Christians believe in child marriage

Every week when I take out the garbage I look around the house and pick up anything that is trash, I then look through the refrigerator and throw out anything there, I then empty the bins from inside, tie up the "wheely bin" bag and take it to the curb. What I am saying is that I deal with trash in a certain order, so I will deal with the trash here before I dismantle this entire group of threads throughout which you have never once offered one shred of debate, but instead have turned the threads around for your own vicious attacks, NOT on what has been said, but on what motives your twisted mind perceives that your opponent has.

I reflect here on a thread where this exchange occurred...

Your reply shows how you twist the words around.

Firstly he never said "how Gillard worked", he said "how successful the Gillard minority Government was in managing the House and the numbers", and he never said that Gillard is great, that's totally your concoction to deflect from the topic to the personality, something you do with great vehemence.

Enough of that, this thread shows the blind tenacity to which you will go, you remind me of my blue cattle dog, he will pick a fight against any dog. Pitbulls, pig dogs other healers he doesn't care, no matter how bloodied, battered or bruised he fights on. The only real differences is he usually wins, or fights until it's over and oh, he has integrity.

To fill in the casual browsers, this episode started in a thread about Pauline Hanson being racist. Among other things it comes about that a poster makes the remark that Muslims are paedophiles because Islam promotes child marriage.

Then if you disagreed with his view you were accused of supporting paedophilia.

But wait there's more..

when your loosing, attack the messenger not the message.

WOW, what a nest that little exchange is. First, I will look at CD's response, as it is the most putrid and perverted use of abused children as weapons to help one group destroy another based purely on hatred.

Paedophiles are very sick, evil people. In their sick twisted reality it isn't even really about sex, it's about power and manipulation. Paedophiles usually take a fair amount of time to "groom" their victims. They usually get "inside the circle", become part of the life of the victim, they may be a relative, a teacher, a priest, a scout leader, a docs worker, an entertainer. They could be anyone, they are like a malignant cancer, they eat their way in, entangling them in their sick life.Sometimes there is no actual sexual contact, it's about power, mind games, sick fantasies.

Equating what these poor children suffer, the mental and physical scars if they survive, their on going fears about relationships, closeness, authority, sex etc, most are scarred for life, to equate that to what the Quran says about marriage, and what is actually practiced by a small minority of extremists in some countries, and a very small number of Islamic countries, is nothing paramount of an insult to every abused child.

It's akin to you having a friend come and visit you after a number of years, he asks how have you been. You reply "Not good mate, 2 years ago I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, just finished 2 years of chemo and radiotherapy, hair has just grown back." Your mate replies, "Yes I know how you feel mate, I had cancer too, a non-malignant mole on my big toe, had it frozen off, just starting to be able to wear thongs again, nasty thing this cancer."

Now the underage marriage that does go on "worldwide" specifically by Muslims was quoted as being around 2000 give or take a thousand in 2010 I think. Now these were official marriages, and as no location breakdown was offered I would say most happened in the few countries with laws that allow it such as Nigeria.

Now what I pointed out was that there is a big difference in the victims, yes they both are victims, I have always stated that, just as Gary did above

his reply to my exact same stance is

Maybe in the bit in red you were talking about yourself Gary. To further enhance this proposition ...

Again, very similar to my interpretation as you will see.

Now CD is still pushing his view.

Which he spells out here in no indefinite terms

Paedophiles, not child molesters, not just guilty of marrying an underage girl, but paedophiles. CD is putting a girl who marries a guy maybe 10 to 15 years older, well most of them as the link that was posted showed, in the same category as those poor tormented kids that are betrayed, groomed and used for self gratification by a sick perverted adult. That is an utterly disgraceful insult to true victims.

By now any reasonable reader will have seen that all my argument is that it is "marrying an underaged child", not paedophillia, both of which are wrong, equally under the law and morally in my opinion.

