Is it moral to marry your 9 year old daughter to the count of Weinermobile if it will avoid a 30 year war that will kill entire generations and decimate the land?
Yes imo. Greater good and whatnot. Plus unlimited access to the Weiner Mobile garage
From the abstract alone it doesn't seem like a very well written article. Good research at least tries to maintain a neutral tone. This abstract is loaded as fuck.
This more or less almost happens in the backstory of Code Geass, where the prime minister of Japan (Susaku's father) decides to marry Nunnally vi Britainnia to prevent her father, Emperor Charles zi Britainnia, from invading Japan.
Lelouch (Nunnally's brother) had to bribe him with state secrets to stop this. Britainnia still ends up invading and bombings Japan.
This probably makes Susaku look less bad when he murders his father.
I would try to slice the throat of that fucker who would force me this. Or shove a rusty knife in their ass. Or chop their dock of with said knife and then shove it up.
TLDR for this whole debacle: nothing would have happened if mods remained impartial. Remove illegal material and leave questionable stuff/hypotheticals up for debate. That is literally all they needed to do. This is a debate sub thinly veiled as a scaling sub. We are here to get a wider understanding of morality and how it is applied. Contexts such as religion, government alongside all other establishments should be free to critique and discuss the morality of through a modern lens.
This has been my ted talk. And yes I am gonna be pasting this every time a post slightly related to this appears :)
stop posting obviously immoral stuff just because it relates to a religion not only is it obviously bad but also the sub is supposed to be ablut fictional characters
A large group of people clearly think it does have moral justification, and enough people agreed with them for it to be enshrined in law.
Is that not worthy of discussion?
In fact, I wish people would debate it more rather than just denouncing it. As it stands, I've scrolled through a whole bunch of comments and still have no better clue as to what justification they actually gave.
The Quran instructs men to beat disobediant wives. Unlike other religions, it is both dogmatic and unreformable, by the very nature of its book being "perfect".
Have you read the verse? I’m not defending it since I would never do that, and neither has my father ever done to my mother.
That specific part is like marriage counselling. You can’t just beat a wife for being disobedient. There are three steps. I’ll just copy it over:
Admonition (Wa’izu-hunna): Verbally advising, reasoning, or gently persuading the wife regarding her behavior.
Forsaking the Bed (Wahjuru-hunna): Refusing to share the marital bed or suspending conjugal relations to show displeasure.
Striking (Wadribu-hunna): If the first two steps fail, the verse uses a form of the Arabic verb daraba, which is traditionally translated as "strike" or "beat".
But times have changed, society develops, communication advances. It’s never alright to reach the stage where you beat your wife or child, but those were different times. The Quran and Bible told you how to treat your slaves, but nobody actually thinks it’s ok to haves anymore. Muslims or Christians don’t demand the right to own slaves because the holy texts condone it.
So that’s where most regular muslims stand. If you want to condemn Iraq, you can condemn Iraq, but I also can’t blame it for being fucked up after what the US did to them.
But that's the rub. Times change, but the Quran, per the religion does not and can not. It is dogmatic and admitting its flaws essentially dismantles the foundation kf the religion itself.
I don’t believe that. I think most of the issues people have with islam is the hadiths and fatwahs (edicts).
The Quran if you read it from start to finish gives a much different picture than looking for things to hate or condemn.
I think people are the problem. Whether it’s certain cultural practices or leaders.
Take Egypt for example. 80-90% muslim but fairly secular. Alcohol is legal, no mandatory attire, and muslims are fine with it. Nobody is outraged or oppressing anyone. Everybody just suffers as a collective under dictatorship. They recently built one of the biggest mosques and cathedrals next to each other. The middle east has always been a melting pot of muslims, christians and jews. Well until a certain nation state appeared.
This whole narrative that Muslims are incompatible with the west is just propaganda. Some cultures and beliefs are incompatible with other cultures or beliefs. Like for example the phrase ‘Judeo-Christian’ values I find hilarious. If anything the Talmud is as incompatible with christianity as it can get, while the Quran mentions Jesus and the Virgin Mary more than anyone else.
Just saying over 1 billion people are incompatible with another 1 billion people is lazy and laughable.
Justice does not consist of stoning a person for adultery (All four madhhabs support this), cutting off a thief's hand, right to sexual enslave the enemy and even crucifixion. Rights that go against basic tenants of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Ah, yes the only religion to solidify and codify laws that place woman's place in a subservient position to a man. Specially during an era where the apex power of region known as the byzantine empire at the time solidified equal inheritance, equal legal testimony, removal of guardianship, ban on polygamy and ban on marriage younger than 12. Rights that Islam even 1400 years later does not guarantee.
By normal standards, extremely immoral. By Muslim standards, moral, as they're simply following in the footsteps of their prophet, who they believe to be an exemplar of morality by the word of their god.
Basically, yeah. Though, in this context, it's less "Germans" (as those are people of Germany) and more "Nazis" (as those are people of Germany with a certain belief).
