I think we can agree that legal marriage is not a Natural Right, or anything. That is, if legal marriage were completely eliminated, it would not violate anyone's rights. The government is not obligated to recognize your living arrangement, or grant you perks because of it.
I think we can also agree that the lack of legal polygamy is not violating any Constitutional rights, unlike bans on interracial marriage or gay marriage. There is no illegal discrimination occurring. Thus, the government is not further legally obligated to recognize polygamy given that they recognize two-person marriage.
Here... I kind of stray. Kind of "Ehhh......". Marriage has really been.. incited by the government. The government encourages marriages. They see married couples as more stable, and let's be honest, better. Marriage is right. This clearly stems from the strong religious influence in the current political climate. There is no natural desire to be in the specific state of "marriage." To be together, yes, but not specifically "married."
However, marriage has been sort of a de facto right.
Since the government is not legally obligated to act here, we're in the comparatively comfy position of being able to examine polygamy based on its merits. That is, we can decide if legal polygamy would result in a net harm or a net good. If the latter, legalize it. If the former, kill it with fire.
So what do we have in the anti- column? (Arguably) a contractual nightmare. It would make it harder to crack down on abusive instances of polygamy (which we all agree exist). It would legitimize these abusive instances. It would make many or most of them completely legal, and thus impossible to prosecute at all.
No no no no no no no. Not at all. How did you get to that? I agree about the possibility of a contractual nightmare, but I doubt that. Because it would be set-up from the beginning how those marriages worked. It would be a prime concern laying the foundation for the legal viewpoint of polygamist relationships, to completely avoid those issues.
But increase abuse? No. We said early on that, if anything, it would bring lightto polygamist marriages. There would be scrutiny put on the relationships rather than blanket condemnation. People wouldn't have to seek out isolated communes to get married to multiple partners. They could do it openly.
That would irrefutably increase the number of reports of abuse. Not decrease them.
In the pro-column? It would increase some abstract notion of "freedom" (though freedom of what precisely, is apparently left as an exercise to the reader). Am I missing anything?
Aside from decreasing abuse? I think you're undervaluing the right to live as one wishes consensually with one another in a modern civilized society, but other than that... I guess not.
For me, the main issue is that there are laws in place that cram the "spouse" requirement up everyone's ass. This is also harmful to -single- people without families. Things such as inheritence and so forth are also tied into this. Things like health care and so forth, which actually cost society at large? Yeah, fine, if you want to ban that, okay. But we have too many laws built around fucking over people who aren't following formula, and that does need to change.
It's always been my understanding that most functioning polyamorous relationships consist of a single committed couple, and one or more auxiliary partners, yes?
That's my experience but I've also met a number of stable threesomes.
For varying degrees of the word "stable."
:?:
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
To summarize this whole polygamy thing from a bird's eye view, for a second:
I think we can agree that legal marriage is not a Natural Right, or anything. That is, if legal marriage were completely eliminated, it would not violate anyone's rights. The government is not obligated to recognize your living arrangement, or grant you perks because of it.
I think we can also agree that the lack of legal polygamy is not violating any Constitutional rights, unlike bans on interracial marriage or gay marriage. There is no illegal discrimination occurring. Thus, the government is not further legally obligated to recognize polygamy given that they recognize two-person marriage.
Nit pick, right now I don't think it is clear that sexuality is a protected class, thus making gay marriage a constitutional issue. I think sexuality should be a protected class, but then I would also classify polygamists in that class as well. They are both ideally relationships between consenting individuals.
Can we agree on that? Yes? Good.
Since the government is not legally obligated to act here, we're in the comparatively comfy position of being able to examine polygamy based on its merits. That is, we can decide if legal polygamy would result in a net harm or a net good. If the latter, legalize it. If the former, kill it with fire.
So what do we have in the anti- column? (Arguably) a contractual nightmare. It would make it harder to crack down on abusive instances of polygamy (which we all agree exist). It would legitimize these abusive instances. It would make many or most of them completely legal, and thus impossible to prosecute at all.
In the pro-column? It would increase some abstract notion of "freedom" (though freedom of what precisely, is apparently left as an exercise to the reader). Am I missing anything?
These two columns seem a little unbalanced. Like, the anti- column is about ready to topple over and crush the pro- column.
I disagree that it would make it unduly hard to crack down on abuse. It just serves as a blunt instrument prosecutors can use to jail people guilty of other laws. I mean, if people feel that those laws aren't doing their job, that is one thing and those laws should just be amended since it would aid other cases not involved in polygamy. So basically that puts it in the category of 'laws that can be used to punish when it cannot be proved the assailent broke this other law'. And I am not really comfortable with that. And I don't think it would legitimize those abuses. The abuses are already a crime in and of themselves. Legitimizing the tertiary circumstances surrounding the abuse doesn't legitimize the abuse itself.
Also in the pro column is that it would make certain subsets of the population happy. Which is one of the goals of society IMO, to increase overall welfare of which happiness is a big component.
I agree that marriage law itself would be in for a lot of rewriting, but I mean there is at least precedent in other aspects of our law.
I think we can also agree that the lack of legal polygamy is not violating any Constitutional rights, unlike bans on interracial marriage or gay marriage. There is no illegal discrimination occurring. Thus, the government is not further legally obligated to recognize polygamy given that they recognize two-person marriage.
Can we agree on that? Yes? Good.
Not sure about this.
There are a number of different constitutional issues that may be raised, depending on the constitution we're talking about.
But increase abuse? No. We said early on that, if anything, it would bring lightto polygamist marriages. There would be scrutiny put on the relationships rather than blanket condemnation. People wouldn't have to seek out isolated communes to get married to multiple partners. They could do it openly.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
And they wouldn't do it "openly" in the sense that they would live out in the suburbs with regular folk. They'd still have their communities. Only now it's harder for the married servant-girls to escape, since they're bound in a legal contract.
Aside from decreasing abuse? I think you're undervaluing the right to live as one wishes consensually with one another in a modern civilized society, but other than that... I guess not.
Again, how is legal polygamy required for a group of five people to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together? There may be some oddities created by common law marriages in certain areas, but that's fixable by tossing out common-law marriages.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Seriously, next person who trots out the whole "consenting adults can't live together!" thing is going to find something large and unpleasant broken off in his asshole.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think we can also agree that the lack of legal polygamy is not violating any Constitutional rights, unlike bans on interracial marriage or gay marriage. There is no illegal discrimination occurring. Thus, the government is not further legally obligated to recognize polygamy given that they recognize two-person marriage.
Can we agree on that? Yes? Good.
Not sure about this.
There are a number of different constitutional issues that may be raised, depending on the constitution we're talking about.
Umm... US?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Seriously, next person who trots out the whole "consenting adults can't live together!" thing is going to find something large and unpleasant broken off in his asshole.
I think we can also agree that the lack of legal polygamy is not violating any Constitutional rights, unlike bans on interracial marriage or gay marriage. There is no illegal discrimination occurring. Thus, the government is not further legally obligated to recognize polygamy given that they recognize two-person marriage.
Can we agree on that? Yes? Good.
Not sure about this.
There are a number of different constitutional issues that may be raised, depending on the constitution we're talking about.
Umm... US?
The funny part is the OP is about Canada. American hegemony on PA has been acheived!
But increase abuse? No. We said early on that, if anything, it would bring lightto polygamist marriages. There would be scrutiny put on the relationships rather than blanket condemnation. People wouldn't have to seek out isolated communes to get married to multiple partners. They could do it openly.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
What you're describing could also be applied to arranged marriage, which is a hot-button issue in the UK. However, I don't think you'd agree that the outlawing of marriage would be a reasonable response to that particular problem.
I'm really not seeing the connection between the legitimacy of polygamous marriage and the incidence of abuse.
I think we can agree that legal marriage is not a Natural Right, or anything. That is, if legal marriage were completely eliminated, it would not violate anyone's rights. The government is not obligated to recognize your living arrangement, or grant you perks because of it.
I'm not willing to agree to that necessarily. The Natural Rights philosophy of political rights which is one of the key foundations of US style government actually presumes that there is only one form of society that must naturally exist - parents. The rights of children exist collectively in the parents, and as such are the only rights that exist from the union of two people that didn't exist when those people are alone.
Under that it could be strongly argued that to a certain extent, government must make some kind of recognition of marriage, even if they don't have to give any kind of benefit to that union necessarily.
That doesn't inherently apply to polygamy and since child birth and marriage aren't inherently connected you could make an argument that modern civil marriage and the marriage Locke and others talked about are not the same thing.
That being said polygamy doesn't work.
In Practice, polygamy has been connected to extensive child abuse and spousal abuse. Its conceivable that a loving polygamous relationship could exist but there's no reason this behavior must be supported and encouraged by the government while the connection to anti-social and criminal behavior is so strong. In those cases where abuse is suspected, in general, I would prefer for that to be investigated. In the case where its three people who live together in a relationship, it should not be the priority of law enforcement.
In Theory, polygamy is not scalable and not well defined. Does every member of marriage have to consent and marry a new member? Can two people be married to one person and not another? Can A be married to B, B married to A and C, and D and E married to C? If B wants to divorce F but not A, C, D or E, can he?
Could every member of La Cosa Nostra "marry" each other? Share the tax benefits and testimony rights?
Unlike gay marriage, multiple marriage is (to put it in game terms) "unbalanced" and prone to harmful gaming of the system in violation of its intent.
If three individuals want to live together, not be officially married and have children I have no problem with that. You build a community around it which is inherently unstable and you should be investigated. If boys are disappearing and girls are getting knocked up then its no longer love, but abuse.
Aside from decreasing abuse? I think you're undervaluing the right to live as one wishes consensually with one another in a modern civilized society, but other than that... I guess not.
Again, how is legal polygamy required for a group of five people to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together? There may be some oddities created by common law marriages in certain areas, but that's fixable by tossing out common-law marriages.
Well, I hope I've said before that I don't hold, personally, marriage in this ridiculously high regard. It was more a matter of respect for the people who do want it.
Finally, I don't mean this to be offensive at all, please don't take it that way, but what you said could be read like this, and this is my point.
Again, how is legal gay marriage required for a couple homosexual adults to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together?
I figure it's a matter of parity by the de facto right of marriage the government has very clearly given based on the numerous incentives and protections of marriage.
Again, how is legal gay marriage required for a couple homosexual adults to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together?
I figure it's a matter of parity by the de facto right of marriage the government has very clearly given based on the numerous incentives and protections of marriage.