What I primarily object to is the statement that Islam through the Quran actively promotes paedophilia.

I am not a Muslim, nor a Muslim sympathiser, I am not a Christian, nor a Christian sympathiser nor am I a Jew nor a Jewish sympathiser. This is not about religion it is about truth.

I have previously shared a link which explains quite clearly and rationally in my opinion, how the Quran defines marriage.

Yes it does state that a woman can become a wife at nine, that was a fairly accepted custom at that time and for the next 800-1000 years. Before we go running off saying "see I told you so", a little explanation is needed. In those days they used the word "betrothed", promised in marriage, the girl would call herself wife and say she is married. The girl would refer to her man as her husband and she would remain faithful to him, the consequences were not nice.
The betroval would be completed at the consummation, they would then be married proper. Today we call in getting engaged and use fiancee, but that's cultural not religious.

The Quran does specify the minimum age to consummate the marriage. It states that the girl must be old enough to know how to manage her inheritance. In those days age was relative, people were old at 40, real old at 50, if she had enough smarts to manage her property she was old enough to make an informed decision.

If as I suggested you had watched "Mongul" an SBSOnDemand you would see it all played out for you. Khan chose his bride when he was 9 and she was 10, well she chose him actually (watch the movie), he kissed her on the cheek and went back with his father. His choosing that girl and not the one that was arranged for him started a war and it was over 10 years before they consummated their marriage, not the 6 years his father had said would take place.

During all that time she said she was married, and that her husband would come back for her. The original agreement was that Khan would choose his bride at 9, and that would come back and get her when "she was old enough". The war that was created by Khan not choosing the girl his father promised him to delayed that for many years more.

Like him or loath him Genghis Khan became a great leader, he united his people and brought law. I have read a lot about him and I ever only read that he and his "child" bride were very much in love and lived through many hardships in a life we cannot even imagine today

Any further attack on me personally will be taken as an admission of defeat, if you want to challenge what I believe, but show me evidence that i may weight up, not just your opinion.

 

They make excuses for child sexual abuse, by saying that Islam and sharia law is not practiced in Australia. Here is a link confirming that Muslims practice Islamic sharia law within Australia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-Islamic-law-means-children-t-live-her.html

 

Anyone who talks about concepts such as child abuse or age of consent outside of a historical and cultural and legal context is making a elementary blunder. Throughout most history there simply was not collective idea that a child could be abused, because children were property much like women or slaves. If a parent did not protect a child, no one protected. What a parent was protecting his child from, altered as the risks altered and the average life expectancy altered. When hunger, disease and enslavement were the major threats to children and children tended to die before 16 or eighteen, it made sense to get them sexually active early, and marry them early. The higher the risk of poverty and child mortality, the more empowerment was given to parents vs children/ young adults, and the lower the age of marriage. To this day you will see a spectrum of marriage ages from 14-18 for young girls depending on cultural tradition and corresponding to rural poverty levels. Naturally the laws of child sexual abuse cannot be later. than the date a parent can consent to allow his daughter to marry.

the clinical notion of pedophilia is a late 19th century/ early twentieth century notion which simply did not occur in the middle ages so it did not have religious roots.


As we have developed more economic security through industrialization, mass farming and pfood preservation along with immunization and health care culminating in public health policy and a social safety net, and the chances of child mortality/ malnutrition decrease. As that happened we could afford to be more concerned about pscho-social trauma in children. We could start asking what happens mentally and emotionally when children are slapped, hit, and pressured into early marriage or sexual activity. 'Child Welfare now means more than keeping the kid alive until procreation happens.

The fact is that the transition did not happen in the same chronological time frame in each culture or region and some still lag in their laws and their views of when a child is 'too young' to have sex or marry. It is seen as disgusting abusive and 'sick' to have sex with girls that are not at least 16 years old in most states and thus statutory and child rape statutes reflect that consensus, but it makes no sense to apply those negatives outside of the cultural norm in the region even as we learn more about the psychological harm of early sex and marriage.

