Yikes- Married at 12?

[Lisabob]

"If you can't support a child, then it should be a crime to produce one. [...]

Confiscating the money of taxpayers to pay for their lack of self-control is abhorrent."

 

Err, scoutldr, if having children one couldn't support (however defined) were to be criminalized as you suggest, you can bet that a good deal more of taxpayer money would be confiscated to pay for the resulting legal and administrative costs.

 

Lisa'bob

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hunt,

Once Churches get into the business of deciding policy for everyone else, then with that decision comes the inevitable responsibilities that follow, which will almost surely become "bad laws". The anti-abortion issue is complex, more demanding than just making people deliver babies. One option is for a Mother to give her baby away which was one of the four options that Mothers had prior to legal abortion. Marriage at age 12 is directly connected to those kinds of options because laws are generally sequential, reason is mostly differed. Prior to legal abortion, most Churches declined their responsibilities, thus opening the door to Alley abortions or simply fleeing to Mexico for an Especial. This return to a nightmare is just beginning.

 

SL, Money should always come first and foremost from those who support the laws. It is only reasonable that Churches would put their money where their mouths have been for the last few years on the anti-abortion issue. I sincerely hope they have looked beyond the government doing their job for them, which is also the Republican way of doing things. Since everything is connected, it just doesn't stop with a law and if it does, then we have other problems much more contentious and difficult. FB

 

[SaintCad]

"Yet again I must disagree with you Ed. You can't possibly be married to the best woman in the world. She's married to me and that would make her a polygamist."

 

Polygamy is being married to multiple women. Being married to multiple men makes her a polyandist . . .

Unless both of you are women and married, in which case that is a completely different thread (actually 3 or 4 different threads).

(lol)

 

[DanKroh]

"Polygamy is being married to multiple women. Being married to multiple men makes her a polyandist . . . "

 

Actually, polygamy encompasses both polygyny (one man with multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands). It's just that traditionally, most polygamous relationships have by polygynous, so many people think the two terms are synonymous....

 

Just my two cents in picking nits

[scoutldr]

I thought polygynous was being married to two gynecologists at once.

[SaintCad]

"Actually, polygamy encompasses both polygyny (one man with multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands)."

 

You'll have to bear with me. Before this thread, I thought polygamy was when a lady from the 30's had two or more great looking legs.

(wait for it . . .)

[OldGreyEagle]

Does that make poly anna being married to two or more women with the same first name?

[SR540Beaver]

While not endorsing it in general, I have an uncle who was 17 when he married my aunt who was 15 and the daughter of the county sheriff. They have been happily married for at least 40+ years now. He ended up becoming a pastor, she worked on a US sSnator's staff for years and they raised 3 great kids.

 

We are infantizing our kids more and more these days and consider mid to late teenagers to be children when they should be taught to be young adults. I had odd jobs starting at about 14. Today, that is against the law in Oklahoma as you can not hire anyone under 16. I also had a motorcycle liscense at 14 and a drivers liscense at 16 with full rights and priviliges. The Oklahoma laws have recently been changed to give limited liscenses to 16 year olds. They can only have one passenger in their vehicle under the age of 18. They also are under a curfew for night driving. I understand why the laws were passed. They figure that by limiting driving priviliges, they can reduce accidents and deaths of teen drivers. The bad side of this is it is one more nail in the coffin of teaching kids how to become responsible adults. We want to consider our kids as children who need to be babied and cared for until 18 or in somes cases all the way thru college. Then we expect them to jump into society as full fledged mature adults when they have never had to develop life skills or exercise any responsibility.

 

Can 15 year olds marry and be successful like my aunt and uncle did 40 years ago? Probably not, because we have stacked society against them and forced them to remain children into their 20's.

[OldGreyEagle]

At what point does the state have a right to intercede on behalf of its citizens even when its over the wishes of those citizens? I had thought I was taught that the state has a right to abridge the rights of the individual when the welfare of the masses were at stake. (otherwise known as the Spockanian Treatise, "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few")

 

In Pennsylvania the state decided it did not have a right to inflict its will (to wear a helmet) on motorcycle riders in what is now known as the Roethlisberger Riddle, otherwise known as the "what were they thinking?" condundrum.

 

In PA we don't have a law saying that a motorcycle rider must wear a helmet, but we do have a law that says you may only purchase "packaged" wine and spirits at "state stores" and beer by the case at a "beer distributor". Ostensibly this is done for safety reasons although I am not sure if the alcohol related deaths per 100,000 drivers are lower on Pennsylvania roads versus a state which does not have an arcane alcohol retail system.

 

I would like to see if Motorcycle deaths are greater per 100,00 riders in Pennsylvania versus a state that does require a helmet and see what safety experts say.

 

In some states, parental rights could be viewed as under assualt. When Britney Spears (sic!) was ticketed for not having her child properly secured in her vehicle, the headlines I saw were more of a nature questioning Mrs Federline's fitness as a parent rather than questioning why the state cared what a parent did with their own child anyway?

 

If a female, aged 15 may legally marry and that the age of consent to marry may legally be as low as 12 as mentioned in the article, then how long before the age at which or below constitutes "statutory rape" is challenged and reversed?

[Eagledad]

>>Once Churches get into the business of deciding policy for everyone else, then with that decision comes the inevitable responsibilities that follow, which will almost surely become "bad laws".

[Fuzzy Bear]

Barry,

Legislating religious moralism without considering the consequences is nonsensical. Returning to failed policies without a vision is irresponsible and should be considered neither religious nor moral. FB

[evmori]

Would that make a polygon a parrot that flies away?

[John-in-KC]

Two comments.

 

I won't speak for my parish or my denomination, but I honestly believe that if age 12 as the churchs' defined age of sexual consent was put forward at a voters meeting, state denominational convention, or national denomination, the response would be: NO!!!!

 

This is not the 12th, 16th, or even 19th Century anymore. There is a lot to know for a young person to take their place in the world. Look at most of us. We want our young people to take advantage of Scoutings youth programs as long as possible.

 

I wish I knew an answer to this. I know one answer: We parents have to be responsible for the upbringing and actions of our children. I am delighted my son has made it to 17 without drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or sexual activity. I attribute that to his being active in his church and in Scouting.

[funscout]

I don't know of any church that truly follows Jesus' teachings, that would turn away someone in need.

 

You should have seen my church mobilize when my friend was dying of brain cancer. People took time away from their own families, work, etc., to help this family. I had women signed up in shifts to stay with my friend every hour that her husband was away at work. People drove the boys to the pool, or other events, made meals for the family, did grocery shopping, laundry, house cleaning, etc. The Hospice workers assigned to her case said they had never seen anything like this before, and kept asking, "You mean these are all volunteers who aren't getting paid to do these things?" I answered, "We are a church family and taking care of others is what we do."

 

I know of other instances where a family (who are by no means rich), gave up their second car, for free, to a family in need. I could go on and on with examples, but the reason many of you don't realize that churches help others, is because we don't stand on roof tops and shout out the good works that we are doing. We quietly do what God wants us to do, and we expect nothing in return.

 

So, do churches care if a 12 year old has a baby and lives in poverty? God's churches care!

[Eagledad]

>>Returning to failed policies without a vision is irresponsible and should be considered neither religious nor moral