I don't think you can make this comparison. We've already determined that since we recognize marriages between two people, not recognizing gay marriage is specifically discriminating because they are gay - it's still a union between two people. We don't recognize marriages between more than two people because of a whole host of issues that have been stated multiple times here.
The Canadian law as written is problematic because if there are five people living in a situation as described by ElJeffe, they could well be susceptible to prosecution.
(a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
(i) any form of polygamy, or
(ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
(b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Evidence in case of polygamy
(2) Where an accused is charged with an offence under this section, no averment or proof of the method by which the alleged relationship was entered into, agreed to or consented to is necessary in the indictment or on the trial of the accused, nor is it necessary on the trial to prove that the persons who are alleged to have entered into the relationship had or intended to have sexual intercourse.
Again, how is legal gay marriage required for a couple homosexual adults to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together?
I figure it's a matter of parity by the de facto right of marriage the government has very clearly given based on the numerous incentives and protections of marriage.
I don't think you can make this comparison. We've already determined that since we recognize marriages between two people, not recognizing gay marriage is specifically discriminating because they are gay - it's still a union between two people. We don't recognize marriages between more than two people because of a whole host of issues that have been stated multiple times here.
True, I do not refute that.
But not in the way El Jeffe had said it. Specifically using Jeffe's "why do you need marriage" logic, it would as well exclude gay marriage.
Again, how is legal gay marriage required for a couple homosexual adults to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together?
I figure it's a matter of parity by the de facto right of marriage the government has very clearly given based on the numerous incentives and protections of marriage.
I don't think you can make this comparison. We've already determined that since we recognize marriages between two people, not recognizing gay marriage is specifically discriminating because they are gay - it's still a union between two people. We don't recognize marriages between more than two people because of a whole host of issues that have been stated multiple times here.
True, I do not refute that.
But not in the way El Jeffe had said it. Specifically using Jeffe's "why do you need marriage" logic, it would as well exclude gay marriage.
Strictly speaking, they don't need marriage. It's not like gay couples have been unable to live together and love each other. And honestly, I do not consider the gay marriage issue to be hugely pressing. I consider denying gay marriage to be a dick move and a slap in the face given that there's no reasonable downside to legalizing it, but it's not like some Normalcy Gestapo is going into gay folks' houses and dragging them off to concentration camps.
So there's two differences. One, polygamy not required to maintain constitutional legitimacy in our marriage laws (and though there may be some flimsy arguments to the contrary, they're in a different league from those surrounding gay marriage). Two, gay marriage has no objective downsides at all, while polygamy certainly does.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
No, my position is that banning a practice that will be taken advantage of by a bunch of crazy shitheads in the desert simply because it's taken advantage of by a bunch of crazy shitheads in the desert is not necessarily the best rationalization I think we can come up with, because I think it's a lazy rationalization.
mcdermott's position of the possibility of creating a large number of children that cannot be supported has rationale beyond "it's icky and kiddy-fuckers like it", so I'm accepting of that argument and weigh that one. But, I don't accept "it's gross and wrong because it just is gross and wrong, so deal with it" mostly because that's the same reactionary position everyone on this board always rails against and goes all "lol fundies" about. At the base level, I honestly also feel it's pretty damn weird and I'd certainly look askance at friends, family, and others for doing it (and, no, no one I know ever has, nor am I in a cult), nor do I think allowing it would provide a net gain for society, but I gotta force myself to look at the issue from other angles because I ask that from others here on other subjects when they demand something be cast down.
Now, if you want to bring up breaking up the crazy, kid-raping groups out in the desert and throwing them in jail because they're crazy and they rape kids, then you have my unconditional support.
Do you understand why criminal negligence is criminal?
Hint: it's not because it's inherently harmful.
I didn't say that drunk driving was inherently harmful. I was saying that there's a difference between drunk driving and non-arranged polygamy because drunk driving stems from negligence and you can't enter into a polygamist relationship without the intent of doing so. Unless you get stuck in an arranged marriage, but I don't think anyone here is down with that.
Drunk driving is not a good analogy for this thread because it relates to a physical and mental imparement caused by alcohol that leads to poor decision making that may result in personal or property damage. It's not a "icky" feeling thing. You could kill yourself or someone else. Short of committing suicide once you find out how much it's gotta suck listening to two people whine that you can't easily run away from, I don't see the imminent danger of someone marrying two people.
Except polygamy would be ripe for abuse. You and your twelve friends need health insurance? Get married. In order to abuse the number of kids covered, you sort of need to squeeze out more kids.
This is another example of a problem that could be introduced that doesn't rely on squickiness to sell the point.
You're free to have your views, and it's not like arguing over the internet is going to change them, no matter how wrong they are.
Actually, I've had my mind/views changed when reading a board. This very board in fact. I used to love Chick-fil-a... then someone told me who they fund. Never ate there again.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
Wait a second... this is reaching. This isn't an example of how polygamy is bad. Hell, this has nothing at all to anything to do with polygamy.
Strictly speaking, they don't need marriage. It's not like gay couples have been unable to live together and love each other. And honestly, I do not consider the gay marriage issue to be hugely pressing.
And strictly speaking, I do agree with all that. I of course think they deserve it as a matter of equality, of course, but no, no one needs marriage if we look at the issue in a vacuum.
Two, gay marriage has no objective downsides at all, while polygamy certainly does.
I think the downsides may be exaggerated or too misunderstood, and that they may be, with proper dedication, worked through, but still, I do agree with this too.
I go back to, however, that all in all I don't know. I'd also like to see everyone in the world happy and fed, so...
Again, how is legal gay marriage required for a couple homosexual adults to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together?
I figure it's a matter of parity by the de facto right of marriage the government has very clearly given based on the numerous incentives and protections of marriage.
I don't think you can make this comparison. We've already determined that since we recognize marriages between two people, not recognizing gay marriage is specifically discriminating because they are gay - it's still a union between two people. We don't recognize marriages between more than two people because of a whole host of issues that have been stated multiple times here.
True, I do not refute that.
But not in the way El Jeffe had said it. Specifically using Jeffe's "why do you need marriage" logic, it would as well exclude gay marriage.
Strictly speaking, they don't need marriage. It's not like gay couples have been unable to live together and love each other. And honestly, I do not consider the gay marriage issue to be hugely pressing. I consider denying gay marriage to be a dick move and a slap in the face given that there's no reasonable downside to legalizing it, but it's not like some Normalcy Gestapo is going into gay folks' houses and dragging them off to concentration camps.
So there's two differences. One, polygamy not required to maintain constitutional legitimacy in our marriage laws (and though there may be some flimsy arguments to the contrary, they're in a different league from those surrounding gay marriage). Two, gay marriage has no objective downsides at all, while polygamy certainly does.
The response that I've made over and over to this is that the same downsides are just as likely to occur in a standard marriage. Probably more likely, considering the huge difference in the number of polygamous marriages vs. standard marriages.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
Wait a second... this is reaching. This isn't an example of how polygamy is bad. Hell, this has nothing at all to anything to do with polygamy.
It grants legitimacy to a terrible practice and makes it more difficult for those trapped therein to escape?
Right now, if some girl realizes she's being abused, she needs to escape from her oppressive commune and start life anew while knowing nobody and likely having no skills outside of cooking, cleaning, and freaky sex. I'm not wild about adding "escape from the binding legal contract attaching you to the guy who was abusing you" to the list of challenges.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
Wait a second... this is reaching. This isn't an example of how polygamy is bad. Hell, this has nothing at all to anything to do with polygamy.
It grants legitimacy to a terrible practice and makes it more difficult for those trapped therein to escape?
Right now, if some girl realizes she's being abused, she needs to escape from her oppressive commune and start life anew while knowing nobody and likely having no skills outside of cooking, cleaning, and freaky sex. I'm not wild about adding "escape from the binding legal contract attaching you to the guy who was abusing you" to the list of challenges.
And my answer to this was to take away parental approval for underage kids to get married. There, problem solved, and polygamy remains untouched because your beef isn't with polygamy, it's with parents forcing their kids to get married.
The response that I've made over and over to this is that the same downsides are just as likely to occur in a standard marriage. Probably more likely, considering the huge difference in the number of polygamous marriages vs. standard marriages.
The amount of misery in a single abusive marriage is markedly less than that in a single polygamous clusterfuck. Once an abusive fuck staples himself to a single victim, he's unable to destroy other women.
And I'm pretty sure traditional marriage doesn't result in communities driving out of-age males in order to keep all the awesome barely-pubescent poon for themselves.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And my answer to this was to take away parental approval for underage kids to get married. There, problem solved, and polygamy remains untouched because your beef isn't with polygamy, it's with parents forcing their kids to get married.
And the problem with jaywalking isn't the guy being in the wrong part of the street, it's the guy being imbedded in the grill of the passing Buick.
Which is to say you can't really divorce the two as easily as you'd like.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And my answer to this was to take away parental approval for underage kids to get married. There, problem solved, and polygamy remains untouched because your beef isn't with polygamy, it's with parents forcing their kids to get married.
And the problem with jaywalking isn't the guy being in the wrong part of the street, it's the guy being imbedded in the grill of the passing Buick.
Which is to say you can't really divorce the two as easily as you'd like.
At this point you're arguing against the cults themselves forcing people to do stuff. Aren't they doing that already? Wow, that polygamy ban is really handling this problem beautifully. We're arguing in circles here. You guys are claiming that legal polygamy is going to make things worse, when it's already at worse now. Banning polygamy isn't solving anything. It's not some panacea that's preventing the crimes you're citing as evidence, but you're claiming that it's vital that polygamy is banned to prevent said crimes. What gives you any reason to believe that's true?
Right now, if some girl realizes she's being abused, she needs to escape from her oppressive commune and start life anew while knowing nobody and likely having no skills outside of cooking, cleaning, and freaky sex. I'm not wild about adding "escape from the binding legal contract attaching you to the guy who was abusing you" to the list of challenges.
On the upside, if these marriages were legal then you could require little things like valid birth certificates verifying that the girls are, you know, of age.
Of course this doesn't keep them from simply performing "spiritual" marriages out on their communes then making them legal later, when she's older.
Then again, neither (apparently) does keeping polygamy illegal. Especially since, absent legal marriages to multiple people (which these guys don't perform) in most states it's nearly impossible to prosecute anyway. Were the marriages in Canada (from the OP) legal marriages? Maybe it's easier to prosecute up there.
