It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dooper
The Qur'an teaches that in Muhammed, you have a good example.
Since Muhammed married a child, why would a Muslim cleric say differently?
Muhammed was 53 when he took 6-year-old Aisha as another one of his multiple brides.
How does a child have the experience, intellect, and judgment to consent to such a thing?
Let's see what Muhammed had to say:
"The Prophet (Muhammed) said, 'A virgin should not be married until she is asked for her consent.' One may wonder how a child virgin gives her consent? 'He said, by remaining silent.'
If your Prophet was a pedophile, with multiple wives, concubines, and slaves, then of course your clerics will be compelled to go along with the program.
Muhammed consumated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine.
Aisha says she was married when seven, and the marriage was consumated when she was nine, but the dates don't add up.
Tabari VII: 7 says, 'The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time, she was six.'
ndeed, it happens all over the world and is most prevalent in Christian Africa.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HunkaHunka
You showed no such proof, and you are grossly mis-quoting me. The only thing you proved is that you are an obstinate jerk, who can't see the differnce between marriage in countries where the wife is obligated to have sex with her husband, and consensual sex, where the ten year old girl is not obligated to having sex with a forty year old man.
The fact that you are so willing to turn a blind eye on such activity, even when all evidence shows how wrong it is, and that this type of barbaric behavior hasn't been acceptable in most cultures for centuries.
Laws and regulations based on age were uncommon until the 19th century, and consequently so was possession of proof of age or even knowledge of a precise date of birth.
Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth. This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty. The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.
Like France, many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.
Do you care about what is right or wrong,
or do you just like to make excuses to allow people to do what ever they want to whom ever they want.
Yes, you are defending the act of forty year old men raping little girls, with made up nonsense.
An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.
In 1576 ... Jurist Sir Matthew Hale [of England] argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years.
Near the end of the 18th century, other European nations began to enact age of consent laws. The broad context for that change was the emergence of an Enlightenment concept of childhood focused on development and growth.
This notion cast children as more distinct in nature from adults than previously imagined, and as particularly vulnerable to harm in the years around puberty.
The French Napoleonic code provided the legal context in 1791 when it established an age of consent of 11 years. The age of consent, which applied to boys as well as girls, was increased to 13 years in 1863.
Like France, many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century. In 1875, England raised the age to 13 years; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony. In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age. U.S. laws did not change in the wake of England's shift. Nor did Anglo-American law apply to boys.
Behind the inconsistency of these different laws was the lack of an obvious age to incorporate into law. Although scientists and physicians had established that menstruation and puberty occurred on average around age 14 in Europe at this time, different individuals experienced it at different ages -- a fluid situation at odds with the arbitrary line drawn by whatever age was incorporated into law.
At the end of 19th century, moral reformers drew the age of consent into campaigns against prostitution. Revelations of child prostitution were central to those campaigns, a situation that resulted, reformers argued, from men taking advantage of the innocence of girls just over the age of consent. W. T. Stead's series of articles entitled, "The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon," published in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, was the most sensational and influential of these exposés.
The outcry it provoked pushed British legislators to raise the age of consent to 16 years, and stirred reformers in the U.S, such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the British Empire, and Europe to push for similar legislation. By 1920, Anglo-American legislators had responded by increasing the age of consent to 16 years, and even as high as 18 years.
Trial court erred in holding that a 15-year-old girl's marriage to an adult man was void ad initio because they did not obtain judicial consent, the Colorado Court of Appeals held June 15. Pointing out that Colorado recognizes common-law marriage, the court noted that there is no statutory provision indicating that the state does not follow the common-law age of consent for marriage, which is age 12 for girls. Thus, it said that so long as all other elements of a common-law marriage are present, the couple's marriage is valid
Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I'm sorry, but it's the case. Fundamentalists, although functional, are primitive.
Let me give you an example of the mind frame which is not primitive.
One that is not tied to a sense of insecurity. One that can assume that everything they know is completely false, and be ok with it.
Someone who does not act or think out of fear.
[edit on 22-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]
Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
But catholic priests sexually abusing young boys is ok, right?
Originally posted by poet1b
The nonsense I read is amazing.
Just because some areas of the western nations choose not to throw men in jail for having sex with a willing, consenting girl as young as 12, does not make it alright, or something that should be overlooked, for 8 and 10 year old girls to be sold into sexual slavery to 40 year old men, as is currently being done in Muslim nations.
Over 800 yeas ago, Western nations began making laws against these types of acts. We have every right to be outraged that Muslim nations continue these activities to this day. It should be publically denounced, and claims that Western nations allow sex with girls as young as twelve who are willing to engage in the sexual activity does not excuse the selling of these young girls in marriages that are nothing less than sexual slavery.
Sorry, BUT I think that people who make excuses for there horrible acts have no moral compass.
Continue to ignore the difference between consensual sex and sexual slavery, you are only preaching to the choir, in the church of satan.