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

While I agree that in principle, polygamy should be legal, there are other issues to consider in the real World. First, keep in mind that what we are talking about is almost exclusively (maybe even completely) polygyny and we're ignoring the other option...namely polyandry. And I think that that speaks volumes. The primary reason I'm against polygyny is I am doubtful that the consent of the "other" female(s) is/are taken into consideration. If we're going to allow polygamous marriages, then we have to assured that ALL parties involved are in agreement...and I just don't think the practicalities of that can be realistically worked out.Now, as far as the situation in Texas, it is my opinion that the Government should step in any remove minors and/or any women that are in polygamous relationships against their will. Heck, I even agree that it's their (the Government) obligation to put a halt to this sort of thing.
And also like you, my reasons behind this can be seen in the "Madeline" thread, so I will not waste time and space rewriting them here.

Well, I think others have addressed this issue, and in the same way(s) I pretty much had in mind. It can be difficult to ascertain whether or not someone is in a relationship against their will. If the male considers himself the "dominant" member...what he says, goes...he's in charge and it's not a democracy...then I can see problems arising with polygyny.To be honest, I have not been following the Texas case all that closely, but the impression I have gotten is that even in this example, there are cases where women are leaving and are happy to be out of there...out of the polygamous relationships. And I doubt if that would have happened, had the Government not gotten involved. And remember that this started as a case of potential abuse. The Government didn't step in to stop the polygyny, they stepped in to rescue the girl that made the phone call. The women leaving is just sort of a side bonus...something that otherwise would not have happened.So my problem with polygyny is not, per say, the concept. To each his own. My problem is that in the real World, I have a strong suspicion that many many women would be in the relationship without really wanting it to be polygynous. That their "husband" would be forcing the system onto her (or them). And that she dare not speak out for fear of some sort of extremely negative repercussion.

Why is my "issue" irrational? I'm talking about real World situations...not a plan on paper. Like I said, in a perfect World, I have no problems with polygyny. But why are we only discussing polygyny and not polyandry? Well, if a man fucks lots of women, he's a stud. If a woman fucks lots of men, she's a slut. In the real (human) World, polygyny is the polygamous style of choice. Why? Because it's dominated by men. How many women to you truly believe want to have a polygynous relationship? Honestly, I have no idea...but I'll bet it's far fewer than the number that are actually in a polygynous relationship. It seems like a "perfect storm" for abusing the system, as well as many women. Preventing polygyny is preventing an easy way to systematically abuse women. Look, even you said that there is plenty of abuse in monogamous relationships, so why add another level? A level that would be easy to abuse.
If there's a realistic way to assure that ALL parties in the relationship want to be in such a relationship, then like I said earlier...I have no problems. I just don't think that we have the capabilities to assure that each member wants it to be as so. Like Thylacosmilus pointed out...even your "simple" solution of just getting a divorce is often times, not so simple. And I disagree with this premise. While, in regards to preventing the teaching of ID, you are correct in asserting the there is no controversy, I think your logic is flawed by conflating that with allowing polygyny. As we can clearly see by the situation in Texas, there is plenty of abuse in polygyny.

Overall, I'm trying hard to agree with you. Honestly. I have no problem with polygyny. To me, though, it's a matter of who wants a polygynous relationship? Well, to me the answer is, it's men that want it. Why? Because they are assholes. There, I said it...men (and I'm a happily married man that cannot even begin to imagine having two wives) are assholes. We'll fuck anything.So, while I completely agree that preventing polygyny does not, ipso facto, prevent abuse...to me, allowing polygyny will increase the amount of abuse. And I say this based solely on my opinion that those men that want a polygynous relationship are probably the type that are likely to abuse women anyway. It's a power trip. It's not about their religion. It's about being "a man" and showing those lowly women who's in charge.Right now, polygyny is illegal. I personally feel that it should remain as such, until such time that we all get together for a big ol' group hug in Kansas and finally decide to live happily together. And since I don't see that happening for quite sometime, I see no reason to allow for another level of abuse.I guess I'm trying to say that in the real World, polygyny will always be a system ripe for abuse. It's not polygyny itself...it's those that want to participate in the system, as it is now. As it is being practiced now. I mean, these women are "told" that if they leave, there will be severe consequences. And I now that you say that THAT is what we need to work on fixing. And while I agree, I also know that it will not happen. Again, I'm talking about the real World here. I mean, has our system stopped abuse of women yet, even those involved in monogamous relationships? No.Anyway, I'm starting to just ramble on and on, so I'll stop.

Sorry for the delayed response...I was off fishing again all day yesterday (did terrible ).Anyway...you're doing the same basic thing you're accusing me of doing.
Do you have citations and/or evidence supporting your claim that stopping polygamy will not reduce abuse of women? A better question would be...
Of males in a polygamous relationship, how many of them "abuse" women?Or...worded another way...
What percentage of polygamous relationships DO NOT result in the abuse of at least one of the women in the relationship? Do you have proof of this?
It is my contention that polygamy encourages abuse of women and children. My evidence for this is what we are seeing in the news media right now. I'm also saying that you can in no way make the claim that this situation would have occurred regardless if the FLDS allowed polygamy or not. We don't know that, because the FLDS did allow (hell, it encourage and/or required) polygamy. To say things would have been different had polygamy not been allowed is a claim you absolutely cannot make.And this may sound callus, but I am of the opinion that most males that are currently abusing their wives (girlfriends, significant other...whatever) are, "thankfully?" only abusing one. They can't abuse more because polygamy is illegal. Do you not agree that these types of assholes would get a big giant hard-on at the possibility of entering a legalized polygamous relationship?That's why I'm saying...
...as it stands now...currently... in this day and age...in this REAL World, polygamy results in a higher number of women being abused by assholes. I'm saying that men seeking out a polygamous relationship are doing so with the intention of abusing women and children. Who knows...maybe at some later date, men looking for a polygamous relationship will, by and large, not be abusive assholes...but right now, that's not the way I see it.Remember, polygamy is being encouraged almost exclusively by religious sects and...correct me if I'm wrong...most of these religions are male dominated. That is to say, the religion is set up by males for the benefits of males. And polygamy is one of the things they (the males) want. Why is that? Well, they want power over their "weaker" women. Polygamy is simply one way to get, and then hold on to, that power.

Worms? Are you kidding me. As the name implies....Flies Only baby!! As I always say...if you're not using flies (and preferably those you tied yourself), you might as well be using dynamite.In my defense...I only saw one steelhead hooked and landed yesterday. And I did catch one Walleye (on a black, bead-headed stone).

You actually see a "religious freedom" difference between that case and this one? Strange But what if those "other families" want their children taken and married off to older perverts...oops..I mean older "religious leaders"? Inferior method? I asked this in the other thread, and received no answer. Did anyone in Madeline's family wear glasses. And to you, would that have made a difference in their "defense"? I guess I still cannot see your arbitrary line of approval between killing your kid versus letting your kid get married. Seems like the marriage option is a bit nicer.

Well, to me at least, you demonstrated that there must be a difference because you're in favor of Government intervention in one case and against it in the other. So you must see a difference somewhere. I just find it odd that you come down on the side of letting your kid die over simply letting your kid get married and have kids. Well...perhaps...but I'm pretty sure it's not legal if we're talking about the child entering into a polygamous relationship. But if they refuse medical treatment(s) because they think prayer will "cure" their ailments...then to me, the wearing of glasses pretty much negates that whole argument. I mean, it becomes patently obvious that they know that God will not necessarily heal, and to allow a sick child to slip deeper and deeper into an illness they KNOW is occurring (and easily treatable), then they are, at best, guilty of negligent homicide. I mean there's are just so many examples I could list showing that this family (likely) accepted numerous scientific advances, that to then argue against using medicines to save their daughter for fear these medicines might have some sort of negative impact on her soul is easily refuted. Did they eat any processed foods, for example? What about store bought vegetables. Did they go to a dentist? The list goes on and on and on.Like I've said from the get go. They either use prayer for everything, or their argument doesn't hold. You can't assume that God will help you out in some circumstances (and that therefore prayer is the only acceptable recourse), but yet ignore your pleas during other circumstances. It makes no sense to me. Their actions led DIRECTLY to her death.

Look, I realize that this mostly comes down to ones opinion...but it seems to me that your "opinion" is primarily based upon what the parents say/use as a defense. Your "sovereignty" defense, as pointed out by teen4christ...just doesn't hold up. If the parents of these molested children truly felt...according to their own religious beliefs...that forcing their kid(s) into some sort of polygamous marriage was the best thing to do, then why do you have a problem with that? You argument seems inconsistent, regardless of your perceived family sovereignty. So says you. But according to them...their religious belief is that it is God's will that these girls be fruitful and multiply. The question is:
Why do you agree with letting you kid die, but not with letting her marry a pervert? Because this is the 21st century. Because their supposed "faith in God" shows a level of inconsistency the leads to the killing of a child. Because religious freedom(s) that allow you to kill your child is not a religious freedom. Because it's stupid and ignorant to let your child die needlessly. Because praying for something that shows no evidence of being successful is pathetic, and protecting it by law is absolutely asinine.