I was wondering what the general feel was about the Texas police seizure of the polygamist kids. If you don't know what I am talking about a little while ago the Texan police felt that kids of a polygamist group were in immediate danger so they went in and got them, all 440 of them.

I think that if same sex marriage is ok then polygamy is ok too.. Who are we to judge someone else's idea of what love and marriage is??

What would the national reaction be if the police went in to a same sex household and yoinked the kids for the same reasons??

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I think that if same sex marriage is ok then polygamy is ok too.

Polygamy = child molestation and incest. That's reality on the ground, as the chickenhawks like to say. I'm shocked to see anyone OK with that. I'm also a little annoyed that "law n order Republicans" squeal about the law has no right to punish their own.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Polygamy = child molestation and incest.

I thought polygamy just meant having multiple wives (or in rare cases, husbands for women), not necessarily having anything sexual to do with children or family members.

Until you live in a xenophobic colony of 300 and run out of a wife supply. Fathers were routinely "marrying" their 13 and 14 year old daughters. And then "consummating" the "marriage". Does the law have a right to stop child rape?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Until you live in a xenophobic colony of 300 and run out of a wife supply. Fathers were routinely "marrying" their 13 and 14 year old daughters. And then "consummating" the "marriage". Does the law have a right to stop child rape?

I didn't hear that part of the story. Can you show me the reference for that article so I can read it.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Polygamy = child molestation and incest. That's reality on the ground, as the chickenhawks like to say. I'm shocked to see anyone OK with that. I'm also a little annoyed that "law n order Republicans" squeal about the law has no right to punish their own.

"their own" being republicans or fellow Americans?

Their own being bat crazy conservatives. Another example would be Rush Limbaugh getting "get well soon" cards from people who think drug use is the mark of the beast.

Forcing 13 and 14 year old daughters to marry different men in the closed off group, often the father but not always - my references are about 10 different print newspapers. I'll find you some web accessible references, but you can understand why it's not possible to do this second, given the non URL nature of news print.

You can find a detailed history of Mormonism from Joseph Smith to Warren Jeffs in Under the Banner of Heaven that goes into a lot of detail about this. Very well researched, more footnotes than a Ann Coulter comedy, and all that.

Well I really wanted to know more about the subject, I am not sure how I feel about it yet. I can see both sides.

I don't have any problem at all if a guy wants to marry 5 consenting adults. It's when children, violence, or coercion get involved, that I start having a problem, and not minding the law getting involved - to stop those particular things.

Mormon Fundamentalists marry 1 woman, and then engage in "celestial marriage" with the other 4. Welfare reformers will love that all wives get pregnant, but all but 1 aren't legally married, so are single mothers. And have traditionally got bigger welfare checks because of it. FLDS members do this with pride, and call it "bleeding the beast" - the beast, Babylon, being the American government. I'm not making this up. When the Mormons settled in Utah, it was outside the borders of the United States. They assumed it always would be.

If you want to learn more about the subject, I can't recommend the book highly enough. You can pick up a copy for free at your local library, and see what you think. It's very well written, has a lot of fascinating insight into American history in general, and Mormon history in particular. Won't cost you a thing, and there's much knowledge to gain.

I was wondering if you read this article about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/...gamist_retreat

Do you agree with this quote from that article?

"Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse ... there is no evidence that this danger is 'immediate' or 'urgent'," the court said.

My beef with that is that, if we agree that children are in danger of sexual assault, but can't prove that the danger is "immediate" meaning that it's going to happen within the next few hours - should we really allow it to happen tomorrow? I don't think there's doubt that children are being sexually abused, rime and time again. And I don't accept the idea that if it doesn't happen often enough, it's not a problem.

Remember Elizabeth Smart? The girl who was kidnapped, then forced by her captor to marry him? At 14 years old.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Forcing 13 and 14 year old daughters to marry different men in the closed off group

But if polygamy was legal then it would be a closed off society.. The could live openly with their sexual and marital beliefs in an open and understanding society..

Their material beliefs are that the United States government is the Great Satan - just like that wacky Iranian guy. Go read up on FLDS history and scripture.

You could say the State took a page from Bush Doctrine and made a preemptive strike before these children were exploited further. I'm glad to see John approves!

When the troopahs rolled into that compound and saw pretty clear cut evidence of child abuse, taking the kids away while they figured out who was abusing who to prevent the risk of further abuse seems like the right and legal course of action. Of course they are going to have to make this foster care hold brief and get things sorted out in a hurry if they don't want to get crucified in the courts and the media. In Texas, a court order is required to be married underage, and only as young as 16. Then again FLDS supposedly has all the local public service people in the bag (at least the Sheriffs, not sure about the courts), so they may have their paperwork in order.

The bigger issue at hand is what can the state do, or what should it be able to do, if a group like FLDS is complying with every existing law as far as the marriages are concerned, but at the same clearly isolating and brainwashing its members to be happy to participate in what most of us would find unseemly or obscene. Keep in mind also that in many parts of the world today, it is commonplace and accepted for girls to be married at age 13. It seems that in most places, the law follows the culture. Faydakin has it right in that this, and the gay marriage/adoption issues seem very connected. Until the culture changes significantly(which is happening), legal intervention/prevention will continue. We can all look forward to that happy day when morality as we know it will no longer exist, and you can marry your 16 year old brother(who has had a sex change operation) and adopt children without issue.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Their material beliefs are that the United States government is the Great Satan

It's not?? Huh..

And I said marital, not material..

When a division of Child Protective Services gets a call with allegations of abuse, they are obligated to investigate. They cannot do so without probable cause, which they didn't have until the phone call from the girl with the initial allegations of abuse. Unfortunately, she is not to be found and not likely to be. The story about her was she was moved to Arizona; I personally think she was killed and is unlikely to be found. But this was a local government response to a complaint from within a religious sect, and should not be compared to obvious abuses of power toward religious extremists on the federal level like Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Yes, the CPS division had not only the right but the responsibility to investigate, and if they find reason to suspect abuse toward one child they're obligated to remove all of them pending a thorough investigation.

And regarding how the FLDS people operate I will say that in this case Newbie is absolutely correct. There have been a number of TV documentaries in recent years on them as well.

tim

Does having a right to something still counts for something nowadays? do they still matter? I mean the same laws that was supposed to protect individuals are also the same laws that gives others the power to commit crime...

Originally Posted by serandfae

Yes, the CPS division had not only the right but the responsibility to investigate, and if they find reason to suspect abuse toward one child they're obligated to remove all of them pending a thorough investigation.

You're saying 2 things that are incendiary to conservatives

1. It's not "optional" to follow laws you personally disagree with, and this applies equally to everyone.
2. Evil "big government" should protect children from "evil".

Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by serandfae

And regarding how the FLDS people operate I will say that in this case Newbie is absolutely correct. There have been a number of TV documentaries in recent years on them as well.

You crack me up. "In this case"!

One of these days I'm going to round you and cbwm up and put you in Thunderdome. Ought to be bloody brilliant.

tim