Of course one can take the viewpoint that age really doesn't matter. I personally have known 12 year olds that I would consider more capable of making a reasonably well informed and thought out decision regarding marriage than some 50 years olds I've met. And the "indoctrination" knife cuts both ways. But that's just "the nature of the beast" when it comes to a majority rule system of government - the minority is, by definition, discriminated against.

You could if you like. I would prefer not to. The reason for this is I feel that children are not intellectually and emotionally capable of making well thought out decisions and plans as it relates to sex, marriage, and the complications manifest in such an interpersonal relationship. I understand your assertion that you feel we, living outside of these communities, are in some way "indoctrinated" into believing that these Fundamentalist sects that isolate themselves in communes are "wrong" and they should not be reprimanded and held criminally responsible for their actions. I would need to disagree with that premise even if it is based on your personal experience. The argument is less about whether 14-year-olds can’t meaningfully consent. The girls in these communes are not allowed to consent or not consent and sometimes not even really allowed to have an opinion. When you have sex with someone against their wishes, regardless of her age, this isn’t a legalistic argument about the age of willful marriage, but an argument about whether or not it’s right to rape someone because it is expressed and represented as "proper" in your belief system.This is why the feds get involved.

My understanding of teenagers (having been one myself) is that they rebel and strive to assert their independence. This is a normal aspect of child development and is to be expected. It is not to be used to subjugate and manipulate them into fulfilling the sexual agendas of adults. The First Amendment to the Constitution should not allow people an exception if they say that god told them to rape girls that are barely past puberty.

There is another aspect of the FLDS culture that you may not be aware of. The males in these communes are sometimes sent away or "cast out". This can be done for any number of reasons but as a general rule, it is to alleviate some of the competition for these young brides. The boys are informed that they have displeased god in some manner or else committed some unresolvable "sin" and are punished by being forced to leave. They normally have very little understanding of the outside world and culture and can wind up on hard times. Very often destined for Salt Lake City penitentiaries as it can be difficult for them to adjust and find work that will sustain them.

I just have issues with it all around and on both gender lines quite honestly.

It seems to me that we are arguing two different issues here. As far as the specifics of the alleged mistreatment of young people in the FLDS culture, I have no disagreement whatsoever.

My “indoctrination” comment was simply pointing out that there are different “cultural norms”. As I understand it, “the age of consent” has traditionally been directly related to the technological level of the society. (Which may actually be a relationship to the expected lifespan.) This is sensible because integrating into a technological (or longer lived) society requires the accumulation of significantly more knowledge than does integrating into a primitive (or shorter lived) society. And it simply takes more time to accumulate that additional knowledge.

I had no intention or desire to “argue for the FLDS culture”. They are apparently a radical fringe and are statistically insignificant. My intention was to address the overwhelming majority that professes to support “freedom of religion”, but harbor such an extremely deep-seated prejudice against polygamy, that laws are passed against it. And those prejudices have no basis other than religious indoctrination.

Oh, well yes I would agree with your description of the age of consent laws and the reasons for this. Back in say, biblical times, 1400 BC or so, people were very often dead before they reached 40. So of course everything had to move along accordingly and that would include marriage and child rearing. You have no argument from me in that respect.

However, we are discussing modern times correct? At least I am. There is no excuse for this behavior other than a bunch of older guys who want to have 5-6 teenage brides. They feel entitled to this because it is solidly based in the fundamental core values of their beliefs. The problem is, it is in direct opposition to the specified "law of the land" to have sex with children and take multiple wives. I have already explained to you that my position on adults choosing a polygamist lifestyle is that it should be permitted and de-criminalized. However this does not include children and minors.

Can we see eye to eye on this or no?

We see eye to eye on the fact that we are talking about modern times. And we see eye to eye on what the “law of the land” says about minors and multiple partners as regards marriage. And we see eye to eye on the issue of adults in polygamous relationships. And I believe we see eye to eye on the moral issues involved in the specific polygamous practices of the FLDS as they apply to minors.

As to the “excuse for the behavior”, I have nothing on which to base a judgment but your word. And since you have obviously done more research into it that I have, I would have to defer to your judgment.

Putting aside the legal and moral issues, as far as older men taking multiple younger brides, there is one logical argument I can think of – from an evolutionary standpoint, it is better for the species in general, that the most powerful and successful males should be the ones to have the most offspring.

But how relevant that may be to our current society is a whole different subject.

