Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

@gworld, short creek is a very good example of how people's attitudes have changed as it relates to state intervention and power.

Today, what passes for social evolution, is suckling harder on the teat of governmental protection. It's substituting a faith in God for a faith in the state. Which as Ron Paul so cleverly put it around Christmas time, is "soft fascism".


@ Rebecca,

Working backwards here...

What's the definition of an "adult"? Is it the definition we have today? The definition we had 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? 100 years from now?

I don't think the age as expressed as a date number, necessarily makes something moral or immoral. I don't think that's rational, unless you believe that at 15 years 364 days, people are significantly less capable than at 15 years 365 days.

I'm saying it's definitely a gray area. Throughout history, 14 year olds have had sex and been mothers. If it is consensual, what is the difference between 14 and 16? 16 and 18?

Not so easy to quantify it... Especially sex. Messy business that is.

Some 30 year olds might be physically, but not emotionally mature enough to have sex. But because they exceed the societally established age threshold, it's never called into question. This same double standard never gets applied to teenagers. They might be emotionally, if not physically ready. Or in some cases both, but they are prevented from doing what is considered completely acceptable for a 20 year old.

Who am I to tell you aren't mature enough to do something Rebecca? Who am I to judge your decisions, your consensual relationships?

I know, it's kids + sex, and to stray from mainstream opinion on this makes me some kind of pariah. But there are a lot of similarities between this situation, and the war on drugs. Something is arbitrarily deemed to be bad, and even if the action/use is innocent, consensual, etc. it is a crime.

I don't believe you can have crime without a victim, and that's why this is a gray area, because I don't think anyone else can determine that I am a victim for me. As long as I believe my relationships are voluntary and in my best interest, how can they possibly be a crime?

Tricky business.

I'm hoping you see the irrationality, hypocrisy and difficulty to imposing our own moral standards on others.

 

A child isn't legally able to consent to sex.

 

At one time women weren't legally allowed to vote. Or own property.

At one time, slavery was legal. At one time, smoking pot was legal. Alcohol was legal, then illegal, then legal again.

Don't confuse legality with morality. They rarely travel on the same path.

 

yeah? well this is 2008. Sex with a child makes someone a paedophile and it's illegal.

 

And if it becomes legal in 100 years, will we have been wrong for punishing people for it?

Do you really believe that something can only be wrong if it is illegal? And do you believe that everything that is not illegal is right?

C'mon now, if you're going to debate this tact, you'll have to bring some consistency.

The law is constantly shifting, to make whatever is currently unacceptable socially, through public opinion, illegal. At one time sodomy was illegal. Now it is normal social practice. Who is to say that 100 year, 50 years or maybe much longer, it's ok for 14 year olds to have sex with someone older than them?

Do I personally think a 30 year old having sex with a 14 year old is pretty disgusting and immoral? Sure. But if they consent, who the hell am I to stop them? That opens up a pandora's box of other people being able to decide what some people can do.

Which is the argument with the police arresting everyone until they can figure out IF a crime was committed and by WHO. It completely undermines the citizen vs. state relationship going back to the Magna Carta.

Again, there is one absolute law IMO. If the sex was forced, then you definitely have a crime. I'm for non-aggression and wherever possible, non-violence.

 

I am against pedophilia and you only need to read my posts in DMOZ section to be convinced of that but medically pedophilia is described as attraction to children under the age of 13 or when the difference between the age is greater than 5 years old and one person is under age of 18. Therefore a sexual relation between a 19 years old and a 15 years old is illegal but it is not pedophilia.
Do you think a 18 years old boy who has sex with a 16 years old girl should go to prison? I have also another question for you since you only concentrate on legal aspect, if it wasn't illegal, would you be OK with it?

 

We aren't living in the past and we aren't living in the future, we are living in 2008, And in 2008 sex with children is wrong and illegal.

Not everything that is wrong is illegal and not everything that is illegal is wrong. Sex with children IS wrong and illegal though.

No he shouldn't go to prison. But should a 50 year old man who rapes a 13 year old girl after she was forced to marry him go to prison? he should be locked up and left to rot, He is scum.

No.. Would you? I assume you would be ok with it considering you have spent multiple pages defending the rape of children and protecting the rights of the rapist.

 

By ASSuming, you make an A*s of yourself again and again, the difference between you and I is the fact that I am intelligent enough to have a discussion and defend my opinions without the need to hide behind the children as you do.

 

Hiding behind children by condemning the rape of them? that is some twisted logic you got there.

 

So in other words, you are not against old men having sex with 14 yr. olds.

I said, consenting adults. This is 18 or over.

 

Has gworld once posted that he supports rape?

