• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Judge bans hetro couple from marrying.

strange, could understand if her parrents were against it, but they arent.

but she is strange anyway. wanting to rise her kid in a family like its wanted by the bible, but that after she had sex without beeing married. What bible is that ? :D
 
There's nothing particularly remarkable about it - just about every country has a minimum age at which marriage is allowed. The only curiosity is what exactly the court would consider sufficiently "exceptional" to justify an early marriage.

The think I find most remarkable about the article is that the girl attempts to play the pious and devoutly religious card, complete with hand-wringing and proclamations about "living in separate rooms" and "If you live together, you have to live as husband and wife" and yet she's clearly sexually active prior to marriage which is a "sin".

In other words, like most religious people, she's a hypocrite who only actually adheres to her religion when it suits her.
 
gumboot said:
There's nothing particularly remarkable about it - just about every country has a minimum age at which marriage is allowed. The only curiosity is what exactly the court would consider sufficiently "exceptional" to justify an early marriage.

The think I find most remarkable about the article is that the girl attempts to play the pious and devoutly religious card, complete with hand-wringing and proclamations about "living in separate rooms" and "If you live together, you have to live as husband and wife" and yet she's clearly sexually active prior to marriage which is a "sin".

In other words, like most religious people, she's a hypocrite who only actually adheres to her religion when it suits her.
Click to expand...

Hey they could live in separate room, it doesn't prevent them from having sex in one of them, or hell the living room for that matter.
 
gumboot said:
There's nothing particularly remarkable about it - just about every country has a minimum age at which marriage is allowed. The only curiosity is what exactly the court would consider sufficiently "exceptional" to justify an early marriage.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I was surprised that they were surprised - I would have thought you'd know the age at which you can get married in your own country!
gumboot said:
The think I find most remarkable about the article is that the girl attempts to play the pious and devoutly religious card, complete with hand-wringing and proclamations about "living in separate rooms" and "If you live together, you have to live as husband and wife" and yet she's clearly sexually active prior to marriage which is a "sin".

In other words, like most religious people, she's a hypocrite who only actually adheres to her religion when it suits her.
Click to expand...

Come on I expect better from a so called "skeptic".


An angel might have got her pregnant! :D


And I like the mature manner in which the relationship has been conducted so far - by text message. :)
 
Let's see. This one's like shooting fish in a barrel.

They can't live together because they're really serious about religion, but they can screw and it's OK.

They don't know the marriage laws of the country they live in, but somehow it's not their fault, but the fault of the court who wouldn't give them an exemption based on extraordinary circumstances. Nothing extraordinary about a seventeen year old and an eighteen year old being sexually active.

He's so traditional he proposed by text message. I lived almost 200 miles away from the woman I married while we courted. Even then, if I'd proposed by text, or even over the phone she would have been 'traditional' enough to drive four hours just to kick my ass.

A
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Let's see. This one's like shooting fish in a barrel.

They can't live together because they're really serious about religion, but they can screw and it's OK.
Click to expand...

But ... but ... she sad she'd only go to his place to cook and stuff?

They don't know the marriage laws of the country they live in, but somehow it's not their fault, but the fault of the court who wouldn't give them an exemption based on extraordinary circumstances. Nothing extraordinary about a seventeen year old and an eighteen year old being sexually active.
Click to expand...

.. and it's not as they claim that they were allowed to have children. It would just be impossible and pointless and fascist to make it illegal for people to let their bodies carry out their natural functions.

He's so traditional he proposed by text message. I lived almost 200 miles away from the woman I married while we courted. Even then, if I'd proposed by text, or even over the phone she would have been 'traditional' enough to drive four hours just to kick my ass.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see why you would propose to her.

I wonder if the judge pointed out these minor details to them...
 
gumboot said:
There's nothing particularly remarkable about it - just about every country has a minimum age at which marriage is allowed. The only curiosity is what exactly the court would consider sufficiently "exceptional" to justify an early marriage.

