Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS?

So, I'm all for religious freedom and that stuff, but there have been far too many cases of sexual offense against minors associated with the FLDS church. Especially when you get the girl herself calling (normally it's other people accusing them), you've got to do something.Polygamy's actually illegal, but the FLDS church gets around it by having a legal divorce before each new marriage, claiming that God doesn't recognize the divorce.In short, this is just too much. You can't let people get away with this kind of stuff.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

I tried to keep up with that thread, but it it was going to fast, so I gave up: I don't have the time to read twenty posts in a single sitting. Right. You'd think the ones arguing for a divine origin of humanity would be the ones demanding every human be treated well. But, ironically, it's the natural-selectionists (survival-of-the-fittest and all that) who seem to be arguing for human rights. And Ben Stein is accusing evolution for social injustice. That's a laugh. I did a quick Google search, and this website turned up. I don't know how reliable it is as a source, but, if we're to believe it, most states have laws saying minors can get married, as long as the parents give consent in some fashion. And, since it's the FLDS parents who are coercing the marriages...Yeah. It's pretty sick. But, it's perfectly legal. Technically.Was it molbiogirl who found the site that said 44/50 states have faith-healing laws? Given that data, I wouldn't be surprised if the above website about marriage age is also true. Note that Texas, Utah and Arizona (the major FLDS states) all allow minors to get married. In Texas and Arizona, < 16 years minor have to have a court order (which was probably meant to protect girls that get pregnant young--you know how it is in Texas). In Utah, it's 15.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

I think I agree with FliesOnly: there isn't a good reason to refuse polygamy for those who are responsible enough to handle it, but there are just too many ways for a pervert to abuse it. Laws generally are (and, in most cases, should be) written for the lowest common denominator of the populace: otherwise, you'd have to set up some sort of meritocratic system to determine who has certain freedoms. For this reason, it would be a legal and political pain in the butt to weed out all the perverts, sex offenders and bums from the polygamy system.Now that I think about it, though: alimony and property ownership battles would likely keep this system fairly well in check. Who's going to go get married again if the last marriage left him/her penniless and living in a treehouse? (Did you hear about Squirrelman in Seattle?) And, who's going to marry a second wife when he can barely afford the first (unless the second wife is a lawyer, or something and didn't want children--that would be a two-income family with a stay-at-home mom!) Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Rewording

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

To kind of underpin this, here is a quote from FOX News' article about this:

quote:

---

The girl had looked for opportunities to escape before, but she was warned that outside the double-gates blocking entry to the Yearning For Zion Ranch, in a world completely foreign to her, she would be forced to cut her hair and wear makeup, and to have sex with many men ” all damning transgressions in a faith where modesty calls for women to wear long underwear year-round under pioneer-style dresses.

---

Essentially, this girl had been indoctrinated/brainwashed by negative propaganda into staying on that ranch: we "outsiders" would have made her do things that would keep her out of heaven. She probably didn't even know what we were like outside that walled-in compound.There's been too many complaints like this concerning the FLDS church to not take it seriously. I think the government's actions were completely appropriate, and that, until we have the intelligence (as a nation) to know how to work through this kind of problem effectively, we should be very conservative about what sorts of things we allow to go on. Right now, the fundies haven't shown the world that they're responsible enough to be allowed this kind of freedom, and any intelligent God would know that too, and adjust His commandments and teaching strategies to that. That means I don't believe that this religion is sanctioned by any God who deserves to have followers.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

What do you mean "may be"? I live in the middle of this stuff, Stile: the abuse rate in polygamous families is much higher than the abuse rate in monogamous families (not to mention brainwashing, conspiracy and rebellion). What does that tell you? Maybe it's just abusive people who like polygamy, but it may also be that polygamy broods abusiveness (imagine how uptight and short-fused you'd be if you had to take care of seven wives ). Either way, there's a problem, and it is related to polygamy.Now, I concede the point to you that polygamy itself isn't the problem. But, at least from my unprofessional standpoint, it seems to exacerbate the problem. And, since we're not so good at handling abuse by itself, the last thing we need is another confounding factor. If we ever get to the point where we have a good system for dealing with abuse, maybe then we could try to open the field a bit and work with this. But, as of right now, we're not ready for it, and it's only going to cause more legal and social problems and judicial headaches.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

That's right, I take it you agree with me on these three points? Where the hell did you get this from? When did I say "ignore abuse"? And, since when is polygamy a symptom of abuse? You're arguing a strawman!My suggestion was that we eliminate a probably-exacerbating factor, then focus on dealing with the problem in "normal" situations. I said nothing about how we should deal with it: I'm no sociologist, after all. Only when we've figured out how to deal with it by itself can we figure out how to deal with it in the presence of confounding factors. It was a "milk before meat" argument.And, I never argued with your points 2-4: those are very good suggestions. But, legalizing polygamy is not the answer, nor will it help us come to an answer any more quickly. In fact, it will make it much more difficult for us to come to an answer.Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Accidentally clicked "send" in the middle of editing.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Yeah, me too: I apologize for posting when I was felling "particularly impassioned". And, I swore: I don't usually do that (except recently on this forum, for some reason). I never thought of it like this before: polygamy is the result of abuse? I don't quite understand that. I don't think this is a very good question: the points aren't the goal, they're the means--this question is the same as asking "how will increasing police forces increase the social caring system?" My contention is that learning how to deal with abuse and offenders is hard: adding this other exacerbating factor will only make it harder.{AbE: I'm not so sure it's the point that the men are necessarily being bad. I think abuse is in the eye of the beholder. In order words, it's what the abusee thinks about it. If women think they're being abused, either they have a mental problem or whatever their partner is doing should not be going on (there are obvious exceptions to this).} No, I can't, but I can show a paper or two that supports it to some degree. This is an article I read recently about polygamy in Arab communities. The reference is provided below (Al-Krenawi and Lev-Wiesel).It consists of a survey of Arabic wives--in polygamous and monogamous marriages--with questions about abuse. There's a nice table (Table 2) that highlights the questions from the survey which showed significant differences between the two groups, but I won't reprint it here (for copyright reasons). Here's the abstract:

quote:

---

ABSTRACT. This study compared the phenomenon of wife abuse in
polygamous and monogamous Bedouin-Arab families. A sample of 81
women participated in the present study-40 were from polygamous and
41 were from monogamous families. The instruments administered examined
three dimensions: Demographic variables, sense of personal potency
(as assessed by the Potency Scale: Ben-Sira, 1985) and experience
of abusive behavior (as assessed by the Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory: Tolman, 1995, 1989). Results indicated higher levels of
potency and lower levels of wife abuse among monogamous as compared to
polygamous wives. These findings are discussed in the context of women’s
sense of personal potency.

---

I did another search in response to your inquiry, and I came up with this (Hassouneh-Phillips, below):

quote:

---

Improving health outcomes for abused women requires that service
providers know how to intervene with women from diverse cultural
backgrounds living in a variety of family structures. Because little is
known about the growing and diverse American Muslim population,
the investigator examined the lived experiences of abused American
Muslim women. Using an adaptation of interpretive phenomenology,
data were collected from 17 American Muslim women from diverse
ethnic backgrounds. Findings highlighted in this article examine the
significance of polygamy in shaping American Muslim women’s experiences
of abuse and describe the ways that polygamy and abuse
can sometimes be interwoven phenomena.

---

I haven't read it yet, but I thought I'd give you a fair chance at it, too. It sounds like it might contradict some of what Al-Krenawi and Lev-Wiesel were saying, though (judging by the database commentary on it). I wasn't able to find any scholarly articles on polygamy in cultures other than Islam, so I don't know how well these results will translate over. From what I've seen and heard around here (Utah), though, it's probably not far off.{AbE: What I'm seeing from these papers is that women in polygamous marriages generally feel more abused than women in monogamous marriages.}References:Al-Krenawi, A. and R Lev-Wiesel. (2002). Wife abuse among polygamous and monogamous Bedouin-Arab families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Vol. 36(3): 151-165.Hassouneh-Phillips, D. (2001). Polygamy and wife abuse: A qualitative study of Muslim women in America. Health Care For Women International 22:735-748.Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Additions

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

Yeah. At least your heart's in the right place. Every once in awhile, I wish we had a system where people who abuse certain human rights lose those rights themselves, just so they understand why it's bad. However, I don't think, in reality, I could sanction (or even stomach) the notion of public abuse as a punishment for personal abuse.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.

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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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. You keep saying this, but I don't know what you're basing it on, other than a personal opinion. This is exactly what my two citations concluded: women are abused more in polygamous marriages than in monogamous marriages. 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

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. 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 solutionBut, 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. 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 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 BluejayDarwin loves you.

The problem with learning more about them is that, aside from the 60 Minutes episode that molbiogirl mentioned earlier (I saw that, by the way), the FLDS are pretty secretive. They live in secluded communities and don't go out of their way to interact with other people, so we don't really have any good knowledge about what they do (although all sorts of commentaries and speculations abound). It seems, given the Warren Jeffs incident(s), that the leadership of the FLDS communities do have control over who marries whom, but this may only be one leader abusing his office as "prophet." We don't actually know that this is the norm for the FLDS, but it seems to be common. I think the general idea is that the parents (at least the father) are involved in the marriage arrangement, though this may have become lost in the improper useby the leaders of their authority over their church. I would like to know how to set a boundary between allowable and rejectable. Obviously, Aztec-style human sacrifices should not be allowed. Obviously, religious beliefs that include abuse of others should also not be allowed. But, should religions be allowed to promote negligence? How about arranged marriages? Or, should masochism be allowed under “freedom of religion”?Please don’t take this as insult or sarcasm: I would really like to know, or at least dicuss it. The problem would be that we’d have to change “religious freedom.” I know there are systems in place for official “recognition” of religions (for demographic purposes, mostly). Should we then set a standard that dictates the boundaries of “recognizable” religions? That seems like a violation of the state/religion separation thing, though.

---

I'm BluejayDarwin loves you.