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

SmallLadySmallLady Registered User regular
edited January 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
From the Globe and Mail this afternoon.
Polygamy charges in Bountiful

ROBERT MATAS AND WENDY STUECK
Globe and Mail Update and The Canadian Press
January 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM EST
VANCOUVER — Leaders of the two factions in the polygamous community of Bountiful have been charged under the Criminal Code with practising polygamy.

In a sensational turn in a 20-year-old debate over the issue of polygamy in Canada, police have charged Jim Oler and Winston Blackmore.

The two men were charged each with one count on Tuesday and have not yet appeared in court. Mr. Oler is charged with “practising polygamy” with two women. Mr. Blackmore's charge relates to 20 women.

The religious community has been the subject of several police probes since the late 1980s following allegations of incest, sexual abuse, fraud, and trafficking of teenage brides across the Canada-U.S. border. But police up to this point have refused to proceed with charges.

“This has been a very complex issue,” said B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal. “It's been with us for well over 20 years. The problem has always been the defence of religion has always been raised.”

Mr. Oppal said some legal experts have believed that the charge wouldn't withstand a Charter of Rights challenge over the issue of freedom of religion.

“I've always disagreed with that,” he said. "Our belief is that it is a valid section [of the Criminal Code]."

"Hopefully it won't be a long trial," Mr. Oppal added, saying it was premature to say when a trial may take place.

The two Bountiful leaders are expected to be released from custody today on conditions that include they not perform marriages.

RCMP Sgt. Tim Shields said he's not aware any of the wives were under 18.

Mr. Blackmore was considered the bishop in Canada of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from 1984 until 2002, when he was replaced by Mr. Oler. He is reported to have more than 20 wives and dozens of children. In an exchange of e-mails with The Globe and Mail earlier this year, Mr. Blackmore said he had no legal wives but lots of family members.

Mr. Blackmore also said he acts in his capacity as a religious minister when called upon by others but he was neither a member of a FLDS congregation nor a leader of any religious community. He has previously said he was part of a sect called the United Order Effort, which he has described as the true Mormon church.

Mr. Oler, who has been more reluctant to speak with the media than Mr. Blackmore, is reported to have fewer wives.

Mr. Oppal had previously indicated he would like to see charges of polygamy laid against members of the community despite concerns raised by two government advisers about the difficulty of obtaining a conviction in the face of protections for religious freedom guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Vancouver lawyers Richard Peck and Len Doust in separate opinions advised the government to seek a court ruling on whether the law on polygamy conflicts with the Canadian Charter before charging anyone.

Undeterred, Mr. Oppal sought advice a third time. The opinion of the adviser, Vancouver lawyer Terry Robertson, has not yet been released although his review was to be completed last fall.

Last summer, Mr. Robertson told The Globe and Mail he intended to ask the RCMP to reopen its investigation into the polygamous community to find out whether men in authority fathered children with underage girls.

Polygamy is an indictable offence in the Criminal Code.

"Is the spirit of the law being violated and we think it is. If some court decides otherwise, we will obviously have to live with that," Mr. Oppal said when asked about the risk of losing court.

Bountiful is a community of more than 1,000 people in a rural area outside Creston, B.C., in southeastern B.C. a few kilometres north of the Canada/U.S. border.

The news conference comes two weeks after the release of a report on the unprecedented raid on April 3 on the central compound and headquarters for the religion, the Yearning For Zion ranch in Eldorado, Texas.

Welfare authorities concluded that 12 of 439 children who were seized during the raid were underaged child brides. Seven of the girls, who were between the ages of 12 and 15, had one or more children.

An additional 262 children were considered to be neglected because parents did not remove them from situations that exposed them to sexual abuse, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

A Texas grand jury has indicted 12 men on charges including sexual assault of a child, aggravated sexual assault, bigamy and conducting an illegal marriage, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

The raid led to the largest child welfare apprehension in U.S. history.

Weigh in D&D. Is it Right? Wrong? icky?

if it's right, under what circumstances?

if it's wrong, will it hold up under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (or the laws of your home country)

if it's Icky, what part of it makes you feel that way?

SmallLady on
"we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
«13456713

Posts

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Kill it.

    In a perfect world, people could practice multiple concurrent marriages out of their own free will because they really love more than one person at once.

    As widely practiced today, it's a way of treating women as chattle.

    Pragmatism trumps idealism.

    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.
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Polygamy is for you and me! and you, and you, and you, and you, and oh yeah definitely you...

    Personally I don't see why it's not allowed.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Nothing quite like restricting the personal freedoms of everyone due to the poor behaviour of a few.

    142.jpg
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Polygamy is for you and me! and you, and you, and you, and you, and oh yeah definitely you...

    Personally I don't see why it's not allowed.

    See the post directly above yours

    See also: welfare fraud. Lots of it.

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Polygamy is for you and me! and you, and you, and you, and you, and oh yeah definitely you...

    Personally I don't see why it's not allowed.

    See the post directly above yours

    See also: welfare fraud. Lots of it.

    See the post directly above yours

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • SmallLadySmallLady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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.

    "we're just doing what smalllady told us to do" - @Heels
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I have no objection provided the agreement of everybody involved is required to add another partner. In other words, it isn't "this guy marries all these women", it's "these people all marry each other".

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Polygamy is for you and me! and you, and you, and you, and you, and oh yeah definitely you...

    Personally I don't see why it's not allowed.

    See the post directly above yours

    See also: welfare fraud. Lots of it.

    See the post directly above yours

    That's neat. How does that address the problem of child and spousal abuse and welfare fraud, again?

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Kill it.

    In a perfect world, people could practice multiple concurrent marriages out of their own free will because they really love more than one person at once.

    As widely practiced today, it's a way of treating women as chattle.

    Pragmatism trumps idealism.

    What is your view on other forms of polygamy? Like multiple men married to a single woman? Or multiple men married to multiple women?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Threepio wrote: »
    Nothing quite like restricting the personal freedoms of everyone due to the poor behaviour of a few.
    You could say the same thing about a thirty-year-old having sex with a fourteen-year-old. I mean, if you could find a healthy relationship of that sort, would that mean it should be legalized?

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    To be honest I think the welfare fraud and child abuse is probably going to exist regardless of what legal institution these people try to shoehorn it into.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Res wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Kill it.

    In a perfect world, people could practice multiple concurrent marriages out of their own free will because they really love more than one person at once.

    As widely practiced today, it's a way of treating women as chattle.

    Pragmatism trumps idealism.
    What is your view on other forms of polygamy? Like multiple men married to a single woman? Or multiple men married to multiple women?
    If you legalize one form, you'd have to legalize all forms (I'm sure Canada has something similar to the equal protection clause). If you legalize all forms, the form that will make up 90%+ of marriages will be religious nutzoids with multiple women married to one man.

  • ArkadyArkady Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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?

    Because they aren't the exception with polygamy, they're the norm. This isn't a case of a few assholes fucking it up for the rest of us, it's a case of almost everyone who does this is a god damn asshole.

    untitled-1.jpg
    LoL: failboattootoot
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    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?
    Yes.

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Arkady 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?

    Because they aren't the exception with polygamy, they're the norm. This isn't a case of a few assholes fucking it up for the rest of us, it's a case of almost everyone who does this is a god damn asshole.

    Citation?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    japan wrote: »
    I have no objection provided the agreement of everybody involved is required to add another partner. In other words, it isn't "this guy marries all these women", it's "these people all marry each other".

    The issue here is basically "why are people calling themselves 'married' when that marriage is not recognized by the state?"

    There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Lots of people do it; e.g., gay couples in the US.

    However, if you've got a commune of adults who all just really want to be poly/swingers/etc. they're not as likely to say that they're "married" as a commune of people who are practicing some kind of fundamentalist religion where women are given from their fathers to their grooms in their late teens like livestock. Why? Because "marriage" implies obligations and telling people - especially people who are younger, of lower social status - that they're obligated to stay because they're married and their religion tells them that divorce (and, incidentally, disobedience) is wrong you can use that as a tool of psychological abuse.

    Are there grey areas? Yes. Issues of spousal abuse and exploitation are always difficult and fuzzy. However, right now, anti-polygamy laws are tools that DAs use to slap additional charges on people, like Blackmore in the OP, who are clearly sleazy. When we start to see the police raiding the homes of 45-year-old poly Wiccans who are clearly just getting their freak on in midlife-crisis threesomes, then we can rethink these laws.

    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.
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos 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?
    Yes.

    Example?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    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.

  • nosnibornosnibor Registered User
    edited January 2009
    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?

    The difference is these things are an integral part of the culture of FLDS polygamy.

    When you're a spy, it's a good idea to give away your trade secrets in a voiceover on a TV show.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Thanatos 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?
    Yes.
    Example?
    We disallow people from having sex with people who are under 18. We disallow marriage of children. We disallow sex offenders of any sort from being near children.

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Eh, I'm hearing a lot of baseless facts in this thread, here, people.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Thanatos 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?
    Yes.
    Example?
    We disallow people from having sex with people who are under 18. We disallow marriage of children. We disallow sex offenders of any sort from being near children.

    The first two involve minors. Their rights are limited by default. The third one you've listed involved people who have already committed a crime.

    Bit iffy to applies those types of situations to the case of polygamy in general.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Arkady 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?

    Because they aren't the exception with polygamy, they're the norm. This isn't a case of a few assholes fucking it up for the rest of us, it's a case of almost everyone who does this is a god damn asshole.

    Is it possible that this is because it is illegal and highly taboo, creating an environment in which only a certain type of polygamous relationship will persist?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I have no objection provided the agreement of everybody involved is required to add another partner. In other words, it isn't "this guy marries all these women", it's "these people all marry each other".

    The issue here is basically "why are people calling themselves 'married' when that marriage is not recognized by the state?"

    There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Lots of people do it; e.g., gay couples in the US.

    However, if you've got a commune of adults who all just really want to be poly/swingers/etc. they're not as likely to say that they're "married" as a commune of people who are practicing some kind of fundamentalist religion where women are given from their fathers to their grooms in their late teens like livestock. Why? Because "marriage" implies obligations and telling people - especially people who are younger, of lower social status - that they're obligated to stay because they're married and their religion tells them that divorce (and, incidentally, disobedience) is wrong you can use that as a tool of psychological abuse.

    Are there grey areas? Yes. Issues of spousal abuse and exploitation are always difficult and fuzzy. However, right now, anti-polygamy laws are tools that DAs use to slap additional charges on people, like Blackmore in the OP, who are clearly sleazy. When we start to see the police raiding the homes of 45-year-old poly Wiccans who are clearly just getting their freak on in midlife-crisis threesomes, then we can rethink these laws.

    I see. I was taking it as the more general question "should the State recognise relationships involving more than one person". My answer to that would be yes, but the type of relationships the religious whackjobs refer to as marriage wouldn't be recognised under any legal framework I can picture.

    The reason, of course, would be the element of coercion involved, so if that's what we're talking about then I'm in agreement.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Thanatos 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?
    Yes.
    Example?
    We disallow people from having sex with people who are under 18. We disallow marriage of children. We disallow sex offenders of any sort from being near children.

    Well, to be fair, that has a lot to do with legal consent. In the case of polygamy, under a more open, careful system, we'd be talking about consensual adults entering into such a contract. It's a bit different.

    I've heard other sensible arguments against it, though, but I'm also young, so I still like ideals.

  • nosnibornosnibor Registered User
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Thanatos 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?
    Yes.
    Example?
    We disallow people from having sex with people who are under 18. We disallow marriage of children. We disallow sex offenders of any sort from being near children.

    The first two involve minors. Their rights are limited by default. The third one you've listed involved people who have already committed a crime.

    Bit iffy to applies those types of situations to the case of polygamy in general.

    Are you being intentionally obtuse? Those three situations are precicely why polygamy is opposed by the majority of society.

    We're talking about polygamy in practice, not in some delusional fantasy world where all participants are mentally stable adults who haven't been indoctrinated into it since birth.

    When you're a spy, it's a good idea to give away your trade secrets in a voiceover on a TV show.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Finally, they're going after Bountiful. I guess the US cracking down on the FLDS finally lit a fire under the Mounties.

    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yeah, I'm being intentionally obtuse. Basically I quite often pick a debate and argue for a side I'm personally against. Keep in mind, I'm a pretty devout Christian so I really think marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, let along multiple partners.. But still I find it interesting to argue for a point you're against from time to time.

    The whole thing could be compared to the porn industry discussion that took place a little while ago. There is abuse to some of the porn industry workers, therefore, should the porn industry to shut down?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm being intentionally obtuse. Basically I quite often pick a debate and argue for a side I'm personally against. Keep in mind, I'm a pretty devout Christian so I really think marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, let along multiple partners.. But still I find it interesting to argue for a point you're against from time to time.

    The whole thing could be compared to the porn industry discussion that took place a little while ago. There is abuse to some of the porn industry workers, therefore, should the porn industry to shut down?
    Pornography is an inevitable consequence of free speech. Much like alcohol, there is more to be gained from it being legal and regulated than from it being banned. The same cannot be said of polygamy.

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

    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.

    I hope they go after the pimps/traffickers as well... they're the real problem.

    When you're a spy, it's a good idea to give away your trade secrets in a voiceover on a TV show.
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.

    I'm actually interested to know if Nevada has a higher incidence of these problems than the other 49 states. I'm not an expert, but I feel that Res might be on to something with the idea that only nutjobs are doing it now because only nutjobs have enough conviction to buck the societal rules.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Res wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Kill it.

    In a perfect world, people could practice multiple concurrent marriages out of their own free will because they really love more than one person at once.

    As widely practiced today, it's a way of treating women as chattle.

    Pragmatism trumps idealism.

    What is your view on other forms of polygamy? Like multiple men married to a single woman? Or multiple men married to multiple women?

    You can roughly divide all poly-whatever lifestyles into two broad categories. It's a clumsy division, I admit, but it mostly works.

    First, you have the polyamorous/swinger types. Maybe they're hippies, maybe they're pagan, maybe they've read too much Heinlein, whatever. They're usually big on individual rights, nobody is owned by anybody else, etc. No, not all of these communities are lollipops and blowjobs, there's plenty of exploitation going on but it's different in quality from the kind of exploitation that goes on in group two, which are religious/traditional polygamists, who support women being married to one (usually older) man. In the former group, you might have a young girl who bunked down with a Burning Man theme camp only to be told in the middle of the night that if she doesn't put out she's just being an uptight conservative fundie cocktease. But, in general, situations like that don't involve long-term psychological manipulation and intimidation designed to keep the victim from leaving... whereas in religious polygamy, people have been conditioned from childhood to believe that this is the best life that they deserve. Or in other cases the polygamist is using cult-leader-like tactics to isolate the victim from people outside the commune and use constant psychological pressure to keep her isolated. (By the way, group two also fucks over young men, too, because when you end up having too many boys in a community, often the boys get kicked out in their late teens for stuff they didn't do and find themselves homeless on the streets of Salt Lake City and become a burden on social services.)

    If stopping group two from exploiting young women also involves curtailing the rights of group one, then that's an acceptable trade-off for me. Yes, there is exploitation that happens in poly & swinger communities. I'd also be willing to accept that some religious polygamists really are doing just fine. However, the incredibly widespread anecdotes of abuse, rape, and exploitation; combined with the social isolation; and they way they treat their exiled boys all suggest to me that the good of banning polygamy outweighs the bad.

    This is not a situation of the rights of the many being curtailed by the poor behavior of the few. It's a situation of the rights of the few being curtailed by the poor behavior of the many.

    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.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.
    I'm actually interested to know if Nevada has a higher incidence of these problems than the other 49 states. I'm not an expert, but I feel that Res might be on to something with the idea that only nutjobs are doing it now because only nutjobs have enough conviction to buck the societal rules.
    I guarantee you that Nevada has a higher incidence of those kind of problems.

    Hell, Las Vegas alone probably has a higher incidence of those kind of problems than most states.

  • PasserbyePasserbye The Woman Who Is Not Short at The Moonlite All-Nite Diner; a glass box full of bad food and good people.Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm in agreement with Japan's statements on this. Creepy old men marrying multiple (usually underage girls) - not so good. Mature polyamorous adults marrying each other consensually? That, I have absolutely no problem with, especially with the requirement that all parties involved consent and, for all intents and purposes, are all married to each other.

    I am curious what kind of tax problems this might cause, though, since if I remember correctly, marriage gives some legal benefits. Would each person in the, say, 'clump' get the legal benefits of only being married to one person, or would the benefits overlap each other for each member of the clump?

    I'm not sure if I expressed that very coherently. :|

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Oh, but I don't want it to be true. I don't want to believe it. Like, I want honestly to believe that the "put out or your a fundie bitch" happens maybe... close to never.

    :( :|

    There go people, ruinin' things.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    If stopping group two from exploiting young women also involves curtailing the rights of group one, then that's an acceptable trade-off for me. Yes, there is exploitation that happens in poly & swinger communities. I'd also be willing to accept that some religious polygamists really are doing just fine. However, the incredibly widespread anecdotes of abuse, rape, and exploitation; combined with the social isolation; and they way they treat their exiled boys all suggest to me that the good of banning polygamy outweighs the bad.

    This is not a situation of the rights of the many being curtailed by the poor behavior of the few. It's a situation of the rights of the few being curtailed by the poor behavior of the many.

    But does outlawing polygamy stop or even curtail those abuses? You say yourself that these abuses are happening right now to a vast extent, and polygamy is currently illegal.
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.
    I'm actually interested to know if Nevada has a higher incidence of these problems than the other 49 states. I'm not an expert, but I feel that Res might be on to something with the idea that only nutjobs are doing it now because only nutjobs have enough conviction to buck the societal rules.
    I guarantee you that Nevada has a higher incidence of those kind of problems.

    Hell, Las Vegas alone probably has a higher incidence of those kind of problems than most states.

    Prostitution is illegal in Vegas.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    But does outlawing polygamy stop or even curtail those abuses? You say yourself that these abuses are happening right now to a vast extent, and polygamy is currently illegal.

    That's a good line of inquiry. I don't know the answer to that.

    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.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.
    I'm actually interested to know if Nevada has a higher incidence of these problems than the other 49 states. I'm not an expert, but I feel that Res might be on to something with the idea that only nutjobs are doing it now because only nutjobs have enough conviction to buck the societal rules.
    I guarantee you that Nevada has a higher incidence of those kind of problems.

    Hell, Las Vegas alone probably has a higher incidence of those kind of problems than most states.
    Prostitution is illegal in Vegas.
    It's illegal in a lot of places in Nevada.

    In most of the places where it's legal, there isn't anything there except brothels, and maybe a strip club or two. So, no, you're not going to have those sorts of problems, much like you don't have a lot of street gangs on farms.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    saint, a good example is why we criminalize prostitution. In theory (as many dipshit libertarians like to tell us), it's just a simple transaction between consenting adults. In reality, it is anything but, and as such we criminalize it to prevent the many abuses rife in the system. The move now isn't to legalize it, but to shift the burden of punishment from the sex workers (who quite often are forced into the trade and have no choices) to the johns who help perpetuate the system.
    I'm actually interested to know if Nevada has a higher incidence of these problems than the other 49 states. I'm not an expert, but I feel that Res might be on to something with the idea that only nutjobs are doing it now because only nutjobs have enough conviction to buck the societal rules.
    I guarantee you that Nevada has a higher incidence of those kind of problems.

    Hell, Las Vegas alone probably has a higher incidence of those kind of problems than most states.

    Guys, what are "those kind of problems"?

«13456713
Sign In or Register to comment.