Oh man, this is great news!!! It is about time. I mean, when I saw this information come across the news, I let out a 'yahoo!'.

Let me put it this way, It is an end of oppression on this level.

don't get me wrong, I am so not gay. I am one who is very evolved when it comes to personal sexuality/relationships, etc. so are gays, for the most part.

the most fucked up are hetrosexuals that jack off to blondes with big boobs or little boys or some kink.

Love and sexuality is a very chemical, individual reaction. Those who forge relationships against the will of the other half are sick and should be imprisoned.

That is where the crime against society and god is. Has nothing to do with being gay.

Go to California or Massachusetts and get married gays! Right now! Do it before conservative or religious sociopaths fuck it up.

wedding bells,
DM

good one, california. get ready for the shit storm.

I've always heard it said...as goes CA, so goes the country.

Iwonder how this will work though. With so many other states having laws making smae sex marriage illegal, will this ruling cross state lines and if not, how long will it take?

VA didn't strike down interracial marriage until the '60's! How long will it take them to pull their collective heads out?

Remains to be seen whether the Governator will renege on his promise to sign the legislation. I'm sure the lobbying by the 'traditional values' mob has already begun. But he's not up for re-election for another couple of years (actually, I'm not sure if he's even eligible to be re-elected), so that particular thumbscrew is non-operational at least.

"the most fucked up are hetrosexuals that jack off to blondes with big boobs or little boys or some kink."

Yeah, those blondes with big boobs. How perverse!

"How perverse". Yup, the point of my 'big boobs' statement is about being out of touch with the details of healthy human relationships.

If a 'looksist' point of view is how one determines a human relationship in which sex is the peak (a lot of accessment has to go down before you get to sex), you are no better than a rapist. It might be part of one's personal chemistry, but if you leave it at boobs/blonde as a final determining factor in one's emotional sexuality--uh, I have nothing good to say about such unevolved people.

Point being, what is the difference to being attracted to to blonde/boobs as to having desire for same sex? Regardless of sexual orientation, blonde/boobs principles still apply.

Some will understand what I am saying. To others, it is all Japanese or algebra or rocket surgery or brain science. Figure it out.

DM

Is it me, or does Douglas sometimes come across as a male Zedd?

I married a brunette with little ones two weeks after I met her...what's that make me?

I'm actually quite frightened by hair on boobs, whatever color it may be!!! I mean, the occasional stray hair is one thing...but a full blown blond boob would just scare the hell out of me!!!

I married a brunette with little ones two weeks after I met her...what's that make me?

A stepdad?

Guess I shoulda also put in there that she's five years older than I am...

We have two daughters that are ours. We've been married almost 25 years.

...not even sure if I get that joke?!??! It was supposed to be a joke right???

You know what really sucks...when you hit return and then say to yourself.....OOOOHHHHHHHH!!!

Now I get it! Different little ones...

Sometimes a good sized hammer is required to get into this skull Doc!


[As one of the comments editors I decided to go in and delete my last after I saw that you'd gotten there just before I left my helpful hint. So now this thread makes even less sense than it already did! - Doc]

This is a bad decision, states should not be in the business of determining marriages, churches should. Many churches would gladly perform this service if it were legal, also they would perform services for polygamists or any other currently underpriviledged group. If anyone is a 'second class citizen' under this system it is singles (which does apply to gays by default prior to the decision).

Why should anyone, gay or straight, be treated any differently by the law whether they choose to have a special marriage partner or not?

Not sure I follow your logic here, Doug. You start out by saying that this is a bad decision, then the rest of your comment seems to contradict that position.

It might just be me, but your last sentence makes my head ache.

What's hard to understand? Churches should decide marriages, not the state. States should treat every individual like an individual whether they choose to marry or not. Problem solved.

Oh, and I'm still pissed as I used to work for the government at a position where married people made more money for doing the same job. (these people were often getting out of travel for 'family reasons' and taking sick days to care for kids which only irritated me more)

That's where I decided the government should treat everyone equal regardless of marital status. The gay marriage debate only strengthened my view and made me realize the government had no business dabbling in this religious ceremony in the first place.

This is a bad decision, states should not be in the business of determining marriages, churches should.

I think you got that backwards, Doug. If you read the decision, one of the ideas behind ruling the way they did was to take away the state's role in deciding who could and could not get married. This is a victory for the rights of individuals over the state and the arbitrary rule of the majority.

DAve

Ohhhh, I see now. It wasn't a bad decision it just should never have been their decision to make. Poor choice of words I suppose. It's a good decision sorta like the Missouri compromise was good legislation.

