"I thought your analogy to blood diamonds was an excellent one.
So, even if the Browns (of Sister Wives fame) are actually fully informed consenting adults (and I'm not convinced of that at all) they are still morally wrong because their actions help to harm those who are coerced into this behavior underage.
I don't really think much more needs to be said. :)"
I agree. The analogy to blood diamonds is why people should not participate in polygamy on moral grounds, but it shouldn't necessarily be illegal. Do you think that buying a diamond should be outlawed?
To say that something -- anything should be made illegal because it *may* lead to someone committing a crime is an untenable position. Underage marriage and coercing someone in to marriage is already a crime.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 01:17PM by Devoted Exmo.
Which would be the same reason creating and selling street drugs is illegal, slavery is illegal, cannibalism is illegal, and more. The research on the subject is pretty clear -- polygamy is far more likely to have negative outcomes for women and children than monogamy. Maybe someday people in general will progress to the point where religion isn't used to coerce people into unhealthy situations. Until then it makes perfect sense to make as many of those situations illegal as one can reasonably manage.
To use the claim "government should stay out of the bedroom" as a justification for legalizing polygamy.
There's far more to polygamy than sex (although the fundies are dishonest in their denials that sex isn't invovled); there's the matter of children and their welfare and whether government--who often winds up the "victim" of polygamous practices via welfare fraud--should sanction and permit practices that create a surplus of "lost boys" (a big honk of the Cabbie horn to Jon Krakauer and others who are creating programs to help these kids) and turn a blind eye to situations that can be exploited by the likes of Warren Jeffs, Merril Jessop, and Winston Blackmore (see Koresh, David).
Government isn't "out of the bedroom" because adultery is still grounds for divorce, and dang, there I go again, hollering about black-and-white thinking (to say nothing of the essential adolescent immaturity in the idealism of the "libertarian" point-of-view).
One is entitled to any religious beliefs they choose; when the practice of those beliefs impacts society at large, then the public has a right to be involved.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:33PM by SL Cabbie.
it's none of the government's business. It's not the proper role of government. Libertarianism is for adults who take responsibility for their own choices and actions. It's more "adolescent" to expect "the government" to protect you from yourself! People need to grow the hell up.
to impose their will on somebody else. That's what people like you are trying to do through legislation. You think you know what is better for me than I do. It's pure arrogance and FORCE. What do you have against individual freedom? Against live-and-let-live? I don't get it. You have this need to control others.
"That's what people like you are trying to do through legislation. You think you know what is better for me than I do. It's pure arrogance and FORCE. What do you have against individual freedom? Against live-and-let-live? I don't get it. You have this need to control others." ____________________________
I've made myself very clear on this already. I have nothing against individual freedom. You're playing the strawman again. I have argued that individual freedom is a vital part of the human rights formula. But again, human rights must be balanced by the principle of justice.
What do I have against live-and-let-live? Again, I have already explained it. Sometimes in our live-and-let-live endeavors, we cause indirect harms because of our apathy. For this reason, it can never be a principle of justice. Justice is what we need to focus on, not patting ourselves on the back for not lifting a finger.
I have no need to control others, except criminals who endanger the human rights of others. Once again, we throw people in prison for doing this. If that is what you mean by "controlling others," then I'm guilty as charged. Libertarianism is utterly impotent when it comes to this. This is my country too and if libertarians truly think they have the answers, then jump right in with the rest of us political philosophers and beat us at our own game. Of course, libertarian philosophers have failed miserably and have almost no influence at all in the world of academic political philosophy. The more we educate people, the more they realize how deeply flawed libertarianism really is. Very few academics think it is worth defending these days. It is a philosophy of yesterday. You're going to have to accept this reality, unless you are prepared to change the course of political theory. If you're really smart and totally determined, I give you ten years before anyone starts listening to you. Much more than that if you keep pushing the libertarian line. As a theory, it is a miserable failure, totally unappealing to the educated crowd. Just look at how hard the teabaggers are pushing it. But a million teabaggers with their poorly spelled signage are not going to have any influence on their better educated fellow citizens. They only make a lot of noise.