First we look at law to reflect the cultural norms which hopefully recognize some basic rights for children to be safe in the modern sense, change it if it no longer does, then apply the moral recrimination to individuals who break the standard.

 

Muslims seem to have found a convenient religious “loop-hole” to keep practicing their child molesting and paedophilia ways. Its called: sharia Law, and they implement this law, regardless of which country they inhabit, and what common laws that country has regarding the sexual age consent for children.

These cretins by-pass a countries laws no matter what to implement sharia law, because it seems fairly obvious adult Muslim men like & enjoy having sex with pre-pubescent children ( and sometimes goats). There doesn’t seem to be any other explanation why a Muslim man would prefer to marry and have sex with a 13 year old girl over an adult woman, other than they have paedophilia desires and enjoy having sex with children.

There is no other religion on this planet that currently condones an adult man marrying and having sex with pre-pubescent children other than Muslims who follow the teachings of Islam.

 

It's a shame you have to post to this extent. They're just pseudo-intellectuals that never seek further clarification and use the deepest most disgusting ad hominens to divert conversation. One is just trolling now the other who has gone quiet doesn't have the capacity to understand anything because his bigotry rules his heart and mind. Pontificating pseudo intellectual lunatics just don't see nothing but their own importance.

Keep up the good work, it's certainly good reading.

 

Thanks btthegreat. Appreciate your contribution. It is easy to be fiercely judgemental of how life was but certainly understand within context certain reasoning. The human spirit was and always will be about survival, unfortunately the circumstances have been different in ensuring such across the ages and generations.

I think yourself and LRL have made extremely valuable contributions to this discussion and highlighted perspective that are easily overlooked in forming opinions and judgements.

 

Religious affiliation is of no legal consequence in this country. If you want to set an age of consent, then do so. Prosecute people who do not respect your consent laws. See how easy that was to solve.

 

We do.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-bride-case-man-jailed-for-marrying-12yearold-girl-in-backyard-ceremony-20150306-13xa99.html

I have never denied that it happens or that it is wrong or illegal, I just argue that some here do not speak the truth.

 

I came across this article.

Girls as young as ten being forced into marriage; 14 million child brides married every year

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/girls-as-young-as-ten-being-forced-into-marriage-14-million-child-brides-married-every-year/news-story/e3d6841ceaa1dd1494da469d580641ec

Now this Heading is shocking, and probably true, then when they say it happens in Australia they do not go into the numbers so we have all these huge numbers in our heads.

We also stop reading when we get disgusted and often miss important parts, like the authors comment

 

The above article states 4 million, that is 4 million under 18.

Look at the data on UNICEF's page and see how much that decreases when you consider under 13 and by location makes it more interesting.

http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/child-marriage.html

Child marriage is terrible and a problem, we have to however find out where and why it is happening, not use it as a weapon in a hate campaign.

 

On a lighter note . . .

What do Jerry Lee Lewis and Edgar Allan Poe have in common other that usually being called by all three names?

They both married their 13 year old cousin.

 

So did my grandfather, and he was always referred to by his three names, interesting. It was over a 100 years ago and they lived in a small village where it was 2 days horse ride to the next town and anyone who wasn't a relative in the district was usually addressed like "Hello stranger, new in town, staying long?"

and as we found out quite recently after the death of my aunt and finding a secret box containing both her birth certificate and her mother's marriage certificate they kind of "had to get married", well that's one out of the closet.

 

With all due respect, you have missed the point.

Australia has age consent laws, but Muslims have found a “loop-hole” in our legal system, which allows them to have sex with children if they can prove they are married. Under Islamic sharia law, marriage is condoned and accepted between adult men and children.

 

link explaining this legal loophole and the legal acceptance of sharia law in Australia. If your claims are true, you guys need read up on our notion of separation of church and state.

