Polygamists Challenge Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 7:59:14 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

to be able to pull out someone's teeth. And the number of people who want something under the law does not determine matters of civil rights (appeal to "majority" fallacy); it'll probably be very influential on the legislature though.

And I'm certain you can, as someone who believes in individual cases having their own weight, demonstrate how polygamy is as immediately harmful as unlicensed surgery by Joe Sixpack.

[cestlefun17]

Fine, "many people." I was exaggerating.

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 8:02:24 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Fine, "many people." I was exaggerating.

Or making it up whole cloth.

So can you demonstrate how, on the individual merits of polygamy, such unions are as immediately harmful as unlicensed surgery?

[cestlefun17]

Amaranth: polygamy and unlicensed surgery have absolutely no connection to each other than that they both involve consenting adults. "Harmfulness" does not come into the picture.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 24, 2011 7:59:14 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

If your friend gives his genuine, informed consent for you to perform this operation, and you have not in any way presented yourself as a dental surgeon, or claimed to have dentistry training, or anything similar, I don't think it WOULD be illegal for you to pull his teeth out with a pair of pliers. I contend, however that one is far more likely to find fully informed, consenting adults wanting to have a marriage like relationship with more than one other person, than to have their wisdom teeth pulled by a non dentist.

I don't know whether or not it would actually be illegal to pull out his teeth, but regardless if the government banned it, it would be a tough sell to a federal court that it is a matter of civil rights to be able to pull out someone's teeth. And the number of people who want something under the law does not determine matters of civil rights (appeal to "majority" fallacy); it'll probably be very influential on the legislature though.

While it might be unpopular, and possibly pointless (since, seriously, who the hell would fight for the right to have a non dentist pull their teeth, if they were fully informed about the issue) I would actually argue in favour of it being legal, if the above mentioned caveats are observed.

Since I really do think consenting, informed adults should pretty much be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want, so long as their actions don't harm anyone else.

So as far as I'm concerned, the only possible reason to legally restrict people from marrying someone they want, either homosexually or polygamisticly, is if it can reasonably be shown that significant harm is likely to occur to a third party.

So... got a reason to think anyone is going to be harmed by legal recognition of polygamous marriage?

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 8:03:25 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Amaranth: polygamy and unlicensed surgery have absolutely no connection to each other than that they both involve consenting adults. "Harmfulness" does not come into the picture.

Of course it does. You're just cleaving to the "consenting adults" strawman in the same way "everyone" applies the slippery slope fallacy. It's a convenient way to frame things such as to make abroad, sweeping claim and then attempt to refute it based on absurdity.

And yet, somehow, you seem to oppose the silliness of my "negroes lead to dentistry" claim.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

You're intentionally omitting an important part of the "consenting adults" argument (namely, the whole "provided no one is being harmed" caveat). Harmfulness absolutely does come into the picture when deciding whether or not two or more consenting adults should be allowed to partake in an agreed upon activity. Both portions of the argument (consent and harm) are equally important, so it's rather dishonest to try to separate the two.

[cestlefun17]

Harmfulness absolutely does come into the picture when deciding whether or not two or more consenting adults should be allowed to partake in an agreed upon activity.

"should be allowed to" and "must be allowed to, per the Constitution" are two entirely different things. The Supreme Court has never ruled that something is a civil right "because it wouldn't hurt anybody."

Of course it does. You're just cleaving to the "consenting adults" strawman in the same way "everyone" applies the slippery slope fallacy. It's a convenient way to frame things such as to make abroad, sweeping claim and then attempt to refute it based on absurdity.

If the example fits the overlying argument structure (If P, then Q.) then it's not a straw man but a reductio ad absurdum and could be valid.

Shane for Wax overlying argument (we're assuming, based on patching his two previous posts together) is:

If something involves consenting adults, then it is a civil right.
Polygamous marriage involves consenting adults, therefore it is a civil right.
(If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.) > MODUS PONENS

Therefore, it follows, using the same argument structure:

If something involves consenting adults, then it is a civil right.
DIY dentistry (in the example I provided) involves consenting adults, therefore it is a civil right.
(If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.) > MODUS PONENS.

If you don't want to talk about the dentist example anymore that's perfect fine with me.

So as far as I'm concerned, the only possible reason to legally restrict people from marrying someone they want, either homosexually or polygamisticly, is if it can reasonably be shown that significant harm is likely to occur to a third party.

Not according to the Supreme Court. The government only needs to show a rational basis for restricting marriage to two people. The courts absolutely do not care how far you are concerned. You can't just make up your own case law.

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 8:07:00 GMT -5 Mlle Antéchrist said:

You're intentionally omitting an important part of the "consenting adults" argumen.

Emphasis mine.

[Amaranth]

Though i'm sure "everyone" says otherwise.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

Not according to the Supreme Court.

So, you're disputing people's moral arguments with legalistic crap. What are you even trying to argue here? That the government isn't wrong because it says it isn't wrong?

When the law restricts people's freedoms with no justifiable basis, it's an issue of civil rights.

[cestlefun17]

Yes I am intentionally omitting the "harmlessness" aspect because it has no bearing on whether or not something is a civil right, according to United States case law.

So, you're disputing people's moral arguments with legalistic crap. What are you even trying to argue here? That the government isn't wrong because it says it isn't wrong?

The only thing I have ever been arguing this whole time is that polygamous groups are not due the civil right to marry under the Constitution of the United States and that nothing in United States case law would suggest otherwise. Therefore, polygamous marriage must be legislated (if at all) through the legislatures of the various states as a matter of public policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court has actually addressed this issue in the 1878 case Reynolds v. United States. Now Supreme Court cases can be overturned, but nothing in the case law that has evolved since then would support such an action (actually, it makes it less likely given the standards of judicial review that have been established).

I have repeatedly insisted (as is my right under the forum rules) that I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of legalizing polygamous marriage through the legislature.

The courts do not care about "moral arguments." They care about the law.

[Mlle Antéchrist]

And we're stating that the history of United States Case Law shouldn't be treated as the only authority on what is and isn't a civil right. Laws should be based upon reason, not tradition.

[cestlefun17]

If you are arguing that someone is due something as a matter of civil rights, United States courts won't hear anything else other than the United States case law. While you are entitled to your personal opinions as to what constitutes a "civil right" it is not something that interests any court in this country, nor does it interest me.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 24, 2011 8:46:09 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

If you are arguing that someone is due something as a matter of civil rights, United States courts won't hear anything else other than the United States case law. While you are entitled to your personal opinions as to what constitutes a "civil right" it is not something that interests any court in this country, nor does it interest me.

Ah, so when slavery was legal, that made it OK? Since there was, obviously at the time, no case law suggesting otherwise?