to do with polygamy

or advancing that cause yet somehow those rejoicing in that decision should automatically turn to advancing the cause of polygamy?

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your comments because it appears that's what you and your poly friends want.

And those who aren't doing that, or are just a bit leery of DUs suddenly loud contingent demanding polygamy as a byproduct of Obergefell, are...what exactly? ("name what I'm seeing&quot Bigots? Is Aerows a bigot in your eyes? Are those who think this sudden campaign for polygamy smells coming hard on the heels of Obergefell, also bigots?

Because that's not at all what Aerows' post is about.

Especially since Obergefell has zero to do with polygamy.

As for other parts of your comments, in no particular order: Pride week has just ended with some of the most flamboyant displays the LGBT community can put on, with nary a word of criticism from anyone here on DU. Nobody has sought to "stifle" them. On the contrary.

Comparisons of polygamy to marrying toasters has resulted in those posters promptly banned as trolls. And they've been exceedingly few (I only remember one poster, if there were more you'd have to link it).

I haven't seen a single DUer compare polyamory (which is what your friends' relationships presumably are) to rapists, misogyny, patriarchy or anything like marrying a dog. If you have, you'd have to link that as well.

Polyamory is fine.

Polygamy as it's been practiced traditionally here in the US and abroad has some serious problems with the way women and children are treated. I'm dead certain marital rape is rampant since the women don't have any way to give their consent, ever. It flourishes in the most patriarchal societies where even LGBT members of those communities face certain death if exposed. If you don't want to acknowledge that then that may be he crux of the problem.

Finally to your point about Aerows' comments about marrying a dog - it was only an illustration of the slippery slope argument and was in no way trying to insinuate anything else. I kind of feel like some folks here are desperately trying to manufacture outrage where none is to be found. Aerows has proven herself to be one of the most gracious gay women on the board and trying to smear her doesn't sit well.

We have now gone far, far off Aerows' OP and there at least 20 other poly threads we could continue this discussion. I won't derail this thread any more. Feel free to have the last word of start your own thread and I'll respond there.

[Humanist_Activist]

156. Here's an example of one post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6954005

However, I will point out that the conflict does seem to revolve around the term polygamy. Would you be opposed to extending marital rights to more than 2 people who are in a polyamorous relationship?

[Aerows]

170. Good God.

Way to torpedo your own argument.

[Humanist_Activist]

172. I specifically asked that person if people in polyamorous relationships hurt women..

and children.

Sorry linked to wrong post in the same comment thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6954040

[riderinthestorm]

171. Yes, you aren't differentiating between polyamory and polygamy. The rest of us are

TMWAT is addressing polygamy in the first two paragraphs, the last one she makes clear she has no problem with polyamory.

They are different and you seem to be confusing that.

I'm on record numerous times as supportive of polygamy IF a legal framework can be constructed that ensures women and children are empowered as equals. I will say I'm deeply skeptical of whether that can be done and not a single person in favor of polygamy now has answered my question about how those laws would look. They either offer up serial monogamy or social contracts that don't address the sticky legal details. It's not enough to say adults will just "negotiate". Not when it comes to divorce, child custody, inheritance, welfare etc. no way.

Right now the only models we have for polygamy involve grotesque abuses of women and children and LGBTs (please note now I'm speaking of polygamy, different than polyamory). Polygamy rests upon the legal framework that women are property, not equals, the women are without choices or consent in what happens to them. Children don't fare well. Those societies are regressive. I'm completely opposed to that and until there's a legal framework that is presented for how polygamy works in the US, polyamory appears to fill the niche for those who want that kind of family.

To them I say "blessings!"

To you, I say the same as I've said to Ms Toad, I'm not interested in hijacking Aerows thread. If you want to discuss this further, make another OP or pick it up in any of the other 20+ posts out there on polygamy. Feel free to have the last word here.

[Humanist_Activist]

173. But she addressed polyamory in this post...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6954040

I linked to the wrong post, sorry.

The problem I have with your argument is that it just as equally applies to monogamous relationships, a lot of those are abusive and damaging to women and children. Child welfare laws, equal rights for women, in practice as well as in law, etc. would apply just as much in polygamist or polyamorous relationships as it would in monogamous ones.

Polyamory is a practice, not a legal framework, I used polygamy as the legal framework because it is a convenient shorthand term for that. If that is your issue, pick a different term for marriage between 3 or more people.

[kjones]

148. If people followed "I got mine, now I'm done." We would never get anywhere.

I mean, as a white, straight, monogamous individual, "resting on my laurels"
would have left me content that I could marry my black girlfriend. I could have
done so at any time, but friends and strangers were denied the same
rights, so I didn't. I don't intend to wash my hands of the LGBT community-
now that SSM is the law of the land- in some sort of "Mission Accomplished"
moment. And while the only poly individuals I know, I don't really know well,
I don't intend to wash my hands of them either.

In fact, I intend to keep my hands quite dirty until the law of the land
is that any union of love and consent is fair play.

To be clear, people can celebrate, rest, make base camp, enjoy those
well deserved freedoms etc, etc. It's fine! It's expected! If I had a
same sex partner I was finally able to marry, our celebration would probably
be much longer than a week.
So don't worry, there will be plenty of justice to fight for when you're
ready to head back into the breach. Some of us don't need to
enjoy our new found freedoms though, because we didn't get any, either
because we already had them or don't yet, and we are still on the
march.

There will be plenty of justice of all types to fight for in the future.
No one should be criticized for making the best of present victories though,
nor should anyone be criticized for remembering what is yet to come.
To do so is to pretend it is a zero-sum game, and that just crazy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. There's a myth that gay people are more promiscuous....

That's the next hurdle to overcome.

[snooper2]

80. Technically, I think it's been over a week, so trolls are coming out

maybe more cat videos will help


LIKE THIS!

Remove Cat Before Flight

&feature=youtu.be

[Glassunion]

87. No. I can probably dig up 10,000 reasons why we can't have nice things around here.

We are overdue however for a porn thread.

[Aerows]

93. Please

don't encourage the porn threaders.

Please. Just don't.

[Glassunion]

96. Well when the hell am I going to be able to use this!!?!?!?!?!!!!

[ismnotwasm]

89. Exactly!

My thoughts exactly.

[Aerows]

91. It has gotten out of hand

and into extremely ugly territory.

[ismnotwasm]

95. And for what?

No reason--no honest reason-- I can see. Only dishonest posturing. To put it politely.

[Aerows]

99. Making gay marriage

diminished, and made fun of.

As though a couple that has been together for 34 years or 42 years is not an edifice of monogamy.

It just has to be made into something puerile.

[davidpdx]

92. I agree with you

Those who favor polygamy seemed to jump at the chance to argue that they were now the most aggrieved group right after the SCOTUS decision.

[Aerows]

97. It is, in my opinion

a way to "shame" and invalidate those that dare to get married.

The people that do this do not realize the fact that children have been ripped from homes, partners are denied the ability to make decisions on life support, denied to visit their partner in hospitals, and the financial wreckage that has occurred, but in the midst of the emotional destruction is a wasp stinging you while you are being burned alive.

[davidpdx]

100. Could be jumping on the bandwagon as well

The attitude "you have yours, now I want mine."

We may have to revive the dreaded "I want a pony" meme

[Hydra]

98. I'm still not sure how the continuing freedom movement is an insult to the Gay community

But it seems to offend a lot of DUers that there is another group that would like to have marriage equality and legal protection for themselves and their spouses.

I am a strong supporter of LBGT rights as well as racial equality, but this stinks the way the African American community members did when they asserted that LBGT community using their civil rights arguments was an insult to their own movement.

Freedom is good for everyone, the more the better. I happily celebrate with rainbows while still feeling the SC miracle ruling opened the doors for even more groups to be welcomed back into society.

BTW, the RW hates us, and still thinks we ruined "God's plan" for America. I disregard them.

[Tatiana La Belle]

101. Apparently, we're on the highway to hell

[smiley]

230. exactly

I'm glad I'm not be the only person with this opinion.

I personally don't view poly marriage as a discrimination issue, but rather a freedom issue. The legal implications would be horrific. Not to mention, the chance of any poly marriage law getting passed is slim, due to the fact that currently we all have the same equal rights under the law when it comes to marriage. Even if I were bisexual and wanted to marry both sexes, it wouldn't matter since we all have to make that same choice. Makes sense. I get it.

But doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Laws have been rewritten before and I don't see anything wrong with changing them if enough people want to make it happen. But judging only by the tone of this thread, I highly doubt it.

[Hydra]

235. Actually, I think the reason we're having so many discussions about it

Is that there is a fair amount of neutral to support for the idea now. That's really all that's needed to move forward with it.

I'm also trying to get a handle on why all the outrage, what it's based on, but I haven't seen much substance behind the outrage other than some sort of fear that everything they thought they were fighting for is unraveling before them- that somehow the right's idea of "The sanctity of Marriage" is what they really wanted to be invited into from SCOTUS or Congress.

I think it's up to the people to make it a sacred arrangement- plenty of people marry for convenience or tax breaks, so it's not always as special as we'd like to think it is.

[luvspeas]

105. not one person blathering about poly has stated that they and their cohort want to get married

Not a single one.

On the other hand I know a gay couple who have been traveling around the country to get married in every state it was legal. That's how much they wanted to be married.

Congrats. It's about time. It is not the time to even discuss legalizing group marriage. It's totally different and not applicable to the supreme court ruling.

[TM99]

109. I have.

Blathering, eh?

Give us more insults.

[luvspeas]

111. you have been blathering all day...not an insult...it's a fact

And so how does your cadre feel about getting married? And why haven't you done it yet?

[TM99]

113. You just can't stop the insults can you.

Yeah, those damned blacks, blathering on about police brutality.

Yeah, those damned women, blathering on about abortion rights.

Yeah, those damned....you get the fucking point.

My cadre? I don't speak for every person in a poly relationship.

Why haven't I? Because it is not legal for me to be married to one woman who is also married to another woman.

[luvspeas]

114. maybe one or more of them don't want to marry you

That would make things difficult. Plus as one of your campadres pointed out earlier bigamy is currently and legally against the law. If they are married they would have to divorce to marry you. Or would your utopian rules be different.

[TM99]

124. I am done with you.

You don't know shit. You are insulting and bigoted.

[Hydra]

112. It's 90% of what they have so far

The other 10% is that somehow we are insulting the RW and therefore insulting the Gay community. I'm not sure how that works, or why they don't want us getting married, but when you start drinking the RW kool aid, it never ends well.

[Kurska]

119. The best way to celebrate freedom attained is to fight for the freedoms still denied.

I'll fight for sexual liberty until the day I die.

[ibegurpard]

120. nope

Just stay away from here until the trolls finally get bored. And congratulations on your marriage! 👍

[Jamastiene]

121. What gets me is that I'm not even against polygamy

as long as it is consenting adults. It's not for me, but if other consenting adults want to, that's their thing.

What I am against is how it is being used by a certain few people on DU to, in essence, put forward that typical RW "slippery slope" rhetoric.

[ismnotwasm]

126. Right?

It's not that it isn't an interesting discussion even, but incredibly ugly and disrespectful at this point in time.
After so much hard work. After so much pain, so many stories of tragedy, Gay folk can now be legally married. It's a time for celebration and joy.

Human beings have always pair bonded. There have been different arrangements--we all know this-- but that doesn't invalidate the desire to be with the beloved other.

[Bluenorthwest]

130. I'm all for polyamory for those who want it, polygamy is a different matter and I have never seen it

function in any way that was healthy. It is practiced all over the world, in each place it exists polyamory is illegal, homosexuality is illegal, any sexual activity by a woman other than with her one husband is illegal, these things are punished.
It is insulting to claim that polygamy is the same as polyamory. In polygamist countries, a polyamorous woman is committing a crime. A homosexual or bisexual man would be punished. Any sex outside of marriage, punished harshly. Death for some sexual 'crimes' in polygamist countries, 10 of them.

These facts can't be glossed over, and decent people would not wish to gloss over them.

[Humanist_Activist]

153. So is it the word polygamy you have a problem with, or the legal recognition of...

more than 2 people in a intimate relationship?

[Bluenorthwest]

199. Clearly words don't matter, no matter what I write you just play parsing antagonistic fuckery

If that's your response to what I said, it is not a response it is an evasion. Your lack of engagement in actual dialog is boring. You just parrot the bullshit Wella taught you, and you follow him in spamming this crap all over DU, you who are not yourself poly. Of course. Because this is a proxy war.

[Humanist_Activist]

205. Who is Wella and why am I following them? You seem to think there is some conspiracy...

Here. Do you have evidence for this?

[msanthrope]

164. Hell has frozen over....you and I agree completely. nt

[Hekate]

177. Thank you for a cold splash of reality. It's not about words, it's about what is. nt

[Jamastiene]

237. In the strictest sense of the word, yes,

I agree with you. I guess I was just looking at it as more than just one man with lots of wives and hideous laws, and more about my friends who have been (and some who still are) in relationships with multiple people. One is one woman and two guys and the others were various people. I see what you mean about the situations you mentioned and I agree with you on that. I always thought polygamy just meant any situation where multiple people are in a relationship together. I guess I will need to go look up some terminology.

