U.S. Politics

Whenever some idiot tries to argue that an older man marrying a friggin' 14 year old is okay because it used to be done in decades past, I point out the fact that life expectancy back then was 40!I It was also a time when infant & child mortality was staggering...the average woman would have most of the children she gave birth to die before adulthood. A woman marrying young to an "older" man (who was probably in his late 20's/early 30's), was really out of the biological necessity to keep the species going, not because it was a freakin' good thing! People live longer now, and we have medical science that can help prevent children dying. We now have the luxury of letting our kids actually have a childhood, but these idiots want to go back to the way it was in the 1800s. Of course, I think it's mainly because these people are just sickos who think suffering is somehow a good thing for anyone but them.
 
Honestly I totally understand all the old “biblical” rules.

“So, you are wandering in the desert with no science and no knowledge of germ theory and you gotta make up some regulations real quick by the seat of your pants . . . and also you are a raging racist and misogynist.”
 
Well, and in the Bible it's a disgrace to have long hair. But not for Samson apparently. And some other guy had long hair I think.
 
TheGillMan said:
Whenever some idiot tries to argue that an older man marrying a friggin' 14 year old is okay because it used to be done in decades past, I point out the fact that life expectancy back then was 40!I It was also a time when infant & child mortality was staggering...the average woman would have most of the children she gave birth to die before adulthood. A woman marrying young to an "older" man (who was probably in his late 20's/early 30's), was really out of the biological necessity to keep the species going, not because it was a freakin' good thing! People live longer now, and we have medical science that can help prevent children dying. We now have the luxury of letting our kids actually have a childhood, but these idiots want to go back to the way it was in the 1800s. Of course, I think it's mainly because these people are just sickos who think suffering is somehow a good thing for anyone but them.
Click to expand...
Fun story; child marriage just being 'a thing we did all throughout history' is a huge misnomer. It was common in very particular times, and in particular places. For example... real big in Islamic countries because their prophet is a gross pedophile piece of shit. It also became popular in like.. Colonial America. Because white Christian dudes are quite often.... you guessed it... gross fucking pedophiles.

But it is NOT just something that was done all throughout history and we only JUST stopped doing it. That's utter bullshit and you should be ten toes down with anyone that says it.
 
I agree. And like I said, the few times where it was semi understandable for girls marrying when they were able to bear children was because people just didn't tend to live very long. Even then, it's rather questionable, and certainly gross.
 
TheGillMan said:
I agree. And like I said, the few times where it was semi understandable for girls marrying when they were able to bear children was because people just didn't tend to live very long. Even then, it's rather questionable, and certainly gross.
Click to expand...
Not to get too gross here, but girls start menstruating a bit earlier now than they used to because of all the shit we put in our food (and possibly natural evolution?). It's really important to remember that in pre-Colonial history, MOST young marriages were matters of political maneuvering to form alliances, or in less important households as a way of tying people together financially (baker wants his grandchildren to be jewelers, so he marries his daughter to the jeweler's son, so that their kids will be jewelers and not bakers). In these cases, it is SUPER important to remember that the children involved were kept at home with their parents (or fostered elsewhere, in some cases). They didn't go off to live with their new family and consummate the marriage until they were adults. For women that -could- mean around 16, but it could also mean 19-20, just depending on the specifics.

It almost never meant 9-10, or even 11-13. So let's all remember that even within the context of his own time and culture, The Big Prophet MoMo was a raging fucking pedophile.
 
Damien said:
Not to get too gross here, but girls start menstruating a bit earlier now than they used to because of all the shit we put in our food (and possibly natural evolution?). It's really important to remember that in pre-Colonial history, MOST young marriages were matters of political maneuvering to form alliances, or in less important households as a way of tying people together financially (baker wants his grandchildren to be jewelers, so he marries his daughter to the jeweler's son, so that their kids will be jewelers and not bakers). In these cases, it is SUPER important to remember that the children involved were kept at home with their parents (or fostered elsewhere, in some cases). They didn't go off to live with their new family and consummate the marriage until they were adults. For women that -could- mean around 16, but it could also mean 19-20, just depending on the specifics.

It almost never meant 9-10, or even 11-13. So let's all remember that even within the context of his own time and culture, The Big Prophet MoMo was a raging fucking pedophile.
Click to expand...
100% agree. That's what many miss with this...it is NEVER okay, in ANY society, for someone who is 9 or 10 to be married off! I can understand 16 if the life expectancy is 40 (but even then...if they are marrying her off to some dude in his 30's...gross).

Whenever people use the Bible to cite Mary being 13, I point out that is highly unlikely given the traditions of Jewish sects in that area of the time. She was betrothed to Joseph for a while, and still living with her parents (as you noted, a common practice in those days), so she was more likely over 16, and probably closer to 18. Betrothal COULD have happened as early as 13, but she wouldn't have been married until AT LEAST 16. The male dominated society of the time would have wanted her to have learned as much stuff as possible to be a "good wife", so she wouldn't have been out the door for at least a few years. The Gospels certainly indicate that she had been promised to Joseph for a while, so that wasn't a matter of a couple of months after her 13th birthday no matter how you look at it. Whether you believe in all the virgin birth stuff or not...she wasn't some kid.
 