Great article Dave.

This thread is hilarious. Hairy blonde boobs...hrmm.

Douglas May, I have a strange comprehension of exactly what you are saying. Perhaps for different reasons than you are saying it. Anyway, I think that word switch with the rocket surgery was very funny.

Doc,

How dare you? I was scratching my head on the blond boobs comment.

Cindy, thank you. Yeah, you get it. I like your use of 'strange comprehension'.

Hairy blonde boobs? I once had a mate who said she should get her boobs waxed!

Oh gosh.

best,
DM

Doug is right. The government should not penalized a citizen for being single. We should be repealing the laws that reward marriage instead of fight against who allowed to be labeled married and who isn't.

Mooja,

I disagree. I think that marriage is a great investment for any society. I think that marriage between two genders is the best way to insure a balanced offspring and therefore a future with healthy inhabitants.

Zedd, the role of the government should not be social engineering. Removing the government role in marriage would make marriage stronger and more credible, not weaken the institution. It would put it in the hands of churches which have much more of a stake in making sure that marriages succeed than the state does.

Dave

Dave,

You say, and I agree, that the role of the government should not be social engineering.

Unfortunately, it did quite a lot of social engineering in the past, does it now, and will doubtless continue to do so in the future.

We also agree that the government should have no role in marriage; for it to have such a role is social engineering. However, the tax system, social security system, the health care system, and numerous other systems are forms of social engineering, which go far beyond marriage by encouraging social attitudes in other areas which many find damaging.

Do you realistically foresee any significant likelihood of changes for the better in these and other forms of governmental social engineering? I wish that I could, but just don't see any likelihood.

Dan

Governing IS social engineering.

Is it me?

Governing IS social engineering.

These days, it is, Zedd; you're right.

But it shouldn't be. When a government begins to dabble in social engineering, it is embarking on the road to oppression.

That's what 1984, Brave New World, and Animal Farm were about, as well as countless sci-fi and philosophical works.

I agree with Dave and Dan on that one.

If the court decided that churches were legally bound to perform same-sex marriages, or if it ruled that preaching from the pulpit against homosexual acts was a hate crime---something like that has happened in Canada---then there'd be a reason for Christians to be running around getting petitions signed. I'd sign a petition like that.

That not what's going on with the recent California ruling, though. I'm not sure that a California marriage affords any more rights than a civil union, that seems to be a debatable point at the moment, but even if all the ruling amounts to is that gays get to marry and then kiss in front of the Pasadena Court House, all in your face, so what? Christians are preaching and waving Bibles aloft on the street, also in your face. Some are also expressing their concern for the rights of the unborn in front of abortion clinics--in your face, again, albeit from a court-prescribed distance.

You still have the legal right to offend people, too, Christian.

What are we American Christians afraid of, Sodom and Gomorrah Redux? The US broke treaty after treaty with the Native Americans, millions of viable--what shall I call them--humanesque beings?--have been aborted. The US invasion of Iraq has resulted in 1,209,263 Iraqi civilian deaths. God has restrained any impulse to annihilate the US through all that. We don't need to be kicking sinners around because we think we'll make God mad if we don't.

Jesus' way of changing things is by grace and truth, not Law.

Gentlemen,

Governing has always been social engineering.

Governments organize societies. They set boundaries and provide opportunity. Kingdoms relegated the stations of the people born to them. Serfdom the same. Democracies do the same. Engineering (the science) uses natural laws to formulate structures by which things should function. Sounds like governance to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Speaking of the government as Social Engineer. How about the state of Texas getting away with tearing babies-- in many cases permanently--away from their under-aged mothers who belong to the FLDS (a fundamentalist Mormon sect that practices polygamy)? Even the socialist...I mean social workers involved are having their sleep disturbed.

There are several experiments going on at the same time. I repeat what other people have said here: I may not agree/disagree with homosexual couplings, or polygamy, or the custom of taking fourteen year old girls to wife (though it wasn't so very long ago that this practice was considered to be perfectly acceptable), but it troubles me that the government gets to decide who gets married and who is allowed to parent. Even if the fourteen year old had been coerced into the marriage, taking her baby away from her is worse.

Wouldn't it be ironic if California, a big influential state, went one step further and decided that Christian adoption agencies could not discriminate against same-sex couples, while Texas, another big influential state, persisted in removing kids from their bio-moms because of their religion? Do anti-gay marriage Christian activists not realize that their passionate efforts to support the government's right to define marriage and fit parenthood might one day come 'round to bite them in the buttocks?

