You don't know this, and I'd bet it's not true. I’d bet, moreover, that a quick Google search will prove this to be a wrong assumption.
It’s not widespread, but certainly not restricted to fundamentalist religious groups.
Almost any law will be ignored by large numbers of people, so it strikes me that to argue that only religious groups practice polygamy now because no one else is willing to violate the law to be a false argument, with millions of examples to demonstrate why it is false.
Polygamy will undoubtedly increase if made legal among non religious groups, but it would be greatly disproportionately practiced by fundamental religious groups. I would bet, moreover, that you’d see this practice flourish within the context of fundamentalist religion were it to be made legal.
And so what? I would never argue that just because one finds a practice objectionable this is sufficient reason to outlaw it. My frame of reference is a practice that is fundamentally and intrinsically harmful in common practice, not one that is merely ‘objectionable.’ It’s a simple distinction, and I’m a bit surprised something so simple escapes you.
No it is NOT my argument. That type of reasoning (e.g., something is practiced by bad people), could be used to outlaw any behavior, and as such as no practical usefulness. My frame of reference is not the nature of the people, but the nature of the practice. It is NOT that bad people are practicing polygamy, it is that the practice itself is inherently and intrinsically harmful, within the context of fundamental religious communities. Again, the nature of the people is irrelevant—it is the nature of the practice.
Again, this is a simple point and you’re either not getting it or intentionally ignoring it.
So, you example is poorly chosen and irrelevant to the argument I’m making.
No that is NOT what I’m saying. You are misrepresenting my argument. (Or alternatively, I’ve not stated it well, which I hope I’ve rectified here.)
Historically practiced in the West by Mormons, predominantly. And it’s practice was very similar to what we see in the FLDS today. A practice that intrinsically harmed, demeaned and dehumanized women, and in many cases coerced them into marriages that they would not have entered into on their own free will.
Marriage is a contract, and for the contract to be acceptable (as with any contract) there needs to exist the presumption that it was entered into willfully, absent coercion, and with consideration from both sides. We CANNOT make this assumption with regards to polygamy, as practiced in fundamental religious communities.
That it is practiced in other areas of the world (e.g., Africa, Yemen, etc.) is hardly reason to recommend it. Yes, the profile is different, but the practice is equally inherently harmful, demeaning, and dehumanizing there as it is in, say, Colorado City.
Honestly, I don’t think we want to take our cues for social/legal standards in the US from Yemen.
No we can’t know for certain, I suppose. But we, nonetheless, have a pretty good idea what form it would take—a incremental increase in non-religious polygamy and a surge in fundamental religious polygamy.
The morality of the practice itself is very visible. Look no further than Colorado City. THIS is the face of polygamy. The moral implications of it are plain.
Let me conclude by saying, that, if I recall Dalamon’s post accurately, the Canadian Supreme Court has reached the same conclusion I have (or one similar to it). Thus, any suggestion that my position on this is way out there and has no basis in experience or Western legal tradition strikes me as unfounded.
I agree with this. And if this was the ONLY issue at stake, we’d be in perfect harmony. But it’s not the only issue. It’s not just a matter of loving who one wants; it’s a matter of making legal a practice that, as it will be predominantly practiced, is harmful, demeaning, and dehumanizing.
I am a bit confused as to why this point seems beyond your grasp. You may disagree with it, but you refuse to acknowledge it and continue to argue against a point I am not making.
Well, if you don’t take my word for it, do some searching of the legal arguments made in favor of same sex marriage. I am confident you’ll find that this is anything but a random appeal to authority, but rather is one basis for legal arguments being made on this issue.
Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. The number of spouses one chooses to take is. Honestly how much more obvious does it need to be for you to get it?
Then you are not trying hard enough. That one man loves another man is not a choice. How many men he chooses to marry is. Again, how obvious does it need to be for you to get it?
So you are now conceding it is a choice. Now we’re getting somewhere. Finally.
It would still be illegal, but it would nonetheless proliferate. Plus, it’s not just minors; it is an entire system in which the presumption of free will and mutual consideration in entering into marital contracts cannot hold.
I agree with you to this point--provided that how you live does not impose harm on others. There is no tradition in Western societies that people can do whatever they want, and that practices that impose harm on others constitute rational reasons to constrain those practices.
I have given you ample reason why I think polygamy is immoral. I believe those reasons are rational and justifiable. That you can't see this and consistently argue against points I'm not making, leads me to suspect you're not making much of an effort to understand them.