[LostOne4Ever]

158. +infinity (nt)

[Aerows]

174. That's what made me so irritated that I made this post.

I'm not against anybody having a relationship with the person(s) they love, but to bludgeon the LGBT community with "WELL YOU'VE OPENED THE GATEWAY" type arguments is insensitive at best, and sly bigotry at worst.

[rhett o rick]

243. Well said. I particularly like the "slippery slope" argument used by all that are afraid of progress.

"We can't allow women to have the vote or the next thing, we will be having dogs vote."

I would love to have a decent discussion about polygamy. I haven't actually thought about it very much. But like a lot of things, most of the time it goes unnoticed because most people don't care. But some self-righteous nitwit will start shouting and pointing, claiming of all things, that "they want attention", completely missing the irony. Off hand I do not believe it's a problem as long as some of the terrible things that are seen as being associated with it are not permitted. Like sexual relations with under aged females.

[Betty Karlson]

122. My sentiments exactly. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

125. Polygamy IS "traditional biblical marriage"

Divorce, however, is forbidden.

[oberliner]

127. Divorce is not forbidden

In fact there are specific rules governing divorce laid out in the Bible.

[Bluenorthwest]

129. OT permits divorce, Jesus says divorce is not permitted and any second marriage is adultery.

Jesus said Moses allowed divorce because people are hard of heart but that it should not be. He went on and on about it. Ask the Pope, he'll tell you all about it. Catholic Church will not remarry any divorced person, and in that regard they are consistent and following the teachings of their central character.

[oberliner]

131. "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality..."

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

That "except for sexual immorality" part means what exactly?

[Bluenorthwest]

139. It means any sexual activity outside the marriage. Obviously. What do you think it means?

The older translations say 'fornication'. Do you know that you can look up word definitions using Google? You can also educate yourself about the lexicon and sexual ethics of the time so you can use context to further your own understanding.

[oberliner]

141. So divorce is permitted according to Jesus

You had written that it wasn't.

[Bluenorthwest]

185. Yeah, Jesus basic thing is second partner is a no go for either person, period. Voids the whole set

up if you add another party. That's the text. It's not my religion or anything, but that's what he has to say about it, and it is the basis of the whole Catholic refusal of divorce and remarriage.

[Aerows]

188. And *here*

is a contribution to the conversation.

Not.

[SusanCalvin]

133. I for one am unconditionally happy.

[LanternWaste]

136. I was wondering if that was what's actually going on

"that we got the right to marry without every fucking RW trope in the universe being dragged out?"

I was wondering if that was what's actually going on, and each day this week has verified it as such. Regardless, congratulations on the ruling! It's a big win for everyone.

[Rex]

140. Nope. The RWing concern trolls pounced as soon as the ink dried.

I swear this place cannot suck any worse than when the 'progressives' get mad at something like SSM, so they drag out polygamy as a 'debate' tool - knowing full well it is just to piss off the LGBT community imo.

[Aerows]

178. Rex, as usual, you hit the nail on the head

Polygamy is being dragged out as a "debate tool". That sums it up.

[bobbobbins01]

146. I am extremely happy for the GLBT win, but I disagree with this post.

I apologize for the clunky comparison here, but this is like the right wing saying don't talk about guns right after a shooting. A big win for equal rights just occurred, so I don't think taking a week off, or a day off, or a minute off is the right approach at all. Its very sad that the right has grouped gays, polygamy and bestiality all under the same umbrella, but that is a false equivalency.

Polygamists deserve the same rights and should be allowed to marry, its the only logical and inclusive thing to do, and after something so monumental just occurred, now is the perfect time to talk about it. Its just important that it is framed correctly, and that we don't let the right dictate the rules of the conversation.

[Hekate]

147. You put your finger on what's been bugging the hell out of me about the polygamy posts....

It's the childish LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEE!!! aspect.

The LGBT community has won an historic victory. The country has just taken a giant step forward. Many, many folks have suffered and died to see this day come about.

And what have we got at DU? A band of merry pranksters playing the False Equivalency Game for all it's worth.

[Aerows]

183. Exactly what it is, Hekate

"Look at MEEE, I can make an argument against you" even when it doesn't even remotely influence their lives.

[Starry Messenger]

151. DU never fails to disappoint.

It really does feel like organized disruption. I'm so sorry we couldn't have this great historical moment without this insanity.

[ismnotwasm]

162. Plus a million

So freaking sad.

[msanthrope]

166. It was definitely organized. Just keep a list of those who thought

they could get away with it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

176. With friends like some on DU, who needs the teaparty as enemies, we have enough already.

[Orrex]

189. Someone posted an *excellent* response in a previous thread

And dammit I wish I could find it now.

It was in reply to a "polyamory needs defending" thread and was far more powerful than what I will convey here, but it amounted to:

"Bullshit! You lazy fucks don't get to steal the benefits of our century-long struggle."

I can't top that.

[Aerows]

224. It doesn't just feel like it

it is *it*.

Lets all rush to piss on the parade of gay people that can get married by coming up with every scenario that you've never imagined, never had friends that were beaten, bloodied and died for because your RW imagination kicked in.

[Jamastiene]

238. Exactly.

I have never heard any of the local bigots where I live sitting around talking about how they want to beat up people in polygamous relationships. Nor have I ever heard of anyone ever being murdered for polygamy. I have also never heard of anyone being refused medical treatment for polygamy. Nor have I ever heard of any programs disastrous to a person's mental health being forced on those in polygamy. There is a huge difference between the laws just aren't set up for polygamy and being a target of violence, physical, mental, AND spiritual abuse as well like what the LGBT community has had to go through and STILL will have to go through in many areas of the country.

[craigmatic]

167. Welcome to progress. The march doesn't stop just because you want it to.

[Spider Jerusalem]

168. Probably not, because there are too many stupid, ignorant assholes?

I haven't bothered to look to verify this, but I'd bet that a lot of the same "so what about polygamy now" posters are the same goddamned people who were all "but if Bruce Jenner can be a woman why can't Rachel Dolezal be black?" Overt bigotry is a fuck of a lot easier to deal with than the kind that comes from people who'll swear up and down that they're on your side and then come out with shit like this.

[Aerows]

201. It is easier to deal with

because then it is clear what you are dealing with. This insidious, passive aggressive bigotry, however, is far worse.

[Jamastiene]

239. Yup, and one of the most prolific of the polygamy OP starters

was one that was talking about how horrible gay people were for wanting to buy a cake.

You stated this perfectly: "Overt bigotry is a fuck of a lot easier to deal with than the kind that comes from people who'll swear up and down that they're on your side and then come out with shit like this."

That is exactly what I think a lot of this has been. Shit stirring by trolls.

[MellowDem]

179. The right wing use of it is terrible...

and it's not that analogous to same sex marriage. But I wouldn't fret over not being given enough time to celebrate, since when has the right ever done that? Or anyone that disagrees with a momentous decision? They'll always be wailing and gnashing their teeth.

I think what has some people here upset is that some here think it is a legitimate issue, and it is IMHO, and it's not surprising the gay marriage decision and right wing derision would bring it to be forefront.

But, it will be linked, unsurprisingly, to the right wing strawman that has been created unfortunately.

[Amimnoch]

184. What's worse it's highly ironic since "Traditional Marriage" owns Polygamy and Pedophilia.

I just Loooove watching right wing heads explode at that statement.

Those who want "traditional Marriage" should at least know what the hell it is they are asking for:

They are asking for the right of middle aged men to marry underage girls, even as young as 7 and 8 years old. THAT is what traditional marriage was for thousands of years until the Reformists (the liberals and progressives of the 1800's) decided that wasn't acceptable, and decided to start modifying their horrific "traditional institute".

They are asking for the re-enslavement of women. Traditional marriage offered women virtually no rights at all, and treated them as property.. for thousands of years.. that is until the Reformists (the liberals and progressives of the 1800's) decided that wasn't acceptable, and decided to start modifying their horrific "traditional institute".

How many of them chose the mate they are with because of love? Prior to the mid 1800's, that was virtually unheard of, because marriages were arranged by the parents.

Divorce? Remarriage? With extremely few exceptions, was completely not tolerated prior to the 1800's. Hell, King Henry VIII had to break from the Catholic church, create his own religion, and make himself the head of it to justify his.

Their slippery slope argument for polygamy? Hate to break it to them, but no liberal group that I've ever known espoused (ha) the idea of polygamy.. Only traditionalist religious groups that like the pedophilia and enslavement of women to men ever seem to enjoy going that route.

So yeah, THIS is what changed their almighty and precious "traditional institute of marriage"? I think not.

[smiley]

187. in other words

stop exercising your right to free speech….

it annoys some people

[Aerows]

192. To some, "exercising free speech"

means "Hey, I can call people every name in the book, because I have a right to do that!".

You can.

