I have this to observe. I know of NO RELIGION, particularly those of Judeo Christian origin, that define pedophilia. This has always been a matter of law. The thorny problem this presents for people who rabidly shake the finger and foam at the mouth over the horrible crime of pedophilia, is that it is just that, a crime.
Without the strength of law behind it, it would be no crime at all, and my religion (which is not FLDS or LDS or any of it's offshoots) does not forbid it. I'm sure a lot of you will begin to spit and speak at the audacity of this and drown your keyboards in saliva while you attempt to bang out an impassioned response, but it's nonetheless true.
The insulation from the acts we term "pedophilia" are the right of parents, and our concerns for children and the sanctity of marriage. Even society says no pedophilia occurs inside marriage, and as Willie Jessop so correctly pointed out, and as the Motion to Suppress correctly points out, marriage can occur down to three years of age. Even in Texas.
Without the strength of law behind it, it would be no crime at all, and my religion (which is not FLDS or LDS or any of it's offshoots) does not forbid it. I'm sure a lot of you will begin to spit and speak at the audacity of this and drown your keyboards in saliva while you attempt to bang out an impassioned response, but it's nonetheless true.
The insulation from the acts we term "pedophilia" are the right of parents, and our concerns for children and the sanctity of marriage. Even society says no pedophilia occurs inside marriage, and as Willie Jessop so correctly pointed out, and as the Motion to Suppress correctly points out, marriage can occur down to three years of age. Even in Texas.
Sphere: Related Content
8 comments:
That's exactly what it is -- a red herring, meant to distract from the real issue, which is whether it was right to take the children and property from the vast majority of the ranch who never had a 15 year old married person in their immediate family, let alone any "pedophilia" which is defined as sex with prepubescent children.
hugh - yes it can occur, but you must have missed judge cowan saying no judge would allow a toddler to be married. 3 was just a number that willie pulled out of a hat. technically, a judge could allow an infant to be married, but its not going to happen.
Jeanann,
I didn't miss it. I think that's the point. Why is it that we believe parents would let a three year old marry?
It remains my belief that overall, in general, parents are a more effective barrier to the abuse of their children than the state or any organ of the state.
The number Willie used, which is in the motion to dismiss as well, is used because it is believed that a three year old could form the request coherently. That would make it legal for a judge to permit the marriage. That whole exchange between the panel and Willie was also designed to show one thing. None of them knew and they admitted that.
The fact remains that pedophilia is an entirely legal concept and it isn't even age dependent. It is dependent on two factors, age and marital status and marriage can technically occur at any age where the minor can form the request coherently to marry.
If we could know when parents would fail their children, and in those case substitute the judgment of the court, then perhaps the court might be an effective barrier to the abuse of a child. We can't know that though without the court giving an opinion, and what that really means is we are relying not on parents, but on the court. I've already given my opinion as to who I think is more effective as a guardian.
obviously the parents who follow warren jeffs are an effective barrier to the abuse of their children. they let it happen. they gave their 12, 13 and 14 year old daughters to old men.
btw - what motion to dismiss? are you talking about the motion to suppress that was filed?
the minor can form the request coherently to marry.Two questions:
1) Are you using the word 'minor' in support of a Biblical concept (in which case, where do you find it?) or just repeating the governments presumptions?
2) Where do you get the idea of 'coherent request'? Biblically speaking it is the father of the bride who agrees to the marriage, not the bride.
The language is in relationship to how government understands it.
Essentially a 3 year old can say the phrase, "I want to be married" and be understood to be saying that.
I know what a coherent request is.
I was asking if you believe that to be a part of the Biblical requirements for marriage.
Post a Comment