Well the excuse for the behavior (in my opinion) is not acceptable. These men ( in their 50-60s and even older) will take teenage brides and the wealthier the man is and the more elevated his status in the community, the more brides he can take and generally the most desirable women. The marriages are all arranged and the girls are NOT permitted to have any contact with males other than their husband to be. I am not asking you to "take my word" for it. You are free to assess the customs of these factions on your own. My particular issue and problem with it is the isolation, indoctrination and condoned rape that occurs within the confines of these communities. It is child abuse.

Yes you could make the argument that we are "discriminating" against the culture and religious doctrines of these fundamentalist sects because we do not fully understand these practices and we have no right to judge. However, in that case, female clitoral mutilation is also a cultural practice that has been taking place in Africa for over 2000 years. Is that okay also? What about the practice of honor killings? Women sometimes put to death by their own family members. A woman can be targeted commonly for:refusing an arranged marriage, seeking a divorce (even from an abusive husband), or committing adultery or fornication (even if she was the victim of sexual assault). At what point do we just chalk it all up to being "cultural differences?"

No no, I have not done any research on the FLDS. There was a show on the other day about the Mormons and some of these other branches and I watched it. Was like an hour long program. Thats the extent of my knowledge.

I think your question "At what point do we just chalk it all up to being 'cultural differences.?'" goes right to the heart of the matter. I see the dividing line as being the point where someone's freedom of choice is subverted. So in the case of arranged marriages where someone has no choice in the matter, then their freedom of choice has been subverted. And in the case of adults choosing a polygamous lifestyle, the subversion of freedom of choice is done by the laws prohibiting it. So "subversion of freedom of choice" seems to work well as a rule of thumb.

Well it seems to me you are creating a point of contention that may or may not be there. That has pretty much been my position from the get go Sky.

Adults (at least over the age of consent for the prospective states in which they reside) should be allowed to engage in a polygamist lifestyle if they choose of their own free will. There should not be a prohibition placed on it. I would not personally engage in that style of marriage but I could see the benefits associated with it also and why people might find it quite appealing. No one should go to jail over it.

Taking away a person's freedom of choice (male or female in this case) is wrong in my opinion. I think we agree. The only mindset I could see being adamantly opposed to polygamy amongst consenting adults would be Christians maybe? The only issue I might worry about is whether or not anyone's rights are being violated and whether or not a woman could leave that arrangement if it no longer pleased her.

Then we’ve just had a little misunderstanding because my intention has been to try to find points of agreement. And I’m happy to see that we actually agree on all the important things here.

No argument there – as long as the men have the same rights.

Oh, I guess I misinterpreted your comment that I was simply "appealing to emotion" when stating that I felt the FLDS were engaging in child abuse.

Well I think you misunderstood my remark. Im uncertain. The reason I would have a concern over the females in these particular forms of marriage is because in the religious sense very often, the woman is NOT permitted to divorce similar to Catholicism. It is frowned upon and in some extreme cases, may carry serious consequences.

As far as the younger teenage males in the cults of the FLDS are concerned, I feel their rights are very often violated as they can be ostracized from the community (as noted previously) and are obligated to marry just as the females are by the community elders.

Well actually that what left wing activist judges sitting on the bench do now.

So much for following the laws of this land. Right?

Well if you had bothered to actually read this thread instead of simply picking out one comment, you will notice that the point that has been made repeatedly and with mounting historical evidence is that this country was in fact NOT founded on any Christian principles. We sought to eliminate the "Divine Authoritarian Rule" of a King.

Treaty with Tripoli 1796

Article 11

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

please explain your position on "this nation was not founded on chrstian belief's""" what does "in god we trust" mean to you? anything at all? do you live in a cashless society that the rest of the world is not privy too? just wondering where you come up with these unfounded lines of crapola?

Did you fail to read the quote taken from article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli? I did not write that myself. It was taken directly from the actual document made with the subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. Notice this line in particular:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; "

There it is black and white, however it is one bit of historical evidence illustrated on this thread. If you are just going to be foolish and ignore it all, be my guest. Hmm interesting. Apparently we were not always at odds with the Muslims. So I guess you should probably reconsider your hostile stand on the "Muslim Extremists" who "misinterpret the bible?"

go away

"In God We Trust"

Not->

In Christ We Trust.

Daniel,

You go away smelly pants! Go crack a history book!

prctice what you preach!

Alright. I thought I would add this quote taken from my earlier post on the thread just to be thoroughly irritating.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording was


"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."

Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones:

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."





They were messing with his draft! I would have kicked their asses. I wonder if these guys ever got into physical altercations when under all this duress to get this thing written.

probably still are arguing about trivial crap, instead of feeding the hungry and housing the homeless! Oh well, we support them with every tax we pay and every two party vote we cast. Guess were all guilty!