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

1246713

Posts

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It's nice if you guys want to be holier-than-thou internet libertarians, but society functions because we make things that are detrimental to it illegal.

    I'm sure there are a few rare cases of polygamy that causes no problems, just as there are probably a few people who take heroin without needing to steal or turn tricks to fuel their addiction.

    Heroin isn't illegal because it's a dangerous drug that can kill you or because the Man doesn't want you getting high, it's illegal because it's so addictive that junkies will do nearly anything to get their next hit, and generally descend into lives of petty crime. Stealing your car stereo is illegal too, but we shouldn't make Heroin legal just because we don't need to prosecute them on possession when can prosecute them for burglary.

    Likewise, polygamy isn't illegal because of any persecution of alternate lifestyles, it's illegal because on the great part, polygamy creates great amounts of poverty, forced marriages and statuatory rape, child abandonment, and welfare and tax fraud.

  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Likewise, polygamy isn't illegal because of any persecution of alternate lifestyles, it's illegal because on the great part, polygamy creates great amounts of poverty, forced marriages and statuatory rape, child abandonment, and welfare and tax fraud.

    Aside from being poor those things are already illegal though.

    So we can just charge actual rapists for committing rape instead of weirdos who want two wives.

    The heroin analogy is poor. It's not illegal to live and have sex with multiple women it's just illegal to marry them all simultaneously. The behavior isn't against the law, just the designation of marriage. So we're not stopping bad behavior that leads to other bad behavior with polygamy laws.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    How is polygamy established as being illegal anyway? I mean if I live in a house with two women and just happen to get it on routinely with both of them, how do they decide to prosecute that?

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Likewise, polygamy isn't illegal because of any persecution of alternate lifestyles, it's illegal because on the great part, polygamy creates great amounts of poverty, forced marriages and statuatory rape, child abandonment, and welfare and tax fraud.

    Aside from being poor those things are already illegal though.

    So we can just charge actual rapists for committing rape instead of weirdos who want two wives.

    The heroin analogy is poor. It's not illegal to live and have sex with multiple women it's just illegal to marry them all simultaneously. The behavior isn't against the law, just the designation of marriage. So we're not stopping bad behavior that leads to other bad behavior with polygamy laws.

    Just because heroin is illegal, doesn't mean that people won't do it. The same goes for Polygamy. Should we legalize Heroin or Polygamy because of that? All that would do is make it more widespread and give tacit approval to an activity that's highly detrimental to the general welfare. At least now society's sending a message that situations that are created by polygamy will not be tolerated.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    So we can just charge actual rapists for committing rape instead of weirdos who want two wives.

    Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the conditions where rape occurs, so nobody gets raped in the first place? What if the girl grew up inside a religion where she was conditioned to believe that it was her religious duty to be statutorily raped and married off to a fifty-year-old man at the age of 12, and doesn't press charges.

    This isn't about persecution of lifestyles, it's about preventing the serious crimes by outlawing the root cause, just like how we outlaw heroin to prevent more serious crimes. The justice system may not be able to stop all of the rapes and child neglect and welfare dependence and tax fraud, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. So we don't let people marry more than one woman at a time. It's probably not enough, but we do what we can without violating people's privacy.

  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It's not the marrying more than one woman at a time that's even the precursor condition, though. If you actually know these guys are marrying multiple people presumably you can tell that kids are having marriages arranged and such as well.

  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    It's not the marrying more than one woman at a time that's even the precursor condition, though. If you actually know these guys are marrying multiple people presumably you can tell that kids are having marriages arranged and such as well.

    So how do you propose we stop it without violating freedom of religion and privacy?

    The answer is we can't really do much, except for what we can - which is keep bigamy illegal, and try and put as many of the rapists, tax cheats, and child abandoners behind bars.

  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I still think that we should turn our ire against socially isolated enclaves. At least insofar as we do, say, FFLs in America; that is to say, you can have your insular little thing so long as you accept that we're occasionally going to check up on you to make sure that you're not being as dangerous as you could be.

    I'm struggling to think of examples but I really do think there are more telling features of these kinds of places we're talking about than polygamy.

