Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
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

1235713

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    According to the Attorney General of Utah, more than 65% of the polygamists in the state are on welfare, compared to 6% of the general population. I think that says something.

    One person can't support a harem on a single income?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    According to the Attorney General of Utah, more than 65% of the polygamists in the state are on welfare, compared to 6% of the general population. I think that says something.

    One person can't support a harem on a single income?

    It's truly unfortunate.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    According to the Attorney General of Utah, more than 65% of the polygamists in the state are on welfare, compared to 6% of the general population. I think that says something.

    One person can't support a harem on a single income?

    It's truly unfortunate.

    Also shocking!

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    According to the Attorney General of Utah, more than 65% of the polygamists in the state are on welfare, compared to 6% of the general population. I think that says something.

    One person can't support a harem on a single income?

    It's truly unfortunate.

    Also shocking!

    It's the great failure of our society that not every man in our country can live the lifestyle of an Arabian prince.

    Every man a Sultan, as I always say.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Are you being a moron on purpose wwtMask, or do you just want to keep being a dick and calling everything a "bad analogy?"

    Anti-Jaywalking laws aren't meant to prevent facilitation of robbery, they're meant to prevent facilitation of vehicular manslaughter. His analogy makes perfect sense.

    I'm sure someone out there is probably crossing the street not at the crosswalk, just as some wiccal is out there is living in a house with two women and doing them both with no social fallout. But we make them both illegal because of the huge potential they both have for ending in tragedy.

    I'm perfectly aware of that. But you're wrong if you think polygamy is illegal to prevent child abuse and forced marriages. It's illegal because people don't like the idea of someone marrying multiple people. You guys keep putting forward the (wrong) argument that polygamy is illegal to prevent these crimes, and I say that's stupid because laws already exist to prevent those crimes. I'm just trying to apply your logic to the example.

    Oh, and the assumption that polygamy must end badly is stupid. Besides selection bias inherent in the examples given against polygamy, the fact is that plain old marriage has a 50% failure rate. Should we then make regular marriage illegal because it may be abused or statistically may end badly for half the people involved?
    Divorce is not really analagous to child abuse, rape, spousal abuse, abandonment of young boys...

    It's pretty silly to say that those things are on the same scale as a divorce.


    Whatever the original reasons for the laws that now exist, I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that polygamy should stay illegal because it is icky.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Seriously, I don't get why you guys aren't applying the same arguments towards other things. Guns facilitate crimes, therefore gun ownership should be illegal. Cars facilitate crime, therefore owning a car should be illegal. The goddamned drug analogy is fucking retarded. Are you seriously saying that an addictive drug is the same thing as getting married to two or more people? It's stupid.

    Once again, what are the logical reasons for banning polygamy which current laws don't already cover, and why is it so special that the logic behind banning it shouldn't be applied to other situations?

    Also, I already addressed that welfare statistic pages ago. All it tells me is that families get to a point where they're too large to financially sustain themselves. The marital status of the parents is pretty much irrelevant.

    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
    This is getting close to a metaphor about the Special Olympics, so I'm just going to quit now before Jeffe gives you an infraction for being a dumbass.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Are you being a moron on purpose wwtMask, or do you just want to keep being a dick and calling everything a "bad analogy?"

    Anti-Jaywalking laws aren't meant to prevent facilitation of robbery, they're meant to prevent facilitation of vehicular manslaughter. His analogy makes perfect sense.

    I'm sure someone out there is probably crossing the street not at the crosswalk, just as some wiccal is out there is living in a house with two women and doing them both with no social fallout. But we make them both illegal because of the huge potential they both have for ending in tragedy.

    I'm perfectly aware of that. But you're wrong if you think polygamy is illegal to prevent child abuse and forced marriages. It's illegal because people don't like the idea of someone marrying multiple people. You guys keep putting forward the (wrong) argument that polygamy is illegal to prevent these crimes, and I say that's stupid because laws already exist to prevent those crimes. I'm just trying to apply your logic to the example.

    Oh, and the assumption that polygamy must end badly is stupid. Besides selection bias inherent in the examples given against polygamy, the fact is that plain old marriage has a 50% failure rate. Should we then make regular marriage illegal because it may be abused or statistically may end badly for half the people involved?
    Divorce is not really analagous to child abuse, rape, spousal abuse, abandonment of young boys...

    It's pretty silly to say that those things are on the same scale as a divorce.


    Whatever the original reasons for the laws that now exist, I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that polygamy should stay illegal because it is icky.

    No, you're arguing that illegal things occur among polygamists. Fine, I concede that. Prosecute them for the illegal things. What, then, is your argument against non-criminal polygamists, if you can't fall back on boogeyman arguments? This is a causation/correlation logical failure. And you all are STILL arguing based on a biased sample set. Why should I accept your assertions if the foundations of them are shaky?

    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
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Very interesting thread. I had always been a "well it is icky, but there's not really much we can do about it reasonably" kind of guy, but the public safety argument is very compelling.

    Once the LDS nuts stop their shenanigans it will be a harder sell, but for now I think you've got me convinced.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    EDIT: Oh, and between the upcoming universal health insurance and the fact that you have to pay to add people onto your health insurance, your argument about health benefits is pretty unconvincing.

    Not always.

    See: my current plan.

    It's a flat rate for "family."
    Saammiel wrote: »
    How exactly is employment benefits unworkable? Guess what, my place of employment already offers an option to insure an indeterminate number of children. I don't see how adult beneficiaries are special snowflakes.

    Because there's generally some upper limit to the number of kids a couple will squeeze out. It may be high (7, 10, whatever) but eventually a woman will either no longer be able to conceive/carry to term (if only due to age).

    Seven wives would very well mean seventy children. For a total of seventy-seven dependents.

    See the issue?
    Saammiel wrote: »
    So in order to justify your statement you would need to show that among people in polygamous relationships, people like FLDS are the norm and I really doubt there is good evidence to support that assertion.

    This almost makes me want to make it legal, so we can start tracking it and determine who's right.

    Almost.

    As it is, I'm pretty confident that people like the FLDS (who may be of any faith, or none, mind you) are the norm. At least in the US.
    Plutonium wrote: »
    I'm sure someone out there is probably crossing the street not at the crosswalk, just as some wiccan is out there is living in a house with two women and doing them both with no social fallout. But we make them both illegal because of the huge potential they both have for ending in tragedy as things currently stand.

    Man, would that even be illegal? I'm pretty sure simply banging them both is legal in at least some states...it's not until you start treating them as wives (or husbands) that you cross into polygamy territory. Which requires more than a sexual relationship, or even cohabitation, no?
    Medopine wrote: »
    Polygamy, as practiced in the US, is a problem. Statutory rape of underage girls that are forced to become the third/fourth/fifth wife of an older man is directly because of that practice of polygamy. Young boys turned out of their communities and left without any resources because they would require several wives and there aren't enough to go around is directly because of that practice of polygamy.

    When you post saying "if it doesn't hurt anyone, why make it illegal" it's just nonsense. Polygamy hurts people in the US.

    That bolded? There aren't necessarily any other laws covering that either (unlike stat-rape). Especially if we're talking about 18-year-old boys. And yes, I know that other 18-year-olds get turned out of the house as well, but see below. Also, those 18-year-olds will generally have resources outside their home, like friends...they haven't been brought up in isolated communities.
    Saammiel wrote: »
    It isn't the concept of polygamy in and of itself, since you can have polygamous relationships outside of fundamental mormonism, it is the religious frameworks of the people in question. And statutory rape, child abuse and spousal abuse are all already illegal and happen in non-polygamous households as well, as does homelessness.

    Non-heroin-addicts commit burglaries as well, we still make that illegal. Just because Bad Thing X happens absent Y doesn't mean we shouldn't make Y illegal when Bad Thing X happens absurdly often in the presence of Y.

    And yes, polygamous relationships happen outside of fundamental Mormonism...but anywhere that they happen in any concentration (regardless of religion) there tend to be the same issues.
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I need a bit more explanation as to why legalizing polygamy will necessarily increase government intrusiveness or cause legislators to have coronaries trying to draft sensible legislation regarding the institution. What shenanigans are polygamists who exploit young girls pulling now that uses polygamy as a legal shield/tool?

