Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
Thanks Tree27Thanks

Thread: The Shame of Child Marriage in the United States

  1. #1
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    1097

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA

    Angry The Shame of Child Marriage in the United States

    Grown Men Are Exploiting Loopholes In State Laws To Marry Children | HuffPost
    This is appauling! In reading this, three questions come to mind. Perhapps people on this board will help to answer them.

    1. What the hell is wrong with a society that condones this?
    2. What the hell is wrong with the parents who consent to it?
    3. What the hell is wrong with the men who marry children?

    Yes, some states are taking steps to curtail this, but it is still far to prevelant. We're supposed to be an advance, civilized society and a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law. Yet both the social order and the law are failing these children

    If underage (18) marriage is to be allowed at all, it should be under the narrwest of circumstances and severely restricted as follows:
    1.All cases should be revied by a family court judge who must require clear and convincing evidence that approving the marriage is in the child's best interest and not just serving the agenda of the adults involved. ( Although I'm having trouble immagining the circumstances under which it would in fact be in the child's best interest)

    2.Under no circumstances should the justification be religious beliefs or practices

    3. All would be "child brides" ( or grooms) should be evaluated by a Child Psychologist or Psychiatrist to determine -to the extent posible- that they are participating voluntarily and not under duress, and that they are intelectually, and emotionally mature enough to make that choice.

    4. The adult partner involved should likewise be assessed to determin that they are stable, responsible and not a threat to the minor's physical or emotional well being

    5. Children who marry should be no younger than 16.

    6. The age difference should be limited to no more that 5-7 years. Here is a related article on that issue The bigger the age gap, the shorter the marriage | New York Post

    7. All children, upon marriage shaould be legally emancipated as adults with all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood

    Even these measures are not fool proof by any means but it would go a long way twords protecting vulnerable children short of outright banning marriage under 18, which I would prefer.

    Read the article and see what you think
    Thanks from Friday13

  2. #2
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    59,399
    Thanks
    10862

    From
    By the wall
    I find it funny how you guys have no problem sending 5 year olds off to get their sex changed but balk when they get married off as if its some sort of violation.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    23,050
    Thanks
    16829

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    Grown Men Are Exploiting Loopholes In State Laws To Marry Children | HuffPost
    This is appauling! In reading this, three questions come to mind. Perhapps people on this board will help to answer them.

    1. What the hell is wrong with a society that condones this?
    2. What the hell is wrong with the parents who consent to it?
    3. What the hell is wrong with the men who marry children?

    Yes, some states are taking steps to curtail this, but it is still far to prevelant. We're supposed to be an advance, civilized society and a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law. Yet both the social order and the law are failing these children

    If underage (18) marriage is to be allowed at all, it should be under the narrwest of circumstances and severely restricted as follows:
    1.All cases should be revied by a family court judge who must require clear and convincing evidence that approving the marriage is in the child's best interest and not just serving the agenda of the adults involved. ( Although I'm having trouble immagining the circumstances under which it would in fact be in the child's best interest)

    2.Under no circumstances should the justification be religious beliefs or practices

    3. All would be "child brides" ( or grooms) should be evaluated by a Child Psychologist or Psychiatrist to determine -to the extent posible- that they are participating voluntarily and not under duress, and that they are intelectually, and emotionally mature enough to make that choice.

    4. The adult partner involved should likewise be assessed to determin that they are stable, responsible and not a threat to the minor's physical or emotional well being

    5. Children who marry should be no younger than 16.

    6. The age difference should be limited to no more that 5-7 years. Here is a related article on that issue The bigger the age gap, the shorter the marriage | New York Post

    7. All children, upon marriage shaould be legally emancipated as adults with all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood

    Even these measures are not fool proof by any means but it would go a long way twords protecting vulnerable children short of outright banning marriage under 18, which I would prefer.

    Read the article and see what you think
    I've had a grudge about this for 3 decades--I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR ORRIN HATCH for dog catcher for precisely this practice. How many years has he had to eliminate it and put the fuckers in jail? I'm beyond pissed off at HARRY REID for no doubt also knowing and/or conspiring to do NOTHING! (Though I think NV got more of these 'marriage esxiles' after they were driven out of other states).

    There's a REALITY SHOW of young women escaping plural marriages.
    If the fucking network and cameramen can find these girls, why can't they find the RAPISTS?? Someone explain that one to me!

    Wanna watch men's eyes glaze over?? Bring this subject up! Let a bunch of girls get raped in the fucking TX compound of a crazy man with an arsenal and the MEN go apeshit over the rapist having his guns taken away!
    Last edited by cpicturetaker12; 31st August 2017 at 10:35 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    53,875
    Thanks
    19114

    From
    america
    ??????????????????

    I thought you guys were all about such "progressive" ummmm....Progress.....

    --You don't mind Muslims mutilating the sexual organs of little girls.....

    --You don't mind LGBT parents molding their children into transgenders....

    --NAMBLA is one of yours.

    --Your Muslim allies think that nine is the age of consent. (For sex. A good Allah supporter can marry them earlier. Just gotta wait until they reach the ripe age of NINE, before officially consumating the marriage.....)

  5. #5
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    41,688
    Thanks
    24510

    From
    New Hampshire
    I was astounded to find out from a friend who is a lawyer in Massachusetts that this does happen far more than people realize. Massachusetts has no minimum age to be married. 200 in a 4 year timeframe. Imagine nationwide how many?

    Massachusetts: The US state where there is no minimum age to get married | The Independent
    Thanks from TheWahoo and Friday13

  6. #6
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    1097

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    I find it funny how you guys have no problem sending 5 year olds off to get their sex changed but balk when they get married off as if its some sort of violation.
    I find it funny that "you guys" can cram at least 4 logical fallacies into one paragraph while failing to actually address the topic.

    First of all, who the hell is it that is advocating sex reassignment for 5 year olds.? Certainly not me and no one that I know. So by making that assertion, you have committed the first fallacy, an appeal to ignorance because you seem to think that it will just be accepted as fact because you said it

    In addition, it is a red herring, a diversion from the actual topic that is presented while having no intention or interest is returning to the topic. That is a favorite tool of trolls like you.

    Third, its a Straw Man because you are assigning an argument or position to me that I did not take, and you do so because you think that you can discredit me by doing so.

    Lastly, for now ( and this is my favorite) it is a tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

    That argument being that child marriage is harmful and wrong. Now, do you have anything useful to actually contribute to the topic?
    Last edited by ProgressivePatriot; 31st August 2017 at 01:14 PM.

  7. #7
    Voice of Reason ProgressivePatriot's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,741
    Thanks
    1097

    From
    The liberal commie infested, queer loving north east USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    ??????????????????

    I thought you guys were all about such "progressive" ummmm....Progress.....

    --You don't mind Muslims mutilating the sexual organs of little girls.....

    --You don't mind LGBT parents molding their children into transgenders....

    --NAMBLA is one of yours.

    --Your Muslim allies think that nine is the age of consent. (For sex. A good Allah supporter can marry them earlier. Just gotta wait until they reach the ripe age of NINE, before officially consumating the marriage.....)
    Everything that you accuse "you guys " of is a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. You are another one who is using logical fallacies to score points and falling flat on your face in the process. These are just RED HERRINGs that you trolls use to derail the topic.

    It is also a tu quoque type of fallacy (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."


    The argument is that child marriage is harmful and wrong. Deal with that instead of making nonsensical, off topic accusations.

  8. #8
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,868
    Thanks
    38875

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    Everything that you accuse "you guys " of is a boatload of bizarre bovine excrement. You are another one who is using logical fallacies to score points and falling flat on your face in the process. These are just RED HERRINGs that you trolls use to derail the topic.

    It is also a tu quoque type of fallacy (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."


    The argument is that child marriage is harmful and wrong. Deal with that instead of making nonsensical, off topic accusations.
    They would rather their tongues be cut off with a rusty razor blade as agree with a an "evil liberal" on any subject whatsoever.
    Thanks from ProgressivePatriot

  9. #9
    Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    2,553
    Thanks
    468

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by ProgressivePatriot View Post
    Grown Men Are Exploiting Loopholes In State Laws To Marry Children | HuffPost
    This is appauling! In reading this, three questions come to mind. Perhapps people on this board will help to answer them.

    1. What the hell is wrong with a society that condones this?
    2. What the hell is wrong with the parents who consent to it?
    3. What the hell is wrong with the men who marry children?

    Yes, some states are taking steps to curtail this, but it is still far to prevelant. We're supposed to be an advance, civilized society and a Constitutional Republic based on the rule of law. Yet both the social order and the law are failing these children

    If underage (18) marriage is to be allowed at all, it should be under the narrwest of circumstances and severely restricted as follows:
    1.All cases should be revied by a family court judge who must require clear and convincing evidence that approving the marriage is in the child's best interest and not just serving the agenda of the adults involved. ( Although I'm having trouble immagining the circumstances under which it would in fact be in the child's best interest)

    2.Under no circumstances should the justification be religious beliefs or practices

    3. All would be "child brides" ( or grooms) should be evaluated by a Child Psychologist or Psychiatrist to determine -to the extent posible- that they are participating voluntarily and not under duress, and that they are intelectually, and emotionally mature enough to make that choice.

    4. The adult partner involved should likewise be assessed to determin that they are stable, responsible and not a threat to the minor's physical or emotional well being

    5. Children who marry should be no younger than 16.

    6. The age difference should be limited to no more that 5-7 years. Here is a related article on that issue The bigger the age gap, the shorter the marriage | New York Post

    7. All children, upon marriage shaould be legally emancipated as adults with all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood

    Even these measures are not fool proof by any means but it would go a long way twords protecting vulnerable children short of outright banning marriage under 18, which I would prefer.

    Read the article and see what you think
    What? You don't approve of alternative lifestyles? You're pretty narrow minded arencha'? Why "impose" you social values on others?

  10. #10
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    50,524
    Thanks
    23933

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    --[Progressives] don't mind Muslims mutilating the sexual organs of little girls.....
    Bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    --You don't mind LGBT parents molding their children into transgenders....
    Bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    --NAMBLA is one of yours.
    Double bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    --Your Muslim allies think that nine is the age of consent. (For sex. A good Allah supporter can marry them earlier. Just gotta wait until they reach the ripe age of NINE, before officially consumating the marriage.....)
    Not quite. The age of marriage in the Quran coincides with puberty. Furthermore, aside from the fact that progressives and Muslims are not "allies" - that is a bullshit alt-right talking point - there are different schools of thought in Islam on the matter (i.e., much to your surprise, not all Muslims think alike). Click here to actually read about it.

    You are also free to find the country in which that is an acceptable practice. You can scroll through such a list by clicking here.

    Of course, I suspect you will not bother to look. You are more interested in derailing a thread and attacking people you have ideological disagreements with that have nothing to do with the thread. It is stupid and childish of you. If you cannot discuss the actual topic, everyone would better off if you would just keep your mouth shut (or, in this case, your fingers off the keyboard).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11th September 2014, 05:47 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2nd November 2013, 08:43 AM
  3. And this is a city in the United States?
    By Howler63 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 202
    Last Post: 25th June 2012, 07:16 AM
  4. A Child's Guide To United States Foreign Policy
    By Idletime in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10th August 2007, 12:06 PM
  5. About the United States...
    By Trip in forum World Politics
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 4th June 2007, 08:36 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed