In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Kwark pretty much covered the response to this, I don't see it ever happening and on a personal level I'm definitely a one girl kind of guy myself anyway but I can't see a logical reason to deny people such freedoms.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
Abusive people don't need state recognition of their relationship to have abusive relationships. I'm really not sure what the ability to be legally married to more than one of your victims adds that makes it worth banning it. Normal people won't become abusive and abusive people don't get legitimized in any way by it.
On September 18 2013 05:35 KwarK wrote: Abusive people don't need state recognition of their relationship to have abusive relationships. I'm really not sure what the ability to be legally married to more than one of your victims adds that makes it worth banning it. Normal people won't become abusive and abusive people don't get legitimized in any way by it.
You're right, individuals are unlikely to act differently given legalization of polygamy, but I'm speaking more to regional societies and religious institutions. It is here that the UK and the USA might diverge too greatly for an accord in public policy on this issue to make sense. Issues of political compartmentalization are of a rather different nature here, due in part to the fetishization of things like "state's rights". The long and short of it is that there are places here in the US where the illegalization of practices like polygamy have effectively forced those who want to continue their religious and misogynistic ways into semi-secrecy or seclusion; legalization would change that. I'm not sure how the same would go in the UK.
On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote: god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here.
That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy.
If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years.
In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber?
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws.
"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote: god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here.
That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy.
If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years.
In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber?
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws.
"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think u r the one consumed by ideology. Full of straw man arguments and fallacies.
All pupils at infant schools in England are to get free school lunches from next September, Lib Dem leader and Deputy PM Nick Clegg has announced.
The change - for children in reception, year one and year two - will save parents about £400 a year per child.
Targeting infants would ensure "every child gets the chance in life they deserve", teach healthy eating habits and boost attainment, Mr Clegg said.
But Labour said the Lib Dems could not be trusted to deliver.
Money is being provided for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to emulate the English scheme, but as education is a devolved issue, it is up to those running schools there to decide whether to spend the money on free lunches.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "We are committed to expanding this provision further and, once we see the financial implications of this announcement for Scotland, we will examine how best to deliver that expansion."
On September 16 2013 21:32 Zaros wrote: god talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you are so far up your own arse its unbelievable. Pretty much every study says immigration is beneficial to the economy which is beneficial at least in the long term to the native population. As for the radicalism of open borders its hardly radical it was the default position for the most of human civilization and that went pretty well seeing as it brought us here.
That's because you have no understanding of the issue, no understanding of the things that matter in people's lives, and you suffer from the prejudice that GDP growth is the be all and end all of how immigration impacts an economy.
If you open your mind and put aside your confirmation bias, you'll see you that there's actually many, many studies showing results like immigrants took 75% of jobs created in the UK in the last 15 years and half a million immigrants were given social housing while many natives sit on the waiting list for years.
In fact, reports of such studies are such common currency in the British press that I'm inclined to say they're not giving the other side a fair hearing. Where do you live, an echo chamber?
Its not just GDP, if you believe the government should be active in the economy which u do, then theres tax revenue which goes to pay for schools hospitals etc, economic growth tends to mean more jobs although most at the moment do go to the elderly and immigrants but theres no reason why that trend has to go on forever. As for social housing etc pretty sure most worries about it are scare stories, caused because houses aren't being built because of green belts and restrictive planning laws.
"Green belts and restrictive plannning laws". Talk about scare stories. I'm sorry, but the people of the UK aren't especially that keen about your idea of building hundreds of thousands of extra social houses and laying much of the remaining countryside to waste for the sole and express purpose of housing the rest of the world.
I'm sure you can also pardon them for not being right behind you on your proposal of adding extra population, and creating tremendous short-term pressure on jobs and social services at a time when the government feels obliged to introduce measures such as the bedroom tax, over some conjectured small percentage increase in tax revenues years down the line. Even when we have the precedent of neighbouring countries with more generous immigration policies, like Sweden where there is great social unrest (to the point of riots lasting over a week) and where a third of people unemployed are immigrants.
As i've said before you can double the amount of housing and make no ident on the countryside.
No. You've simply misinterpreted the statistics on this. Ask anyone who lived 70 years ago and they will not tell you that the countryside has hardly been "dented". In fact they'll tell you the exact opposite. I go hiking all the time and I'm constantly struck by the devastation. Perhaps only 2% of land has been built on, but that has little to do with how visible or how cumbersome that 2% is. If someone built a skyscraper next to your house, I'm sure you wouldn't be impressed by a letter from the local council assuring you that while they're sorry for the distress caused by the skyscraper, your objection can't be given high priority in view of the fact that it only occupies a small percentage of land in your neighbourhood.
You ask everyone for evidence facts and statistics, I show you facts and statistics and u throw anecdotal evidence at me. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore just tiresome and pointless.
The ONLY way to get a handle on facts and statistics here would be to poll people to ask them about their opinions.
Lo and behold, what do we find? Green spaces have a significant positive effect on people's well-being and the quality of their lives.
You know that is a fucking terrible poll to bring up when talking about the quantity of green space being removed by more housing.
And maybe if you weren't a "fucking" zealous crusader for capitalism you would realize the grotesque inconsistency of (a) calling for the abolition of "green belts and restrictive planning laws", and (b) assuming that development will pay special regard to green spaces so that not a square meter of land will be wasted and X% of land being built on will result in X% of green space being destroyed.
The definition of green space isn't even close to "not built on". Damage to scenery, wildlife and ease of movement goes far beyond the piece of land that is built over. You're incapable of seeing such elementary flaws in your arguments because you're utterly consumed by free-market ideology.
I think you completely ignored what I said and repeated when you said earlier for some bizzare reason. I have not agreed, nor disagreed with the point you're making. The issue I am taking with you, is that in response to someone saying that extra housing is not having any real effect on our countryside, you quote a poll saying that the countryside is good for people.
The poll is not really relevant. I apologise for swearing, but to be honest it was mostly from shock.
Obviously, it's a guardian article, and even as a liberal person, I know that website/newspaper can be a "little" silly sometimes, but if you just take it as a blog, then it makes an interesting read.
I don't think the few who take advantage of the benefit system should de legitimise the whole benefits system for those that really need it. On top of that, I would like to point out, that the people at the bottom that abuse the system for extra cash do not even come close to comparing to the companies at the top abusing systems to avoid paying tax. The amount of money being taken from the economy would be in the region of thousands of times more significant from the people at the top.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
Just because there is a law against abuse it doesn't mean that it is effective, and what female is supposed to do anyway when you left her among people that will condemn her for reporting the abuse to the police? The law system doesn't do anything to Imams in Sharia courts that tell women to not report crime either, it is all allowed by UK law system, and police.
In ghetto local culture can have more power then police, and official law.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
There are no Sharia courts in the UK, nor does Sharia law have any legal standing in the UK. This is literally not true. It is a lie. People always have been able to choose to go through arbitration in civil cases and some religious people may go to a religious figure within the community to settle civil disputes. This is no different from two friends asking a third friend to settle a bet.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
There are no Sharia courts in the UK, nor does Sharia law have any legal standing in the UK. This is literally not true. It is a lie.
BBC disagrees. I didn't say that Sharia law has a legal standing in UK so I don't who you are arguing with, but just because it isn't officially the law it doesn't mean that it has no power.
Arbitration Act in UK can give sharia courts legal power, it wasn't made to allow sharia law but it can be used for it.
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
There are no Sharia courts in the UK, nor does Sharia law have any legal standing in the UK. This is literally not true. It is a lie.
BBC disagrees. I didn't say that Sharia law has a legal standing in UK so I don't who you are arguing with, but just because it isn't officially the law it doesn't mean that it has no power.
The belief in horoscopes also has power in the UK under that definition.
On September 18 2013 20:29 marvellosity wrote: Your point is pretty irrelevant tbh.
It is relevant to know how effective the enforcement of the law is.
On September 18 2013 20:53 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2013 19:46 Polis wrote:
On September 18 2013 18:36 marvellosity wrote:
On September 18 2013 05:31 farvacola wrote:
On September 18 2013 05:25 KwarK wrote:
On September 18 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote:
On September 18 2013 02:35 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: I can't really see why polygamy is still illegal in the first place.
Barring the convention of distaste for atypical relationships, historical precedence tells us that in practically all examples of polygamy, there exists some form of abuse or negligence. In the US, for instance, polygamy has been always conjoined with child abuse and kidnapping via the manner in which the religions backing polygamy practice marriage and child rearing (not to mention gender inequalities). In other words, whenever polygamy is practiced, someone involved wants out or had been basically sold into marriage at too early an age to know the difference.
Moving forward, I'm not sure these rules continue to hold, but you can see why legalizing the practice would likely bring with it a whole host of problems.
Pretty huge sample bias there. Polygamy has been typically favoured by religious wackos who then abuse their children but that doesn't mean people wanting to enter relationships with multiple people will do so. Plenty of people already love their children while being in de facto polygamous relationships but due to not having God on their side are not able to demand the state recognise it.
You're right, there is a huge sample bias, but at what point are we to draw a line when it comes to public policy on the matter? I've no doubt that there do exist healthy, functioning polygamous relationships. The question is, how does that number compare to those that are full of abuse, and is it large enough to justify the harmful ramifications of legalizing something that will most certainly be seized upon by those looking to control women and children? I'm not sure myself.
I really don't get your line of argument. Polygamy isn't in itself harmful. We have all manners of law against abuse. I get very uncomfortable when people try to argue something should be/become/remain illegal when what is being talked about is intrinsically not abusive/deleterious/whatever.
And you also have Sharia courts to settle things fairly.
There are no Sharia courts in the UK, nor does Sharia law have any legal standing in the UK. This is literally not true. It is a lie.
BBC disagrees. I didn't say that Sharia law has a legal standing in UK so I don't who you are arguing with, but just because it isn't officially the law it doesn't mean that it has no power.
The belief in horoscopes also has power in the UK under that definition.
If people who write horoscopes have a big influence on UK populace that leads to females being abused then you have a point, and the government should take action to stop it, if that is the case.
On September 18 2013 21:18 marvellosity wrote: Still not sure why potentially ineffective application of laws on abuse invalidates what I said in even a slight way.
Oh well.
You had said that if there is a law against abuse then there is no problem with polygamy that is now part of misogynistic culture. If the law isn't applied effectively then you allow for misogynistic culture to spread by allowing polygamy. If you want law to counter balance it, then you must know if it is effective at doing that or not. It doesn't only matter if polygamy is intrinsically fine but it is also important how it works it real world.
EPT