    The biggest is failing to register births. As mentioned. As it stands, the government largely depends on people to, you know, take care of that themselves...it generally happens at the hospital, or it can be filed elsewhere. But the point is that the biggest enforcement of birth registration is the fact that it's more or less required out in the rest of society for various reasons.

    Less so when you live in a compound and your parents make your clothes, you go to a school run by your church, etc.

    And when you have a bunch of kids who are raised communally (and can't or won't identify actual individual parents), may not even know their own ages (or will lie to protect their community), and don't have birth certificates, how exactly do you determine if statutory rape (or incest, for that matter) is occurring?

    However I'm failing to find any way for the government to compel citizens to file such records that won't be intrusive or problematic, especially on the enforcement end.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    GungHo wrote: »
    I don't think that there's something inherently evil about polygamy

    Polygamy, as it is widely practiced, is inherently evil.

    If your position is that polygamy, in a Platonic ideal form in a perfect world, is not evil... well gee that's great and I agree. I'd rather we have laws that function in the society we have, not a perfect hypothetical society that only exists in somebody's head.

    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.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Are you being a moron on purpose wwtMask, or do you just want to keep being a dick and calling everything a "bad analogy?"

    Anti-Jaywalking laws aren't meant to prevent facilitation of robbery, they're meant to prevent facilitation of vehicular manslaughter. His analogy makes perfect sense.

    I'm sure someone out there is probably crossing the street not at the crosswalk, just as some wiccal is out there is living in a house with two women and doing them both with no social fallout. But we make them both illegal because of the huge potential they both have for ending in tragedy.

    I'm perfectly aware of that. But you're wrong if you think polygamy is illegal to prevent child abuse and forced marriages. It's illegal because people don't like the idea of someone marrying multiple people. You guys keep putting forward the (wrong) argument that polygamy is illegal to prevent these crimes, and I say that's stupid because laws already exist to prevent those crimes. I'm just trying to apply your logic to the example.

    Oh, and the assumption that polygamy must end badly is stupid. Besides selection bias inherent in the examples given against polygamy, the fact is that plain old marriage has a 50% failure rate. Should we then make regular marriage illegal because it may be abused or statistically may end badly for half the people involved?
    Divorce is not really analagous to child abuse, rape, spousal abuse, abandonment of young boys...

    It's pretty silly to say that those things are on the same scale as a divorce.


    Whatever the original reasons for the laws that now exist, I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that polygamy should stay illegal because it is icky.

    No, you're arguing that illegal things occur among polygamists. Fine, I concede that. Prosecute them for the illegal things. What, then, is your argument against non-criminal polygamists, if you can't fall back on boogeyman arguments? This is a causation/correlation logical failure. And you all are STILL arguing based on a biased sample set. Why should I accept your assertions if the foundations of them are shaky?
    The information we have about polygamy practice in this country shows that it does enough harm to justify the underlying practice remaining illegal. Harm results directly from this practice, and on a large enough scale that the practice should remain illegal both as a deterrent and as a tool in prosecution.

    What are the foundations of your assertions that there are a large swath of regular ol polygamists living in completely healthy relationships that will be greatly affected by polygamy remaining illegal?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Seriously, I don't get why you guys aren't applying the same arguments towards other things. Guns facilitate crimes, therefore gun ownership should be illegal.

    Private ownership of firearms (theoretically...I don't want to argue these here) performs other necessary functions. Such as facilitating self-defense, hunting (yes, subsistence hunting is important in some areas), common defense, and defense against a tyrannical government.

    Absent those, I'd say ban the fuck out of them. Because yeah, the downsides really suck.

    Most anti-gun activists are anti-gun for pretty much this reason (they don't acknowledge these necessary functions).

    So, can you give my any equivalent necessary functions that polygamy performs?

    EDIT: Because the downsides have already been well-covered, of course.
    Feral wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    I don't think that there's something inherently evil about polygamy

    Polygamy, as it is widely practiced, is inherently evil.