 

while you attempt to alter the facts to justify your attempt to be the victim, others will decide. As they read the truth of your claims if they wish to delve into your depravity…

Now here again you want to proclaim innocence and victimisation of stance. You were offered the opportunity to clarify your stance on child abuse and you deprecated while attempting to justify your persistence to oppose positions. The fact you want to attempt to manipulate comments in some sort of claim of victim stance of being attacked over YOUR comments on what constitutes child abuse and what does not, is YOUR problem. Many here can return to the comments and decide for themselves, but one undeniable fact you appear to miss that this thread was created in attempt for the OP to justify their stance on ignoring child abuse by one group by pointing to another and pretending indignation.

As for your claim of being victimised over any similar stance you held, Again, others have already decided.

With this final comment, you seem oblivious as to what people are saying to you. You can assume anything you like, you can assume you won some sort of point in contention, you can assume others were defeated by your greater wisdom, ability or just your supposed honesty.

The fact is, while you have considered this to be a debate, Argument or just a contentious point, I have been simply exposing you as the grub you are. For those with lesser ability I point out, do not listen to a paedophile to discuss age of consent or just what constitutes child abuse. As somebody who clearly demonstrates they are prepared to excuse child abuse as you comment

Apparently all that was told you and those who oppose your grubby stance, know nothing. It is YOU who is victimised… The world does see and your attempt to manipulate and mislead the forum will also be something you wish to claim victimisation…

CHILD ABUSE IS NOT A DEBATABLE POINT.

 

The only thing you have exposed is your own grubbiness Garry. Give up already and stop pretending like you've got a band of merry men in support. It's getting ridiculous like many other threads you lose and start throwing insults like a typical pseudo intellectual.

 

Really? Please clarify.

 

case in point attempting to suggest Child abuse is a debatable point.

Again, others will decide, as for some sort of group or "band or merry men" Clearly showing the ignorance this scum has to consider everybody who disagrees with their attempt to justify what constitutes Child abuse is ganging up on them.

And this grub claims strawman tactics…

 

Demonstrate to us the clown you are and show us in black and white where we have supported child abuse. Don't use your own twisted words just get cutting and pasting. Lol. Can't wait!

 

Well one must wonder, when the grub states.

It is MORE projection of their own.

CASE IN POINT.

 

As I already knew, you've got absolutely nothing!!!!!!! I got my suspicions about people like you and it is all in the Hamlet line. Shocked by many of men who absolutely vehemently oppose child abuse, while simply being perpetrators trying to throw others off the scent.

It ain't no joke, it is a serious concern.

 

He won't because he can't because we didn't. Look he has a personal vendetta against me which I find hard to understand as I think most of what he says is well thought out, even the beginning of this debate until he turned this into a personal attack on our credibility rather then look at what was written

 

Don't credit yourself with so much, I have constantly pointed out your comments and how they show exactly your comments and what you say, just as they have been done previously for your grub mate. I could dig up both your grubby antics and the antics of the other, but just as pervious when you think you can get away with demanding such due to time you pretend victim status and demand evidence. Many have read it, and make their judgement. I need not bow to YOUR grubby demands simply to repost your rot or your mates...

As I continue to state other will decide, you can claim whatever you want. I simply believe Grubs like you and your mates who marginalise and excuse child abuse in some sort of attempt to score political points should not be heard. One day it will come to you just how much of a scumbags you really are, unfortunately for those you set out to offend you still continue to ignore the truth of your grubby comments to promote your grubby agenda... again case in point.

 

You and I certainly see him differently. It just argues for the sake of arguing and opposes for the sake of opposing. I think he thinks this is a competition maybe??? It's got me beat


Now it comes up with excuses for why it doesn't want to provide evidence. What a childish game it is playing.

 

Back to that claim eh??? Trying to divert attention??? Again all see what is what, as your have previously tried to label others in such manner, While trying to make light of such an issue... All can see the truth in your grubby comments...