Polygamy
Category: News and Politics

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 123, Polygamy

Monogamy, marriage to one person at a time.
Bigamy, marriage to two people at a time.
Trigamy, marriage to three people at a time.
Polygamy, marriage to more than one person at a time. That's two spouses and up. And anymore than one spouse is illegal.

As Edward Lear once wrote:

There was an old fellow of Lyme

Who lived with three wives at one time.

When asked, 'Why the third?'

He replied, 'One's absurd,

And bigamy, sir, is a crime.'

Actually, that would be seen as two counts of bigamy, but whatever. I know, I'm a joke killer.

The only countries were polygamy is accepted can be found in middle and northern Africa, and the middle eastern area extending into India. Also, it is accepted in several countries in that mess of islands between Asia and Australia. So in the majority of countries, as in, the majority of the "clean" countries, polygamy is outlawed.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that these laws are bullshit. Before I make my case, I'll first take a look at theirs. Right now. Let's go to http://www.polygamyinfo.com/law.htm. They seem serious about this enough to have good reasons why it should be outlawed. I mean, look at one of their first statements:

The Law:
Polygamy and Litigation

Polygamy is against the law as it should be.

In many states it is a felony,
in all fifty states of America it is illegal.
-->[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
-->[endif]-->

I mean, it's pretty clear what side they're on.
And they're the polygamy info site, too.
In other words, their info's gonna be bias. But who cares, I'll read it anyways. I think controversial subjects shouldn't have "info" sites strongly for one position... But then again, polygamy isn't exactly controversial!

Atheism v.s. Theism
Pro-Choice v.s. Pro-Life
Guns v.s. No Guns
Gay Rights v.s. More Tyrannical Childish Bullshit...

I mean, there are plenty of heated debates, but this one doesn't come up. The vast majority of everyone thinks polygamy is as obviously wrong as murder. They don't even think twice about it. But I am. Why? Cause I'm a skeptical son of a bitch.

Now hold on while I read this site's arguments. I'm surprised it even had any arguments, as a matter of fact, due to the fact everyone just takes "polygamy is wrong" for granted. These people must feel insecure or something. Well, let's take a look.

First it says, as you can see if you went to the site I posted, that polygamy should be against the law because the "Supreme Court says so!" It says that it's not permitted under the rights of religion, due to the fact the Court said that. I agree. It shouldn't be permitted under the rights of religion, it should be permitted due to Liberty in general. I don't think religion has anything to do with it. But I get what they're saying. They're attacking the argument that religious people might have if they claim, "It's my religious rights!" The Supreme Court had said this:

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. ...it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
--REYNOLDS v. U.S. 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

The Supreme Court says that it does not have the right to halt religious beliefs, but it does in terms of religious practices. And it's correct there. So long as the practice forcing something on or from someone else. If it does not, however, there is no reason for you to halt the practice.

It's great what the court said, in terms of a counter argument against the religious like that. However, it needs more than that counter argument to win the case. It can't just argumentum ad logicam polygamy against law, it has to have a reason. Reading the court's comments, it's reason was to make sure religious doctrine doesn't become the law of the land. That's great, court, that's truly great, but you are proving how shallow you are more than anything else. The doctrine isn't excusing something! The doctrine isn't controlling anything! It's not attacking anyone, it's not forcing anything. It is not the law of the land, it's letting people do what they please. It isn't a law at all. It's not outlawing or requiring squat, there is no law in the part of the doctrine that allows polygamy. Not unless it is making polygamy a requirements, which it is not. It's merely letting it be an opinion. You are the law of the land. And you have to have a damn good reason if you are to outlaw anything. What's the reason? The court gave none.

It rightfully refuted a religious argument, but just used that counter attack to justify outlawing the practice. This is argumentum ad logicam. Assuming that something is false, or wrong, because one argument for it was false or wrong. This is a logical fallacy, and a pretty irresponsible one to be guilty of. It was a stupid thing to say, and the Supreme Court was stupid for saying it. I, an 18 year old boy, just called the entire Supreme Court out flawlessly on a perfect, text book example of an embarrassing logical fallacy. Honestly, people, how scared does that make you of our government? Fortunately this statement was made a long time ago - however everyone still seems to be upholding it. Especially this site, using it as its foremost argument.

Next, the site claims that legalizing polygamy would harm the rights of children. Before I read on, let me just say, I bet I'll be able to, in some way, show that their argument would also mean divorce should be illegal. Let's find out. Let's see how stupid these people really are. Maybe they have a great argument, don't get me wrong! But, just out of experience, I bet it's going to be the kind of argument that would also imply divorce or something else, should be against the law.

"The U.S. Constitution by its very nature creates the ideology that we Americans have agreed to live in an ordered society, obeying civil law
and criminal law, created and enforced by the power of the majority of the people. We forget that even the "minority of the people" agreed to be bound by this most basic principle."

Okay, as you can see by it's first statement it's already making logical fallacies. It's practically saying we should uphold the law simply because it's the law. That's circular reasoning. Circulus in demonstrando, if you will. You can't justify something being against the law with the fact that it's against the law. This first paragraph also is guilty of argumentum ad numerum, assuming something is "right" if the majority of people claim it is.

"The Revolutionary War had something to do with this concept. By 1896, when Utah became the 45th state, polygamy had been a crime for many years in the United States of America. Hence, the language in the Utah Constitution "Polygamous or plural marriages are
forever prohibited" is entirely within the spirit and law of the U.S. Constitution, and is very consistent with the notion that "Perfect toleration
of religious sentiment is guaranteed."

