The state abuses it's power again?

[sck5]

Hows this for a solution?

Religions should define what marriage is because it is a religious sacrament. They can define it however they like.

The government should get out of the marriage business because in the USA we have separation of church and state. However, they can do civil unions which, since we have equal protection, ought to be available to anyone who wants one.

Those who want BOTH marriage and civil union are free to do it.

There. Problem solved.

[sailhog]

Sway,
There are a couple of enormous realities concerning polygamy that you are completely ignoring. Perhaps the biggest is this:

If you are a young man in a community that practices polygamy, then you are not going to find a young woman to marry. These old men often have five, ten, even twenty wives. So you, as a young man, are completely out of luck. When these old men find young men snooping about their young wives, the young men are warned away. If they do not heed the warning, the penalty can be brutal.

There's a town near where I grew up (Nauvoo, Illinois), where the Joseph Smith and his freak show were run out of town because the men were trying to scarf up all the women of marriagable age. They had quite literally run out of young women. The good citizens of Nauvoo knew tyranny when they saw it, and had the good sense and courage to purge themselves, their sons and daughters of it.

I said it once, and I'll say it again: polygamy is a sham run by old men against young men and women. There is no getting around this fact. Polygamy is all about selfish old men who place their needs ahead of the needs of young people.

As far as polygamist communities and their need for governemnt subsidies... It's true that churches do not pay taxes. My father was a Baptist minister, and he was always amazed by and grateful to his country for this. These polygamist "ministers" (it pains me to put them in the same category as my father) take quite the opposite view. They do not know what gratitude is. They only know what it means to be gratified. Meanwhile their wives and children often scarf up food stamps and federal housing subsidies provided by the government. The communities as a whole forever cast themselves as the victim and they scream bloody murder when the government comes in to investigate allegations of abuse. They hate the United States and you should hate them back. I do.

[sailaway21]

Hog,
Let's back sail here, right now. I'm not defending the practise of polygamy in any way. I find your analysis of it very persuasive. What i am concerned about, rightfully I believe, is that the state is doing exactly what our constitution is designed to prevent it from doing, interfering with the free exercise of religion and they are doing so by nefarious means which is even worse.

You'll have noted that the authorities have yet to find the alleged girl who made the phone call and there is speculation now about the similar anonymous phone call made recently, and of a similar nature, in Arizona.

Cam may well be right in that an illegal search and seizure results in the dissolution of a polygamous sect that is repulsive to most of us. I am unwilling though to see the constitution trampled upon in such a manner even for a desirable result; as Jody intimated it can only lead to further abuses, particularly abuses of religion. Thus we have the weird convergence of opinion of Cam, Jody, and Sway; a sight not likely to be witnessed often. I'm treating the issue of the defense of aggrieved poofters everywhere as a side issue as I foolishly thought it added something to the thread in relation to the legalities of polygamy.

I see on the news that the mothers of all children over the age of five have been seperated from their children and sent away. I'm betting that the civil suit in this case, sorry Sailormon6, is going to make the one in the Duke lacrosse case look like chump change.

[sailhog]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

What i am concerned about, rightfully I believe, is that the state is doing exactly what our constitution is designed to prevent it from doing, interfering with the free exercise of religion and they are doing so by nefarious means which is even worse.

The members of the FLDS have mixed their religion with an illegal activity -- namely, f------ children. So this makes their religion a problem for the state.

And the state is hardly acting nefariously when: the sheriff gets a call from a girl who claims she is being sexually abused; she says she is at the FLDS compound. The cops go there and search the place. They don't find the girl who called them, but they find lots of pregnant minors -- which is evidence of a crime. It is reasonable for the police to ask how they got that way, but the children don't want to talk because the men who got them in the family way are their fathers. So... the children are separated from their parents. The girl who initiated the complained about sexual abuse at the FLDS compound is still not found, but this does not mean the investigation of sexual abuse should stop. Why? Because the discovery of pregnant minors is material to the original complaint. It's not like the cops are trying to bust the church because they found the fire suppression system to be noncompliant. That is, they aren't not just coming up with any old excuse.

You cannot condemn polygamy, as you say you do, and support the FLDS's first amendment rights simultaneously. Why? Because by supporting the latter you are condoning the former. Polygamy is the heart and soul of their religion. It's a cruel and illegal act that they must practice behind a massive gate if they are going to practice it at all.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by sailhog

They don't find the girl who called them, but they find lots of pregnant minors -- which is evidence of a crime.

However - last I checked, a minor being pregnant IS NOT A CRIME. The police cannot ASSUME that they were impregnated by whomever - it has to be established fact - LEGALLY SPEAKING. I can walk into almost high school and see pregnant girls - does that mean that their parents should be immediately jailed , detained, and separated... One can not assume whom the father is even if it is a educated guess - unless there is actual factual evidence of the sorts - per girl in question.

[byrondv]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Ok, Sport.

Don't call me sport.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

I'll try once more. Gayness has nothing to do with the argument.

Yes. It does. You brought in same sex marriages:

Originally Posted by sailaway21

At the risk of side-tracking the thread, I would offer the thought that the several state's move to legalize same sex marriage leaves nothing in the way of denying polygymous marriage as well.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Substitute bestiality for argument's sake.

Only beastiality doesn't fit. We are talking about same sex marriages. Not sexual relations with an animal. Do you understand the difference? One is a designation of a relationship, the other is sex.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And yes, the point is the opening up of the definition of marriage to a full discussion of it's nature in the natural order of things.