"Libertarianism is for adults who take responsibility for their own choices and actions. It's more "adolescent" to expect "the government" to protect you from yourself! People need to grow the hell up." ______________________________
This is extremely naive. Do you actually believe that all adults will take responsiblity for their own choices? In this respect, libertarianism fails for the same reason Marxism has failed. It makes the assumption that everyone will behave themselves and not take advantage of the system. But if we just let people do as they please, there will always be some who take advantage of other people's rights. Preventing this is the rightful role of government. Libertarianism is never going to become reality. Just switching over to such a system is going to create massive problems about how to keep things fair. Should we just move to strict libertarianism right now, with wealth distributed as it is? The short answer, we can't. Because as soon as government relinquishes the powers that libertarians despise, the wealthy people will have all the power and we will have no protection from ruthless corporations who will have no restictions whatsoever on their liberties.
for their own choices. You violate somebody else's rights, use force, you go to jail. You pay. There's a penalty. There is a law you have to support your children. Maybe it should be enforced. Maybe they shouldn't expect to be taken care of by others.
Slavery is illegal because it involves FORCING somebody, taking away somebody's FREEDOM (a basic right). Same thing with murder, rape, etc. Consenting adults entering into a group marriage is not the same thing.
Consenting adults aren't the only ones involved...
There's the matter of children...
Now, if you want to put through a law saying consenting adults can enter into any relationship they choose, so long as they undergo compulsory sterilization, I'll go along with you...
I'm doubtful it would be a popular measure, however...
I was distinguishing between the REASONS some things are illegal. Please go back and re-read Rebekah's post and then take my post in context. Sometimes you are as bad as MJ. You have it in for somebody and attack them every chance you get.
Their experience was not enough to mitigate the damage done to others. The same is true of polygamy. There are SOME polygamists who are happy, made a free will choice and are merely exercising their own desire for variety (or whatever). But that doesn't mitigate the many, many, MANY documented cases of harm. Women who are depressed, suicidal, and physically sick because of the stress and degredation they experience. Children who are limited in their exploration of their academic potential (many believe because they simply don't feel valuable enough to try). Lives ruined by the insistence that women are property to be controlled by men -- THAT is what polygamy is and leads to.
You don't think polygamy does direct harm to individuals? Take a look at the middle east and other countries where polygamy is legal.
I'm not sure what potential harm is. It certainly isn't a concept that I have any use for in my theoretical work. It is actually indirect harm that I'm concerned with. Buying a blood diamond causes indirect harm, although it is a seemingly innocent thing. Marrying multiple women causes indirect harm because of the position of equality it causes for women and low-ranking men, to say nothing of underage girls. But indirect harm is still harm that we should try to eliminate. If we hold ourselves to the principle that we should do no harm, we have to consider the indirect harms of our seemingly innocent actions too. Otherwise we fall into inconsistency. And when that happens, we don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm saying that for the sake of consistency, we need laws that protect people directly. There should be laws that provide for the basic education of children. There should be laws that provide a protection against being coerced into marriage. There should be laws to define a marriageable age.
There should be laws to identify the father of a child and both parents need to pay the direct costs of bearing a child.
There should not be laws that say who consenting adults can or cannot marry.
But I've argued that the concept of consent is compromised because morally-imperative polygamy forces women to be responsible for enabling the ends for the men. This and the fact that they are always in short supply puts women under considerable duress which, by definition, compromises ones ability to give proper consent.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 01:52PM by Troy.
I'm going to assert that the very act of making polygamy illegal is what has caused these communities to go underground and be able to commit their crimes. The cooperation of law enforcement in turning a blind eye is what is causing the suffering and lack of choice to those involved.
