Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 31 of 126 (462882)
04-10-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by teen4christ
04-09-2008 5:01 PM


Re: More Rambling
teen4christ writes:
I don't think the argument is that banning polygamy will prevent abuse of women. I think we all can agree that this is obviously false.
My argument is not simply the prevention of abuse. My argument is that banning polygamy won't even reduce the abuse, in any way whatsoever.
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
And I agree. My point is that this doesn't make a difference. This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse. That is, if there's only, like... 4 or 5 environments, and this is including another. That's a big increase. But that's not what's happening here. We already have millions of environments that abusers are capable of hiding in. Allowing them this one more will not have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the amount of abuse going on.
So, essentially, the argument is that while polygamy itself is not the cause for abuse it does create an environment where abuse can thrive more than ever before.
Yes, and this is incorrect. It does allow for an additional environment, this is not contended. Creating a park in your local subdivision creates an additional environment for abuse to take place as well. What will not happen is an increase in abuse.
Remove the polygamy, and you WILL NOT remove the abuse. The abuse comes from men thinking they have power over women. Removing polygamy does absolutely nothing to the men who think they have power over women.
Removing the polygamy will not reduce the "number of enviornments" that abuse can take place in by any significant amount, not even close. We're not talking going down from something like 7 places to 6 places. We're talking about going down from something like 2 846 221 places to 2 846 220 places.
The gain from this (nothing, since abusers will just continue to abuse anyway) is not worth the loss (considerable... people will not be allowed to live their lives with the people they love).
What the argument entails is that polygamy does seem to create an environment that could allow abuse of women to thrive, and perhaps even promote abuse. After all, polygamy does generally revolves around the male dominance role, and what do we know about this particularly from historical references? As the old saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It's easy to prove me wrong, all you have to do is show this.
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws. (I really haven't looked it up, it may very well be and my whole argument will fall to pieces).
Show that this "thriving abuse of women" is actually taking place, and not just made up in your head.
Show that states with polygamy laws have huge problems with abuse that states without polygamy laws do not have.
Polygamy is not causing the problem of abuse here. It's obvious that what's causing the problem of abuse is allowing these "mini-societies" to take care of themselves so removed from the rest of our culture. That's the problem. Change that, don't change something that isn't going to help anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by teen4christ, posted 04-09-2008 5:01 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 10:34 AM Stile has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 32 of 126 (462886)
04-10-2008 10:32 AM


FYI, for anyone.
The affidavit used in the arrest has been released.
Page not found | ScienceBlogs
And Ed Brayton has this to say:
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services got phone calls from a 16 year old girl inside the compound. She'd been taken there at 13 years of age, where she was promptly "married" to a 49 year old man and impregnated. That man has already been convicted of child sexual abuse in the past. She has one young child and is pregnant with another.
She reported being physically abused by her "husband" repeatedly and not being allowed to leave the compound except for medical purposes, and only then when accompanied by a male from the compound. They would not allow her to take her infant child with her off the property, which serves to insure that she won't try to escape. This is classic cult behavior.

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 33 of 126 (462887)
04-10-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Stile
04-10-2008 10:02 AM


Re: More Rambling
My argument is not simply the prevention of abuse. My argument is that banning polygamy won't even reduce the abuse, in any way whatsoever.
Yes, it will. Hundreds of 12 and 13 year old girls will not be raped. And that's plenty, in my book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 10:02 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 10:37 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 36 by ramoss, posted 04-10-2008 1:33 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 34 of 126 (462888)
04-10-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by molbiogirl
04-10-2008 10:34 AM


More proof of my point
molbiogirl writes:
Yes, it will. Hundreds of 12 and 13 year old girls will not be raped. And that's plenty, in my book.
No. Those girls will not be raped because they broke up the "secret society" that was going on. Polygamy is still legal there. Stopping these girls from getting raped has nothing to do with stopping polygamy. Thanks for proving my point.
Stopping more girls from getting raped will not be helped by stopping polygamy either. To do this we need to fix the problem, we need to stop "secret societies".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 10:34 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 2:59 PM Stile has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 35 of 126 (462889)
04-10-2008 10:47 AM


