A Poll to Settle the Plural Marriage Question

[MineralMan]

Apparently, some people think that liberals and progressives are in favor of plural marriage, polygamy, or whatever you want to call it. I wonder about that, so here's a poll that asks the question of DUers, who are a pretty darned progressive group. What say you?

31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I support legalization of all forms of plural marriage.
	15 (48%)
	I oppose legalization of all forms of plural marriage.
	13 (42%)
	I support only polygyny.
	1 (3%)
	I support only polyandry.
	1 (3%)
	I am neither progressive or liberal, so I'm not voting.
	0 (0%)
	I hate this poll.
	0 (0%)
	I hate all polls.
	0 (0%)
	I just refuse to vote.
	0 (0%)
	Other (Explanation?)
	1 (3%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[JoePhilly]

1. I honestly don't care.

Now, if the plural marriage folks want me to care, they need to hold some parades.

They need to "come out" so we can meet them and learn about their struggles.

The LGBT community has provided a blueprint for how to do this.

If the plural marriage folks want me to care, they know how.

Start by scheduling some parades in major cities.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. This ^^^^

Agree. It's not an issue that's high on my radar. Personally I don't care what consenting adults do but I don't see a big political movement to promote plural marriage.

[JoePhilly]

25. I think this topic has suddenly "popped up" ...

... because its part of a right wing "slippery slope" talking point.

And its not unusual for RW talking points to get "re-purposed" here on DU.

I recall getting into this debate with right wingers on other sites. They would only bring it up as an attack on marriage equality for LGBT folks.

There is no group on DU associated with this topic. Which probably indicates its really not on anyone's radar, except those who want to troll folks now that marriage equality has been passed.

[yeoman6987]

53. I think it is being brought up because

The United States is more progressive then the media leads us to believe.

[JoePhilly]

59. I think discussion on this topic ...

... will disappear by the end of the month.

[yeoman6987]

61. You could be right

But the lawsuit might last longer and end up at Supreme Court. Who knows.

[bigwillq]

30. This is a good answer.

Although, for DU poll purposes, I will be voting in support.

[JoePhilly]

41. I voted other.

I'm betting the entire topic drops off the DU radar before the end of the month.

[bigwillq]

43. It's the flavor of the month.

I think, and hope, so too!

[JoePhilly]

44. If DU cared, there'd be a "Plural Marriage" group.

That and some parades damn it!!!

[Capt. Obvious]

49. You're really obsessing over the parade

[JoePhilly]

58. I like parades.

I also think most of those clamoring about this on DU (and other sites) aren't terribly serious about it.

And I suspect that the discussion on this topic will parallel the discussions of Olive Garden, public Breast Feeding, and the death of cursive writing, very soon.

[BainsBane]

2. I didn't even know there were more forms

I thought polygamy covered the whole deal. I've trashed all those threads because I find them incredibly offensive in the wake of a history making decision on marriage equality. That is a human rights issue. Polygamy is not.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. If you want to be part of a polygamist "marriage" --

-- a religious or private one -- knock yourself out, but I have zero interest in allowing civil marriage for polygamists.

[tazkcmo]

4. Could care less

I don't have the luxury to worry about what consenting adults are doing in their personal lives unless it involves me. In fact, I can comfortably live out my few remaining years with out knowing who they are sleeping with, married or otherwise.

[GoCubsGo]

13. This.

And, it's not just who people are sleeping with, even if that is the major source of objection to polygamous marriages. It goes for inheritances, hospital visitations, and everything else that marriages encompass. People should be able to do as they please. Marriage, in general, is an outdated institution, AFAIC.

[petronius]

5. I would say that I am closest to #1 -- philosophically, I support the whole gamut

of intimate relationships that consulting adults choose to make permanent, and I like the idea that we as a society should strive to recognize and acknowledge as many of those relationships as possible.

However, I'm not convinced that we should go through all the the likely-to-be-incredibly-difficult, approaching-impossible, effort to revise our current laws, simply because of the upheaval and complexity that would cause.

If it becomes apparent that polyamory is an innate characteristic, a built-in part of human identity deserving of Constitutional and civil rights protection, then I'll change that last position...

[BKH70041]

6. This poll settles nothing.

As if a poll on the definition of marriage here has any bearing on anything.

Marriage will at some point down the road be defined more broadly than just the union of 2 consenting adults. I'll guess it will happen the same way; one State at a time, until it reaches a point where the law requires that all States recognize it. That's the pattern, not whether or not there are parades.

