11 Year Old Forced to Marry 20 year Old Rapist in Backwards Country

[Ryika]

Oh, so you're saying the men who received their cabinet positions only got them for being men, and not for their qualifications?

The pool of possible candidates included way more men than women, it is obvious that Trudeau chose women over men in some cases, even though the man would have been better qualified for the job.

That's the problem with quotas, you don't even pretend to give the jobs to the best-suited people, you discriminate against the individuals from the group that is overrepresented, independent from whether they got the job due to merit, or unfair advantages.

 

[red_elk]

Oh, so you're saying the men who received their cabinet positions only got them for being men, and not for their qualifications?

No, I mean, gender was a factor for hiring, along with qualification. If there was a gender quota, then in some cases it was a main factor (less qualified candidate could be preferred over a more qualified one with "wrong" gender)
This doesn't sound very progressive to me.

Edit: Yes, what Ryika said too.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The pool of possible candidates included way more men than women, it is obvious that Trudeau chose women over men in some cases, even though the man would have been better qualified for the job.

That's the problem with quotas, you don't even pretend to give the jobs to the best-suited people, you discriminate against the individuals from the group that is overrepresented, independent from whether they got the job due to merit, or unfair advantages.

The fact is - and this is something else I pointed out to the Reformacons on the news site - is that it's normal to have a cabinet shuffle once or twice a year. Some ministers aren't really a good fit for their portfolio, and when that becomes evident, that minister may be moved to a different portfolio, demoted to a lesser position, or dropped from cabinet entirely. In that case, another MP will have to be either moved or promoted. Trudeau has already done some shuffling, and people who didn't get a cabinet position the first time around will still have a chance.

 

[Hrothbern]

In New Hampshire, a girl scout named Cassandra Levesque learned that girls in her state could marry at 13. So she set out to change the law.
A legislator sponsored Cassandra’s bill to raise the age to 18, and researchers found that two 15-year-olds had recently married in New Hampshire, along with one 13-year-old. But politicians resisted the initiative.
“We’re asking the Legislature to repeal a law that’s been on the books for over a century, that’s been working without difficulty, on the basis of a request from a minor doing a Girl Scout project,” scoffed one state representative, David Bates. In March the Republican-led House voted to kill the bill, leaving the minimum age at 13. (Legislators seem willing to marry off girls like Cassandra, but not to listen to them!)

What people say in court or press conferences is often the convenient sound bullet or argument and seldom their true motive.

Perhaps the true motive is exactly the case OP described about that 11 year old forced to marry after being raped.

In my country, when you get raped at that age action would be taken to secure that you do not get pregnant, and if it is too late for that an abortus is the way taken.

However....
When abortus is out of the question or illegal or considered immoral.
Fixing the issue by a forced marriage is the "perfect" solution to keep the backward community at peace with thermselves
ofc at the expense of the poor girl involved
But who cares about that in such backward communities.

The USA is in some respects still an immature civilisation because of these fundamentalist christians.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

so her family and church officials decided the simplest way to avoid a messy criminal case was to was to organize a wedding

This sentence. I just can't get over this sentence.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Are you aware that most mainstream Mormons don't practice polygamy anymore?

Lol, I didn't mean that. But if we go that far, some individuals at that age do really deserve to end in someone's harem. Just saying.

 

[Gigaz]

Child marriage is clearly an embarassment, there's no need to discuss about that. Now, this is not a new development but just bad old law, but it fits right in the growing movement in America to put the interest of society as a whole or of a small unit above the interests of the individual female. And this is certainly about sexism, because noone would ever marry 11 year old boy to a grown man. But alas, a girls sole purpose seems to be reproduction. Why would she even have to make any choices in the first place? That's just distraction

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Lol, I didn't mean that. But if we go that far, some individuals at that age do really deserve to end in someone's harem. Just saying.

Why?

 

[Farm Boy]

Child marriage is clearly an embarassment, there's no need to discuss about that. Now, this is not a new development but just bad old law, but it fits right in the growing movement in America to put the interest of society as a whole or of a small unit above the interests of the individual female. And this is certainly about sexism, because noone would ever marry 11 year old boy to a grown man. But alas, a girls sole purpose seems to be reproduction. Why would she even have to make any choices in the first place? That's just distraction

Yes, there is need.