And I wonder how delighted truly libertarian homosexual couples are with the California court's recent decision.

Irene,

In this sect, the kids are not raised by their mothers. The leaders decided who was to raise whom. In many cases there was communal rearing.

The babies were not separated from their young Moms. They are UNITED with their moms. The problem was that no one would reveal their identity so no one knew who was related to whom. The girls were then told that if they reveal their identity they would be united with their children. That is how the age of the moms in many cases was discovered.

Good points all, Irene.

You raise an interesting point about Christian adoption agencies; one that has already had governments try to force Catholic agencies to allow same sex adoptions, resulting in controversy both here in the US and in the UK.

The entire matter about gay adoption is problematic indeed. We don't know enough about what single gender rearing does to the species. How is an agency to decide if a single gender couple is BETTER at parenting than a standard couple, all other things being equal.

Zedd is so indoctrinated in radical statism that he cannot even imagine any alternative.

Lumpy, Zedd's a woman. Surely you should know that by now. Do pay attention!

Zedd and Clavos, Yes. The UK has gone too far in interfering with Catholic adoption agencies. You're right Zedd, nobody knows what's best without experimentation. Christian adoption agencies are doing what they think is best for the kids by sticking to the traditional route, including, I would assume, insisting that the adoptive parents believe in Jesus. Homosexuals who, after the test tube route, can't produce their own bio kids surely have other adoption agencies who would be willing to put kids in their care. My gut feeling is that most of the kids brought up by gays will turn out no worse than any of the rest of us whose upbringings were nonconventional in any of a variety of ways. Still, why do they need to go after Christian adoption agencies?


Zedd, My bad. Had I correctly posted the link to the Austin Statesman, you would've
known that FLDS mothers were INDEED separated from their moms. The person interviewed in the article was one of the social workers charged with executing that separation, and she's claiming that her fellow workers are experiencing PSTD because the separations were INDEED wrenching. So...let's try this again. Third time's a charm.

On the other hand, Christian adoption agencies might THINK they know what's best for the kids, but when they start letting the state tell them what to do, they really make a mess of things.

We've found an acre of common ground today, Clavos and Zedd. Good work!

Irene,

I missed the part where it says that the teen moms had their infants taken away from them.

Those moms in the article allowed their children to be molested. Who cares if they have PTSD because of the raid.

I know.... I'm the weirdo for thinking so.

No Zedd, you're not a weirdo for thinking so, because you believe it's true, and if it were true, you'd be absolutely right in separating those babies from their moms. Although the investigation started with a "confession" from a "member" who has never been identified, it's looking like there is ZERO evidence that any of the children on that compound were being abused. And now they're being farmed out to foster homes, and some are up for adoption permanently.

Read the "mess of things" link in #37, Zedd. Or not. It won't be the first time the rest of the country has had to look the other way while some overbearing ham-fisted Texans took a wrecking ball to families "for the good of the children."
One of the times it happened, they had some help from Janet Reno.

Although the investigation started with a "confession" from a "member" who has never been identified

Actually, the accuser has been identified and she's not a member, but rather an anti-polygamy fanatic from Colorado.

That said, there are still pregnant 13-15 year olds involved here and by any standard that's a crime.

Dave

Yes, and looking at the facts perhaps you should consider seperating 12-15 year old girls until you get things sorted out. Why then did the state take all the kids including infants and boys, etc?

This is an egregious violation by the state punishing an entire community for the actions of some within it. The fact that there is little outrage only reinforces my belief that our current society is doomed to the curse of statism. The best plan is to stop fighting it and become part of it I suppose.

An interesting note you may not know, of the 2 girls who have actually given birth in state custody both have been determined to be adults (age 22 in one case). The state is 0-2 at this point. Actual facts rather than accusations are hard to find here but my gut tells me the sex and underaged part has been sensationalized and in the end they will find a handful of underage marriages and a bit higher rate of teen pregancies than usual, nothing more.

Also, the 22 year old woman still has to file court documents just to have a shot at getting free herself, in any case her newborn child will remain in state custody according to CPS.

There aren't words to describe how wrong this is. Oh wait, but it could never happen to you, best not worry about it.

You know, Doug, you present a very good acse in the previous two comments, with a very impassioned tone to them, but the cheap shot ad hominem at the end of the second comment demeans your message.

Oh gosh. The micromanagement of homophobia, basically.

Look, homo or heterosexual. Treat it all the same. Because it is. It is all about that eternal soul mate life partner thing. Human bonding to a more evolved existance.