    If your position is that polygamy, in a Platonic ideal form in a perfect world, is not evil... well gee that's great and I agree. I'd rather we have laws that function in the society we have, not a perfect hypothetical society that only exists in somebody's head.

    So, what you're saying is that you're not a libertarian?

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It occurs to me that the public safety aspect isn't really that hot either. Independent of any other concerns, polygamy is pretty tame and shouldn't be illegal. If you then argue that bad things are done with polygamy as a front, and it should therefore be illegal, you still fail because it's illegal right now and these things are still happening anyway. Are the crimes being committed going to suddenly become legal just because polygamy is legalized? No. Are they going to become acceptable to society? No. Will the frequency of said crimes change? I highly doubt it.

    Jeff, I dunno about government being morally required to recognize marriage, and it has pretty much no bearing on my thoughts about the subject. If it recognizes marriage as a legal institution, though, I think that it should recognize all marriages that are between people who are legally recognized as being able to consent/enter into contracts.

    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
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It occurs to me that the public safety aspect isn't really that hot either. Independent of any other concerns, polygamy is pretty tame and shouldn't be illegal. If you then argue that bad things are done with polygamy as a front, and it should therefore be illegal, you still fail because it's illegal right now and these things are still happening anyway. Are the crimes being committed going to suddenly become legal just because polygamy is legalized? No. Are they going to become acceptable to society? No. Will the frequency of said crimes change? I highly doubt it.

    Jeff, I dunno about government being morally required to recognize marriage, and it has pretty much no bearing on my thoughts about the subject. If it recognizes marriage as a legal institution, though, I think that it should recognize all marriages that are between people who are legally recognized as being able to consent/enter into contracts.

    Such as sisters and brothers? Mother and 18 year old son?

    You might want to think about that position a bit more.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It occurs to me that the public safety aspect isn't really that hot either. Independent of any other concerns, polygamy is pretty tame and shouldn't be illegal. If you then argue that bad things are done with polygamy as a front, and it should therefore be illegal, you still fail because it's illegal right now and these things are still happening anyway. Are the crimes being committed going to suddenly become legal just because polygamy is legalized? No. Are they going to become acceptable to society? No. Will the frequency of said crimes change? I highly doubt it.

    Will they be remarkably harder to investigate and prosecute? Yes.

    Does polygamy offer any benefits to society to justify this? No.

    EDIT: Keep in mind that I also think that polygamy, as commonly practiced in North America, is also pretty much inherently bad.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Are you being a moron on purpose wwtMask, or do you just want to keep being a dick and calling everything a "bad analogy?"

    Anti-Jaywalking laws aren't meant to prevent facilitation of robbery, they're meant to prevent facilitation of vehicular manslaughter. His analogy makes perfect sense.

    I'm sure someone out there is probably crossing the street not at the crosswalk, just as some wiccal is out there is living in a house with two women and doing them both with no social fallout. But we make them both illegal because of the huge potential they both have for ending in tragedy.

    I'm perfectly aware of that. But you're wrong if you think polygamy is illegal to prevent child abuse and forced marriages. It's illegal because people don't like the idea of someone marrying multiple people. You guys keep putting forward the (wrong) argument that polygamy is illegal to prevent these crimes, and I say that's stupid because laws already exist to prevent those crimes. I'm just trying to apply your logic to the example.

    Oh, and the assumption that polygamy must end badly is stupid. Besides selection bias inherent in the examples given against polygamy, the fact is that plain old marriage has a 50% failure rate. Should we then make regular marriage illegal because it may be abused or statistically may end badly for half the people involved?
    Divorce is not really analagous to child abuse, rape, spousal abuse, abandonment of young boys...

    It's pretty silly to say that those things are on the same scale as a divorce.


    Whatever the original reasons for the laws that now exist, I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that polygamy should stay illegal because it is icky.

    No, you're arguing that illegal things occur among polygamists. Fine, I concede that. Prosecute them for the illegal things. What, then, is your argument against non-criminal polygamists, if you can't fall back on boogeyman arguments? This is a causation/correlation logical failure. And you all are STILL arguing based on a biased sample set. Why should I accept your assertions if the foundations of them are shaky?
    The information we have about polygamy practice in this country shows that it does enough harm to justify the underlying practice remaining illegal. Harm results directly from this practice, and on a large enough scale that the practice should remain illegal both as a deterrent and as a tool in prosecution.

