Rove: Bush to AGAIN Push Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

[Berzerker]

Drach - I just remembered something because of the Triumph of Christianity thread. Mormons send their young unattached people, mainly men, off to do missionary work. Maybe that's why they have low crime rates out there. They're off committing their crimes elsewhere Just shot down your argument using the Mormons...

Proteus - When we go to war, it'll be mainly men who die, not women.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

China has forced abortions which induces imbalances in gender populations.

Actually, the main cause in China is not forced abortions, they do not occur in significant enough numbers (and even those that do are fetal gender-independant). The main causes are voluntary abortion of female fetuses, and abandonment of female babies.

But whatever the cause, there is a growing shortage of marriable women, which would be the same result of state-sanctioned polygamy if even a few percent of males participated. Either way you face the same problem of excess males who wish to marry but cannot.

More single men means more crime, but it also means more men available to work or wage wars with fewer complications.

In China there is a growing, observable link between low income/status and failure in wife acquisition. There is an existing observable link between low income/status and crime.

However, the other links strike me more as conjecture. Excess males could mean more men available to work ... or it could mean higher unemployment. Can't tell in China's case, there are other far larger causes of unemployment that obscure any possible link. Wars? Who knows? Sure, maybe excess males are more likely to join the military and give their lives in place of married males. Or maybe frustrated, poor, childrenless bachelors feel less inspired to give up their lives for their country? Or maybe increased war widows provide increased marriage opportunities? Or maybe societies pre-occupied with higher levels of internal unrest are less predisposed toward war? These all seem equally conjectural.

You guys preach this nonsense about societal harm and ignore the societal harm that would be caused by sending married men off to die in wars leaving behind widows and children.

We preach one, but ignore the other. We are overly concerned with potentially higher crime and unrest due to low income/status males unable to find wives, but we are not concerned enough over ... the possibility that excess males will result in decreased war widows???

The former is already supported by growing evidence. The latter is pure conjecture. For all anyone knows it could just as easily result in the reverse. That's why I am concerned over one but not the other.

The gay marriage movement needs different spokespeople because right now y'all sound like a bunch of selfish hypocrites - freedom for homosexuals, not for polygamists.

I've noticed you are fond of charging hypocricy over the support of two issues that differ in some fundamental way.

As long as two positions can be demonstrated to be fundamentally different in some aspect of import, a reasonable person can simultaneously hold one position and not the other, without being a hypocrite.

Examples I can recall off the top of my head:

- In this thread: we are hypocrites (at least implied) for worrying about increased crime but not decreased war widows (fundamental difference: one is supported by growing evidence, the other is pure conjecture).

- Gays are hypocrites for supporting gay marriage but not supporting polygamy (fundamental differences: polygamy is a choice, homosexuality is not; one decreases excess single males, the other increases, etc.)

- Gays are hypocrites for supporting gay marriage but not supporting Libertarians (fundamental difference: supporting an issue versus supporting a party you disagree with on most issues)

No hypocrisy here.


Anyway, from now on, each time I catch you doing this, I'm going to send a platoon of frustrated, poor, childrenless bachelors to your home.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker

If polygamy increases crime, why aren't polygamist communities the most crime ridden? Telling me there aren't enough polygamists ignores that in polygamist communities, there are plenty of polygamists.

There are other factors within the Mormon community (the only existing significant polygamist community I am familiar with) as a whole which are already likely to diminish crime within that community, regardless of the existence of practice of polygamy. Examples of such factors include strict religious observance, morally authoritarian practices, level of education and affluence, strong family ties, better community social safety net, lower incidence of hard drug use, etc.

For these reasons, crime levels within Mormon communities are not a good indicator of the influence of polygamy on crime.

Are there any other significant polygamous comunities we can look at to compare?

[Drachasor]

I'd also note that polygamy is rare among even Mormons these days. In fact, it has been outlawed by the Church.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Drach, should homosexuality be illegal because of all the pathologies homosexuals exhibit? Those pathologies cause "societal harm". That's your criterion...

First off, homosexuality is not known to cause any pathologies.

Secondly, are you even reading what I am writing? I never said polygamy should be illegal, I said the State shouldn't support it.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And forcing people to marry whom they don't want to marry is good for the country?

Your continued difficulty through this conversation is not seeing how the culture of a society affects the decisions we make. If polygamy isn't supported by the government and isn't considered an acceptable choice, whilst monogamy is advocate, then fewer people will desire to be in polygamous relationships.


I am not advocating forcing anyone to marry people they don't want to marry. I am merely advocating not letting people marry more than one person. There is a difference. Additionally, if everyone that was involved was willing, people could live in a polygamous situation, it would just not be supported or recognize by the State.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which brings me back to my question: if I marry a second woman, why do I view her as an object?

Please read what I say carefully. I am talking about how a culture of polygamy would result in men tending to view women more as objects. Do you hear me? I am talking about how what you are advocating would *change* our culture. Women would inevitably be viewed more as objects than they are now. The focus on finding a soulmate/someone to spend your life with would shift to men looking to get as many wives as they could and women looking for rich men. It might take a while for this to propagate through the culture, a generation or more perhaps, but women would be viewed in very different way.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Are you gonna ban divorce and trophy wives? Adultery? Mistresses? And how are the rich going to get most of the women? That's never happened before so I have to ask again - where's your proof? Frankly, how are you going to stop women from marrying for money and why would you want men who aren't rich to marry these women?

Again, I have never said I was banning polygamy in that people couldn't live in that kind of situation. I said that it shouldn't be endorsed or acknowledged by the government. Just like you can't take tax breaks for adultery or mistresses. I don't see where you are going with divorce, and there is no practical way to ban trophy wives, though if there were things to do that would result in fewer trophy wives and no harm, I'd advocate those steps.

Stop making strawmen and acting like those are my positions.

Originally posted by Berzerker
So the people who aren't hording will be punished because of those who do? That's moral?

This is about polygamy, remember? Not making it legal discourages those who *are* hording wives and doesn't harm those that don't. You have it backwards.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Once again you are not answering my question: if polygamy increases crime, why aren't polygamist communities the most crime ridden? Telling me there aren't enough polygamists ignores that in polygamist communities, there are plenty of polygamists.

Once again you aren't understanding my answer. If you have an extremely small number of polygamists in a society, then their effect will be almost negligible. This is because how they adjust the balance of men to women will be very, very small. So, yes, telling you there aren't enough polygamists covers this, because people in the U.S. actually do move from place to place.

Originally posted by Berzerker
So drug use should be banned. Alcohol, tobacco, gambling, prostitution, not being a Christian, all banned?
You see, Christians can use your argument as an excuse to promote their religion via the state because they believe Christians are better for "society" than atheists.

Are you even reading what I write? I explicitly stated that drug use was an example of something that shouldn't be banned, because it harms society less by regulating it. And *AGAIN* I never said polygamy should be banned, just not recognized by the State, because doing this *does* work and *does* help keep the numbers of polygamists low. It is a different situation than the drug war and those other things you mentioned. Different situations can need different solutions.

Originally posted by Berzerker
You are using the same argument. Polygamy increases crime (no proof, just your speculations), therefore polygamy should be banned. Blacks commit more crimes, therefore blacks should not be allowed in the country. Their argument and yours is based on punishing the innocent because of the guilty...

Again, China and other examples show that an increased ratio of available men relative to available women does cause more crime. It is a cultural situation that can be controlled.

This is also fundamentally different from this black example you keep pushing. One involves a societal *practice* that shouldn't be encourage, and you are trying to say that is the same as a group of people wherein there is a higher incidence of something negative. They aren't the same, and the fact that many Blacks don't commit crimes and that there are many causes regarding crime and many ways to reduce crime further invalidates your arguement. Different problems require different solutions.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yeah, we've been fixing it for decades. I think liberalism causes crime, therefore liberalism shouldn't be legal. That's the loophole you've created with your "societal harm" argument...

Except liberalism doesn't cause crime.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Since WWII the USA has been in 4 major wars and a host of smaller conflicts via proxy states. That's about 1 major war a decade, and you think we're less violent?

Globally there has been a dramtic decrease in State vs. State wars, and a dramatic decrease in what is traditionally called a war (a conflict where both sides suffer at least 1000 casualties a year). Every conflict that happens is not a war, and since the end of the Cold War this reduction is even more pronounce.

-Drachasor

[Berzerker]

Mindseye - China's abortion policy causes the imbalance by limiting the number of children people can have, many dump females and keep males. The phenomenon you're referring to is a "tradition" and not the primary cause. For all of your observable links, they aren't observable from here But how much money were single men (and married men) making ~30 years ago and today? I find it hard to believe the Chinese have been getting poorer over the past 3 decades.

we are not concerned enough over ... the possibility that excess males will result in decreased war widows???

You won't need to decrease the number of war widows if you have plenty of single men to fight. I have a question: do you believe homosexuality is an evolutionary defense against under population or extinction? Did nature design us to have an excess male population available to help humanity survive the rigors of life? If so, why isn't polygamy nature's design to ensure the survival of the fittest as well? Hey, ban homosexuality because we don't need unmarried gays running around Isn't that the argument you and Drach are using against polygamists?

I've noticed you are fond of charging hypocricy over the support of two issues that differ in some fundamental way.

They don't differ, homosexuals want to be free to marry. But they don't want polygamists to be free to marry. It's only when "you" get called on the hypocrisy that your argument changes. Now it's not about freedom to marry, it's about "societal harm". That's one of the arguments offered by people who want y'all executed or banned. They decided y'all weren't good for society too... Politics sure makes strange bedfellows...

As long as two positions can be demonstrated to be fundamentally different in some aspect of import, a reasonable person can simultaneously hold one position and not the other, without being a hypocrite.

Like I said, y'all need to change your spokespeople because that is not how they present the issue. They say it's about freedom... And it has not been demonstrated that anything you guys grabbed out of the air is accurate. Drach says polygamy causes more crime, but do we see more crime among America's polygamists? No... Oh yeah, has China really started publicising actual crime statistics? I thought the commies lied about that as a propaganda tool to expose the decadent west.

Examples I can recall off the top of my head:

- In this thread: we are hypocrites (at least implied) for worrying about increased crime but not decreased war widows (fundamental difference: one is supported by growing evidence, the other is pure conjecture).

Quote me, don't give me this "implied" BS. I said your spokespeople were hypocrites and their hypocrisy gets exposed everytime they go on some talk show with a Republican with half a brain. It is hypocrisy to want the freedom to marry and deny others that freedom. All the rationalising in the world won't cover that stench. Why do you think all these right wingers ask your spokespeople if they support polygamy? Because they recognise the hypocrisy in your movement's argument about freedom.

- Gays are hypocrites for supporting gay marriage but not supporting polygamy (fundamental differences: polygamy is a choice, homosexuality is not; one decreases excess single males, the other increases, etc.)

They are hypocrites for demanding the freedom to marry while denying others that freedom. And how do you know polygamy is a choice? We see polygamy in nature, weren't you guys claiming homosexuality is not a choice because we see it in nature? Oh, the shoe is on the other foot now?

- Gays are hypocrites for supporting gay marriage but not supporting Libertarians (fundamental difference: supporting an issue versus supporting a party you disagree with on most issues)

I've relished repeatedly pointing out the irony of homosexuals supporting a party and candidate who doesn't support their freedom, but it is hypocrisy to want freedom for youself and not for others.

No hypocrisy here.

Any relevant reference to "you" or "your" refers to your movement. But in the past when we've had this debate you did appeal to "freedom" and how recognition of your love was being denied. That's all true for polygamists...

Anyway, from now on, each time I catch you doing this, I'm going to send a platoon of frustrated, poor, childrenless bachelors to your home.

Can I buy gaydar at Walmart?

[Berzerker]

Drach -

Your continued difficulty through this conversation is not seeing how the culture of a society affects the decisions we make. If polygamy isn't supported by the government and isn't considered an acceptable choice, whilst monogamy is advocate, then fewer people will desire to be in polygamous relationships.

And you believe polygamists should not be free because of what others will do - crimes committed by young unmarried men. That's blaming the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, the same premise behind racism and the drug war.

I am not advocating forcing anyone to marry people they don't want to marry.

You don't want polygamy legalised. That means polygamists can't marry polygamists, if they want to marry they'll have to marry monogamists... Hell, that's akin to telling homosexuals they can marry the opposite sex so they aren't being denied any freedom.

Additionally, if everyone that was involved was willing, people could live in a polygamous situation, it would just not be supported or recognize by the State.

You mean illegal, right?

Just like you can't take tax breaks for adultery or mistresses.

Sure you can, business expenses. But no one should get a tax break for being married. And the truth be told, this issue is about homosexuals using the government to force the rest of us to treat them like married people, i.e., benefits that currently are not compulsory will become compulsory via discrimination suits.

I don't see where you are going with divorce, and there is no practical way to ban trophy wives

Why not, you want to ban polygamy. Seems to me you'd just pass a law prohibiting older wealthy guys from dumping their wives and remarrying the young hot babes those younger unattached guys need to marry.

though if there were things to do that would result in fewer trophy wives and no harm, I'd advocate those steps.

Of course you would, freedom means your freedom to run everyone else's life for the good of society, read my sig to identify your ideology.

Stop making strawmen and acting like those are my positions.

You deny wanting to ban polygamy? And you damn well know we're talking about polygamous marriages.

Please read what I say carefully. I am talking about how a culture of polygamy would result in men tending to view women more as objects. Do you hear me? I am talking about how what you are advocating would *change* our culture.

Tell me, do we see an explosion of porn, strip joints, prostitution, etc among the polygamists out west? Aren't those the phenomenon typically associated with "woman as object" arguments? I'd bet a large percentage of polygamists don't even have TV's because of all the "woman as sex object" stuff. It is illogical to argue that polygamy objectifies women when they are among those resisting the sexual objectification of women. Do you want to ban the entire sex industry?

This is about polygamy, remember? Not making it legal discourages those who *are* hording wives and doesn't harm those that don't. You have it backwards.

So 2 wives = hording? Would you like to limit how many children people can have too?

Once again you aren't understanding my answer.

You aren't giving me an answer.

If you have an extremely small number of polygamists in a society, then their effect will be almost negligible.

So why don't we see high crime rates where polygamists are more concentrated? I already asked this once and you say I'm not paying attention.

This is because how they adjust the balance of men to women will be very, very small. So, yes, telling you there aren't enough polygamists covers this, because people in the U.S. actually do move from place to place.

Nonsense, it doesn't explain why polygamist communities aren't over run with crime.

Are you even reading what I write? I explicitly stated that drug use was an example of something that shouldn't be banned, because it harms society less by regulating it.

I read that, and? You haven't shown that legalising polygamy harms society. You've thrown out various speculations that are refuted by reality. You say polygamy promotes crime, prove it by showing us those skyrocketing crime rates in polygamous communities out west. You say polygamists will deplete available females for the monogamists, prove it. Women outnumber men and most people have no desire to be polygamists.

And *AGAIN* I never said polygamy should be banned, just not recognized by the State

That's Orwelian doublespeak. The ban = just not recognised.

Again, China and other examples show that an increased ratio of available men relative to available women does cause more crime. It is a cultural situation that can be controlled.

I don't even believe what the Chinese have to say about crime rates over there, so let's deal with the actual culture here where polygamy is practiced but illegal. It is a cultural thing, virtually all polygamists are Mormons and we don't see higher crime rates among them. But we should according to you...

Polygamy is a religious thing and that is part of the culture of polygamy, that's why your dire speculations are flawed. Telling polygamists they are worse for society than all the cheating monogamists on Jerry Springer is Okay, okay, you didn't say that but it helps illustrate the lunacy of your argument.

This is also fundamentally different from this black example you keep pushing.

You want polygamy banned because it's bad for society. Racists argue that blacks are bad for society and they point to high crime rates just like you did.

One involves a societal *practice* that shouldn't be encourage, and you are trying to say that is the same as a group of people wherein there is a higher incidence of something negative. They aren't the same

I said the argument you used is the same one used by racists. Those people are bad for society, ban their freedom.

the fact that many Blacks don't commit crimes and that there are many causes regarding crime and many ways to reduce crime further invalidates your arguement. Different problems require different solutions.

But you're blaming the polygamists for crimes committed by others. Your "solution" is to outlaw polygamy so the criminals get to marry their wives (that's one helluva nose you have for justice ). So why can't racists blame all black people for the crimes of some black people?

Except liberalism doesn't cause crime.

It does when race can be exploited. Constantly telling young black people they are victims of the white man induces resentment that often boils over into violence. Listen to "Us & Them" by Pink Floyd...

Globally there has been a dramtic decrease in State vs. State wars, and a dramatic decrease in what is traditionally called a war (a conflict where both sides suffer at least 1000 casualties a year). Every conflict that happens is not a war, and since the end of the Cold War this reduction is even more pronounce.

Of course we'd see a reduction in warfare once the cold war was over. So what? Pointing out how we've seen a reduction in warfare after a 40 year long proxy war ended 15 years ago is stating the obvious. That doesn't mean us modern folk wage less war...

Oh geez, now we're going to debate when a war is not a war?