Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Polygamy] Will it legally stand or fall before the charter

1356713

Posts

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    But just because someone's living with more than one sexual partner doesn't make them nutjobs.

    That's true.

    And if a 25-year-old is having sex with a 15-year-old, that doesn't necessarily make him a predator. I know where I'm putting my money if I have to gamble.

    Police and DAs have the option to arrest and charge, respectively. If laws against polygamy end up being used to break up happy poly pagan threesomes, then yes we need to reevaluate these laws. (And I fully admit that I could see this happening, especially in very conservative areas.) At the moment, though, it appears that the benefits of these laws outweigh the drawbacks.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Making polygamy legal isn't going to suddenly make FLDS people move into the general public. What I'm confused about in this case is why the Canadians are charging him with polygamy instead of doing what the US has done and charge these guys with forcing 16 year old girls to marry men 3 times their age.

    You charge what you can prove. If you can't prove that a man married any of his wives when they were underage, but you can prove multiple marriages, that's what you charge

    I'm not sure I agree with the idea of prosecuting purely because they have multiple partners. If there are marriage licenses between each, ok, prosecute since that's illegal. If you can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that one or more of the parties involved were married before the age of 18 (or whatever the age of consent for marriage is in the state in question), go ahead. If there is child abuse, neglect, etc., lock 'em up.

    But just because someone's living with more than one sexual partner doesn't make them nutjobs.

    A society where people are raised to believe that it's God's will that men systematically take on multiple, often underage sexual partners for the rest of their life, certainly does make them nutjobs.

  • PasserbyePasserbye The Mercurially Quixotic Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    But just because someone's living with more than one sexual partner doesn't make them nutjobs.

    That's true.

    And if a 25-year-old is having sex with a 15-year-old, that doesn't necessarily make him a predator. I know where I'm putting my money if I have to gamble.

    Police and DAs have the option to arrest and charge, respectively. If laws against polygamy end up being used to break up happy poly pagan threesomes, then yes we need to reevaluate these laws. (And I fully admit that I could see this happening, especially in very conservative areas.) At the moment, though, it appears that the benefits of these laws outweigh the drawbacks.

    Oh, I'm not saying that the laws are in the wrong - far from it. I'm just saying, careful application is very important, not only to avoid hurting innocent people, but also to prevent the nutjobs from going 'Oh, look at this blunder, we're just being persecuted!'. Since many of these nutjobs come from a Christian-ish religion, expecting this kind of response isn't unreasonable.

    ---
    Plutonium wrote: »
    A society where people are raised to believe that it's God's will that men systematically take on multiple, often underage sexual partners for the rest of their life, certainly does make them nutjobs.

    Definitely. But that's because of one society's very narrow, very misogynistic, definition of polygamy. Believe it or not, not all polygamists are Mormons (although, unfortunately, the majority seem to be).

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Reminder here that prosecutorial discretion does still exist

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    A society where people are raised to believe that it's God's will that men systematically take on multiple, often underage sexual partners for the rest of their life, certainly does make them nutjobs.

    Definitely. But that's because of one society's very narrow, very misogynistic, definition of polygamy. Believe it or not, not all polygamists are Mormons (although, unfortunately, the majority seem to be).

    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Society, or subculture?

    Because if subcultures count I could draw a Venn diagram of the leather, swinger, poly, pagan, and hippie communities and put little dots on it representing all of the people I've met who are "married" (to use the term loosely) to two or more partners.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PasserbyePasserbye The Mercurially Quixotic Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    A society where people are raised to believe that it's God's will that men systematically take on multiple, often underage sexual partners for the rest of their life, certainly does make them nutjobs.

    Definitely. But that's because of one society's very narrow, very misogynistic, definition of polygamy. Believe it or not, not all polygamists are Mormons (although, unfortunately, the majority seem to be).

    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Well, do you want me to start with the polyamorous people I know here in Olympia, or would you like more national groups? There are many, many polygamists in Wiccan and Pagan sects as well, as Feral pointed out earlier. None of these are based on perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Edit: Ah, yes, the whole society vs subculture debate. Also an important point, I suppose.