"I'm going to assert that the very act of making polygamy illegal is what has caused these communities to go underground and be able to commit their crimes. The cooperation of law enforcement in turning a blind eye is what is causing the suffering and lack of choice to those involved." ____________________________________
You may be right, but there is no way to know for certain. It is not unusual for felons to build underground societies. It's not a good reason for legalizing their crimes, however. The apathy of law enforcement has caused considerable indirect harm, I have no doubt about that; but I have serious doubts that legalizing polygamy is going to open their closed societies. They will still have the problem of underage girls being pressured to marry and as long as that pressure is there, we can expect the abuses to continue. And the pressure itself is a violation of human rights. Since the abuses we are familiar with are what is drawing the wrath of so many concerned people, and since legalizing polygamy will do nothing to address the duress that women experience, I have good reasons to believe that they will remain an outlaw society in general. I used to think that legalizing polygamy would eliminate underage marriage, but legalizing it does not remove the cause of the problem.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:41PM by Troy.
It's an issue here in Europe. Governments are debated/have passed measure to ban veiling held sacred by some Muslim women.
Isn't it a violation of religious freedom to do so?
But -- and here's where I see the connection to the argument at hand -- doesn't the very 'freedom of religion' battle cry sustain the male-dominated/male-imposed cultural norms? In the patriarchical Muslim culture, it seems women have no real choice, even in western societies, not to wear the veil if their brothers/fathers/cousins/uncles threaten them because they 'shame' the family honour by not doing so.
So, does banning the burka help? On the one hand, it 'violates' religious freedom. On the other, it may force a re-examination of the social pressure on the young women to conform to norms that seem to support patriarchy at their expense.
Like FLDS polygamy.
And -- on another front -- we're talking here as though society at large has no stake in legalise polygamous marriages. What would be the consequences in law? Taxes, estate law, banking and investments, all sorts of legal and contractual matters, assume a couple, two individuals, in a legal marriage. Does society have a right to maintain the status quo in these matters?
I don't much care who sleeps with whom, assumeing the parties are adult and capable of consent, but saying that legalising polygamy is the same as keeping Govmint out of the bedroom is too simplistic.
Your post was very helpful. I spend way too much time arguing against polygamy on other sites, and this has given me lots of new ammunition.
Just a couple of things that could be clarified.
Please help me understand your definition of Justice as a principle. I think of it simply as punishment handed out to the creeps that get caught. I think that when you talk about it as a principle that goes with the principle of liberty, it could use a little more definition and explanation for those of us who don't dabble in philosophy much.
I also am confused when you talk about how a church can't require polygamy without causing harm. A church is an entity on its own, isn't it? It can say what it wants. It's the members who can't break laws without getting arrested. Can we really tell a church what it can or can't espouse?
Could you talk about power along with polygamy? It seems like the men get a lot of power, not just over their brood, but in the community and church as they make multiple marriage ties to other families.
The LDS church was willing to trade that power for political power in the new state. What could be offered to FLDS leaders in exchange for giving up the power structure they have now?
"Please help me understand your definition of Justice as a principle. I think of it simply as punishment handed out to the creeps that get caught. I think that when you talk about it as a principle that goes with the principle of liberty, it could use a little more definition and explanation for those of us who don't dabble in philosophy much." _______________________________________
I'm very glad you asked this. Being surrounded by political philosophy every day, I sometimes forget that my definition of justice is a bit esoteric to most people. It is a word that invokes thoughts of punishment for crime.
In political philosophy, justice is the principle of balance and fairness. When a crime is committed, this balance is thrown out of whack, so punishing criminals is our way of swinging things back into balance to whatever extent is possible. Justice is balance and fairness. It is the principle that keeps human rights equal for everyone so that no one can take more liberties than they're entitled, which means that they must come at a cost to other rights. With justice as the balancing principle, we can say that when someone compromises someones else's human rights, the balance of justice is upset. Is this better?