Some are 'chemicalized' toward the same sex, some are not. I have a few set of homosexual friends (male and female) who have had their own child together. Everything is fine. Quality lifestyles and family situations. What is the bfd?

Can't Cindy and I just get back to talking about blonde hairy boobs? Can't we outlaw and expose ALL various kinks of the sexual world? Like any heterosexual that likes diapers should definatley be chastized. How about those who like to be pee'd on?

Why stop at homosexuality? And you know, that is what the whole fucked up attitude is about. There is a lot of stuff people don't get about sex. You all better start evolving.

Cindy McBoobs, does this fit along that 'strange comprehension' you mentioned?

figure it out, people...
DM

Clav,

Sorry if I seem 'impassioned', what is happening to this group simply because they don't share our same cultural values is simply heinous. The treatment they have received in the MSM is sadly typical. The sex part has been sensationalized beyond comprehehension and the facts have not been let in the way of a good story.

Myth 1. The search was started when a desperate underage girl called the police.

Fact 1. The call that started this entire mess was a hoax by a woman in Colorado.

Myth 2. The FLDS defrauds welfare and lives on the government largesse using their kids to garner benefits.

FACT 2. Not one single person at the compound is on welfare. While specific data on the FLDS are unavailable only 66 people in the entire county are on Childrens Health Insurance and approx 160 on food stamps.

Myth 3. The FLDS has rape beds and rooms set up in their temple.

FACT 3. The temple is a sacred place not used for sex. If anyone would bother to do the research they would find mainstream LDS churches have the same thing because their services are long and the members are often fasting and get faint or need to lay down.

Myth 4. The state is holding X number and percent of pregnant underage girls.

Fact 4. The state will not accept the girls birth certificates or drivers license as proof of their age claiming they could be fake. Of the two that we have hard data on who have given birth in custody, one has been determined to be 18 and the other 22. (Im sure there are underage mothers pregnant here somewhere but the state is trying awfully hard to inflate the numbers)

Partially true statement #5 FLDS is about 55 year old men and 14 year old girls getting married.

Facts 5. This is at least partially true from what I can tell. There is little hard evidence released. The founder Jeffs is in jail for marrying a 19 and 14 year old I believe. Also, the one escapee of the compound who's been in the media lately has was married at either 14 or 15 to a 19 year old. Nineteen and fourteen is a bit different from 55 and 14.

On the last point someone has a case, you're right. There is abuse encouraging youths to marry at the age when they become sexually active. They still believe in marriage. We believe in handing them condoms and telling them if they make a mistake we'll take them down to the clinic and abort it.

From our perspective they are 'sick' and we are normal, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Doug, at the root of the problem with the FLDS is the fact that polygamy is illegal. If it were not illegal then groups like this would not be forced underground and could avoid the secrecy which makes them so vulnerable to accusations of impropriety. Also, with the scrutiny which would come from being openly polygamous they would be much less inclined to actually engage in genuinely harmful activity like child marriage.

The truth is that polygamy is not a threat to society or in any way dangerous to anyone and there's no reason not to legalize it. Making it illegal is where most of the problems come from.

Dave

You're more at the base of the stem than the root, Dave Nalle, but you're dang close.
One of the roots of the problem is that the leader of the FLDS hadn't relocated his sect to South Carolina where the fathers of the babies of 14- and 15- year old moms would've been given a pass. The other root of the problem is that the FLDS wasn't living in Utah a hundred and fifty years ago, before the State decided polygamy for everyone was illegal.

...and the TAP root of the problem is that the federal government (and state courts) are not respecting the varied mores and sensibilities of the people who live in the various states. I'm guessing Dave Nalle, that if the pro- and anti-gay marriage activists had found a way to be respectful and reasonable with one another, getting to know one another's BEST SELVES, polygamy and homosexual marriages would have been made, not by the courts, but by the people themselves, if not with universal hallelujahs, at least with far more people making no more audible an objection than "a tsk tsk, God show them the way, but until then, it's really none of my business" in the pew of a church somewhere. Or if not in a state like...Texas maybe...then in a majority of the states. No civil war. No violation of constitution.

I say the following not because you, Dave Nalle, would give a rat's buttocks, but because some of those reading might think, "o! listen to that Irene Wagner the heretic, saying polygamy is OK," and that would keep them firmly entrenched against the idea of allowing polygamy as a right of people living in states whose majority does NOT find it objectionable. I don't believe that polygamy is for the Christian, as it violates the sacred mystical parallel relationship between a marriage (God, man and his wife) and God's relationship with his church (God, Jesus, and the his Bride-the Church). And if there are Christians who DO find polygamy acceptable, they can congregate with others who do, just as those who believe in Transubstantiation, or the uniqueness of the KJV, or whatever the grey area, stay in close proximity to those with whom they are less likely to be distracted by arguments over non-essentials. I'd hope that all Christians, differing as they do, would find a way of living together in peace, all looking at their common bond in Jesus.

