How do the neighbors not know? Texas Polygamists

<p>razorsharp,</p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, our society has deemed that minors, and even some over the age of majority, lack the capacity to do certain things. Vote, for example. Drink. The age of consent/capacity varies from state to state, from activity to activity.</p>

<p>A 17-year-old can (or could when I was in HS, anyway) consent to donate blood; a 9-year-old cannot. A 21-year-old is able to legally purchase and consume alcohol; a 12-year-old is not. An 18-year-old can vote and, in Maryland, a 17-year-old can vote in a primary if that 17-year-old will be 18 at the time of the general election; a 15-year-old cannot. A 35-year-old can be elected President; a 30-year-old cannot.</p>

<p>And so on.</p>

<p>You are claiming that it’s illogical that a 15-year-old girl can consent to an abortion, but not to sex with a 30-year-old. It doesn’t matter whether you find that logical or illogical. If the law says it’s okay for a 15-year-old to consent to an abortion, but says that same 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 30-year-old, that’s the law. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Private religious activities can be private religious activities that violate laws, and when these activities violate laws, it is right and fitting that the government interfere. If the law says that it’s illegal for a 30-year-old to have sex with a 15-year-old, it’s illegal. If there’s an allegation that this law has been broken, “private religious activities” is not a defense and law enforcement is right to investigate. Of course those who break the law do not wish to be “harassed by the government.” Tough!</p>

<p>

Those religious activities that are contrary to civil law should not be permitted. Sex with children who are not of the legal age to give consent should be prosecuted.</p>

<p>

Human rights violations. </p>

<p>

I am as concerned about not giving girls educations as I am about the type of educations they are given. </p>

<p>

You already asked me that and I said “No”. Re-read my first sentence of this post.</p>

<p>

Of course they should be protected.</p>

<p>Do you want the government to be able to knock down the doors to your house and take your children simply becuase a neighbor’s child called and wanted to get away from her parents? </p>

<p>Are you saying we should ignore the religious rights of people simply because their religion does not teach what we teach?</p>

<p>This quote:</p>

<p>“So you are telling me a 15 year old girl cannot consent to sex but can consent to an abortion? There is no logic to support such a conclusion.”</p>

<p>Is where you said the law wasn’t logical.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>NO one has said that. Straw man. Sorry.</p>

<p>owlice, you are creating a straw man argument and then arguing with yourself. I am not espousing several of the the views you are suggesting. I am not saying the laws should be disregarded. I am saying the laws should be followed, not just the ones you agree with but all of them including the ones protected by the constitution such as the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the right of religious freedom. Of course their is a balancing. In this case, the balance has shifted too far in favor of the government. That’s my point.</p>

<p>Change the facts a bit. Say that this is a boarding school for kids who act out and that none of the kids are allowed contact with anyone in the outside world. A young girl calls from within the school and says that she was forced to have sex with a teacher at age 14, had a child at 15 and is now 16 and wants OUT. The voice on the phone is credible and there have been previous reports that some of the faculty at the school were forcing female students to have sex with them–but none were solid enough to justify a search warrant. The school is known to use corporal punishment–which is not illegal in that state. </p>

<p>So, the government goes in with a search warrant after receiving the call. To be able to do that, the authorities had to go before a judge and that judge said that the call and whatever other information the governement had constituted probable cause. You obviously don’t think it does, but a judge given that power by our constitution made the decision. </p>

<p>The governement goes in. There are many young women who seem to be below the age of legal consent who have young children. None of the girls will admit that she is the one who called. </p>

<p>Do you think the government would just walk away and leave that poor kid --knowing that it was at least possible that if the male faculty members figured out who called her life might be in danger? Would you want them to walk away? Would you want them to ignore the other remarkably young mothers? Or would you want them to do something about it? </p>

<p>Why is this situation any different? </p>

<p>The authorities are convinced that a young woman called for help. It seems to me that they have an obligation to remove any of the young women who might have been the caller from that environment and to question them away from anyone whose presence might coerce them.</p>

<p>Years ago, my kid fell and broke her wrist when she fell roller skating. Apparently, the injury was consistent with an injury caused by an adult grabbing a kid by the wrist and twisting it until it broke. You better believe that at the hospital, my kid was separated from both parents and questioned extensively about just how the wrist broke and each parent was separated from the other and questioned about the accident too–presumably to make sure the stories were consistent. </p>