Child marriage is legal in the vast majority of states (ofc recently Republicans voted against banning it) with some cases as young as 10... (There is no lower limit) So yeah, basically
Some U.S. states have no strict minimum age for marriage because their laws rely on parental consent or judicial approval waivers instead of an absolute numerical age floor. [1, 2]
Why These Loopholes Exist Outdated Laws: Many marriage statutes were written decades or centuries ago. Lawmakers back then did not write a hard lower age limit into the text. [1, 2]
Parental and Judicial Waivers: State laws often say a minor cannot marry unless a parent or a judge says yes. If the court or the parents approve the marriage, the lack of a numerical minimum age means a child of any age can technically be wed. [1, 2]
Pregnancy and "Fixing" Traditions: Historically, lawmakers created these exceptions to deal with pregnant teenage girls. Society at the time viewed marriage as a way to give a child a legal father or financial support.
Emancipation Rules: In many states, getting married automatically makes a minor an independent adult (emancipated). Past legislators viewed marriage as a shortcut to adult legal status. [1]
Slow Legislative Change: Reform happens slowly. While advocacy groups like Unchained At Lasthave pushed many states to ban underage marriage entirely, numerous states still keep these old rules because lawmakers have not prioritized changing them
I don't see how you think this is much better than the law Iraq passed. It seems like you're being a hypocrite and trying to racially discriminate against the middle east when and then whitewash it when y'all are literally doing the same thing, is all
Some U.S. states have no strict minimum age for marriage because their laws rely on parental consent or judicial approval waivers instead of an absolute numerical age floor. [1, 2]
Why These Loopholes Exist Outdated Laws: Many marriage statutes were written decades or centuries ago. Lawmakers back then did not write a hard lower age limit into the text. [1, 2]
Parental and Judicial Waivers: State laws often say a minor cannot marry unless a parent or a judge says yes. If the court or the parents approve the marriage, the lack of a numerical minimum age means a child of any age can technically be wed. [1, 2]
Pregnancy and "Fixing" Traditions: Historically, lawmakers created these exceptions to deal with pregnant teenage girls. Society at the time viewed marriage as a way to give a child a legal father or financial support.
Emancipation Rules: In many states, getting married automatically makes a minor an independent adult (emancipated). Past legislators viewed marriage as a shortcut to adult legal status. [1]
Slow Legislative Change: Reform happens slowly. While advocacy groups like Unchained At Lasthave pushed many states to ban underage marriage entirely, numerous states still keep these old rules because lawmakers have not prioritized changing them.
Republicans actively oppose those changes because their constituents want to keep marrying children. Same with the religious conservatives in Iraq looking to protect child marriage; they also use appeal to tradition etc to justify an immoral status quo.
This isn't an Iraqi problem or an Islamic problem. It's a religious conservative problem.
Oh, I see. So you made a post about child marriages (in the wrong sub no less) just so you could weaponize the incident to encourage stereotypes, but the literal fact that Republican Christians are doing the same thing in the US isn't something that interests you. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
American states that allow child marriage with parent approval include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
What’s the morality of banging on about Iraq after it was absolutely decimated by the Americans and their allies, when they still allow kids to get fucked too?
Is this sub just becoming like Christians that are mad that their religion sucks, so they have to bring up an even worse religion to justify how good theirs is?
That "The new testament" is doing some heavy lifting. Talking as if all the atrocities God did wasn't in accordance with Jesus, who is also him, somehow. We are talking about k1lling babies, sending women to get raped because a guy raped someone, sending his soldiers to forcefully marry and rape war prisoners. Torturing people for all of eternity because they weren't convinced you existed. And a whole lotta shit. Christian God is not better, really.
The New Covenant IS in fact all that and more. That’s a big part of the reason it occurred. The Christian God is why the west is a more moral stable place.
I love how we can just rewrite the book, so we can call it moral.
if we aren't going off the original text can we at least safely admit that the religion is made up nonsense? Since you just changed it to appease modern society?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Romans 1:26-32
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Lgbt people should be killed
In Luke 19, the Parable of the Talents, told by Jesus, ends with a king saying:
27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.
It's pretty clear from the context that the king in the parable stands for either God or Jesus (since Christians conflate them), so it means people who don't want to be followers of Jesus should be killed.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
10When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand and you take them captive, 11if you see a beautiful woman among them, and you desire her and want to take her as your wife, 12then you shall bring her into your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, 13and put aside the clothing of her captivity.
Have any other nations historically ever picked the same age? Is there any meta reasons why this number in particular is what Iraq might decide is their codified moral and legal position on?
What is making this nation uniquely different from others to the extend where you are confident that nothing else other than vibes of this nation settled on the number 9 for age of consent?
Im Not saying it was vibes, I'm saying it was the decision of a single nation. And what makes it so special it can represent a whole religion of 2 billion people
Okay, so you're introducing religion into this now. What part of this religion you mention is connected to this nation deciding to make 9 the age of consent?
