During the time when the FLDS Mormons in Texas had their compound raided a couple of years ago, there has been a long-running investigation of Mormon polygamists who set up the Bountiful Community in B.C. It appears that it's finally coming to a head, and a final decision will be made soon. If the B.C. Supreme Court strikes down the ban on polygamy as unconstitutional, it will confirm the impression that they would rather avoid having to explain why they would ban polygamy at a time when gay marriage is becoming accepted.
I went all up and down this debate over polygamy a couple of years ago. Basically, many liberals and gay rights supporters turn moral relativists because they fear that the most ardent opponents -- religious right conservatives -- want it as a wedge issue to apply towards same-sex marriage also.
Personally, I don't believe that liberals have to turn into anything-goes relativists to justify why polygamy is a cause of social harm, whereas harms of gay marriage have yet been demonstrated. The Canadian law goes further than necessary, since political correctness demands that it apply equally to women as well as men, even though we should all be aware that historically, it's been wealthier men who own many young women, who are the problem. If that looks sexist or something, so be it! Aside from Madonna or Cher, I'm not aware of too many women who own lots of young men.
This article highlights some of the key reasons why modern democratic states should not open the door to plural marriage, whatever the excuse: Legalized polygamy would move Canada against international trends, hearing told
..........polygamy's harms including a decrease in political and civil liberties.
Strachan said the inherent asymmetry of polygamy "offends the dignity and is premised on sex and sex role stereotypes that subordinate women."
Other harms that she noted are psychological, physical and sexual and reproductive health harms," lower socio-economic and educational levels for children of those unions and early marriage and pregnancy of girls.
And, Strachan said there is the destabilizing effect on society of surplus boys or men either being marginalized or turned out into the wider society.
Earlier, Crown counsel Craig Jones said there are four categories of harm associated with polygamy that the B.C. attorney general argues are "significant and substantial" and are the reason the practice must remain illegal.
Jones defined those Tuesday as harms to: the moral fabric and democratic essence of society; equality and protection of vulnerable groups; society generally through polygamy's impact on the sexualization of girls and increased anti-social behavior and crime; and individual harm to children and the participants in polygamous relationships.
Jones argued in his opening statement that taken together all of those harms trump the various guaranteed rights and freedoms including religious freedom, freedom of association and expression.
I'm hoping sanity prevails and they recognize that historic and present consequences of polygamy trump claims of civil rights by polygamy advocates.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
I saw something about this. For some reason they predict it would lead to child brides. I predict it would legalize many illegitimate relationships that currently exist. lol
Also, I'm assuming that it works both ways, that a woman can take more than one husband as well as men doing so with wives.
I guess it comes down to whether or not one thinks that people are monogamous creatures by nature.
Also, I'm assuming that it works both ways, that a woman can take more than one husband as well as men doing so with wives.
I guess it comes down to whether or not one thinks that people are monogamous creatures by nature.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Just wondering how that would affect divorces. If the guy has two wives, then each wife only has claim to half of half his stuff?
Divorcee Barbie takes a hit to the pocketbook.
Divorcee Barbie takes a hit to the pocketbook.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
koan;1344947 wrote: Just wondering how that would affect divorces. If the guy has two wives, then each wife only has claim to half of half his stuff?
Divorcee Barbie takes a hit to the pocketbook.
Or would that be a third of the group's property?
Divorcee Barbie takes a hit to the pocketbook.
Or would that be a third of the group's property?
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Bryn Mawr;1344949 wrote: Or would that be a third of the group's property?
That's the reasonable way to look at it, Bryn. I'm kind of having a go at seeing the reverse prejudice. I think that the idea of polygamy brings to mind a bearded dude with a cult harem. The opposite, imo is the divorcee Barbie who married for half Ken's stuff.
Ultimately, the decision shouldn't be made on what we envision happening in worst case scenarios, it should be made based on whether or not the state has the right to legislate our sex lives and choices of living arrangements.
That's the reasonable way to look at it, Bryn. I'm kind of having a go at seeing the reverse prejudice. I think that the idea of polygamy brings to mind a bearded dude with a cult harem. The opposite, imo is the divorcee Barbie who married for half Ken's stuff.
Ultimately, the decision shouldn't be made on what we envision happening in worst case scenarios, it should be made based on whether or not the state has the right to legislate our sex lives and choices of living arrangements.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
koan;1344950 wrote:
I saw something about this. For some reason they predict it would lead to child brides. I predict it would legalize many illegitimate relationships that currently exist. lol
Find me the polygamous community that doesn't have the most powerful old men buying young brides before they have a chance to mess around! And the illegitimate polygamous relationships should be prosecuted, since they are invariably defrauding the welfare system....just like Bountiful.
I guess it comes down to whether or not one thinks that people are monogamous creatures by nature.
Which is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether polygamy should or should not be legalized! Although studies on the sexual habits of men in plural marriage are too small to be more than anecdotal, circumstantial evidence indicates that men with three or more wives are just as likely to look outside of their marriages for new sexual opportunities, as the guys with only one wife! As for the women -- to keep wives from straying, old men with many wives have to use combinations of force, intimidation, religious blackmail...and in the FLDS example, expelling surplus teenage boys who might have illicit relationships with married and unmarried women.
Ultimately, the decision shouldn't be made on what we envision happening in worst case scenarios, it should be made based on whether or not the state has the right to legislate our sex lives and choices of living arrangements.
So, could you give me an example of a functioning best case scenario for polygamy, where there are no child brides or lost boys?
Also, in October 2002, Canada ratified a UN treaty that obligated us to oppose polygamy. Canada is legally obligated to uphold this Convention.
I saw something about this. For some reason they predict it would lead to child brides. I predict it would legalize many illegitimate relationships that currently exist. lol
Find me the polygamous community that doesn't have the most powerful old men buying young brides before they have a chance to mess around! And the illegitimate polygamous relationships should be prosecuted, since they are invariably defrauding the welfare system....just like Bountiful.
I guess it comes down to whether or not one thinks that people are monogamous creatures by nature.
Which is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether polygamy should or should not be legalized! Although studies on the sexual habits of men in plural marriage are too small to be more than anecdotal, circumstantial evidence indicates that men with three or more wives are just as likely to look outside of their marriages for new sexual opportunities, as the guys with only one wife! As for the women -- to keep wives from straying, old men with many wives have to use combinations of force, intimidation, religious blackmail...and in the FLDS example, expelling surplus teenage boys who might have illicit relationships with married and unmarried women.
Ultimately, the decision shouldn't be made on what we envision happening in worst case scenarios, it should be made based on whether or not the state has the right to legislate our sex lives and choices of living arrangements.
So, could you give me an example of a functioning best case scenario for polygamy, where there are no child brides or lost boys?
Also, in October 2002, Canada ratified a UN treaty that obligated us to oppose polygamy. Canada is legally obligated to uphold this Convention.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Prohibiting the polygamous relationships of consenting adults is nothing less than oppression based on an arbitrary moral construct. If Canada chooses to continue this oppression, fine. I would support the US practicing what we preach by allowing polygamy.
It's important to note that Strachan and Jones aren't scientists presenting the findings of a study. They are lawyers arguing a case. As such, they're expected to present a completely one-sided argument.
* Polygamy would be moving contrary to the international trend of prohibiting rather than tolerating the practice.
> I don't understand the validity of this argument. Nations are sovereign and don't have to answer to other nations for allowing greater liberty.
* Strachan said the inherent asymmetry of polygamy "offends the dignity and is premised on sex and sex role stereotypes that subordinate women."
> Monogamous marriage, which traditionally has the woman take on the man's name, is also premised on sex and the same sex role stereotypes.
* psychological, physical and sexual and reproductive health harms, lower socio-economic and educational levels for children of those unions and early marriage and pregnancy of girls.
> While it can be argued that these dangers are present in the current practice of illegal polygamy, it can also be argued that legalizing the practice will expose and eliminate most of them. For example, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal.
* Strachan said there is the destabilizing effect on society of surplus boys or men either being marginalized or turned out into the wider society.
> :yh_rotfl The proposal isn't to mandate polygamy. She seems to think it will become popular.
* Polygamy harms the moral fabric and democratic essence of society.
> Only immoral acts harm moral fabric. Consenting adults vowing to love and support one another doesn't fit that definition. I don't understand how "democratic essence" fits into conversation at all.
* Polygamy harms equality and protection of vulnerable groups
> Illegal polygamy may, but legalizing polygamy would expose such abuses
* Polygamy harms society generally through polygamy's impact on the sexualization of girls and increased anti-social behavior and crime.
> Again, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal. Porn sexualizes girls. Bikinis sexualize girls. Committed relationships do not sexualize girls. As for anti-social behavior and crime, I can't think of what they may be referring to except polygamy itself. Legalizing it would eliminate that harm.
* Polygamy causes individual harm to children and the participants in polygamous relationships.
> Without support this statement has no merit. What harm does a committed adult relationship have on children? The participants would be consenting adults, which negates the argument that the participants are harmed by the act.
It's important to note that Strachan and Jones aren't scientists presenting the findings of a study. They are lawyers arguing a case. As such, they're expected to present a completely one-sided argument.
* Polygamy would be moving contrary to the international trend of prohibiting rather than tolerating the practice.
> I don't understand the validity of this argument. Nations are sovereign and don't have to answer to other nations for allowing greater liberty.
* Strachan said the inherent asymmetry of polygamy "offends the dignity and is premised on sex and sex role stereotypes that subordinate women."
> Monogamous marriage, which traditionally has the woman take on the man's name, is also premised on sex and the same sex role stereotypes.
* psychological, physical and sexual and reproductive health harms, lower socio-economic and educational levels for children of those unions and early marriage and pregnancy of girls.
> While it can be argued that these dangers are present in the current practice of illegal polygamy, it can also be argued that legalizing the practice will expose and eliminate most of them. For example, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal.
* Strachan said there is the destabilizing effect on society of surplus boys or men either being marginalized or turned out into the wider society.
> :yh_rotfl The proposal isn't to mandate polygamy. She seems to think it will become popular.
* Polygamy harms the moral fabric and democratic essence of society.
> Only immoral acts harm moral fabric. Consenting adults vowing to love and support one another doesn't fit that definition. I don't understand how "democratic essence" fits into conversation at all.
* Polygamy harms equality and protection of vulnerable groups
> Illegal polygamy may, but legalizing polygamy would expose such abuses
* Polygamy harms society generally through polygamy's impact on the sexualization of girls and increased anti-social behavior and crime.
> Again, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal. Porn sexualizes girls. Bikinis sexualize girls. Committed relationships do not sexualize girls. As for anti-social behavior and crime, I can't think of what they may be referring to except polygamy itself. Legalizing it would eliminate that harm.
* Polygamy causes individual harm to children and the participants in polygamous relationships.
> Without support this statement has no merit. What harm does a committed adult relationship have on children? The participants would be consenting adults, which negates the argument that the participants are harmed by the act.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
And you complain about the way I set up my quotes!
Accountable;1345008 wrote: Prohibiting the polygamous relationships of consenting adults is nothing less than oppression based on an arbitrary moral construct. If Canada chooses to continue this oppression, fine. I would support the US practicing what we preach by allowing polygamy.
Arbitrary moral construct? Is prohibiting murder, rape or theft considered arbitrary moral constructs? If there is evidence of social harms caused by plural marriage, then it should be outlawed on the same basis as other crimes that affect the welfare of others. All moral constructs should be based on their impact on a society, rather than what is truly arbitrary -- religious or philosophical rules that are established as a priori principles that cannot be removed regardless of social impact.
It's important to note that Strachan and Jones aren't scientists presenting the findings of a study. They are lawyers arguing a case. As such, they're expected to present a completely one-sided argument.
And they use the findings of sociologists and statisticians who have studied the issue. One of the experts -- Joseph Heinrick, filed this report for the B.C. Supreme Court He begins with a brief rundown of the harms to others and society at large, when polygamy is allowed:
Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women.
Henrich is uniquely qualified to look at polygamy's harm. He's a member of the departments of economics, psychology and anthropology at the University of British Columbia and holds the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Coevolution.
To illustrate the harm, Henrich provides the court with an example of polygyny's cruel arithmetic.
In a hypothetical society of 20 men and 20 women, 12 men with the highest status marry 12 women. (It's always only the highest-ranking men in polygynous societies that get multiple wives.)
Then, the top five take a second wife and the top two men take a third. Finally, the top guy takes a fourth.
The result is that 58 per cent of the marriages are monogamous.
But — and this is the big deal —it means 40 per cent of the men remain unmarried.
Yes, 40 per cent.
And Henrich's example is conservative. Blackmore has more than 20 wives. FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs, who is in jail in Utah, has more than 80.
And the studies Henrich cites -from historical, frontier-American research to contemporary work done in countries where polygamy is legal -indicate that groups of unmarried men create havoc.
"For males, getting married (monogamously) is a prophylactic against engaging in crime, social disruption and other socially undesirable activities," he writes.
And at some point, it needs to be mentioned that unlike the gay marriage issue, polygamy is a social construct that greatly expands birth rates and subsequent population. As one of the Vancouver Sun's articles noted -- the town of Bountiful was built by a rapidly breeding polygamous family group. If future results determine that gay marriages are harmful on balance, they will still not present the same threat of population growth, not to mention the increase in genetic diseases caused by dangerous inbreeding in these communities.
