|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Polygamy that involves child abuse - Holmes, Randman, CS? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Taz writes: Do you support the government stepping in or do you support leaving this fundamentalist sect alone? 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Taz writes: Well, certain members here have argued that by allowing the government to step in and interfere with what would otherwise be an internal family affair is a slippery slope to something far worse. Obviously, I'm referencing this thread about faith healing. 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.
Taz writes: I must admit that I'm having trouble understanding how otherwise rational people could argue that the parents' "right" to abusing their kids with their religious beliefs can supercede the kids' overall welfare and even right to the best chances at life. 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.
Taz writes: Do you happen to know how they get away with legally marrying and divorcing underaged girls? 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Stile writes: If any member of any marrige wants to include another member into that marriage, they need the agreement of everyone already within that marriage first.And, if someone wants to marry someone else yet a partner in their present marriage refuses, they are free to divorce from the present marriage and move onto the new one. 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!)
Side Note: Maybe this is just the old-fashioned (normal-type) Mormon in me, but, it seems that this idea kind of undermines the whole point of marriage. Do you know how hard it is to get a divorce from a (normal) Mormon temple wedding? You have to be able to prove that your partner isn't fulfilling his/her sacred marriage covenants. Civil divorces wouldn't be so hard, but, since Mormon marriages are for "time and all eternity," they probably wouldn't recognize a civil divorce if there were no broken covenants. This is probably what the fundy Mormons' do with their first wife when they want to marry the second (get a civil divorce, which their church doesn't recognize as efficacious anyway)--everything they do is a perversion of what we do. Edited by Thylacosmilus, : Rewording I'm Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
teen4christ writes: Stile writes: I don't see why this has to be a problem. All they have to do (under my ideas, anyway) is say "I don't consent to this" and it doesn't happen. Either they divorce from the marriage, or a member of their marriage divorces out of it, or the marriage continues as it did previously. And technically... legally speaking, the girl that made the fone call could have left the compound for help anytime she wanted. But reality doesn't always turn out to be the way we would like to define it. To kind of underpin this, here is a quote from FOX News' article about this:
quote: 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Stile writes: so... since polygamy may be a place where abuse can happen. Your option is to not allow polygamy? Why not choose the option of trying to stop abuse? 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Stile writes: -you concede that polygamy itself is not the problem-you understand we're not good at handling abuse -you think we should, one day, strive to reach a point where we can have a good system for handling abuse That's right, I take it you agree with me on these three points?
Stile writes: And your solution to this problem is to ignore abuse, not propose any solution to preventing abuse, to continue with "fix the symptom, not the problem" actions, and you want me to consider you rational? 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Stile writes: Heh, sorry, I got a bit carried away there. Caught up in some sort of preacher-mode. Didn't mean to get so my-way-or-the-highway like. 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).
Stile writes: To me, polygamy is a symptom, but not the problem. I never thought of it like this before: polygamy is the result of abuse? I don't quite understand that.
Stile writes: 2. Increase police presence (or other more-suited authority figures) in areas where abuse is known to be a problem (like FLDS societies).3. Increase education in areas of personal rights and freedoms so people know who to contact and where to go if/when they're being abused. 4. Increase social caring system for victims of abuse... How will keeping polygamy illegal help the execution of any of these points in any way? 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:
Stile, replying to FliesOnly writes: Preventing polygamous relationships will therefore prevent these men from abusing women. 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).}
Stile writes: Can you show how polygamy is actually exacerbating the problem of abuse? 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: I did another search in response to your inquiry, and I came up with this (Hassouneh-Phillips, below):
quote: 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
ICANT writes: I know a little drastic. 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: You right that I could stand to learn more about them. I have better things to do though. 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).
Catholic Scientist writes: What admittedly little exposure I have to these groups suggested that the parents of the girls had little to no say in who or when their daughters got married. 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.
Catholic Scientist writes: I do think they should allow some [religious freedoms] though.I've tried to explain why I support one and not the other, more questions are welcome. 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 Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024