It doesn't mean I don't also have the right to point a finger at you and call you a bigot if you shout such things in the public square.

Let me say this in no uncertain terms: FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCES.

I hope that you heard that.

[smiley]

200. thanks for the lesson

I guess I've been learned.

[Aerows]

202. I've suffered the consequences for what I believe in

it didn't shut me up.

[smiley]

204. glad to hear you didn't let anyone silence you.

Have a great day!

[jeff47]

194. This is a private web site. You have no free speech rights here.

The government is not involved in running this web site, so you have no free speech rights here.

If you're going to pull out the bullshit, you should know what you're talking about.

[Aerows]

195. Amen

And I think many of us have had about enough of this kind of bullshit.

[Aerows]

211. It is open, brutal harrassment at this point

Thank you Jeff47. This is exactly what I meant when I said this shit is getting out of hand.

[jeff47]

212. Yep, he's a troll. Just careful enough to not use sufficiently inflammatory language to get a hide.

[Hekate]

225. You're free to start your own thread instead of playing games in this one. Not cool.

[smiley]

203. I can say whatever I want with the framework of the sites rules

Speaking about or even promoting poly marriages isn't against the rules on DU. If it hurts some people's feelings in this time of celebration, then I think they should probably get over themselves and get off the internet and go outside for awhile.

Those are probably the people you should probably be scolding. Not me.

Have a great day!

[Aerows]

208. If you have to say things

skirting the framework of the rules as a bare minimum...

Why would you want to be here in the first place?

[smiley]

214. I'm not sure how I'm skirting the framework of the rules?

It's not a right-wing talking point. It's a question I've asked myself for many years, and I'll assure you I'm pretty far-left.

But I enjoy coming to DU to get my news and read opinions from people, that for the most part, I agree with politically. Sometimes I don't agree with what they have to say, but that's okay. I wouldn't think of creating an op based solely on squashing the opinions of someone else.

And to tell you the truth I'm more of a lurker than anything. Sometimes it is hard to stomach. Especially faced with blind hypocrisy.

again.... have a wonderful day.

[Hekate]

227. Passive aggressive. Cute.

[randys1]

216. Fear of Gay people can be found everywhere, cant it.

[jeff47]

210. Nope! They can ban you just for being an asshole.

Or for it being Thursday. Or for deliberately pissing on the LGBT people on this site, as you do in this thread.

The "rules" are just guidelines. The admins can do whatever they feel like.

I do have to give you credit for lying in wait long enough to not get banned by MIRT. Most trolls are unable to wait that long.

[smiley]

215. ban away...

But I'd be shocked to find that having a positive opinion on poly marriage is tombstone worthy.

I have no idea who or what MIRT is. Sorry.

I thought calling people trolls was against DU rules.... sure hope no one alerts on you.

You have a wonderful day sir!

[jeff47]

218. Pretending you are this clueless is not flattering.

But I'd be shocked to find that having a positive opinion on poly marriage is tombstone worthy.

If that was only what you are doing, it wouldn't be. But you are here to purposefully irritate the LGBT members of the site.

I have no idea who or what MIRT is. Sorry.

Oh really? From your profile page: Member since: Wed Nov 17, 2004, 02:12 AM

So yeah, that's a steaming pile of bullshit right there.

I thought calling people trolls was against DU rules.... sure hope no one alerts on you.

I'm sure you already have.

[smiley]

221. okay you caught me...

Have a great day. I, unlike others on this site, have a little friend called ignore.

[NuclearDem]

231. "I have no idea who or what MIRT is."

I have a feeling you've crossed paths before.

[Jamastiene]

240. If you have no idea what MIRT is, then you probably

did not comprehend the rules of the site or learn how the rules are enforced here.

[randys1]

217. AT least we have the Gay scaredy cats out in the open this way

By Gay scaredy cats I mean people who are afraid of Gay people

[Aerows]

229. It just about has me in tears, though

to see so many good DUers defend us.

All of us know what this is about, and frankly I am so incredibly, delightedly happy that our wagon is being circled.

Thank you, DU.

You knew what I was saying in the OP and defended us all.

This is an amazing group of people, and I thank you for *GETTING* it.

But most of you got it before this .

[randys1]

244. I made a supid mistake 20 yrs ago when I asked my Gay nephew why was he Gay, why not

just not be Gay and his life would be simpler and his problems would disappear for the most part.

He looked at me and kind of smiled and changed the subject.

Very shortly after that I was educated, for me it wasnt about being fearful of Gay people or whatever, it was my assumption that it was a choice and why are you making this choice that is ruining your life.

