Polygamy

[Rhino......................]

There's no way to accurately determine what people want. People don't think in a collective hive-mind, and ideas and desires of individuals change over time. Obviously we don't want to make a law that encourages forcing people into binding relationships. Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The law should simply say that a marriage can legally consist of any number of partners of any sex. I don't know if that concept is even considered polygamy anymore, but it's the concept I support.

Also, I'm not talking about encouraging polygamy, just legalizing it. I don't understand the mindset that a lot of people seem to have that something being legal automatically means that the government is encouraging the citizens to participate in it. Of course, marriage is a bad example, because by providing financial benefits to heterosexual married couples, the government is encouraging marriage and in effect discouraging homosexual relationships. I'd like to believe that the reason for this encouragement is anything but religious-inspired bigotry, but...

[Larry Flyntz]

There's no way to accurately determine what people want.

I know, and that's my point. By saying "let's make it legal," we're assuming that that is what polygamists want. If I understand the history of polygamy, this may be what polygamist men want, but I'm not sure the women would agree.

I think we need to draw out the difference between polygamy in theory and polygamy in practice. It seems you guys are arguing, "let's allow consenting adults to do what they want to do," which would allow polygamy in theory. However, my point is that the history of polygamy probably (again, I'm making assumptions) doesn't square with the consent requirement. So, by allowing polygamy in theory we may be giving credence to a practice of degradation.

In other words...

Polygamy in theory = consenting adults freely entering into a marriage with multiple partners of any sex
Polygamy in practice = (possibly) nonconsenting women being (possibly) forced into a marriage with one man

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

I know this thread is really old, but it's something I find absolutely fascinating and wanted to touch on it again.

Flyntz, you keep coming back to the idea that because there is no way to "prove" that the people in a polygamist marriage are actually consenting and not being coerced into that relationship is why it should remain illegal. Dave and I are both arguing that it's not the government's job to prove if one type of practice makes people happy.

The problem with this is you are assuming that every person in the United States who enters into a traditional, heterosexual, monogamous marriage is doing so of their own free will. It would be equally as impossible to prove or disprove this as it would be to prove or disprove that every person who enters into a polygamist marriage is doing so because they are being coerced into it. The fact that you are making this assumption is perfectly understandable - it is the type of marriage you yourself would one day (most likely) want to enter into, and therefore to you it is "the norm." The idea of arranged marriages, or forced marriages, in this country and this day and age, seems absurd. But just because they seem absurd doesn't mean that they don't happen. And while forced marriages are in theory illegal, arranged marriages are not. And how does one even go about proving that a marriage was forced, other than a spousal complaint leading to an investigation? Doesn't it seem unlikely that if a person is forced into the marriage in the first place that they would have the means and/or ability to come foward and speak out against the union?

My point really is this. There is no way to prevent forced or coerced marriages entirely, and it is not one type of marriage that is explicitley forced or coerced. Under Flyntz's argument, it would be reasonable and necessary for ALL marriage to be illegal. After all, the idea is that we are trying to protect everyone from perceived harm by eliminating the potential threat, even at the expense of those who would not abuse the institution. If you're for that, Flyntz, then we really have nothing left to argue. But I somehow doubt that you're against the institution of marriage altogether, and I for one am against the idea of punishing a perfectly innocent majority for the potential crimes of a few.

[Larry Flyntz]

I have no idea who I'm arguing against anymore what with all these names changes. But anyway...

I think you're right, and I've been very frustrated with my own argument. I am trying to argue backwards: going from a gut reaction-inspired conclusion to a logical argument. It doesn't always work out so well.

I don't really have an effective response, just a warning: I worry about granting too much freedom to people. Sure, generally speaking, freedom is a good thing, but we have to remember that freedom allows bad people to do bad things. I worry about saying "Yeah sure, polygamy is legal," and then turning a blind eye to the injustices that are done to women in polygamous relationships. Government interference isn't always a bad thing. Of course, we'd have to get into the details of how exactly government would go about regulating these marriages. And that is something that I don't have an answer for.

[CadmiumYellow]

a lot of women allow themselves to be totally dominated by their husbands, even in monogamous relationships. i understand that some of the blame for this is the woman's- she has to be the one that gives herself a voice and demands to be heard. however this becomes that much more unlikely in a polygamous marriage, which is even more about compromise. i think a lot of the time women have to be encouraged to be strong, and i'm sorry but i just don't think polygamy is the best model for this.
anyway sorry to be all BLAHBLAHBLAHFEMINISM or whatever, i just get really frustrated with the "yes, dear" kind of wife so i have strong views. and it's like. the american superstructure has only allowed for women really in the past 20 years. so i can't help but see polygamy as the opposite of progress. disempowerment.
anyway this is probably my last word on this stuff, you guys know where i stand and i am out of points.
in closing, i promise i don't hate men 

[oatmeal fetish....]

I have no idea who I'm arguing against anymore what with all these names changes. But anyway...

The gates of asshat are open, flyntz. And a voice from inside is calling to you...

[Larry Flyntz]

I've sworn off of asshat. After all, isn't one of the rules of asshat, "If you can't asshat, stay out of asshat"?

I'm not AJ or Jeffers. I know and accept that I can't asshat. So, I stick to the other boards.

[oatmeal fetish....]

That rule is gone forever everyone can asshat.

[WWW.SETH.COM]

That rule is gone forever everyone can asshat.

except polygamists

[Violent Unrest in Allentown]

Flyntz, just type like you regularly do. "Asshating" is so 2004. Now it's all about finding other's flaws and exposing them.

And now ends my yearly visit to debate.

[CadmiumYellow]

i used to never asshat either flyntz, it was ridiculous i shoulda started years ago

[Rhino......................]

Everything in Asshat and everything that comes out of Asshat is a lie. Every post about Asshat is a lie. Herein lies the paradox.

[Violent Unrest in Allentown]

Everything in Asshat and everything that comes out of Asshat is a lie. Every post about Asshat is a lie. Herein lies the paradox.

Lie. 0_o

[FAGGOT WATCHIN TRON]

Hey Flytnz I see you are online! Why don't you come hang out in asshat, all the cool kids are doing it!

[CadmiumYellow]

ASS HAT ASS HAT ASS HAT !