And I'd hope that Americans in general (and those in the world!) would respect and even celebrate rather than hold in contempt their incredible diversity, looking at their common bond as human beings.

There are always people who are against equality. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue

I've not seen it, Charlotte, but if you wanted to convince people, not by tearing down what THEY believed, but by getting them to respect and see things from your point of view, a sensitively produced film and other kinds of dialogue would be the right way to do it. There are sides of this controversy where gays need to bend, or at least wait, a little bit, and there are sides of this controversy about which the "antis" need to bend--not compromising their own standards, but leaving behind the unreasonable expectations they have for other people.

There are also materials available to educate, not necessarily on theology, but on the anatomy of a human being at various of his or her development. Maybe someone should organize a "Lets All Examine Our Biases Film Fest."

Doug Hunter #44,

I think you didn't hear the reason why these babies and children are being removed.

This is a group of people that raise their children to be molested or to be molesters. In a normal home, we would say, take the kid out. Simply because it is a supposed religion, people sympathize??? Those babies were taken because their parents don't have a say in their upbringing and the leaders force little girls to be molested and encourage men to do it. That's pedophilia, not a good thing. A really bad environment to raise children.

While I don't approve of the cult, the babies being raised to be molested has to be one of the most convoluted leaps of twisted logic I ever heard.

Zedd, how do you manage to sound so intelligent and yet be so stupid?

Jet,

Don't get too familiar. Also, slow down. You may discover that it is you who is dumb.

If the belief is that its perfectly fine to molest girls, and girls can be and have been molested, then they are being raised to potentially be molested. If the boys are taught that molesting girls is fine, then they are being raised to be potential molesters. Both girls and boys are receiving an improper upbringing.

Where is the mystery or "unreasonability" in that statement? I am sincerely curious. How does your brain miss that?

Lets take it slower. If a Dad sexually abuses a daughter and another daughter is born to him, would not the state remove her from that home? Heck those that have be found to have committed a sex crime cant even LIVE in the vicinity of a school let alone RAISE children.

Is it all clearing up for you? Do you need things to be explained in tiny bites in order to comprehend. If that is that case, my apologies. I was not posted to just you, but had we been in a one on one, i would have given you the information bit by bit.

Side Note: The fact that under aged girls have children by adult men proves the sexual abuse exists.

Look Zedd-you've goaded many here into arguing some of the most ignorant feets of side-tracking a subject that I've ever seen.

I nor anyone else here needs to point out the blatant and gaping holes in your flimsy and fuzzy logic; their right in front of us glaring for all to see.

Frankly, I no longer feel you're worth wasting my time on, and I pray others won't either...

They're all hetrosexual. Hetrosexuals should be all put in jail. I bet mosto fo ther are right-handed too.

Of course molesting a chile is wrong-your insane leab of logic is that you have no proof, nor do you want any that anyone was being taught from a young age to molest someon.

Trying to superglue the two together is down right irresponsible and you should be ashamed of yourself.

All child molesters drive cars
All child molesters watch TV

Do we condemn all people who drive cars or watch TV to be hunted down and punnished.

You're therapy sessions must cost a fortune!!!

>>The fact that under aged girls have children by adult men proves the sexual abuse exists. <<

Zedd, if you'd read this thread or followed the case, it's not clear that there are actually any underage girls who are pregnant, and it certainly hasn't been proven in a court of law. And even if there are instances of underage pregnancies, that is not automatically proof of a systemetized abuse of young girls.

The objectionable thing for some here is that children are taken from their mothers (not the suspected abusive fathers) without any kind of legal process. Plus the mothers are not the abusers, so why are they deemed unfit to care for their children?

You're focusing on one very small aspect of the problem which isn't even supported by factual evidence and missing the larger issues.

Dave

... and isn't what this article is about in the first place!

Dave,

CPS takes the kids out of possible abuse situations first then they investigate. They cant afford to wait for legal knots to be untied in many cases.

It's been stated repeatedly that there are many mothers among the girls. There are those who've come out of the group before the raid who have testified about the child "marriages"; kids taken to a cheap motel and forced to marry adults. I think it's worth investigating. If its not true then the children should be returned however if its not....