Polygamy would be moving contrary to the international trend of prohibiting rather than tolerating the practice.
> I don't understand the validity of this argument. Nations are sovereign and don't have to answer to other nations for allowing greater liberty.
It's simple! On this and any other issues, there's no point to signing international treaties if you have no intentions of honouring them.
* Strachan said the inherent asymmetry of polygamy "offends the dignity and is premised on sex and sex role stereotypes that subordinate women."
> Monogamous marriage, which traditionally has the woman take on the man's name, is also premised on sex and the same sex role stereotypes.
But, monogamous marriage has gone through a lot of changes just during my lifetime. Polygamous marriage is not going to be able to change the baseline that rich and powerful men will effectively be the only ones who get more than one wife, or the coercions needed to deal with the resulting imbalance among the remaining men and women. Polygamous family structures most likely have their origins in the world's warrior societies, where constant warfare, not to mention risky hunting techniques, kept the number of males much lower than the female population. In modern times, there are no sociological needs to justify this sort of family arrangement.
* psychological, physical and sexual and reproductive health harms, lower socio-economic and educational levels for children of those unions and early marriage and pregnancy of girls.
> While it can be argued that these dangers are present in the current practice of illegal polygamy, it can also be argued that legalizing the practice will expose and eliminate most of them. For example, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal.
* Strachan said there is the destabilizing effect on society of surplus boys or men either being marginalized or turned out into the wider society.
> :yh_rotfl The proposal isn't to mandate polygamy. She seems to think it will become popular.
* Polygamy harms the moral fabric and democratic essence of society.
> Only immoral acts harm moral fabric. Consenting adults vowing to love and support one another doesn't fit that definition. I don't understand how "democratic essence" fits into conversation at all.
* Polygamy harms equality and protection of vulnerable groups
> Illegal polygamy may, but legalizing polygamy would expose such abuses
* Polygamy harms society generally through polygamy's impact on the sexualization of girls and increased anti-social behavior and crime.
> Again, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal. Porn sexualizes girls. Bikinis sexualize girls. Committed relationships do not sexualize girls. As for anti-social behavior and crime, I can't think of what they may be referring to except polygamy itself. Legalizing it would eliminate that harm.
Polygamy is not very easy to hide or disguise. The only reason the FLDS and other polygamous Mormon groups have survived out west, is because the majority Mormons have aided them and sheltered them from prosecution. The authorities have been aware of the community at Bountiful for decades -- there have been numerous cases of abuse investigations, women fleeing the compound, and this prosecution has been decades in the making, because past governments haven't had the cajones to take it on. This isn't like fighting the War on Drugs! These compounds are right out there in the open; but the prosecution has to be willing to deal with the wider support network that tries to protect them.
And once this sort of family arrangement is allowed, outlawing the abuses, such as pedophilia, cousin-marriage, and
Accountable;1345008 wrote: Prohibiting the polygamous relationships of consenting adults is nothing less than oppression based on an arbitrary moral construct. If Canada chooses to continue this oppression, fine. I would support the US practicing what we preach by allowing polygamy.
Arbitrary moral construct? Is prohibiting murder, rape or theft considered arbitrary moral constructs? If there is evidence of social harms caused by plural marriage, then it should be outlawed on the same basis as other crimes that affect the welfare of others. All moral constructs should be based on their impact on a society, rather than what is truly arbitrary -- religious or philosophical rules that are established as a priori principles that cannot be removed regardless of social impact.
It's important to note that Strachan and Jones aren't scientists presenting the findings of a study. They are lawyers arguing a case. As such, they're expected to present a completely one-sided argument.
And they use the findings of sociologists and statisticians who have studied the issue. One of the experts -- Joseph Heinrick, filed this report for the B.C. Supreme Court He begins with a brief rundown of the harms to others and society at large, when polygamy is allowed:
Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women.
Henrich is uniquely qualified to look at polygamy's harm. He's a member of the departments of economics, psychology and anthropology at the University of British Columbia and holds the Canada Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Coevolution.
To illustrate the harm, Henrich provides the court with an example of polygyny's cruel arithmetic.
In a hypothetical society of 20 men and 20 women, 12 men with the highest status marry 12 women. (It's always only the highest-ranking men in polygynous societies that get multiple wives.)
Then, the top five take a second wife and the top two men take a third. Finally, the top guy takes a fourth.
The result is that 58 per cent of the marriages are monogamous.
But — and this is the big deal —it means 40 per cent of the men remain unmarried.
Yes, 40 per cent.
And Henrich's example is conservative. Blackmore has more than 20 wives. FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs, who is in jail in Utah, has more than 80.
And the studies Henrich cites -from historical, frontier-American research to contemporary work done in countries where polygamy is legal -indicate that groups of unmarried men create havoc.
"For males, getting married (monogamously) is a prophylactic against engaging in crime, social disruption and other socially undesirable activities," he writes.
And at some point, it needs to be mentioned that unlike the gay marriage issue, polygamy is a social construct that greatly expands birth rates and subsequent population. As one of the Vancouver Sun's articles noted -- the town of Bountiful was built by a rapidly breeding polygamous family group. If future results determine that gay marriages are harmful on balance, they will still not present the same threat of population growth, not to mention the increase in genetic diseases caused by dangerous inbreeding in these communities.
Polygamy would be moving contrary to the international trend of prohibiting rather than tolerating the practice.
> I don't understand the validity of this argument. Nations are sovereign and don't have to answer to other nations for allowing greater liberty.
It's simple! On this and any other issues, there's no point to signing international treaties if you have no intentions of honouring them.
* Strachan said the inherent asymmetry of polygamy "offends the dignity and is premised on sex and sex role stereotypes that subordinate women."
> Monogamous marriage, which traditionally has the woman take on the man's name, is also premised on sex and the same sex role stereotypes.
But, monogamous marriage has gone through a lot of changes just during my lifetime. Polygamous marriage is not going to be able to change the baseline that rich and powerful men will effectively be the only ones who get more than one wife, or the coercions needed to deal with the resulting imbalance among the remaining men and women. Polygamous family structures most likely have their origins in the world's warrior societies, where constant warfare, not to mention risky hunting techniques, kept the number of males much lower than the female population. In modern times, there are no sociological needs to justify this sort of family arrangement.
* psychological, physical and sexual and reproductive health harms, lower socio-economic and educational levels for children of those unions and early marriage and pregnancy of girls.
> While it can be argued that these dangers are present in the current practice of illegal polygamy, it can also be argued that legalizing the practice will expose and eliminate most of them. For example, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal.
* Strachan said there is the destabilizing effect on society of surplus boys or men either being marginalized or turned out into the wider society.
> :yh_rotfl The proposal isn't to mandate polygamy. She seems to think it will become popular.
* Polygamy harms the moral fabric and democratic essence of society.
> Only immoral acts harm moral fabric. Consenting adults vowing to love and support one another doesn't fit that definition. I don't understand how "democratic essence" fits into conversation at all.
* Polygamy harms equality and protection of vulnerable groups
> Illegal polygamy may, but legalizing polygamy would expose such abuses
* Polygamy harms society generally through polygamy's impact on the sexualization of girls and increased anti-social behavior and crime.
> Again, legalizing polygamy is not legalizing pedophilia; forcing children into illegal marriage would still be illegal. Porn sexualizes girls. Bikinis sexualize girls. Committed relationships do not sexualize girls. As for anti-social behavior and crime, I can't think of what they may be referring to except polygamy itself. Legalizing it would eliminate that harm.
Polygamy is not very easy to hide or disguise. The only reason the FLDS and other polygamous Mormon groups have survived out west, is because the majority Mormons have aided them and sheltered them from prosecution. The authorities have been aware of the community at Bountiful for decades -- there have been numerous cases of abuse investigations, women fleeing the compound, and this prosecution has been decades in the making, because past governments haven't had the cajones to take it on. This isn't like fighting the War on Drugs! These compounds are right out there in the open; but the prosecution has to be willing to deal with the wider support network that tries to protect them.
And once this sort of family arrangement is allowed, outlawing the abuses, such as pedophilia, cousin-marriage, and
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
The arguments against polygamy are filled with assumptions and obvious fears. At certain points it sounds as if the concern isn't for the women, some of whom I'm pretty sure have already been picturing themselves with more than one mate, it is a concern for the men who won't be able to compete with the men of huge gifts. Is there such little faith that women choose husbands for reasons other than their pocketbooks? I'm disgusted by women who marry for money. I'd be elated if they could all attach themselves to the Gateses and Trumps of the world and leave the rest of the people alone. Just think about how nice it would be to eliminate 20 golddiggers with one mogul!
I'm kind of keen on the idea of folks not having to waste huge amounts of money on divorces anymore. Just go ahead and marry a second one. The only reason I'd object to striking down monogamy would be if it only allowed men to have multiple spouses.
I'm kind of keen on the idea of folks not having to waste huge amounts of money on divorces anymore. Just go ahead and marry a second one. The only reason I'd object to striking down monogamy would be if it only allowed men to have multiple spouses.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345021 wrote: And you complain about the way I set up my quotes!Yeh, I hacked that one pretty bad, huh? I was going for paraphrase, but that would get me arrested for plagiarism at most universities. My bad.
recovering conservative wrote: Arbitrary moral construct? Is prohibiting murder, rape or theft considered arbitrary moral constructs? If there is evidence of social harms caused by plural marriage, then it should be outlawed on the same basis as other crimes that affect the welfare of others. All moral constructs should be based on their impact on a society, rather than what is truly arbitrary -- religious or philosophical rules that are established as a priori principles that cannot be removed regardless of social impact.Murder, rape and theft are not moral constructs; neither is their probihition. They are crimes against victims, violations of natural rights all humans have and ought to enjoy. If you in Canada wish to protect people from themselves and prohibit consenting adults from forming their relationships with other consenting adults as they see fit, then oppress away. In the US, I would rather live in the de facto Land of the Free rather than the nanny state that carries the slogan. When lawyers and politicians become the arbitors of morality, you have no morality. I would estimate that oppression has a more detrimental impact on society than three people rooming together.
recovering conservative wrote: And they use the findings of sociologists and statisticians who have studied the issue. One of the experts -- Joseph Heinrick, filed this report for the B.C. Supreme Court. He begins with a brief rundown of the harms to others and society at large, when polygamy is allowedExpert witnesses state what they are paid to state, and spin what they are paid to spin. But ignoring that, your previous cite pointed out that no developed nation yet allows polygamy (polygamy being the issue in question, not the very different polygyny). It's folly to claim that a developed society based on the rule of law, historically monogamous, and having a well educated and equality-conscious public will suddenly parallel a 3rd world country based on dictatorial fiat, culturally polygynous and traditionally oppressive to women, and having an illiterate public raised in a polygynous culture, simply by legally allowing two people to agree to allow a third person into their committed relationship. It's a preposterous argument.
recovering conservative wrote: And at some point, it needs to be mentioned that unlike the gay marriage issue, polygamy is a social construct that greatly expands birth rates and subsequent population. As one of the Vancouver Sun's articles noted -- the town of Bountiful was built by a rapidly breeding polygamous family group. If future results determine that gay marriages are harmful on balance, they will still not present the same threat of population growth, not to mention the increase in genetic diseases caused by dangerous inbreeding in these communities.Ya gotta appreciate the irony that the very argument to prohibit gay marriage is being flipped to argue against polygamous marriage. :wah:
recovering conservative wrote: It's simple! On this and any other issues, there's no point to signing international treaties if you have no intentions of honouring them.I don't get it. What international treaty would Canada have to sign to legalize polygamous marriage?
recovering conservative wrote: But, monogamous marriage has gone through a lot of changes just during my lifetime. Polygamous marriage is not going to be able to change the baseline that rich and powerful men will effectively be the only ones who get more than one wife, or the coercions needed to deal with the resulting imbalance among the remaining men and women.You're bringing the income gap argument into this too?? :yh_rotfl
Don't pretend you'd support it if we could close that gap!
recovering conservative wrote: Polygamous family structures most likely have their origins in the world's warrior societies, where constant warfare, not to mention risky hunting techniques, kept the number of males much lower than the female population. In modern times, there are no sociological needs to justify this sort of family arrangement.There are no sociological needs to justify gay marriage, either, but looky what we're doing about that!
recovering conservative wrote: Arbitrary moral construct? Is prohibiting murder, rape or theft considered arbitrary moral constructs? If there is evidence of social harms caused by plural marriage, then it should be outlawed on the same basis as other crimes that affect the welfare of others. All moral constructs should be based on their impact on a society, rather than what is truly arbitrary -- religious or philosophical rules that are established as a priori principles that cannot be removed regardless of social impact.Murder, rape and theft are not moral constructs; neither is their probihition. They are crimes against victims, violations of natural rights all humans have and ought to enjoy. If you in Canada wish to protect people from themselves and prohibit consenting adults from forming their relationships with other consenting adults as they see fit, then oppress away. In the US, I would rather live in the de facto Land of the Free rather than the nanny state that carries the slogan. When lawyers and politicians become the arbitors of morality, you have no morality. I would estimate that oppression has a more detrimental impact on society than three people rooming together.
recovering conservative wrote: And they use the findings of sociologists and statisticians who have studied the issue. One of the experts -- Joseph Heinrick, filed this report for the B.C. Supreme Court. He begins with a brief rundown of the harms to others and society at large, when polygamy is allowedExpert witnesses state what they are paid to state, and spin what they are paid to spin. But ignoring that, your previous cite pointed out that no developed nation yet allows polygamy (polygamy being the issue in question, not the very different polygyny). It's folly to claim that a developed society based on the rule of law, historically monogamous, and having a well educated and equality-conscious public will suddenly parallel a 3rd world country based on dictatorial fiat, culturally polygynous and traditionally oppressive to women, and having an illiterate public raised in a polygynous culture, simply by legally allowing two people to agree to allow a third person into their committed relationship. It's a preposterous argument.
recovering conservative wrote: And at some point, it needs to be mentioned that unlike the gay marriage issue, polygamy is a social construct that greatly expands birth rates and subsequent population. As one of the Vancouver Sun's articles noted -- the town of Bountiful was built by a rapidly breeding polygamous family group. If future results determine that gay marriages are harmful on balance, they will still not present the same threat of population growth, not to mention the increase in genetic diseases caused by dangerous inbreeding in these communities.Ya gotta appreciate the irony that the very argument to prohibit gay marriage is being flipped to argue against polygamous marriage. :wah:
recovering conservative wrote: It's simple! On this and any other issues, there's no point to signing international treaties if you have no intentions of honouring them.I don't get it. What international treaty would Canada have to sign to legalize polygamous marriage?
recovering conservative wrote: But, monogamous marriage has gone through a lot of changes just during my lifetime. Polygamous marriage is not going to be able to change the baseline that rich and powerful men will effectively be the only ones who get more than one wife, or the coercions needed to deal with the resulting imbalance among the remaining men and women.You're bringing the income gap argument into this too?? :yh_rotfl
Don't pretend you'd support it if we could close that gap!
recovering conservative wrote: Polygamous family structures most likely have their origins in the world's warrior societies, where constant warfare, not to mention risky hunting techniques, kept the number of males much lower than the female population. In modern times, there are no sociological needs to justify this sort of family arrangement.There are no sociological needs to justify gay marriage, either, but looky what we're doing about that!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
koan;1345025 wrote: The arguments against polygamy are filled with assumptions and obvious fears. And evidence! Both historical, from past cultures and civilizations, and present day empirical studies on the harms to women and children in polygamous families in Muslim societies such as Malaysia and in FLDS Mormon groups in Canada and the United States. Studies commissioned by the Federal Government and provincial governments, such as Alberta that are cited here, are temporarily offline because they are being used as supporting evidence in the B.C. Court trial involving the FLDS. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence to justify the arguments against sanctioning polygamy, based on the harms to women and children, and the simple fact that polygamous structures are incompatible with democratic society and principles of equality, as mentioned by Joseph Heinrich in his summation to the Court.
At certain points it sounds as if the concern isn't for the women, some of whom I'm pretty sure have already been picturing themselves with more than one mate, it is a concern for the men who won't be able to compete with the men of huge gifts.
And this sounds like self-serving tripe that laws against polygamy might spoil some polyamorous fantasies of middle-aged women having a collection of men (or women) to play with! Where is the concern for women who grow up in these places and are coerced by family and religious authorities to accept polygamous marriages, and spend the rest of their days doing domestic work and bearing children?
Societies that have male/female imbalance that can be caused by polygamy plus infanticide of girls end up with large populations of young, disgruntled men who present a danger to the social order where they live. That's why the Saudis were happy to send so many young men off to wage jihad in Afghanistan, and elsewhere (and hoped they never come back!), and why Mormon fundamentalists deliberately expel so many teenage boys from their compounds. In such societies, there is no fair competition, so the young men who will not have the same opportunities as the aristocrats, have every reason to be frustrated and hostile.
At certain points it sounds as if the concern isn't for the women, some of whom I'm pretty sure have already been picturing themselves with more than one mate, it is a concern for the men who won't be able to compete with the men of huge gifts.
And this sounds like self-serving tripe that laws against polygamy might spoil some polyamorous fantasies of middle-aged women having a collection of men (or women) to play with! Where is the concern for women who grow up in these places and are coerced by family and religious authorities to accept polygamous marriages, and spend the rest of their days doing domestic work and bearing children?
Societies that have male/female imbalance that can be caused by polygamy plus infanticide of girls end up with large populations of young, disgruntled men who present a danger to the social order where they live. That's why the Saudis were happy to send so many young men off to wage jihad in Afghanistan, and elsewhere (and hoped they never come back!), and why Mormon fundamentalists deliberately expel so many teenage boys from their compounds. In such societies, there is no fair competition, so the young men who will not have the same opportunities as the aristocrats, have every reason to be frustrated and hostile.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
It's not like regular Canadians would start living like Mormons or Saudi Arabians just because they can remarry without needing a divorce. And to say that the Saudis are waging jihads because they are polygamous is... what did you say?... oh, self serving tripe.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
My basic position on the issue is that the government should stay out of my bedroom. The government should also stay out of the marriage business completely.
You can't take instances from societies that do not reflect the myriad of other laws that Canadians abide by and compare them as if they are the same. From what I've read, there are no threats to society that can result which aren't covered by another law.
You can't take instances from societies that do not reflect the myriad of other laws that Canadians abide by and compare them as if they are the same. From what I've read, there are no threats to society that can result which aren't covered by another law.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
koan;1345113 wrote: My basic position on the issue is that the government should stay out of my bedroom. The government should also stay out of the marriage business completely.
I've been saying that here at least since November 2006:
Accountable;452898 wrote: I don't think Texas even has initiatives, so I'll vote on yours.
[...]
Some other random props for Arizona:
-changing the constitution, recognizing marriage as between man and woman (even though gay marriage is statutorily banned here)Abstain, since I don't think marriage should be a legal term at all
I've been saying that here at least since November 2006:
Accountable;452898 wrote: I don't think Texas even has initiatives, so I'll vote on yours.
[...]
Some other random props for Arizona:
-changing the constitution, recognizing marriage as between man and woman (even though gay marriage is statutorily banned here)Abstain, since I don't think marriage should be a legal term at all
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345040 wrote:
Murder, rape and theft are not moral constructs; neither is their probihition. They are crimes against victims, violations of natural rights all humans have and ought to enjoy. If you in Canada wish to protect people from themselves and prohibit consenting adults from forming their relationships with other consenting adults as they see fit, then oppress away.
Polygamy also has victims -- young girls forced into arranged marriages. Terms like "consenting adults" are laughable when used in the context of religions that force the acceptance of plural marriage, or cut them off from their families and the only life they have known -- as in the case of Carolyn Jessop. And there is still that matter of consequences of lifestyle choices, which you will not address! There are roughly equal numbers of men and women in a society; so without constant war to thin out the male population, a polygamous community like Bountiful, just fabricates contrived reasons to expel surplus teenage boys, that become a burden for social services in surrounding communities.
In the US, I would rather live in the de facto Land of the Free rather than the nanny state that carries the slogan. When lawyers and politicians become the arbitors of morality, you have no morality.
Correction, You have no morality if you're a bloody moral relativist who says anything goes! If there are harmful consequences for a society that allows these arrangements, and the consequences are worse than taking legal action to prevent them, then it's time to say people just don't get to do whatever the hell they want, no matter how much that offends aging free love hippies!
I would estimate that oppression has a more detrimental impact on society than three people rooming together.
Three people can room together and do whatever the hell they want, but they should not be expecting legal recognition as a family unit, and receive all of the benefits provided. And since they've inserted themselves into this issue, what happens in issues like custody disputes and workplace benefits? Nobody cares who you're having sex with -- the issue is about how to define families
On the CBC program -- The Current, a recent segment dealing with the Bountiful issue began with the typical objections from the polyamory crowd -- a woman and two (presumably bisexual) men, who want to call themselves a family. Well, if we consider the fact that pair-bonding is often unstable, it stands to reason that the more members you add to your "family", the more jealousies and fractures there will be. None of those hippie communes in the late 60's and early 70's lasted; I don't think these group families have any better odds of holding together.
Expert witnesses state what they are paid to state, and spin what they are paid to spin.
In the case of Joseph Heinrich and others, they've been researching this issue long before the Province started developing a case for prosecution. Their writings were already out there. They didn't go looking for the Attorney General's Office to pay them, the prosecution sought them out after reading their work.
But ignoring that, your previous cite pointed out that no developed nation yet allows polygamy (polygamy being the issue in question, not the very different polygyny). It's folly to claim that a developed society based on the rule of law, historically monogamous, and having a well educated and equality-conscious public will suddenly parallel a 3rd world country based on dictatorial fiat, culturally polygynous and traditionally oppressive to women, and having an illiterate public raised in a polygynous culture, simply by legally allowing two people to agree to allow a third person into their committed relationship. It's a preposterous argument.
Definitions first: polygyny is not different than polygamy, it is a specific practice of polygamy where a man has multiple wives....and this is the overwhelming, most common form of polygamy, since polyandry (woman with more than one husband) and polyamory group marriages are rare, and insignificant in comparison.
And it's not absurd to consider this social arrangement a threat to the larger culture when birth rates are taken into consideration. Bountiful was literally created by a small FLDS clan that has flourished and is producing more and more dangerously inbred children today. And not every man has to, or even is allowed to be a polygamist in these societies. But, a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel! One of the stories I looked at yesterday from the Muslim World, estimated that only about 12% of marriages are polygamous. But, considering that these are the wealthiest, most powerful men in those societies, the Muslim nations that allow polygamy are not democratic, and have no real prospects of ever becoming democratic! Saudi Arabia, for example, is essentially a family business. It takes it's name from the descendents of Ibn Saud, and now The House of Saud numbers over 10,000.
Ya gotta appreciate the irony that the very argument to prohibit gay marriage is being flipped to argue against polygamous marriage.
And I've already explained why before: only a minority of the population is gay -- only a minority of that gay population is seeking marriage -- and there are far fewer children involved than these polygamous clans that are totally centered on having lots and lots of children. And, if there are harms to children, or society at large from gay marriage, the studies done so far in Europe aren't supporting that case.
I don't get it. What international treaty would Canada have to sign to legalize polygamous marriage?
And we've been over this before also! Canada signed on to an international treaty that promised to work towards ending the practice of polygamy, and recognized the individual and societal harms it causes.
You're bringing the income gap argument into this too?? :yh_rotfl
Don't pretend you'd support it if we could close that gap!
Do you have any examples of egalitarian polygamous societies to offer? If polygamy didn't cause: high population growth, the sexualization of young teenage girls, lost boys, greater class divisions in the population etc. then I'd be all for it too!
There are no sociological needs to justify gay marriage, either, but looky what we're doing about that!
If there is an interest in two, and only two, gay people seeking marriage, then they are expressing that need. If there are no apparent harms to society caused by gay marriage, then there are no good reasons to justify refusal........do I have to go through the harms caused by polygamy again?
Murder, rape and theft are not moral constructs; neither is their probihition. They are crimes against victims, violations of natural rights all humans have and ought to enjoy. If you in Canada wish to protect people from themselves and prohibit consenting adults from forming their relationships with other consenting adults as they see fit, then oppress away.
Polygamy also has victims -- young girls forced into arranged marriages. Terms like "consenting adults" are laughable when used in the context of religions that force the acceptance of plural marriage, or cut them off from their families and the only life they have known -- as in the case of Carolyn Jessop. And there is still that matter of consequences of lifestyle choices, which you will not address! There are roughly equal numbers of men and women in a society; so without constant war to thin out the male population, a polygamous community like Bountiful, just fabricates contrived reasons to expel surplus teenage boys, that become a burden for social services in surrounding communities.
In the US, I would rather live in the de facto Land of the Free rather than the nanny state that carries the slogan. When lawyers and politicians become the arbitors of morality, you have no morality.
Correction, You have no morality if you're a bloody moral relativist who says anything goes! If there are harmful consequences for a society that allows these arrangements, and the consequences are worse than taking legal action to prevent them, then it's time to say people just don't get to do whatever the hell they want, no matter how much that offends aging free love hippies!
I would estimate that oppression has a more detrimental impact on society than three people rooming together.
Three people can room together and do whatever the hell they want, but they should not be expecting legal recognition as a family unit, and receive all of the benefits provided. And since they've inserted themselves into this issue, what happens in issues like custody disputes and workplace benefits? Nobody cares who you're having sex with -- the issue is about how to define families
On the CBC program -- The Current, a recent segment dealing with the Bountiful issue began with the typical objections from the polyamory crowd -- a woman and two (presumably bisexual) men, who want to call themselves a family. Well, if we consider the fact that pair-bonding is often unstable, it stands to reason that the more members you add to your "family", the more jealousies and fractures there will be. None of those hippie communes in the late 60's and early 70's lasted; I don't think these group families have any better odds of holding together.
Expert witnesses state what they are paid to state, and spin what they are paid to spin.
In the case of Joseph Heinrich and others, they've been researching this issue long before the Province started developing a case for prosecution. Their writings were already out there. They didn't go looking for the Attorney General's Office to pay them, the prosecution sought them out after reading their work.
But ignoring that, your previous cite pointed out that no developed nation yet allows polygamy (polygamy being the issue in question, not the very different polygyny). It's folly to claim that a developed society based on the rule of law, historically monogamous, and having a well educated and equality-conscious public will suddenly parallel a 3rd world country based on dictatorial fiat, culturally polygynous and traditionally oppressive to women, and having an illiterate public raised in a polygynous culture, simply by legally allowing two people to agree to allow a third person into their committed relationship. It's a preposterous argument.
Definitions first: polygyny is not different than polygamy, it is a specific practice of polygamy where a man has multiple wives....and this is the overwhelming, most common form of polygamy, since polyandry (woman with more than one husband) and polyamory group marriages are rare, and insignificant in comparison.
And it's not absurd to consider this social arrangement a threat to the larger culture when birth rates are taken into consideration. Bountiful was literally created by a small FLDS clan that has flourished and is producing more and more dangerously inbred children today. And not every man has to, or even is allowed to be a polygamist in these societies. But, a few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel! One of the stories I looked at yesterday from the Muslim World, estimated that only about 12% of marriages are polygamous. But, considering that these are the wealthiest, most powerful men in those societies, the Muslim nations that allow polygamy are not democratic, and have no real prospects of ever becoming democratic! Saudi Arabia, for example, is essentially a family business. It takes it's name from the descendents of Ibn Saud, and now The House of Saud numbers over 10,000.
Ya gotta appreciate the irony that the very argument to prohibit gay marriage is being flipped to argue against polygamous marriage.
And I've already explained why before: only a minority of the population is gay -- only a minority of that gay population is seeking marriage -- and there are far fewer children involved than these polygamous clans that are totally centered on having lots and lots of children. And, if there are harms to children, or society at large from gay marriage, the studies done so far in Europe aren't supporting that case.
I don't get it. What international treaty would Canada have to sign to legalize polygamous marriage?
And we've been over this before also! Canada signed on to an international treaty that promised to work towards ending the practice of polygamy, and recognized the individual and societal harms it causes.
You're bringing the income gap argument into this too?? :yh_rotfl
Don't pretend you'd support it if we could close that gap!
Do you have any examples of egalitarian polygamous societies to offer? If polygamy didn't cause: high population growth, the sexualization of young teenage girls, lost boys, greater class divisions in the population etc. then I'd be all for it too!
There are no sociological needs to justify gay marriage, either, but looky what we're doing about that!
If there is an interest in two, and only two, gay people seeking marriage, then they are expressing that need. If there are no apparent harms to society caused by gay marriage, then there are no good reasons to justify refusal........do I have to go through the harms caused by polygamy again?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
What do you think, RC? How about if marriage ceased to be a legal construct altogether and was only a cultural one, such as the Jewish tradition of bar mitzvah when a boy is recognized as a man?
Where's the harm?
Where's the harm?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345129 wrote: What do you think, RC? How about if marriage ceased to be a legal construct altogether and was only a cultural one, such as the Jewish tradition of bar mitzvah when a boy is recognized as a man?
Where's the harm?
I don't see how this is practical when there are rights and legal benefits involved with marriage. If someone decides they want a group marriage, should all of their spouses qualify for workplace benefits? I can't imagine how messy and convoluted divorce settlement issues would be if such marriages dissolved. There are too many legal issues involved with marriage for the government to be uninvolved.
But, again with this polygyny issue, there are so many social problems connected with these marriages that they don't belong in a democratic society that values equal rights. Even the Cato Institute gets the picture: Democracy, Dictatorship,
and Polygamy
Where's the harm?
I don't see how this is practical when there are rights and legal benefits involved with marriage. If someone decides they want a group marriage, should all of their spouses qualify for workplace benefits? I can't imagine how messy and convoluted divorce settlement issues would be if such marriages dissolved. There are too many legal issues involved with marriage for the government to be uninvolved.
But, again with this polygyny issue, there are so many social problems connected with these marriages that they don't belong in a democratic society that values equal rights. Even the Cato Institute gets the picture: Democracy, Dictatorship,
and Polygamy
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345131 wrote: I don't see how this is practical when there are rights and legal benefits involved with marriage. If someone decides they want a group marriage, should all of their spouses qualify for workplace benefits? I can't imagine how messy and convoluted divorce settlement issues would be if such marriages dissolved. There are too many legal issues involved with marriage for the government to be uninvolved.
But, again with this polygyny issue, there are so many social problems connected with these marriages that they don't belong in a democratic society that values equal rights. Even the Cato Institute gets the picture: Democracy, Dictatorship,
and Polygamy
You must've misread. If marriage ceases to be a legal construct, there would be no divorce (how could there be, without marriage?). Workplace benefits would be up to the workplace. Your sentence about legal issues is circular logic. Sure, the transition would be messy, but once current marriage issues are settled and marriage no longer exists, what legal issues would remain that don't already occur with unmarried people?
But, again with this polygyny issue, there are so many social problems connected with these marriages that they don't belong in a democratic society that values equal rights. Even the Cato Institute gets the picture: Democracy, Dictatorship,
and Polygamy
You must've misread. If marriage ceases to be a legal construct, there would be no divorce (how could there be, without marriage?). Workplace benefits would be up to the workplace. Your sentence about legal issues is circular logic. Sure, the transition would be messy, but once current marriage issues are settled and marriage no longer exists, what legal issues would remain that don't already occur with unmarried people?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345131 wrote: Even the Cato Institute gets the picture: Democracy, Dictatorship,
and PolygamyThat article is about the difficulty of turning a dictatorial polygamous society into a democratic one, not the danger of polygamy somehow changing a democratic egalitarian society into an oppressive dictatorship.
and PolygamyThat article is about the difficulty of turning a dictatorial polygamous society into a democratic one, not the danger of polygamy somehow changing a democratic egalitarian society into an oppressive dictatorship.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345134 wrote: That article is about the difficulty of turning a dictatorial polygamous society into a democratic one, not the danger of polygamy somehow changing a democratic egalitarian society into an oppressive dictatorship.
Did you notice their closing paragraph:
We must consider seriously the possibility that a society that allows polygamy may not be able to become an open democracy. This may be one of the most important links between biology and politics.
Just before that, they made this weasily observation: "Interestingly, such sects often appear to be run dictatorially" without asking the question of why these communities are not egalitarian and democratic. And they will not ask the question of whether or not such communities are compatible with democratic, egalitarian societies.
I take issue with the author's observations about egalitarianism in the modern U.S.A., since legal equality becomes nothing more than a theoretical construct if it cannot be practiced because of great economic disparities; but be that as it may, they've identified some of the reasons why they are dictatorial -- such as the need to expel surplus males -- and yet they haven't fully developed the examination by asking whether polygyny will grow in size and impact on the larger society if monogamy is not imposed by the state. And I think that's the key reason why this article (although brief) jumps from roving bands of hunter/gatherers to the appearance of polygyny and hierarchies when agriculture arose -- and then jumps right to the present. They seemed to have missed that entire stage in Western history when, first the Greek city states, and then the Roman Empire, imposed monogamy (which was later adopted by Christianity) and denied legal recognition of plural marriages.
I've read a number of cultural anthropologists over the years who have made the same observation as Joseph Heinrich (the prosecution expert in the B.C. Court case), that polygyny is the norm in most human societies once they develop hierarchies. Once hierarchies are established, they become entrenched when the leaders take the greater share of the available females. Monogamy only becomes the norm when it is imposed by the state, and became the first step towards egalitarian notions like equal justice and democracy, and I think that's why a Cato study is not going to wade too far in on this sort of issue.
Did you notice their closing paragraph:
We must consider seriously the possibility that a society that allows polygamy may not be able to become an open democracy. This may be one of the most important links between biology and politics.
Just before that, they made this weasily observation: "Interestingly, such sects often appear to be run dictatorially" without asking the question of why these communities are not egalitarian and democratic. And they will not ask the question of whether or not such communities are compatible with democratic, egalitarian societies.
I take issue with the author's observations about egalitarianism in the modern U.S.A., since legal equality becomes nothing more than a theoretical construct if it cannot be practiced because of great economic disparities; but be that as it may, they've identified some of the reasons why they are dictatorial -- such as the need to expel surplus males -- and yet they haven't fully developed the examination by asking whether polygyny will grow in size and impact on the larger society if monogamy is not imposed by the state. And I think that's the key reason why this article (although brief) jumps from roving bands of hunter/gatherers to the appearance of polygyny and hierarchies when agriculture arose -- and then jumps right to the present. They seemed to have missed that entire stage in Western history when, first the Greek city states, and then the Roman Empire, imposed monogamy (which was later adopted by Christianity) and denied legal recognition of plural marriages.
I've read a number of cultural anthropologists over the years who have made the same observation as Joseph Heinrich (the prosecution expert in the B.C. Court case), that polygyny is the norm in most human societies once they develop hierarchies. Once hierarchies are established, they become entrenched when the leaders take the greater share of the available females. Monogamy only becomes the norm when it is imposed by the state, and became the first step towards egalitarian notions like equal justice and democracy, and I think that's why a Cato study is not going to wade too far in on this sort of issue.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345133 wrote: You must've misread. If marriage ceases to be a legal construct, there would be no divorce (how could there be, without marriage?). Workplace benefits would be up to the workplace. Your sentence about legal issues is circular logic. Sure, the transition would be messy, but once current marriage issues are settled and marriage no longer exists, what legal issues would remain that don't already occur with unmarried people?
I've never been divorced, but I do know a lot of people who are, since divorce is so common. Very few divorces I am aware of, are handled easily -- most are messy affairs that have to be decided in court. If there is no legal recognition of marriage by the state, who handles the mess left over when the marriage breaks up -- such as custody arrangements, and division of property? Specifially, in our modern, capitalistic society, how would the unpaid work of a partner (usually the mother) who has earned less income, access a larger share of the marital property without the modern marriage and divorce laws? In Ontario, once a couple has been co-habiting long enough, they become married in the eyes of Ontario Family Law, and have to go through the same process of divorce when the relationship dissolves, as would happen if they had walked down the aisle.
And leaving access to workplace benefits up to the employer is not going to work! Employers in Canada only extended benefits to same-sex couples after being mandated by the governments, and if plural marriages were up to the workplace, there would be no common standard for determining if the children from polygamy would be covered.
I've never been divorced, but I do know a lot of people who are, since divorce is so common. Very few divorces I am aware of, are handled easily -- most are messy affairs that have to be decided in court. If there is no legal recognition of marriage by the state, who handles the mess left over when the marriage breaks up -- such as custody arrangements, and division of property? Specifially, in our modern, capitalistic society, how would the unpaid work of a partner (usually the mother) who has earned less income, access a larger share of the marital property without the modern marriage and divorce laws? In Ontario, once a couple has been co-habiting long enough, they become married in the eyes of Ontario Family Law, and have to go through the same process of divorce when the relationship dissolves, as would happen if they had walked down the aisle.
And leaving access to workplace benefits up to the employer is not going to work! Employers in Canada only extended benefits to same-sex couples after being mandated by the governments, and if plural marriages were up to the workplace, there would be no common standard for determining if the children from polygamy would be covered.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345216 wrote: Did you notice their closing paragraph:
We must consider seriously the possibility that a society that allows polygamy may not be able to become an open democracy. This may be one of the most important links between biology and politics.Yes. It is the primary reason for my post. It doesn't say "We must consider seriously the possibility that a democratic society may not be able to survive allowing polygamy," which seems to be your stance.
recovering conservative wrote: Monogamy only becomes the norm when it is imposed by the state, and became the first step towards egalitarian notions like equal justice and democracy, and I think that's why a Cato study is not going to wade too far in on this sort of issue.So then monogamy is not natural?
recovering conservative;1345221 wrote: I've never been divorced, but I do know a lot of people who are, since divorce is so common. Very few divorces I am aware of, are handled easily -- most are messy affairs that have to be decided in court. If there is no legal recognition of marriage by the state, who handles the mess left over when the marriage breaks up -- such as custody arrangements, and division of property? Specifially, in our modern, capitalistic society, how would the unpaid work of a partner (usually the mother) who has earned less income, access a larger share of the marital property without the modern marriage and divorce laws? In Ontario, once a couple has been co-habiting long enough, they become married in the eyes of Ontario Family Law, and have to go through the same process of divorce when the relationship dissolves, as would happen if they had walked down the aisle.Divorce wouldn't exist if marriage weren't a legal construct. If that statement became fact, people would adjust their behavior so as not to have the issues you describe, and so they would not need to be settled. What happens when people cohabitate then break up before the legal time limit?
recovering conservative wrote: And leaving access to workplace benefits up to the employer is not going to work! Employers in Canada only extended benefits to same-sex couples after being mandated by the governments, and if plural marriages were up to the workplace, there would be no common standard for determining if the children from polygamy would be covered.True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality, but your logic is lacking. There was no common standard for determining benefits of same-sex families before one was established. Establishing a standard for polygamous families is not beyond imagining.
We must consider seriously the possibility that a society that allows polygamy may not be able to become an open democracy. This may be one of the most important links between biology and politics.Yes. It is the primary reason for my post. It doesn't say "We must consider seriously the possibility that a democratic society may not be able to survive allowing polygamy," which seems to be your stance.
recovering conservative wrote: Monogamy only becomes the norm when it is imposed by the state, and became the first step towards egalitarian notions like equal justice and democracy, and I think that's why a Cato study is not going to wade too far in on this sort of issue.So then monogamy is not natural?
recovering conservative;1345221 wrote: I've never been divorced, but I do know a lot of people who are, since divorce is so common. Very few divorces I am aware of, are handled easily -- most are messy affairs that have to be decided in court. If there is no legal recognition of marriage by the state, who handles the mess left over when the marriage breaks up -- such as custody arrangements, and division of property? Specifially, in our modern, capitalistic society, how would the unpaid work of a partner (usually the mother) who has earned less income, access a larger share of the marital property without the modern marriage and divorce laws? In Ontario, once a couple has been co-habiting long enough, they become married in the eyes of Ontario Family Law, and have to go through the same process of divorce when the relationship dissolves, as would happen if they had walked down the aisle.Divorce wouldn't exist if marriage weren't a legal construct. If that statement became fact, people would adjust their behavior so as not to have the issues you describe, and so they would not need to be settled. What happens when people cohabitate then break up before the legal time limit?
recovering conservative wrote: And leaving access to workplace benefits up to the employer is not going to work! Employers in Canada only extended benefits to same-sex couples after being mandated by the governments, and if plural marriages were up to the workplace, there would be no common standard for determining if the children from polygamy would be covered.True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality, but your logic is lacking. There was no common standard for determining benefits of same-sex families before one was established. Establishing a standard for polygamous families is not beyond imagining.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345223 wrote: Yes. It is the primary reason for my post. It doesn't say "We must consider seriously the possibility that a democratic society may not be able to survive allowing polygamy," which seems to be your stance.
Is this a problem of connecting the dots? If they concede that a society which allows polygamy may not become a democracy; why is it a stretch to question how a society that brings back polygamy will remain democratic?
So then monogamy is not natural?
Not so fast! The lesson from anthropology is that without restrictions, the social dominators -- the rulers and most wealthy men in the society take more wives and have very large families. Obviously, normal population demographics mean that only a minority of men have this option. So when the Greeks and Romans banned polygamy, they sowed the first seeds of egalitarian notions of democracy and individual rights and freedoms, by placing the same restrictions on the powerful as the average citizen. Along with everything else that's been happening in recent decades to erode these principles, bringing back polygamy could be a final nail in the coffin for democracy!
Divorce wouldn't exist if marriage weren't a legal construct. If that statement became fact, people would adjust their behavior so as not to have the issues you describe, and so they would not need to be settled.
Wait a minute! How would they not have these issues? If a woman had to leave her job or take a great amount of time off work due to pregnancies and raising children....plus having to forgo promotions, then the loss of economic opportunity plus unpaid work has to be added to the calculations somehow.
What happens when people cohabitate then break up before the legal time limit?
Then they take back whatever they had before they first moved in together -- just like roommates breaking up. If they've had children, then custody, support and visitation arrangements would have to be made....which would be the case even if they had never lived under the same roof.
True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality, but your logic is lacking. There was no common standard for determining benefits of same-sex families before one was established. Establishing a standard for polygamous families is not beyond imagining.
Mandating that employers abide by universal standards is somehow 'government dictating morality' in libertarian-speak!
Previously, the common standard for determining same-sex employee benefits was that they didn't exist. And somehow, if polygamy is legal, the government has to determine if employer's group insurance has to cover every family that an employee with multiple wives has, or just one family.
Is this a problem of connecting the dots? If they concede that a society which allows polygamy may not become a democracy; why is it a stretch to question how a society that brings back polygamy will remain democratic?
So then monogamy is not natural?
Not so fast! The lesson from anthropology is that without restrictions, the social dominators -- the rulers and most wealthy men in the society take more wives and have very large families. Obviously, normal population demographics mean that only a minority of men have this option. So when the Greeks and Romans banned polygamy, they sowed the first seeds of egalitarian notions of democracy and individual rights and freedoms, by placing the same restrictions on the powerful as the average citizen. Along with everything else that's been happening in recent decades to erode these principles, bringing back polygamy could be a final nail in the coffin for democracy!
Divorce wouldn't exist if marriage weren't a legal construct. If that statement became fact, people would adjust their behavior so as not to have the issues you describe, and so they would not need to be settled.
Wait a minute! How would they not have these issues? If a woman had to leave her job or take a great amount of time off work due to pregnancies and raising children....plus having to forgo promotions, then the loss of economic opportunity plus unpaid work has to be added to the calculations somehow.
What happens when people cohabitate then break up before the legal time limit?
Then they take back whatever they had before they first moved in together -- just like roommates breaking up. If they've had children, then custody, support and visitation arrangements would have to be made....which would be the case even if they had never lived under the same roof.
True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality, but your logic is lacking. There was no common standard for determining benefits of same-sex families before one was established. Establishing a standard for polygamous families is not beyond imagining.
Mandating that employers abide by universal standards is somehow 'government dictating morality' in libertarian-speak!
Previously, the common standard for determining same-sex employee benefits was that they didn't exist. And somehow, if polygamy is legal, the government has to determine if employer's group insurance has to cover every family that an employee with multiple wives has, or just one family.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345475 wrote: Is this a problem of connecting the dots? If they concede that a society which allows polygamy may not become a democracy; why is it a stretch to question how a society that brings back polygamy will remain democratic?It's the same false argument as saying that because a man who lost his arm can't play basketball well then a man who can't play basketball will lose his arm. Polygamy is one feature among many in the societies they chose to study. Not all oppressive societies are polygamous. Not all dictatorships are polygamous. Polygamy does not prohibit democracy. The societies they studied had polygyny, but I'd suspect they prohibited any other form of polygamy. Now, had they discovered that one or some of those societies were egalitarian until someone started practicing polygamy, then maybe you could show a very loose connection at best.
Allowing polygamy within a society as large and developed as either the US or Canada would have no impact on the larger society, imo. It's a tempest in your teacup. The fringe group that is would remain a fringe group and continue doing the same things they are doing already. The only difference being that the cops wouldn't have to be hypocrites in allowing the living arrangements. They of course should each be fired if they knowingly allow child abuse or pedophilia, but that's not what we're talking about.
recovering conservative wrote: Not so fast! The lesson from anthropology is that without restrictions, the social dominators -- the rulers and most wealthy men in the society take more wives and have very large families. Obviously, normal population demographics mean that only a minority of men have this option. So when the Greeks and Romans banned polygamy, they sowed the first seeds of egalitarian notions of democracy and individual rights and freedoms, by placing the same restrictions on the powerful as the average citizen. Along with everything else that's been happening in recent decades to erode these principles, bringing back polygamy could be a final nail in the coffin for democracy! You say "not so fast" as if you disagree with my statement, then you write a paragraph that supports it. So then monogamy is not natural??
recovering conservative wrote:
Wait a minute! How would they not have these issues? If a woman had to leave her job or take a great amount of time off work due to pregnancies and raising children....plus having to forgo promotions, then the loss of economic opportunity plus unpaid work has to be added to the calculations somehow.
Then they take back whatever they had before they first moved in together -- just like roommates breaking up. If they've had children, then custody, support and visitation arrangements would have to be made....which would be the case even if they had never lived under the same roof.You answered your own argument.
recovering conservative wrote: Mandating that employers abide by universal standards is somehow 'government dictating morality' in libertarian-speak! It's a paraphrase of RC-speak. We started this thread that way, and you very strongly supported legislation dictating moral behavior even when there is no victim. It began on post #8.
recovering conservative wrote: Previously, the common standard for determining same-sex employee benefits was that they didn't exist. And somehow, if polygamy is legal, the government has to determine if employer's group insurance has to cover every family that an employee with multiple wives has, or just one family.
You're right. It's too complex a job for gov't. They should just not recognize marriage in any form. :yh_wink
Barring that *chuckling at the thought of gov't giving up any power whatsoever*, If a person divorces, remarries, and has more children, can't that person's insurance cover all the children involved? If so, you're only adding the additional adult(s). If, say, I invite my destitute sister and her kids to move in with me as my dependents, am I not allowed to support them as my family in Canada? Couldn't the Canadian gov't force my employer to cover my newly expanded family?
Allowing polygamy within a society as large and developed as either the US or Canada would have no impact on the larger society, imo. It's a tempest in your teacup. The fringe group that is would remain a fringe group and continue doing the same things they are doing already. The only difference being that the cops wouldn't have to be hypocrites in allowing the living arrangements. They of course should each be fired if they knowingly allow child abuse or pedophilia, but that's not what we're talking about.
recovering conservative wrote: Not so fast! The lesson from anthropology is that without restrictions, the social dominators -- the rulers and most wealthy men in the society take more wives and have very large families. Obviously, normal population demographics mean that only a minority of men have this option. So when the Greeks and Romans banned polygamy, they sowed the first seeds of egalitarian notions of democracy and individual rights and freedoms, by placing the same restrictions on the powerful as the average citizen. Along with everything else that's been happening in recent decades to erode these principles, bringing back polygamy could be a final nail in the coffin for democracy! You say "not so fast" as if you disagree with my statement, then you write a paragraph that supports it. So then monogamy is not natural??
recovering conservative wrote:
Wait a minute! How would they not have these issues? If a woman had to leave her job or take a great amount of time off work due to pregnancies and raising children....plus having to forgo promotions, then the loss of economic opportunity plus unpaid work has to be added to the calculations somehow.
Then they take back whatever they had before they first moved in together -- just like roommates breaking up. If they've had children, then custody, support and visitation arrangements would have to be made....which would be the case even if they had never lived under the same roof.You answered your own argument.
recovering conservative wrote: Mandating that employers abide by universal standards is somehow 'government dictating morality' in libertarian-speak! It's a paraphrase of RC-speak. We started this thread that way, and you very strongly supported legislation dictating moral behavior even when there is no victim. It began on post #8.
recovering conservative wrote: Previously, the common standard for determining same-sex employee benefits was that they didn't exist. And somehow, if polygamy is legal, the government has to determine if employer's group insurance has to cover every family that an employee with multiple wives has, or just one family.
You're right. It's too complex a job for gov't. They should just not recognize marriage in any form. :yh_wink
Barring that *chuckling at the thought of gov't giving up any power whatsoever*, If a person divorces, remarries, and has more children, can't that person's insurance cover all the children involved? If so, you're only adding the additional adult(s). If, say, I invite my destitute sister and her kids to move in with me as my dependents, am I not allowed to support them as my family in Canada? Couldn't the Canadian gov't force my employer to cover my newly expanded family?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345487 wrote: It's the same false argument as saying that because a man who lost his arm can't play basketball well then a man who can't play basketball will lose his arm.
Talk about lousy analogies! Even the libertarians at Cato recognize the social factors that make polygyny incompatible with egalitarian concepts like equality and democracy; so again, the same dynamic should exist if this form of social organization is brought back.
There are already many other factors that are eroding democracy and equality presently -- chief among them is the growing wealth gap between the richest and the poorest, and the disappearance of the middle class.
All of the lofty talk of freedom, is meaningless and worthless to people who have no economic power to exercise those freedoms. At the other end of the scale, the so called equal justice judicial system has not been applying justice equally for decades. Which can be seen with who does and who doesn't face the death penalty when convicted of murder; or how wealthy drug offenders (Rush Limbaugh etc.) are handled in comparison to poor drug addicts that are thrown into the prison system. A recent example of unequal justice was this ******* in Colorado who will not face felony charges after running down a cyclist and leaving him for dead -- all because a felony charge would inhibit his income-earning capacity as a hedge fund manager! Wealthy fund manager avoids felony charges after running over cyclist because of… wealth | Raw Story
Now, on top of everything else that his eliminating real equality in today's society, you want to add the privilege of allowing the big shots and wealthier religious zealots to have lots of wives and children!
Polygamy is one feature among many in the societies they chose to study. Not all oppressive societies are polygamous. Not all dictatorships are polygamous. Polygamy does not prohibit democracy. The societies they studied had polygyny, but I'd suspect they prohibited any other form of polygamy. Now, had they discovered that one or some of those societies were egalitarian until someone started practicing polygamy, then maybe you could show a very loose connection at best.
Why make Western societies that lab rats for this social experiment?
And there are a number of anthropologists who have done detailed examinations of human societies, and identified the factors that make polygynous societies autocratic. In the Muslim World, a number of nations have already banned polygamy: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia and Turkey; and there are strong movements in developing nations like Malaysia - which allows polygamy for Muslim men - to get rid of it because of the harms caused for the women and children in these families.
Malaysian Mirror - Ban polygamy, prevent tragedies
The impact of polygamy in Malaysia | The Nut Graph
Allowing polygamy within a society as large and developed as either the US or Canada would have no impact on the larger society, imo. It's a tempest in your teacup.
Wrong, and this is the key difference when assessing potential harms of polygamy vs. gay unions. Homosexuals are a steady, constant subset of a population, whether they are tolerated or persecuted. They do not grow in number, as right wing fanatics foment about, nor do they have many children, or even seek to adopt children in the same numbers that straight couples do. So, good or bad, a strong case could be made that gay marriages would have a limited social impact.
However, guess who has the most children, when polygamy is legalized? It reminds me of something Bill Maher said in an opening monologue about Osama Bin Laden: "he's the 27th of 63 children; it's always that middle child that you have to worry about!" It's the reason why Bountiful is called "The Town That Polygamy Built" in the Toronto Star feature article: The town polygamy built: B.C. says Bountiful shows need to ban multiple wives - thestar.com Consider that the broader Mormon religion has never disavowed polygamy. They stopped the practice as an arrangement of convenience, but still recognize 'celestial plural marriages.' You can damn well bet that removing legal restrictions would bring it back in a big way for the rest of the LDS Church!
You say "not so fast" as if you disagree with my statement, then you write a paragraph that supports it. So then monogamy is not natural??
What is not natural, is for the greediest, most avaricious members of society, who scratch and claw their way to the top, to restrict their greed when it comes to matters of family!
It's a paraphrase of RC-speak. We started this thread that way, and you very strongly supported legislation dictating moral behavior even when there is no victim. It began on post #8.
I'm looking at no.8 right now; is this what you consider a victimless crime: "Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women."
Barring that *chuckling at the thought of gov't giving up any power whatsoever*, If a person divorces, remarries, and has more children, can't that person's insurance cover all the children involved? If so, you're only adding the additional adult(s). If, say, I invite my destitute sister and her kids to move in with me as my dependents, am I not allowed to support them as my family in Canada? Couldn't the Canadian gov't force my employer to cover my newly expanded family?
You can support your destitute sister, but she is not entitled to any government benefits she wouldn't otherwise receive, and your workplace group insurance is not going to cover her or her children, and this is why family law exists in the first place.
Talk about lousy analogies! Even the libertarians at Cato recognize the social factors that make polygyny incompatible with egalitarian concepts like equality and democracy; so again, the same dynamic should exist if this form of social organization is brought back.
There are already many other factors that are eroding democracy and equality presently -- chief among them is the growing wealth gap between the richest and the poorest, and the disappearance of the middle class.
All of the lofty talk of freedom, is meaningless and worthless to people who have no economic power to exercise those freedoms. At the other end of the scale, the so called equal justice judicial system has not been applying justice equally for decades. Which can be seen with who does and who doesn't face the death penalty when convicted of murder; or how wealthy drug offenders (Rush Limbaugh etc.) are handled in comparison to poor drug addicts that are thrown into the prison system. A recent example of unequal justice was this ******* in Colorado who will not face felony charges after running down a cyclist and leaving him for dead -- all because a felony charge would inhibit his income-earning capacity as a hedge fund manager! Wealthy fund manager avoids felony charges after running over cyclist because of… wealth | Raw Story
Now, on top of everything else that his eliminating real equality in today's society, you want to add the privilege of allowing the big shots and wealthier religious zealots to have lots of wives and children!
Polygamy is one feature among many in the societies they chose to study. Not all oppressive societies are polygamous. Not all dictatorships are polygamous. Polygamy does not prohibit democracy. The societies they studied had polygyny, but I'd suspect they prohibited any other form of polygamy. Now, had they discovered that one or some of those societies were egalitarian until someone started practicing polygamy, then maybe you could show a very loose connection at best.
Why make Western societies that lab rats for this social experiment?
And there are a number of anthropologists who have done detailed examinations of human societies, and identified the factors that make polygynous societies autocratic. In the Muslim World, a number of nations have already banned polygamy: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia and Turkey; and there are strong movements in developing nations like Malaysia - which allows polygamy for Muslim men - to get rid of it because of the harms caused for the women and children in these families.
Malaysian Mirror - Ban polygamy, prevent tragedies
The impact of polygamy in Malaysia | The Nut Graph
Allowing polygamy within a society as large and developed as either the US or Canada would have no impact on the larger society, imo. It's a tempest in your teacup.
Wrong, and this is the key difference when assessing potential harms of polygamy vs. gay unions. Homosexuals are a steady, constant subset of a population, whether they are tolerated or persecuted. They do not grow in number, as right wing fanatics foment about, nor do they have many children, or even seek to adopt children in the same numbers that straight couples do. So, good or bad, a strong case could be made that gay marriages would have a limited social impact.
However, guess who has the most children, when polygamy is legalized? It reminds me of something Bill Maher said in an opening monologue about Osama Bin Laden: "he's the 27th of 63 children; it's always that middle child that you have to worry about!" It's the reason why Bountiful is called "The Town That Polygamy Built" in the Toronto Star feature article: The town polygamy built: B.C. says Bountiful shows need to ban multiple wives - thestar.com Consider that the broader Mormon religion has never disavowed polygamy. They stopped the practice as an arrangement of convenience, but still recognize 'celestial plural marriages.' You can damn well bet that removing legal restrictions would bring it back in a big way for the rest of the LDS Church!
You say "not so fast" as if you disagree with my statement, then you write a paragraph that supports it. So then monogamy is not natural??
What is not natural, is for the greediest, most avaricious members of society, who scratch and claw their way to the top, to restrict their greed when it comes to matters of family!
It's a paraphrase of RC-speak. We started this thread that way, and you very strongly supported legislation dictating moral behavior even when there is no victim. It began on post #8.
I'm looking at no.8 right now; is this what you consider a victimless crime: "Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women."
Barring that *chuckling at the thought of gov't giving up any power whatsoever*, If a person divorces, remarries, and has more children, can't that person's insurance cover all the children involved? If so, you're only adding the additional adult(s). If, say, I invite my destitute sister and her kids to move in with me as my dependents, am I not allowed to support them as my family in Canada? Couldn't the Canadian gov't force my employer to cover my newly expanded family?
You can support your destitute sister, but she is not entitled to any government benefits she wouldn't otherwise receive, and your workplace group insurance is not going to cover her or her children, and this is why family law exists in the first place.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345516 wrote: Why make Western societies that lab rats for this social experiment?I don't give a lab rat's ass how oppressive you want your Canadian society to be. Legislate all the immoral morality you want. The USA was founded to be a bastion of liberty, and that means allowing consenting sound adults their own pursuit of happiness. Citing the potential of abuse is simply not good enough ... at least not in a truly free society.
recovering conservative wrote: [quote=Accountable]So then monogamy is not natural?What is not natural, is for the greediest, most avaricious members of society, who scratch and claw their way to the top, to restrict their greed when it comes to matters of family!I spose I'll have to take that as a yes, since it's definitely not a no.
recovering conservative wrote: I'm looking at no.8 right now; is this what you consider a victimless crime: "Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women." No, but that doesn't describe polygamy, which is what we're supposedly discussing.
recovering conservative wrote: You can support your destitute sister, but she is not entitled to any government benefits she wouldn't otherwise receive, and your workplace group insurance is not going to cover her or her children, and this is why family law exists in the first place.I could adopt her children. The point is that any of these horrible straw men you keep tossing up can be easily handled with current legislation. There's no need for legal recognition of marriage, monogamous, polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, or mixed. But if it must be recognized, it should be recognized in all its forms.
recovering conservative wrote: [quote=Accountable]So then monogamy is not natural?What is not natural, is for the greediest, most avaricious members of society, who scratch and claw their way to the top, to restrict their greed when it comes to matters of family!I spose I'll have to take that as a yes, since it's definitely not a no.
recovering conservative wrote: I'm looking at no.8 right now; is this what you consider a victimless crime: "Increased crime, prostitution and anti-social behaviour. Greater inequality between men and women. Less parental investment in children. And, a general driving down of the age of marriage for all women." No, but that doesn't describe polygamy, which is what we're supposedly discussing.
recovering conservative wrote: You can support your destitute sister, but she is not entitled to any government benefits she wouldn't otherwise receive, and your workplace group insurance is not going to cover her or her children, and this is why family law exists in the first place.I could adopt her children. The point is that any of these horrible straw men you keep tossing up can be easily handled with current legislation. There's no need for legal recognition of marriage, monogamous, polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, or mixed. But if it must be recognized, it should be recognized in all its forms.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345558 wrote: I don't give a lab rat's ass how oppressive you want your Canadian society to be. Legislate all the immoral morality you want. The USA was founded to be a bastion of liberty, and that means allowing consenting sound adults their own pursuit of happiness. Citing the potential of abuse is simply not good enough ... at least not in a truly free society.
And it's back to your mythologized version of American history! If I recall; your bastion of liberty began with institutionalized slavery, no voting rights for women, men under 21, men could also be refused the right to vote in some states if they did not own property, owed taxes, could not afford to pay a poll tax, belonged to a disenfranchised religion -- Jews, Quakers or Catholics......not everyone had rights when that "bastion of liberty" was founded, but this seems to be lost on everyone who has turned American History into a religion, and the Constitution into the Bible. Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter!
I spose I'll have to take that as a yes, since it's definitely not a no.
When it becomes a symbol of status in society, then polygamy becomes the goal, even if it's only a minority who have the opportunity to practice it in reality.
No, but that doesn't describe polygamy, which is what we're supposedly discussing.
Those were all social problems that accompany polygamy.
I could adopt her children. The point is that any of these horrible straw men you keep tossing up can be easily handled with current legislation. There's no need for legal recognition of marriage, monogamous, polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, or mixed. But if it must be recognized, it should be recognized in all its forms.
If there's one thing I carry forward from my time as a conservative, it's the belief that the family is the foundation of a society, and the health and wellbeing of our most basic institution should get more than rhetorical concern from lawmakers and policy makers. So, I just can't accept this notion of ignoring marriage and making what is many times a bad situation -- much worse! In this libertarian world, if there is no legal recognition of marriage, is there also no recognition of divorce? And no system of family law to resolve breakups of....whatever relationships exist that produce children.
And it's back to your mythologized version of American history! If I recall; your bastion of liberty began with institutionalized slavery, no voting rights for women, men under 21, men could also be refused the right to vote in some states if they did not own property, owed taxes, could not afford to pay a poll tax, belonged to a disenfranchised religion -- Jews, Quakers or Catholics......not everyone had rights when that "bastion of liberty" was founded, but this seems to be lost on everyone who has turned American History into a religion, and the Constitution into the Bible. Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter!
I spose I'll have to take that as a yes, since it's definitely not a no.
When it becomes a symbol of status in society, then polygamy becomes the goal, even if it's only a minority who have the opportunity to practice it in reality.
No, but that doesn't describe polygamy, which is what we're supposedly discussing.
Those were all social problems that accompany polygamy.
I could adopt her children. The point is that any of these horrible straw men you keep tossing up can be easily handled with current legislation. There's no need for legal recognition of marriage, monogamous, polygamous, homosexual, heterosexual, or mixed. But if it must be recognized, it should be recognized in all its forms.
If there's one thing I carry forward from my time as a conservative, it's the belief that the family is the foundation of a society, and the health and wellbeing of our most basic institution should get more than rhetorical concern from lawmakers and policy makers. So, I just can't accept this notion of ignoring marriage and making what is many times a bad situation -- much worse! In this libertarian world, if there is no legal recognition of marriage, is there also no recognition of divorce? And no system of family law to resolve breakups of....whatever relationships exist that produce children.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
I just want to interject that I'm following what's been said but just haven't had the time to break down the myriad of, what I feel are, unjustifiable arguments against decriminalization. I wonder if it would be more rewarding to assess the benefits of legalization instead of the detriments.
The main flaw I've seen so far in RC's terms of debate is the slippery slope fallacy assuming the worst possible outcome without cause for the assumption. Take a moment to think about what personal freedom means. Then assess what freedom means to you. In my mind, it means freedom to do what thou wilt without encroaching upon the right of others (Do what thou wilt is universal not permissive). The law cannot (or should not) be used to protect people from themselves. If a person doesn't have self preservation instincts, that is the problem, not the myriad of ways in which they can let others hurt them. It's impossible to prevent someone from letting themselves be hurt when it is in their nature. We can only think of so many ways, and the masochistic will find a way we haven't thought of.
The main flaw I've seen so far in RC's terms of debate is the slippery slope fallacy assuming the worst possible outcome without cause for the assumption. Take a moment to think about what personal freedom means. Then assess what freedom means to you. In my mind, it means freedom to do what thou wilt without encroaching upon the right of others (Do what thou wilt is universal not permissive). The law cannot (or should not) be used to protect people from themselves. If a person doesn't have self preservation instincts, that is the problem, not the myriad of ways in which they can let others hurt them. It's impossible to prevent someone from letting themselves be hurt when it is in their nature. We can only think of so many ways, and the masochistic will find a way we haven't thought of.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345575 wrote: And it's back to your mythologized version of American history! [...] Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter! And it's back to your blindly attacking any positive statement about the US. [...] Nor did you read what I posted. You only presumed then exploded.Accountable;1345558 wrote: The USA was founded to be a bastion of liberty, and that means allowing consenting sound adults their own pursuit of happiness.Missing a goal does not make that goal less valid. Not realizing an ideal does not make that ideal less worth fighting for. Actually I misspoke. I should have written "and that means acknowledging the inalienable right of sound, consenting adults to their own pursuit of happiness."
recovering conservative wrote: When it becomes a symbol of status in society, then polygamy becomes the goal, even if it's only a minority who have the opportunity to practice it in reality.I agree. Now pack your indignation away for when someone advocates making polygamy a symbol of status in your society. It will be valid then.
recovering conservative wrote: Those were all social problems that accompany polygamy.Those are all social phenomena that are present in any society. None are unique to polygamy.
recovering conservative wrote: If there's one thing I carry forward from my time as a conservative, it's the belief that the family is the foundation of a society, Oh come now. Don't sell yourself short. You also carry forward that propensity to condemn anything you're not comfortable practicing yourself, and to rationalize that condemnation by shifting the focus from the practice itself to all the fictional boogeymen that will spring forth once we descend that slippery slope.
I'm guessing you're against legalizing prostitution and drugs, too, for much the same reasons.
recovering conservative wrote: In this libertarian world, if there is no legal recognition of marriage, is there also no recognition of divorce? Right. Exactly as it is today with people who don't marry, as we've already discussed.
recovering conservative wrote: And no system of family law to resolve breakups of....whatever relationships exist that produce children.Wrong. Exactly as you are today with people who don't marry, as we've already discussed.
recovering conservative wrote: When it becomes a symbol of status in society, then polygamy becomes the goal, even if it's only a minority who have the opportunity to practice it in reality.I agree. Now pack your indignation away for when someone advocates making polygamy a symbol of status in your society. It will be valid then.
recovering conservative wrote: Those were all social problems that accompany polygamy.Those are all social phenomena that are present in any society. None are unique to polygamy.
recovering conservative wrote: If there's one thing I carry forward from my time as a conservative, it's the belief that the family is the foundation of a society, Oh come now. Don't sell yourself short. You also carry forward that propensity to condemn anything you're not comfortable practicing yourself, and to rationalize that condemnation by shifting the focus from the practice itself to all the fictional boogeymen that will spring forth once we descend that slippery slope.
I'm guessing you're against legalizing prostitution and drugs, too, for much the same reasons.
recovering conservative wrote: In this libertarian world, if there is no legal recognition of marriage, is there also no recognition of divorce? Right. Exactly as it is today with people who don't marry, as we've already discussed.
recovering conservative wrote: And no system of family law to resolve breakups of....whatever relationships exist that produce children.Wrong. Exactly as you are today with people who don't marry, as we've already discussed.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
One completely erroneous idea I wanted to counter is that employers are obliged to provide coverage for all the spouses and children of their employees. Simply not true. Benefits in Canada are optional. Companies offer extended health benefits to attract employees or keep them but, even when they do, it's not a blanket offer at their expense. Government offers open benefits. My employers, when I haven't been self employed, have only offered benefits that I can opt into at a fee per person coverage. Family coverage is at additional expense and I believe it has a maximum of persons covered before additional fees kick in. If a person takes on extra family they will do so at their own expense. Sometime the benefit of combined income will compensate for extra expenses sometimes not.
Quite frankly, my husband was extremely expensive. I doubt I could afford two, though I'd appreciate being allowed two if I so desired.
Quite frankly, my husband was extremely expensive. I doubt I could afford two, though I'd appreciate being allowed two if I so desired.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Additionally, our health care is not free for everyone. It's free for poor people. It's cheap, comparatively, but I pay for my Care Card. I pay for each Care Card in my family. If I made more money I'd pay more for each Care Card. It's a sliding scale affected by combined income.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345582 wrote: And it's back to your blindly attacking any positive statement about the US. [...] Nor did you read what I posted. You only presumed then exploded.Missing a goal does not make that goal less valid. Not realizing an ideal does not make that ideal less worth fighting for. Actually I misspoke. I should have written "and that means acknowledging the inalienable right of sound, consenting adults to their own pursuit of happiness."
There is a reason why African Americans grit their teeth at the fawning over how wonderful the FF's were, and the desire to go back to the "good old days!" You are an idealist, who rarely takes notice of how libertarian values function when attempts are made to actually practice them. The good old days were not good for those who were disenfranchised by the system; and extending rights to others was not done through laissez-faire libertarian method of ignoring the problems so that they go away! It was done through civil action, which eventually pushed government to take action.
I agree. Now pack your indignation away for when someone advocates making polygamy a symbol of status in your society. It will be valid then.
Those are all social phenomena that are present in any society. None are unique to polygamy.
I've pointed out the analysis done on polygynous communities in North America, along with the studies done in Muslim countries comparing children from polygynous families and monogamous families, and the historic analysis from sociologists and cultural anthropologists -- there is an old saying that 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results', and the same holds true here! If we recognize and support plural marriages, there will be high social costs that only depend on the degree that the practice is adopted. From a consequentialist perspective, personal freedoms get checked at the door where they cause harm to others (women and children, and to society at large). Personal freedoms take the back seat to the welfare of the community.
I'm guessing you're against legalizing prostitution and drugs, too, for much the same reasons.
I changed my mind on drug legalization and decriminalization a number of years ago, because the consequences of present drug enforcement, criminalization, and incarceration of large numbers of mostly poorer people, seems to have made the problems much worse than they would be otherwise. It appears more pragmatic to control marijuana rather than prohibit the drug; and harder drugs that may be too dangerous to legalize, would still be better combated as a health issue, rather than a crime problem.
As for prostitution, I would have been more in favour of legalization if it wasn't for the recent pullbacks in Holland and other European countries, where they have had to close down legal brothels because they were in fact increasing the blackmarket-related crimes involved (such as kidnapping and enslaving girls to work in the brothels), and enriching gangsters who run them. Whether prostitution should or should not be legal, depends on which is better, on balance.
There is a reason why African Americans grit their teeth at the fawning over how wonderful the FF's were, and the desire to go back to the "good old days!" You are an idealist, who rarely takes notice of how libertarian values function when attempts are made to actually practice them. The good old days were not good for those who were disenfranchised by the system; and extending rights to others was not done through laissez-faire libertarian method of ignoring the problems so that they go away! It was done through civil action, which eventually pushed government to take action.
I agree. Now pack your indignation away for when someone advocates making polygamy a symbol of status in your society. It will be valid then.
Those are all social phenomena that are present in any society. None are unique to polygamy.
I've pointed out the analysis done on polygynous communities in North America, along with the studies done in Muslim countries comparing children from polygynous families and monogamous families, and the historic analysis from sociologists and cultural anthropologists -- there is an old saying that 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results', and the same holds true here! If we recognize and support plural marriages, there will be high social costs that only depend on the degree that the practice is adopted. From a consequentialist perspective, personal freedoms get checked at the door where they cause harm to others (women and children, and to society at large). Personal freedoms take the back seat to the welfare of the community.
I'm guessing you're against legalizing prostitution and drugs, too, for much the same reasons.
I changed my mind on drug legalization and decriminalization a number of years ago, because the consequences of present drug enforcement, criminalization, and incarceration of large numbers of mostly poorer people, seems to have made the problems much worse than they would be otherwise. It appears more pragmatic to control marijuana rather than prohibit the drug; and harder drugs that may be too dangerous to legalize, would still be better combated as a health issue, rather than a crime problem.
As for prostitution, I would have been more in favour of legalization if it wasn't for the recent pullbacks in Holland and other European countries, where they have had to close down legal brothels because they were in fact increasing the blackmarket-related crimes involved (such as kidnapping and enslaving girls to work in the brothels), and enriching gangsters who run them. Whether prostitution should or should not be legal, depends on which is better, on balance.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
In Ontario, there has recently been a graduated income tax added on to our provincial income taxes to cover the increasing costs of our rapidly aging (and overweight) population. So those of us who earn above 35 to $40,000 (I forget the exact cutoff numbers at the moment) have a graduated tax depending on income. That is still much less than the exhorbitant costs that Americans pay for drugs and health coverage -- the bulk of which goes to line the pockets of insurance companies....and doesn't even provide universal coverage!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345619 wrote: There is a reason why African Americans grit their teeth at the fawning over how wonderful the FF's were, and the desire to go back to the "good old days!" You are an idealist, who rarely takes notice of how libertarian values function when attempts are made to actually practice them. The good old days were not good for those who were disenfranchised by the system; and extending rights to others was not done through laissez-faire libertarian method of ignoring the problems so that they go away! It was done through civil action, which eventually pushed government to take action. I don't know why you pretend to respond to my post when you're completely disregarding what I write. :yh_bye
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345475 wrote: I The lesson from anthropology is that without restrictions, the social dominators -- the rulers and most wealthy men in the society take more wives and have very large families. Obviously, normal population demographics mean that only a minority of men have this option. So when the Greeks and Romans banned polygamy, they sowed the first seeds of egalitarian notions of democracy and individual rights and freedoms, by placing the same restrictions on the powerful as the average citizen. Along with everything else that's been happening in recent decades to erode these principles, bringing back polygamy could be a final nail in the coffin for democracy!
Makes sense to me. Monogamy = democracy, Polygamy = plutocracy.
I'd just add that polygamy would seem to be a very stupid choice emotionally. Jealously is a very real thing.
Makes sense to me. Monogamy = democracy, Polygamy = plutocracy.
I'd just add that polygamy would seem to be a very stupid choice emotionally. Jealously is a very real thing.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
koan;1344947 wrote: Just wondering how that would affect divorces. If the guy has two wives, then each wife only has claim to half of half his stuff?
Divorcee Barbie takes a hit to the pocketbook.
Here in the good ol USA that would all depend if you lived in a COMMUNITY PROPERTY state... Some are some aren't
Divorcee Barbie takes a hit to the pocketbook.
Here in the good ol USA that would all depend if you lived in a COMMUNITY PROPERTY state... Some are some aren't
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345642 wrote: I don't know why you pretend to respond to my post when you're completely disregarding what I write. :yh_bye
I read it! But how many times have you served up something similar to "that means acknowledging the inalienable right of sound, consenting adults to their own pursuit of happiness." already? I think it's you who have not been reading or understanding my point that you believe in rules that are set in concrete, and cannot be altered when circumstances indicate it would be beneficial. And as I've mentioned over and over again already, I can't accept this notion of lofty sounded rules or principles that have to be followed even when they lead to harmful consequences.
I read it! But how many times have you served up something similar to "that means acknowledging the inalienable right of sound, consenting adults to their own pursuit of happiness." already? I think it's you who have not been reading or understanding my point that you believe in rules that are set in concrete, and cannot be altered when circumstances indicate it would be beneficial. And as I've mentioned over and over again already, I can't accept this notion of lofty sounded rules or principles that have to be followed even when they lead to harmful consequences.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Saint_;1345644 wrote: Makes sense to me. Monogamy = democracy, Polygamy = plutocracy.
I'd just add that polygamy would seem to be a very stupid choice emotionally. Jealously is a very real thing.
That's probably why all these women's groups in Muslim countries want polygamy abolished. Obviously a ban would have to be grandfathered in because it would throw existing relationships into chaos, but the women are the ones who feel the brunt of this institution -- not only because of jealousy, where especially first wives find themselves effectively replaced by younger 2nd and 3rd wives, but also because no man can adequately be a role model to children from four different women who are supposed to all have their own houses. He is at best, the equivalent of divorced dads who are stuck with only getting weekend visitations with their kids!
I'd just add that polygamy would seem to be a very stupid choice emotionally. Jealously is a very real thing.
That's probably why all these women's groups in Muslim countries want polygamy abolished. Obviously a ban would have to be grandfathered in because it would throw existing relationships into chaos, but the women are the ones who feel the brunt of this institution -- not only because of jealousy, where especially first wives find themselves effectively replaced by younger 2nd and 3rd wives, but also because no man can adequately be a role model to children from four different women who are supposed to all have their own houses. He is at best, the equivalent of divorced dads who are stuck with only getting weekend visitations with their kids!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345669 wrote: I read it! Then promptly ignored it since it didn't fit your stereotype! cite and quote any post in this thread where I offered up a "mythologized version of American history," that everyone had rights upon the founding of the USA, that polygamy used to be allowed in the US, that I ever mentioned returning to any "good old days" or that I ever used the phrase "good old days." Post my words here!
recovering conservative;1345669 wrote: And as I've mentioned over and over again already, I can't accept this notion of lofty sounded rules or principles that have to be followed even when they lead to harmful consequences.Yes, yes. Principles are fine until they become inconvenient, right? That's the beauty of not having one world government. You can sit up in Canada and pass judgment over people who wish to live differently from you and claim that you know best about when they should be allowed their decisions and when you should take over, and I can live down here and champion liberty. We're done here, unless you can dig up those fictional posts you've "read."
recovering conservative;1345669 wrote: And as I've mentioned over and over again already, I can't accept this notion of lofty sounded rules or principles that have to be followed even when they lead to harmful consequences.Yes, yes. Principles are fine until they become inconvenient, right? That's the beauty of not having one world government. You can sit up in Canada and pass judgment over people who wish to live differently from you and claim that you know best about when they should be allowed their decisions and when you should take over, and I can live down here and champion liberty. We're done here, unless you can dig up those fictional posts you've "read."
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Picking on polygamy and prostitution as being detrimental to the glue in the fabric of democratic society is like that joke: losing a quarter in a barn but looking for it in the field because the light is better out there.
Democracy and human rights are not achieved by legislating who people can legally have sex with. Polygamy and prostitution are just social taboos that gain easy votes by people unaware that they aren't the real issue at hand.
Democracy and human rights are not achieved by legislating who people can legally have sex with. Polygamy and prostitution are just social taboos that gain easy votes by people unaware that they aren't the real issue at hand.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
koan;1345725 wrote:
Democracy and human rights are not achieved by legislating who people can legally have sex with.
Actually God made the law. (See: The Ten Commandments)
Democracy and human rights are not achieved by legislating who people can legally have sex with.
Actually God made the law. (See: The Ten Commandments)
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Saint_;1345728 wrote: Actually God made the law. (See: The Ten Commandments)
God was quite into polygamy. Didn't seem to have a problem with it all.
God only seems to care that you don't have sex with your neighbour's wife. The ten commandments don't recommend marriage or monogamy at all. Please show me where it does. Perhaps I missed it.
God was quite into polygamy. Didn't seem to have a problem with it all.
God only seems to care that you don't have sex with your neighbour's wife. The ten commandments don't recommend marriage or monogamy at all. Please show me where it does. Perhaps I missed it.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345677 wrote: Then promptly ignored it since it didn't fit your stereotype! cite and quote any post in this thread where I offered up a "mythologized version of American history, that I ever mentioned returning to any "good old days" or that I ever used the phrase "good old days."
Your notions that all personal living issues such as marriage - are off limits to government oversight come from some mythical understanding of what your Founding Fathers intended regarding personal rights and freedoms. How many times have I dealt with your notions of what is, and what is not constitutional in other threads? And, every time you post something about "unconstitutional" government programs or services, I've asked for evidence that your founding fathers intended that future generations should discern their purpose, rather than allowing future judges to interpret the constitution! And I'll ask again, were the FF's divinely inspired, and is the Constitution to be considered scripture, as right wing fundamentalist whackos believe today? The over-the-top elevation of the founding fathers, and the documents they wrote qualify as mythologized history.
Post my words here!
Well, let's start right here, since in this thread and elsewhere, you start your libertarian rants about America's origins and virtues with first turning Canada into some bullshit strawman of socialism:
True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality
I don't give a lab rat's ass how oppressive you want your Canadian society to be
that everyone had rights upon the founding of the USA,
Then what the hell does this mean: "The USA was founded to be a bastion of liberty"
"that polygamy used to be allowed in the US,
That's not what I said! I asked why the U.S. has never allowed polygamy if it was founded on the basis of your libertarian version of individual rights and the pursuit of happiness?....."Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter!"
America at its founding was much more intrusive on issues of morality than it is today!
Yes, yes. Principles are fine until they become inconvenient, right? That's the beauty of not having one world government. You can sit up in Canada and pass judgment over people who wish to live differently from you and claim that you know best about when they should be allowed their decisions and when you should take over, and I can live down here and champion liberty. We're done here, unless you can dig up those fictional posts you've "read."
Like I said, more bullshit about how I'm living in socialist Canada, and you're championing liberty down there in the U.S. of A.!
Now, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just leave it at the fundamental impass that you believe in rules and principles that are unalterable, while I believe that consequences should determine whether the rules apply, or need to be changed or adjusted, but it just doesn't seem to sink in, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain the difference anymore!
Your notions that all personal living issues such as marriage - are off limits to government oversight come from some mythical understanding of what your Founding Fathers intended regarding personal rights and freedoms. How many times have I dealt with your notions of what is, and what is not constitutional in other threads? And, every time you post something about "unconstitutional" government programs or services, I've asked for evidence that your founding fathers intended that future generations should discern their purpose, rather than allowing future judges to interpret the constitution! And I'll ask again, were the FF's divinely inspired, and is the Constitution to be considered scripture, as right wing fundamentalist whackos believe today? The over-the-top elevation of the founding fathers, and the documents they wrote qualify as mythologized history.
Post my words here!
Well, let's start right here, since in this thread and elsewhere, you start your libertarian rants about America's origins and virtues with first turning Canada into some bullshit strawman of socialism:
True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality
I don't give a lab rat's ass how oppressive you want your Canadian society to be
that everyone had rights upon the founding of the USA,
Then what the hell does this mean: "The USA was founded to be a bastion of liberty"
"that polygamy used to be allowed in the US,
That's not what I said! I asked why the U.S. has never allowed polygamy if it was founded on the basis of your libertarian version of individual rights and the pursuit of happiness?....."Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter!"
America at its founding was much more intrusive on issues of morality than it is today!
Yes, yes. Principles are fine until they become inconvenient, right? That's the beauty of not having one world government. You can sit up in Canada and pass judgment over people who wish to live differently from you and claim that you know best about when they should be allowed their decisions and when you should take over, and I can live down here and champion liberty. We're done here, unless you can dig up those fictional posts you've "read."
Like I said, more bullshit about how I'm living in socialist Canada, and you're championing liberty down there in the U.S. of A.!
Now, I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just leave it at the fundamental impass that you believe in rules and principles that are unalterable, while I believe that consequences should determine whether the rules apply, or need to be changed or adjusted, but it just doesn't seem to sink in, so I'm not going to bother trying to explain the difference anymore!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Democracy and human rights are not achieved by legislating who people can legally have sex with. Polygamy and prostitution are just social taboos that gain easy votes by people unaware that they aren't the real issue at hand.
The new bohemians are going to dig in their heels that anything goes when it comes to sex, regardless of whether or not there are harmful consequences for others. Following this logic, I suppose that laws against pedophelia have to be abolished also.
The new bohemians are going to dig in their heels that anything goes when it comes to sex, regardless of whether or not there are harmful consequences for others. Following this logic, I suppose that laws against pedophelia have to be abolished also.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Paedophilia is like rape, it's not consensual sex. Nice try though.
Slippery slopes aren't useful in any conversation. You can link just about anything in the world to anything else if you try hard enough but it doesn't prove anything. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon was a funny game but it didn't mean that Kevin Bacon is omnipresent.
Slippery slopes aren't useful in any conversation. You can link just about anything in the world to anything else if you try hard enough but it doesn't prove anything. Six degrees of Kevin Bacon was a funny game but it didn't mean that Kevin Bacon is omnipresent.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
If personal freedom takes precedence over harms to others, then nothing can be prevented on the argument that it inhibits personal freedom of choice.
And the slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply here, since it is an objection raised to support evidence of a middle ground. So where's the middle ground between polygamy and monogamy?
And the slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply here, since it is an objection raised to support evidence of a middle ground. So where's the middle ground between polygamy and monogamy?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345750 wrote: Your notions that all personal living issues such as marriage - are off limits to government oversight come from some mythical understanding of what your Founding Fathers intended regarding personal rights and freedoms.I have never posted anything like your characterization. That is your own personal fiction.
recovering conservative wrote: How many times have I dealt with your notions of what is, and what is not constitutional in other threads? And, every time you post something about "unconstitutional" government programs or services, I've asked for evidence that your founding fathers intended that future generations should discern their purpose, rather than allowing future judges to interpret the constitution! I don't recall any, but you've got a creative memory, I'm sure you can find something. I have, however, pointed out several times over the years that the authors of the Constitution understood that times would change and that the Constitution would need to be adjusted, and so they installed an amendment process. An unconstitutional program or service need not remain unconstitutional. All we would need to do is agree on an amendment.
recovering conservative wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1345677][C]ite and quote any post in this thread where I offered up a "mythologized version of American history," that everyone had rights upon the founding of the USA, that polygamy used to be allowed in the US, that I ever mentioned returning to any "good old days" or that I ever used the phrase "good old days." Post my words here!Well, let's start right here, since in this thread and elsewhere, you start your libertarian rants about America's origins and virtues with first turning Canada into some bullshit strawman of socialism:
True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality
I don't give a lab rat's ass how oppressive you want your Canadian society to beWhich of that list were you addressing? Because I don't see any reference to history there at all.
recovering conservative wrote: Then what the hell does this mean: "The USA was founded to be a bastion of libertyThe phrase "was [verb] to be" indicates the original purpose. It does not imply that it was something. Bastion is a protector of something, in this case, liberty. The original intent of the Founders was to protect liberty. They started wrong, and we haven't gotten it completely right yet, but that does not make the ideal any less valuable, nor does it make the statement incorrect.
recovering conservative wrote: That's not what I said! I asked why the U.S. has never allowed polygamy if it was founded on the basis of your libertarian version of individual rights and the pursuit of happiness?
Realy?? That's not the context I saw. Let's take the whole quote.
recovering conservative;1345575 wrote: And it's back to your mythologized version of American history! If I recall; your bastion of liberty began with institutionalized slavery, no voting rights for women, men under 21, men could also be refused the right to vote in some states if they did not own property, owed taxes, could not afford to pay a poll tax, belonged to a disenfranchised religion -- Jews, Quakers or Catholics......not everyone had rights when that "bastion of liberty" was founded, but this seems to be lost on everyone who has turned American History into a religion, and the Constitution into the Bible. Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter! Odd. I don't see a question mark in that entire rant. That definitely seems to be an attack on a fictional statement you claim I've made.
recovering conservative wrote: Like I said, more bullshit about how I'm living in socialist Canada, and you're championing liberty down there in the U.S. of A.!Sorry, that was meant to be a jab at you personally and a self-assessment, not a comment about Canada & the US. That's the problem with the pronoun "you," don't you think? We should have a plural, like ya'll.
No, I meant that you personally sit up in Canada and pass judgment over people who wish to live differently from you, etc. I never said Canada was socialist; in fact, a thread search shows you're the only one in this thread that even used the word. But even if I had, why would you take offense?
recovering conservative wrote: How many times have I dealt with your notions of what is, and what is not constitutional in other threads? And, every time you post something about "unconstitutional" government programs or services, I've asked for evidence that your founding fathers intended that future generations should discern their purpose, rather than allowing future judges to interpret the constitution! I don't recall any, but you've got a creative memory, I'm sure you can find something. I have, however, pointed out several times over the years that the authors of the Constitution understood that times would change and that the Constitution would need to be adjusted, and so they installed an amendment process. An unconstitutional program or service need not remain unconstitutional. All we would need to do is agree on an amendment.
recovering conservative wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1345677][C]ite and quote any post in this thread where I offered up a "mythologized version of American history," that everyone had rights upon the founding of the USA, that polygamy used to be allowed in the US, that I ever mentioned returning to any "good old days" or that I ever used the phrase "good old days." Post my words here!Well, let's start right here, since in this thread and elsewhere, you start your libertarian rants about America's origins and virtues with first turning Canada into some bullshit strawman of socialism:
True, in your society it would not work because you depend on government to dictate your morality
I don't give a lab rat's ass how oppressive you want your Canadian society to beWhich of that list were you addressing? Because I don't see any reference to history there at all.
recovering conservative wrote: Then what the hell does this mean: "The USA was founded to be a bastion of libertyThe phrase "was [verb] to be" indicates the original purpose. It does not imply that it was something. Bastion is a protector of something, in this case, liberty. The original intent of the Founders was to protect liberty. They started wrong, and we haven't gotten it completely right yet, but that does not make the ideal any less valuable, nor does it make the statement incorrect.
recovering conservative wrote: That's not what I said! I asked why the U.S. has never allowed polygamy if it was founded on the basis of your libertarian version of individual rights and the pursuit of happiness?
Realy?? That's not the context I saw. Let's take the whole quote.
recovering conservative;1345575 wrote: And it's back to your mythologized version of American history! If I recall; your bastion of liberty began with institutionalized slavery, no voting rights for women, men under 21, men could also be refused the right to vote in some states if they did not own property, owed taxes, could not afford to pay a poll tax, belonged to a disenfranchised religion -- Jews, Quakers or Catholics......not everyone had rights when that "bastion of liberty" was founded, but this seems to be lost on everyone who has turned American History into a religion, and the Constitution into the Bible. Nor did the bastion of liberty allow polygamy for that matter! Odd. I don't see a question mark in that entire rant. That definitely seems to be an attack on a fictional statement you claim I've made.
recovering conservative wrote: Like I said, more bullshit about how I'm living in socialist Canada, and you're championing liberty down there in the U.S. of A.!Sorry, that was meant to be a jab at you personally and a self-assessment, not a comment about Canada & the US. That's the problem with the pronoun "you," don't you think? We should have a plural, like ya'll.
No, I meant that you personally sit up in Canada and pass judgment over people who wish to live differently from you, etc. I never said Canada was socialist; in fact, a thread search shows you're the only one in this thread that even used the word. But even if I had, why would you take offense?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
recovering conservative;1345781 wrote: So where's the middle ground between polygamy and monogamy?Neither is an extreme of anything. Why would there need to be a middle ground? You're aware, of course, that permitting polygamy is not mandating it, don't you? Likewise, eliminating legal recognition of marriage is not prohibiting it.
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
Accountable;1345798 wrote: Neither is an extreme of anything. Why would there need to be a middle ground? You're aware, of course, that permitting polygamy is not mandating it, don't you? Likewise, eliminating legal recognition of marriage is not prohibiting it.
Of course permitting prostitution is not mandating it. Of course permitting drug use is not mandating it. Of course permitting shoplifting is not mandating it. Of course permitting drunk driving is not mandating it.
Whoops! There goes our civilization!
Of course permitting prostitution is not mandating it. Of course permitting drug use is not mandating it. Of course permitting shoplifting is not mandating it. Of course permitting drunk driving is not mandating it.
Whoops! There goes our civilization!
Don't Legalize Polygamy! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one.
RC, your misplacing where the middle ground should be sought. Not between polygamy and monogamy, between utopia and hell.