And those opposed today will be viewed as RW bigots tomorrow.

[TM99]

7. Agreed.

And if we are alive then, we can welcome their 'evolution' on the topic.

This is a much smaller minority than even gay marriage was and is. I don't see changes coming quickly or easily. Marriage as a means of child rearing is done. Science and culture have changed too much for the old definitions to continue to be fixed in place.

There will be outspoken advocacy and there will be just the day to day realities of alternative relationships.

Things started changing in the 1960's. I can only imagine where our culture will be in another 40 years.

[geek tragedy]

9. Marriage is defined more broadly in fundamentalist Mormon communities

and Afghanistan.

I don't see "progress" making us more like Afghanistan and the FLDS cult.

[JoePhilly]

26. I wonder when DU will get a "Plural Marriage" group ...

... given all of the "interest" we're seeing certainly some group of folks will step up and create one.

... right??

[geek tragedy]

27. 6 months from now, I wonder how prominent this vitally crucial civil rights

issue--that received zero attention before the same-sex marriage debate--will be in our discourse.

[JoePhilly]

29. I give it less than a month.

Its July. The news cycle is slow.

And the shit won't just stir itself.

So we have people who don't really care about plural marriage pretending to give a shit about it, and trying to force those who supported marriage equality that its an issue THEY should take up.

But I predict that by the end of July, it will join Olive garden, public breast feeding, and cursive writing on DU's trash heap.

[geek tragedy]

32. I see this as more of a "moon bombing" issue nt

[JoePhilly]

40. Lol

[riderinthestorm]

12. Please provide the details on the legal framework for plural marriages

in the US - Child custody, visitation, inheritance, welfare - all of it.

Until the poly community can come up with a workable legal structures it's not bigotry to oppose polygamy since its entire history has been fraught with the abuse and the degradation of women and children.

I'm fiercely opposed to anything that contributes to the abuse of women and children. Period.

That's my objection to it. Unless someone can devise a functional legal framework, the only legal models of this are despicable examples of the abuse of women and children.

That's not bigotry. It's called being a feminist.

[BKH70041]

16. I'm not a lawyer.

That doesn't mean that laws can't be passed to accommodate multi-person marriage.

Drinking alcohol contributes to the abuse of women and children. My wife works at a women's shelter and can testify to just how many have barely escaped with their life those type of relationships. You ready to outlaw alcohol?

Because there is a potential for some relationship to be abusive is no excuse to disallow that relationship. Feminist are in favor of women having choice, and a natural extension would be a woman's ability to choose to enter a multi-partner marriage if they so desire. Someone who tells me they're a feminist and then says women shouldn't have that choice is automatically telling me they're really not a feminist.

It's going to eventually be legal. And a bunch of people who were against same sex marriage are going to get in your face and yell "I told you so!!" But you'll get over it.

[prayin4rain]

17. I'm so sick of this idea that feminism is all about the whims of the individual.

Feminism is a collective movement about changing those dominant systems that keep women relative and subordinate to men.

It's not about gee, i like this and I'm a woman, so all feminist MUST support me. Gee, it's my choice to think my man rules the household and it's his duty to hit me if I get out of line. Gee, it's my choice to allow men to determine my worth based on how sexy i am. Gee, it's my choice to let my husband control the finances and give me a small allowance.

No. A woman does not either support every single individual choice ever made by a woman or else not be a feminist. I'm sick of the ignorance and extreme oversimplification of women's "choices" and "consent" in a patriarchal society. It's BS and the idea was marketed to us by sex industry profiteers.

[BKH70041]

19. We're getting off topic.

But any feminism isn't also about the individual and her individual choices isn't really feminism.

In this case, the right of a female to choose to exist in a multi-partner marriage if she so chooses. All this talk of "But in other countries...." and "women in multi-person marriages have been abused" and "history proves...." are no arguments at all. The women who want to be in a multi-person marriage could be well aware of all these things etc..., and yet still wish to join in that marriage. That's their choice. Others who would step in and say "No" are making that choice for her.

Why should people not be able to marry the partner(s) they love? The definition of marriage needs to continue to be expanded.

[geek tragedy]

21. You may not realize it, but you are not the first person to play the idiotic game

of claiming that people can't be feminists if they don't buy into libertarian horse puckey.

You do not know anything about feminism, it is quite apparent.

let me guess, male?