Yes, and you assume that is a bad thing for some unknown reason.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And your sarcastic, "heaven forbid we have a full discussion of what the natural order is" is evidence that you do not see that polygamists would have a right to be seated at that table of discussion.

Ummm... How do I not see that? I see it perfectly clearly. If there is an open discussion of what marriage is, why shoudn't polygamists be involved? That isn't to say they will get what they want - but having an open discussion would, by definition, have to include everyone.

Probably would have to include pedofiles as well - and I don't think they will get what they want.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Loving male couples has got absolutely nothing to do with the matter we're discussing.

Yes, it does. You said that legalizing same sex marriages would leave nothing in the way of denying polygymous marriage. Which is false.

Tax and insurance benfits alone would be reasons why there couldn't be a simple jump from legalizing homosexual marriage to legalizing polygymous marriage.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

What is the salient point is the re-defining of the word marriage which I'm really hoping you see will be necessary for gay "marriage" to exist.

Have you read a single word I have written? Or do you just spew out lines like this? Of course it requires a broader definition. What you are saying, however, that if you make it encomass more once, you _have_ to do it again.

And that is completly incorrect.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And that's not a slippery slope argument.

Actually - it is the definition of a slippery slope argument. You are saying that if event A happens, event B must happen. However, it is a falacy if you don't define why B _must_ happen if A happens. Since you haven't shown that polygymous marriage must be legalized if same sex marriage is legalized - you have a fallacy. How can I make this clearer???

Originally Posted by sailaway21

The slippery slope was the concept of civil unions.

I don't think you know what a slippery slope argument is, so I have no choice but to assume you don't understand your previous sentance.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Perhaps it would make more sense to you if i sauid that we're making up a new word that is going to describe the breadth of cohabitational relationships, except we've decided in advance that that word will be marriage.

Websters publishes new versions of their dictionary all the time. Why do you think the word marriage should somehow be protected from a changing definition over time?

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Changing the definition of a word, particularly a word with a definition dating back to antiquity, is a serious business.

Oooooo! Antiquity! No. It isn't serious business at all. It is just yet another thing that happens over time. Just like how gay use to mean happy.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And once you do so, or attempt to do so, all with an interest in it's definition will have an equal right to be heard.

Duh.

Originally Posted by sailaway21

And while it's just my opinion, I don't think you'll open a thread on gay marriage, in and of itself, because I don't think you've got the ability to carry the argument off with any measure of success. But feel free to prove me wrong.

I think I have carried out the argument with great success. I have smacked you down on every point, shown your logical fallacies, and pushed you to follow your own statement saying you would keep this topic on track.

Instead you continue to argue while attempting to stop the argument with your words heard last. Not going to happen.

As I said before I will point out your flaws in logic where they occur.

I knew a guy like you - I worked with him. He would get into a political or social debate, and once he realized he was cornered, he would say he was done talking about it. Of course right after saying that - he would shoot off his last parting comment. I didn't let him get away with it - and I am not going to let you get away with it.

[sailhog]

Originally Posted by artbyjody

However - last I checked, a minor being pregnant IS NOT A CRIME. The police cannot ASSUME that they were impregnated by whomever - it has to be established fact - LEGALLY SPEAKING. I can walk into almost high school and see pregnant girls - does that mean that their parents should be immediately jailed , detained, and separated... One can not assume whom the father is even if it is a educated guess - unless there is actual factual evidence of the sorts - per girl in question.

Jody,
You're right. A pregnant minor being pregnant is not a crime. But it evidence of a crime if the minor testifies that a man who is not a minor impregnated her. And that is why the children were separated from their children -- to discern whether or not this is the case.

This entire argument is really rather silly, as the U.S. engaged in one very similar to it 160-some years ago. The Confederacy claimed the Lincoln didn't have the legal right to keep them from succeeding from the union over the issue of slavery. I would contend that both the instution of slavery and the instution of polygamy are similar in that both are cruel and tyrannical. The South claimed that blacks liked being slaves. They wrapped up their stupid f------ argument in religion. Lincoln wasn't interested in seeing a bunch of phony pay stubbs that would indicate that slaves were being paid by their owners. He wasn't interested in trying to separate the constitutionality of states rights from the illegality and immorality of slavery. The South tried to keep them all bundled together, much like the FLDS is doing with the first amendment and polygamy. The absurdity of the South's point even came home to them when, late in the war, Georgia actually attempted to succeed from the Confederacy. Ha! Six million lives later, the issue was solved.

The Feds ought to get all the women and children out of that compound, and then naplam the f------ place. Maybe then these ass---- would know what it's like when someone more powerful that them can kick THEIR f----- a--es.

[artbyjody]

Originally Posted by sailhog

The Feds ought to get all the women and children out of that compound, and then naplam the f------ place. Maybe then these ass---- would know what it's like when someone more powerful that them can kick THEIR f----- a--es.

Thats the spirit!

[erps]

Cam may well be right in that an illegal search and seizure results in the dissolution of a polygamous sect that is repulsive to most of us. I am unwilling though to see the constitution trampled upon in such a manner even for a desirable result;

Only it's not an illegal search if it was with a warrant.

[billjoy]

I think the argument concerning this group (cult, religion or whatever) should center on the fact that minor children were forced into marriage. This is really just sexual slavery and would be so even if the person so forced was not a minor.
As for the arguments for or against same sex, open and poly marriages. I think that whatever form of relationship consenting adults have is their own business and I do not buy the argument that it will destory society for them to do so. This is their business and only their business. If, however, there is force or a minor child involved then we, as a society, have a duty to protect those who are being exploited.