    ---
    Medopine wrote: »
    Reminder here that prosecutorial discretion does still exist

    Sorry, Medo. Didn't mean to imply it didn't exist. I was just responding directly to the idea of 'polygamist? prosecute!' which McDermott seemed to be espousing.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Society, or subculture?

    Can you find a subculture?

    Polyamory is fundamentally different from Polygamy.

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Finally, they're going after Bountiful. I guess the US cracking down on the FLDS finally lit a fire under the Mounties.

    Although it may be nothing, there's been a fair bit of speculation that the RCMP leaves Bountiful alone because the Crown is hesitant to set up a challenge to polygamy laws.

    BC isn't anything like Utah. Just this year, the BC Supreme Court ruled a bylaw preventing homeless people from setting up tents in public parks was unconstitutional.

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Society, or subculture?

    Can you find a subculture?

    Polyamory is fundamentally different from Polygamy.

    Okay. Yes, I agree that polyamory is fundamentally different from polygamy. (I've argued in the past on this board that the two are actually diametric opposites.)

    However, in the most concrete, denotative terms, a polyamorous group that got co-married could be seen in the eyes of the law as practicing polygamy. I think that's the issue Passerbye is talking about.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PasserbyePasserbye The Mercurially Quixotic Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Society, or subculture?

    Can you find a subculture?

    Polyamory is fundamentally different from Polygamy.

    How so?

    If you mean in a purely legal sense, yes, they are different. Polygamists technically are "legally" marrying each other.

    That in mind, I know polyamorous clumps (usually three people) who behave as if they are married, live together, and run a household together. I know of one group who is even raising a child together. The only difference is that there is no marriage license involved.

    ---

    Feral, you have more experience in this. Polyamory vs Polygamy: Differences. Educate me. :)

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm just gonna quote an old post.
    Feral wrote: »
    Polyamory (or open marriages, whatever you want to call it) to me represents the culmination of individualism. It's based on the simple principle that no one adult has the right to monopolize another adult's life. I don't own my partners, so I have no right to demand that they withhold themselves from other people. Since they've (assumably) agreed to be in a long term relationship with me, I have a right to ask for their love and their support and their intimacy; but when they're away from me, what they do with other people has no direct relevance to me. (Assuming they don't bring home a disease, drama, or a baby, that is. I recognize that this is a huge assumption to make.)

    Polygamy - as traditionally practiced - is based on marriage as a property arrangement. It's men taking ownership of women like - as VC so aptly put it - cattle. It represents men not only claiming complete ownership over his spouse's life, but ownership over the lives of several spouses. In that way, it's the diametric opposite of the lifestyle I support with only the most superficial of similarities.

    By the way, I'll mention here that the last time I looked at it, the Ethnographic Atlas listed 4 cultures (out of about 1,200 recognized) worldwide that practice polyandry - one wife with multiple husbands. I don't know enough about these cultures to really comment on them.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Society, or subculture?

    Can you find a subculture?

    Polyamory is fundamentally different from Polygamy.

    How so?

    If you mean in a purely legal sense, yes, they are different. Polygamists technically are "legally" marrying each other.

    That in mind, I know polyamorous clumps (usually three people) who behave as if they are married, live together, and run a household together. I know of one group who is even raising a child together. The only difference is that there is no marriage license involved.

    As long as it's of their own free will and they weren't coerced, I don't see a problem with their non-traditional lifestyle. I'd think, however, being raised in a community which advocates ideas like that counts as coercion.

    That's why Gay Marriage would be fine in my mind, but Polygamist marriages wouldn't be. Do the people you know believe that they should be allowed to marry? Do they care?

  • PasserbyePasserbye The Mercurially Quixotic Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral - So what would your thoughts be on clumps that behave as if they're married and form more concrete obligations by having children together?

    ---
    Plutonium wrote: »
    As long as it's of their own free will and they weren't coerced, I don't see a problem with their non-traditional lifestyle. I'd think, however, being raised in a community which advocates ideas like that counts as coercion.