The second paragraph is even more rediculous than the first. It's saying that because Utah once made a baldly said the marriages are prohibited a long time ago, it is the spirit of the Constitution, and ergo polygamy should be illegal. This is stupid on some many levels I don't even know where to start. Perhaps level 1. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's correct, or justified. "Murder is okay," doesn't make murder okay. "The moon is made of the parts of cows we don't use," doesn't make the moon made of cow meat. "Polygamy is wrong" doesn't make polygamy wrong. Even if Utah says it. And they use the date as weight! After the Revolutionary war, a long time ago, ergo, it's in the spirit of the age! Actually, 1869 was right after the Civil War, not the Revolutionary war, but you did say polygamy was against the law for "many years," so right before the civil war. But wait, right before the civil war there were other ideas of the age, weren't there? Slavery, for example. Ergo, slavery is okay, because people said so back then. And if they said so back then, that means its within the same spirit as the constitution! And we all know the constitution is never wrong, don't we? Despite the fact it has had amendments stricken from it, you historically retarded asshole. But whatever! Several states, the entire south, said slavery was okay! That is plenty more states than Utah. So, by your rediculous argument, I can even justify slavery. Face it, just because someone said it, doesn't make it right. Just because it was a long time ago they said it, doesn't make it right either. That's argumentum ad antiquitem, appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy. Not to mention ad hominem, argumentum to the man, because you are pointing out characteristics of the people who made the statement (what day in age they lived in) to give their arguments weight. And you are also guilty of argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to authority, by appealing the Utah and U.S. constitutions as if they are infallible. But, again, I don't care who said it, and I don't care when they said it, that doesn't make the claim correct. You must have reasons.

The next paragraph is more "everyone says so!" crap, which is illogical for reasons I already pointed out. And also some more "religious right" crap that I already refuted.

The final paragraph appeals to the Supreme Court statement I already tore to shreds above, and that's it. See for yourself, I gave you the link. So the essay on how Polygamy hurts the rights of children never once mentions how. It doesn't even bring children or parenting into the equation. The entire essay included was "the Utah constitution said so," "all 50 states agree," and "the Supreme Court once agreed as well!" Who wrote this heap of shit? Douglas F. White, Attorney at Law.

Maybe some of you didn't notice. This section was titled "Polygamy Would Deny the Rights of Children." This wasn't even mentioned in the essay! Not once! Not even implied! What, did the author just forget what the hell he was talking about? I'm sorry, I was hoping to find a stupid argument to link to divorce laws, but they didn't even have an argument! They just said, "Polygamy Would Deny the Rights of Children." So guess what? I'm sorry, but I have no choice but to pin another count of the logical fallacy BALD ASSERTION on them. Making another claim without backing it up. Maybe they just expected people coming to see their site to just be skimming over everything and taking it for granted. Sucks to be them when someone actually stops to think for a second. I'm 18 years old and I can figure this out! Why was I born into such a retarded world?! Hopefully they'll explain this entire children argument somewhere else on their website. If not, I'll have to make the best argument I can in their stead to refute. 'Cause I think I got an idea on what they might be implying. And it's shallow.

Wait, there is a "full story" button below all this! Great news, I'll just click that. But let the records show that the initial section on this did not once mention children, even though it was their topic. Alright, I'm clicking it now.

Alright, after reading it, there are all those fallacies I mentioned before, and then some. It implies polygamy = child molestation. No, it doesn't. If you want to illegalize child molestation, do so! There, it's illegal! Now you can just have the polygamy part of it, you dumbass! It doesn't hurt anyone! You are an attorney at law? YOU?! I'm not only afraid of our governments intelligence now, I'm afraid of our punishment system. The representatives, themselves, are idiots! Jesus Christ, I'm surrounded!

The rest of the site seems to just be more instances and copies of the law and whatnot. No more arguments. How sad. Alright, I'll come up with the best arguments I can for their side.

1.) Polygamy is cruel to women! It is abusive because it treats women like objects instead of free, independent people!

Alright, they aren't the best arguments, but they're the usual ones which are said. To refute that one, polygamy does not = cruelty toward women. Not only could women marry many men, but simply we are debating the marriage aspect of it, not the control aspect. Outlaw wife beating. Outlaw forcing things on other people. Outlaw making and forcing choices on spouses. That does not mean you can outlaw polygamy, because you can have a polygamous marriage without such treatment. Understand?

The same with further children arguments.
"Polygamy can confuse children. It can harm their moral sense," or whatever. I disagree. It is just consenting people doing what they want to without hurting anyone else. If this even makes the children to want to grow up to be polygamists, it still has not corrupted their moral sense, for they are not forcing anything on or from someone else. They can do what they want, so long as it hurts no one else. There is nothing immoral, no matter what this something is. Period. Illegalizing things for no reason. Just because you "want" to. Forcing choices and lifestyles on others. I'd expect that to be something children should not learn. But you do it anyways with your God damn polygamy laws.

In conclusion, if three people want to come together in a union, then they may. If they hurt each other, then they should be prosecuted. If they molest a child, they should be prosecuted. But polygamy has nothing to do with that. Just getting married is harming no one. If they all agree to it, no one is harmed.

But then you, you, someone on the outside, comes into their lives, points a finger, and on a basis of only "because I say so," you force them to stop. For no reason you come into someone's life and force them to make choices you want them to make, and to not make choices you do not want them to make. Why? Because you and other say so. No other reason. You are hereby correctly declared an enemy of freedom, by me. I declare you an evil, twisted human being, for you have attacked the rights of another without any reason. Not out of self defense, not to protect the rights and safety of others, but simply because you wanted to, you went into their homes and their relationships and attacked liberty. You are not only evil, you are stupid. You are selfish. You are irresponsible. I don't care who said it. I don't care how many said it. I don't care when they said it. You can take your polygamy laws and shove them back up your ass - where they came from.

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 123, Polygamy