For the past 19+ years, I have considered myself a member of the LGBT community as well as a feminist.

There are only a few things worth fighting for, really fighting, and protecting the rights of Women, Gay people and Brown people are my big ones

[DonCoquixote]

191. sadly I think it is 80/20

80- percent can very well be the vindictive types who really did not want Gay Marriage. Of these, some of them could be operatives, but most, sadly, are those good christian folk who think that if your party would accept Jesus we would finally be allowed to win Elections, like when we elected that good Christian Bill Clinton, and when we elect that good Christian Hillary (sarcasm flag flown way high).

But what is worse are the 20 percent that may feel their ship has come in. Some of them may be Black or Gay, and for those that are, this screed is not aimed at you. However, the folks from "sister wives" who started this ball rolling in the courts sure as hell are neither black nor gay. Hell they are not even Islamic, as least Islam puts the limit at FOUR wives, not the huge harems cultivated by those the Mormons call apostate. Throw in a few people who think that they can relive the ideas of free love that never really were, and you show a lot of what is called...
wait for it
wait for it

"WHITE PRIVILEGE!"

Because they know when when Mister Clean cut Blue eyed heterosexual conservative Christian and his lovely spouse asks for something, they will at least be listened to, and treated with kindness and respect. Never mind that they have not even finished cleaning the blood in the hallway where the blacks and gays got beat up, hell, they are not even finished beating them up yet. But no, the nice people will get listened to, and even if people less conservative (but hetero) come in, wearing Grateful Dead or Che Guevera t-shirts and ask for it, if they are white, they will at least be handled with care, unlike the Gays and Brown People whose carnage has already been mopped up and flushed down the drain.

What I am telling those of you who had sincere intentions when you chimed in is this: be aware that the conservatives will try to use you as a weapon, a stalking horse to assault the hard won progress that gays have made. They also know that you will be trying o take advantage of the momentum, the slipstream generated by the bodies of LGBT that threw themselves into the gears. That may be natural enough, but when you are asked about privilege, do not DARE to join the throngs who say they are not. The ultimate expression of privilege is that the minorities have to bleed die, and then stuff their bodies into the gears so that they can obtain a watered down privilege that will always come under attack by he next generation of conservatives. However, fort hose closer to the majority, they will walk in, and know that they will not only be allowed into the door, but that they will be waited on hand and foot by those that dare not want to lose your money or your vote!

What does that mean, let me spell it out: lets say in 2050, Utah were to allow multiple marriages, it would stay, long after newly elected president Grandson of Jeb Bush found a way to repeal all gay marriages and for that matter, interracial marriages. Come on, you do not think they would stop trying to attack those, right? The sister wives (all 50 of them) would happily breed with their husband (who wants 50 more) and they would be accepted. YOu know it.

[Exilednight]

198. What hypocrisy.

I remember when not that long ago there were those on DU who told the LGBT community that now wasn't the time for a fight on marriage equality.

It's a good thing that most of us didn't listen to them.

And now here you are telling others to sit down and shut up.

You say they aren't sincere. Who decided that you get the final say about how sincere these folks are?

You accuse them of using right-wing tropes while you use right-wimg tactics of silencing those you don't agree with.

Talk about irony, you're thick in it. If you don't want the debate, turn off the computer and go celebrate.

[Aerows]

207. Oh goodness

The hypocrisy accusation.

I'm clearly telling others to sit down and shut up.



And suddenly you own the "didn't sit down and shut up" collaborative because we won on an issue.

Lecture all of us. I want to hear your informed opinion on why we should shut up and sit down ... again.

[jeff47]

213. Guess what? Shoving polyamory in their face to diminish their victory does not make you look good.

But it is great for being a not-quite-hideworthy way to piss on the LGBT members of the site.

[Exilednight]

219. Why are you scared of debate?

I'm not arguing for poly marriage, in fact I'm against it, but I am not scared of having the debate.

[Bluenorthwest]

222. The folks afraid of this debate are the ones who claim it is important but never brought it up until

now. Years and years of craven silence, and even now the people who are bringing it up don't claim to be in such relationships themselves.
Ask them any questions, they shout at you. Ask about polygamy as it is practiced in the world and the anti gay nature of those cultures and they say 'how dare you'. It's not discussion or debate, it's theatrics. It's affectation. It is inauthentic. If it was authentic, they would be able to discuss, willing and very eager to confront all challenges.