Polygamy is not the problem
From this USA Today news article.
News writes:
Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry.
I hope this shows my point. These people abuse others. These people abuse others because:
1. They can have sex with multiple partners.
2. They can live with multiple partners.
3. They can have children with multiple partners.
4. They can live in secret societies away from proper authorities
Declaring polygamy unlawful will not remove ANY of these items that allow for the abuse to happen.
Declaring polygamy unlawful will not have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on how these people continue to abuse others.
In addition, if a state does currently have polygamy as unlawful, making it lawful will not create any of these environments for abusive people. All these environments for abusive people are all currently allowed even if polygamy is unlawful. No additional environment for abuse is even created, it's already there.
Declaring polygamy lawful will not add ANY of these items that allow for the abuse to happen. They are all currently available already.
Declaring polygamy lawful will not have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on enabling these people to abuse others. These environments are all currently available already.
Edited by Stile, : Made it gender neutral
Edited by Stile, : Added to spell out the obvious "In addition.." section

ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 36 of 126 (462932)
04-10-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by molbiogirl
04-10-2008 10:34 AM


Re: More Rambling
It isn't polygamy per say that will reduce that. It is getting rid of these isolated communities that make themselves a law onto themselves.
I personally don't have any problem with polygamy between consenting adults. However, these "FLDS" compounds seem to have a problem with 'adult' and 'consenting'. They way they are set up , these barely pubescent girls are being used as sex slaves and baby factories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 10:34 AM molbiogirl has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 613 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 37 of 126 (462934)
04-10-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by FliesOnly
04-09-2008 4:04 PM


Re: Why not?
In general, I will agree. It is men that want a polygamous relationship. Women are much more willing to share men (I have no idea why). I do know someone who has to 'husbands' though. I see nothing wrong with that either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by FliesOnly, posted 04-09-2008 4:04 PM FliesOnly has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 38 of 126 (462938)
04-10-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Stile
04-10-2008 10:37 AM


Re: More proof of my point
No. Those girls will not be raped because they broke up the "secret society" that was going on.
I think we're talking past each other.
The FDLS compound that just got busted is simply one of many FDLS compounds. They all practice polygamy.
There is -- and has never been -- anything "secret" about FDLS. FDLS was profiled on 60 Minutes, for god's sake.
And until recently, all of them were left alone with a wink and a nod from the authorities.
I think you need to distinguish between polyamory and polygamy as practiced here in the U.S.
Polyamory in general (that is, multiple partners/serial monogamy/etc.) is different from polygamy. It is not codified as a commandment from god. It is not enforced by religious authorities. It is not seen as the gateway to heaven.
AFAIK, FDLS is the only religion here in the U.S. that practices polygamy as one of its tenets.
By prosecuting those responsible for child-rape in these compounds, the only polygamous sect in the U.S. will cease to exist.
This will prevent hundreds, if not thousands, of girls from having to suffer rape in the name of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 10:37 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 3:13 PM molbiogirl has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 39 of 126 (462939)
04-10-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by molbiogirl
04-10-2008 2:59 PM


Re: More proof of my point
molbiogirl writes:
The FDLS compound that just got busted is simply one of many FDLS compounds. They all practice polygamy.
There is -- and has never been -- anything "secret" about FDLS. FDLS was profiled on 60 Minutes, for god's sake.
Seriously, the world "secret" is causing you problems? Replace it with "isolated" or "runs their own town" or however else you'd like to explain the unique community situation of FDLS.
I think you need to distinguish between polyamory and polygamy as practiced here in the U.S.
And I think you need to explain how preventing polygamy would prevent this FDLS community from abusing anyone.
Remember:
Stile from MSG 35 writes:
I hope this shows my point. These people abuse others. These people abuse others because:
1. They can have sex with multiple partners.
2. They can live with multiple partners.
3. They can have children with multiple partners.
4. They can live in secret societies away from proper authorities
Declaring polygamy unlawful will not remove ANY of these items that allow for the abuse to happen.
Declaring polygamy unlawful will not have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on how these people continue to abuse others.
In addition, if a state does currently have polygamy as unlawful, making it lawful will not create any of these environments for abusive people. All these environments for abusive people are all currently allowed even if polygamy is unlawful. No additional environment for abuse is even created, it's already there.
Declaring polygamy lawful will not add ANY of these items that allow for the abuse to happen. They are all currently available already.
Declaring polygamy lawful will not have ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER on enabling these people to abuse others. These environments are all currently available already.
Message 35
Making polygamy illigal will have no effect whatsoever on the functionality of isolated communities such as FDLS.
Make polygamy illegal.
The FDLS still has the right to have sex with any number of people they'ed like.
The FDLS still has the right to live with any number of people they'ed like.
The FDLS still has the right to have children with any number of people they'ed like.
The FDLS still has the right to live in an isolated community as they do now.
You've simply removed their label as "polygamists". Now their just "different".
Instead of 'polygamists' abusing others, you now have 'different people' abusing others.
You have effectively done nothing at all.
Except, of course, remove the right from non-abusive polygamists from getting married.
AFAIK, FDLS is the only religion here in the U.S. that practices polygamy as one of its tenets.
And prohibiting polygamy will only serve to have the FDLS change it's tenets.
The people will still be abused.
Why does no one care about the abuse?
It's not difficult, if the FDLS is known for abusing people, do something about the FDLS.
Why don't you want to focus on the problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 2:59 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 4:08 PM Stile has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 40 of 126 (462942)
04-10-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
04-10-2008 3:13 PM


Re: More proof of my point
Making polygamy illigal will have no effect whatsoever on the functionality of isolated communities such as FDLS.
Polygamy is illegal, Stile.
Strictly enforcing the laws that are already on the books will destroy FLDS. They will not be able to carry on as they have been.
You seem to think that they will be able to "hide" from the authorities. Nonsense. There are over 10,000 FLDS members. Colorado City, CO, Mancos, CO, Hildale, UT, Eldorado, TX -- all FLDS towns -- where exactly do you suppose they will be able to hide 10,000 people?
And prohibiting polygamy will only serve to have the FLDS change it's tenets.
Polygamy is illegal, Stile.
And, no, they won't change their religious tenets.
To change that aspect of their religion is akin to xians giving up Jesus.
wiki writes:
The FLDS Church teaches the doctrine of plural marriage, which states that a man having multiple wives is ordained by God and is a requirement for a man to receive the highest form of salvation. It is generally believed in the church that a man should have a minimum of three wives to fulfill this requirement.[27] Connected with this doctrine is the concept that wives are required to be subordinate to their husbands.
Polygamy is necessary to gain admission into heaven.
---
btw.
You seem to be using "polyamory" and "polygamy" interchangeably.
1. They can have sex with multiple partners.
2. They can live with multiple partners.
3. They can have children with multiple partners.
This is "polyamory", not "polygamy".
Polygamy: The term polygamy (many marriages in late Greek) is used in related ways in social anthropology and sociobiology and sociology. Polygamy can be most succinctly defined as any "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."
Marriage is the defining feature of polygamy.
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 3:13 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 4:27 PM molbiogirl has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 126 (462943)
04-10-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Stile
04-10-2008 9:47 AM


Re: Not worth it, though
Stile writes:
If you sneeze, you may have a cold.
If there is polygamy, you may have abuse.
There are many situations where you sneeze, but you don't have a cold.
There are many situations where polygamy exists, but you don't have abuse.
From [url=http://www.answers.com/symptom&r=67]Answers.com[url]No webpage found at provided URL: :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. Answers.com[url]No webpage found at provided URL: :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. []:
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. []:
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. Answers.com[url]No webpage found at provided URL: :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. []:
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. []Answers.com[url]No webpage found at provided URL: :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. Answers.com[url]No webpage found at provided URL: :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. []:
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. []:
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My database search (this is what I used (BYU's library access)) brought up no papers that showed evidence to the contrary.
Stile writes:
...[getting rid of polygamy] maybe having a slight impact (and likely none at all) on abuse?
You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion.
Stile writes:
teen4christ writes:
I think what people are arguing is that polygamy does create an environment that is more favorable for abuser-wannabes to thrive, as is already demonstrated by the various fundamentalist sects mentioned.
This only makes a difference if the environment created somehow also increases the amount of abuse.
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Stile writes:
Show that abuse in states without polygamy laws is significantly lower than abuse in states with polygamy laws.
As far as I know, there is only a federal law, the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862). Here's a scan of that particular Congress session from a book.
Note to Everyone: A lot of you have been writing "FDLS"--It's "FLDS"="Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints." Not that it's important or anything: I just thought I'd be a complete, anal-retentive jerk about it. :
quote:
Symptom
A characteristic sign or indication of the existence of something else: “The affair is a symptom of a global marital disturbance; it is not the disturbance itself” (Maggie Scarf). See synonyms at sign.
A sign or an indication of disorder or disease, especially when experienced by an individual as a change from normal function, sensation, or appearance.
A symptom is something that is caused by something else. By calling polygamy a symptom of abuse, you're saying that abuse causes polygamy, or that the presence of polygamy indicates abuse. I'm sure this is not what you meant to say.
Which is exactly one or two papers more than you've shown me. There is statistical evidence that polygamy is associated with increased rates of abuse. That is a direct refutation of your argument, even if it is just a little evidence. My dat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 9:47 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 4:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 42 of 126 (462944)
04-10-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by molbiogirl
04-10-2008 4:08 PM


Re: More proof of my point
molbiogirl writes:
You seem to be using "polyamory" and "polygamy" interchangeably.
No. My entire point is that polyamory is functionally exactly the same as polygamy, and polyamory is constitionally defended.
Polygamy is illegal.
Polyamory is not illegal.
Making Polygamy illegal will not stop anyone from practicing polyamory. It will make no functional difference. They just won't be able to get the "married" label.
Strictly enforcing the laws that are already on the books will destroy FDLS. They will not be able to carry on as they have been.
I don't think this will happen. But it's irrelevent anyway.
Even if I grant you this point. Sure, the FDLS is destoryed. No more FDLS groups and polygamy is illegal.
There's a new group started. It's calld PRUD that's Polyamory R Us District.
PRUD operates exactly the same as FDLS.
PRUD does not follow polygamy, they follow polyamory.
PRUD is legal under all current laws.
PRUD is even constitionally defended.
PRUD continues to abuse people as bad as FDLS did.
Now what?
Are you going to ban polyamory? You do know that polyamory is constituionally defended, right?
Or are you now finally going to work on the problem?
If the problem is abuse, correct the abuse.
Problem -> FDLS isolated community abuses girls.
My solution -> Prevent isolated communities from abusing girls.
Your solution -> Ban polygamy.
Come on. Your solution isn't even related. Fix the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 4:08 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by molbiogirl, posted 04-10-2008 6:24 PM Stile has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 43 of 126 (462945)
04-10-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Blue Jay
04-10-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Not worth it, though
This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages.
Yeah, that blows my old argument all out the window.
But I have a new one now I created it in Message 35.
Basically, you can ban polygamy all you like. Being polyamorous is exactly the same (functionally). And being polyamorous is protected by the constitution.
So, now what?
Are you finally going to look at the problem?
Go ahead, ban polygamy.
Men can still have sex with as many women as they'ed like. It's protected by the constitution.
Men can still live with as many women as they'ed like. It's protected by the constitution.
Men can still sire children with as many women as they'ed like. It's protected by the constitution.
Men can still live in isolated communities away from proper authorities.
Is it time to focus on the problem yet? Or do you now want to tear up the constitution before you start trying to prevent abuse?
Let me make this clear:
Under current constutionally protected US law, while having polygamy illegal, it is legal to have a community that is functionally exactly the same as the FLDS in regards to how they abuse other people.
When will you start caring about the abuse?
When will you start trying to correct the abuse?
Fix the problem
(Thanks about the FDLS -> FLDS tip, I am guilty )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 04-10-2008 4:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Blue Jay, posted 04-10-2008 5:44 PM Stile has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 44 of 126 (462946)
04-10-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Stile
04-10-2008 4:40 PM


On the Same Page at Last (I Hope)
Whoa, what happened to my message? I've seen doubled messages before, but not quintupled ones. It won't let me in to edit it because "I have exceeded the number of allowed images."
Sorry about that.
Stile (to molbiogirl) writes:
Problem -> FDLS isolated community abuses girls.
My solution -> Prevent isolated communities from abusing girls.
Your solution -> Ban polygamy
This isn't how this argument started. It started with:
Your solution -> legalize polygamy (and some other stuff)
My solution -> I didn't provide one, I was merely arguing against your solution
But, reading the thread again, I can see how it sounded like I was arguing just what you said there. So, now let me back up and retract anything that misled you in regards to that. I need to learn how to make myself more clear, instead of getting caught up in the argument.
Stile writes:
Are you finally going to look at the problem?
Well, the problem, as you see it, isn't the topic of the thread. However, I realize that we're in the Coffee House, so, why not?
I agree fully with your assessment: abuse is entirely the problem. cloistered ranches and male-dominance issues and polygamy are factors that lead up to the problem. Now, they obviously don't lead to problems if those involved are responsible enough to handle it correctly (I'm not sure if male-dominance issues fit in this category, though), but it's really hard to write laws with conditional assessment like this.
I once saw on O'Reilly a woman who was pulled over for breast-feeding a baby while she was driving. Because she "knew" that she was a skilled enough driver to handle the responsibility, she felt that she wasn't endangering her baby. So, naturally, she didn't pull over for the policeman.
She lost the court case (even though her husband is a lawyer), not because she was endangering her child, but because the law states that children have to be in car seats. Even if she was exceptionally skilled at driving while breast-feeding, there is no way she could have expected the police to know that: they had to set (and enforce) a law for the least common denominator of the populace, not individually for each case.
Now, it's easy to take this too far: e.g. "people shouldn't be allowed to own box-cutters anymore because of 9/11" would be a ridiculously low denominator to set the standard to. But, when fifteen or twenty percent of the population would (or do) abuse a certain freedom, that freedom should probably be scrutinized more carefully (not necessarily completely banned, but definitely scrutinized).
Now, I suggest the following plan of action. I understand legal polygamy is being considered in Canada. I vote you go ahead and legalize it, and we'll follow the statistics closely. If only a small fraction of people abuse the right to polygamy, then it would be clear that there is no link between polygamy and abuse, and I would not be against the USA legalizing it. But, if more people suffer abuse because of polygamy (or divorce rates go up, gender rights suffer, etc.) than under other conditions, I will maintain my position that polygamy is inherently bad for people.
On a somewhat related note, we "normal" Mormons believe there will be polygamy in heaven--which confuses me as to whether or not this is bad. I think, however, this belief is mainly an offshoot of the widespread belief that women are inherently more righteous than men, so that there will be many more women in heaven than men, and, since all must be "sealed" (through marriage links) in order to reach the highest glory of heaven, there will have to be many women sealed to a few men. Personally, I've known* too many women to believe this crap.
*Not in the biblical sense
Stile writes:
Men can still live in isolated communities away from proper authorities.
They don't have the right to stay away from the authorities, though: with a warrant, the police and the FBI can go anywhere within US borders. The isolation does make it trickier, though. I don't currently know what I think about isolated communities to comment further. Maybe I'll think of something in a few days.

I'm Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 4:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 6:30 PM Blue Jay has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 45 of 126 (462947)
04-10-2008 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Stile
04-10-2008 4:27 PM


Re: More proof of my point
No. My entire point is that polyamory is functionally exactly the same as polygamy, and polyamory is constitionally defended.
Ah.
Well. In essence, that is how the FDLS operates now. Multiple "spiritual" marriages.
And, no, they aren't going to be allowed to continue to operate that way.
I don't know if you got a chance to see the 60 Minutes piece.
The local authorities (the PD, the sheriff, the child protection agencies, etc.) knew about and did nothing about the child abuse.
Probably because they were in/very near Utah. (Colorado City is just over the UT-CO border.)
But press attention, starting in 2003, brought pressure on local PDs.
Allegations of welfare fraud, militant organizations, incest, statutory rape, physical, emotional and psychological abuse have been widely reported in American media.
In 2003, the church received increased attention from the state of Utah when police officer Rodney Holm, a member of the church, was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old and one count of bigamy for his marriage to and impregnation of plural wife Ruth Stubbs.
That's when they bought the TX property.
After seeing high-profile FLDS Church critic Flora Jessop on the ABC television program Primetime Live on March 4, 2004, concerned Eldorado residents contacted Jessop. She investigated and on March 25, 2004, Jessop held a press conference in Eldorado confirming that the new neighbors were FLDS Church adherents.
Then, more pressure.
In July 2005 eight men of the church were indicted for sexual contact with minors. At least some of them surrendered to police in Kingman, Arizona.
On July 29, 2005, Brent Jeffs filed suit accusing three of his uncles, including Warren Jeffs, of sexually assaulting him when he was a child. The suit also named the FLDS Church as a defendant.
On May 7, 2006, the FBI named Warren Jeffs to their Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list on charges of sexual misconduct with minors.
Notice anything?
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008.
If your entire argument is -- "Well, they'll just stop with the polygamy and start with the polyamory." -- then your argument is moot. They have been practicing polyamory for over 100 years.
And the U.S. is tired of it. And it will stop.
Their cozy lil cult is doomed here in the States. They have a huge settlement up in Canada. They will probably emigrate.
(All quotes from wiki.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 4:27 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Stile, posted 04-10-2008 6:38 PM molbiogirl has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024