TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
2WNBoost wrote:Really people?
A 22 year old man taking home a 14 year old girl.
Anyway you slice it, it's just wrong.
racedriverpro wrote:2WNBoost wrote:Really people?
A 22 year old man taking home a 14 year old girl.
Anyway you slice it, it's just wrong.
Nahhh....dr habit7 could spin this.
racedriverpro wrote:2WNBoost wrote:Really people?
A 22 year old man taking home a 14 year old girl.
Anyway you slice it, it's just wrong.
Nahhh....dr habit7 could spin this.
Dizzy28 wrote:I find the Independent Senator appointed by the UNC to have given an even worse reason than Sat for keeping Child marriages.....
(Its from one of those Facebook news pages)
Capture.JPG
http://www.guardian.co.tt/columnist/2017-01-18/feeling-hot-hot-hotFEELING HOT HOT HOT
Published:
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Last week, temporary Senator Maulana Waffie Mohammed, who was appointed by the Opposition United National Congress to defend the Muslim Marriage Act, was widely criticised for asserting that climate determines the age of puberty.
One letter-writer even went so far as to ask the Muslim cleric to provide scientific proof for this claim.
I found this challenge quite unreasonable. Does anyone ask Pentecostal pastor Winston Cuffie to provide scientific proof that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Does anybody ask Maha Sabha head Sat Maharaj to prove that Brahmins are the highest form of life? Does anyone ask MSJ leader David Abdulah to prove that socialism can produce a reliable supply of toilet paper? No, no, and Hell no.
In any case, Maulana Waffie isn’t the first man to posit this connection between Trinidad’s tropical climate and puberty.
Way back in 1806, the prosecutor in a court trial asserted that “In that hot country the puberty of females is much accelerated, and they become mothers frequently when they are only 12 years old.”
That case involved the torture of a 15-year-old girl named Louisa Calderon, but Louisa was only tortured to get her to confess that she had robbed a man who she had been living with as a concubine since she was 11.
Then, in 1889, an ordinance was proposed to lower the age of consent from 16 to 13 years, and members of the Trinidad Legislative Council argued that this was necessary because “girls developed more rapidly in the tropical climate.”
And these were respectable white Christian men, so Maulana Waffie was only following a historical precedent.
Even the English language makes a link between climate and sexuality. Thus, sexy women are described as “hot”; an attractive woman is called a “hotty”; and, in Trinidadian dialect, we describe promiscuous females as “hot up”.
Also, if TV footage of the fiery protests that erupt whenever police kill a young black boy is any indicator, hotspots have a higher ratio of women in hot pants with Hottentot genes.
In this context, it seems rather odd that the UNC would have put a maulana, a pundit and a pastor in the hot seat to deal with such a hot potato.
There may be political reasons for so doing but, on the other hand, it may just be hot flashes.
So Maulana Waffie explained to the Senate that “Muslims believe that the marriageable age of a female begins with puberty”; Maha Sabha pundit Bhadase Seetahal-Maraj assured senators that all marriages involving 14-year-old Hindu girls were based on “sincerity of heart, purity of purpose and nobility of intentions”; and Pastor Rodger Samuel said Blah blah blah.
The religious spokespersons who want to retain their right to marry 12- and 14-year-old girls also argue that fornication and pornography in schools prove that young people have the hots for each other, and hold that this is the root cause of more widespread ills in Trinidad and Tobago, such as murder, rape, and bad grammar.
I myself believe the obverse—that high levels of religiosity in a society correlate with violence and sexism and boring newspaper columns—but I admit I believe this only because of evidence: which, of course, is irrelevant to any debate based on religion.
So, basically, all the religious spokesmen had only one argument: that when 12- and 14-year-old girls have sex with males, it is a form of social disorder; but when 12- and 14-year-old girls have sex with males they are married to, it is what God wants.
Maulana Waffie even argued that the legislation which needed to be repealed wasn’t the Marriage Act but the Children’s Act 2012, since, he said: “In this Act, we see that boys as young as ten years old can lawfully have sex with girls of ten years.”
He did not specify, however, if the law should be changed to allow ten-year-olds who want to have sex to marry, or if ten-year-olds who have sex should be jailed.