[prayin4rain]

24. Women who want to speed

and the non-feminists who want to take away her choice to drive fast. Please. This is ridiculous.

Feminism is a movement of fighting the patriarchy through raising awareness and eradicating it when possible. Discussions that raise awareness and speak to the potential traps for women in any plan devised through the members of the current patriarchal system (hint: which is all of us), is not anti-feminist. Trying to shut down that conversation with accusations of not being a REAL feminist is intellectually lazy if not flat out dishonest.

[HappyMe]

33. Why the hell did the SC decision get hijacked

for this stupid crap in the first damn place.

This isn't about feminism. The decision was about 2 same sex people being able to marry and be recognized in every state of the union. FULL STOP.

Why are people yammering about this nonsense now? You can't give the LGBT community time to celebrate? Back off.
This isn't even remotely close to being an issue, ffs. Dragging this in is RW talking points.

[prayin4rain]

35. I was responding to a post that said:

"Someone who tells me they're a feminist and then says women shouldn't have (the choice to enter into a plural marriage) is automatically telling me they're really not a feminist."

That's it. I've not once responded to any of these threads except to point out that gay marriage and polygamy are completely unrelated issues.

Here I responded because people are now trying to correlate being a real feminist with supporting polygamy. Both are BS arguments.

[HappyMe]

37. I don't care one way or the other

about this issue.

Marry into that situation or not.

I do find it odd that women would condemn choices other women make. What anybody decides for themselves is their business.

[prayin4rain]

42. Discussing and condemning are not synonymous.

Your idea that women should sit back and not discuss or challenge other women's ideas, and that to do so is condemning their choices, is plain silly. I am a woman so I must never question the judgement or choice of any other woman, and if I do, I'm CONDEMNING her?? A woman is allowed to talk to another woman about the danger of letting her husband be head of household, controller of money, disciplinarian, etc., etc.

Touting the idea that women must never disagree with another woman will certainly silence most women though. How convenient.

[riderinthestorm]

39. Because a bunch of low post count posters are suddenly tying it together

I agree, it's RW talking points and the sudden emergence of this topic right now on the heels of the SCOTUS decision is pretty disgusting.

[geek tragedy]

18. The government doesn't reward people for getting drunk nt

[riderinthestorm]

38. Nope. Show me how this works. Show me how women and children benefit

SSM advocates had specific legal arguments on their side.

That worked. They were able to demonstrate to the public that this was in the public and personal interest, and there was a legal framework for it.

If you want my support you're going to have to demonstrate that this isn't anything like The FLDS, or Islamic societies by providing a concrete, tangible legal framework to bolster it.

Until you do, polygamy remains a remnant of backwards patriarchal societies. Polyamorous families that want to get married have a lot of hard work ahead - even more than the LGBT community I'd say since you are wanting to dramatically re-write centuries of family law and legal code.

Personally I have no beef with polyamory. Go nuts. But if you want to get married, you absolutely need to convince me that the legal marriage contract doesn't harm women and children.

I won't even deign to address your woeful misunderstanding of feminism. Trying to link feminism to polygamy without a single safeguard to protect women tells me you sir, are no feminist. Clumsily co-opting key words of feminism out of context is both offensive and deeply ignorant.

[PowerToThePeople]

34. Those opposed today

are almost all from the right wing, athoritarian, conservadem branch of DU.

[geek tragedy]

36. No, we're from the "not as glibertarian anti-equality troll" branch

The branch that doesn't want us to be more like Uganda or Somalia or Saudi Arabia when it comes to gender-relations and treatment of GLBT members of society.

[geek tragedy]

8. if a state like Alaska or Vermont wants to experiment with this, they can

go for it and report back to the rest of us how it turns out 10 years down the road.

[Betty Karlson]

20. I'm guessing Utah, for some reason. n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Same reason I'm guessing

And Arizona and Colorado too!

[Blue_Adept]

10. Voted yes

Part of the problem is that people are having knee-jerk reactions to the most well known flavor of it with the Mormon side. Which is certainly understandable, though a chunk of that comes from the Hollywoodization of it as a True Evil. There's plenty of evil in all relationships.

Having been in a poly relationship for quite a few years some time ago, as I've stated elsewhere, I suspect that it would have continued a lot longer had it been possible to bring all the parties involved together in a more formal way.

But it's a huge societal stigma.