  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The litmus test of polygamy within a particular group is whether or not it is accepting of both male and female polygamy. If a man can have multiple wives, then a woman should be able to have multiple husbands. Since Fundamentalist Mormons allow the first but don't allow the second, we see the gender inequality in their system, thus showing us that the real reason these people desire polygamy is to keep women subservient and serve their own degenerate god-complexes.

    As to the argument of polygamy in and of itself, I would respond that there are not enough groups of people who desire polygamy outside of the Fundamentalist Mormon faith for it to be relevant to the discussion. It would be like arguing that prostitution should be legalized because there might be one good pimp out there, somewhere, who doesn't beat his hos.

    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Part of the idea of legalizing prostitution is to regulate them so that pimps don't exist anymore. Since wives can't be employees, there's not really a way to do that in this case.

    Spoiler:
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The heroin analogy is stupidly bad. Polygamy doesn't cause an addiction that leads you to go commit crimes. The best argument that anyone has presented so far is that polygamy helps facilitate crimes. Well fuck, that can be said about a lot of things, but because you guys personally find it distasteful, it's fine to just dismiss polygamy as solely the realm of abuse and exploitation and argue that it be illegal. The shit that is being cited as evidence against polygamy is already illegal independent of the practice of polygamy. What's wrong with prosecuting the crimes as they're found out and leaving the issue of multiple marriages out of the equation?

    Delroland, some Muslims practice polygamy, even here in the US. I even saw on TV the other day about a Nomadic tribe where men can "steal" wives, and the women in question go to their new husbands of their own free will. Mormons aren't the only people practicing polygamy. Don't make the mistake of using a biased sample set to make your argument. Because the practice is illegal now, the only practicing polygamists we ever hear about are those arrested for other things, and we never hear about any non-criminals who practice polygamy (except for the few here and there that will talk to documentary/TV producers).

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited January 2009
    I think it's worth pointing out that here in Canada, prostitution is legal. Everything around prostitution (solicitation, keeping a bawdy-house, etc.) is not though.

    That being the case, I can see the SCC suggesting a similar approach with respect to polygamy. Right now, the laws as written do seem fairly susceptible to a Charter challenge, though perhaps on different grounds than freedom of religion.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me.

    How about the fact that what it would even mean, legally speaking, to have an arbitrary number of people in a marriage-like legal arrangement would be a contractual clusterfuck, and would be largely meaningless or unworkable barring a case-specific set of addenda? And that since you're having to hire a lawyer to figure out each case anyway, and since legalizing polygamy wouldn't actually solve any problems while creating a whole lot more, it's a rather silly notion?

    You may as well argue we legalize marriage to pets. It would be roughly comparable from a legal standpoint.

    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.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me.

    How about the fact that what it would even mean, legally speaking, to have an arbitrary number of people in a marriage-like legal arrangement would be a contractual clusterfuck, and would be largely meaningless or unworkable barring a case-specific set of addenda? And that since you're having to hire a lawyer to figure out each case anyway, and since legalizing polygamy wouldn't actually solve any problems while creating a whole lot more, it's a rather silly notion?

    You may as well argue we legalize marriage to pets. It would be roughly comparable from a legal standpoint.

    This still doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. Okay, so it will add complexity to the legal framework, and the lawmakers will need to do a little more legwork to make it sensible. I fail to see why this is a strike against making polygamy legal. I mean, we ask legislators to do similar hoop jumping and cat herding to create other laws, and we don't think it's onerous to do so. Further, if lawyers are required to make the marriage contract work, isn't that a burden on the polygamists, not the state?

    Oh, and nice one on the pet marriage thing, because the situations are totally parallel. Except they aren't because an animal can't give informed consent to be married. I'm glad to see that a bestiality comparison finally landed in the conversation. It seemed like child abuse was going to hog all of the false equivalency limelight in this thread.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    How is polygamy established as being illegal anyway? I mean if I live in a house with two women and just happen to get it on routinely with both of them, how do they decide to prosecute that?

    Well, as mentioned earlier there seems to be a "holding yourself out to the public as being married" criteria. Which, while somewhat subjective, can be established in court. So simply having two female roommates wouldn't count.

    Still living with your five "ex"-wives?

    Yeah.
    KevinNash wrote: »
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Likewise, polygamy isn't illegal because of any persecution of alternate lifestyles, it's illegal because on the great part, polygamy creates great amounts of poverty, forced marriages and statuatory rape, child abandonment, and welfare and tax fraud.

    Aside from being poor those things are already illegal though.

    So we can just charge actual rapists for committing rape instead of weirdos who want two wives.

    The heroin analogy is poor. It's not illegal to live and have sex with multiple women it's just illegal to marry them all simultaneously. The behavior isn't against the law, just the designation of marriage. So we're not stopping bad behavior that leads to other bad behavior with polygamy laws.

    Well, these communities aren't good about filing birth certificates, so charging stat-rape becomes problematic. It's much, much easier to charge with polygamy. Again, you charge what you can prove.

    Same way we ban felons on parole from owning a gun. Sure, we could just prosecute them if they use that gun in an illegal way, but by making the mere act of owning/possessing it illegal we give ourselves many, many more opportunities to catch and prosecute them before they hurt anybody.
    Aegis wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

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

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

    The Hutterites manage it here in Montana. Our winters aren't exactly pleasant.
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?

    Much harder to legislate, and less likely to be found Constitutional. At least in the US. Don't know about Canada.
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Reminder here that prosecutorial discretion does still exist

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

    Except that I, like Medo, know that prosecutorial discretion exists. So that's not what I was saying at all. I'm not saying that any polygamist anywhere should be prosecuted, I'm saying that when you find a polygamist sect that has segregated themselves from society it's often much, much easier to prove polygamy than statutory rape...even though both are almost certainly occurring.

    Hence the polygamy charges, rather than stat-rape charges.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Well yeah, polygamy being illegal makes it easy to charge these guys, I understand that. My contention is that the justifications for making it illegal are weak at best. I'm not in favor of suspending the 2nd Amendment for someone just because they're a former felon. I prefer to arrest and prosecute people for crimes they actually commit as opposed to creating ways to make them criminals to prevent other crimes they may or may not even commit.

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

    The young ages people can get married at are kind of creepy right now anyways.
    Man I was going to stay out of the thread and then I see this.

    I have heard this kind of argument for all kind of things. It becomes a moving target--you say "oh no, people this old just aren't responsible enough to be able to handle this shit" or something and then you put off the age at which they can make mistakes and actually build up some experience and be responsible.
    He's concerned about child abuse. He's not trying to keep you from buying beer or getting smokes. This is probably not the way you want to approach this argument.
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Why don't we make some laws against socially isolated enclaves instead of polygamy? I mean, haven't we had problems with other socially isolated enclaves too?
    Americans naturally lend themselves to retarded isolationist cults, so the law would be pretty much unenforceable.
    I wish I could refute this, but... you know...
    Feral wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me. Again, the beliefs that you listed as being objectionable would be foisted on kids without polygamy, and in fact they already are by religious groups that do not promote polygamy at all. Citing abuse and exploitation as if they were inseparable from the practice of polygamy is logically incorrect, especially because your examples are biased towards a specific, non-representative population of polygamists (that is, polygamists that are committing crimes). This is why I'm not convinced that you're right. You're arguing that extreme cases are the norm, when there's no evidence that that's really the case.
    That's a respectable opinion. I understand where you're coming from.

    Right now, especially in Utah and bordering states, the social burden caused by these cults is huge, as others have mentioned. You seem to hold that polygamy is incidental to the other wrongdoings. Even if that's the case, at the very least it is directly tied to the lost boys problem: young men exiled from religious communities who find themselves homeless in big cities with no contacts and no prospects, often before the age of 18. At the worst, it's polygamy itself that allows the exploitation of large numbers of young girls at the same time.
    You're answering his objection with the very thing he's objecting against. You're saying that because there are certain groups that would abuse the system and try to marry underage kids that there's an inherent flaw in the system. He's saying that, no... it's not an inherent flaw in the system. It's a flaw in those specific practitioners. I am inclined to agree with him... I don't think that there's something inherently evil about polygamy, in and of itself, that means you necessarily have to be a goddamn child abuser, any more than I think that there's something inherent about prostitution that means you have to deal with snake-heads. I don't participate in either, and would not even if the legality was changed, but I don't believe in original sin, either.

    I don't know how you'd drum out the child abusers in polygamy or the snake-heads in prostution, but damning an entire institution and forcing it underground doesn't solve either issue... it just guarantees that any participation in the activity is going to be illegal per se. That does simplify prosecution, but it doesn't address the real problem, or any of the social problems that exist around the activity.
    Cervetus wrote: »
    I think this is probably the most compelling anti-polygamy argument, because there are going to be leftovers no matter what group does it unless databases are somehow used to match up the small percent of women leftover from their slight number advantage to men who want another wife [thinking about this database in action is kind of funny to me].
    Some people just aren't going to get laid on any given night, regardless of whether or not polygamy exists. Again, it's a specific problem with these specific cults. The guys aren't drummed out because they're not married. They're drummed out because the men in power don't want a threat to their authority. It's not a problem with polygamy per se, it's a problem with the behavior of these cults.
    Plutonium wrote: »
    Just because heroin is illegal, doesn't mean that people won't do it. The same goes for Polygamy. Should we legalize Heroin or Polygamy because of that? All that would do is make it more widespread and give tacit approval to an activity that's highly detrimental to the general welfare. At least now society's sending a message that situations that are created by polygamy will not be tolerated.
    And this is why we should have abstinence-only sex education. We can't give those kids tacit approval to start fucking each other.

    People, examine your arguments. Really. You are using tactics that those other people use.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Well yeah, polygamy being illegal makes it easy to charge these guys, I understand that. My contention is that the justifications for making it illegal are weak at best. I'm not in favor of suspending the 2nd Amendment for someone just because they're a former felon. I prefer to arrest and prosecute people for crimes they actually commit as opposed to creating ways to make them criminals to prevent other crimes they may or may not even commit.

    First, I only favor banning felons on parole/probation from owning guns...because they're still technically serving their sentence. I hate lifetime bans. But that's tangential.

    Back on topic, the only real alternative to making polygamy illegal (and trusting prosecutorial discretion) is to have the government get a lot more involved in our lives so as to prevent the paperwork shenanigans these groups try to pull. I don't see this as the superior option.

    Well, that or just accepting that some societies will just breed their girls to be raped in the name of liberty. But motherfuck that.


    Seems to me that in general prosecutorial discretion seems to work fairly well...I don't think polygamy is prosecuted all that often absent some other form of fraud or malfeasance.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Well yeah, polygamy being illegal makes it easy to charge these guys, I understand that. My contention is that the justifications for making it illegal are weak at best. I'm not in favor of suspending the 2nd Amendment for someone just because they're a former felon. I prefer to arrest and prosecute people for crimes they actually commit as opposed to creating ways to make them criminals to prevent other crimes they may or may not even commit.

    First, I only favor banning felons on parole/probation from owning guns...because they're still technically serving their sentence. I hate lifetime bans. But that's tangential.

    Back on topic, the only real alternative to making polygamy illegal (and trusting prosecutorial discretion) is to have the government get a lot more involved in our lives so as to prevent the paperwork shenanigans these groups try to pull. I don't see this as the superior option.

    Well, that or just accepting that some societies will just breed their girls to be raped in the name of liberty. But motherfuck that.


    Seems to me that in general prosecutorial discretion seems to work fairly well...I don't think polygamy is prosecuted all that often absent some other form of fraud or malfeasance.

    Agreed on the gun thing.

    I need a bit more explanation as to why legalizing polygamy will necessarily increase government intrusiveness or cause legislators to have coronaries trying to draft sensible legislation regarding the institution. What shenanigans are polygamists who exploit young girls pulling now that uses polygamy as a legal shield/tool?

    Also, we should accept that some people will use otherwise harmless things or institutions to do bad things. In fact, we already do, and have created laws to deal with these people and the crimes they commit.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me.

    How about the fact that what it would even mean, legally speaking, to have an arbitrary number of people in a marriage-like legal arrangement would be a contractual clusterfuck, and would be largely meaningless or unworkable barring a case-specific set of addenda? And that since you're having to hire a lawyer to figure out each case anyway, and since legalizing polygamy wouldn't actually solve any problems while creating a whole lot more, it's a rather silly notion?

    You may as well argue we legalize marriage to pets. It would be roughly comparable from a legal standpoint.

    This still doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. Okay, so it will add complexity to the legal framework, and the lawmakers will need to do a little more legwork to make it sensible. I fail to see why this is a strike against making polygamy legal. I mean, we ask legislators to do similar hoop jumping and cat herding to create other laws, and we don't think it's onerous to do so. Further, if lawyers are required to make the marriage contract work, isn't that a burden on the polygamists, not the state?

    Except legal marriage really is nothing but a tidy set of legal contracts. Look at the best arguments for making 2-person marriage legal:

    - It contributes to social stability. There is little stable about an arbitrary number of spouses.
    - It's a common occurrence and, as such, it's handy to have a ready-made set of contracts in place that we call "legal marriage". Polygamy would necessarily require a specific set of custom-made contracts for each case.

    You'll notice that I didn't include "Hey, why not?" in there. Because that's not a reason. And yet that's pretty much the only reason I've seen out of the pro-polygamy side, other than some vague hope that maybe legal polygamy will drive all of the abusive pedo-harem folks (ie, 98% of the people who lobby for legalized polygamy) out into the open, ignoring the fact that these people don't want to be in the open.
    Oh, and nice one on the pet marriage thing, because the situations are totally parallel. Except they aren't because an animal can't give informed consent to be married. I'm glad to see that a bestiality comparison finally landed in the conversation. It seemed like child abuse was going to hog all of the false equivalency limelight in this thread.

    A) I was half-joking.
    B) To the extent that I wasn't joking, it wasn't a moral analogy, it was a legal analogy. It would make about as much sense. What would it mean, legally, if Old Lady Crazylegs married her 29 cats? What would it mean, legally, if Old Man Kiddbanger married his 12 underage fucktoys? Or, for a less inflammatory example, what would it mean if the commune of 15 people all married each other? Who the fuck knows? In each case, you'd probably need to go ask them. This isn't the sort of thing you really can have a ready-made template for. And since hardly anyone does it anyway, it's not too much to ask that they hire a lawyer and work it out themselves. Which nothing is keeping them from doing.

    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.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Also, we should accept that some people will use otherwise harmless things or institutions to do bad things. In fact, we already do, and have created laws to deal with these people and the crimes they commit.

    Except that when your new legislation is 5% upside and 95% people doing bad things, maybe it's not the bestest legislation in the whole wide world.

    Let's talk jaywalking. Anti-jaywalking laws are totally impeding on my ability to cross whenever and wherever I damned well please. Clearly there's nothing wrong with me crossing a small, deserted road at 3am. And sure, I can achieve the exact same effect using alternate means - in this case, walking 30 feet to my left and using the damned crosswalk. Still, because there is a small number of fringe cases in which jaywalking is awesomesauce, we should therefore legalize it entirely, even though it will probably result in many more deaths. It's the principle of the thing, don'tchaknow.

    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.
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    This is where the anti-polygamy argument falls apart for me. The only justifications for keeping it illegal I've seen so far are that society doesn't look kindly on it and that people use it to exploit others. Neither are very strong arguments to me.

    How about the fact that what it would even mean, legally speaking, to have an arbitrary number of people in a marriage-like legal arrangement would be a contractual clusterfuck, and would be largely meaningless or unworkable barring a case-specific set of addenda? And that since you're having to hire a lawyer to figure out each case anyway, and since legalizing polygamy wouldn't actually solve any problems while creating a whole lot more, it's a rather silly notion?

    You may as well argue we legalize marriage to pets. It would be roughly comparable from a legal standpoint.

    This still doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. Okay, so it will add complexity to the legal framework, and the lawmakers will need to do a little more legwork to make it sensible. I fail to see why this is a strike against making polygamy legal. I mean, we ask legislators to do similar hoop jumping and cat herding to create other laws, and we don't think it's onerous to do so. Further, if lawyers are required to make the marriage contract work, isn't that a burden on the polygamists, not the state?

    Except legal marriage really is nothing but a tidy set of legal contracts. Look at the best arguments for making 2-person marriage legal:

    - It contributes to social stability. There is little stable about an arbitrary number of spouses.
    - It's a common occurrence and, as such, it's handy to have a ready-made set of contracts in place that we call "legal marriage". Polygamy would necessarily require a specific set of custom-made contracts for each case.

    You'll notice that I didn't include "Hey, why not?" in there. Because that's not a reason. And yet that's pretty much the only reason I've seen out of the pro-polygamy side, other than some vague hope that maybe legal polygamy will drive all of the abusive pedo-harem folks (ie, 98% of the people who lobby for legalized polygamy) out into the open, ignoring the fact that these people don't want to be in the open.

    There is nothing inherently stable about multiple people entering into a legal contract with each other. Well, nothing terribly more instable than the two party contracts we call marriage.

    There isn't a ready made template for the dissolution of marriages now, so your argument falls apart. If there were a simple way to redistribute assets (including children) we wouldn't need divorce courts, but there isn't and so we do. And we already have contract law that allows for the entry of multiple entities into contract arrangements, so we can just modify the marriage law to incorporate those concepts. I mean, it is not as though entities like corporations don't exist already. Sure it might be a fair amount of work, but 'amount of work' shouldn't be a metric by which we measure allowing for more freedom.

    Finally, the argument that 'because it can be abused it should be illegal' is weak and used to justify all sorts of injustices. The herion analogy is particularly onerous, since guess what, making herion illegal has done about nothing to curb its use. Bad people who want to practice polygamy will do so regardless. All its illegality does is allow an easy target for prosecutors to aim for. And good polygamists who want to have the legal protections afforded by marriage law are prevented from doing so by making it illegal.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    So are you seriously saying it's not hurting anyone?

    Because it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread how it IS hurting people, on a pretty big scale in some places. If you don't think the philosophy and practice of polygamy is the root problem for the statutory rape, child abuse, Lost Boys, treating women as chattel, etc that have been named in this thread you're deluding yourself.

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »

    So are you seriously saying it's not hurting anyone?

    Because it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread how it IS hurting people, on a pretty big scale in some places. If you don't think the philosophy and practice of polygamy is the root problem for the statutory rape, child abuse, Lost Boys, treating women as chattel, etc that have been named in this thread you're deluding yourself.

    It isn't the concept of polygamy in and of itself, since you can have polygamous relationships outside of fundamental mormonism, it is the religious frameworks of the people in question. And statutory rape, child abuse and spousal abuse are all already illegal and happen in non-polygamous households as well, as does homelessness.

  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »

    So are you seriously saying it's not hurting anyone?

    Because it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread how it IS hurting people, on a pretty big scale in some places. If you don't think the philosophy and practice of polygamy is the root problem for the statutory rape, child abuse, Lost Boys, treating women as chattel, etc that have been named in this thread you're deluding yourself.

    It isn't the concept of polygamy in and of itself, since you can have polygamous relationships outside of fundamental mormonism, it is the religious frameworks of the people in question. And statutory rape, child abuse and spousal abuse are all already illegal and happen in non-polygamous households as well, as does homelessness.

    Indeed, polygamy in a vacuum is not inherently bad.

    Polygamy as practiced in this country? Whole different story. Which is what we're talking about in this thread.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Also, we should accept that some people will use otherwise harmless things or institutions to do bad things. In fact, we already do, and have created laws to deal with these people and the crimes they commit.

    Except that when your new legislation is 5% upside and 95% people doing bad things, maybe it's not the bestest legislation in the whole wide world.

    Let's talk jaywalking. Anti-jaywalking laws are totally impeding on my ability to cross whenever and wherever I damned well please. Clearly there's nothing wrong with me crossing a small, deserted road at 3am. And sure, I can achieve the exact same effect using alternate means - in this case, walking 30 feet to my left and using the damned crosswalk. Still, because there is a small number of fringe cases in which jaywalking is awesomesauce, we should therefore legalize it entirely, even though it will probably result in many more deaths. It's the principle of the thing, don'tchaknow.

    Bad analogy. I mean, if you apply the logic of the anti-polygamy argument to this example, you would be blaming jaywalking for facilitating a robbery just because a guy crossed the street and robbed a liquor store.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    So are you seriously saying it's not hurting anyone?

    Because it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread how it IS hurting people, on a pretty big scale in some places. If you don't think the philosophy and practice of polygamy is the root problem for the statutory rape, child abuse, Lost Boys, treating women as chattel, etc that have been named in this thread you're deluding yourself.

    No, that argument is just bullshit. The problem isn't with polygamy, it's with the people practicing their brand of religious stupidity. You're arguing that all polygamy is bad just because some people are using it badly. All of the shit you listed exists with or without polygamy. Certain religious sects do not endorse polygamy but still manage to have the exact same problems you cite. What will you blame and make illegal in those cases?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    So are you seriously saying it's not hurting anyone?

    Because it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread how it IS hurting people, on a pretty big scale in some places. If you don't think the philosophy and practice of polygamy is the root problem for the statutory rape, child abuse, Lost Boys, treating women as chattel, etc that have been named in this thread you're deluding yourself.

    No, that argument is just bullshit. The problem isn't with polygamy, it's with the people practicing their brand of religious stupidity. You're arguing that all polygamy is bad just because some people are using it badly. All of the shit you listed exists with or without polygamy. Certain religious sects do not endorse polygamy but still manage to have the exact same problems you cite. What will you blame and make illegal in those cases?

    No, did you see my post above. NOT ALL POLYGAMY IS BAD.

    Polygamy, as practiced in the US, is a problem. Statutory rape of underage girls that are forced to become the third/fourth/fifth wife of an older man is directly because of that practice of polygamy. Young boys turned out of their communities and left without any resources because they would require several wives and there aren't enough to go around is directly because of that practice of polygamy.

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

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

    Anti-Jaywalking laws aren't meant to prevent facilitation of robbery, they're meant to prevent facilitation of vehicular manslaughter, just as bigamy laws aren't meant to prevent robbery either. Jeffe's analogy makes perfect sense.

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

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Medopine wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »

    So are you seriously saying it's not hurting anyone?

    Because it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread how it IS hurting people, on a pretty big scale in some places. If you don't think the philosophy and practice of polygamy is the root problem for the statutory rape, child abuse, Lost Boys, treating women as chattel, etc that have been named in this thread you're deluding yourself.

    It isn't the concept of polygamy in and of itself, since you can have polygamous relationships outside of fundamental mormonism, it is the religious frameworks of the people in question. And statutory rape, child abuse and spousal abuse are all already illegal and happen in non-polygamous households as well, as does homelessness.

    Indeed, polygamy in a vacuum is not inherently bad.

    Polygamy as practiced in this country? Whole different story. Which is what we're talking about in this thread.

    Except, the only polygamy you are going to hear about on a wide scale is the type involving child abuse like in this case. If someone is quietly living in a long term relationship with X other people, they will never be heard from. I don't believe they are accounted for in any breakdown of the census figures, they have no legal status, and they aren't causing a ruckus. So for all intents they are invisible, but they are still there and could derive utility from the legalization of their living arrangement via all the normal benefits accorded to marriage. So in order to justify your statement you would need to show that among people in polygamous relationships, people like FLDS are the norm and I really doubt there is good evidence to support that assertion.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    Again, what are the upsides of legal polygamy outside of a nebulous idea of "more freedom"? Freedom to do what, exactly? Freedom to bang lots of people? They have that. Freedom to have contracts in place to handle asset distribution? They have that, too. Freedom to love lots of folks, freedom to live together? Check and check.

    The don't have the freedom to, say, receive medical benefits from their spouses' place of employment because that is an unworkable idea. The situation isn't analogous to gay marriage rights, because two-person marriage is two-person marriage, whereas twelve person marriage is a completely different thing.

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

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

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

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

    Oh, and the assumption that polygamy must end badly is stupid. Besides selection bias inherent in the examples given against polygamy, the fact is that plain old marriage has a 50% failure rate. Should we then make regular marriage illegal because it may be abused or statistically may end badly for half the people involved?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    The don't have the freedom to, say, receive medical benefits from their spouses' place of employment because that is an unworkable idea. The situation isn't analogous to gay marriage rights, because two-person marriage is two-person marriage, whereas twelve person marriage is a completely different thing.

    How exactly is employment benefits unworkable? Guess what, my place of employment already offers an option to insure an indeterminate number of children. I don't see how adult beneficiaries are special snowflakes.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    Again, what are the upsides of legal polygamy outside of a nebulous idea of "more freedom"? Freedom to do what, exactly? Freedom to bang lots of people? They have that. Freedom to have contracts in place to handle asset distribution? They have that, too. Freedom to love lots of folks, freedom to live together? Check and check.

    The don't have the freedom to, say, receive medical benefits from their spouses' place of employment because that is an unworkable idea. The situation isn't analogous to gay marriage rights, because two-person marriage is two-person marriage, whereas twelve person marriage is a completely different thing.

    I'm perfectly fine with the only upsides being an expansion of freedom and one less stupid ass way to make people into criminals for doing nothing that's actually wrong or hurting anyone.

    EDIT: Oh, and between the upcoming universal health insurance and the fact that you have to pay to add people onto your health insurance, your argument about health benefits is pretty unconvincing.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    How similar is the free practice clause to the first amendment? Because, if they are similar and the law is found unconstitutional, it could leave an avenue for the legalization of gay marriage in the US, as Reform and Conservative Judaism, as well as some Christian sects, recognize and perform gay marriages.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    How exactly is employment benefits unworkable? Guess what, my place of employment already offers an option to insure an indeterminate number of children. I don't see how adult beneficiaries are special snowflakes.

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

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

    I make tweet.
  • PlutoniumPlutonium Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but I still don't see how you've made the case that legal polygamy would make the legal framework untenable. Why would it require contracts specific to each marriage? My argument for legal polygamy isn't "why not?", it's "if it's not hurting anyone, the right to marry one or more people shouldn't be infringed." The fact that our society frowns on multiple spouses isn't a good enough reason to make it illegal. I don't think legalizing polygamy will drive the pedo-harem people out in the open. Instead, I think that we already have laws dealing with what they're doing, polygamy isn't the root of the problem, and it smacks of just tacking on more penalties for not conforming to societal norms.

    Also, beyond your assertion, I don't see any other evidence that polygamy, itself, is detrimental to stability in society.

    Again, what are the upsides of legal polygamy outside of a nebulous idea of "more freedom"? Freedom to do what, exactly? Freedom to bang lots of people? They have that. Freedom to have contracts in place to handle asset distribution? They have that, too. Freedom to love lots of folks, freedom to live together? Check and check.

    The don't have the freedom to, say, receive medical benefits from their spouses' place of employment because that is an unworkable idea. The situation isn't analogous to gay marriage rights, because two-person marriage is two-person marriage, whereas twelve person marriage is a completely different thing.

    I'm perfectly fine with the only upsides being an expansion of freedom and one less stupid ass way to make people into criminals for doing nothing that's actually wrong or hurting anyone.

    So should we legalize Jaywalking? Jaywalkers aren't hurting anyone but potentially themselves, until they cause a 12-car pileup. What about selling heroin? A dealer's not hurting anyone who's not doing anything of their own free will, until their clients start holding up liquor stores to get the cash for their next hit. But they both clearly foster the growth of bad consequences in the vast majority of situations, just like polygamy.

    If you want to live in your libertarian fantasy land, by all means keep on trucking. Just don't come crying to me when you get rear-ended because some asshole has the legal right to cross the street wherever he wants.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm perfectly fine with the only upsides being an expansion of freedom and one less stupid ass way to make people into criminals for doing nothing that's actually wrong or hurting anyone.

    So we're back to jaywalking, then.

    Incidentally, are you of the opinion that the government is legally and morally required to recognize legal marriage, period? If so, why? If not, then why are they legally or morally required to recognize polygamy? The answer clearly isn't "because they recognize marriage between two people", because they're fundamentally different things. Since, you know, there's a difference between "2" and "17".
    EDIT: Oh, and between the upcoming universal health insurance and the fact that you have to pay to add people onto your health insurance, your argument about health benefits is pretty unconvincing.

    See my above post. And UHC is a point in my favor, not yours. It means there's one less reason to bother legalizing it. You're argument is asymptotically approaching "well, there's no upsides at all, and lots of negatives, but, you know... still."

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

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

Sign In or Register to comment.