"I also am confused when you talk about how a church can't require polygamy without causing harm. A church is an entity on its own, isn't it? It can say what it wants. It's the members who can't break laws without getting arrested. Can we really tell a church what it can or can't espouse?" ________________________________
Churches do not have human rights. Freedom of religion is an individual right. To be specific, people don't have the right to exercise their religious freedom to the extent that it harms someone's individual rights. So religious leaders can't claim freedom of religion at the expense of anyone else's rights. A religious leader does not have more religious freedom than a common member. All have equal rights. So we can tell people what constitutes an abuse of their freedoms. Groups do not have rights the way individuals do.
"Could you talk about power along with polygamy? It seems like the men get a lot of power, not just over their brood, but in the community and church as they make multiple marriage ties to other families."
They definitely have more power. Otherwise it would never work. A system that mandates polygyny shifts power to the men. It's built right into the system. Women can never be equal in such a situation. They are reduced to prizes and possessions. Many Mormon fundamentalist women would argue that they have just as much power in their society than the men, but it simply isn't true the way equality is understood in theories of justice and human rights. The men make the important decisions based solely on the fact that they are men, just like in the LDS Church, but in a much more lopsided fashion. An imbalance of power among adults of any society is an injustice, under the definition of justice I'm using.
"The LDS church was willing to trade that power for political power in the new state. What could be offered to FLDS leaders in exchange for giving up the power structure they have now?"
Good question. I'll have to think about that for a while. I'll get back to you.
I thought it was interesting what the writer proposed would happen as a result of virtual/3d porn sucking 20% or more of the available men out of the market. What are your thoughts on what will happen to perceptions of polygamy when/if that happens?
Polygamists have already tried to convince me that they are doing a good service since, in the latter days, so many men will be killed in war, leaving an excess of women. Mormon fundamentalists will then serve to provide husbands for all of the unmarried women since, as they assume, more women will be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom than men anyway.
As you can imagine, I thoroughly roasted their claim.
I can imagine them saying the same thing, that they are going to take care of the women who men have abandoned for 3d porn. I'm glad you mentioned this. Now, if it becomes an argument they wish to use to defend polygamy, I'll be ready to shoot it down without mercy. I won't let them take advantage of such a situation as a means of legitimizing a practice that is contrary to human rights. An excess of unmarried women was never a good reason for polygamy in the first place. In fact, it was never a reason at all in reality. But it has made for a popular faith-promoting rumor.
Polygamists have used appallingly treacherous methods for rationalizing what they do. But they can never justify an injustice. That would be a conceptual contradiction. It is irrational.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:57PM by Troy.
When religious doctrine plays a part in polygamy, "consent" is restricted or absent.
Religious doctrine almost invariably equals "patriarchal society." In such a society women are pressured, coerced, or even forced to comply. They may also be brainwashed into compliance.
I don't see how, for example, one can consider Emma to have given her "consent" to Joe Smith's polygamy when Joe channeled God himself to threaten her with death if she didn't comply.
I have no idea how one would remove religion from the equation, but *if* one could do so, while also raising the age of consent, then polyamory might work.
I don't think it's a good idea to legalize polygamy for the sake of non-religious polyamorists. Some polyamorists have contacted me and asked me to take their situation into consideration. In one case, a woman was married to a man who was profoundly disabled and unable to have sexual intimacy. So she met another man who could satisfy those needs and the three of them had a kind of working relationship. I wish to be as sympathetic as possible to them, but I'm not going to propose legalizing polygamy to solve their problem. Instead, perhaps we can propose something similar to adoption, where all parties can enter into a contract with the government and they will all be given rights together as a family in case of legal problems, as in the death or hospitalization of one of them. I want to do what I can for them, but it's not a good idea to legalize polygamy, which could lead to bigger problems. We certainly can't legalize polygamy for their special case because nobody can have special rights. All rights must be equal for everyone.
Their problem is going to require some legal expertise that I don't possess, but I know people who do. There are a lot of political philosophers who are also qualified attorneys. Now that is a skill set that I envy!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:50PM by Troy.
