Shia view on sex with pre-pubertal girls

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodrigo_Bivar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why argue over law?

No matter what the law, girls, and boys for that matter, should all be free to enjoy childhood, and we should all ensure it lasts for them as long as possible, coz once you are an adult, there are a lot of responsibilities, and you cant turn back time.

Let them be kids for as long as possible
 
Our Muslim ‘lawyer’ here thinks he can score points, committing ad hominems left, right and center.

Here’s the Statute of Nebraska for you, pro.
Section 28-320.01
Sexual assault of a child; second or third degree; penalties.

(1) A person commits sexual assault of a child in the second or third degree if he or she subjects another person fourteen years of age or younger to sexual contact and the actor is at least nineteen years of age or older.

Ummm… actor is at least nineteen, child fourteen or younger.

Could it be the 5 year rule that Rodrigo Bivar was talking about?
 
Wait a minute, the Muslim ‘lawyer’ who doesn’t know what ‘age of consent’ means probably does not know of the Alaskan Legal Code:

AS 11.41.434. Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the First Degree.

(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree if

(1) being 16 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 13 years of age or aids, induces, causes, or encourages a person who is under 13 years of age to engage in sexual penetration with another person;

(2) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 18 years of age, and the offender is the victim’s natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian; or

(3) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 16 years of age, and

(A) the victim at the time of the offense is residing in the same household as the offender and the offender has authority over the victim; or

(B) the offender occupies a position of authority in relation to the victim.

(b) Sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree is an unclassified felony and is punishable as provided in AS 12.55.

It’s only 3 years in Alaska. Rodrigo is wrong again.
 
40.png
pro:
As for your citation of a federal statute, that only outlaws conduct where the perp crossed state lines with the intention to commit those acts. If someone starts out in a state where it’s legal to marry a 12 year old, marries a 12 year old there, and then sleeps with his wife, there is no imaginable way that statute would apply.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, Muslim ‘lawyer’? Which US state allows an adult male to ‘marry’ a 12 year old?
 
btw, if and when a court does sanction a marriage to a child under 14, I’m pretty sure there are other strings attached to the order, like the child has to live with their parents for a set amount of time, or in seperate residences, etc.
 
Not being a lawyer, unlike pro, I know my home state has the five year rule so as not to catch teen marriages under the sexual abuse of children laws. I think all states have something similar.

I also think that when the courts on the rare occasions allow under-aged marriages they are between young people, not a 53 year old grandfather ‘marrying’ a 9 year old child.

But I could be wrong - pro will no doubt tell us.
 
Valke2,

Thanks for the source. Here’s one that’s a little easier to read (tables):

law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

As you can see…there is no uniform law regarding marriage in the US. You made up a rule, Rodrigo, and used it to bash a religion. You look silly now.
 
pro_universal said:
Mississippi
Click to expand...
I state out of 50? Yeah. I guess the Muslim of Detroit better move to Mississippi then.
40.png
pro:
Used to be Kansas too, but an embarrassing news story has them changing the law
Click to expand...
Embarrassing huh? Thanks for that. Don’t you feel embarrassed at the Islamic laws of old men marrying young children? No? I thought not.
 
pro_universal said:
Valke2,

Thanks for the source. Here’s one that’s a little easier to read (tables):

law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

As you can see…there is no uniform law regarding marriage in the US. You made up a rule, Rodrigo, and used it to bash a religion. You look silly now.
Click to expand...
Did I say that? I keep talking of the age of consent and the Muslim ‘lawyer’ keeps talking about the marriageable age.

Every state has child abuse laws, bud. And age difference requirements to not make teen marriages illegal. My ‘5 year rule’ is just a generalization. Some States are even tougher than that. Does that make you happy? I should think it makes you Muslims look reeal bad for allowing dirty old men to have sex with young girls.
 
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
Wrong, buster. Marriage is not a mitigating factor against child abuse or pedophilia in America. Mormons and cult leaders who ‘marry’ young girls are also deemed guilty of child abuse / pedophilia.
Click to expand...
Rodrigo is correct.
Rodrigo_Bivar said:
The problem for you is that you fail to see the immorality of an old man having sex with a CHILD.
Click to expand...
Pro, do you believe it is wrong for an old man to have sex with a child?
 
Ella said:
Rodrigo is correct.
Click to expand...
Not on this point, he’s not. Show me one legal marriage where sex between the married couple, during the marriage, was the basis for a criminal charge.
Pro, do you believe it is wrong for an old man to have sex with a child?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the categories “adult” and “child” are well settled, or anything more than a 20th century fad, so in that sense, no, it’s not inherently wrong.

To declare that a 30 year old marrying a 14 year old is some great moral wrong would be to declare that the Church has been sanctioning moral evil (child molestation, even) for all of its history. It’s an absurd position based on the myopic view that only 20th and 21st century fads regarding late-aged marriage (totally divorcing the sacrament from puberty) are morally correct.
 
pro,
Only in Mississippi is marriage a mitigating factor in sexual abuse of children. Look at the statutes I gave you - do you see marriage as a mitigating factor? You are just lying because we know that in the US even in places like Mississippi the courts will frown on 53 year old men marrying 9 year old girls. The ‘marriage’ mitigating factor was meant to allow teen marriages - not sexual predation.

