ForumGarden

Wednesday, June 25, 2008



Call it marriage, Islamic style.

Saudi marriage officiant Dr. Ahmad al-Mu’bi told Lebanese television viewers last week that it’s permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed.

Al-Mu’bi’s remarkable comments also included an explanation that “there is no minimal age for entering marriage.

“You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7 or 8, he said. “But is the girl ready for sex or not? What is the appropriate age for sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and tradition, al-Mu’bi said.

Click here to view al-Mu’bi’s interview with LBC-TV.

What's the US equivalent, RG? What's the youngest that it's legal to marry and procreate there? In the UK it's 16.

I think it's the husband and wife's 14th birthday in Alabama so at least some of your states do have a minimum. New Hampshire says no to girls aged 12 and under, for example, but in quite a few states there's no legal minimum at all so long as parental and court permission's granted. Some states don't even require parental consent if a certificate of pregnancy can be shown. So, Saudi Arabia and the US both have the same no-minimum-age given the consent of a court? Have I got that right? We could call it marriage, fundamentalist style - the US position is that it's better to be married and living together than unmarried and pregnant.

Mahatma Gandhi and his wife were both 13 when they married and he thought in retrospect that 13 was too young. I think. I'd need to look it up to be sure. That was back in the 19th century though. India's been civilized for a long while. Since 1929 it's been illegal to marry there below the age of 21 for men and 18 for women. Muslims included.

I believe most of our states say 16 for girls to marry, some I think are 14 with parental permission but I can't say I know each state's statues on that for certain. Teenagers getting married even as young as 13 or 14 doesn't trouble me so much as a 1 or even a nine year old, even if sex isn't involved yet. I realize we're talking about arranged marriages here and some arrangements are even made at birth but I only hope that they're promising their girls to boys the same age because there's definitely an "eww" factor in thinking babies are promised in marriage to adult men, probably men much older.

RedGlitter;899012 wrote: I believe most of our states say 16 for girls to marryIs that disagreeing with what I said? It looks like it is. I'm sure I'm right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage discusses child marriage. It points to http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm which says most US states - it lists them all - allow marriage below the age of 16. I haven't tabulated the no-minimum-age bit but I could if needed and I think it says most states have no lower limit at all. You say "teenagers getting married even as young as 13 or 14 doesn't trouble me" despite it legalizing sex at that age? As al-Mu’bi so accurately said, then, "This varies according to environment and tradition” - your environment and tradition is notoriously permissive. Your marriage laws probably horrify the Saudis.

This is talking about a marriage contract not a physical marriage and while I don't agree with arranged marriages for children I think we should be more concerned with

problems closer to home.

The US has the highest teenage birth rate in the developed world ( 11 times higher than Netherlands and 4 x higher than Germany)and its teen abortion rate is also high. (7 x higher than Netherlands 8x higher than Germany) Britain has the highest teen birth rate in Europe.

Lets sort out our own problems before pointing the finger at others.

spot;899022 wrote: Is that disagreeing with what I said? It looks like it is. I'm sure I'm right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage discusses child marriage. It points to http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm which says most US states - it lists them all - allow marriage below the age of 16. I haven't tabulated the no-minimum-age bit but I could if needed and I think it says most states have no lower limit at all. You say "teenagers getting married even as young as 13 or 14 doesn't trouble me" despite it legalizing sex at that age? As al-Mu’bi so accurately said, then, "This varies according to environment and tradition” - your environment and tradition is notoriously permissive. Your marriage laws probably horrify the Saudis.


I got my info from here: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/un ... ndex.shtml

I'm not sure where you see a disagreement. I believe I did say that under the required age, parental consent is required, which two states did you find that have no age limit?

You say "teenagers getting married even as young as 13 or 14 doesn't trouble me" despite it legalizing sex at that age?


Right. While many will lop off my head for saying it, it's not all that implausible. But "marrying" off a 9 year old? Or a newborn/toddler? Gross. I understand it's in spirit only until the kid's of a more proper age but that doesn't make it any less distasteful to me.

RedGlitter;899069 wrote: I got my info from here: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/un ... ndex.shtml

I'm not sure where you see a disagreement. I believe I did say that under the required age, parental consent is required, which two states did you find that have no age limit?

Your "most" was 16, your "some of those" was less with parental consent. My most was under 16 with parental consent. You may not see that as a difference but I do.

I didn't find two states that have no age limit, I said that it looked as though most states have no age limit. Do you really want me to add them up to be certain it's most? My exact words were "I haven't tabulated the no-minimum-age bit but I could if needed and I think it says most states have no lower limit at all". These are the circumstances where a pregnancy is involved.



RedGlitter;899069 wrote:

Right. While many will lop off my head for saying it, it's not all that implausible. But "marrying" off a 9 year old? Or a newborn/toddler? Gross. I understand it's in spirit only until the kid's of a more proper age but that doesn't make it any less distasteful to me.


You patriotically support exactly what your country has chosen to do. It's the same parochial "we do it best where I come from" that you'll find in any inward-looking town on the planet and it has just the same closed mentality which refuses to see things from another's point of view. What's the best way to do things? Our way. What's repugnant? Their way.

If you take away the word "marriage" from "arranged marriage" and just say that the families have a financial arrangement then that's an exactly accurate description which perhaps will offend you less. There's not the slightest chance that any Saudi would allow his or her 9 year old daughter into anyone's bed. Most of the history of England's aristocracy has been underpinned by these exact same financial arrangements which you're finding so distasteful.

Well said I agree.

[QUOTE]This is talking about a marriage contract not a physical marriage and while I don't agree with arranged marriages for children I think we should be more concerned with problems closer to home.

The US has the highest teenage birth rate in the developed world ( 11 times higher than Netherlands and 4 x higher than Germany)and its teen abortion rate is also high. (7 x higher than Netherlands 8x higher than Germany) Britain has the highest teen birth rate in Europe.

Lets sort out our own problems before pointing the finger at others.[/QUOTE]

spot;899165 wrote: Your "most" was 16, your "some of those" was less with parental consent. My most was under 16 with parental consent. You may not see that as a difference but I do.



I didn't find two states that have no age limit, I said that it looked as though most states have no age limit. Do you really want me to add them up to be certain it's most? My exact words were "I haven't tabulated the no-minimum-age bit but I could if needed and I think it says most states have no lower limit at all".





You patriotically support exactly what your country has chosen to do. It's the same parochial "we do it best where I come from" that you'll find in any inward-looking town on the planet and it has just the same closed mentality which refuses to see things from another's point of view. What's the best way to do things? Our way. What's repugnant? Their way.

If you take away the word "marriage" from "arranged marriage" and just say that the families have a financial arrangement then that's an exactly accurate description which perhaps will offend you less. There's not the slightest chance that any Saudi would allow his or her 9 year old daughter into anyone's bed. Most of the history of England's aristocracy has been underpinned by these exact same financial arrangements which you're finding so distasteful.


Oh poppycock, Spot. You're using this to drag up another argument about America. That's silly. I KNOW the nine year olds aren't in the sack- that is not my gripe. My gripe is basically selling out one's kids to the highest bidder/or best offer. THAT is what I find distasteful.

CARLA;899268 wrote: Well said I agree.


Well maybe you and Victoria would like to start your own thread for that.

RedGlitter;899309 wrote: Oh poppycock, Spot. You're using this to drag up another argument about America. That's silly. I KNOW the nine year olds aren't in the sack- that is not my gripe. My gripe is basically selling out one's kids to the highest bidder/or best offer. THAT is what I find distasteful.Now go back to the Fox News article of the OP - the one with "permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed". The entire nudge-nudge innuendo-laden low-class filth is about under-age sex, it wouldn't exist as an article if it weren't about their suggestion that under-age sex is an inbuilt essential aspect of Islamic society. When I bring out the fact that the Saudi position has nothing at all to do with under-age sex whereas US law is explicitly about preferring it to the intolerable anti-Christian alternative of unmarried pregnancies you hit me with this "anti-American" stick again. Why not discuss my point rather than falling back on tired accusations of bias? I'm not biased, I'm extremely anti-Fox-filth especially when their articles hone in like leeches on Saudi Arabia and Islam.

spot;899328 wrote: Now go back to the Fox News article of the OP - the one with "permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed". The entire nudge-nudge innuendo-laden low-class filth is about under-age sex, it wouldn't exist as an article if it weren't about their suggestion that under-age sex is an inbuilt essential aspect of Islamic society. When I bring out the fact that the Saudi position has nothing at all to do with under-age sex whereas US law is explicitly about preferring it to the intolerable anti-Christian alternative of unmarried pregnancies you hit me with this "anti-American" stick again. Why not discuss my point rather than falling back on tired accusations of bias? I'm not biased, I'm extremely anti-Fox-filth especially when their articles hone in like leeches on Saudi Arabia and Islam.


Spot I'll quit hitting you with the anti-American stick when you quit making assumptions about Americans and everything we do having something to do with patriotism. Is that fair enough? We could try it.

I can't help that you don't like Fox News or that Fox is where the article came from.

The entire nudge-nudge innuendo-laden low-class filth is about under-age sex, it wouldn't exist as an article if it weren't about their suggestion that under-age sex is an inbuilt essential aspect of Islamic society.


