i ran into a biologist the other day talking about puligamy amongst mammals(or simply multiple partners, obviously no marriage involved). he claims that humans are unique in that they reject this idea for the most part publicly, and it to be a very natural way for many other species. (*feel free to confirm or deny this statement)

interesting shit. not that it makes me personally endorse puligamy in any way or form.

4/23/2008 1:43:59 AM

Poligamy is being married to two or more people.

Polyamory is typically how folks describe dating or just doing it with two or more people.

But I don't think either term really applies to other animals.

And, yeah, tons of animals be knocking boots with partners all over the place. We're just a little more advanced in that over the years we've learned societies are more stable when folks stick to one other person.

Like with the FLDS folks...they have to kick boys out of their fold in order to maintain a proper ratio for this spiritual poligamy. That's bad for stability. Folks with a say in our society (and most folks without a say) recognize that it's not good for stability so we've placed a stigma on poligamy to make sure it doesn't catch on.

In other words, I think our aversion to poligamy is an environmental issue, not a biological one. If we stripped away our environment and our society, I believe we'd be doing it like they do on the Discovery channel.

I'm not sure what that says for love and the human condition. Folks like to believe they love people, like "love" is something more than a social condition, more than a biological condition. I can't say I believe that to be true. But just because it isn't something greater doesn't mean it isn't great. Mothers, human and otherwise, have been known to sacrifice their own lives for their offspring. And that love is beautiful, even if it is just biology. I mean, biology is beautiful.

4/23/2008 3:26:19 AM

Excellent viewpoints.

4/23/2008 1:37:20 PM

More teenage mothers emerge in Texas polygamy probe

Quote :

"SAN ANGELO, Texas (Reuters) - Texas authorities said on Thursday they identified 25 more mothers below age 18 among those removed from a polygamist compound. The 25 additional teenage mothers who have been sorted from the adults and who initially claimed to be adults may provide prosecutors with more ammunition if it was found for example that some had become pregnant when they were in their early teens."

Good, more ammo to put those men away forever.

Quote :

"Authorities this week have been moving the children into foster homes as well as taking DNA samples in a bid to find out who is related to whom. "

Plz to see giant family tree

4/25/2008 5:28:31 PM

nothin like a little religious persecution to remind everyone how great America is

4/25/2008 6:57:16 PM

I am confused and can't understand which way you were being sarcastic:

Persecution by the religion? (forced marriages, rapes, etc)

OR

Persecution of the religion? (OMG dey tuk der childrenz)

4/25/2008 7:04:15 PM

OF

4/25/2008 7:10:31 PM

Quote :

"nothin like a little religious persecution to remind everyone how great America is"

Except that some "religions" should be persecuted. If someone were to claim that their religion calls for the sacrifice of ten virgins every morning to secure a bountiful harvest I would support persecuting them if they tried to act on their belief.

4/25/2008 7:13:37 PM

^^

great! IOW, this is OK with you:

"Persecution by the religion? (forced marriages, rapes, etc)"

4/25/2008 7:16:06 PM

nice. some religions should be persecuted. Right, Mr. Hitler?

everyone has the right to believe that you should kill 10 virgins every morning. the belief is a protected right.

killing 10 virgins every morning, however, is NOT protected. So your ludicrous example holds no weight. I haven't been paying close attention to this, so correct me if I am wrong, but no evidence has been presented to me to show that any wrong-doing has occurred in this case. So it is, in fact, a case of religious persecution.

^ i've seen no evidence of forced marriages or rape.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 7:17 PM. Reason : ]

4/25/2008 7:16:08 PM

Quote :

"nice. some religions should be persecuted."

Yep the religion of you and yours.

4/25/2008 7:18:02 PM

i know. fuck the 1st Amendment. Who needs rights?

4/25/2008 7:18:56 PM

dude burro you must be drunk:

Quote :

"I would support persecuting them if they tried to act on their belief."

as for the evidence, it will be made public soon i am sure as the case matures.

according to the link i posted, tons of evidence of child abuse has been found.

^ so you don't believe the testimonies/account of people, both young men and women, who escaped? they are all lying. anyway, the evidence will be made public.

4/25/2008 7:19:01 PM

Quote :

"as for the evidence, it will be made public soon i am sure as the case matures."

just like it was in the duke lacrosse case.

4/25/2008 7:20:03 PM

now whos is making judgement calls based on irrelevant facts?

4/25/2008 7:21:08 PM

Quote :

"i know. fuck the 1st Amendment. Who needs rights?"

Certainly not idiot hicks like you and your family.

4/25/2008 7:21:16 PM

i love people like you.

4/25/2008 7:25:10 PM

People like me band together and vote directly against your interests.

See those taxes taken out of your paycheck? That's me hard at work.