I grew up reading SF that dealt with this and a slew of other relationship configurations, so it's not a knee-jerk reaction from me about it. it's just another flavor of how humanity works.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. What other consenting adults do with their love/sex lives

is none of my business.

[HappyMe]

15. I really don't care.

What other people do with their private lives is none of my business.

I think it's extremely weird that so close on the SC decision, that this is a "thing" now, that merits discussion. Wtf is up with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I have no animus toward poly people though I am surprised by the proliferation of them ...

I have no animus toward poly people though I am surprised by the proliferation of them all of a sudden.

I do think poly marriages raises all kinds of custody problems as well as social and monetary equity problems. If the poly people can figure all these things out and get legal recognition, god bless them, but don't you dare use marriage equality for people of the same gender as your foundation.

[JustAnotherGen]

56. I'm kind of there with you

I had no idea there were tens of millions of these 'multiples' living in the shadows.

Which kind of makes no sense - as I still believe we women in America are fiercely competitive with each other.

Queen Bees and wannabes is a bunk reality all of a sudden?

Throwing elbows just disappeared over night?

[Xyzse]

23. Like I mentioned before, as long as the parties involved are healthy and happy...

I'll leave them be.

I'd rather not deal with such an issue at this time, though they are welcome to fight for it.

Currently, I think that some of those pushing it hard for now, are doing it out of spite, after the victory on expanded marriage, which makes me wary of supporting it at this time.

Edited due to grammar.

[randys1]

28. Isnt marriage turning out to be kind of an old fashioned thing that really doesnt work?

Maybe the Gays will figure it out, wouldnt surprise me, but us heterosexuals are a total fucking disaster when it comes to this institution.

The divorce rate, ugh.

The hate that comes out of divorce, ugh.

The horrible permanent damage to children, double ugh.

Nah, I dont give two shits about who gets married, why, where or how.






Now, having said that, if my wife shows up in this thread, I am denying ALL of this. One of you clowns forced me to write this, really dear!

[stevenleser]

31. I have a very strong opinion on this. But I am not going to deal with it now because I dont want

it tied to the recent wonderful happenings with the full nationwide legalization of LGBT marriage.

[GeorgeGist]

45. STUPID poll.

[MineralMan]

55. Can you elaborate a little on that?

It's just a poll to see what people think about this. I found the results interesting, and a little unexpected in some ways. Apparently there is a range of viewpoints on this among DUers.

So, please tell me why you think a simple poll is "STUPID." You seem to feel rather strongly about it, so I'd like to know why.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. 1988, 11% support for gay marriage in USA.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

47. If all of the parties are of-age and give free consent, I don't see a problem.

If the court has stated that all are free to marry, then all are free to marry. Those who belong to faiths that allow/encourage/tolerate polygamy who are wishing to enter into such marriages should be allowed to do so.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. I'm somewhat surprised and not surprised at the results of this poll...

granted I haven't commented on this yet, but frankly, if the legal complications can be worked out equitably, I don't see why plural marriages can't be recognized by the government.

It does illustrate how socially conservative DU is.

I do think there is a lot of prejudice against people in poly relationships, and a lot of people on this board, from what I read on other threads, made very ugly assumptions about people's personal lives. Its ugly and doesn't belong here.

[Capt. Obvious]

50. Someone will be along shortly

to yell at you that you want us to be just like Afghanistan.

[Exilednight]

54. With poly relationships there are many more health risks.

1. Any male involved in a poly relationship is 4 times more likely to coronary heart disease.

2. If one person gets an STD, everyone involved gets an STD.

3. The psychological ramifications on children in these relationships has not been studied.

[luvspeas]

52. mic drop...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026951303

[Shrike47]

57. I oppose polygamy for any woman under 30. There's simply too much coercion of girls.

Polyandry, on the other hand - what's not to like?

[Recursion]

60. If it happens it needs to be polygamists pushing for it

And it would likely take decades

[LostOne4Ever]

62. I oppose polygyny and polyandry vehemently

But I am willing to support group marriage so long as:

1) it is between CONSENTING ADULTS
2) laws are enacted to keep the family law system from collapsing from the weight of it
3) Most importantly laws and safeguards are implemented to prevent the abuses that we see with the FLDS and Middle East. Particularly safeguards protecting women and children.
4) all participants MUST be equal and have protections if they choose to leave

Many laws and safeguards have been passed w/ regards to monogamy to offer these type of protections to participants and prevent abuse, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the same of group marriage.