    What are the foundations of your assertions that there are a large swath of regular ol polygamists living in completely healthy relationships that will be greatly affected by polygamy remaining illegal?

    I have none, it being illegal and all and people not wanting to volunteer information about them being criminals. But see, I know for certain your sample set is biased, and by using it as justification for making polygamy illegal, you're already tipping the scales in your favor. Are you saying that it's logically consistent to argue that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence?

    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
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    No I was just asking if you had any foundation for your assertion.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Also, I reject the common meme of "making it illegal doesn't make it happen less often."

    No, it doesn't eliminate it.

    But it does reduce the frequency.

    For instance, if marijuana were legal I'd probably be high right now. Readily available at my local corner store and zero concern about prosecution or failing any stupid drug test? Why the fuck not?

    I don't think illegality does much to stop 12- to 24-year-olds...but eventually when you get a little older and have a little more to lose and more responsibilities, the potential downsides do cause at least some people to reconsider.

    I'd think this would be doubly so for something that's generally a little harder to hide (without living in a place where pioneer dresses are considered the latest fashion) like polygamy.

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask, not all of the detrimental things that Polygamy fosters/creates are illegal. Because many of them are impossible to legislate against without numerous not detrimental cases also being effected.

    Most Polygamist sects do not get legally married to any of their wives. They use "spiritual marriage". This means it doesnt require Parental Consent at all. The anti-polygamy laws are the only way to really crack down on things like this without causing undue burden on the rest of society.

    Speaking for myself, I would be more interested in helping to get Anti-Polygamy laws stricken from the books, when the majority of polygamists became more interested in stopping the child rape, abuse, abandonment, and emotional/psychological/spiritual enslavement that they very actively turn a blind eye to.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Brave Frontier: Adamski (481 077 56)
    Puzzles & Dragons: Adamski@pa (313 842 296)
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask is the Clawshrimpy of polygamy.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It occurs to me that the public safety aspect isn't really that hot either. Independent of any other concerns, polygamy is pretty tame and shouldn't be illegal. If you then argue that bad things are done with polygamy as a front, and it should therefore be illegal, you still fail because it's illegal right now and these things are still happening anyway. Are the crimes being committed going to suddenly become legal just because polygamy is legalized? No. Are they going to become acceptable to society? No. Will the frequency of said crimes change? I highly doubt it.

    Jeff, I dunno about government being morally required to recognize marriage, and it has pretty much no bearing on my thoughts about the subject. If it recognizes marriage as a legal institution, though, I think that it should recognize all marriages that are between people who are legally recognized as being able to consent/enter into contracts.

    Such as sisters and brothers? Mother and 18 year old son?

    You might want to think about that position a bit more.

    Aren't those prohibited mainly because their offspring would be impaired? Fine, I'll amend my statement: marriage between people who can give legal consent and that won't result in retarded incest-babies should be legal.

    mcdermott: How does legalizing polygamy make it harder to find and prosecute people for abuse? Are girls suddenly gonna stop coming forward or something? I don't think that it's the bonds of polygamy that are keeping the abused from coming forward, it's their religion and culture that they're living in.

    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
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    How exactly is employment benefits unworkable? Guess what, my place of employment already offers an option to insure an indeterminate number of children. I don't see how adult beneficiaries are special snowflakes.

    Employers generally cover part of the employee's benefits out of pocket, which is why they're "benefits" and not "things you can get on your own so why bother". If you have 20 spouses, that would get sort of expensive for your company. My last employer shelled out $1000/mo for me and my spouse and two children. If I had 10 wives and 15 children, they should be required to pay $6000k/month for me? And if they're not required to pay, then there's one less advantage of legalized polygamy.