4/25/2008 7:26:23 PM

Quote :

"nice. some religions should be persecuted. Right, Mr. Hitler? everyone has the right to believe that you should kill 10 virgins every morning. the belief is a protected right. killing 10 virgins every morning, however, is NOT protected. So your ludicrous example holds no weight. I haven't been paying close attention to this, so correct me if I am wrong, but no evidence has been presented to me to show that any wrong-doing has occurred in this case. So it is, in fact, a case of religious persecution."

Did you not see the part where I said people who act on beliefs like that should be persecuted? Not simply the people who hold them?

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2008 7:28:29 PM

^^ it's ok. I understand your type. You are in the same league as Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and others like them. You don't respect basic human rights.

4/25/2008 7:59:39 PM

Your money is not a basic human right.

4/25/2008 8:24:42 PM

yes. but religion is. thanks for playing, darth.

4/25/2008 8:30:33 PM

Your religion shouldn't be, especially not when it's the most base, disgusting, gutter-trash religion the world has ever seen. Christianity is the last refuge of the world's slime.

4/25/2008 8:32:48 PM

so much hate from liusclues...he must have been molested as a child or something to have such a horrible outlook on life...or maybe thats just what its like to grow up in china

4/25/2008 8:50:58 PM

More like I can see shit for the way it is. The worst monsters hide in religious garb.

4/25/2008 8:53:18 PM

i'm talking about you in general, not just your last post

so much hatred

4/25/2008 8:54:14 PM

I actually post with a smile every time.

4/25/2008 8:55:00 PM

thats pretty far from true and you know it

you might want to talk to a counselor about your anger issues

4/25/2008 8:55:25 PM

It's actually true. I'm sure it burns you up that I incite acid in your fat stomachs as I sit here chuckling.

4/25/2008 8:59:07 PM

keep the happy face on to disguise the misery inside you

i'll act like i'm fooled by you so i don't hurt your feelings...lord knows you dont need anything else to send you into a further spiral of depression

4/25/2008 9:17:31 PM

well, that explains his lack of respect for human rights. he is from China, after all. China never met a human right it wouldn't shit on. What's that? you need oxygen? Too bad, the dear leader needs it more than you. After all, some animals are more equal than others. (I know, DL is N.Korea)

4/25/2008 11:24:29 PM

Quote :

"nothin like a little religious persecution to remind everyone how great America is"

.

suprisingly deep aaron. gg.

4/26/2008 10:32:02 PM

Just for the record, if a group of adult men are impregnating numerous underaged girls, in a state where such an act would be illegal, are you not in favor of that state enforcing its laws? If that is the case, do you consider the laws in question (no fucking underaged ladies) to be unjust? If the law is just and if you concede that the state has a right to enforce it, does the fact that it involves what the adults in question say are religious practices change things?

4/27/2008 9:59:19 AM

should the media really be disclosing that some of the girls have tested positive for a genetic disorder?

isn't that private medical information? (even more so because they're minors?)

who disclosed that to the media? law enforcement?

since when can cops say, "oh, btw, we discovered that this innocent rescued victim is hiv positive and has ass cancer." ?

am I missing something?

4/27/2008 11:33:21 AM

Quote :

"isn't that private medical information?"

Dunno if this is specifically what you're talking about, but it has been public knowledge for years that the FLDS population has an unusually high frequency of fumarase deficiency (wiki) due to the incredible amounts of inbreeding within the group. This has been brought up by ousted members of the group, doctors in the community, and assorted journalists.

From http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635182923,00.html

Quote :

"Tarby saw the first "Fumarase child" in the community 15 years ago. He said the oldest victim is now about 20 years old. In March 2000, Tarby co-authored an article in the medical journal "Annals of Neurology" describing eight new cases of Fumarase Deficiency in the Southwest. It has now grown to 20 known cases in the polygamist community on the Utah-Arizona border."

4/27/2008 12:33:55 PM

yeah, I'm not sure if they're saying "some of the children suffer from...." or "these particular children suffer from...."

4/27/2008 2:05:25 PM

Quote :

"Just for the record, if a group of adult men are impregnating numerous underaged girls, in a state where such an act would be illegal, are you not in favor of that state enforcing its laws? If that is the case, do you consider the laws in question (no fucking underaged ladies) to be unjust? If the law is just and if you concede that the state has a right to enforce it, does the fact that it involves what the adults in question say are religious practices change things?"

I am torn. I serve the right to jury nullification. If everyone involved says they are fine with the situation (15 year old girl, 19 year old guy, her parents, his parents, etc) and the only people raising cain is the cops and media, then I think I would vote not guilty just so everyone can go home. We create laws for very good reasons, but when it comes to application of criminal law it must bend to reality on the ground.

4/27/2008 10:12:36 PM

We aren't talking about 19 year olds here...

4/28/2008 12:41:44 AM

the boys ain't 19

4/28/2008 9:57:02 AM

Quote :

"On Monday, CPS announced that almost 60 percent of the underage girls living on the Eldorado ranch either have children or are pregnant. Of the 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who are in state custody, 31 either have given birth or are expecting, Azar said. "

[Edited on April 30, 2008 at 9:37 AM. Reason : bold]

4/30/2008 9:36:55 AM

naistaiy

4/30/2008 10:58:02 AM

Quote :

"Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown out SAN ANGELO, Texas - In a ruling that could torpedo the case against the West Texas polygamist sect, a state appeals court Thursday said authorities had no right to seize more than 440 children in a raid on the splinter group's compound last month. The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action. It was not clear when the children — now scattered in foster homes across the state — might be returned to their parents. The ruling gave a lower-court judge 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and block that. The decision in one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history was a humiliating defeat for the state Child Protective Services agency. It was hailed as vindication by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who claimed they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. Sect elder Willie Jessop said the parents were elated, but added: "There will be no celebrations until some little children are getting hugs from their parents." He said his faith in the legal system will be restored "when I see the schoolyard full of children." Child-protection officials argued that five girls at the ranch had become pregnant at 15 and 16 and that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex with older men and groomed boys to enter into such unions when they grew up. But the appeals court said the state acted too hastily in sweeping up all the children and taking them away on an emergency basis without going to court first. "Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse ... there is no evidence that this danger is 'immediate' or 'urgent'," the court said. "Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal." The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children. Half the youngsters taken from the ranch were 5 or younger. Only a few dozen are teenage girls. The court also said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as a single household and to seize all the children on the grounds that some parents in the home might be abusers. CPS's umbrella agency, the Department of Family and Protective Services, issued a statement defending the raid, saying it removed the children "after finding a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse that puts every child at the ranch at risk." "Child Protective Services has one duty — to protect children. When we see evidence that children have been sexually abused and remain at risk of further abuse, we will act," the department said."

"And soon, an army of lawyers will descend into the situation on behalf of the church...thus weakening the state's case even more. That combined with the incompetence of the gov't...I could predict no convictions and most of the children being returned to their mothers."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

5/23/2008 1:13:10 AM

i would like to meet the guy who gave the "go" to this raid.

5/23/2008 8:35:32 AM

Quote :

"God is in his holy temple / Earthly thoughts be silent now. . . ."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iT37gZk3Mrk&feature=related

5/23/2008 12:30:36 PM

^ oh dang, i remember that dude

he scared the piss out of me

5/23/2008 12:32:17 PM

This case has again reaffirmed my opinion that Child Protect Services is perhaps as dangerous as those abuses it is alleged to prevent. How many real child abuse cases have been ignored to harass these (admittedly weird) folks ?

31 "underage" suspects reduced to 15 actual underage victims once the dust settled.

I don't condone forced marriages, but I'm still waiting for some proof... it seems to be lacking.

What appears to have happened is that the CPS called itself in order to justify a bogus warrant.

People in the CPS should lose their job over this.

5/23/2008 12:47:07 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9361767
(In case anybody wanted to see Warren Jeffs kissing his 12 year old wife.)

5/25/2008 12:24:38 PM

How about the irony, folks? The state that has for so long enforced sodomy laws against consensual adults, lacks the legal teeth to stop the systematic abuse of women and children.

The court in this case made the Texas law enforcement officers involved look, across-the-board, like Mayberry. Garsh, Andy, I don't like what them FDLS folks are doin' out there! Well, I guess we should round up their kids ...

5/25/2008 4:05:00 PM

Why don't these sects just setup shop in mississippi or a state where the legal age is 14?

5/25/2008 4:47:11 PM

Quote :

" But do you see the major opportunity to use social services to attack your enemies? All you do is make an anonymous phone call that your next-door neighbor is abusing his kids. Social services, if they follow this template, roll in and take your kids away, and your name is splashed all over the media as a likely child sex abuser."

This already happens. When I was a kid, a woman my mom managed got pissed at her and called social services on her for revenge. Social services showed up at my school and started asking me all these bogus questions about my parents. But since my parents are paranoid hippies they had taught me never to talk to strangers from the government without them there because I have legal rights So the woman got all pissed I wouldn't answer her questions and called my mom saying she was going to take me away if I wouldn't talk to her.

Long story short all the allegations were completely false and at least Wake County had enough common sense to come talk to my parents before throwing me in foster care.

That said, if this cult has been engaging in polygamy and statutory rape for so long, why haven't they been busting the men one by one over the years?

5/26/2008 9:04:26 AM