[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

i've several quibbles with the foregoing....not necessarily out-n-out disagreements, but problems nonetheless.

hmm......

the first thing is this: I certainly can't say for certain that the reason these dudes are banging teenagers is because of "selfishness, power, and lust." I have to allow for the possibility that they sincerely believe that being fruitful and multiplying is part and parcel of path to salvation. let's not forget that however silly they may be, mormons have been asserting this for a long, long time....whether I agree or not, I certainly owe them the benefit of the doubt that they are being sincere. Plural marriage, in their view, is a religious act.

The pharisees called for Jesus head because he might change things. He called for the loving of neighbors and helping them, not killing indiscriminately. He asked for people to love thy neighbor as thyself. Religious leader of the day thought that stoning was and acceptable form of punishment, and even called for Jesus to be put on the cross. Is what the pharisees did, in the name of the bible, correct? Should Jesus have been crucified?

Just because they want to do something sincerely, doesn't make it right. I do realize that Jesus gave his life though, not that they took it.

the second thing is this: we, mostly people other than me*, say that polygamy is "wrong", and I'm not sure that this is self-evident (and ok, even if polygyny is wrong because it oppresses women, is polyandry necessarily wrong as well, even in the absence of anything resembling oppression?)

Polygamy in one form or another has been around since the dawn of man, and such a practice is hardly inamicable to the survival of the species. Even in the west today it's most harshly decried (or only decried) when it is *religious* polygamy.....Swingers arguably have multiple spouses, Hugh Hefner has what amounts to 3 wives and a Reality Show, the line between *serial monogamy* (marriage to and childbearing with multiple spouses in succession) and polygamy is paper thin, especially from a moral standpoint. That is to say, polygamy is polygamy whether it is a hedon with a reality show or a fundie mormon with instructions from an angel.

But, you're not going to open the papers tomorrow and read "children of couples with open marriages were confiscated because mothers were found to have had on-going sexual relations with more than one man." That is, "polygamy" can take multiple forms, but the state is nevertheless very selective about whom it prosecutes for polygamy.

alternatively I might say that polygamy is just one form of many non-monogamous relationships, and I'm not sure morally how it is so different from others.

While I will agree with the concept of what you say. I have kids I tell every day that they don't get to judge themselves by what others do. I don't care if someone else lets their kid stay over at a boyfriends house alone, when they are 16. My kids are not allowed. Saying that they don't do this to someone else, is a comparison, and while you may be very correct, it doesn't change the first act. Right is right and wrong is wrong -- no matter how gray it is to your understanding. While a person may think that stoning a woman for adultry is correct and I can find it in the Bible, Jesus told us to let the man with no sin throw the first stone.

thirdly: even if it is conceded that polygamy is objectively wrong, how does it follow that confiscation of children is an appropriate punishment for polygamy, rather than (say) a $50 fine and a weekend of picking up trash?

Or I might ask, is adultry any less objectively wrong than polygamy, and if not would it be appropriate for the state to take the children of an adultress?

Adultry may be more wrong than polygamy, but it isn't by law. A sin is a sin though, but some sins are definitely in the eyes of man, worse than others. In the eyes of the Lord, I don't know. A thief is a thief, and a sinner a sinner -- of which I am chief.

finally: it's all about the abuse, right? kids are being abused, hence these kids need to be taken by the state for their own protection. <snip>

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one, or two, or more dudes out there were hittin' (in multiple senses) 14, 15 or 16 year old girls. If so, they ought to be arrested and prosecuted.

BINGO

But, it does not follow from this that the state ought to confiscate children who aren't being abused from mothers and fathers (father?) for no reason other than the transparently obvious and odious reason that these people belong to the same religious sect. This is almost certainly happening, and it sucks.
snip

This part I will agree with you on, but you know they are going to remove them all for safety, and then sort it out. This always ends up being the way it is done, and usually the best way. They are even worse, if they leave abused kids there, and then something even worse happens to them.