You're doing what landed you on my ignore list some time ago. You're refusing to have an argument in good faith. As soon as you're confronted with a difficult question, you resort to strawmen, ad hominem and insults.

Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you further if this is your approach. It's a waste of time for both of us.

 

Is that what I wrote?

So in other words, you are not against old men having sex with 18 yr. olds.

 

My question to you was, "Please tell me if I have misinterpreted what you are saying, but it sounds like you don't think it is a necessarily a problem to have sex with a 14 yr. old, as long as the 14 yr. old thinks it's O.K."

You responded with,

Instead of saying, "No, I don't think you should have sex with a 14 yr. old", you write a long defense of why it should be O.K.

So yeah, it does sound like you think it is O.K. for old men to have sex with 14yr. olds.

 

I didn't say he did. I said i do condemn it.

Your questions aren't difficult, They are contrived and designed to water the thread down until everybody has forgotten that you were defending the rights of people who systematically rape children.

The fact remains, the police had reason to suspect that a crime was being committed and they went ahead with an investigation. It's interesting that this started off as a civil rights issue for you and gworld, And as evidence is coming out that there were cases of systematic rape going on you have changed it to an issue of how bad is having sex with children anyway, They done it 100 years ago.

When defending the criminal became difficult you started trivialising the crime.

Bye then.

 

The problem is the you have no logic at all twisted or otherwise and you are only capable to parrot the latest piece of news that you have found on the Internet. Any moron including you knows that rape is wrong and not acceptable. What I am discussing is the difference between persecution and prosecution. If you don't know the difference, may be you should look it up.
Let's imagine that an anonymous caller calls the police and says John Rapist who lives in a project has raped me and holding me in his house and forced me to have children with him and regularly beats me. What police should do, is trying to find John Rapist and take him for questioning and if the allegation is confirmed then they will charge him with crime and send his ass to prison after conviction, this is criminal investigation and prosecution. Now if police decides to arrest everyone in the project, search every house in the project and remove every child from their parents only due to the fact that they live in the project, that is persecution of a specific group and it is not acceptable.

 

In the US, the age of consent is not universally 18. In some jurisdictions, it is 16. In some European countries, it is 14. Hey in some countries it is 20. Does that mean that 18 year old Americans are acting immorally by having sex?

Which is correct? Are all 14 year olds equal? Are all 16 year olds equal?

I personally do not think it is a good idea for 14 year olds to have sex with adults. I'm not sure that being 16 or 18 is an appropriate age for sex with a 50 year old. I also don't think that people should snort cocaine or smoke crack. Unlike you, I don't think being an adult justifies simulating rape during sex. I think these are really bad decisions.

But I don't presume to tell others how to live their lives, and if the act is consensual or voluntary, how can I say that it is a crime?

Better yet, how can you justify declaring consensual behavior as a crime?

Sorry, but I'm not going to play Paul or Earl's game of "either you support the raid, or you support rape".

 

Actually, my questions are difficult, which is why you begin creating strawmen and making personal attacks. Otherwise, you would respond to them directly, staying on topic.

I'm not defending any "one person's" rights. I'm defending principles.

The principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. The principle that everyone has the right to a trial by their peers. And a speedy trial. The right that people cannot be held indefinitely without being charged.

And now the reason to suspect has been withdrawn, and no one has been charged with anything. Weeks later. That's not only irresponsible and immoral, it's probably illegal, and I hope the FLDS folks sue the police for how they have been treated.

I must have missed this. Where is the evidence of systematic rape?

On the contrary, you trivialize civil rights, by crying rape repeatedly, when last I checked, there were no rape complaints, and no charges of rape.

As both gworld and I have stated, the people promoting rape in this thread have done so prematurely, and purely for the purpose of exploiting these kids to accomplish an ideological witchhunt.

Anyway, I'll wait for your source for "systematic rape".

 

Umm, because it is?
statutory rape
child molestation

 

guerrila, 60% of the girls aged between 14 and 17 who were removed have given birth. In the eyes of the law these children were raped. That is systematic.

 

The problem with these laws is that it is not as clear as you want to make it and that is what guerilla was trying to explain that there is many Grey areas in the term of morality but not legality. Obviously we as members of our society have to obey the current laws in our community but I try to explain only one of the Grey areas.
Let's say you are a 19 years old boy who has 17 years girlfriend and live in a house that is 20 feet from the California and Nevada border inside California state. You have sex with your girlfriend and you have committed statutory rape and can be send to prison since the age of consent in California is 18. Now imagine instead of having sex in your house, you take the girl and go to a motel which is 20 feet from the boarder inside the Nevada state and then you will have sex. You have done nothing wrong since the age of consent in Nevada is 16. Do you think it is logical that 40 feet difference in the location that you have sex, can determine if you are criminal or not?