Originally Posted by ckblv
I think it is fair to treat one man and all his wives and kids as one household.
They ARE one household.
We agree on that.
I could be wrong, but since the Yearning For Zion compound in Texas was for the privledged of the FLDS, I'm pretty sure that means it was also for the financially privledged; I don't think they were taking government handouts for single mothers that are acutally in "spiritual" polygamous marries. That is fraud, of course.
Originally Posted by Telynn
I think if it was just one man in the compound that, for example, beat his children then you would have a point. The reason they threated it has everyone as one family is because they ALL adhere to this thinking. Also the problem of not being able to figure out who the parents of the children are. The children themselves don't even know!
I think it would be fairly straightforward to treat as a household each huge house that has lots of people living in it, no matter the exact genetic relationships between people in that house.
We need to define what we mean by "this" thinking.
Does the whole compound think that multiple women should be able to marry one man? Yes.
Does the whole compound think that premartial sex and homosexual sex are both horrendous affronts to God? Yes.
Does the whole compound think that women should take care of the home and children and men should earn money for the home? Yes.
Does the whole compound think that women who just got their first period should be married? No.
Does the whole compound think that women should be married when they are mature and ready, which could be under 18? Yes.
Does the whole compound define "mature" differently than most people in America do? Yes. I had some European folks shocked (shocked!) that I was married at the tender age of 24. Definitions of ages of maturity vary widely between cultures.
Does the whole compound think that children should be abused so that they fear their fathers? No.
Does the whole compound think that the ideal plural marriage involves wives ratting each other out and fighting for dominance and such? Absolutely not.
From my ideas of what the FLDS as a group think, I don't think their children should be taken away from them. Regular escape routes provided? Yes. Regular reminders to the leaders of the laws of Texas and clear declarations that "spiritual marriage" won't take care of the age part? Yes. Children all taken away? No.
Utah as a whole has decided that trying to take away and raise the children of polygamist sects and individuals puts a huge burden on the state while not providing any benefits to the children taken away. Texas needs to learn this, too.