<p>Now, it didn’t go further than that --no police etc. But while part of me felt bad about my young kid being separated from us when hurt in a big scary hospital, I also understood that the hospital staff was just doing its job. </p>

<p>And that’s what I think happened here. If there really was such a phone call and if none of those young women will admit to making the call…should the authorities walk away? Or should they go through that compound brick by brick and make sure that there is not a young girl tied up somewhere out of sight --or worse? Should they question the other young women to find out if this is a routine event? </p>

<p>I don’t think you have to get into the whole subject of religion at all to justify what is being done here. You can BELIEVE anything–but that doesn’t give you the right to do it. So, you can teach polygamy as some wonderful life style. You can teach young girls that their sole role in life is to have children. But you can’t carry out that belief by having sex with them before they are of legal age. And if you do and one of them complains, the government has the right to try to find and help that person, even if that means a bit of inconvenience for others.</p>

<p>

I did not say the law wasn’t logical, I said the conclusion wasn’t logical. There is a difference between the logic of a law and the logic of an argument. I said there is no logic to the argument. Again, I am not suggesting the law is defective here, I am suggesting the application of the law by the State is defective.</p>

<p>ps- nambla isnt about being gay, its a whole other ball game, as it were…</p>

<p>

Your example is precisely the type of situation that scared the founding fathers into drafting the 4th amendment. Here is it:

</p>

<p>

Fallacy of association. It’s another ball game because it is not on topic.</p>

<p>Uh, I believe a call for help falls under the category of “probable cause” and I’m guessing they had a warrant.</p>

<p>again what do you consider consent?</p>

<p>if a girl is taught that it is “okay” and “expected” to have sex with older men, and she doesn’t know the law says otherwise, is she “consenting” </p>

<p>an 15 year old can sign a contract, happily, but it is not a contract, so a 15 year old cannot consent to sex with an older man regardless, but besides that, she didn’t “consent” in the real meaning of the word</p>

<p>if a young girl has sex with her uncle for years, tells no one, he never “threatened” her with violence, etc, did she consent because she “went along with it” and didn’t fight?</p>

<p>I say No</p>

<p>there was probable cause, imagine that…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nice try, but no; thanks for playing, though! I never said you said the law should be disregarded. </p>

<p>What evidence do you have that the laws regarding unreasonable search and seizure have not been followed?</p>

<p>Would that be … none?</p>

<p>Are you privy to what the search warrants say? To all the facts the police/child protective services have in their possession? </p>

<p>I’m betting not. </p>

<p>How about giving the government at least as much benefit of the doubt as you are giving the (alleged) perpetrators? Or is that too much to ask?</p>

<p>I brought up Nambla because they believe, like you do, that young people can consent to sex with much older adults…</p>

<p>again, what do you consider “consent” or are you going to avoid the question once more</p>

<p>Probable cause for one girl means they get to search a 1700 acre ranch and put 401 children in protective custody? I believe you may be missing the enormity of what is going on.</p>

<p>Emphasis mine:</p>

<p>“State investigators on Sunday got a second, wider search warrant for records related to the birth of any child to a mother aged 17 and under. The initial warrant was only for the records related to the girl who called to report abuse last week.”</p>

<p>That’s from the original post, BTW.</p>

<p>

How about this definition. It comes from dictionary.com.

[consent</a> - Definitions from Dictionary.com](<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent]consent”>CONSENT Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com)
I am sure I can find more definitions for you, but with a simple search you can do it yourself.</p>

<p>that is not the legal definition and it has nothing to do with consensual sex and you know it</p>

<p>as you are avoiding the issue as to whether 15 year olds can consent to sex with an older man, especially under these circumstances, I get the feeling that you have your own agenda and beliefs when it comes to what you consider “consensual” sex</p>

<p>permit and yield…hmmm…</p>

<p>again, what is YOUR idea of the requirements for a young girl to consent to sex?</p>

<p>do you consider consent just not fighting back? do you consider it consent if the person is afraid? see, people will “permit” or “allow” something to happen because they are afraid to not consent, and that is not consensual, that is coercion</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

[washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines](<a href=“http://washingtonpost.com%5Dwashingtonpost.com”>http://washingtonpost.com)</p>

<p>Never heard of the girl? Whose right? I don’t know. How can you be so certain?</p>

<p>Motions to quash the warrants are pending.</p>

<p>razorsharp, who are you claiming is certain?</p>

<p>And yes, motions to quash the warrants are pending; I would fully expect such warrants to be filed, wouldn’t you, regardless of innocence or guilt?</p>