Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening... - Page 83

The Mrs · #**821** 05-08-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newman

Hahaha The newspapers accounts already proudly declared how the community came together to get it done because of their new neighbors. Obviously they didn't consult with a lawyer before telling the world what they did.

And you believed their propoganda???

It's still just speculation.

Nina · #**822** 05-08-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newman

Nina- What does obey mean?

I will be back later....

Warren Jeffs AND a child AND the State of Utah believed it meant the child must have relations with a 19 Year old man.

Newman · #**823** 05-08-2008, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Until they adopt and teach a different belief of being adults when 'wed', yes, I agree. You really can't get away from the fact that this really is a cult, with dictators at the helm. Dictators that teach you it's okay to be married and bear children at the ages of 13, 14, or 15.

I'm not sure I understand your second question.

Are you aware that there is no proof of any young woman less than sixteen years old getting married in Texas? (Not sure if 17 isn't the cut off). Are you aware that the 13 year old who had a child referred to in court is now a woman in her mid 20s and the child would have been conceived in a different jurisdiction?

Isn't it possible that with the arrest of a couple of people for underage marriage; such a practice (if it were so) was winding down and that is why CPS has yet to show us any thirteen, fourteen and fifteen year old brides?

My question is if it turns out that there was only one sixteen year old bride, do you believe Texas should have removed all the children? What if there were five?

Newman · #**824** 05-08-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mrs

And you believed their propoganda???

It's still just speculation.

Umm... it came from the horse's mouth (the legislator that sponsored the bill).

Newman · #**825** 05-08-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nina

Warren Jeffs AND a child AND the State of Utah believed it meant the child must have relations with a 19 Year old man.

Nina- I haven't read about this particular case other than to know that authorities didn't seize all the children in the community because of the actions of those individuals actually engaged in the abuse. That distinction belongs to Texas alone.

Sister Alvear · #**826** 05-09-2008, 08:28 AM

I am mainly concerned about 2 things.

1. The state walking in on a church and just taking kids away...for if it happened there it could happen under any circumstances...or so it seems to me.
2. Yet at the same time I am concerned with people that are brainwashed in communities such as this one...where does good sence begin and end? I happen to know people that are in communities and the communities have bainwashed them and they no longer think or reason like normal people...that too is very scary...
So where can a line be drawn?
Is there a lawful right way to check into things that are not right?
I KNOW people that have been abused by so called church communities and families that their lives are runined forever...

Nina · #**827** 05-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newman

Nina- I haven't read about this particular case other than to know that authorities didn't seize all the children in the community because of the actions of those individuals actually engaged in the abuse. That distinction belongs to Texas alone.

Go Texas!

Hoovie · #**828** 05-09-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

I am mainly concerned about 2 things.

1. The state walking in on a church and just taking kids away...for if it happened there it could happen under any circumstances...or so it seems to me.
2. Yet at the same time I am concerned with people that are brainwashed in communities such as this one...where does good sence begin and end? I happen to know people that are in communities and the communities have bainwashed them and they no longer think or reason like normal people...that too is very scary...
So where can a line be drawn?
Is there a lawful right way to check into things that are not right?
I KNOW people that have been abused by so called church communities and families that their lives are runined forever...

Brainwashing is legal. There should no line be drawn other than illegal activity. If there is confirmed abuse they should be limited to the areas that the eveidence leads IMHO

Sister Alvear · #**829** 05-09-2008, 09:30 AM

You may br right that brainwashing is legal BUT it is not right...I have seen people that are robots to the will of the strongest...However guess that will always be...You just wonder how sound minded people get caught up in horrible cults but it happens everyday...

The Mrs · #**830** 05-09-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newman

Are you aware that there is no proof of any young woman less than sixteen years old getting married in Texas? (Not sure if 17 isn't the cut off). Are you aware that the 13 year old who had a child referred to in court is now a woman in her mid 20s and the child would have been conceived in a different jurisdiction?

If there is no proof of any 16-year old being married, then the girls under the age of 17 who are pregnant/have children would be considered victims of child abuse. Is that correct? I believe the correct terminology would be child sexual abuse.

Quote:

The American Psychiatric Association states that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults", and condemns any such action: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newman

Isn't it possible that with the arrest of a couple of people for underage marriage; such a practice (if it were so) was winding down and that is why CPS has yet to show us any thirteen, fourteen and fifteen year old brides?

My question is if it turns out that there was only one sixteen year old bride, do you believe Texas should have removed all the children? What if there were five?

Quote:

They took custody of 463 children on the belief that the sect's practice of underage and polygamous spiritual marriages endangered the children.

Just a little while ago it was reported that of the 31 of 53 girls who were either pregnant or had children, 2 of them had 2 children, and 2 of them had 3 children. I don't think we're dealing with a case of it just being ONE child, or 5, that is affected by all this.

(Of course that's dependant upon whether these are factual news reports.)

And yes, I still believe that under the circumstances that existed when CPS first went to the ranch, that they had no other choice but to remove all the children. It doesn't do us any good to look at facts NOW that might alter the course of events THAT DAY. They did what they had to do given the evidence and facts they found AT THAT TIME.