So, marriage is back to being about reproduction now that homosexual marriage is won? It's always had a social component thus structured, custody of offspring and all that, for sure. So is what you are saying is that the legal age for marriages should track with sexual intercourse consent laws? That'd still land it in child-marriage territory, and with additional controls in most situations - giving the parents of the prospective-married-couple veto power in many situations, though many laws seem to give the courts powers to override parental veto and allow the minors to decide for themselves, sometimes.

 

[Gigaz]

Yes, there is need.

So, marriage is back to being about reproduction now that homosexual marriage is won? It's always had a social component thus structured, custody of offspring and all that, for sure. So is what you are saying is that the legal age for marriages should track with sexual intercourse consent laws? That'd still land it in child-marriage territory, and with additional controls in most situations - giving the parents of the prospective-married-couple veto power in many situations, though many laws seem to give the courts powers to override parental veto and allow the minors to decide for themselves, sometimes.

Legal age for marriage should track with laws for consent in similar far-reaching decisions. That would be 18 or 21. And that's because I think marriage is not mainly about reproduction.

 

[civvver]

Legal age for marriage should track with laws for consent in similar far-reaching decisions. That would be 18 or 21. And that's because I think marriage is not mainly about reproduction.

I was going to say this, getting married in many states might be to skirt consent laws. In new york age of consent is 16, but there's a 4 year max window until 18 when you can consent to anyone. So someone 17 cannot have sex with anyone over 21 or it's statutory rape. But if both parents sign off on it you can get married at 16 or 17. So for some star crossed lover who is 16-17 and wants to marry say a 25 year old that would be one good reason to do it. I still think it's way too young, just pointing out a reason you would do so.

Also my mother married my father in michigan at age 17 and graduated high school a year early. My father was 18 and just graduated. They had to get both of her parents to sign some forms. They've been married 35 years now. It was good for her because she wanted to move out and get legal benefits of marriage, health care, taxes and stuff.

Anyway, 17 should be around the minimum you can be with parental consent, and 18 otherwise.

And btw, the whole thing about America vs rest of world, backwards stuff going on, dude it's a big country, lots of awful stuff goes on here. Like 20% of kids are malnourished and we have a lot of issues with sex trafficking. Some people seem shocked by this cus comon it's america we're so rich and great, but in any country this big you are going to have issues somewhere.

 

[Farm Boy]

Legal age for marriage should track with laws for consent in similar far-reaching decisions. That would be 18 or 21. And that's because I think marriage is not mainly about reproduction.

You're skirting a point I would like to hit directly.

Consenting to sexual intercourse is a similar far-reaching decision. One the right to get married impacts with key social issues like custody, child support, adoption, emotional and reproductive health, etc. While I might personally agree with you that 18 or 21 is a more appropriate age for the state to allow intercourse, I'm rather of the impression that enforcement would be so out of touch as to be harmful to the individuals caught in the net.

 

[warpus]

The fact is - and this is something else I pointed out to the Reformacons on the news site - is that it's normal to have a cabinet shuffle once or twice a year. Some ministers aren't really a good fit for their portfolio, and when that becomes evident, that minister may be moved to a different portfolio, demoted to a lesser position, or dropped from cabinet entirely. In that case, another MP will have to be either moved or promoted. Trudeau has already done some shuffling, and people who didn't get a cabinet position the first time around will still have a chance.

If Trudeau really wants gender equality in his party, why not make a rule that half of the Liberal candidates running for office during an election are male and the other half female?

See, I think he doesn't actually really want true gender equality. He just wants the nice photo op and news article caption that half of his cabinet is female. Not that I'm against a 50/50 gender split in a cabinet necessarily, but if you want true gender equality, make sure half your candidates from your party are female, and let Canadian voters sort out the rest. But nope, if you look at the last election, there were a lot more male candidates, from what I remember anyway.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Legal age for marriage should track with laws for consent in similar far-reaching decisions. That would be 18 or 21. And that's because I think marriage is not mainly about reproduction.