Indeed, Maulana Waffie became very hot under the collar, asserting that Attorney General Faris al-Rawi was not “doing anything to solve the problem of unrestricted sexual activity”; and I myself do in fact feel that Mr Al-Rawi should stop wearing those fitted T-shirts.
Pundit Bhadase, showing the senators that he wasn’t full of hot air, said that the debate had “marginalised key voices and given greater volume and velocity to voices of lesser importance”; although I myself was under the delusion that the members of the Hindu Women’s Organisation were Hindus.
Pastor Rodger said Blah blah blah; but I took this to mean blah blah blah.
Still: let me stop defending girl children before I get into hot water with these people who can send me to the hot place.
Email: kevin.baldeosingh@zoho.com
Kevin Baldeosingh is a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a Caribbean history textbook.
uncle sam wrote:I am confused why people are defending child marriage..
can OP make this thread a poll? Let's see how may people support it... I'm not judging.
It could be a case of Hillary/Trump where I was dead wrong when the poll read in favour of Trump
bluesclues wrote:uncle sam wrote:I am confused why people are defending child marriage..
can OP make this thread a poll? Let's see how may people support it... I'm not judging.
It could be a case of Hillary/Trump where I was dead wrong when the poll read in favour of Trump
One reason i support it is because i think teens will succumb to the call of nature both male and female and many will be criminalized because of it and i think that is unfair. The option for them to get married to aviod criminal charges should remain.
In all wisdom this could be any one of your sons or daughters. U have no control over the choices they make when they are away and unsupervised.
teems1 wrote:bluesclues wrote:uncle sam wrote:I am confused why people are defending child marriage..
can OP make this thread a poll? Let's see how may people support it... I'm not judging.
It could be a case of Hillary/Trump where I was dead wrong when the poll read in favour of Trump
One reason i support it is because i think teens will succumb to the call of nature both male and female and many will be criminalized because of it and i think that is unfair. The option for them to get married to aviod criminal charges should remain.
In all wisdom this could be any one of your sons or daughters. U have no control over the choices they make when they are away and unsupervised.
You are talking about Romeo and Juliet laws, whereby both persons are young/under age of consent, but still within a reasonable age of each other, they would not be charged with felony crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory ... uliet_laws
The child marriage act allows big hardback 50 year old men to marry 12 year old girls. If you can't see how that is reprehensible, you need some professional help.
bluesclues wrote:uncle sam wrote:I am confused why people are defending child marriage..
can OP make this thread a poll? Let's see how may people support it... I'm not judging.
It could be a case of Hillary/Trump where I was dead wrong when the poll read in favour of Trump
One reason i support it is because i think teens will succumb to the call of nature both male and female and many will be criminalized because of it and i think that is unfair. The option for them to get married to aviod criminal charges should remain.
In all wisdom this could be any one of your sons or daughters. U have no control over the choices they make when they are away and unsupervised.
sMASH wrote:bluesclues wrote:uncle sam wrote:I am confused why people are defending child marriage..
can OP make this thread a poll? Let's see how may people support it... I'm not judging.
It could be a case of Hillary/Trump where I was dead wrong when the poll read in favour of Trump
One reason i support it is because i think teens will succumb to the call of nature both male and female and many will be criminalized because of it and i think that is unfair. The option for them to get married to aviod criminal charges should remain.
In all wisdom this could be any one of your sons or daughters. U have no control over the choices they make when they are away and unsupervised.
Hoss, that is what I want to say.
And put things in place to ensure that they are not being forced into it. Like mandatory social worker counselling.
The issue is forced marriages, not under-aged marriages.
No person should be able to force another person to marry. But if they chose to do so, they should have that available no matter what age
Sat Maharaj to fight new Marriage Act in court
Secretary General of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha Sat Maharaj is continuing his fight against The Miscellaneous Provisions (Marriage) Bill, 2016 which increases the legal age for marriage in T&T to 18. Two days after legislation was unanimously passed in the House of Representatives outlawing child marriages, he said he is exploring his legal actions.
Maharaj described the new law as a travesty which destroys family life. He claims politicians are inviting themselves into citizens’ bedrooms by deciding at what age to get married and have sex.
On Friday, 35 Government and Opposition MPs voted in favour of the legislation which first went to Parliament last December and has been the focus of extensive debate.