I'm going public with it. I'm going to get as much attention as I possibly can. In reality, I have no illusions about completely stopping polygamy, but this is going to be a very powerful statement about the inherent injustices. I hope to stimulate a huge amount of discussion among the people who are in the business of human rights--my professional colleagues especially. Politicians are going to be forced to deal with it if I have my way. Turning a blind eye to it must come to an end. If all I can do is shame them publicly for their apathy, that will be very powerful in itself.
I'm not sure what difference it's going to make, but I will use every means at my disposal to make that difference.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 04:43PM by Troy.
The federal government is going to have to get involved. Since it is a human rights problem, it falls in their jurisdiction. My theory is intended to force them to get involved or be guilty of inconsistency with regard to Constitutional law. I think a Constitutional amendment would be a good idea too, although such a thing can never be taken lightly.
It's already illegal, and I just don't see it being a winning issue for a politician unless the politician's constituency feels like it's a huge problem in their area.
Additionally, getting all the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution for an issue that most see as a western states problem seems impossible.
This addresses one of my major goals with my paper. I want to do away with the question of legalizing polygamy once and for all. Getting all of the states on board will probably be complicated, to say the least, but if we make enough racket we might convince a lot of people.
My family is going to probably disown me for this, and indeed this has been keeping me from acting for several years. But I've reached the point where sitting on this problem is making me literally sick. My conscience has had to prevail.
"Do you think that buying a diamond should be outlawed?" ________________________________
That's a difficult problem indeed, but If I'm going to remain consistent about addressing indirect harms, I would have to say yes. But I'm not sure if that is the only possible solution. The diamond market could become like the illegal drug market. My good friend and mentor Deen Chatterjee has traveled all over Africa studying the problem of blood diamonds. I'll pick his brain about this and get back to you when I can give a better answer. I'd like to spend some time on this problem as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 05:07PM by Troy.
There are so many things that fall into this category that make me believe that you cannot legislate away all morally bad things. Where you do start and where do you stop?
The biggest "practical" obsticle to this polygamy thing is that it needs to shed all of the "extra" males. To dump them on the highway to keep the circle of breeding males small enough. And not a worry about the potential freaks of inbreeding.
So, no true parental love or care for children of either sex. The girls are property and most of the boys are a threat. I am thinking of stories of boys being castrated under Brigand Young because they were competing with the Silver-back old males.
So their precious Heavenly Father wants human society on the chimpanzee-gorilla pattern.
I formerly posted on this board as moNOmo but that name has been snatched up by someone else on this new board...hence my rfm "new name". lol
Having been an adherent of AUB for many years (I have yet to share my story here) This is where I believe polygamy does its most damage (because it convolutes rational thinking generationally):
The relationship between the "consenting adults" is not equal, and cannot be made such. example: If the husband wants a 4th wife and any/all of the current wives do not agree, he is free to pursue it anyway. If the wives all want a 4th wife and the man does not, he is not compelled to accept the wife. This illustrates that the husband has more power and control in the family. This is where the rubber meets the road. The children learn (in this environment) that the male is superior and that the females are to submit to his rule. This patriarchy is ingrained into the psyche of each family member and this will now last for generations!
This is damaging on so many levels! Boys are endowed with a superiority complex that they cannot possibly live up to. This leads to the guilt, anger, fear, and control complexes so pervasive among Mormons, and amplified among fundamentalist Mormons.
Girls are burdened with an inferiority (submission) complex that can be all but impossible to eradicate, which negatively affects their decision making abilities and self-confidence. again, pervasive among Mormons, and amplified among fundys...
These issues affect us all, just as the issue of slavery affected and still affects us all....
Here is an interesting aside... Kody Brown and his first wife, Meri, filed bankruptcy in 2005 in Cheyenne, WY. He neglected to inform the bankruptcy court of all of the assets of the "family" so the holdings held in the names of others were left out of the bankruptcy.... hence the home they now live in.
It seems to me that Kody Brown clan want recognition if they can gain from it, but not if it might cost them...