It's amazing how often the anti-same sex marriage people trot that one out. By their "logic" senior citizens shouldn't be allowed to marry, and any marriage where the couple either opts not to have children or they can't have children due to medical reasons, or they did have a child but that child died, or was adopted, should be immediately null and void. And of course as soon as the wife goes through menopause, well that marriage should be nullified as well, because she's not going to be producing kids after that.

Funny how the Reformacons never have an answer to this, either.

So for some star crossed lover who is 16-17 and wants to marry say a 25 year old that would be one good reason to do it.

That's basically what happened with my parents. My mother did not have a good relationship with her parents around that time, she wanted her own home, and I guess her parents figured she was mature enough. After all, back then it wasn't considered as much of a bad thing if girls didn't finish school; my mother did Grade 10 and stayed in school past the minimum drop-out age of 16 (which would normally be Grade 11; I've never understood why people in that situation don't just do the final year and get their diploma).

My cousin also married a man who was a lot older than she was. She was still in high school when they were dating (he was in his 20s), but thank goodness she finished school before they married. As far as I know, they're still married... it must be at least 25 years now (I was at the wedding, but since I'm not close to that side of the family there's never been any pressing reason to keep track of such things).

While I might personally agree with you that 18 or 21 is a more appropriate age for the state to allow intercourse, I'm rather of the impression that enforcement would be so out of touch as to be harmful to the individuals caught in the net.

Why would it be harmful?

If Trudeau really wants gender equality in his party, why not make a rule that half of the Liberal candidates running for office during an election are male and the other half female?

See, I think he doesn't actually really want true gender equality. He just wants the nice photo op and news article caption that half of his cabinet is female. Not that I'm against a 50/50 gender split in a cabinet necessarily, but if you want true gender equality, make sure half your candidates from your party are female, and let Canadian voters sort out the rest. But nope, if you look at the last election, there were a lot more male candidates, from what I remember anyway.

I'm not privy to Trudeau's own thoughts. He's said and done a lot of cynical things, and one of them is that he really wants to hear from people. BS. Every single time I've written to the party leaders about some issue or bill, it's always been the same: No acknowledgement whatsoever from the Reformacons. An automated response from the NDP, basically saying "we got your email, thanks." The Liberals just added me to their list of people to hit up for donations (I eventually sent a scathing letter, letting them know exactly what I thought of that, and unsubscribed). The only party leader to ever send a timely, on-topic reply has been Elizabeth May. I know you don't like her or some of what her party stands for, but from my pov, she's the ONLY one who ever really engages with people who write to her. The only reason I didn't vote Green two years ago is because the "local" candidate lived in Calgary. I figure that if you're going to put your name on a ballot for a specific riding, you should damn well live in that riding.

As for having an equal number of men and women running, that would be nice. But you can't force women to run for Parliament if they're unwilling. It's a catch-22: Some women who would make great politicians don't want to run because of how it would impact their family life, but because there are fewer women who run (and win), the "establishment" sees no real reason to change, to make things easier for female politicians to balance work and kids. I remember, back in the 1980s, when Sheila Copps was pregnant and didn't resign her seat as a lot of the MPs thought she should. And then she did the unthinkable: She brought her baby to work with her. Mulroney was Prime Minister then, and that was a time when my grandmother and I never missed watching Question Period (it was like our daily dose of noon-hour comedy). One day her baby let out a loud wail, and it's occurred to me now and then to wonder if Hansard ever recorded that (the baby was behind the curtain, not actually in the same room with all the MPs).

 

[Farm Boy]

Why would it be harmful?

How are you going to enforce barring 16 year olds, or 15, or 14 year olds from having intercourse with each other? Discourage it, sure. But what's the enforcement mechanism when they are? Doesn't enforcement usually cause its own set of harms even if it's with really good intentions? Like 15 year olds and truancy? Yes, we need them to go to school until they're 16, when we let them quit if they really want to, but up until that point we'll ankle bracelet them if they don't obey, and if they still don't obey we'll eventually toss them in juvenille detention to force the issue. Which, make no mistake about it, is jail. If it wasn't, they'd leave.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Funny, I never had a problem with that at age 15-16. I just made a decision and stuck to it.

