Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

By the by Thomas, in case you're too lazy to bother to look it up (and i would highly approve of such an attitude),

What a lovely Christian way of looking at it ed.

You are to be complimented.

I had thought you an evolution theory fanatic.

To me, it seems, the identifying feature of the groups, in the beginning, is polygamy.

Thomas,

I have seen arguments made that polygamy itself puts children in an abusive situation. One wife, jealous of another wife, may physically punish the children of the other wife.

edgarblythe wrote:

To me, it seems, the identifying feature of the groups, in the beginning, is polygamy.

I can see what you're getting at, but in some sense that just begs the question. Let me give you a counterexample to show what I mean. A few years ago, when the child abuse scandals by Catholic priests came up, would anybody in politics or the media have talked about "Catholicism crimes"? Of course not. Everybody knows that child abuse is one thing, and Catholicism another, generally benign thing. Nobody has trouble distinguishing. Why can't people distinguish polygamy, a benign marital arrangement that hurts noone in and of itself, from child abuse, which is one of the most serious crimes there is?

Setanta wrote:

By the by Thomas, in case you're too lazy to bother to look it up (and i would highly approve of such an attitude),

Actually, here is something I don't understand about these cases, which I'm too lazy to look up, and onto which you could perhaps shine some light. If the reason for rounding FDLS elders is that they have sex with minors, why isn't the dominant buzzword about Fundamentalist Mormons child abuse? Why is it polygamy?

To take the recent example in this thread, why is there a Senate hearing about "polygamy crimes", not "faith-based child abuse"? There are many cults whose powerful members abuse children, but who aren't polygamous. There are many polyamorous relations between consenting grown-ups, which would probably become group marriages if the legal system supported them. The case of the FDLS, fits much better into the former category than into the latter.

So why are the headlines in this case about polygamy? It seems so besides the point to me.

Setanta wrote:

By the by Thomas, in case you're too lazy to bother to look it up (and i would highly approve of such an attitude),

Actually, here is something I don't understand about these cases, which I'm too lazy to look up, and onto which you could perhaps shine some light. If the reason for rounding FDLS elders is that they have sex with minors, why isn't the dominant buzzword about Fundamentalist Mormons child abuse? Why is it polygamy?

To take the recent example in this thread, why is there a Senate hearing about "polygamy crimes", not "faith-based child abuse"? There are many cults whose powerful members abuse children, but who aren't polygamous. There are many polyamorous relations between consenting grown-ups, which would probably become group marriages if the legal system supported them. The case of the FDLS, fits much better into the former category than into the latter.

So why are the headlines in this case about polygamy? It seems so besides the point to me.

Thomas wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

To me, it seems, the identifying feature of the groups, in the beginning, is polygamy.

I can see what you're getting at, but in some sense that just begs the question. Let me give you a counterexample to show what I mean. A few years ago, when the child abuse scandals by Catholic priests came up, would anybody in politics or the media have talked about "Catholicism crimes"? Of course not. Everybody knows that child abuse is one thing, and Catholicism another, generally benign thing. Nobody has trouble distinguishing. Why can't people distinguish polygamy, a benign marital arrangement that hurts noone in and of itself, from child abuse, which is one of the most serious crimes there is?

But what applies to a monolith such as Catholicism, need not hold for what is viewed as aberrant by the ones affixing labels.

wandeljw wrote:

Thomas,

I have seen arguments made that polygamy itself puts children in an abusive situation. One wife, jealous of another wife, may physically punish the children of the other wife.

Heterosexual and homosexual unions MAY become abusive situations.......yet you give enough credence to the above stupidity that you repeat it. Explanation please.

Thomas,

I have seen arguments made that polygamy itself puts children in an abusive situation. One wife, jealous of another wife, may physically punish the children of the other wife.

I confess that the attitudes of politicians are a mystery to me. I suspect, and don't claim that i know, that politicians feel they are playing to a morally conservative base when they trumpet the issue of polygamy.

I don't see that poygamay automatically leads to abuse of children. Of course, I have othing to go on, except my own perception.

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't see that poygamay automatically leads to abuse of children. Of course, I have othing to go on, except my own perception.

Er..is anyone arguing that it does automatically?

This having been raised, though, I do wonder if it normally reflects a highly patriarchal culture, where women and children have little power?

Er..is anyone arguing that it does automatically?

I have seen arguments made that polygamy itself puts children in an abusive situation. One wife, jealous of another wife, may physically punish the children of the other wife.