    That's why Gay Marriage would be fine in my mind, but Polygamist marriages wouldn't be. Do the people you know believe that they should be allowed to marry? Do they care?

    I would say it's reasonable to keep an eye on polygamy from those particular communities, yeah, so long as you prosecute only when there is concrete evidence of law breaking (living with multiple women isn't what I would consider law breaking, by itself).

    And the idea of legalizing polygamist marriage seems to be varied in the people I know. Some want it, some don't. It seems like the ones who want it see it as society recognizing their life choices as valid. The ones who don't want it seem to see it as an unnecessary frippery. A lot on both sides have preformed handfastings and the like, though.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    How can this practice ever be defended when it has clearly and provably led to the exploitation of children over and over again?

    Anyone defending this practice is also condoning statutory rape and pederasty.


    Fuck all the lazy and cowardly police, lawmakers, and judges who have failed to take action on this because of "religious freedom".


    -edit-

    Oh and for the record, the biggest difference between polyamory and polygamy is that people who practice polyamory don't seem to be nearly as interested in fucking 12 year olds as polygamists are.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Feral - So what would your thoughts be on clumps that behave as if they're married and form more concrete obligations by having children together?

    I think that there is nothing inherently morally wrong with it, though I don't personally believe in group child-rearing. Even if there's another adult in the household, I think kids are best off knowing clearly who their parents are and looking to them for affection and authority. It would be more like having an uncle who lives with you than like having two mommies and three daddies.

    I also mentioned that I'm generally very suspicious of cohabitation in general, I think people move in with their sexual partners too quickly and too easily and that people are best off if they keep their home and financial lives clearly separate from their partners. You can love somebody and still live in separate homes. But that's just my personal bias, because I'm territorial about my home. There are obvious benefits to living with the father or mother of your children, but other than that, any other lovers I choose to associate with can find themselves an apartment down the block if they really want to be that close to me.

    Anyway, pragmatically, if there's any possibility that that arrangement might be mistaken for an exploitative or illegal polygamist one, then perhaps those involved would be best off laying off the public presentation of marriage. Rather than representing oneself as having multiple wives (or husbands) they should - in the interest of doing in Rome as the Romans do - only publicly identify one person as their spouse and the rest as "friends" or "roommates" or even "lovers." As far as I know, adultery isn't illegal anymore. (Or, if it is, it shouldn't be. It should be thrown on the pyre with anti-sodomy laws.)

    Edit: also, I agree with everything jeepguy just said.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    jeepguy wrote: »
    How can this practice ever be defended when it has clearly and provably led to the exploitation of children over and over again?

    Anyone defending this practice is also condoning statutory rape and pederasty.


    Fuck all the lazy and cowardly police, lawmakers, and judges who have failed to take action on this because of "religious freedom".


    -edit-

    Oh and for the record, the biggest difference between polyamory and polygamy is that people who practice polyamory don't seem to be nearly as interested in fucking 12 year olds as polygamists are.

    I don't agree with you very often.

    That should say something.

    Spoiler:
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Basically, the concensus I'm seeing is that our culture hasn't grown enough to handle polygamy. It's an issue, but it's a small enough issue compared to all the other issues out there that it can stand to sit on the back burner.

    Personally, the only concern I have regarding the rights of married poly groups, the non-horrible ones, is when you have an odd number of partners. Two four six etc? They can marry as one two three couples (though in many cases not until homosexual marriages are legalized), and then just all live together, outside of those areas where they hunt you down for -acting- married. But the groups of three, five, seven... there's that odd person out who has nobody they can double up with, making them legally single, and potentially screwed in some situations, say if their other partners die at the same time, preventing them from marrying into the remainder.

    But that's likely a niche enough scenario that it can be dealt with at a later time.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I challenge you to find an instance an instance of a single society that practices polygamy that isn't based on a perceived inequality between the sexes.

    Society, or subculture?

    Can you find a subculture?

    Polyamory is fundamentally different from Polygamy.

    How so?

