Child marriage in Trinidad & Tobago

[De Dragon]

they weren't black though. that said, yuh picking and choosing whih parts to follow. and ignoring "render unto Caesar" God himself doh want his teachings to be involved in politics.

Firstly "render to Caesar" doesnt mean stay out of politics. It was Jesus saying dont try to use allegiance to me as an excuse not to pay taxes and get the Romans to arrest me for sedition (Matt 22:15-22). Also you are unaware that John the Baptist spoke out against Roman governor Herod marrying his brother's wife and was beheaded. The Apostle Paul, the main author of the New Testament, chastised the politicians of his day including Felix of "righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come" (Acts 24:25). So the Bible has no problem with its teachings influencing politics.

Most of this talk about child marriage has been hammered out in the Religion Thread and was raised especially be me to show that it was Christianity that was at the forefront for carving out a space for children as protected individuals particularly against sexual exploitation. As societies changed and the age of childhood extended (eg. at 13 a Jewish boy became a man-Bar Mitzvah) to now 18 as the cutoff point, marriage became only acceptable after then.

Marriage is a religious concept that recently (in history) the state approves of. In Christianity children are not married. Western culture has been shaped by Christianity. If you want t be secularist, whatever age you come up with is arbitrary because you are adopting religious principles with no basis.

You are a chrisitian apologist, you twist facts to prove to yourself that christianity is the basis for all morality and then ignore the parts that show otherwise, your contribution should be ignored.

"Historically within the Catholic Church, prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the minimum age for a dissoluble betrothal (sponsalia de futuro) was 7 years in the contractees. The minimum age for a valid marriage was puberty, or nominally 14 for males and 12 for females.[33] The 1917 Code of Canon Law raised the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females.[34] The 1983 Code of Canon Law maintained the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females."

We believe that not only should most people marry, they should marry in their youth. The Bible speaks of the “wife of thy youth” (Prov. 5:18; Is. 54:6; Mal. 2:14-15) and “children of the youth” (Ps. 127:4). Scripture also speaks of not letting children pass the flower of their age (1 Cor. 7:36) … Leaving the physically mature young man struggling with fornication and leaving the physically mature young woman wallowing in fruitless, barren celibacy—these are both unscriptural and ungodly actions.

Twist it how you want

You here so long and you eh know this man M.O. by heart? All that huffing and puffing is to agree with Al-Rawi and Stuart Young to outlaw it. Note that both those goodly gentlemen are of the Christian faith, no matter how their names sound.

[Habit7]

they weren't black though. that said, yuh picking and choosing whih parts to follow. and ignoring "render unto Caesar" God himself doh want his teachings to be involved in politics.

Firstly "render to Caesar" doesnt mean stay out of politics. It was Jesus saying dont try to use allegiance to me as an excuse not to pay taxes and get the Romans to arrest me for sedition (Matt 22:15-22). Also you are unaware that John the Baptist spoke out against Roman governor Herod marrying his brother's wife and was beheaded. The Apostle Paul, the main author of the New Testament, chastised the politicians of his day including Felix of "righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come" (Acts 24:25). So the Bible has no problem with its teachings influencing politics.

Most of this talk about child marriage has been hammered out in the Religion Thread and was raised especially be me to show that it was Christianity that was at the forefront for carving out a space for children as protected individuals particularly against sexual exploitation. As societies changed and the age of childhood extended (eg. at 13 a Jewish boy became a man-Bar Mitzvah) to now 18 as the cutoff point, marriage became only acceptable after then.

Marriage is a religious concept that recently (in history) the state approves of. In Christianity children are not married. Western culture has been shaped by Christianity. If you want t be secularist, whatever age you come up with is arbitrary because you are adopting religious principles with no basis.

You are a chrisitian apologist, you twist facts to prove to yourself that christianity is the basis for all morality and then ignore the parts that show otherwise, your contribution should be ignored.

"Historically within the Catholic Church, prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the minimum age for a dissoluble betrothal (sponsalia de futuro) was 7 years in the contractees. The minimum age for a valid marriage was puberty, or nominally 14 for males and 12 for females.[33] The 1917 Code of Canon Law raised the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females.[34] The 1983 Code of Canon Law maintained the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females."

We believe that not only should most people marry, they should marry in their youth. The Bible speaks of the “wife of thy youth” (Prov. 5:18; Is. 54:6; Mal. 2:14-15) and “children of the youth” (Ps. 127:4). Scripture also speaks of not letting children pass the flower of their age (1 Cor. 7:36) … Leaving the physically mature young man struggling with fornication and leaving the physically mature young woman wallowing in fruitless, barren celibacy—these are both unscriptural and ungodly actions.