Its been said by former members that these kids aren't even raised by their natural mothers. They are raised communally or by whomever the leader decides should raise them.


Jet,

Are you alright? I was simply restating what the state is saying the reason for the removal of the children is. Are you feeling well??

Don't address a participant if you are not prepared that they may actually reply.

These articles morph all of the time. What is with you?? While I've seen your name on BC I don't remember dialoguing with you much if at all in the past. I won't feel slighted if you discontinue to communicate with me. (????) We most likely don't agree or disagree to any interesting degree, hence the lack of communication. So, I suppose you not communicating wont affect much.

Now if Clav dumped me, I would be wounded for decades.

Yes, the founder is in jail for life and was one of the FBI's ten most wanted because he performed a marriage ceremony for a 14 year old girl to a 19 year old boy. If letting teenagers with age difference screw gets you life and FBI's most wanted I know alot of uneducated inner city and trailer park moms who should be looking at some serious jail time.

Here's a clue for you: outside the compound 14 and 15 year olds are having sex, we're even handing them condoms and taking them to the clinic to have abortions. So the main difference between us and them is that they ask they're teenagers to get married before sex, we promote the opposite.

They do have one big stain on their record, young women marrying old men. Lets compare the rest

No drugs, smoking, or drunkeness
No gangs
No 4 hours of TV + 3 hours of video games
No fast food obesity
No environment destruction or massive consermerism
No neglected or single family parenthood
No reliance on government assistance
No dumping kids off w/ a stranger and working 2 jobs
No bombing federal buildings or flying planes into towers because they disagree with us


Their lifestyle certainly isn't for me but let's leave these people alone. There's a saying from the second World War:

First they came for the Communists,
- but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
- but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews,
- but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.


Where were you when they came for the polygamists?

The 14 yr old GIRL was FORCED to have sex with a 19yr old by a grown man.

SICK!!!!

It's been stated repeatedly that there are many mothers among the girls

Until proven, allegations only. That's why they're running DNA tests.

There are those who've come out of the group before the raid who have testified about the child "marriages"; kids taken to a cheap motel and forced to marry adults.

Not "testified." Claimed. Again, at this point, only allegations, and in fact, denials of these claims (from the girls themselves) are also beginning to emerge.

I think it's worth investigating

That's exactly what TX authorities are and have been doing since the raid.

What has been revealed by the authorities so far appears to indicate that little, if any, crime has been committed.

No one 'forced' the girl to say I do or to have sex. Was she pressured? Probably. Lot's of girls are pressured to have sex at young ages (usually by the boy who fancies them) You're simply spreading propanganda because discussing the actual facts puts you in too bad a position.

I imagine if they declared hip-hop culture to be 'SICK' because it promotes degradation of women, drugs, gangs, rape, etc and swooped into the projects taking all the kids from every parent regardless of guilt you'd have a different outlook. Maybe while they're at it they could put R. Kelly on the most wanted list and put him away for life. He didn't just condone 14yo sex, he participated in it! On second thought maybe that should be death, right?

On the facts side, the state is now 0-10 when disputing ages with the FLDS. Of the original 31 mothers, ten have been shown to be as old as 27 and their youngest 'victim', 14, turned out not to even be pregnant. The FLDS has 16 more in dispute which if the trend hold would mean there were actually 4-5 underage pregnancies. Certainly not good, but also not worth destroying an entire community over.

Ten women, many with drivers licenses and birth certificates which they showed CPS, were held against their will as minors because they 'looked young' for over a month. Can a 27 year old really look that young or did CPS need to inflate it's numbers to justify it's boondoggle of a raid?

Awe Clav,

You love me! sniff

Just to keep this up to date on the FLDS sidetrack, the appeals court here in Austin ruled today that the CPS had no grounds for removing the kids from parental custody. The state may file an appeal, but right now it looks like the families will be reunited and there are no further charges that can be filed.

Dave

Thanks for indulging us Dave.

My hope is that this move will frighten them from ever fooling around with these children again.

Doug,

That girl was raped. What sort of pervert defends a men in his 50's forcing a CHILD to have sex? YUCK!!!

I feel gross just writing about it.

Don't bother to respond. Ewwww!!

Your poor little 'feel goods' are hurt just thinking about it. Emotion trumping logic again in the mind of a liberal, typical. When you grow up emotionally enough to have an adult discussion of a topic get back with me. (hint: adult conversations don't normally use technical terms like EWWWW and YUCK)

Until then, good day !

Zedd, there's still a huge difference between a man in his 50s having sex with a 14 year old and two teens having sex because a 50 year old married them.