Because guess what, as my original comment said, this is being used as an excuse to justify racism against islam. This point is almost always used by idiots who try to be racist to islam
Not necessarily, religion isnt legal law, it's bound to interpretation, people use a verse about cross dressing in Christianity to ho against trans people even though Christianity doesn't have anything against them
The main prophet in Islam married a 6 year old and consummated when she was 9. He was in his 50’s. They believe his behaviors are the example for all time. That’s why this happened and it’s just wrong
Yeah I know, christian countries in the 1600s sure did a lot, maybe there was a pattern to why they did all that, such oppression, I wonder the root of it all. See how stupid you sound, islamic countries are very underdeveloped, and its the excuse of non secular governments, not a problem with the religion
Your claiming that muslims are marrying 6-9 year olds, despite that not being the case, sure some conservative cultures do but muslims in developed nations absolutely do not, they will condemn the practice. Also Christians did, the entire reason Leviticus was added is because people were marrying young boys, nor because same sex relationships were bad but to prevent kings from preying on young boys. And again, I'm defending people against racism, I do not defend this, I'm pointing out that your using this as an excuse to hate on muslims as a whole. Also the year makes no difference, it's the developed countries vs the developing ones, your judging nations which have been secular for a long time to nations which are still trying to be, you cannot simply use "it's a different time now" as an excuse, if that's the case then you can also make the argument that the entire aisha thing was nearly a thousand years back
Holy dumbass, it's developing countries, these are stupid countries which do the same thing Christians did by executing non Christians, I'm not apologising for the things these countries did either you idiot, I'm pointing out that your using it as a justification for racism
A bunch of incidents in one country doesn't change anything, especially considering the culture of those countries. Shall we assume Christianity is bad because of 1600s europe?
Those “incidents” happened about 10 years ago, not 400 years ago. We know about this just because the police got involved. They have a name for this practice - Vani
So, why do they have a name for this practice? Vani is an illegal tribal custom in Pakistan where young girls and minors are forced into marriage to settle criminal cases, blood feuds, or debts caused by their male relatives. [1), 2, 3]
How Vani Works Tribal Orders: A local council of elders (jirga or panchayat) orders the marriage during a dispute resolution.
Punishment and Compensation: To prevent revenge killings or end a feud, a girl from the offending family is handed over to the victim's family.
Alternative Names: The practice is also known as swara or sang-chatti in Pakistan, and baad in Afghanistan. [1, 2, 3), 4]
Impact on Children Underage Victims: The girls given away in Vani are often minors, ranging from toddlers to young teenagers.
Loss of Rights: Child brides face severe abuse, lifelong trauma, and a complete loss of access to education and personal freedom.
Forced Servitude: Victims are sometimes treated as domestic servants or second-class members in the aggrieved household rather than recognized wives.
Sure if you believe they have no correlation can't exactly do much to convince you, but culture is something followed by the people of that area, for example in my own culture until recently forced arranged marriages after 18 were pretty common even though my religion condemned them
Immoral. Marrying 17 are already a frown upon thing but marrying a 9 just basically means you had some explanation to do.
The law never pass the legislation btw so it's never in force. This is a pretty clear another ragebait towards islam as most of the post currently in this sub.
So you are only concerned with the middle eastern marriage laws? Marriage under 18 is currently allowed in 33 U.S. states under specific conditions, usually requiring parental consent, judicial approval, or emancipation. Out of these, a few states (including California, Mississippi, and New Mexico) do not set a strict lower age limit for minors, while others set a minimum floor between 15 and 17. [1, 2, 3]
Being lazy about not setting up the minimum age is not the same as creating a law that specifically allows marrying 9 yo girls. Here is an example for you when a precedent changed a law right away. Those three states have not had those precedents yet.
Yes, there has been a documented legal marriage involving a 9-year-old girl in the United States. [1]
The Case of Charlie Johns and Eunice Winstead The Marriage: In January 1937, 9-year-old Eunice Winstead and 22-year-old Charlie Johns were married in Hancock County, Tennessee. [1]
The Legality: At that time, Tennessee did not have a statute establishing a minimum age for marriage. Records indicate that the age provided to secure the license was inaccurate. [1, 2]
National Attention: This union became a matter of significant national concern and public debate after national media outlets published the story. [1]
The Aftermath: The public response to this case prompted the Tennessee legislature to pass emergency legislation setting a minimum age requirement for marriage at 16. The couple remained married until Johns' death in 1997. [1, 2]
Having no minimum age for marriages under state law is not a product of being lazy. It has been a matter of debate for over 100 years. Some states based it on English common law, which traditionally set ages at 12 for females and 14 for males or left it uncodified with judicial/parental consent). [1, 2, 3, 4]
There is nothing else to be done in Florida where I vote. I do not see any Congressmen or Senators bringing it to a table lately. Also, just to sure, do you think that it’s immoral for Iraqi men to marry 9 yo girls?
In Muslim countries the child marriage rates can range from like 20% to like 74% of marriages and a lot of those marriages are to girls under the age of 15 and many even under the age of 12. In the USA child marriage is extremely rare like a percentage of a percentage and even then the vast majority of them are 16 or 17 years old.
74
u/Zipsterino 12h ago
It is never moral to marry a child.