Twist it how you want

It's great that you can keep yourself abreast with Wikipedia and reading other stuff on the internet, but you are the one cherry picking info.

I am going back to the source, the Bible, and then going forward. The Roman Catholic Church is not the start of Christianity nor does speak for all of Christianity. The verse that defines marriage in Bible is Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The word for "wife" there means woman of child bearing age just as the word "man". Jesus reemphasises that verse in Matthew 19:5. This is always read in any Christian wedding liturgy.

The "wife of thy youth" means the youth of the husband, a man. “Children of the youth” is talking about children not spouses. And that 1 Cor 7:36 reference says nothing about children. Wherever you are copy and pasting from is practising eisegesis, forcing a meaning into the text, rather than exegesis, receiving what the text actually says.

In Jewish culture a boy became a man at 13 (bar mitzvah) and a girl became a woman at 12 (bat mitzvah). We recently invented social constructs like 'teenagers' which never existed 100 years ago. It is anachronistic to force our idea of what is a child on ages past. But even then Christianity never taught that children should be married.

[meccalli]

You are a chrisitian apologist, you twist facts to prove to yourself that christianity is the basis for all morality and then ignore the parts that show otherwise, your contribution should be ignored.

"Historically within the Catholic Church, prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the minimum age for a dissoluble betrothal (sponsalia de futuro) was 7 years in the contractees. The minimum age for a valid marriage was puberty, or nominally 14 for males and 12 for females.[33] The 1917 Code of Canon Law raised the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females.[34] The 1983 Code of Canon Law maintained the minimum age for a valid marriage at 16 for males and 14 for females."

You're an atheist that apparently hasn't the slightest clue on what source documents are the basis for christian theology if you can quote the roman catholic church in defense of your intended agenda in this thread. I would also suggest that your contributions be ignored as well. Ironically, your original post is mighty impartial to the particular faith that's historically responsible for the laws that set such issues in order and more importantly is least significant in terms of those who support the practice with what we as a society consider as children.

[abducted]

The word for "wife" there means woman of child bearing age just as the word "man". Jesus reemphasises that verse in Matthew 19:5. This is always read in any Christian wedding liturgy.

The "wife of thy youth" means the youth of the husband, a man. “Children of the youth” is talking about children not spouses. And that 1 Cor 7:36 reference says nothing about children. Wherever you are copy and pasting from is practising eisegesis, forcing a meaning into the text, rather than exegesis, receiving what the text actually says.

In Jewish culture a boy became a man at 13 (bar mitzvah) and a girl became a woman at 12 (bat mitzvah). We recently invented social constructs like 'teenagers' which never existed 100 years ago. It is anachronistic to force our idea of what is a child on ages past. But even then Christianity never taught that children should be married.

First you say a wife is a woman at child bearing age aka when she has her first period aka 9-12, and then you say Christianity never taught that children should be married, isn't a 9-12yr old a child?

But you also say adult at 18 and concepts such as "teenager" are modern social ideas not considered in the bible so the bible considers 9-12yr olds as adults and is ok for them to get married. So you support the law as it is.

[meccalli]

I know it's not illiteracy, but i really wonder if its mere buffoonery or comprehension issues atheists have when it comes to historical text.

[Habit7]

I just said in Jewish culture a 12 year old was a woman.
I just said the word for wife means woman of childbearing age.

Where you come with 9-12 years olds?

I thought it was just the Bible you force your own interpretation into, but it seems you do it with everything you disagree with.

How Christianity invented children

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

April 23, 2015

We have forgotten just how deep a cultural revolution Christianity wrought. In fact, we forget about it precisely because of how deep it was: There are many ideas that we simply take for granted as natural and obvious, when in fact they didn't exist until the arrival of Christianity changed things completely. Take, for instance, the idea of children.

Today, it is simply taken for granted that the innocence and vulnerability of children makes them beings of particular value, and entitled to particular care. We also romanticize children — their beauty, their joy, their liveliness. Our culture encourages us to let ourselves fall prey to our gooey feelings whenever we look at baby pictures. What could be more natural?

In fact, this view of children is a historical oddity. If you disagree, just go back to the view of children that prevailed in Europe's ancient pagan world.

As the historian O.M. Bakke points out in his invaluable book When Children Became People, in ancient Greece and Rome, children were considered nonpersons.

Back then, the entire social worldview was undergirded by a universally-held, if implicit, view: Society was organized in concentric circles, with the circle at the center containing the highest value people, and the people in the outside circles having little-to-no value. At the center was the freeborn, adult male, and other persons were valued depending on how similar they were to the freeborn, adult male. Such was the lot of foreigners, slaves, women...and children.

High infant mortality rates created a cultural pressure to not develop emotional attachments to children. This cultural pressure was exacerbated by the fact that women were more likely to develop emotional attachments to children — which, according to the worldview of the day, meant it had to be a sign of weakness and vulgarity.

Various pagan authors describe children as being more like plants than human beings. And this had concrete consequences.

Well-to-do parents typically did not interact with their children, leaving them up to the care of slaves. Children were rudely brought up, and very strong beatings were a normal part of education. In Rome, a child's father had the right to kill him for whatever reason until he came of age.

One of the most notorious ancient practices that Christianity rebelled against was the frequent practice of expositio, basically the abandonment of unwanted infants. (Of course, girls were abandoned much more often than boys, which meant, as the historical sociologist Rodney Stark has pointed out, that Roman society had an extremely lopsided gender ratio, contributing to its violence and permanent tension.)

Another notorious practice in the ancient world was the sexual exploitation of children. It is sometimes pointed to paganism's greater tolerance (though by no means full acceptance) of homosexuality than Christianity as evidence for its higher moral virtue. But this is to look at a very different world through distorting lenses. The key thing to understand about sexuality in the pagan world is the ever-present notion of concentric circles of worth. The ancient world did not have fewer taboos, it had different ones. Namely, most sexual acts were permissible, as long as they involved a person of higher status being active against or dominating a person of lower status. This meant that, according to all the evidence we have, the sexual abuse of children (particularly boys) was rife.

Think back on expositio. According to our sources, most abandoned children died — but some were "rescued," almost inevitably into slavery. And the most profitable way for a small child slave to earn money was as a sex slave. Brothels specializing in child sex slaves, particularly boys, were established, legal, and thriving businesses in ancient Rome. One source reports that sex with castrated boys was regarded as a particular delicacy, and that foundlings were castrated as infants for that purpose.

Of course, the rich didn't have to bother with brothels — they had all the rights to abuse their slaves (and even their children) as they pleased. And, again, this was perfectly licit. When Suetonius condemns Tiberius because he “taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his little fishes, to play between his legs while he was in his bath” and “those who had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio,” he is not writing with shock and horror; instead, he is essentially mocking the emperor for his lack of self-restraint and enjoying too much of a good thing.

This is the world into which Christianity came, condemning abortion and infanticide as loudly and as early as it could.

This is the world into which Christianity came, calling attention to children and ascribing special worth to them. Church leaders meditated on Jesus' instruction to imitate children and proposed ways that Christians should look up to and become more like them.

Like everything else about Christianity's revolution, it was incomplete. For example, Christians endorsed corporal punishment for far too long. (Though even in the fourth century, the great teacher St John Chrysostom preached against it, on the grounds of the victim's innocence and dignity, using language that would have been incomprehensible to, say, Cicero.)

But really, Christianity's invention of children — that is, its invention of the cultural idea of children as treasured human beings — was really an outgrowth of its most stupendous and revolutionary idea: the radical equality, and the infinite value, of every single human being as a beloved child of God. If the God who made heaven and Earth chose to reveal himself, not as an emperor, but as a slave punished on the cross, then no one could claim higher dignity than anyone else on the basis of earthly status.

That was indeed a revolutionary idea, and it changed our culture so much that we no longer even recognize it.

http://theweek.com/articles/551027/how- ... d-children

[abducted]

I know it's not illiteracy, but i really wonder if its mere buffoonery or comprehension issues atheists have when it comes to historical text.

historical text? You believe the bible to be true and I don't, because I don't believe what you believe does not make me a buffoon. But I see you have to resort to name calling, that's ok. A kid might get upset with an adult for saying fairies are not real, I understand.

It really bothering you two that your faith condones child marriage when it is frowned upon by modern society, no other religion came in here to beat up.

I just said the word for wife means woman of childbearing age.

Where you come with 9-12 years olds

to bear a child a human female needs to menstruate, this happens anywhere from 8 to 15 years of age.

[Habit7]

So the Bible says a man will leave his mother and father and cling to the female human lifeform that attains societal understanding of womanhood and is ready to bear children.

