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

2456713

Comments

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cervetus wrote: »
    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.

    See, as I understand it, the idea is that legalizing will just increase the instances of abuse happen. And yet, I don't really know that there's a precedence for that belief.

    If anything there's more reason to believe it will decrease, given the greater scrutiny and light put on more legitimate models of marriage of which polygamy would be one, keeping the eye of law on the marriages proper, rather than blanket condemnation.

    I mean, I think we've concluded rather conclusively that legalization of marijuana wouldn't result in some wild increase of use, while it would certainly result in a decrease of real crimes surrounding it. that is, counting more than just the obvious drop (to zero) in crimes of possession.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    I'm not sure how it's used as a prosecution tool right now. I'm not sure if, in places where polygamy is most common, there are firm policies in place about enforcing that law. And I'm not sure what the actual punishments are, and whether they are an actual deterrant.

  • 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
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    Could part of the problem be because the people actually talking about polygamy in any serious fashion are, for the most part, the religious nutjobs? As you're familiar with, most of society doesn't have a very good understanding of what a healthy polygamist is, let alone the fact that they can exist outside of the religious nutjobs. I'd have to wonder, if this kind of healthy polygamy were better understood - and accepted - by society, what kind of impact would that have on the nutjob side of things?

    Edit - Yeah, I pretty much just restated (poorly) what JK pointed out.

  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Still a lot of vague references to problems and no real facts to back up people's arguments. Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam, Germany, and South Africa has been considering legalizing it, as a comparison.

    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    I'm pretty sure that this is my stance on the issue.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    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.

    Could part of the problem be because the people actually talking about polygamy in any serious fashion are, for the most part, the religious nutjobs? As you're familiar with, most of society doesn't have a very good understanding of what a healthy polygamist is, let alone the fact that they can exist outside of the religious nutjobs. I'd have to wonder, if this kind of healthy polygamy were better understood - and accepted - by society, what kind of impact would that have on the nutjob side of things?

    Edit - Yeah, I pretty much just restated (poorly) what JK pointed out.

    I dunno. There's kind of a chicken-and-egg issue with a lot of statistically unusual sexual habits. Labeling, stigma, taboos force things underground and when you force things underground you get a higher possibility of bad shit happening. So then you have to figure out if the bad shit was due to it being underground or if it's just inherent to the activity. NAMBLA would certainly like to argue that the Platonic form of pederasty is closer to homosexuality than it is to rape, for instance, and that the current laws against it are analogous to mid-20th-century anti-sodomy laws, but divorcing a sexual activity from the cultural context is pretty close to impossible. Whether we err on too much enforcement or too little somebody gets hurt so we have to take conservative steps forward and hope that we don't look too brutish in 20/20 hindsight.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PasserbyePasserbye The 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
    As well, I'm not sure how much data we have in regards to polygamy in the US, at least. As you said, most of these people are living off in isolated communes, so most of the information we've got isn't particularly reliable.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    Still a lot of vague references to problems and no real facts to back up people's arguments. Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam, Germany, and South Africa has been considering legalizing it, as a comparison.

    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    So what stance are you taking here on the problems of polygamy?

    Or are you just waiting for us to link you a news article or something before you'll believe it's true?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Okay, maybe we should stop and look at what, exactly, we're discussing.

    We're not discussing whether it's legal to have open relationships, or engage in polyamory. People can legally do that to their hearts' contents.

    What we're discussing is granting the existing legal arrangement known as "marriage" to groups of people larger than two. Honestly, I'm not sure of a single good reason for allowing this outside of possibly hospital visitation rights and related issues. You want to arrange contracts allowing for ownership of possessions and transferral on death and the like? Fine, custom-build your own. I can't even imagine what sort of fucked-up one-size-fits-all brand of property transferal rights you'd cobble together to allow for an arbitrary number of spouses. It'd pretty much have to be done case-to-case, anyway.

    Health benefits? Yeah, clearly there's no problem at all with forcing a company to provide benefits for Bob Mormon's thirty wives.

    Really, someone give me an advantage outside of "free love olol".

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

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    saint2e wrote: »
    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    I'm pretty sure that this is my stance on the issue.

    Religious cults have plenty of reasons to isolate themselves socially. Legalizing polygamy might bring some such communities out in the open, but certainly not all.

    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
    Medopine wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Still a lot of vague references to problems and no real facts to back up people's arguments. Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam, Germany, and South Africa has been considering legalizing it, as a comparison.

    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    So what stance are you taking here on the problems of polygamy?

    Or are you just waiting for us to link you a news article or something before you'll believe it's true?

    I'm arguing for it (as in it should be legal), but in the process hoping to find some information against it, to be honest.

    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    Still a lot of vague references to problems and no real facts to back up people's arguments. Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam, Germany, and South Africa has been considering legalizing it, as a comparison.

    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    So what stance are you taking here on the problems of polygamy?

    Or are you just waiting for us to link you a news article or something before you'll believe it's true?

    I'm pretty sure that was a rhetorical affirmation.

    Edit: Nevermind, seems like it wasn't.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The fact is that laws against Polygamy in the Americas were created mostly as a prosecution tool against the LSD church.

    That has nothing to do with the law today. Bigamy laws are almost never enforced, except in situations where abuse is reported. People know that polygamy's going on in the shootoff LSD sects, and they could have tried to go in at any time and shut them down, but they didn't.

    The real problem with polygamy is that in any society where it is actually practiced on a large scale, it's always justified by the fact that women are viewed submissive to men, and as property to be bought and sold. Legalizing it would only give tacit approval of that notion.

  • 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
    Feral wrote: »
    I dunno. There's kind of a chicken-and-egg issue with a lot of statistically unusual sexual habits. Labeling, stigma, taboos force things underground and when you force things underground you get a higher possibility of bad shit happening. So then you have to figure out if the bad shit was due to it being underground or if it's just inherent to the activity. NAMBLA would certainly like to argue that the Platonic form of pederasty is closer to homosexuality than it is to rape, for instance, and that the current laws against it are analogous to mid-20th-century anti-sodomy laws, but divorcing a sexual activity from the cultural context is pretty close to impossible. Whether we err on too much enforcement or too little somebody gets hurt so we have to take conservative steps forward and hope that we don't look too brutish in 20/20 hindsight.

    I mean outside of a legal context, more of a social one. If, as part of a comprehensive sex ed program, kids were taught about polyamory along side homosexuality, how much of an impact would that have on cases of polygamists moving away from society in order to feel comfortable with their own lives? Wouldn't that help to remove some of the stigma associated?

    I can't remember who said it before, but if the polygamists stopped living out in isolated communes, cases of abuse could (potentially) be easier to spot and stop.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    I'm pretty sure that this is my stance on the issue.

    Religious cults have plenty of reasons to isolate themselves socially. Legalizing polygamy might bring some such communities out in the open, but certainly not all.

    Hm yes, this and your last post are legitimate thought foodstuffs.

    I restate that I prefer to think in ideals most of the time, and hold some noble belief in erring on the side of those ideas, but I'd also much prefer, truly, to be pragmatic about the issue.

    So yeah, I don't know.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Polygamy not being recognized as a legal marriage isn't the only reason these people live in isolated communities.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    I'm pretty sure that this is my stance on the issue.

    Religious cults have plenty of reasons to isolate themselves socially. Legalizing polygamy might bring some such communities out in the open, but certainly not all.

    Wouldn't that imply that the problem is within religious communities instead of polygamy and we could expect the same behavior in those closed societies without regard of the actual word of law?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Okay, maybe we should stop and look at what, exactly, we're discussing.

    We're not discussing whether it's legal to have open relationships, or engage in polyamory. People can legally do that to their hearts' contents.

    What we're discussing is granting the existing legal arrangement known as "marriage" to groups of people larger than two.

    Actually, I think this needs further clarification.

    I'm not totally sure, but I think that some anti-polygamy laws, at least in the US, don't just make it illegal to obtain multiple marriage licenses, but also illegal to call yourself 'married' and act as though you're married with multiple partners. Some states recognize common-law marriages, so you don't necessarily need a license to be legally married - and allowing people to essentially exercise common-law marriages with multiple partners would allow them to exercise their legal rights in all of their concurrent marriages whenever it was convenient for them.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Polygamy not being recognized as a legal marriage isn't the only reason these people live in isolated communities.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    I'm pretty sure that this is my stance on the issue.

    Religious cults have plenty of reasons to isolate themselves socially. Legalizing polygamy might bring some such communities out in the open, but certainly not all.

    Plus I think we can be pretty certain that whatever form of poly relationship was used as a template for state recognition, it would not be of the form "One old white guy and his thirty psychologically browbeaten wives". The religious nutjobs would still be shut out, so they'd probably continue to isolate themselves.

    On top of that (and I don't have the knowledge in this area to back it up) I would think that a degree of isolation is necessary to maintain social control of many people at once, which seems like it would be a prerequisite to constructing this particular type of "marriage".

  • 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
    Medopine wrote: »
    Polygamy not being recognized as a legal marriage isn't the only reason these people live in isolated communities.

    Of course not, for some of the groups. I'm just curious what impact it would have on the groups who live separately because of polygamy laws.

    And damn if I didn't wish we had more data on this.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Polygamy as practiced in the Americas fosters an enormous amount of poverty and is a tremendous burden to the state.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    And damn if I didn't wish we had more data on this.

    chicken meet egg meet chicken meet egg...

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • PasserbyePasserbye The 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
    Plutonium wrote: »
    The fact is that Polygamy as practiced in the Americas fosters an enormous amount of poverty and is a tremendous burden to the state.

    If it's a fact, cite it, please.

    I'm tired of speculating.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    The fact is that Polygamy as practiced in the Americas fosters an enormous amount of poverty and is a tremendous burden to the state.

    If it's a fact, cite it, please.

    I'm tired of speculating.

    From the LA Times
    According to law enforcement officials and others familiar with how plural marriage operates, the problems usually associated with polygamy include:

    High levels of incest, child abuse and wife battering. But the crimes are rarely reported because of the secrecy surrounding polygamous communities, law enforcement officials say.

    Widespread reliance on welfare. In the tiny town of Hildale, for example, along the Utah-Arizona border, as many as 50% of the residents are on public assistance, according to state and federal records. The fraud occurs when plural wives claim they don't know the whereabouts of their children's father.

    Unusual levels of child poverty. For example, across the street from Hildale in Colorado City, Ariz., every school-age child in town was living below the poverty level, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates from 1997, the most current available.

    Wide-ranging tax fraud. Polygamists often underestimate their income or, as in Green's case, don't file returns at all.

    Limited educational opportunities. Last year the prophet of the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints Church, a group excommunicated more than a century ago for practicing polygamy, ordered the town's children to stop attending public school, resulting in the closure of the local elementary school.

    Overtaxed public services. Medicaid pays for more than one-third of the babies born in Utah, and plural wives account for a disproportionate share of those births, child welfare advocates say.

  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Making polygamy legal isn't going to suddenly make FLDS people move into the general public. What I'm confused about in this case is why the Canadians are charging him with polygamy instead of doing what the US has done and charge these guys with forcing 16 year old girls to marry men 3 times their age.

    The reason these people live in isolated communities (and I'm talking about FLDS since nobody has offered up an example of a polygamous community that lives as separated from society as those people) is because they know what they're doing is abuse, and they know that their women who find out about the real world want nothing to do with FLDS polygamist crap.

    Bottom line is, I haven't seen any evidence yet of any polygamist communities or relationships (beyond a few individual stories) where the situation isn't men domineering women.

    steam_sig.png
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Okay, maybe we should stop and look at what, exactly, we're discussing.

    We're not discussing whether it's legal to have open relationships, or engage in polyamory. People can legally do that to their hearts' contents.

    What we're discussing is granting the existing legal arrangement known as "marriage" to groups of people larger than two.

    Actually, I think this needs further clarification.

    I'm not totally sure, but I think that some anti-polygamy laws, at least in the US, don't just make it illegal to obtain multiple marriage licenses, but also illegal to call yourself 'married' and act as though you're married with multiple partners. Some states recognize common-law marriages, so you don't necessarily need a license to be legally married - and allowing people to essentially exercise common-law marriages with multiple partners would allow them to exercise their legal rights in all of their concurrent marriages whenever it was convenient for them.

    Hmmm.... interesting.

    I think the idea of common-law marriages is kind of silly. If you've lived together for ten years and haven't bothered to get "married", I fail to see why we should just decide you are anyway. You wanna be married, get married. You don't wanna get married, hey, guess what, you're not.

    Clarifying that would eliminate most of the problem, it seems, though I'm hazy on what's meant by "acting like you're married." Hell, my daughter does that with her stuffed puppy. I trust she's not a felon. I think you should be allowed to call yourself whatever you please and act however you please, provided you're not using your pretend status to illegally acquire benefits not granted to you.

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

    I make tweet.
  • 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
    Overtaxed public services. Medicaid pays for more than one-third of the babies born in Utah, and plural wives account for a disproportionate share of those births, child welfare advocates say.

    Still reading through the article (thank you for posting it), but I have a question on this section in particular. If these women were single, would their births be paid for anyway? I'm not sure what relevance this has to polygamy. I'm not saying it has none - it might - I just can't see the connection.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Making polygamy legal isn't going to suddenly make FLDS people move into the general public. What I'm confused about in this case is why the Canadians are charging him with polygamy instead of doing what the US has done and charge these guys with forcing 16 year old girls to marry men 3 times their age.

    I explained this a while back - there was a big scandal a while back in BC history where the provincial authorities wrongfully persecuted a small religious sect. Because of that (and the ensuing backlash) they're a little gunshy when it comes to people breaking the law in the name of religion.

    Edit: More info on the Bountiful folks.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I think the idea of common-law marriages is kind of silly. If you've lived together for ten years and haven't bothered to get "married", I fail to see why we should just decide you are anyway. You wanna be married, get married. You don't wanna get married, hey, guess what, you're not.

    Clarifying that would eliminate most of the problem, it seems, though I'm hazy on what's meant by "acting like you're married." Hell, my daughter does that with her stuffed puppy. I trust she's not a felon. I think you should be allowed to call yourself whatever you please and act however you please, provided you're not using your pretend status to illegally acquire benefits not granted to you.

    That's because I'm hazy on it, too. Just living with somebody for a long time doesn't make you married to them, otherwise I'd be married to my cat. There are other criteria too and I'm not well-schooled enough on this subject.

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

    You charge what you can prove. If you can't prove that a man married any of his wives when they were underage, but you can prove multiple marriages, that's what you charge.
    Feral wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    If polygamy is legalized perhaps then people wouldn't have to live in isolated communes away from civilization and thus abusive situations will be noticed and reported?

    I'm pretty sure that this is my stance on the issue.

    Religious cults have plenty of reasons to isolate themselves socially. Legalizing polygamy might bring some such communities out in the open, but certainly not all.

    Yeah, I'm pretty sure the fact that half these sects marry girls off at eleven will still keep them nice and deeply underground. Especially when they have kids at twelve, making sure they have to stay underground (as little things like birth certificates can be, you know, used as evidence in a criminal trial).


    EDIT: This was a big issue in the case in TX, IIRC, because a lot of the "wives" didn't have birth certificates, nor did their children. These sects aren't great about filing paperwork with the state, and for good reason. Birth certificates can show than Jane is 18, and thus she had her 3-year-old child at 15, and then a paternity test can show that the father was 50, thus proving a case for stat-rape. So instead they're all largely anonymous as far as the government's concerned. Legalizing polygamy won't change this.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I think the idea of common-law marriages is kind of silly. If you've lived together for ten years and haven't bothered to get "married", I fail to see why we should just decide you are anyway. You wanna be married, get married. You don't wanna get married, hey, guess what, you're not.

    Clarifying that would eliminate most of the problem, it seems, though I'm hazy on what's meant by "acting like you're married." Hell, my daughter does that with her stuffed puppy. I trust she's not a felon. I think you should be allowed to call yourself whatever you please and act however you please, provided you're not using your pretend status to illegally acquire benefits not granted to you.

    That's because I'm hazy on it, too. Just living with somebody for a long time doesn't make you married to them, otherwise I'd be married to my cat. There are other criteria too and I'm not well-schooled enough on this subject.

    States that have common law marriage usually require things like holding yourself out to the public as married in any manner of ways, including living together, going by the other person's name, buying property together, etc etc

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Overtaxed public services. Medicaid pays for more than one-third of the babies born in Utah, and plural wives account for a disproportionate share of those births, child welfare advocates say.

    Still reading through the article (thank you for posting it), but I have a question on this section in particular. If these women were single, would their births be paid for anyway? I'm not sure what relevance this has to polygamy. I'm not saying it has none - it might - I just can't see the connection.

    Think of it like this:

    Polygamists marry multiple women, and are expected to support their wives and children from all of their marriages financially.

    Maybe this flies when you're a Saudi tribal leader and women don't have rights, but your average polygamist can't pay for all the children and wives that the their beliefs say they should have.

    Tremendous rates of welfare, tax fraud, and nonsupport of children and spouses ensues, and creates a degeneracy spiral as many male children are abandoned in order to allow the polygamy to perpetuate. It's simply unhealthy for modern western society.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Wikipedia says this:
    In 2001, in the state of Utah in the United States, Juab County Attorney David O. Leavitt successfully prosecuted Thomas Green who was convicted of criminal non-support and four counts of bigamy for having five serially monogamous marriages, while living with previous legally divorced wives. His cohabitation was considered evidence of a common-law marriage to the wives he had divorced while still living with them. That premise was subsequently affirmed by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Green, as applicable only in the State of Utah. Green was also convicted of child rape and criminal non-support.[18]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America#Polygamy_today

    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.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    That sounds pretty retarded.

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

    I make tweet.
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    That sounds pretty retarded.

    1. That article doesn't include all the details of the prosecution, I'm sure
    2. Common law marriage is state by state so some states may have different factors. Looking it up in the Utah statute would give you more information

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    I am terrified of looking into the details of marriage law in Utah.

    Sort of like exploring the mating habits of furries.

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

    I make tweet.
  • 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
    mcdermott wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Making polygamy legal isn't going to suddenly make FLDS people move into the general public. What I'm confused about in this case is why the Canadians are charging him with polygamy instead of doing what the US has done and charge these guys with forcing 16 year old girls to marry men 3 times their age.

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

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

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

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am terrified of looking into the details of marriage law in Utah.

    Sort of like exploring the mating habits of furries.

    I bet somebody somewhere has common-law married their cat.

    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.
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I am terrified of looking into the details of marriage law in Utah.

    Sort of like exploring the mating habits of furries.

    Don't grab the tail unless they specifically ask for that.

Sign In or Register to comment.