Effort to bar child marriage in California runs into opposition

Condemning child marriage is a direct shot at CAIR - because their prophet married a child of SIX years old - and couldn't control himself once she reached the ripe old age of NINE before repeatedly raping her. He had no self-control. CAIR doesn't seem to require that men control their base animalistic sexual urges with children. CAIR/Islam will LOSE this debate!

 

Believing in Mohammad/Allah is to believe in child rape, one can argue.

 

FAITH ITSELF will be the ultimate casualty here.

 

Seriously, this doesn't have to be a religious statement. I didn't go there. It's not necessary. Everyone can agree for a change.

 

sure as heck would cut down the cost of the wedding gift to a bag of kitty litter or a case of alpo.

 

An adult should be able to vote, drink, serve in the military, or get married. A child should not be able to legally do any of those. 18 is already the accepted age of adulthood. There you go.

 

Like the Constitution, those laws do not reflect the times.

 

The Constitution and our current laws have procedures to amend them.

 

Okay? Are you saying you can't amend laws on the age of marriage? What bothers me is a republican is for spending more on social programs. Do you know how many single moms are on welfare and collecting food stamps? How many are on WIC programs? Here are some statistics.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

 

If that's true then explain the OP and California. You don't get more liberal than that state and it flies in the face of what you just claimed.

 

I already posted a link, only about 10 states do not have these marriage loopholes, republican and democrat states, not sure what politicians of the past were thinking, sure it had to do with religious marriages though

 

Here are some more results of studies:

Abstinence isn't in question, however, as we can see with this study, abstinence doesn't work. What to do? They say education is a better choice. I don't think moving marriage to 27 would stop sex. Even the government believes in education up to 29 years old. One thing that occurred to me is, if we would like to see the rate of divorce drop further, it might be better if kids were educated. It seems to me, the vast majority of teens through age 27 - 30 have finished "sowing their wild oats". This alone would slow the rates of divorce.

While statistics show divorce rates are lowering, they are still quite high.

Yes, it should be illegal for anyone under 27 to have sex. If more statistics are required for proof, there are many more studies out there.

 

While it was likely due to the percentage of religious in the country that this is likely true, it has little bearing on ages. It's more likely that the age was so young, due to the need for mothers to be strong and young in order to fend off the illnesses without cures floating around and be able to continue to have children after babies were lost or born dead.

It was very tough to have children and folks didn't live long due to diseases and illnesses not thought of today as deadly.

On a financial basis, it was children who would take care of adults, since there were not retirement plans, 401ks or IRAs. It's easier and more likely that having a larger family would ease that burden.

 

well then guess we have to tell the criminal system not to treat those 27 or younger as adults

I still say 18 is when you become an adult....

most people learn less after that age, but plasticity continue on all your life, the brain is every changing if one uses it

 

OP not paying attention to reality. A number of counties in Cali. Voted Trump.

 

At 18, though you have the ability to kill in the military, you are under strict supervision and undergo training which teaches you to follow orders to the letter.

We know the difference between good and bad when we are very young. I forget the age, but it's before kindergarten starts. The study made it look like we were born with it, though it isn't filled with nuances. Parents may share in the justice of those younger than 28, who commit anything more than a misdemeanor.

 

some, I have seen brothers were one is a saint and one pure evil, sometimes it's just genetic or something, not gonna blame the parents for their kids actions

and of course our kids have many other sources of interactions, school, baby sitters, ect... sometimes adults are even walking the mall looking to make their negative social impact on them...

 

So, you aren't responsible for your children who are under the age of 18? I think you are responsible for them. As children age, they learn things or have their inborn traits changed by life experiences. If a child is molested, I would expect some change in their ideas of good and bad. I haven't said evil and I shouldn't use "good", but I'm not sure wht word to use.

In any case, you need to read and watch what I did. I believe it was on CBS 60 Minutes that it aired. It was a scientific study and it was reputable. I'm nto messing with your brain. I'm telling you the truth. I know it seems unbelievable. It isn't I couldn't believe my eyes.

 

not criminally if they commit a crime without your knowledge, but yes, possibly civilly

and I did not say parents do not play a part, I said they do in fact, but I also said many people do, schools, baby sitters, friends, the list goes on

in fact I think having loving parents is important, especially ones that have plenty of time to spend with them

 

Nope.

16 in Austria. Belgium is like California. Judicial consent in Finland. Parental/Judicial consent in France. Italy, 16+ with parental consent. More countries allow marriage under 18 than prevent it. There's always some sort of consent rule.

 

18?

35 minimum.

 

Name one that is tackling it now that is running into the same opposition as California has.

Go ahead.

 

all but 10 states have this problem, hopefully they will all address it...

 

"Progressives" hate the constitution because by defending our individual freedom and liberty it stops "progressives" from imposing tyranny.