What is so hard to understand in that?

[abducted]

Christian child marriage in the Middle Ages

Child marriages were common in history. Princess Emilia of Saxony in 1533, at age 16 married George the Pious, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, then aged 48 years at a Christian ceremony.

[meccalli]

buffoonery
bəˈfuːnəri/Submit
noun
behaviour that is ridiculous but amusing.
"the film is full of wordplay and buffoonery"

Name calling? English also seems hard for you.

[EmilioA]

let we see here. *Googles Queens of England in the middle ages.*

Isabela of Angouleme married King John of England (the one from Robin Hood) at age 12.

Eleanor of Provence married King Henry III of England at age 12.

Eleanor of Castile married King Edward I of England (the one from Braveheart) at age 13

Phillipa of Hainault married Edward III of England at age 13.

Mary de Bohun married Henry IV of England at age 12

Now of course i'm sure these people are all Jews and Muslims and never used the Bible to sanction thier marriages.

[meccalli]

Child marriages were common in history. Princess Emilia of Saxony in 1533, at age 16 married George the Pious, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, then aged 48 years at a Christian ceremony.

The KKK are 'christians' too, just so you know.

[trump2016]

.....

[EmilioA]

Distraction from what ?

[moving]

yea well religion has also preached a lot of other crap
Why? because man has corrupted religion.

trying to justify a child marriage in the 21st century is completely immoral and unethical.

It disturbs me that people are trying to justify this.
The IRO wants to know why more young people are identifying themselves as spiritual and not religious. its because of the utter nonsense that our spiritual leaders are teaching and justifying.

[HSA]

As we on this topic....

[Habit7]

It is one thing with ppl doing something in the name of religion in spite of the original text of the religion doesn't permit it. And then there are those who do something in the name of religion when the original text spells it out.

[mrtrini45]

just dropping this in



Phillip Edward Alexander
May 20 at 10:35am · Port of Spain

Three of the 'selfie activists' behind the 'war' on child marriage.

On the surface their positions sounds rational, until you check with the registrar and realise that there are no child marriages taking place in T&T despite what the law allows, and if no marriage officers are performing underaged marriages, why the sudden brouhaha?

I asked the moment this issue erupted, why now?

Why all of a sudden?

Are these three known PNM supporters being used to distract the public from other far more sinister activities?

Well you decide.

While we are arguing this the government is pushing forward with a plan to build a highway to Toco that we do not need, with money we do not have, to solve a problem that does not exist.

Should the loss of those billions of dollars be of concern to you?

Perhaps. Especially as the hospital has no reagents to test for HIV so no blood transfusions can take place. There is no way to test the actual blood types due to shortages of testing supplies, so even if you WANTED to give your dying child or mother blood, you could just as easily kill them.

So should we be concerned?

I think yes. Especially as the news is being manipulated to distract you with nonsense, while the Attorney General is illegally pushing home a Bill that if it becomes law removes your privacy and undermines your freedoms of speech, expression and association.

How can we stop that?

Well we need an overwhelming public response to that issue, so to prevent that the government is cleverly using its agents to distract the public with nonsense.

But isn't child marriage wrong?

Absolutely, and the impact of many other laws on life in T&T need addressing and repealing as well, but it shouldn't be done by political hacks and performers, and they shouldn't be used to distract, not when bigger much more important issues are at stake.

But why put these three on blast?

Nothing personal, but it is time we started exposing these agendas and the people behind them.

Meet Rhoda Bharath (PNM mouthpiece and quack journalist), Tim Teemal (who posts on Facebook under the fake name Christopher P. Nokio), and Franka Phillip, part of a small clique of self described media elite trying to maintain some semblance of information hegemony in a world where traditional media power is evaporating.

Ask Tim, Rhoda and Franka what is the real issue behind this issue. Ask them why now, and what do they propose as solutions to the real issues. Because if they cannot answer those questions intelligently you will see them and this whole orchestrated abuse of public emotion for what it is.

A paid political distraction.

[zoom rader]

Nothing new it is well known that this is PNM smoke screen.

[Gladiator]

Well you decide.

While we are arguing this the government is pushing forward with a plan to build a highway to Toco that we do not need, with money we do not have, to solve a problem that does not exist.

Should the loss of those billions of dollars be of concern to you?

Damn....

[tiger balm]

On the surface their positions sounds rational, until you check with the registrar and realise that there are no child marriages taking place in T&T despite what the law allows, and if no marriage officers are performing underaged marriages, why the sudden brouhaha?

.

Eh?? If child marriages haven't actually been taking place, Sat Maharaj, Bro. Harrypersad and the IRO would've ended the debate long time. They wouldn't be fighting it down so. The marriages are probably registered elsewhere.

[brainchild]

just dropping this in



Phillip Edward Alexander
May 20 at 10:35am · Port of Spain

Three of the 'selfie activists' behind the 'war' on child marriage.

On the surface their positions sounds rational, until you check with the registrar and realise that there are no child marriages taking place in T&T despite what the law allows, and if no marriage officers are performing underaged marriages, why the sudden brouhaha?

I asked the moment this issue erupted, why now?

Why all of a sudden?

Are these three known PNM supporters being used to distract the public from other far more sinister activities?

Well you decide.

While we are arguing this the government is pushing forward with a plan to build a highway to Toco that we do not need, with money we do not have, to solve a problem that does not exist.

Should the loss of those billions of dollars be of concern to you?

Perhaps. Especially as the hospital has no reagents to test for HIV so no blood transfusions can take place. There is no way to test the actual blood types due to shortages of testing supplies, so even if you WANTED to give your dying child or mother blood, you could just as easily kill them.

So should we be concerned?

I think yes. Especially as the news is being manipulated to distract you with nonsense, while the Attorney General is illegally pushing home a Bill that if it becomes law removes your privacy and undermines your freedoms of speech, expression and association.

How can we stop that?

Well we need an overwhelming public response to that issue, so to prevent that the government is cleverly using its agents to distract the public with nonsense.

But isn't child marriage wrong?

Absolutely, and the impact of many other laws on life in T&T need addressing and repealing as well, but it shouldn't be done by political hacks and performers, and they shouldn't be used to distract, not when bigger much more important issues are at stake.

But why put these three on blast?

Nothing personal, but it is time we started exposing these agendas and the people behind them.

Meet Rhoda Bharath (PNM mouthpiece and quack journalist), Tim Teemal (who posts on Facebook under the fake name Christopher P. Nokio), and Franka Phillip, part of a small clique of self described media elite trying to maintain some semblance of information hegemony in a world where traditional media power is evaporating.

Ask Tim, Rhoda and Franka what is the real issue behind this issue. Ask them why now, and what do they propose as solutions to the real issues. Because if they cannot answer those questions intelligently you will see them and this whole orchestrated abuse of public emotion for what it is.

A paid political distraction.

There was a list of human rights violations sent by the UN that the government was asked to address...this is what prompted the entire discussion. Also it doesn't matter if something is taking place currently or not, bad legislation should be changed, it would be nice to see this country be proactive for a change.

[RBphoto]

[Dizzy28]

NMWOTT showing up on their President there. Glad the various woman's groups showing they progressive and not like the dinosaur men running the show.

[DerryJr]

I found incredibly attractive women here: http://jump4loves.com

[BRZ]

Never realized until now that Sat Maharaj was such a Kanthole of an excuse for a man,
Imagine the nerve of that nasty As5hole
Borrowed from facebuuk

SAT TELLS CATHOLICS TO 'GO TO HELL'
He defends Hindu's right to wed minors
While inadvertently admitting that he has evils to cure, head of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, Satnarine Maharaj has stood his ground on his religious right to marry minors. He says that the Catholic Church and the new US Ambassador should "mind their own damn business"
Maharaj insists that this is solely a matter between the Hindu Community and the State. He raises objection to the United States ambassador getting involved in the doscussion and tells him to fix his own house before coming to comment on theirs. He slams the Archbishop of Port of Spain for sharing his unwelcomed views.

Or is it that he wants rights to Intefere with young boys?

[pugboy]

Sat buss the mark that in a particular state in US they also allow 12 or 13yr old consent marriage.
I didn't believe it but checked, New Hampshire

it is hard to argue with Sat, he usually brings facts to the table

[rspann]

Nah, the Catholics like young boys, the Pundits does go after the young girls.

[K74T]

Correct

[rspann]

Sat does talk shat sometimes, but if you listened to the whole speech, you will understand what he meant . He said that young people like to experiment and if by chance one gets pregnant, they should have the option for the families to get involved and get them married-if they want to. He asked why the priest don't interfere in the business of the ones that getting pregnant and making children at fourteen .
I see it as a reference to non- indo girls, because. Of the context he spoke it in.