I disagree here. Some people feel marriage should be a consentual thing. Arranged marriages between adults would be one thing but to marry off a child who has little to no concept of what marriage is is not savory. You are the one who brought up the sexual aspect as innuendo, please keep that in mind. I'm not under the impression Saudis are violating toddlers and I don't think the article purports that. Their example of a nine year old however....I would tend to not be so sure about that but even then, that's not the part that bothers me so much.

RedGlitter;899350 wrote: Spot I'll quit hitting you with the anti-American stick when you quit making assumptions about Americans and everything we do having something to do with patriotism. Is that fair enough? We could try it.I'm quite sure there are many Americans who abominate patriotism even more than I do - they have so much more cause to, after all. I'm equally sure there are many Americans whose reactions aren't driven primarily by patriotic response, that they do actually think before they jerk. I'm sure those sentiments should make it clear that I'm not anti-American since I approve of both those sorts of Americans.



RedGlitter;899350 wrote: I can't help that you don't like Fox News or that Fox is where the article came from. I think they're propagandists for the American Dream - lying to the domestic audience to keep them quiet - and as such I regard them as low scoundrels purporting to be a news channel. I still think you hone in on the words Saudi or Islam like it was catnip, surely even Fox can't be single-mindedly trashing sand niggers as often as is implied by the rate the topic turns up in your threads.



RedGlitter;899350 wrote: You are the one who brought up the sexual aspect as innuendo, please keep that in mind. I'm not under the impression Saudis are violating toddlers and I don't think the article purports that.I'm amazed that you think I claimed the article implied Saudis are violating toddlers. Fortunately the thread bears me out that I claimed nothing of the sort. Fox's example of a nine year old was disgustingly innuendo-laden though.

Meanwhile in many US states “there is no minimal age for entering marriage” and no insistence that sex is postponed. I seem to remember the UK even banned a US entertainer from entering the country out of shock at the extreme youth of his recent bride.

I still think you hone in on the words Saudi or Islam like it was catnip, surely even Fox can't be single-mindedly trashing sand niggers as often is implied by the rate the topic turns up in your threads.


You are out of line again Spot. I don't appreciate your "sand nigger" epithet regardless of how clever you thought it was and I'm not going to tolerate your ethnic accusations toward me in yet another thread. Your motives are transparent and rather desperate. If you can't continue a conversation with me about this issue in a civil manner then I won't acknowledge you any further.

You're saying my perception of the rate of slanted articles about Islam is higher than you're actually posting?

couch it in any flowery language you like ...

marriage and one year old babies should not be mentioned in the same breath ...

spot;899377 wrote: I'm quite sure there are many Americans who abominate patriotism even more than I do - they have so much more cause to, after all. I'm equally sure there are many Americans whose reactions aren't driven primarily by patriotic response, that they do actually think before they jerk. I'm sure those sentiments should make it clear that I'm not anti-American since I approve of both those sorts of Americans.



I think they're propagandists for the American Dream - lying to the domestic audience to keep them quiet - and as such I regard them as low scoundrels purporting to be a news channel. I still think you hone in on the words Saudi or Islam like it was catnip, surely even Fox can't be single-mindedly trashing sand niggers as often as is implied by the rate the topic turns up in your threads.



I'm amazed that you think I claimed the article implied Saudis are violating toddlers. Fortunately the thread bears me out that I claimed nothing of the sort. Fox's example of a nine year old was disgustingly innuendo-laden though.

Meanwhile in many US states “there is no minimal age for entering marriage and no insistence that sex is postponed. I seem to remember the UK even banned a US entertainer from entering the country out of shock at the extreme youth of his recent bride.


I think the important item is that RG posted an article from Fox News. It's a good article to discuss - but - I take issue with going after the poster (RG).

There has been a lot said about "each other". Let's get back to discussing the news, not the messenger.

Tombstone;899449 wrote: I think the important item is that RG posted an article from Fox News. It's a good article to discuss - but - I take issue with going after the poster (RG).



There has been a lot said about "each other". Let's get back to discussing the news, not the messenger.
I really don't see the news in this, I don't care what their customs are over there.

YZGI;899450 wrote: I really don't see the news in this, I don't care what their customs are over there.


I should amend it to: "it's a good article to discuss - for some people." Personally, I have no interest in this news tidbit.

Tombstone;899453 wrote: I should amend to "it's a good article to discuss - for some people." Personally, I have no interest in this news tidbit.
WHEW!!! Dodged another bullet..

YZGI;899455 wrote: WHEW!!! Dodged another bullet..


darn! you dodged it again!