it's the child abuse, right?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

yes, of course I know there are many reactions: I'm asking for individual's thoughts here.

I'm not really talking about the current FLDS example per se, but more theoretically. What is it that bothers any of you about these groups? It seems to me that the typical examples cited about how they are "bad" stem from allegations of child abuse/statutory rape and not anything to do with adults having multiple partners. If that's true, it's not really the polygamy that bothers people but the child abuse.

Which to me begs the questions here about what if these young brides were 19 instead of 14? you say yes, Mike. exUte raises the gay marriage specter, which is fair enough. . . it has similarities, I guess, but I don't see how LDS could attack it in the same way when our people practiced it for so long.

is 1) if there is child abuse and 2) if there is welfare fraud involved. Again, they deserve the same rights to marry between consenting adults as it is for homosexuals.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So could you lose your TR over sending a contribution to their legal fund to get their kids back?

I don't think that represents the sort of relationship the question is referring to. I also don't think I represented the actual question very well...

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So could you lose your TR over sending a contribution to their legal fund to get their kids back?

But nice try.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

yes, of course I know there are many reactions: I'm asking for individual's thoughts here.

I'm not really talking about the current FLDS example per se, but more theoretically. What is it that bothers any of you about these groups? It seems to me that the typical examples cited about how they are "bad" stem from allegations of child abuse/statutory rape and not anything to do with adults having multiple partners. If that's true, it's not really the polygamy that bothers people but the child abuse.

Which to me begs the questions here about what if these young brides were 19 instead of 14? you say yes, Mike. exUte raises the gay marriage specter, which is fair enough. . . it has similarities, I guess, but I don't see how LDS could attack it in the same way when our people practiced it for so long.

I don't see how it is hard to attack something our ancestors may have practiced. My ancestors practiced slavery. I can wholeheartedly attack slavery. My ancestors wore beards, I can wholeheartedly attack that. Going back far enough, my ancestors did things in the Bible I would totally dissassociate myself with.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by exUte

16 or 19? I believe Texas law says that with a parent's permission, a 16-year-old CAN get married. If that is the criteria to take away children, what are they going to do with every other teenager in Texas that gets's pregnant at that age? My guess it's more than just FLDS girls. What is the teenage pregnancy rate across the state? How about in the black community or the hispanic community?

There is no minimum pregnancy age laws, however it was only recently (I believe a little over 2 years ago) that Texas changed their minimum age laws for marriage which when the FLDS had moved into the state were 14 years. Now it is 16. The one 16 year old who is either pregnant or who has children could very well be within the bounds of the laws since any 14 year old brides at the time the laws were changed were certainly grandfathered in (no pun intended).

[exUte]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

There is no minimum pregnancy age laws, however it was only recently (I believe a little over 2 years ago) that Texas changed their minimum age laws for marriage which when the FLDS had moved into the state were 14 years. Now it is 16. The one 16 year old who is either pregnant or who has children could very well be within the bounds of the laws since any 14 year old brides at the time the laws were changed were certainly grandfathered in (no pun intended).

for a sect they didn't approve of? Interesting. So prior, it was ok for a 14-year-old to marry.......as long as they weren't FLDS?

And to those who still claim that the FLDS weren't targeted from the get go are delusional. All it took was a hoax! Nice, Texas!

[ute4ever]

I have a question for the lawyers about the Jeffs conviction. In other words, a question for Archaea.

The two girls' parents consented to the marriages, and the court found said marital consummations to be rape. So my question is, why haven't the parents been charged and tried as accomplices? They willingly consented to and encouraged their daughters to get in bed with the man.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I have a question for the lawyers about the Jeffs conviction. In other words, a question for Archaea.

The two girls' parents consented to the marriages, and the court found said marital consummations to be rape. So my question is, why haven't the parents been charged and tried as accomplices? They willingly consented to and encouraged their daughters to get in bed with the man.

It sounds too tenuous but in theory it is plausible.