Maharaj said the right way for a Hindu child to be raised is with the support of its parents, teachers and religious organisations.
“We also believe that the worst role models in the world are the politicians.
“You study the history of the world and you notice that some of the most immoral people across the world are politicians,” he told the T&T Guardian in an interview at Maha Sabha’s headquarters in St Augustine yesterday.
Maharaj said he is totally opposed to increasing the legal age of marriage to 18.
Previously, under the Hindu Marriage Act, girls could marry at age 14 and boys at 18. He said that law, which had existed for almost 100 years, was adequate for the Hindu community.
“I do not support any interference by any politician in how we raise our family and the values we teach because many of them have no values of their own,” he said.
He said the Maha Sabha had a team following developments with the legislation and is awaiting their advice.
“If they tell us to go forward with legal remedies we will go forward because we believe that under the Constitution the right to practice your religion is guaranteed,” he said.
“Once we start at the initial stage remember we are going to go straight up to the Privy Council.”
Maharaj said the Maha Sabha’s position is that Government is interfering with its religious affairs.
“And we resist that from any politician. At this stage in the development of the Hindu community we cannot find a Hindu girl that is getting marriage under the age of 18.”
These girls, Maharaj said, are now interested in pursuing secondary and tertiary level education.
“Society is correcting itself...the families are correcting themselves. We don’t need the politician to tell us how to conduct our family life.”
Maharaj said Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, who successfully piloted the Bill through both house of Parliament, “believes that it is all right for a 16-year-old girl to hold a big gun to shoot, but not to get married with parental consent. That is his belief. My belief is different.”
Maharaj said in 49 states in the United States, a child can get married at age 11.
abducted wrote:http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2017-06-11/sat-fight-new-marriage-actSat Maharaj to fight new Marriage Act in court
Secretary General of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha Sat Maharaj is continuing his fight against The Miscellaneous Provisions (Marriage) Bill, 2016 which increases the legal age for marriage in T&T to 18. Two days after legislation was unanimously passed in the House of Representatives outlawing child marriages, he said he is exploring his legal actions.
Maharaj described the new law as a travesty which destroys family life. He claims politicians are inviting themselves into citizens’ bedrooms by deciding at what age to get married and have sex.
On Friday, 35 Government and Opposition MPs voted in favour of the legislation which first went to Parliament last December and has been the focus of extensive debate.
Maharaj said the right way for a Hindu child to be raised is with the support of its parents, teachers and religious organisations.
“We also believe that the worst role models in the world are the politicians.
“You study the history of the world and you notice that some of the most immoral people across the world are politicians,” he told the T&T Guardian in an interview at Maha Sabha’s headquarters in St Augustine yesterday.
Maharaj said he is totally opposed to increasing the legal age of marriage to 18.
Previously, under the Hindu Marriage Act, girls could marry at age 14 and boys at 18. He said that law, which had existed for almost 100 years, was adequate for the Hindu community.
“I do not support any interference by any politician in how we raise our family and the values we teach because many of them have no values of their own,” he said.
He said the Maha Sabha had a team following developments with the legislation and is awaiting their advice.
“If they tell us to go forward with legal remedies we will go forward because we believe that under the Constitution the right to practice your religion is guaranteed,” he said.
“Once we start at the initial stage remember we are going to go straight up to the Privy Council.”
Maharaj said the Maha Sabha’s position is that Government is interfering with its religious affairs.
“And we resist that from any politician. At this stage in the development of the Hindu community we cannot find a Hindu girl that is getting marriage under the age of 18.”
These girls, Maharaj said, are now interested in pursuing secondary and tertiary level education.
“Society is correcting itself...the families are correcting themselves. We don’t need the politician to tell us how to conduct our family life.”
Maharaj said Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi, who successfully piloted the Bill through both house of Parliament, “believes that it is all right for a 16-year-old girl to hold a big gun to shoot, but not to get married with parental consent. That is his belief. My belief is different.”
Maharaj said in 49 states in the United States, a child can get married at age 11.
Where is Sat getting his information from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_ma ... ted_States
This says 18 years in all states except Nebraska which is 19.
Monkey Man wrote:wa d frig, bess he go back indiana yes and mess on the road and ride train whole day.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 125 guests