EDIT: And to (though I hate to do it) back up wwtMask even more, I can't even think of a way to make prosecuting "spiritual" polygamy easier without opening it up to abuse by overzealous (or fundamentalist) prosecutors against people just shackin' up together. So yay complex issue. I'm still firmly in the "keep it illegal" camp, though.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
Wait a second... this is reaching. This isn't an example of how polygamy is bad. Hell, this has nothing at all to anything to do with polygamy.
It grants legitimacy to a terrible practice and makes it more difficult for those trapped therein to escape?
Right now, if some girl realizes she's being abused, she needs to escape from her oppressive commune and start life anew while knowing nobody and likely having no skills outside of cooking, cleaning, and freaky sex. I'm not wild about adding "escape from the binding legal contract attaching you to the guy who was abusing you" to the list of challenges.
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. This is a cult indoctrination problem.
The amount of misery in a single abusive marriage is markedly less than that in a single polygamous clusterfuck. Once an abusive fuck staples himself to a single victim, he's unable to destroy other women.
And I'm pretty sure traditional marriage doesn't result in communities driving out of-age males in order to keep all the awesome barely-pubescent poon for themselves.
Again, this is crazy cult shit, not polygamy. You're getting stuck on seeing one, and only one, possible implementation of polygamy, one that involves a specific cult that needs to be prosecuted for child abuse.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't think there is a "Lost Boy" syndrome in other places that allow for polygamy (e.g. India, Middle East). The Lost Boy syndrome is tied into this one specific cult you take issue with. I take issue with them too, but their problem is being megalomanical child molesters, not having too much love for one woman to handle.
Let's just go all Dresden on these communes, and then have this conversation again afterwards.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Again, this is crazy cult shit, not polygamy. You're getting stuck on seeing one, and only one, possible implementation of polygamy, one that involves a specific cult that needs to be prosecuted for child abuse.
And you're forgetting the fact that these crazy cults account for the vast majority of polygamous relationships. This is not irrelevant.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If we just air-dropped hookers over the Middle East, it would solve so many problems.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't think there is a "Lost Boy" syndrome in other places that allow for polygamy (e.g. India, Middle East).
You do end up with a class of semi-disenfranchised sexually frustrated young males with minimal family responsibilities.
If you don't think that contributes to social unrest and militant fundamentalism in the middle east then I dunno what to tell you.
I wasn't under the impression that polygamy was any more prevalent over there than it is over here. Wikipedia says 1 to 3% total in the Islamic world. I'm thinking you're vastly overstating the case for polygamy inciting extremism to the point of absurdity.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't think there is a "Lost Boy" syndrome in other places that allow for polygamy (e.g. India, Middle East).
You do end up with a class of semi-disenfranchised sexually frustrated young males with minimal family responsibilities.
If you don't think that contributes to social unrest and militant fundamentalism in the middle east then I dunno what to tell you.
I wasn't under the impression that polygamy was any more prevalent over there than it is over here. Wikipedia says 1 to 3% total in the Islamic world. I'm thinking you're vastly overstating the case for polygamy inciting extremism to the point of absurdity.
It differs country by country. I have no idea what it is in, for example, Afghanistan right now. But when you take a population where there's already a slight male majority and effectively eliminate any possibility that 1-3% of them will ever find wives... well, 1-3% of the young able-bodied men in a country of 30 million people is still enough people to fuck some shit up.
Feral 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.
It differs country by country. I have no idea what it is in, for example, Afghanistan right now. But when you take a population where there's already a slight male majority and effectively eliminate any possibility that 1-3% of them will ever find wives... well, 1-3% of the young able-bodied men in a country of 30 million people is still enough people to fuck some shit up.
Yeah, kinda the same way a campus that's only like 56% male will have a bunch of sexually frustrated dudes and feel like a sausage-fest. It doesn't take much to skew the balance.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
Wait a second... this is reaching. This isn't an example of how polygamy is bad. Hell, this has nothing at all to anything to do with polygamy.
It grants legitimacy to a terrible practice and makes it more difficult for those trapped therein to escape?
Right now, if some girl realizes she's being abused, she needs to escape from her oppressive commune and start life anew while knowing nobody and likely having no skills outside of cooking, cleaning, and freaky sex. I'm not wild about adding "escape from the binding legal contract attaching you to the guy who was abusing you" to the list of challenges.
How is polygamy in a vacuum a "terrible practice" between consenting adults?
Child abuse and statutory rape are terrible practices. Polygamy? Not so much.
I mean we can legislate is out because we think it's immoral or impractical or both but let's decide why it shouldn't be legal. I don't think it's immoral. Impractical for tax purposes? Ok fine but just re-write the tax law to accommodate it or just ignore additional spouses or something.
Making polygamy illegal because it's too much trouble for the tax collectors seems lazy. It's not like politicians won't jump to find new ways to tax people anyway. They love that shit.
How is polygamy in a vacuum a "terrible practice" between consenting adults?
We don't live in a fucking vacuum goddamn your eyes.
Making polygamy illegal because it's too much trouble for the tax collectors seems lazy. It's not like politicians won't jump to find new ways to tax people anyway. They love that shit.
Except the only sane reason to legalize polygamy is to grant those legal benefits to polygamists. If those legal benefits are virtually impossible to organize on a mass scale, that's sort of an argument against.
What you're arguing is, "We should legalize polygamy. Fuck if we know what it'll look like, and we don't care what sort of legal clusterfuck it creates. We're not even sure the idea makes sense. But goddammit, we should do it. We should do it like a dirty old man in a room full of underage sex slaves."