TheGillMan said:
100% agree. That's what many miss with this...it is NEVER okay, in ANY society, for someone who is 9 or 10 to be married off! I can understand 16 if the life expectancy is 40 (but even then...if they are marrying her off to some dude in his 30's...gross).

Whenever people use the Bible to cite Mary being 13, I point out that is highly unlikely given the traditions of Jewish sects in that area of the time. She was betrothed to Joseph for a while, and still living with her parents (as you noted, a common practice in those days), so she was more likely over 16, and probably closer to 18. Betrothal COULD have happened as early as 13, but she wouldn't have been married until AT LEAST 16. The male dominated society of the time would have wanted her to have learned as much stuff as possible to be a "good wife", so she wouldn't have been out the door for at least a few years. The Gospels certainly indicate that she had been promised to Joseph for a while, so that wasn't a matter of a couple of months after her 13th birthday no matter how you look at it. Whether you believe in all the virgin birth stuff or not...she wasn't some kid.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

You might be married at 5 years old in certain older societies. But it might also be more than a decade before that even meant anything. Also, the weird right-wing pedos also desperately want to not deal with the fact that this was done to boys as well. See, they want to (mis)use their (inaccurate) interpretation of our history as proof that, in the absence of 'wokeness,' humans default to the 'correct' position of marrying girls off as soon as possible to a big strong man because that's the way it's supposed to be for completely not pedophile reasons.

But in order to use that history to push a misogynistic narrative, they have to intentionally obfuscate the fact that young boys were also sometimes married off to much older women. Because, again, marriage was politics. What we did then has less than no relevance than what we should do now, and anyone telling you different just wants to fuck children. Tell them that to their face.
 
Mary made a choice of her own free will. The angel approached her and told her God had chosen her to be the mother of His son. Mary was greatly troubled by this, meaning she was scared, as any of us would be if our God had delivered such a message to us. But inspite of her fear, Mary said yes, she chose Jesus.
"Be it done unto me according to thy word" was her reply.
She sets the example to Christians to turn to Jesus even when they are afraid.
 
yojoebro82 said:
Mary made a choice of her own free will. The angel approached her and told her God had chosen her to be the mother of His son. Mary was greatly troubled by this, meaning she was scared, as any of us would be if our God had delivered such a message to us. But inspite of her fear, Mary said yes, she chose Jesus.
"Be it done unto me according to thy word" was her reply.
She sets the example to Christians to turn to Jesus even when they are afraid.
Click to expand...

The argument isn't that God held her down and forced himself on her.
Would you accept this argument from a 50-year-old man? It's okay officer... the 12-year-old girl consented of her own free will.
 
Damien said:
The argument isn't that God held her down and forced himself on her.
Would you accept this argument from a 50-year-old man? It's okay officer... the 12-year-old girl consented of her own free will.
Click to expand...
Of course not. Mary's story is one of free will, faith and love. The other stuff you're taking about it the complete opposite.
 
yojoebro82 said:
Of course not. Mary's story is one of free will, faith and love. The other stuff you're taking about it the complete opposite.
Click to expand...

How? If we accept the GOP position that Mary was somewhere around 12-13 at the time, then by our own standards she cannot consent to being impregnated. Period. We can twist it into 'faith and love' - but so would a pedophile having a relationship with a child. Bear in mind that what we're talking about here is -certain- parts of the Republican base (and certain politicians) using the story of Mary to explain why marrying children should be okay. Keep that in mind here. Mary isn't JUST Mary - she is now a stand-in for all young girls that, by extrapolation, we should concede can make a personal commitment to love and carry the child of an adult man.
 
Damien said:
How? If we accept the GOP position that Mary was somewhere around 12-13 at the time, then by our own standards she cannot consent to being impregnated. Period. We can twist it into 'faith and love' - but so would a pedophile having a relationship with a child. Bear in mind that what we're talking about here is -certain- parts of the Republican base (and certain politicians) using the story of Mary to explain why marrying children should be okay. Keep that in mind here. Mary isn't JUST Mary - she is now a stand-in for all young girls that, by extrapolation, we should concede can make a personal commitment to love and carry the child of an adult man.
Click to expand...
The GOP's position in all this is something I can't speak to. To me it seemed the lines between the Immaculate Conception and child rape were getting I little blurred which is why I spoke up at all. To me there can't be any more polar opposite notions. Jewish custom at the time was wildly different than our social norms today. Would i allow one of my daughters to be married before 18? Heeeeelllll no. As was pointed out, life expectancy, medical advances etc all played a part. Was every man that took a wife at such a young age a pedophile in those days? That's getting into some deep stuff. All I've got is pretty much what I said above.
 
yojoebro82 said:
The GOP's position in all this is something I can't speak to. To me it seemed the lines between the Immaculate Conception and child rape were getting I little blurred which is why I spoke up at all. To me there can't be any more polar opposite notions. Jewish custom at the time was wildly different than our social norms today. Would i allow one of my daughters to be married before 18? Heeeeelllll no. As was pointed out, life expectancy, medical advances etc all played a part. Was every man that took a wife at such a young age a pedophile in those days? That's getting into some deep stuff. All I've got is pretty much what I said above.
Click to expand...
Out of respect, I won't press you any further on these issues even if I'd kind of like to a bit. I appreciate your input and where you're coming from, though. Genuinely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top