    If you mean in a purely legal sense, yes, they are different. Polygamists technically are "legally" marrying each other.

    That in mind, I know polyamorous clumps (usually three people) who behave as if they are married, live together, and run a household together. I know of one group who is even raising a child together. The only difference is that there is no marriage license involved.

    As long as it's of their own free will and they weren't coerced, I don't see a problem with their non-traditional lifestyle. I'd think, however, being raised in a community which advocates ideas like that counts as coercion.

    That's why Gay Marriage would be fine in my mind, but Polygamist marriages wouldn't be. Do the people you know believe that they should be allowed to marry? Do they care?

    Wait, so you're saying that raising your children to have the same set of beliefs that you do is coercion? Is it just because the belief in question is one that society doesn't agree with? And while you're at it, why stop at polygamy? You could say the same thing about teaching your kids gay tolerance while living in Iran.

    Also, despite all of the arguments to the contrary, I really don't buy the line that polygamy must be illegal to protect young girls. The problems of forced marriage, exploitation, and abuse can be addressed independent of the issue of polygamy. They would exist whether polygamy is legal or illegal. The guise of polygamy may facilitate these issues, but what's more culpable is the fact that parents can legally sign off on their underaged daughters getting married. Make that illegal and suddenly these sects have far less of a leg to stand on. For all the arguing against polygamy I've read in here so far,why haven't I seen anyone suggest that marriage consent by the parents be eliminated?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It would be interesting if polygamous marriages simply had a higher age requirement.

    The young ages people can get married at are kind of creepy right now anyways.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    As long as it's of their own free will and they weren't coerced, I don't see a problem with their non-traditional lifestyle. I'd think, however, being raised in a community which advocates ideas like that counts as coercion.

    That's why Gay Marriage would be fine in my mind, but Polygamist marriages wouldn't be. Do the people you know believe that they should be allowed to marry? Do they care?

    Somewhere on the vast internets right now, a comment is being made on how gay couples will likely teach any children they raise to also be gay. Don't be like that person.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Wait, so you're saying that raising your children to have the same set of beliefs that you do is coercion?

    If those beliefs involve lifelong isolation, subservience, and dependence to the point of dehumanization, yes. I might not use the word "coercion" necessarily, but it's close enough. Implying that they're simply religious beliefs in an appeal to moral relativism is disingenuous. For all intents and purposes, they're raising indentured servants.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    For all the arguing against polygamy I've read in here so far,why haven't I seen anyone suggest that marriage consent by the parents be eliminated?

    That's a good suggestion and I'm all for it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    It would be interesting if polygamous marriages simply had a higher age requirement.

    The young ages people can get married at are kind of creepy right now anyways.

    Man I was going to stay out of the thread and then I see this.

    I have heard this kind of argument for all kind of things. It becomes a moving target--you say "oh no, people this old just aren't responsible enough to be able to handle this shit" or something and then you put off the age at which they can make mistakes and actually build up some experience and be responsible.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    As long as it's of their own free will and they weren't coerced, I don't see a problem with their non-traditional lifestyle. I'd think, however, being raised in a community which advocates ideas like that counts as coercion.

    That's why Gay Marriage would be fine in my mind, but Polygamist marriages wouldn't be. Do the people you know believe that they should be allowed to marry? Do they care?

    Somewhere on the vast internets right now, a comment is being made on how gay couples will likely teach any children they raise to also be gay. Don't be like that person.

    Although I disagree that simply raising one's children to believe that polygamy is good is coercion, that and your gay example are different in that it is impossible to raise someone to become gay.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    As long as it's of their own free will and they weren't coerced, I don't see a problem with their non-traditional lifestyle. I'd think, however, being raised in a community which advocates ideas like that counts as coercion.

    That's why Gay Marriage would be fine in my mind, but Polygamist marriages wouldn't be. Do the people you know believe that they should be allowed to marry? Do they care?

    Somewhere on the vast internets right now, a comment is being made on how gay couples will likely teach any children they raise to also be gay. Don't be like that person.

    When gay people start forming socially isolated enclaves in the middle of the desert associated with rape, abuse, and poverty, then your analogy will have a leg to stand on.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

    The Rural South?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

    The Rural South?

    Mama says we ain't got no need for book learnin.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

    Americans naturally lend themselves to retarded isolationist cults, so the law would be pretty much unenforceable.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm just gonna quote an old post.



    By the way, I'll mention here that the last time I looked at it, the Ethnographic Atlas listed 4 cultures (out of about 1,200 recognized) worldwide that practice polyandry - one wife with multiple husbands. I don't know enough about these cultures to really comment on them.
    IIRC, polyandrous societies usually arise when resources are scarce and having lots of kids isn't a priority (usually, food production is focused more on livestock than agriculture, which requires more labor). I think how it usually works is something like - two or three brothers might share a wife. This wife has a relatively small number of children (I'm not sure if who the father is is usually important), but the inheritance (which probably wouldn't be enough to support all the children separately) stays within the extended family group (all the brothers kind of co-own it, as opposed to giving it to the eldest son or splitting it up). I have no idea what they do with the 'leftover' daughters in this sort of arrangement - presumably marry them off to some other kin group to keep the gene pool nice and fresh, as well as developing relationships with other families. I can look up more info on it if you want.

    For whatever reason (probably agricultural), polyandrous societies are very rare when compared to polygynous ones (what we usually think of when we use the word 'polygamy', although that term technically can refer to either sex), much like how patrilineal societies are much more common than matrilineal ones, even though it probably would have spared human societies a lot of drama if it'd been the other way around. Hell, polyandrous marriages would probably have kept the medieval period's endless feudal wars from happening altogether - all those landless second and third noble sons could have stayed right at home, instead of taking over their neighbor's estate.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Wait, so you're saying that raising your children to have the same set of beliefs that you do is coercion?

    If those beliefs involve lifelong isolation, subservience, and dependence to the point of dehumanization, yes. I might not use the word "coercion" necessarily, but it's close enough. Implying that they're simply religious beliefs in an appeal to moral relativism is disingenuous. For all intents and purposes, they're raising indentured servants.

    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me. Again, the beliefs that you listed as being objectionable would be foisted on kids without polygamy, and in fact they already are by religious groups that do not promote polygamy at all. Citing abuse and exploitation as if they were inseparable from the practice of polygamy is logically incorrect, especially because your examples are biased towards a specific, non-representative population of polygamists (that is, polygamists that are committing crimes). This is why I'm not convinced that you're right. You're arguing that extreme cases are the norm, when there's no evidence that that's really the case.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

    Americans naturally lend themselves to retarded isolationist cults, so the law would be pretty much unenforceable.

    Well as this instance is a Canadian case, it might be better enforceable out here considering if you isolate yourselves you have to kind of deal with our winter.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Wait, so you're saying that raising your children to have the same set of beliefs that you do is coercion?

    If those beliefs involve lifelong isolation, subservience, and dependence to the point of dehumanization, yes. I might not use the word "coercion" necessarily, but it's close enough. Implying that they're simply religious beliefs in an appeal to moral relativism is disingenuous. For all intents and purposes, they're raising indentured servants.

    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me. Again, the beliefs that you listed as being objectionable would be foisted on kids without polygamy, and in fact they already are by religious groups that do not promote polygamy at all. Citing abuse and exploitation as if they were inseparable from the practice of polygamy is logically incorrect, especially because your examples are biased towards a specific, non-representative population of polygamists (that is, polygamists that are committing crimes). This is why I'm not convinced that you're right. You're arguing that extreme cases are the norm, when there's no evidence that that's really the case.

    That's a respectable opinion. I understand where you're coming from.

    Right now, especially in Utah and bordering states, the social burden caused by these cults is huge, as others have mentioned. You seem to hold that polygamy is incidental to the other wrongdoings. Even if that's the case, at the very least it is directly tied to the lost boys problem: young men exiled from religious communities who find themselves homeless in big cities with no contacts and no prospects, often before the age of 18. At the worst, it's polygamy itself that allows the exploitation of large numbers of young girls at the same time.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    I have no idea what they do with the 'leftover' daughters in this sort of arrangement - presumably marry them off to some other kin group to keep the gene pool nice and fresh, as well as developing relationships with other families. I can look up more info on it if you want.