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
How is polygamy in a vacuum a "terrible practice" between consenting adults?
We don't live in a fucking vacuum goddamn your eyes.
Legally speaking we have to take each case for what it is. Polygamy between consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone at all anymore than any other relationship. On paper it's Jack Tripper and a couple women for roommates.
I understand how it can complicate stuff like the tax code but I just don't think that's a good reason to keep something illegal. It's no longer about protecting people and now it's about protecting government revenue.
How is polygamy in a vacuum a "terrible practice" between consenting adults?
We don't live in a fucking vacuum goddamn your eyes.
Legally speaking we have to take each case for what it is. Polygamy between consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone at all anymore than any other relationship. On paper it's Jack Tripper and a couple women for roommates.
I understand how it can complicate stuff like the tax code but I just don't think that's a good reason to keep something illegal. It's no longer about protecting people and now it's about protecting government revenue.
No, legally speaking you have to make sure that the law you make doesn't fuck shit up, unless you're talking about people's rights. The set of legal benefits commonly associated with marriage are not a right. Which you can see when you consider that, were the government to stop recognizing marriage, no rights would be violated.
And what the hell would legalizing polygamy do to "protect" people? And it's not about protecting revenue. At all. I mean, you're aware that married couples generally pay more in taxes when both parties work, right? If anything, legalized polygamy would bring in more revenue. Except for those communes where one dude works and has his 36 slave-wives, of course. Are those the guys you're interested in protecting?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Yes, yes I do, at least.
Here... I kind of stray. Kind of "Ehhh......". Marriage has really been.. incited by the government. The government encourages marriages. They see married couples as more stable, and let's be honest, better. Marriage is right. This clearly stems from the strong religious influence in the current political climate. There is no natural desire to be in the specific state of "marriage." To be together, yes, but not specifically "married."
However, marriage has been sort of a de facto right.
Good good...
No no no no no no no. Not at all. How did you get to that? I agree about the possibility of a contractual nightmare, but I doubt that. Because it would be set-up from the beginning how those marriages worked. It would be a prime concern laying the foundation for the legal viewpoint of polygamist relationships, to completely avoid those issues.
But increase abuse? No. We said early on that, if anything, it would bring lightto polygamist marriages. There would be scrutiny put on the relationships rather than blanket condemnation. People wouldn't have to seek out isolated communes to get married to multiple partners. They could do it openly.
That would irrefutably increase the number of reports of abuse. Not decrease them.
Aside from decreasing abuse? I think you're undervaluing the right to live as one wishes consensually with one another in a modern civilized society, but other than that... I guess not.
:?:
Nit pick, right now I don't think it is clear that sexuality is a protected class, thus making gay marriage a constitutional issue. I think sexuality should be a protected class, but then I would also classify polygamists in that class as well. They are both ideally relationships between consenting individuals.
I disagree that it would make it unduly hard to crack down on abuse. It just serves as a blunt instrument prosecutors can use to jail people guilty of other laws. I mean, if people feel that those laws aren't doing their job, that is one thing and those laws should just be amended since it would aid other cases not involved in polygamy. So basically that puts it in the category of 'laws that can be used to punish when it cannot be proved the assailent broke this other law'. And I am not really comfortable with that. And I don't think it would legitimize those abuses. The abuses are already a crime in and of themselves. Legitimizing the tertiary circumstances surrounding the abuse doesn't legitimize the abuse itself.
Also in the pro column is that it would make certain subsets of the population happy. Which is one of the goals of society IMO, to increase overall welfare of which happiness is a big component.
I agree that marriage law itself would be in for a lot of rewriting, but I mean there is at least precedent in other aspects of our law.
There are a number of different constitutional issues that may be raised, depending on the constitution we're talking about.
I didn't say it would increase abuse. I said it'd be harder to crack down on abuse. Obviously, the guys trying to bang 12 year olds simply wouldn't get married. They'd wait until the gals were all of age, then marry them. These relationships would still be abusive. How do you prosecute them? They're not breaking the law at this point. They're just ruining a bunch of girl's lives and treating them as de facto servants. Which isn't illegal. These folks now have legal cover for what they're doing.
And they wouldn't do it "openly" in the sense that they would live out in the suburbs with regular folk. They'd still have their communities. Only now it's harder for the married servant-girls to escape, since they're bound in a legal contract.
Again, how is legal polygamy required for a group of five people to live together, fuck together, and share their lives together? There may be some oddities created by common law marriages in certain areas, but that's fixable by tossing out common-law marriages.
Umm... US?
...poop?
The funny part is the OP is about Canada. American hegemony on PA has been acheived!
What you're describing could also be applied to arranged marriage, which is a hot-button issue in the UK. However, I don't think you'd agree that the outlawing of marriage would be a reasonable response to that particular problem.
I'm really not seeing the connection between the legitimacy of polygamous marriage and the incidence of abuse.
I'm not willing to agree to that necessarily. The Natural Rights philosophy of political rights which is one of the key foundations of US style government actually presumes that there is only one form of society that must naturally exist - parents. The rights of children exist collectively in the parents, and as such are the only rights that exist from the union of two people that didn't exist when those people are alone.
Under that it could be strongly argued that to a certain extent, government must make some kind of recognition of marriage, even if they don't have to give any kind of benefit to that union necessarily.
That doesn't inherently apply to polygamy and since child birth and marriage aren't inherently connected you could make an argument that modern civil marriage and the marriage Locke and others talked about are not the same thing.
That being said polygamy doesn't work.
In Practice, polygamy has been connected to extensive child abuse and spousal abuse. Its conceivable that a loving polygamous relationship could exist but there's no reason this behavior must be supported and encouraged by the government while the connection to anti-social and criminal behavior is so strong. In those cases where abuse is suspected, in general, I would prefer for that to be investigated. In the case where its three people who live together in a relationship, it should not be the priority of law enforcement.
In Theory, polygamy is not scalable and not well defined. Does every member of marriage have to consent and marry a new member? Can two people be married to one person and not another? Can A be married to B, B married to A and C, and D and E married to C? If B wants to divorce F but not A, C, D or E, can he?
Could every member of La Cosa Nostra "marry" each other? Share the tax benefits and testimony rights?
Unlike gay marriage, multiple marriage is (to put it in game terms) "unbalanced" and prone to harmful gaming of the system in violation of its intent.
If three individuals want to live together, not be officially married and have children I have no problem with that. You build a community around it which is inherently unstable and you should be investigated. If boys are disappearing and girls are getting knocked up then its no longer love, but abuse.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
OK, well, then I understand where you're coming from.
Well, I hope I've said before that I don't hold, personally, marriage in this ridiculously high regard. It was more a matter of respect for the people who do want it.
Finally, I don't mean this to be offensive at all, please don't take it that way, but what you said could be read like this, and this is my point.
I figure it's a matter of parity by the de facto right of marriage the government has very clearly given based on the numerous incentives and protections of marriage.
I don't think you can make this comparison. We've already determined that since we recognize marriages between two people, not recognizing gay marriage is specifically discriminating because they are gay - it's still a union between two people. We don't recognize marriages between more than two people because of a whole host of issues that have been stated multiple times here.
True, I do not refute that.
But not in the way El Jeffe had said it. Specifically using Jeffe's "why do you need marriage" logic, it would as well exclude gay marriage.
Strictly speaking, they don't need marriage. It's not like gay couples have been unable to live together and love each other. And honestly, I do not consider the gay marriage issue to be hugely pressing. I consider denying gay marriage to be a dick move and a slap in the face given that there's no reasonable downside to legalizing it, but it's not like some Normalcy Gestapo is going into gay folks' houses and dragging them off to concentration camps.
So there's two differences. One, polygamy not required to maintain constitutional legitimacy in our marriage laws (and though there may be some flimsy arguments to the contrary, they're in a different league from those surrounding gay marriage). Two, gay marriage has no objective downsides at all, while polygamy certainly does.
mcdermott's position of the possibility of creating a large number of children that cannot be supported has rationale beyond "it's icky and kiddy-fuckers like it", so I'm accepting of that argument and weigh that one. But, I don't accept "it's gross and wrong because it just is gross and wrong, so deal with it" mostly because that's the same reactionary position everyone on this board always rails against and goes all "lol fundies" about. At the base level, I honestly also feel it's pretty damn weird and I'd certainly look askance at friends, family, and others for doing it (and, no, no one I know ever has, nor am I in a cult), nor do I think allowing it would provide a net gain for society, but I gotta force myself to look at the issue from other angles because I ask that from others here on other subjects when they demand something be cast down.
Now, if you want to bring up breaking up the crazy, kid-raping groups out in the desert and throwing them in jail because they're crazy and they rape kids, then you have my unconditional support.
Drunk driving is not a good analogy for this thread because it relates to a physical and mental imparement caused by alcohol that leads to poor decision making that may result in personal or property damage. It's not a "icky" feeling thing. You could kill yourself or someone else. Short of committing suicide once you find out how much it's gotta suck listening to two people whine that you can't easily run away from, I don't see the imminent danger of someone marrying two people.
This is another example of a problem that could be introduced that doesn't rely on squickiness to sell the point.
Actually, I've had my mind/views changed when reading a board. This very board in fact. I used to love Chick-fil-a... then someone told me who they fund. Never ate there again.
Dude, you realize this statement is kinda self-righteous?
Wait a second... this is reaching. This isn't an example of how polygamy is bad. Hell, this has nothing at all to anything to do with polygamy.
And strictly speaking, I do agree with all that. I of course think they deserve it as a matter of equality, of course, but no, no one needs marriage if we look at the issue in a vacuum.
I think the downsides may be exaggerated or too misunderstood, and that they may be, with proper dedication, worked through, but still, I do agree with this too.
I go back to, however, that all in all I don't know. I'd also like to see everyone in the world happy and fed, so...
The response that I've made over and over to this is that the same downsides are just as likely to occur in a standard marriage. Probably more likely, considering the huge difference in the number of polygamous marriages vs. standard marriages.
It grants legitimacy to a terrible practice and makes it more difficult for those trapped therein to escape?
Right now, if some girl realizes she's being abused, she needs to escape from her oppressive commune and start life anew while knowing nobody and likely having no skills outside of cooking, cleaning, and freaky sex. I'm not wild about adding "escape from the binding legal contract attaching you to the guy who was abusing you" to the list of challenges.
And my answer to this was to take away parental approval for underage kids to get married. There, problem solved, and polygamy remains untouched because your beef isn't with polygamy, it's with parents forcing their kids to get married.
No more than I find normal marriage squicky and icky anyway.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The amount of misery in a single abusive marriage is markedly less than that in a single polygamous clusterfuck. Once an abusive fuck staples himself to a single victim, he's unable to destroy other women.
And I'm pretty sure traditional marriage doesn't result in communities driving out of-age males in order to keep all the awesome barely-pubescent poon for themselves.
And the problem with jaywalking isn't the guy being in the wrong part of the street, it's the guy being imbedded in the grill of the passing Buick.
Which is to say you can't really divorce the two as easily as you'd like.
At this point you're arguing against the cults themselves forcing people to do stuff. Aren't they doing that already? Wow, that polygamy ban is really handling this problem beautifully. We're arguing in circles here. You guys are claiming that legal polygamy is going to make things worse, when it's already at worse now. Banning polygamy isn't solving anything. It's not some panacea that's preventing the crimes you're citing as evidence, but you're claiming that it's vital that polygamy is banned to prevent said crimes. What gives you any reason to believe that's true?
On the upside, if these marriages were legal then you could require little things like valid birth certificates verifying that the girls are, you know, of age.
Of course this doesn't keep them from simply performing "spiritual" marriages out on their communes then making them legal later, when she's older.
Then again, neither (apparently) does keeping polygamy illegal. Especially since, absent legal marriages to multiple people (which these guys don't perform) in most states it's nearly impossible to prosecute anyway. Were the marriages in Canada (from the OP) legal marriages? Maybe it's easier to prosecute up there.
EDIT: And to (though I hate to do it) back up wwtMask even more, I can't even think of a way to make prosecuting "spiritual" polygamy easier without opening it up to abuse by overzealous (or fundamentalist) prosecutors against people just shackin' up together. So yay complex issue. I'm still firmly in the "keep it illegal" camp, though.
Again, this is crazy cult shit, not polygamy. You're getting stuck on seeing one, and only one, possible implementation of polygamy, one that involves a specific cult that needs to be prosecuted for child abuse.
I could be completely wrong, but I don't think there is a "Lost Boy" syndrome in other places that allow for polygamy (e.g. India, Middle East). The Lost Boy syndrome is tied into this one specific cult you take issue with. I take issue with them too, but their problem is being megalomanical child molesters, not having too much love for one woman to handle.
Let's just go all Dresden on these communes, and then have this conversation again afterwards.
And you're forgetting the fact that these crazy cults account for the vast majority of polygamous relationships. This is not irrelevant.
You do end up with a class of semi-disenfranchised sexually frustrated young males with minimal family responsibilities.
If you don't think that contributes to social unrest and militant fundamentalism in the middle east then I dunno what to tell you.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I wasn't under the impression that polygamy was any more prevalent over there than it is over here. Wikipedia says 1 to 3% total in the Islamic world. I'm thinking you're vastly overstating the case for polygamy inciting extremism to the point of absurdity.
It differs country by country. I have no idea what it is in, for example, Afghanistan right now. But when you take a population where there's already a slight male majority and effectively eliminate any possibility that 1-3% of them will ever find wives... well, 1-3% of the young able-bodied men in a country of 30 million people is still enough people to fuck some shit up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, kinda the same way a campus that's only like 56% male will have a bunch of sexually frustrated dudes and feel like a sausage-fest. It doesn't take much to skew the balance.
How is polygamy in a vacuum a "terrible practice" between consenting adults?
Child abuse and statutory rape are terrible practices. Polygamy? Not so much.
I mean we can legislate is out because we think it's immoral or impractical or both but let's decide why it shouldn't be legal. I don't think it's immoral. Impractical for tax purposes? Ok fine but just re-write the tax law to accommodate it or just ignore additional spouses or something.
Making polygamy illegal because it's too much trouble for the tax collectors seems lazy. It's not like politicians won't jump to find new ways to tax people anyway. They love that shit.
We don't live in a fucking vacuum goddamn your eyes.
Except the only sane reason to legalize polygamy is to grant those legal benefits to polygamists. If those legal benefits are virtually impossible to organize on a mass scale, that's sort of an argument against.
What you're arguing is, "We should legalize polygamy. Fuck if we know what it'll look like, and we don't care what sort of legal clusterfuck it creates. We're not even sure the idea makes sense. But goddammit, we should do it. We should do it like a dirty old man in a room full of underage sex slaves."
Legally speaking we have to take each case for what it is. Polygamy between consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone at all anymore than any other relationship. On paper it's Jack Tripper and a couple women for roommates.
I understand how it can complicate stuff like the tax code but I just don't think that's a good reason to keep something illegal. It's no longer about protecting people and now it's about protecting government revenue.
No, legally speaking you have to make sure that the law you make doesn't fuck shit up, unless you're talking about people's rights. The set of legal benefits commonly associated with marriage are not a right. Which you can see when you consider that, were the government to stop recognizing marriage, no rights would be violated.
And what the hell would legalizing polygamy do to "protect" people? And it's not about protecting revenue. At all. I mean, you're aware that married couples generally pay more in taxes when both parties work, right? If anything, legalized polygamy would bring in more revenue. Except for those communes where one dude works and has his 36 slave-wives, of course. Are those the guys you're interested in protecting?