[jeff47]

223. I'm not. Why are you deliberately hurting LGBT people? (nt)

[Exilednight]

226. What exactly have I done to hurt them?

[jeff47]

233. Regurgitated Right-wing talking points about "gay marriage"

in either a clueless or deliberate attempt to tarnish their supreme court victory.

Also, we can see your posting history. You suddenly decided it was time to debate polyamory, despite claiming to not support it, after "teh gays" won. Indicating that you are, at a minimum, completely disingenuous.

[Exilednight]

241. Debating never hurt anyone.

And if I typed "teh gays" somewhere, it was a typo. Sometimes I speed type and I sometimes do make typos.

It's quite flabbergasting that people who claim to be liberal are scared of having a debate of ideas. And then people wonder why politicians never visit DU or take those that post here seriously.

[jeff47]

242. You aren't debating. You're demanding we stop talking about something good

in order to have a debate on an issue you do not care about. You are deliberately derailing something positive in order to coat it with a right-wing smear.

It is vile. You know it is vile. And so you are retreating behind bullshit like "afraid to debate".

[Exilednight]

246. You're not allowing the debate.

[jeff47]

248. No, I'm not allowing you to smear LGBT people with your right-wing talking point.

If you really were interested in this debate, your interest would not have suddenly appeared now. You would have attempted to have a debate before now. You also wouldn't have repeatedly said you don't actually care about the issue.

Instead, you're pissing all over the marriage decision while shouting "I just want to debate!!".

Stop pissing, pull up your pants, and behave like a decent human being.

[Aerows]

232. Nobody is scared of a goddamn thing

People are pissed because, once again, you are equating it to marrying everybody and the sun, instead of what it is about.

But, of course, it is rich entertainment for some to dredge up Santorum and smear it everywhere.

[Exilednight]

247. Your attacking me and I have made very few

Statements about it. The few I have made have been against it for logical reasons.

[jeff47]

249. You know the terms "mansplaining" or "whitesplaining"?

You're doing the same thing.

It's long past time for you to actually listen.

[Aerows]

228. Bingo. n/t

[herding cats]

234. Yeah? Well, you're a narcissist, or a hypocrite for wanting that.

Take your pick. It's the two most common insults being brandied about to any person trying to ask other members to be respectful of the GLBT victory. I've read them both used, and reused multiple times in the past few days when people point out how long, and how hard the GLBT community, and their supporters, have fought for the recognition of their civil rights under the law.

Thing is, this still does nothing to further the "progressive" (yes, I used scare quotes because I don't see this as being dealt with in a Progressive way) cause of those making the argument. Alienating and insulting people who could likely be your allies is not how you go about bringing your cause into the mainstream. If people who support poly marriages really want it to become something beyond a fringe group, they need to work within their communities to bring it to the forefront in a fashion the rest of society can understand. That takes time and work in the trenches. Real people out in public organizing and engaging people explaining why they aren't a bunch of religious zealots out to harm women and children over a male supremest view. There's a lot of harm to be undone, and I'd suggest they begin by working with the people who were the victims of such religious zealots in this country. That could go a long way toward healing the rift between what some proclaim to want, and what poly marriages have historically been in the USA.

I kid you not, one person I was speaking to used Big Love (HBO series) as an example of how they'd been bringing it out to the people. I guess they didn't actually watch the series and know the story line? How can anyone take a comment like that as serious? "How about I slap some links on you of how suddenly people are talking about poly marriages?" How about you get back to me in a year and show me some actual polling of how the concept is fairing? Work, work, work and then work some more. Get your faces out there and show how your cause won't benefit the cause of the current religious zealots who are, right this moment, harming women and children in this country. That's what this cause is up against. Real harm being done by religious zealots as I type this. Not the fake claims which were made about how "teh gays" being allowed legal protection under marriage would destroy marriage for heterosexuals. Real harm is being done in this country under the guise of religion to women and children within certain religious communities by those who practice polygamy. That's what you have to battle. Not the fact that GLBT people can marry, that has nothing to do with you our your cause.

You're tilting at windmills here. Go fight your real battle. The polygamist religious zealots in this country who have made it so you'll never see the laws pass you desire if they don't change their ways. That's where your action needs to be directed. Not on an internet message board where people are celebrating GLBT marriage. That has nothing to do with your cause or the problems your facing in this country.

ETA: I in no way was directing this toward the author of the OP. I noticed I got a bit vague in my wording and wanted to be clear of that.

[Aerows]

236. Thank you for this

thoughtful and eloquent post, HC.