    As I was told in Anthro about the polyandrous Tibetans, the leftover women become spinsters, although they mysteriously end up with children of their own. I have no idea what happens to those children though.
    Feral wrote: »
    Even if that's the case, at the very least it is directly tied to the lost boys problem: young men exiled from religious communities who find themselves homeless in big cities with no contacts and no prospects, often before the age of 18.
    I think this is probably the most compelling anti-polygamy argument, because there are going to be leftovers no matter what group does it unless databases are somehow used to match up the small percent of women leftover from their slight number advantage to men who want another wife [thinking about this database in action is kind of funny to me].

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    While the Lost Boys problem is unfortunate, I don't find it to be a compelling enough argument against polygamy being legal. Scarcity of brides and how a polygamous community (badly) handles the situation isn't an argument against polygamy so much as it's an argument against that community's handling of the situation. As for the drain on social services, polygamy really is incidental to the problem. Large families that can't sustain themselves aren't exclusive to polygamists.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    While the Lost Boys problem is unfortunate, I don't find it to be a compelling enough argument against polygamy being legal. Scarcity of brides and how a polygamous community (badly) handles the situation isn't an argument against polygamy so much as it's an argument against that community's handling of the situation. As for the drain on social services, polygamy really is incidental to the problem. Large families that can't sustain themselves aren't exclusive to polygamists.

    That's like saying Heroin should be legal because it's not just heroin junkies who commit crimes.

  • Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The PIT, level 26Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    While the Lost Boys problem is unfortunate, I don't find it to be a compelling enough argument against polygamy being legal. Scarcity of brides and how a polygamous community (badly) handles the situation isn't an argument against polygamy so much as it's an argument against that community's handling of the situation. As for the drain on social services, polygamy really is incidental to the problem. Large families that can't sustain themselves aren't exclusive to polygamists.

    That's like saying Heroin should be legal because it's not just heroin junkies who commit crimes.

    I don't know if that's fair. I supposed if you could prove that polygamy always causes problems that are always worse than any benefits it might have, regardless of what situation it's in, you would have grounds to make it illegal.

    sots_thepit_gold.jpg
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    While the Lost Boys problem is unfortunate, I don't find it to be a compelling enough argument against polygamy being legal. Scarcity of brides and how a polygamous community (badly) handles the situation isn't an argument against polygamy so much as it's an argument against that community's handling of the situation. As for the drain on social services, polygamy really is incidental to the problem. Large families that can't sustain themselves aren't exclusive to polygamists.

    That's like saying Heroin should be legal because it's not just heroin junkies who commit crimes.

    I don't know if that's fair. I supposed if you could prove that polygamy always causes problems that are always worse than any benefits it might have, regardless of what situation it's in, you would have grounds to make it illegal.

    Whether it should be "Always," "Almost always," "Mostly," or "Sometimes" is really a degree of severity and a matter of personal philosophy, which could be what you were offering in which case I'm sorry for stating the obvious.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • variantvariant Registered User
    edited January 2009
    I think there's nothing wrong with polygamy but the way it's usually being practiced is.
    Young girls are often arranged to marry old farts or are raised in a very sheltered environment and pushed to marriage.

  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Are these guys just being charged with "polygamy"?

    Why is polygamy against the law? In a vacuum it's hardly sinister.

    Now if these guys are doing other wrongheaded things like say, rape statutory or otherwise or domestic abuse or what have you then charge them with that and put em away for a long time.

    But polygamy? I'm failing to see how this is a problem and frankly I think laws against polygamy are more about preventing people from fucking up the tax code than about enforcing a moral agenda.

    Either way it makes little sense to prevent people from being married to multiple people. It's none of the state's business. For that matter neither are conventional or gay marriages either.

Sign In or Register to comment.