The think I find most remarkable about the article is that the girl attempts to play the pious and devoutly religious card, complete with hand-wringing and proclamations about "living in separate rooms" and "If you live together, you have to live as husband and wife" and yet she's clearly sexually active prior to marriage which is a "sin".

In other words, like most religious people, she's a hypocrite who only actually adheres to her religion when it suits her.
Click to expand...


This particular enforcement of the law seems a bit hypocritical too, or at the very least a matter of locking the barn after the horse leaves the county.

What are the intended benefits of age restrictions on marriage? To reduce teen pregnancy? To discourage life-changing decisions before they are mature enough to make them?

Seems a bit late for that.

What is gained by delaying the marriage in this instance?
 
Leave the religion out of it and you have:

-- Naive girl who is showing she has no idea what "life" is like, especially with a child on the way. Who would be raising it? Probably not her - she wasn't even expecting it.

-- She is under the age for self-determination as a legal adult (18 in Australia), but not by much. Otherwise she would not need legal permission. (Children as young as 15 and 16 have been permitted to marry in Australia reasonably often. I think 15 is the legal minimum.)

-- The boy is pretty feckless* and useless by all accounts. Pretends to by pious but his pecker has sinned...hasn't it! Proposal by text??? Has he even got a job? He seems to have nowhere else to live... Peh!

-- Family attitude is almost a shotgun-by-proxy affair - dumb daughter gets pregnant and they probably know damn well why. But they act surprised so they can get her married to the boy real pronto now.

-- The judge is basically saying: "Girl, after you turn 18 and become an adult in a short while, then you can make your own decisions! And good luck..."




* That is NOT a bad word, Mr Autocensor.
 
quadraginta said:
This particular enforcement of the law seems a bit hypocritical too, or at the very least a matter of locking the barn after the horse leaves the county.

What are the intended benefits of age restrictions on marriage? To reduce teen pregnancy? To discourage life-changing decisions before they are mature enough to make them?

Seems a bit late for that.

What is gained by delaying the marriage in this instance?
Click to expand...

I think you'd find it is just inconsistencies in the legal system rather than it being for a reason. For instance in the UK it's often pointed out that someone at the age of 16 can be married, have children, join the army but can't vote.
 
Darat said:
I think you'd find it is just inconsistencies in the legal system rather than it being for a reason. For instance in the UK it's often pointed out that someone at the age of 16 can be married, have children, join the army but can't vote.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree. In fact "reason" would be one of the last terms I'd introduce into the discussion. :p

Back in the bad old days of my youth the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18 when the incongruity of drafting (forcing) someone to kill and die at 18 while being judged too immature to buy a beer was pointed out.

After the draft was abolished the drinking age was raised back to 21. Apparently someone can be mature enough to choose to kill and die without being mature enough to buy a beer.

:confused:
 
Darat said:
I think you'd find it is just inconsistencies in the legal system rather than it being for a reason. For instance in the UK it's often pointed out that someone at the age of 16 can be married, have children, join the army but can't vote.
Click to expand...
More bizarrely, at 16 or 17 someone can have sex with the partner of their choice, no matter how old they are (minimum 16, obviously), but if someone takes a picture of them naked, it's "child pornography." Mind you, under current legislation, anyone under 16 kissing behind the bike sheds is breaking the law....
 
Considering that marriage often involves a legally-tangled contract with life-changing-and-ruining consequences, perhaps that's the reason Australia will not allow people to be a party to such a contract until the age of majority.

Jesus Christ, she can wait a few months.
 
Checkmite said:
Considering that marriage often involves a legally-tangled contract with life-changing-and-ruining consequences, perhaps that's the reason Australia will not allow people to be a party to such a contract until the age of majority.

Jesus Christ, she can wait a few months.
Click to expand...

How much do you think her judgment will have improved in the space of that few months? Will it be substantially different than it is now? Will there be a wondrous transformation on her birthday?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom