I could be completely wrong, but I don't think there is a "Lost Boy" syndrome in other places that allow for polygamy (e.g. India, Middle East).
You do end up with a class of semi-disenfranchised sexually frustrated young males with minimal family responsibilities.
If you don't think that contributes to social unrest and militant fundamentalism in the middle east then I dunno what to tell you.
I wasn't under the impression that polygamy was any more prevalent over there than it is over here. Wikipedia says 1 to 3% total in the Islamic world. I'm thinking you're vastly overstating the case for polygamy inciting extremism to the point of absurdity.
It differs country by country. I have no idea what it is in, for example, Afghanistan right now. But when you take a population where there's already a slight male majority and effectively eliminate any possibility that 1-3% of them will ever find wives... well, 1-3% of the young able-bodied men in a country of 30 million people is still enough people to fuck some shit up.
I think economic disparity, religious indoctrination, and demonization of Jews/the West are more to blame than polygamy.
If you don't think that contributes to social unrest and militant fundamentalism in the middle east then I dunno what to tell you.
What's the important word there?
You know this thread would have been a lot shorter to read through if people would bother reading a post every once and a while.
I'm sorry, maybe I should've been clearer: I don't think polygamy is a significant enough factor in fostering extremism in the Muslim world for you to claim it as a reason for outlawing polygamy. Hence my response, because if polygamy adds a drop in the ocean of extremism, it's technically contributing to the problem, but it'd be stupid to make a big deal about it.
It's not really central to the reasoning anyway. You've continued to conveniently ignore all the other compelling reasons by saying "I don't think that's reason enough" or something to that extent, so what's it matter.
To be fair, I think it is valid to say that, "though something may contribute to something else bad, that is not sufficient reason alone to ban it, especially if we don't think the first thing contributes all that much."
Now, on the other hand, I'm fairly certain that in less civilized states where polygamy is practiced there is a correlative link between polygamy and violence in society. I'm very certain about that.
I'm beginning to lean more towards, "It'd be nice, but at present it's too complicated and riddle with pragmatic issues to feasible want it to be legalized."
That all being said, I don't think wwtMask has been too obtuse in this thread.
That all being said, I don't think wwtMask has been too obtuse in this thread.
Whereas I think he was a couple degrees from being a straight angle.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That all being said, I don't think wwtMask has been too obtuse in this thread.
Whereas I think he was a couple degrees from being a straight angle.
I think he brought in an imaginary coefficient and jumped the Cartesian coordinate plane entirely.
My agreement is 180 degrees from you... or something.
But no, he really hasn't. I've read through this whole thread and everyone's been quite clear in their arguments - Mask is arguing from a neutral stance on polygamy (polygamy in a vacuum), while you and others have argued that polygamy as it is currently (for the most part) being practiced is too open to abuse (which I agree with). Personally, from what I've read it's the latter crowd that doesn't seem to 'get it', in that every time Mask points out that an abuse of polygamy isn't an inherent problem of polygamy itself, someone will then throw out yet another example of such abuse to try and point out how rotten polygamy is. He's certainly been more patient with others than they have with him.
Overall, this issue is a tough one for me. There are strong arguments against legalizing it, but I tend to side with Mask - the idea of making something inherently not harmful illegal, either to shut down potential abuse (which occurs anyway or doesn't stem directly from polygamy) or because it's difficult to get it working 'right' in terms of contracts and benefits, etc., seems wrong to me.
And what the hell would legalizing polygamy do to "protect" people?
I was referring to the law as a means to "protect" women who don't know better from weirdos. I don't really think the law banning polygamy actually does that though so I don't see much point in having it. I default on the side of "there shouldn't be a law" and would like a compelling reason why there should be. I still haven't found one other than it's the current status quo.
Yes you can cite wackos in the middle of nowhere being polygamists but the reason they are in the middle of nowhere is because it indeed is against the law. If it was legal I don't think polygamy would become rampant with weirdos in the middle of nowhere it would likely become a more cosmopolitan phenomenon among different types of people probably in the city.
You are thinking of religious weirdos and I'm thinking of Hugh Hefner. I don't really think Hugh Hefner is a bad guy but for all intents and purposes he's a polygamist.
This isn't exactly some kind of hot button issue for me but I have a problem in this case because they are basically charging the guy with "polygamy" because they are having a hard time pinning these guys down to anything else. It's suspect for the government to do this. It's kinda like pulling a black guy over for going 3 mph over the limit and then using that as an opportunity to search his car.
You are thinking of religious weirdos and I'm thinking of Hugh Hefner. I don't really think Hugh Hefner is a bad guy but for all intents and purposes he's a polygamist.
No, he's a polyamorist. He maintains lots of relationships, he does not enter into multiple legally binding relationships with people.
Please learn the difference between marriage and sexy times.
You are thinking of religious weirdos and I'm thinking of Hugh Hefner. I don't really think Hugh Hefner is a bad guy but for all intents and purposes he's a polygamist.
No, he's a polyamorist. He maintains lots of relationships, he does not enter into multiple legally binding relationships with people.
Please learn the difference between marriage and sexy times.
Whom he supports and sleeps and lives with. It's basically the same thing, even common law.
So basically the only difference is that these guys can live and sleep with mutliple women but not marry them because that's just going over the line. Yes that makes perfect sense.
the idea of making something inherently not harmful illegal, either to shut down potential abuse (which occurs anyway or doesn't stem directly from polygamy) or because it's difficult to get it working 'right' in terms of contracts and benefits, etc., seems wrong to me.
So you're okay with legalizing drunk driving, then?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the idea of making something inherently not harmful illegal, either to shut down potential abuse (which occurs anyway or doesn't stem directly from polygamy) or because it's difficult to get it working 'right' in terms of contracts and benefits, etc., seems wrong to me.
So you're okay with legalizing drunk driving, then?
I'm not going back on my earlier stance which was, for reference.
"It'd be nice, but at present it's too complicated and riddle with pragmatic issues to feasible want it to be legalized."
Howaaayver, this particular comparison seems just a little off.
Like, in the way that bad is more likely to happen by the very nature of drunk driving itself. Drunk driving is not just conflated socially with accidents, or likely to cause accidents by some abusive people.
Polygamy is not itself inherently more likely to lead to abuse. It's just a practice taken up by people who would abuse it, and still do now anyway, mind you. Legal concerns with polygamy exist only because of the framework of government now. Nothing about polygamy naturally causes legal issues.
The only natural negative outcome of polygamy is the "lost boys" thing.
The thing is, that is just not a concern. Not at all. We've already conceded that people who want this lifestyle will just live it minus the marriage itself. Any taken women who would have contributed to those "lost boys" will already shack themselves up in those relationships in the first place, just be unable to marry.
"Lost boys" aren't a result of people wanting to be in polygamous relationships so much as they are a result of men collecting wives like cars. Without polygamy, in America, it would happen anyway, simply without the specific benefit of marriage. If they could get married, it wouldn't change anything about the number of available men and women. It would in fact do nothing but enable the people already living like they're polygamous to actually be polygamous.
Marital abuse is, as far as I understand, hard to uncover period. Monogamy, polygamy, whatever. Spousal abuse is difficult to unearth.
Keeping polygamy illegal means we never have to worry about spousal abuse in polygamous relationships. If they're ever acting polygamous we can jail 'em immediately.
Of course, that doesn't effect partner abuse of people in makeshift polygamous relationships. And the people who would be in abuse polygamous relationships would find a way anyway.
And of course, if we're banning a marital practice because of the likelihood of abuse for a few (and by "a few" I don't mean to belittle the abuse at all) then you could use that train of thought to ban marriage entirely. That way we wouldn't have to worry about investigating spousal abuse. If we see people acting married we can jail 'em outright so that we never have to worry about it.
Of course, they'll just pretend to be married and abuse will happen in probably the same percentages anyways.
All this is to say that, "This is a complicated issue. I don't know..."
You are thinking of religious weirdos and I'm thinking of Hugh Hefner. I don't really think Hugh Hefner is a bad guy but for all intents and purposes he's a polygamist.
No, he's a polyamorist. He maintains lots of relationships, he does not enter into multiple legally binding relationships with people.
Please learn the difference between marriage and sexy times.
Whom he supports and sleeps and lives with. It's basically the same thing, even common law.
So basically the only difference is that these guys can live and sleep with mutliple women but not marry them because that's just going over the line. Yes that makes perfect sense.
Marriage conveys multiple legal benefits and obligations. I guarantee you Ms. November is entitled to jack shit when Hefner dies nor are they filling out massive amounts of paperwork to take to court in order to leave him.
People shouldn't be allowed to marry one or more people until they are twenty. It is fucked up marrying a youngster, whether one is marrying one or seventeen. If they're older, I don't see the problem with any number.
And really, "marriage" has no business being a part of the state. It should be a religious (or whatever) thing, not a state issue. States should be able to issue legal contracts to whomever wants them, be it two men, three men, man and woman, man and three women, as long as everyone's old enough to be involved in such a contract, and my gut tells me that age 20 is perfect. Leave the marriage thing to whomever wants to marry.
The legal contract issue strikes me as a problem that can simply be written out of existence. There's a paucity of contracts for large marriages? Let's make some new contracts, then. The real problem is people being nasty fucking pedophiles and giving it (localized) social legitimacy by hooking it to a religious belief.
Which do you guys think occurs more frequently in places where Polygamy is outlawed:
1) Random Husband: "Man, I really wish I could marry this other girl, my current wife would be totally cool with it too, but polygamy is illegal. If only polygamy was legal...."
or
2) Police Officer: "This guy is a real fucking scumbag, but the whole community is completely tight lipped and willing to cover up for him because he calls himself a prophet/preacher/etc. Thankfully we are able to bust his child molesting / domestic abusing ass and send him to prison because of these anti-polygamy laws."
Lets talk a little greater good here. The number of times police have to use anti-polygamy laws to be able to investigate a family against their wishes to uncover systematic abuses that would otherwise go unsolved/unnoticed is far greater than the number of times some healthy couple feels constrained by current as is anti-polygamy laws.
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
0
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
the idea of making something inherently not harmful illegal, either to shut down potential abuse (which occurs anyway or doesn't stem directly from polygamy) or because it's difficult to get it working 'right' in terms of contracts and benefits, etc., seems wrong to me.
So you're okay with legalizing drunk driving, then?
More like I wouldn't make driving illegal because some people drive while impaired.
Which do you guys think occurs more frequently in places where Polygamy is outlawed:
1) Random Husband: "Man, I really wish I could marry this other girl, my current wife would be totally cool with it too, but polygamy is illegal. If only polygamy was legal...."
or
2) Police Officer: "This guy is a real fucking scumbag, but the whole community is completely tight lipped and willing to cover up for him because he calls himself a prophet/preacher/etc. Thankfully we are able to bust his child molesting / domestic abusing ass and send him to prison because of these anti-polygamy laws."
Lets talk a little greater good here. The number of times police have to use anti-polygamy laws to be able to investigate a family against their wishes to uncover systematic abuses that would otherwise go unsolved/unnoticed is far greater than the number of times some healthy couple feels constrained by current as is anti-polygamy laws.
Actually, the use of anti-polygamy laws against the people you've mentioned is pretty hard to do. For the charge to stick, the man has to be legally married to more than one person. They do an end run around this by being married by their church but not being legally married. So, once again, the anti-polygamy laws fail to effectively stop anything. What use are the laws if they don't actually accomplish the goals they were set up to achieve?
Also, Jeff, Feral, right back at you on the obtuse comment. I felt like I spent the day arguing with a wall, except a wall would eventually stop accusing me of dodging questions (which I didn't), try to address the ones I've posed, and not imply that I'm an idiot just because I don't toe the line. Maybe it's not so much that I'm obtuse as it is that you're unable to articulate your argument in a convincing manner.
Isn't slavery forced servitude against the consent of the enslaved party? Oh hey, that sounds like harm, we should probably make that illegal.
Are there anymore false equivalencies that I ought to be shooting down?
I don't know if someone already pointed this out, but no.
No it's not.
Slavery, legally, would involve a person becoming officially someone else's property. No rights, legally bound to do whatever the owner says, all that. Some couples, lovely people who are more than entitled to all the happiness they desire, can't quite put the finishing touch on the type of life they want to lead because we don't allow slavery.
Because no matter how lovely these couples may be, their right to pursue slightly more happiness is outweighed by other people's right to not incur a vast amount of unhappiness.
Now, that's a more extreme example than polygamy, but I don't think it's crazy that sometimes our society disregards individual cases because we understand that the laws aren't fractal, and sometimes we're doing what's good most of the time instead of what's perfect all of the time.
Which do you guys think occurs more frequently in places where Polygamy is outlawed:
1) Random Husband: "Man, I really wish I could marry this other girl, my current wife would be totally cool with it too, but polygamy is illegal. If only polygamy was legal...."
or
2) Police Officer: "This guy is a real fucking scumbag, but the whole community is completely tight lipped and willing to cover up for him because he calls himself a prophet/preacher/etc. Thankfully we are able to bust his child molesting / domestic abusing ass and send him to prison because of these anti-polygamy laws."
Lets talk a little greater good here. The number of times police have to use anti-polygamy laws to be able to investigate a family against their wishes to uncover systematic abuses that would otherwise go unsolved/unnoticed is far greater than the number of times some healthy couple feels constrained by current as is anti-polygamy laws.
No no no, we aren't allowed to be reasonable like this here. We have to argue all points within some sort of retarded platonic bubble universe vacuum.
I watched a documentary on this and while it is true that there are some weird polygamists that trap their offspring in basements for generations and shit, a lot of polygamist relationships are happy ones.
No no, you heard jeepguy, we're just arguing from a fantasy world perspective. Since he said it's so, all evidence to the contrary must be swept aside because jeepguy is the imminent authority.
durandal, it's still a false equivalency. If slavery were made legal, it would affect everyone because everyone would have the potential to be enslaved against their will. If polygamy is made legal, it will affect a small percentage of the population that is already inclined towards polygamy. Oh, and that whole thing about consent that I said earlier. They're not anywhere close to parallel examples.
I haven't seen any of this evidence you're talking about in any of your many repetitious posts. I have heard you claim, repeatedly and at length, that the government should not outlaw polygamy because it's a potential freedom and there isn't a reason you find compelling enough to ban it.
Which do you guys think occurs more frequently in places where Polygamy is outlawed:
1) Random Husband: "Man, I really wish I could marry this other girl, my current wife would be totally cool with it too, but polygamy is illegal. If only polygamy was legal...."
or
2) Police Officer: "This guy is a real fucking scumbag, but the whole community is completely tight lipped and willing to cover up for him because he calls himself a prophet/preacher/etc. Thankfully we are able to bust his child molesting / domestic abusing ass and send him to prison because of these anti-polygamy laws."
Lets talk a little greater good here. The number of times police have to use anti-polygamy laws to be able to investigate a family against their wishes to uncover systematic abuses that would otherwise go unsolved/unnoticed is far greater than the number of times some healthy couple feels constrained by current as is anti-polygamy laws.
Actually, the use of anti-polygamy laws against the people you've mentioned is pretty hard to do. For the charge to stick, the man has to be legally married to more than one person. They do an end run around this by being married by their church but not being legally married. So, once again, the anti-polygamy laws fail to effectively stop anything. What use are the laws if they don't actually accomplish the goals they were set up to achieve?
Also, Jeff, Feral, right back at you on the obtuse comment. I felt like I spent the day arguing with a wall, except a wall would eventually stop accusing me of dodging questions (which I didn't), try to address the ones I've posed, and not imply that I'm an idiot just because I don't toe the line. Maybe it's not so much that I'm obtuse as it is that you're unable to articulate your argument in a convincing manner.
Your right, the police do have a tough job, why take away one of the few tools they have that lets them bust into these religous compounds to investigate the systemic abuse of under-age girls, wives, and outcast boys.
I haven't seen any of this evidence you're talking about in any of your many repetitious posts. I have heard you claim, repeatedly and at length, that the government should not outlaw polygamy because it's a potential freedom and there isn't a reason you find compelling enough to ban it.
That is not evidence, that's an opinion.
Apparently you can't be bothered to read the posts above from Zombiemambo. Or the fact that I'd said essentially what he did. And I've mentioned selection bias a million times. Just because you ignore shit that doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean it's non-existent.
Gnome: because the tool isn't working to do what you claim it's doing. Also, what's stopping police from investigating the crimes you mentioned? Polygamy isn't obstructing their investigations, the insular cultures are. I'm going to continue to beat this horse to death: if these very same problems occur in communities where regular marriage is the norm, how can you justify making polygamy out to be the source of the problems?
I haven't seen any of this evidence you're talking about in any of your many repetitious posts. I have heard you claim, repeatedly and at length, that the government should not outlaw polygamy because it's a potential freedom and there isn't a reason you find compelling enough to ban it.
That is not evidence, that's an opinion.
Apparently you can't be bothered to read the posts above from Zombiemambo. Or the fact that I'd said essentially what he did. And I've mentioned selection bias a million times. Just because you ignore shit that doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean it's non-existent.
Gnome: because the tool isn't working to do what you claim it's doing. Also, what's stopping police from investigating the crimes you mentioned? Polygamy isn't obstructing their investigations, the insular cultures are. I'm going to continue to beat this horse to death: if these very same problems occur in communities where regular marriage is the norm, how can you justify making polygamy out to be the source of the problems?
Police arent allowed to just start investigating domestic abuse unless someone reports something. Either a neighbor or someone within the family. In these isolated communities they are extremely hush-hush about all manners of abuse, so the police do not get to regularly investigate these families or even patrol the communes like they could a regular street, because its all private property.
So because they do have the anti-polygamy laws, they are able to go in and investigate that. Then while they are there they have a chance to clean up the more harmful crimes that are being committed.
Have you ever heard of the police or a court prosecuting someone for polygamy without a laundry list of other crimes? I doubt it.
Much like how alot of organized crime is brought down not by the illegal pimping and drug trade, but for other infractions that allow them to investigate the criminals more thoroughly.
Medopine I think tried to bring this up earlier. You charge them with what you can prove, and then, while investigating them on those charges, you get to dig up all the other scummy shit that they have been up to.
That's the thing, though. These guys are legally married to one person, but married by their religion to other people. If they're not legally married to multiple people, there's no way to investigate them because legally they've done no wrong. So the police have to rely on people coming forward to report the actual crimes; in other words, the way things generally work for investigating crimes.
Let's consider the most recent polygamist scandal, the one in Texas. Were any of the men charged with polygamy? Were they even investigated for polygamy? No, they were investigated for the other stuff, based on testimony by a girl that left the community. So once again anti-polygamy laws failed to do what you claim they're useful for, namely giving the police a foot in the door to take them down for other things. If this is the case, what utility are we getting out of the polygamy laws other than to satisfy people's moral objection to polygamy?
I'm also troubled that you think it's okay for the polygamy laws to exist solely as a pretense for police to get involved. Do you think it's fine to extend that same thinking to other things? For instance, should it be illegal to belong to a gang? Surely we can admit that gangs do a lot of bad things, but is it okay to infringe free association because there's potential for a gang to do bad things? Because that's pretty close to your stance on polygamy.
That's the thing, though. These guys are legally married to one person, but married by their religion to other people. If they're not legally married to multiple people, there's no way to investigate them because legally they've done no wrong. So the police have to rely on people coming forward to report the actual crimes; in other words, the way things generally work for investigating crimes.
Let's consider the most recent polygamist scandal, the one in Texas. Were any of the men charged with polygamy? Were they even investigated for polygamy? No, they were investigated for the other stuff, based on testimony by a girl that left the community. So once again anti-polygamy laws failed to do what you claim they're useful for, namely giving the police a foot in the door to take them down for other things. If this is the case, what utility are we getting out of the polygamy laws other than to satisfy people's moral objection to polygamy?
I'm also troubled that you think it's okay for the polygamy laws to exist solely as a pretense for police to get involved. Do you think it's fine to extend that same thinking to other things? For instance, should it be illegal to belong to a gang? Surely we can admit that gangs do a lot of bad things, but is it okay to infringe free association because there's potential for a gang to do bad things? Because that's pretty close to your stance on polygamy.
sounds like we need to tighten the laws on polygamy not eliminate them.
also he never said that they were only there for police investigation purposes. he just gave a reason why they were useful.
im still reading through the thread looking for a reason why polygamy should be legal aside from 'people like being married'
I suppose the same arguments could be said about legalizing pot. Are there other reasons other than "people like to get high" and all the "cigarettes are worse!" comparisons?
Which do you guys think occurs more frequently in places where Polygamy is outlawed:
1) Random Husband: "Man, I really wish I could marry this other girl, my current wife would be totally cool with it too, but polygamy is illegal. If only polygamy was legal...."
or
2) Police Officer: "This guy is a real fucking scumbag, but the whole community is completely tight lipped and willing to cover up for him because he calls himself a prophet/preacher/etc. Thankfully we are able to bust his child molesting / domestic abusing ass and send him to prison because of these anti-polygamy laws."
I have no idea, which is why I am not using it in any sort of utilitarian style argument.
Lets talk a little greater good here. The number of times police have to use anti-polygamy laws to be able to investigate a family against their wishes to uncover systematic abuses that would otherwise go unsolved/unnoticed is far greater than the number of times some healthy couple feels constrained by current as is anti-polygamy laws.
I've asked this numerous times, but if people are going to use this as a core part of their argument, they need to provide proof that the number of times police need these laws is far greater than the number of times people feel constrained by the current illegality of polygamy. I hate [citation needed] spam as much as the next person, but in this case some sort of data is needed to support what you are saying.
That's the thing, though. These guys are legally married to one person, but married by their religion to other people. If they're not legally married to multiple people, there's no way to investigate them because legally they've done no wrong. So the police have to rely on people coming forward to report the actual crimes; in other words, the way things generally work for investigating crimes.
Let's consider the most recent polygamist scandal, the one in Texas. Were any of the men charged with polygamy? Were they even investigated for polygamy? No, they were investigated for the other stuff, based on testimony by a girl that left the community. So once again anti-polygamy laws failed to do what you claim they're useful for, namely giving the police a foot in the door to take them down for other things. If this is the case, what utility are we getting out of the polygamy laws other than to satisfy people's moral objection to polygamy?
I'm also troubled that you think it's okay for the polygamy laws to exist solely as a pretense for police to get involved. Do you think it's fine to extend that same thinking to other things? For instance, should it be illegal to belong to a gang? Surely we can admit that gangs do a lot of bad things, but is it okay to infringe free association because there's potential for a gang to do bad things? Because that's pretty close to your stance on polygamy.
sounds like we need to tighten the laws on polygamy not eliminate them.
also he never said that they were only there for police investigation purposes. he just gave a reason why they were useful.
im still reading through the thread looking for a reason why polygamy should be legal aside from 'people like being married'
Tightening the polygamy laws? How so? Are you going to make it illegal to be pretend married to someone? Because that's what's going on there. These guys are not actually violating the law. You guys are so hung up on polygamy laws as if they're vital to bringing these guys to justice, but that's not actually the case. Why, then, do you belabor this point as if it blows away any opposing opinion?
Instead of asking why polygamy should be legal or illegal, we should be asking whether polygamy is actually causing enough harm to justify abridging the right to marry freely. I contend that it is not, and have thus far not seen any compelling argument or evidence presented to change my mind. That kinda surprises me, actually, because some people I consider to be pretty smart have been arguing with me about it in here.
I haven't seen any of this evidence you're talking about in any of your many repetitious posts. I have heard you claim, repeatedly and at length, that the government should not outlaw polygamy because it's a potential freedom and there isn't a reason you find compelling enough to ban it.
That is not evidence, that's an opinion.
Apparently you can't be bothered to read the posts above from Zombiemambo. Or the fact that I'd said essentially what he did. And I've mentioned selection bias a million times. Just because you ignore shit that doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean it's non-existent.
Gnome: because the tool isn't working to do what you claim it's doing. Also, what's stopping police from investigating the crimes you mentioned? Polygamy isn't obstructing their investigations, the insular cultures are. I'm going to continue to beat this horse to death: if these very same problems occur in communities where regular marriage is the norm, how can you justify making polygamy out to be the source of the problems?
Police arent allowed to just start investigating domestic abuse unless someone reports something. Either a neighbor or someone within the family. In these isolated communities they are extremely hush-hush about all manners of abuse, so the police do not get to regularly investigate these families or even patrol the communes like they could a regular street, because its all private property.
The police aren't allowed to investigate polygamy without some sort of claim as well. They cannot simply bust down doors looking for suspected polygamists any more than they can to look for suspected child abusers without cause. If anything it would probably be far more politically palatable for them to do the latter compared to the former.
So because they do have the anti-polygamy laws, they are able to go in and investigate that. Then while they are there they have a chance to clean up the more harmful crimes that are being committed.
Have you ever heard of the police or a court prosecuting someone for polygamy without a laundry list of other crimes? I doubt it.
Normally the ancillary crimes people are charged with are crimes for good reason. Polygamy doesn't seem to fit that case. Its sole use seems to be for tacking on additional charges or making prosecution easier against people commiting other crimes.
Much like how alot of organized crime is brought down not by the illegal pimping and drug trade, but for other infractions that allow them to investigate the criminals more thoroughly.
A lot of those 'infractions' are crimes in and of themselves for good reason. People are charged with tax fraud all the time in isolation. The same is not true with polygamy. I haven't seen any arguments as to why polygamy should be illegal other than as a tool to attempt to prosecute or mitigate the harm caused by certain segments of the Mormon population.
That's the thing, though. These guys are legally married to one person, but married by their religion to other people. If they're not legally married to multiple people, there's no way to investigate them because legally they've done no wrong. So the police have to rely on people coming forward to report the actual crimes; in other words, the way things generally work for investigating crimes.
Let's consider the most recent polygamist scandal, the one in Texas. Were any of the men charged with polygamy? Were they even investigated for polygamy? No, they were investigated for the other stuff, based on testimony by a girl that left the community. So once again anti-polygamy laws failed to do what you claim they're useful for, namely giving the police a foot in the door to take them down for other things. If this is the case, what utility are we getting out of the polygamy laws other than to satisfy people's moral objection to polygamy?
I'm also troubled that you think it's okay for the polygamy laws to exist solely as a pretense for police to get involved. Do you think it's fine to extend that same thinking to other things? For instance, should it be illegal to belong to a gang? Surely we can admit that gangs do a lot of bad things, but is it okay to infringe free association because there's potential for a gang to do bad things? Because that's pretty close to your stance on polygamy.
sounds like we need to tighten the laws on polygamy not eliminate them.
also he never said that they were only there for police investigation purposes. he just gave a reason why they were useful.
im still reading through the thread looking for a reason why polygamy should be legal aside from 'people like being married'
Tightening the polygamy laws? How so? Are you going to make it illegal to be pretend married to someone? Because that's what's going on there. These guys are not actually violating the law. You guys are so hung up on polygamy laws as if they're vital to bringing these guys to justice, but that's not actually the case. Why, then, do you belabor this point as if it blows away any opposing opinion?
Instead of asking why polygamy should be legal or illegal, we should be asking whether polygamy is actually causing enough harm to justify abridging the right to marry freely. I contend that it is not, and have thus far not seen any compelling argument or evidence presented to change my mind. That kinda surprises me, actually, because some people I consider to be pretty smart have been arguing with me about it in here.
hey, YOU said that the law was ineffective. when the law is ineffective but you still want to target the people it is intended to target, the solution is not to throw out the law but to make it more specific. the fact that they aren't technically breaking the law doesn't mean that they arent violating the spirit of the law through technicalities and loopholes.
i prefer the question, what are the benefits of polygamy that would come from eliminating the law so that a tiny minority that is mostly religious and fundamental can marry. as of yet, ive seen none. the fact that people who you respect are on the opposite side here should tell you something about what you are arguing.
And what the hell would legalizing polygamy do to "protect" people?
I was referring to the law as a means to "protect" women who don't know better from weirdos. I don't really think the law banning polygamy actually does that though so I don't see much point in having it. I default on the side of "there shouldn't be a law" and would like a compelling reason why there should be. I still haven't found one other than it's the current status quo.
If you're defaulting to "there shouldn't be a law", then you're siding with those opposed to polygamy. The default case is a lack of government benefits, not the granting of government benefits. What sort of crazy-ass libertarian are you that you consider government perks to be a default?
I mean, the true default would be "the government does not recognize marriage at all." Recognizing a single flavor of marriage, uniformly applied, is closer to that than recognizing 31 Flavors of Marital Arrangements. Considering, of course, that there's nothing to bar the polygamists from creating their own legal contracts to recreate every aspect of legalized polygamy that makes any sense.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also, Jeff, Feral, right back at you on the obtuse comment. I felt like I spent the day arguing with a wall, except a wall would eventually stop accusing me of dodging questions (which I didn't), try to address the ones I've posed, and not imply that I'm an idiot just because I don't toe the line. Maybe it's not so much that I'm obtuse as it is that you're unable to articulate your argument in a convincing manner.
You: "In a vacuum, polygamy is great! Don't blame polygamy!"
Us: "True. But we don't create laws in a vacuum, we create laws in the real world, and legalizing polygamy would have negative effects."
You: "But see, in a vacuum, polygamy is great! It's not polygamy's fault! Something about jaywalkers robbing banks!"
Us: "..."
I mean, I don't think you're an idiot. And I don't think you're being willfully obtuse. But I think you're either not getting or failing to catch the implication of what we're arguing. Polygamy in a vacuum is harmless. Walking across a street in a vacuum is harmless. Building a nuke in your garage that you will never use is harmless. Owning a rocket launcher in a vacuum is harmless. But we don't live in a vacuum, as evidenced by the lack of the word "HOOVER" stamped on our planet in large, friendly letters.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That's the thing, though. These guys are legally married to one person, but married by their religion to other people. If they're not legally married to multiple people, there's no way to investigate them because legally they've done no wrong. So the police have to rely on people coming forward to report the actual crimes; in other words, the way things generally work for investigating crimes.
Let's consider the most recent polygamist scandal, the one in Texas. Were any of the men charged with polygamy? Were they even investigated for polygamy? No, they were investigated for the other stuff, based on testimony by a girl that left the community. So once again anti-polygamy laws failed to do what you claim they're useful for, namely giving the police a foot in the door to take them down for other things. If this is the case, what utility are we getting out of the polygamy laws other than to satisfy people's moral objection to polygamy?
I'm also troubled that you think it's okay for the polygamy laws to exist solely as a pretense for police to get involved. Do you think it's fine to extend that same thinking to other things? For instance, should it be illegal to belong to a gang? Surely we can admit that gangs do a lot of bad things, but is it okay to infringe free association because there's potential for a gang to do bad things? Because that's pretty close to your stance on polygamy.
sounds like we need to tighten the laws on polygamy not eliminate them.
also he never said that they were only there for police investigation purposes. he just gave a reason why they were useful.
im still reading through the thread looking for a reason why polygamy should be legal aside from 'people like being married'
Tightening the polygamy laws? How so? Are you going to make it illegal to be pretend married to someone? Because that's what's going on there. These guys are not actually violating the law. You guys are so hung up on polygamy laws as if they're vital to bringing these guys to justice, but that's not actually the case. Why, then, do you belabor this point as if it blows away any opposing opinion?
Instead of asking why polygamy should be legal or illegal, we should be asking whether polygamy is actually causing enough harm to justify abridging the right to marry freely. I contend that it is not, and have thus far not seen any compelling argument or evidence presented to change my mind. That kinda surprises me, actually, because some people I consider to be pretty smart have been arguing with me about it in here.
hey, YOU said that the law was ineffective. when the law is ineffective but you still want to target the people it is intended to target, the solution is not to throw out the law but to make it more specific. the fact that they aren't technically breaking the law doesn't mean that they arent violating the spirit of the law through technicalities and loopholes.
i prefer the question, what are the benefits of polygamy that would come from eliminating the law so that a tiny minority that is mostly religious and fundamental can marry. as of yet, ive seen none. the fact that people who you respect are on the opposite side here should tell you something about what you are arguing.
See that bolded part? How do you implement that with polygamy laws? You really must be saying that pretend plural marriages should be illegal. Closing that loophole in the way you seem to be implying is a terrible idea. Yes, they're violating the spirit of the law, but the spirit is irrelevant as long as you are not in violation of the letter of the law.
As far as your question goes, I said a while back that the benefits, in my view, are removing an unnecessary abridgment on the freedom to marry and getting rid of a poorly justified way to make people into criminals. Clearly some people think these aren't sufficient, but then again I've not seen anyone do anything but make polygamy out as the scapegoat. We all know that the real problems here are caused by religious and cultural fundamentalism, but since we can't outlaw that, polygamy gets to bear the brunt of the blame. I say again that there are other religious communities that have no polygamy but the same issues related to forced marriage. What is to blame there? What are you going to outlaw in those cases, since there's no convenient boogeyman to lay the blame on?
I, for one, don't think there's really anything that can be done to effectively combat the pseudo-polygamy that we all agree is objectionable. Not without seriously fucking over some basic rights. We can't make it illegal to fuck lots of people, we can't make it illegal to cohabitate with lots of people. We can't make it illegal for women to be housewives or cater to their husbands. We can't make it illegal to keep your women needy and dependent. We can't make it illegal to have insulated communities full of religious nutbars. And the things that are illegal - banging underaged girls - are difficult for us to even discover. To really combat this shit, we'd need to go all Waco on them, and that's not really a great idea.
But we don't need to grant legitimacy to their practice by giving them legal recognition and de facto endorsement.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also, Jeff, Feral, right back at you on the obtuse comment. I felt like I spent the day arguing with a wall, except a wall would eventually stop accusing me of dodging questions (which I didn't), try to address the ones I've posed, and not imply that I'm an idiot just because I don't toe the line. Maybe it's not so much that I'm obtuse as it is that you're unable to articulate your argument in a convincing manner.
You: "In a vacuum, polygamy is great! Don't blame polygamy!"
Us: "True. But we don't create laws in a vacuum, we create laws in the real world, and legalizing polygamy would have negative effects."
You: "But see, in a vacuum, polygamy is great! It's not polygamy's fault! Something about jaywalkers robbing banks!"
Us: "..."
I mean, I don't think you're an idiot. And I don't think you're being willfully obtuse. But I think you're either not getting or failing to catch the implication of what we're arguing. Polygamy in a vacuum is harmless. Walking across a street in a vacuum is harmless. Building a nuke in your garage that you will never use is harmless. Owning a rocket launcher in a vacuum is harmless. But we don't live in a vacuum, as evidenced by the lack of the word "HOOVER" stamped on our planet in large, friendly letters.
I'm not arguing about this being in a vacuum. Mormon polygamy isn't the entire fucking world of polygamy, but you guys are arguing like those fuckers are the only ones who have polygamy. Polygamy works for other people and they get on fine without any problems. Why should they be denied the right to do this because there are terrible people abusing it? That's not arguing about "in a vacuum", you guys are accusing me of doing this because it makes me out to be some star-eyed optimist that's ignorant of the way things are. I'm, likewise, accusing you all of arguing badly because of your refusal to let go of your selection bias. If you refuse to view this problem through anything but an anti-Mormon bias, you're just as much arguing from a vacuum as you accuse me of doing.
Posts
I think economic disparity, religious indoctrination, and demonization of Jews/the West are more to blame than polygamy.
What's the important word there?
You know this thread would have been a lot shorter to read through if people would bother reading a post every once and a while.
I'm sorry, maybe I should've been clearer: I don't think polygamy is a significant enough factor in fostering extremism in the Muslim world for you to claim it as a reason for outlawing polygamy. Hence my response, because if polygamy adds a drop in the ocean of extremism, it's technically contributing to the problem, but it'd be stupid to make a big deal about it.
Now, on the other hand, I'm fairly certain that in less civilized states where polygamy is practiced there is a correlative link between polygamy and violence in society. I'm very certain about that.
I'm beginning to lean more towards, "It'd be nice, but at present it's too complicated and riddle with pragmatic issues to feasible want it to be legalized."
That all being said, I don't think wwtMask has been too obtuse in this thread.
Whereas I think he was a couple degrees from being a straight angle.
I think he brought in an imaginary coefficient and jumped the Cartesian coordinate plane entirely.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
My agreement is 180 degrees from you... or something.
But no, he really hasn't. I've read through this whole thread and everyone's been quite clear in their arguments - Mask is arguing from a neutral stance on polygamy (polygamy in a vacuum), while you and others have argued that polygamy as it is currently (for the most part) being practiced is too open to abuse (which I agree with). Personally, from what I've read it's the latter crowd that doesn't seem to 'get it', in that every time Mask points out that an abuse of polygamy isn't an inherent problem of polygamy itself, someone will then throw out yet another example of such abuse to try and point out how rotten polygamy is. He's certainly been more patient with others than they have with him.
Overall, this issue is a tough one for me. There are strong arguments against legalizing it, but I tend to side with Mask - the idea of making something inherently not harmful illegal, either to shut down potential abuse (which occurs anyway or doesn't stem directly from polygamy) or because it's difficult to get it working 'right' in terms of contracts and benefits, etc., seems wrong to me.
I was referring to the law as a means to "protect" women who don't know better from weirdos. I don't really think the law banning polygamy actually does that though so I don't see much point in having it. I default on the side of "there shouldn't be a law" and would like a compelling reason why there should be. I still haven't found one other than it's the current status quo.
Yes you can cite wackos in the middle of nowhere being polygamists but the reason they are in the middle of nowhere is because it indeed is against the law. If it was legal I don't think polygamy would become rampant with weirdos in the middle of nowhere it would likely become a more cosmopolitan phenomenon among different types of people probably in the city.
You are thinking of religious weirdos and I'm thinking of Hugh Hefner. I don't really think Hugh Hefner is a bad guy but for all intents and purposes he's a polygamist.
This isn't exactly some kind of hot button issue for me but I have a problem in this case because they are basically charging the guy with "polygamy" because they are having a hard time pinning these guys down to anything else. It's suspect for the government to do this. It's kinda like pulling a black guy over for going 3 mph over the limit and then using that as an opportunity to search his car.
Please learn the difference between marriage and sexy times.
Whom he supports and sleeps and lives with. It's basically the same thing, even common law.
So basically the only difference is that these guys can live and sleep with mutliple women but not marry them because that's just going over the line. Yes that makes perfect sense.
So you're okay with legalizing drunk driving, then?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not going back on my earlier stance which was, for reference.
Howaaayver, this particular comparison seems just a little off.
Like, in the way that bad is more likely to happen by the very nature of drunk driving itself. Drunk driving is not just conflated socially with accidents, or likely to cause accidents by some abusive people.
Drunk driving itself specifically causes accidents.
Polygamy is not itself inherently more likely to lead to abuse. It's just a practice taken up by people who would abuse it, and still do now anyway, mind you. Legal concerns with polygamy exist only because of the framework of government now. Nothing about polygamy naturally causes legal issues.
The only natural negative outcome of polygamy is the "lost boys" thing.
The thing is, that is just not a concern. Not at all. We've already conceded that people who want this lifestyle will just live it minus the marriage itself. Any taken women who would have contributed to those "lost boys" will already shack themselves up in those relationships in the first place, just be unable to marry.
"Lost boys" aren't a result of people wanting to be in polygamous relationships so much as they are a result of men collecting wives like cars. Without polygamy, in America, it would happen anyway, simply without the specific benefit of marriage. If they could get married, it wouldn't change anything about the number of available men and women. It would in fact do nothing but enable the people already living like they're polygamous to actually be polygamous.
Marital abuse is, as far as I understand, hard to uncover period. Monogamy, polygamy, whatever. Spousal abuse is difficult to unearth.
Keeping polygamy illegal means we never have to worry about spousal abuse in polygamous relationships. If they're ever acting polygamous we can jail 'em immediately.
Of course, that doesn't effect partner abuse of people in makeshift polygamous relationships. And the people who would be in abuse polygamous relationships would find a way anyway.
And of course, if we're banning a marital practice because of the likelihood of abuse for a few (and by "a few" I don't mean to belittle the abuse at all) then you could use that train of thought to ban marriage entirely. That way we wouldn't have to worry about investigating spousal abuse. If we see people acting married we can jail 'em outright so that we never have to worry about it.
Of course, they'll just pretend to be married and abuse will happen in probably the same percentages anyways.
All this is to say that, "This is a complicated issue. I don't know..."
And really, "marriage" has no business being a part of the state. It should be a religious (or whatever) thing, not a state issue. States should be able to issue legal contracts to whomever wants them, be it two men, three men, man and woman, man and three women, as long as everyone's old enough to be involved in such a contract, and my gut tells me that age 20 is perfect. Leave the marriage thing to whomever wants to marry.
The legal contract issue strikes me as a problem that can simply be written out of existence. There's a paucity of contracts for large marriages? Let's make some new contracts, then. The real problem is people being nasty fucking pedophiles and giving it (localized) social legitimacy by hooking it to a religious belief.
1) Random Husband: "Man, I really wish I could marry this other girl, my current wife would be totally cool with it too, but polygamy is illegal. If only polygamy was legal...."
or
2) Police Officer: "This guy is a real fucking scumbag, but the whole community is completely tight lipped and willing to cover up for him because he calls himself a prophet/preacher/etc. Thankfully we are able to bust his child molesting / domestic abusing ass and send him to prison because of these anti-polygamy laws."
Lets talk a little greater good here. The number of times police have to use anti-polygamy laws to be able to investigate a family against their wishes to uncover systematic abuses that would otherwise go unsolved/unnoticed is far greater than the number of times some healthy couple feels constrained by current as is anti-polygamy laws.
MWO: Adamski
More like I wouldn't make driving illegal because some people drive while impaired.
Actually, the use of anti-polygamy laws against the people you've mentioned is pretty hard to do. For the charge to stick, the man has to be legally married to more than one person. They do an end run around this by being married by their church but not being legally married. So, once again, the anti-polygamy laws fail to effectively stop anything. What use are the laws if they don't actually accomplish the goals they were set up to achieve?
Also, Jeff, Feral, right back at you on the obtuse comment. I felt like I spent the day arguing with a wall, except a wall would eventually stop accusing me of dodging questions (which I didn't), try to address the ones I've posed, and not imply that I'm an idiot just because I don't toe the line. Maybe it's not so much that I'm obtuse as it is that you're unable to articulate your argument in a convincing manner.
No it's not.
Slavery, legally, would involve a person becoming officially someone else's property. No rights, legally bound to do whatever the owner says, all that. Some couples, lovely people who are more than entitled to all the happiness they desire, can't quite put the finishing touch on the type of life they want to lead because we don't allow slavery.
Because no matter how lovely these couples may be, their right to pursue slightly more happiness is outweighed by other people's right to not incur a vast amount of unhappiness.
Now, that's a more extreme example than polygamy, but I don't think it's crazy that sometimes our society disregards individual cases because we understand that the laws aren't fractal, and sometimes we're doing what's good most of the time instead of what's perfect all of the time.
No no no, we aren't allowed to be reasonable like this here. We have to argue all points within some sort of retarded platonic bubble universe vacuum.
durandal, it's still a false equivalency. If slavery were made legal, it would affect everyone because everyone would have the potential to be enslaved against their will. If polygamy is made legal, it will affect a small percentage of the population that is already inclined towards polygamy. Oh, and that whole thing about consent that I said earlier. They're not anywhere close to parallel examples.
That is not evidence, that's an opinion.
Your right, the police do have a tough job, why take away one of the few tools they have that lets them bust into these religous compounds to investigate the systemic abuse of under-age girls, wives, and outcast boys.
MWO: Adamski
Apparently you can't be bothered to read the posts above from Zombiemambo. Or the fact that I'd said essentially what he did. And I've mentioned selection bias a million times. Just because you ignore shit that doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't mean it's non-existent.
Gnome: because the tool isn't working to do what you claim it's doing. Also, what's stopping police from investigating the crimes you mentioned? Polygamy isn't obstructing their investigations, the insular cultures are. I'm going to continue to beat this horse to death: if these very same problems occur in communities where regular marriage is the norm, how can you justify making polygamy out to be the source of the problems?
Police arent allowed to just start investigating domestic abuse unless someone reports something. Either a neighbor or someone within the family. In these isolated communities they are extremely hush-hush about all manners of abuse, so the police do not get to regularly investigate these families or even patrol the communes like they could a regular street, because its all private property.
So because they do have the anti-polygamy laws, they are able to go in and investigate that. Then while they are there they have a chance to clean up the more harmful crimes that are being committed.
Have you ever heard of the police or a court prosecuting someone for polygamy without a laundry list of other crimes? I doubt it.
Much like how alot of organized crime is brought down not by the illegal pimping and drug trade, but for other infractions that allow them to investigate the criminals more thoroughly.
Medopine I think tried to bring this up earlier. You charge them with what you can prove, and then, while investigating them on those charges, you get to dig up all the other scummy shit that they have been up to.
MWO: Adamski
Let's consider the most recent polygamist scandal, the one in Texas. Were any of the men charged with polygamy? Were they even investigated for polygamy? No, they were investigated for the other stuff, based on testimony by a girl that left the community. So once again anti-polygamy laws failed to do what you claim they're useful for, namely giving the police a foot in the door to take them down for other things. If this is the case, what utility are we getting out of the polygamy laws other than to satisfy people's moral objection to polygamy?
I'm also troubled that you think it's okay for the polygamy laws to exist solely as a pretense for police to get involved. Do you think it's fine to extend that same thinking to other things? For instance, should it be illegal to belong to a gang? Surely we can admit that gangs do a lot of bad things, but is it okay to infringe free association because there's potential for a gang to do bad things? Because that's pretty close to your stance on polygamy.
sounds like we need to tighten the laws on polygamy not eliminate them.
also he never said that they were only there for police investigation purposes. he just gave a reason why they were useful.
im still reading through the thread looking for a reason why polygamy should be legal aside from 'people like being married'
I have no idea, which is why I am not using it in any sort of utilitarian style argument.
I've asked this numerous times, but if people are going to use this as a core part of their argument, they need to provide proof that the number of times police need these laws is far greater than the number of times people feel constrained by the current illegality of polygamy. I hate [citation needed] spam as much as the next person, but in this case some sort of data is needed to support what you are saying.
Tightening the polygamy laws? How so? Are you going to make it illegal to be pretend married to someone? Because that's what's going on there. These guys are not actually violating the law. You guys are so hung up on polygamy laws as if they're vital to bringing these guys to justice, but that's not actually the case. Why, then, do you belabor this point as if it blows away any opposing opinion?
Instead of asking why polygamy should be legal or illegal, we should be asking whether polygamy is actually causing enough harm to justify abridging the right to marry freely. I contend that it is not, and have thus far not seen any compelling argument or evidence presented to change my mind. That kinda surprises me, actually, because some people I consider to be pretty smart have been arguing with me about it in here.
The police aren't allowed to investigate polygamy without some sort of claim as well. They cannot simply bust down doors looking for suspected polygamists any more than they can to look for suspected child abusers without cause. If anything it would probably be far more politically palatable for them to do the latter compared to the former.
Normally the ancillary crimes people are charged with are crimes for good reason. Polygamy doesn't seem to fit that case. Its sole use seems to be for tacking on additional charges or making prosecution easier against people commiting other crimes.
A lot of those 'infractions' are crimes in and of themselves for good reason. People are charged with tax fraud all the time in isolation. The same is not true with polygamy. I haven't seen any arguments as to why polygamy should be illegal other than as a tool to attempt to prosecute or mitigate the harm caused by certain segments of the Mormon population.
hey, YOU said that the law was ineffective. when the law is ineffective but you still want to target the people it is intended to target, the solution is not to throw out the law but to make it more specific. the fact that they aren't technically breaking the law doesn't mean that they arent violating the spirit of the law through technicalities and loopholes.
i prefer the question, what are the benefits of polygamy that would come from eliminating the law so that a tiny minority that is mostly religious and fundamental can marry. as of yet, ive seen none. the fact that people who you respect are on the opposite side here should tell you something about what you are arguing.
If you're defaulting to "there shouldn't be a law", then you're siding with those opposed to polygamy. The default case is a lack of government benefits, not the granting of government benefits. What sort of crazy-ass libertarian are you that you consider government perks to be a default?
I mean, the true default would be "the government does not recognize marriage at all." Recognizing a single flavor of marriage, uniformly applied, is closer to that than recognizing 31 Flavors of Marital Arrangements. Considering, of course, that there's nothing to bar the polygamists from creating their own legal contracts to recreate every aspect of legalized polygamy that makes any sense.
You: "In a vacuum, polygamy is great! Don't blame polygamy!"
Us: "True. But we don't create laws in a vacuum, we create laws in the real world, and legalizing polygamy would have negative effects."
You: "But see, in a vacuum, polygamy is great! It's not polygamy's fault! Something about jaywalkers robbing banks!"
Us: "..."
I mean, I don't think you're an idiot. And I don't think you're being willfully obtuse. But I think you're either not getting or failing to catch the implication of what we're arguing. Polygamy in a vacuum is harmless. Walking across a street in a vacuum is harmless. Building a nuke in your garage that you will never use is harmless. Owning a rocket launcher in a vacuum is harmless. But we don't live in a vacuum, as evidenced by the lack of the word "HOOVER" stamped on our planet in large, friendly letters.
See that bolded part? How do you implement that with polygamy laws? You really must be saying that pretend plural marriages should be illegal. Closing that loophole in the way you seem to be implying is a terrible idea. Yes, they're violating the spirit of the law, but the spirit is irrelevant as long as you are not in violation of the letter of the law.
As far as your question goes, I said a while back that the benefits, in my view, are removing an unnecessary abridgment on the freedom to marry and getting rid of a poorly justified way to make people into criminals. Clearly some people think these aren't sufficient, but then again I've not seen anyone do anything but make polygamy out as the scapegoat. We all know that the real problems here are caused by religious and cultural fundamentalism, but since we can't outlaw that, polygamy gets to bear the brunt of the blame. I say again that there are other religious communities that have no polygamy but the same issues related to forced marriage. What is to blame there? What are you going to outlaw in those cases, since there's no convenient boogeyman to lay the blame on?
But we don't need to grant legitimacy to their practice by giving them legal recognition and de facto endorsement.
I'm not arguing about this being in a vacuum. Mormon polygamy isn't the entire fucking world of polygamy, but you guys are arguing like those fuckers are the only ones who have polygamy. Polygamy works for other people and they get on fine without any problems. Why should they be denied the right to do this because there are terrible people abusing it? That's not arguing about "in a vacuum", you guys are accusing me of doing this because it makes me out to be some star-eyed optimist that's ignorant of the way things are. I'm, likewise, accusing you all of arguing badly because of your refusal to let go of your selection bias. If you refuse to view this problem through anything but an anti-Mormon bias, you're just as much arguing from a vacuum as you accuse me of doing.