    Except for the family plans it is all amortized in their actuarial tables as far as I understand. So no, at least on my plan, your company wouldn't be required to pay any more, other than maybe an extremely small increase in the 'family' category as a whole to account for the fairly small number of people involved in polygamous relationships.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a bastard.

    mrsatansig.png
  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It occurs to me that the public safety aspect isn't really that hot either. Independent of any other concerns, polygamy is pretty tame and shouldn't be illegal. If you then argue that bad things are done with polygamy as a front, and it should therefore be illegal, you still fail because it's illegal right now and these things are still happening anyway. Are the crimes being committed going to suddenly become legal just because polygamy is legalized? No. Are they going to become acceptable to society? No. Will the frequency of said crimes change? I highly doubt it.

    Jeff, I dunno about government being morally required to recognize marriage, and it has pretty much no bearing on my thoughts about the subject. If it recognizes marriage as a legal institution, though, I think that it should recognize all marriages that are between people who are legally recognized as being able to consent/enter into contracts.

    Such as sisters and brothers? Mother and 18 year old son?

    You might want to think about that position a bit more.

    Aren't those prohibited mainly because their offspring would be impaired? Fine, I'll amend my statement: marriage between people who can give legal consent and that won't result in retarded incest-babies should be legal.

    Incestuous marriage is illegal because of the very, very high probability than an incestuous partnership is abusive in some way. The offspring have nothing to do with it - we still let people with inheritable genetic diseases marry.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    No I was just asking if you had any foundation for your assertion.

    Oh, in that case, a couple of shows I saw on Discovery (or Nat. Geo, I think) that showed black American Muslims engaging in the practice. It seemed pretty above board to me, and apparently it's a trend that's been growing. I wish there was more information for me to base my opinion on, but there isn't, so I'm trying to approach it logically.

    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
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Aren't those prohibited mainly because their offspring would be impaired? Fine, I'll amend my statement: marriage between people who can give legal consent and that won't result in retarded incest-babies should be legal.

    Actually the rate of birth defects in sibling incest is about 1 in 3-4% of births. Much higher than the general population, but it's only a major social issue when you have whole communities engaging in incest and compounding birth defects on top of birth defects over multiple generations. Beyond that, not all marriages result in pregnancy anyway.

    In other words, sibling incest is not inherently evil, it just results in social ills when widely practiced in certain communities.

    *cough*

    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.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a baastard.

    No one in this thread has asserted this.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yes, girls will come forward very infrequently.

    Abuse victims in general come forward very infrequently, I'd say that an even stronger structure of controlling adult figures would make that less likely.

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, I reject the common meme of "making it illegal doesn't make it happen less often."

    No, it doesn't eliminate it.

    But it does reduce the frequency.

    For instance, if marijuana were legal I'd probably be high right now. Readily available at my local corner store and zero concern about prosecution or failing any stupid drug test? Why the fuck not?

    I don't think illegality does much to stop 12- to 24-year-olds...but eventually when you get a little older and have a little more to lose and more responsibilities, the potential downsides do cause at least some people to reconsider.

    I'd think this would be doubly so for something that's generally a little harder to hide (without living in a place where pioneer dresses are considered the latest fashion) like polygamy.

    Where is the evidence whatsoever that it reduces the incidence at all amongst those for which there are large downsides to polygamy? Sure, for an average law abiding citizen, making polygamy illegal means that he is less likely to engage in it. But that citizen also isn't going around peddling underage brides, so it is a non-starter. If you legalize it, he isn't all of a sudden going to start looking around for a gaggle of 12 year olds to wed. So, I think it is disingenous to suggest that keeping polygamy illegal is doing much of anything to stop its use as a tool of oppression.

    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    wwtMask is the Clawshrimpy of polygamy.

    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    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
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a baastard.

    No one in this thread has asserted this.
    SmallLady wrote: »
    my major concern is the child abuse. from the TX sect there were 7 underage children who had one or more children.


    as in a 12 year old "married" with a child.

    that is so very wrong.

    There's also this, which is somewhat related:
    Medopine wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Child and spousal abuse and welfare fraud happen all the time outside of polygamist situations. do we disallow things in a broad stroke to prevent those from happening?

    Polygamy is much more inherently ripe for these type of abuses.

    mrsatansig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    I have seen no evidence of large communities of non-fundamentalist non-misogynist polygamists living anywhere in North America. There is significant evidence of large communities of fundamentalist misogynist polygamists living in Utah and bordering states.

    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.
  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, I reject the common meme of "making it illegal doesn't make it happen less often."

    No, it doesn't eliminate it.

    But it does reduce the frequency.

    For instance, if marijuana were legal I'd probably be high right now. Readily available at my local corner store and zero concern about prosecution or failing any stupid drug test? Why the fuck not?

    I don't think illegality does much to stop 12- to 24-year-olds...but eventually when you get a little older and have a little more to lose and more responsibilities, the potential downsides do cause at least some people to reconsider.

    I'd think this would be doubly so for something that's generally a little harder to hide (without living in a place where pioneer dresses are considered the latest fashion) like polygamy.

    Where is the evidence whatsoever that it reduces the incidence at all amongst those for which there are large downsides to polygamy? Sure, for an average law abiding citizen, making polygamy illegal means that he is less likely to engage in it. But that citizen also isn't going around peddling underage brides, so it is a non-starter. If you legalize it, he isn't all of a sudden going to start looking around for a gaggle of 12 year olds to wed. So, I think it is disingenous to suggest that keeping polygamy illegal is doing much of anything to stop its use as a tool of oppression.

    Furthermore, people keep repeatedly stating that FLDS cults are the majority of polygamists, where is this assertion supported anywhere?

    My God. I want to enter a polygamist relationship with you.

    mrsatansig.png
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Aren't those prohibited mainly because their offspring would be impaired? Fine, I'll amend my statement: marriage between people who can give legal consent and that won't result in retarded incest-babies should be legal.

    Actually the rate of birth defects in sibling incest is about 1 in 3-4% of births. Much higher than the general population, but it's only a major social issue when you have whole communities engaging in incest and compounding birth defects on top of birth defects over multiple generations. Beyond that, not all marriages result in pregnancy anyway.

    In other words, sibling incest is not inherently evil, it just results in social ills when widely practiced in certain communities.

    *cough*

    Pretty much. I have no real problem with incest in the theoretical sense. Personally, my sister's bad in bed, but whatever. The reason I don't mind the taboo is that it's generally a detrimental thing when practiced by many members of a community at once, and it tends to favor screwed-up power relationships, especially if it's parent-child.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a baastard.

    No one in this thread has asserted this.

    The arguments against polygamy have revolved around abuse of girls and forced marriage. No one's said it explicitly, but the implication continues to be that polygamy -> abusing underaged girls.

    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
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a baastard.

    No one in this thread has asserted this.
    SmallLady wrote: »
    my major concern is the child abuse. from the TX sect there were 7 underage children who had one or more children.


    as in a 12 year old "married" with a child.

    that is so very wrong.

    There's also this, which is somewhat related:
    Medopine wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Child and spousal abuse and welfare fraud happen all the time outside of polygamist situations. do we disallow things in a broad stroke to prevent those from happening?

    Polygamy is much more inherently ripe for these type of abuses.

    Neither of those posts state or imply that if you marry three women you will then automatically marry underage women. What are you trying to say here?

    Again, in a vacuum or ideal world, polygamy is not inherently bad.

    As practiced in America, different story.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    And your arguments so far have been pretty sucky and unconvincing. There, now that we've gotten the condescending d-bag part of this conversation out of the way, can we get back to you presenting a cogent case that addresses my concerns?

    What does it take for you to recognize that a practice should be illegal?

    That's an honest question. Slightly rephrased, what do you believe the law is for?

    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.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Let me get this straight.

    If I marry three women, I'll feel the uncontrollable need to marry underage girls too? Or let someone else do the same? I didn't know I was such a bastard.

    I guess, if you really wanted to, we could go over the social reasons why the two seem to correlate. Though no, I wouldn't suggest that you individually would do so.

  • KrunkMcGrunkKrunkMcGrunk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    Neither of those posts state or imply that if you marry three women you will then automatically marry underage women. What are you trying to say here?

    Again, in a vacuum or ideal world, polygamy is not inherently bad.

    As practiced in America, different story.

    What? How do those posts not say that? You said yourself:
    Polygamy is much more inherently ripe for these type of abuses.

    mrsatansig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.