Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I included something here and now I'm taking it out ...
About Half of US States Set No Minimum Age for Marriage
"If you thought child marriage didn’t exist in the United States, think again."
_______________
Cultures changes over time. When my grandmother, born in the late 1800's didn't marry until age 18, she was thought, by her siblings to be an 'old maid', as they married young and had had their children by age 16.
No states allow marriage to six year olds or nine year olds, or even 12 year olds. There are none of these marriages. All states have age of consent laws too, and none are set below 16.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed
Well this is more looking at ancient times with a modern filter. Child brides were a more common thing across cultures then and still not eradicated today. In this case, something that (classic)progressive thought is doing away with what had been old largely religious norms.
Child brides in Western cultures typically referred to marriages of state, not actual marriages to children by adults.
Women who had reached sexual maturity were not considered children, like the pre-pubescent. That's what we're referring to here - pedophilia requiring that element of sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent person or a person engaging in sexual activity with a pre-pubescent person.
That's the definition of pedophilia, and that's what Mohammed was. A pedo. Doesn't mean he didn't ALSO have age-appropriate relationships. Just that he had sex with pre-pubescents (well, at least one - assuming that the religious text is accurate).
That's the Progressive way..any perversion of normal sexuality is good and should be celebrated as some kind of human right.
I used to mock sentiments like this but have come to realize that they are accurate. Take something like the ubiquitous drag queen shows on college campuses. In a million years, none of these institutions would pay for a show in which a bunch of women dolled themselves up in makeup and suggestive clothing and paraded around for the amusement of an audience. They would label that "objectification," which, of course, is bad. However, if you have a bunch of gay men dress up as women and do the same exact thing as I describe above, it is to be celebrated. After all, it subverts "heteronormativity," and heteronormativity is bad, as well know, right?
That is the Islamic justification as well phantom, age of consent was as low as 9 years old(when they claim it was consummated) with the onset of puberty.
Damn, Europe. I used to to love you so much. Stop going down the tubes. The lack of blasphemy laws is something every nation should aspire for.
I know, the idea is to get the new citizens to understand freedom of expression, not give up hundreds of years of fighting for freedom just to appease newcomers. They’re supposed to conform to their new home, not the other way around.
That is the Islamic justification as well phantom, age of consent was as low as 9 years old(when they claim it was consummated) with the onset of puberty.
Again, are you defending old men (at any point in history and of any religion) having forced sex with little girls? Do the circumstances you allude to make it okay or not??
Again, are you defending old men (at any point in history and of any religion) having forced sex with little girls? Do the circumstances you allude to make it okay or not??
No. Context is reply to phantom’s justification of it in western culture as if it was better there.
For the OP case they ruled against it based on truthfulness. That he was not a pedophile because he had an older wife and stayed with the younger one until his death when she was no longer a child. If she had just said he had a child bride it would have been kosher apparently. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["002-12171"]}
But even if technically untrue, not something the gov’t should be policing.
Interesting. So the headline to this thread is not true.
You'd think that Americans would constantly be reminded of the benefits of the First Amendment, but usually no.
Establishment Clause is horrible
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