 

[Farm Boy]

I have no doubts about your adolescent self's stick-to-it-ness. Yet I also know we ankle-bracelet teens for truancy, then send deputies after them when they don't show up to school. The progression around here goes school, alternative school, then juvvie in the face of persistant noncompliance. Also by some very stick-to-it-nessy teens.

Which brings us back around, what tools should the state employ to incapacitate teenagers from being able to stick bits of themselves into bits of each other under personally consensual, if not legally consensual, conditions? I'm sorta at a loss. Should we force them to relocate? If they don't comply, should we jail them?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

During my elementary years when I lived with my dad's girlfriend's family, I occasionally skipped school. I absolutely hated that place, hated most of the teachers (one of them would mock me in front of the entire class for having come from a county school and of course she disapproved of my home situation - common law living wasn't the normal thing in the early '70s that it is now), and some days I just felt physically ill at the thought of going. It wasn't until threatened with strapping that I decided to stick it out - after all, it was Grade 6 and I'd be out of there in a few months.

 

[Ryika]

How are you going to enforce barring 16 year olds, or 15, or 14 year olds from having intercourse with each other? Discourage it, sure. But what's the enforcement mechanism when they are? Doesn't enforcement usually cause its own set of harms even if it's with really good intentions? Like 15 year olds and truancy? Yes, we need them to go to school until they're 16, when we let them quit if they really want to, but up until that point we'll ankle bracelet them if they don't obey, and if they still don't obey we'll eventually toss them in juvenille detention to force the issue. Which, make no mistake about it, is jail. If it wasn't, they'd leave.

I first had sex when I was 12 (a few days away from 13, but still 12 - that counts!). Was I old enough to fully understand it? Nope. Did I still enjoy it? Hell yeah I did.
But do I think it hurt my development in any way? I don't think so. Not at all actually.

That's only my personal experience of course, I have to say this whole idea of it being "harmful" to have sex at an early age is pretty far fetched to me. The real danger is when partners who are much older than you take advantage of you, and that should of course be prevented as much as possible. But two young people having sex with each other? I don't think that's much of a problem. Not "optimal" by societal standards, but also not harmful to the development.

Literally anything we try to prevent it would probably cause more short-term problems for the kid than the act itself.

 

[Farm Boy]

During my elementary years when I lived with my dad's girlfriend's family, I occasionally skipped school. I absolutely hated that place, hated most of the teachers (one of them would mock me in front of the entire class for having come from a county school and of course she disapproved of my home situation - common law living wasn't the normal thing in the early '70s that it is now), and some days I just felt physically ill at the thought of going. It wasn't until threatened with strapping that I decided to stick it out - after all, it was Grade 6 and I'd be out of there in a few months.

The alternative high school I tutored a year at did a world of good for some of the students there. I think they're a suboptimal(probably mostly funding), yet super useful tool in the education box. Progress, baby steps, all that!

I first had sex when I was 12 (a few days away from 13, but still 12 - that counts!). Was I old enough to fully understand it? Nope. Did I still enjoy it? Hell yeah I did.
But do I think it hurt my development in any way? I don't think so. Not at all actually.

That's only my personal experience of course, I have to say this whole idea of it being "harmful" to have sex at an early age is pretty far fetched to me. The real danger is when partners who are much older than you take advantage of you, and that should of course be prevented as much as possible. But two young people having sex with each other? I don't think that's much of a problem. Not "optimal" by societal standards, but also not harmful to the development.

Literally anything we try to prevent it would probably cause more short-term problems for the kid than the act itself.

I'm probably inclined to agree. Most relatively progressive states(the US variety included) seem to have a hard-line age of consent, then some floating range(s) under it which preclude state administered punishment of similar-age people who do the dirty, then a "hell no" line. I am glad your experience was not harmful and instead was positive. Yet intercourse is still impactful. It does result, even if it did not for you or the majority of cases, in things like pregnancy, emotional attachment, STIs, etc. Some minors, even if you did not or the majority of cases, will desire to get married. Marriage rights impact custody rights, visitation rights, and more. So, should marriage laws track age of sexual consent laws? It would seem pretty sensible to me if they did, which is what I thought did indeed bear discussing rather than taking as an article of secular contractual faith that child+marriage rights=barbarism. I think that would be a backwards conclusion.