And keep in mind that our current notion of 'age of consent' is a very modern and culturally isolated idea. When the LDS was founded 14 would have been considered an acceptable age for a legal marriage in most of the US.

Dave

Dave, as much as I respect your intellect and your patience, do you really thing that you can put anything close to a rational thought into Zedd's insanely and extreemly closed mind...?

It'd die of loneliness!

Dave,

Just wait until your daughter hits 14. We'll see if you will be open to a 19 year old raping her. Let alone because a 50yr old MADE him do it.

Also, you know full well that a 14yr old today is not the same as a 14yr old of yesteryear. In our culture a 14yr old is a CHILD. We can only evaluate such things based on our culture not what happened 100yrs ago.

However, 100yrs ago RAPE was rape. This child was raped.

A few months back you were defending the plea of a prostitute who said she was raped because her jons didn't pay her. However you are willing to accept that it is permissible for a 14yr old virgin to be raped by a 19yr old? YUCK!!

What am I missing here.

Jet,

Wow talk about patience.... Wow, this is a test of all tests.

May I share..... You are dumb. You just don't know it. STOP. Off course you wont stop because you are too dumb to know just how dumb you are (sorry) so you'll go on making me cringe at, well, your dumbness (cringe/flush chill). Let's hope you are young and you'll sharpen up with time. Hugs to you. Oh my goodness, I just got another cringe thinking of you in the future realizing just how stupid you were right now. When it happens, don't worry about it, we were all big mouthed and stupid (to some degree) in our youth.

Doug,

Pervy!!!

I rest my case....

You have no case. [edited for pointless insults]

How did this thread get so hijacked for such B.S.?

Back to the subject at hand I too believe that the government has no part to play in the arrangements of marriage. The real reason that they will always keep a hand in this is that the sale of marriage licenses is a cash cow for most local governments.

Also by making marriage a legal rather than a personal/religious arrangement the government supports a multi-billion dollar a year divorce industry. After all we have a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

Laws against gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, or any other agreement between consenting ADULTS is formed from religious opinion and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution of the U.S.A. Read it yourself here.

These laws are based upon the rules of one religion (and not everyone in that religion agrees that it's forbidden), this is an act of blatant discrimination against religions that allow these practices. This is the de-facto establishment of an official religion.

Now I just have to get the image of big blonde hairy boobs out of my head!

Just wait until your daughter hits 14. We'll see if you will be open to a 19 year old raping her. Let alone because a 50yr old MADE him do it.

My daughter hit 14 two years ago. She was raised to be responsible and fairly level headed so I don't expect her to join a polygamous cult.

Also, you know full well that a 14yr old today is not the same as a 14yr old of yesteryear. In our culture a 14yr old is a CHILD. We can only evaluate such things based on our culture not what happened 100yrs ago.

You aren't terribley familiar with modern 14 year olds, are you? An awful lot of them are sexually active by that age, whether you consider them children or not. Most people would argue that they are being sexualized younger than they were a generation or two ago.

However, 100yrs ago RAPE was rape. This child was raped.

I'd need your definition of rape, then. Consensual sex within a marriage which would be legal in several states is awfully hard to take seriously as rape. In Tennessee 14 is the legal age of consent. In quite a few other states a 14 year old can marry with parental permission, which these kids certainly would have had. I have heard no evidence whatsoever from you or anyone else that there was forcible rape here.

A few months back you were defending the plea of a prostitute who said she was raped because her jons didn't pay her. However you are willing to accept that it is permissible for a 14yr old virgin to be raped by a 19yr old? YUCK!!

The first is a matter of the sanctity of oral contracts. The second is a matter of cultural mores, which are highly variable, and I think it would be easy to argue that the FLDS is a society unto itself and should be allowed some latitude in these conventions.

And thr truth which I'm sure you'll recoil from is that at 14 most human females are physically mature and capable of breeding healthily.

Dave

Well said Dave, I applaud and envy your patience... misguided as it is.

Dave,

I thought you had a toddler.

You are not familiar with this story. SHE said she was raped. It wasn't consensual.

I know teens WELL. 14yr olds are naive and pretend to know what they are doing. They are CHILDREN. Only 14% of 15yr olds have engaged in sex. The number decreases dramatically for 14yr olds. Sexual behavior is actually decreasing in teens in general (for all ethnicities and economic groups).

Understanding that this is not the thread, I will say however that you didn't respond to my post. Would you then be fine with your daughter being raped by a 21yr old at the request of a 52yr old? The answer is NO Dave in case you were thinking about it. Uuuurg!

That girl said she was forced to marry and have sex with that 19yr old. SHE said she was raped repeatedly.

While the FLDS is a society, it exists with in the greater society. Just as the ghetto is a society of sorts, in many cases rampant with lawlessness, the laws of the land (or greater society) are applied to govern it.

Forcing those girls into sexual relationships is criminal and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I say this as a woman, a mother of teen girls, as someone who has worked for years with children and teens and a decent citizen.

What's going on?

Zedd repeating it over and over and over ad nauswum will not make it any more true sweetie...

Jet,

The Lord supports raping 14yr olds?? Are you serious????

What is the real problem here?

I'm out. YIKES

STOP!

Mother, mother
There's too many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today - Ya

Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me, so you can see
Oh, what's going on
What's going on
Ya, what's going on
Ah, what's going on

In the mean time
Right on, baby
Right on
Right on

Father, father, everybody thinks we're wrong
Oh, but who are they to judge us
Simply because our hair is long
Oh, you know we've got to find a way
To bring some understanding here today
Oh

Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me
So you can see
What's going on
Ya, what's going on
Tell me what's going on
I'll tell you what's going on - Uh
Right on baby
Right on baby

STOP in the name of love... before you break my heart... think it o-woah-woahver

WJET-the sound of classic Motown, taking your requests on the air, that was a double play for a listener, and now back to the Hits!!!

It only just dawned on me that Zedd is talking about the original Warren Jeffs conviction in Utah, not anything having to do with the FLDS case we're discussing here in Texas. The Jeffs case is different in that it's not a claim of statutory rape, but of actual forced rape. Nothing like that has been alleged in the Texas case. And BTW, the age of consent in Utah for married couples is 14, so the sex in that case was legal unless actual physical rape could be proven. In the case it came down to the word of the girl vs. the word of her ex-husband and the jury believed the girl. No other relevant evidence was presented.

Dave

Dave, while that has useful information in it, it still has nothing to do with the original subject.

Since Zedd has nothing intelligent to say about it, perhaps that's why she's continuously trying to change the subject????:??

Only 14% of 15yr olds have engaged in sex. The number decreases dramatically for 14yr olds. Sexual behavior is actually decreasing in teens in general (for all ethnicities and economic groups).

And what are the statistics of 14- and 15-year-olds honestly responding to questions about their sex life? I am always curious where numbers like this and those attributed to drug use among teens comes from. Since they aren't 100%, they seem rather meaningless.

P.S. Jet, how about passing on the names of the singers and songwriters whose work fills your comments?

I have a lot more faith in the anecdotal reports of sex and drugs among her peers which I get from my teen and her friends, and they would suggest rates of drug use and sex considerably higher than those numbers among private school kids and enormously higher among public school kids.

Dave

What always confused me was the stat that teenage girls average 1-2 sex partner while teenage boys have 3-5. Made me wonder who exactly the boys 'partners' were. I suspect they might be counting the one on the end of each arm.

Cindy, where are you? Let's get this thread back on track!!

Let me look in my fanny pack. I should have buttplugs and Striesand tickets.

El Bicho, sorry I keep forgetting how old I am, I just assumed everyone knew Marvin Gaye and the Supremes...

Marvin Gaye's "What's goin' on" is in response to #83 and The Supreme's "Stop in the name of love" is in response to #82

... by the way Stop In the Name of Love has been stuck in my head since last night and even Led Zepplin can't seem to exosize it...

Doug: What always confused me was the stat that teenage girls average 1-2 sex partner while teenage boys have 3-5. Made me wonder who exactly the boys 'partners' were.

Remember that the teenagers' partners would not necessarily be other teenagers.

It should also be borne in mind that teenage boys are more likely to embellish their sexual experiences when asked about them.

Well, I am a Christian. Jesus loves me (this I know!). HE does not discriminate. HE does not believe I am in Sin because HE made me. Only Religious Zealots (Jesus is not religion, HE is God!) believe I am sin. The Bible is the word of God AS Interpreted by the Reader...Not by a group of people that would have their way.

God Love Me and my husband. Government is FREE from the 'Church' (Church is a group of people that can communicate and understand each other, NOT a group the FORCES 'followers' to accept their way!).

Don't like it? Move to Iran! Gays WILL Marry with the same rights in the goverments eyes. Funny how many Priests, chaplins, spiritualists, etc. will 'Marry' because they get money. Wonder what your REAL God is?!? Mine is Jesus and HE Loves Me and Mine!

I think its great but I wonder if the same laws apply for a regular marriage apply?
18-over
adoption and things like that?