Polygamous women defend polygamy--or do they?

[_asbestosman]

Just so we're clear.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.

What type of evidence do you need?

Young pregnant girls aren't enough?

Nope. Those girls could have been impregnated by young boys (although I doubt it so my suspicions are certainly raised). Furthermore it is unfortunately legal for old men to have sex with young girls so long as they're married. The law needs to change, but it's still the law and as long as we have the law we need to play by the rules.

Dozens of women sharing their experiences after escaping isn't enough?

Not by itself, no.

I don't want to dismiss their stories offhand, but I do have reason to doubt a few things. I think it's too much of a coincidence that this one former FLDS woman on CNN was sister wife to the the other FLDS woman who was pleading for the return of her children and for religious freedom. It's suspicious to me although I concede that it may also be true.

I hope these women testify. I hope they tell the truth, and I hope that the proper legal standards including cross-examination will be used to ascertain the truth as fairly and as justly as humanly possible.

KNOWING their doctrine and beliefs and teachings isn't enough?

I don't know their doctrine and beliefs, but even if I did I would have to know their ACTIONS, not their beliefs.

CPS workers being lied to by these women and children isn't enough?

About names and such when people are afriad and confused? No, not even close.

A long history of men raping girls isn't enough?

Nope. As a man I'm no more guilty for men raping girls than I am for Heaven's Gate, Jonestown, etc.

For those men who rape girls, yes, that's enough--at least when we have the proper evidence for it. Pehaps the legal standard of evidence needs to change, but it is a tricky thing. While I wish for all to be done to protect women, children, and everyone I also wish to protect my own rights to privacy. This is a difficult thing to properly balance. We could, of course, err on the side of their safety and remove all privacy from me and everyone else, but is the cost worth it?

Moms standing by while their girls are raped isn't enough?

See above.

What, you want some video clips?

No. I want the children to be protected and safe, but I also wish to preserve my rights to justice and privacy.

NO ONE CARES about adults screwing whomever they want. No one. Their alternative sexual practices are insignificant to this investigation. As horrific and abusive as they are, this has nothing to do with the situation.

I don't think I was implying otherwise.

The problem is girls are being raped.

I don't get why this is so difficult to understand.

The problem is that the marriage age in Texas is too low so it allows girls to be legally raped at 16 and 17 (and used to allow it for girls as young as 14). This is the problem that needs to change. Shame on America for allowing 16 year olds to get married to older men.

I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.
I am opposed to the rape of women, children and others. I support protecting people from abuse.

[_karl61]

did not know there is a death penalty for child rape in today's laws:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080416/ap_ ... child_rape


seems appropriate to me.

[_truth dancer]

Hey Asbestosman,

I'm thinking you may not understand how CPS works. I'm not trying to be condescending here but a couple of things...

First, the laws allows for only ONE wife. ONE. Regardless of the age, some religious ceremony does NOT qualify as marriage in our Country.

Secondly, this is about girls under age sixteen who are being screwed by ADULT MEN. They can't be legally married, first because of their age, and secondly because these men are ALREADY MARRIED. Twelve, thirteen, fourteen year old girls cannot be married. Period. They found eighteen underage girls out of the first 100 or so children, who were obviously pregnant or had infants. Based on all the information given by CPS there was good reason to believe that the fathers of the babies were NOT thirteen year old boys. (sigh)

OK, now to CPS. Temporarily removing children from a home is done when CPS workers believes a child is in imminent danger. There doesn't have to be absolute positive total proof, just clear evidence that a child may be in danger.

There was CLEARLY enough evidence to suggest many of the children were in danger of abuse, sexual and otherwise.

When children are removed from a home it isn't just the decision of one person. It is decided when many people review the evidence and believe with good faith that the children are in danger. A judge made the determination that these children were in danger.

ANY mother who stands by while her child is being abused is separated from her children if a child needs to be removed from the home. This is not a unique situation. This is the law.

If the adults in this cult had been honest, many of the children would most likely NOT have been taken away, but when adults lie, deceive, and try to trick law enforcement authorities have little choice but to remove the children to keep them safe until they can be assured the children will not be in harms way.

People who obey the law and do not harm or sexually abuse children do not have to worry about their children being taken away.


~dancer~

[_BishopRic]

I was watching CNN last night and watched one woman try to defend polygamy...

Was early LDS polygamy this way too? Did we also make embarassing or hypocritical claims? Didn't some early LDS women also defend polygamy? Do they defend out of religious devotion or because some women (the first wives) often run the show by manipulating the husband and thus controlling the other women (this is what a former FLDS woman claimed on CNN)?

This whole incident has been thought-provoking to me. I see these women on TV and think "they look just like many of the bad pictures of my polygamous ancestors!"

Then I was driving to work and heard Doug Wright (being disgusted about the FLDS...) on KSL taking calls, and one caller said " well Doug, you ought to have some empathy for them -- don't you see them being very similar to the church in Joseph's day?"

He immediately got extremely defensive and cut the caller off...wouldn't even talk about it. If I would have had time I would have liked to call and ask "do you see the church in Joseph's time looking more like today's LDS church, or the FLDS?" Of course the appearance of the FLDS is more like the early church, but isn't the doctrine also? How can today's (public) Mormons not see that?

As for the women on TV, I think the evidence so far leans towards them "lying for the Lord," and probably justify it as "under the banner of heaven" to get their kids back and continue leading their lifestyle. I'm sure they've been taught that the "outside world" is wicked and of the devil, so they can justify doing their thing, including lying to us, so that they can continue obeying that good ole commandment "the new and everlasting covenant" that is the only way to the highest degree of the CK!

Whatdya think?

[_karl61]

you see FAIR trying to defend underage marriage in Joseph's time saying it was normal. I say if they have time that they review the age that every President and Senator prior to Joseph's time got married at and the age of their wife at the time. You are not going to find fifteen year olds there. People were shocked just as much then as they are now except there was a little extra legal activity back then.

I agree that Joseph was doing the same thing that the characters Abraham, Issac and Jacob did but we progressed a lot since then and if you read the stories of Abraham, Issac and Jacob you will read stories of lying, cheating stealing, killing because the priests who wrote those stories between 750 bc and 250 bc thought it was okay and God was on their side.

[_asbestosman]

First, the laws allows for only ONE wife. ONE. Regardless of the age, some religious ceremony does NOT qualify as marriage in our Country.

True, but it allows for as many bed buddies as you want so long as they are 18+ so marriage is not necessary except in the case of having older men sleep with girls under the age of 18. In those cases marriage is necessary for it to be legal (you can legally sleep with a 16 year old girl if you're married to her). Marriage is easy to come by in many states and often requires no more than a couple of signatures and a minimal filing fee.

Secondly, this is about girls under age sixteen who are being screwed by ADULT MEN. They can't be legally married, first because of their age, and secondly because these men are ALREADY MARRIED.

Texas law used to allow 14 year olds to be married.

These men could possibly claim that they divorced the other wives (or never were married) and then married the young girls.

Twelve, thirteen, fourteen year old girls cannot be married. Period. They found eighteen underage girls out of the first 100 or so children, who were obviously pregnant or had infants. Based on all the information given by CPS there was good reason to believe that the fathers of the babies were NOT thirteen year old boys. (sigh)

I think you're right, BUT, I want the standards of evidence to be followed. I think it's wrong for me to draw a conclusion at this point. I hope that CPS will carefully document all evidence they have and they will make a good case so that justice is served.

OK, now to CPS. Temporarily removing children from a home is done when CPS workers believes a child is in imminent danger. There doesn't have to be absolute positive total proof, just clear evidence that a child may be in danger.

There was CLEARLY enough evidence to suggest many of the children were in danger of abuse, sexual and otherwise.

I hope for our sakes you're right. I have my doubts.

When children are removed from a home it isn't just the decision of one person. It is decided when many people review the evidence and believe with good faith that the children are in danger. A judge made the determination that these children were in danger.

I do not believe in safety with numbers. I believe that often times many people will come to the same incorrect conclusion.

From what I hear, it does sound like the state was justified in suspecting that at least some of those children were in danger. I don't know enough to say whether all of those children were in danger. I hope they did the right thing, but I also think that some prejudice may be involved and that makes me uneasy too.

ANY mother who stands by while her child is being abused is separated from her children if a child needs to be removed from the home. This is not a unique situation. This is the law.

And it's a good law in my opinion. I just hope that when the evidence is presented it will demonstrate that this was merited for all cases.

People who obey the law and do not harm or sexually abuse children do not have to worry about their children being taken away.

Unless this is something like the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare. I hope this doesn't turn out to be another witch hunt like that. I want these children to be safe. I also do not want another witch hunt.

[_asbestosman]

Then again, Warren Jeffs was apparently involved with the statutory rape of a girl by her cousin. So far as I can tell, all legal standards were followed for the trial. If that is so, then it seems likely that more such incidents will be discovered.

[_Dr. Shades]

Asbestosman, do you feel a certain kinship with the members of the FLDS church?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Asbestosman,

It doesn't matter what Texas law used to be.

Texas updated an archaic law a few years ago and the current law is in place.

In order to remove a child for physical abuse there has to be physical signs of abuse on a child's body. The CPS worker specifically stated that there was evidence for physical abuse which means that they saw clear physical evidence on children that appeared to be the result of physical abuse.

Before you suggest that the marks could have been just a kid falling down the stairs, let me assure you that those who deal with child abuse on a regular basis know the difference between a scrapped knee and a belt buckle across the back.

Again, the evidence doesn't have to be absolute proof, but evidence strong enough that concerned adults believe the child was harmed by an adult.

In terms of all your comments suggesting they may be dismissing the abuse by divorcing, marrying, exchanging partners or whatever, as I stated before, if the adults came forth and were honest much of this could be worked through without so much confusion. I personally have heard all sorts of justifications and rationalization for abuse... I buy none of it.

But lets be clear, these people have doctrine and believe that older men can "marry", indeed MUST "marry" many girls and women. The cult members are clearly dishonest about their practices. The CPS workers SEE girls pregnant and with babies, and these girls are not sharing any information concerning the fathers. (if they slept with their thirteen year old buddy why not just say so and be done with it). CPS workers can't get factual information from the adults, or the children. They see physical evidence of physical abuse. They see good evidence for sexual abuse.

And this is just what we KNOW. I'm CERTAIN there is much more information that we don't know. I am sure children have talked and shared some of what has occurred.

CPS had no choice, by law to do anything other than remove the children.

Again, if the cult members were open and honest I am quite certain many of the children would not have been taken away but in light of their deception and dishonesty, CPS had no choice.

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

Asbestosman, do you feel a certain kinship with the members of the FLDS church?

No. I would feel the same about Scientology if they were the ones whose families the government was breaking up. I'd even feel the same way if it were some hippie colony the government decided to ambush. I hope that their rights are being protected. I also hope that the right to marry 16 year olds will be revoked.