You claimed:
As you can see…there is no uniform law regarding marriage in the US. You made up a rule, Rodrigo

Where did I say there was uniform laws regarding marriage in the US? Where?
 
pro_universal said:
Not on this point, he’s not. Show me one legal marriage where sex between the married couple, during the marriage, was the basis for a criminal charge.
Click to expand...
He is right that in Mormon couples where the man is 50 and the woman is 12, the man can be convicted of child sexual abuse.
The ‘legality’ of their marriage is not the issue.
pro_universal said:
I don’t believe the categories “adult” and “child” are well settled, or anything more than a 20th century fad, so in that sense, no, it’s not inherently wrong.

To declare that a 30 year old marrying a 14 year old is some great moral wrong would be to declare that the Church has been sanctioning moral evil (child molestation, even) for all of its history. It’s an absurd position based on the myopic view that only 20th and 21st century fads regarding late-aged marriage (totally divorcing the sacrament from puberty) are morally correct.
Click to expand...
Wow pro. That’s really messed up. I hope you’re never anywhere near any young girl in my family.
First off, the subject matter is pre-pubertal girls not 14 year old girls. I suspect that red herring you’ve thrown in has the purpose of steering away the discussion from the matter at hand.
Second, you’re throwing in the Church, which is also not the matter at hand.
Wiggle some more… but please answer this question:

Pro, do you believe that is it moral for a 30 year old man to have sex with a pre-pubescent girl?
 
Ella said:
He is right that in Mormon couples where the man is 50 and the woman is 12, the man can be convicted of child sexual abuse.
The ‘legality’ of their marriage is not the issue.
Click to expand...
It’s not an issue because they weren’t legal marriages in the first place. If they had been, it most certainly would be an issue.
Wow pro. That’s really messed up. I hope you’re never anywhere near any young girl in my family.
First off, the subject matter is pre-pubertal girls not 14 year old girls. I suspect that red herring you’ve thrown in has the purpose of steering away the discussion from the matter at hand.
Second, you’re throwing in the Church, which is also not the …
Click to expand...
Well, answer the question: Do you believe that the Church has been blessing immoral, child-molesting marriages for the whole of its existence?

The subject is not “pre pubertal girls.” The subject is what a reasonable age limit should be for marriage/sex. It used to be custom that sexual maturity (ie, menstruation) made one ready to marry, at whatever age it came.

If you want to condemn young marriage in the absolute, you will have to agree that the Church has had no qualms about sanctioning immoral marriages, and has not even pretended to have a problem with it.
Pro, do you believe that is it moral for a 30 year old man to have sex with a pre-pubescent girl?
Click to expand...
I’m not even going to justify that with an answer.
 
So you agree with the notion that it is okay for a 53 year old man to have sex with a pre-pubescent wife?
 
Reading this thread is very frustrating, the OP listed something from the Islam that allows for sexual relations with a 9 year old and to divorce her if her sexual tract ruptures. Now we have people speculating on Mary’s age, and where Joseph went which has nothing to do with this topic aside from maybe to insult Catholics and the Blessed Mother under guise. Then the same folks bring up states who allow the age of consent to be 16. Well 16 is not 9. The laws on the books allowing for a 14 year old to consent was to consent to another youth, in farming communitties young marriage was very common. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, since raping a 9 year old child until her anus and vaginal tract rupture, then divorcing her like refuse is NOT the same thing. Either argue the OP points or leave the conversation, stop all these red herring arguments.

AND STOP DENEGRATING THE BLESSED MOTHER, She has nothing to do with this topic. Just because you are Jewish and do not believe what we believe does not mean you can start to denigrate Mary Jesus or Joseph.
 
Saint_Michael said:
Reading this thread is very frustrating, the OP listed something from the Islam that allows for sexual relations with a 9 year old and to divorce her if her sexual tract ruptures. Now we have people speculating on Mary’s age, and where Joseph went which has nothing to do with this topic aside from maybe to insult Catholics and the Blessed Mother under guise. Then the same folks bring up states who allow the age of consent to be 16. Well 16 is not 9. The laws on the books allowing for a 14 year old to consent was to consent to another youth, in farming communitties young marriage was very common. Anyway it’s neither here nor there, since raping a 9 year old child until her anus and vaginal tract rupture, then divorcing her like refuse is NOT the same thing. Either argue the OP points or leave the conversation, stop all these red herring arguments.

AND STOP DENEGRATING THE BLESSED MOTHER, She has nothing to do with this topic. Just because you are Jewish and do not believe what we believe does not mean you can start to denigrate Mary Jesus or Joseph.
Click to expand...
Amen. Maybe it’s time for the mod to close this one up, since it seems that we have drifted a little bit off course… MHO only.

Peace,

Gordon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top