Fractelle, philips and CJ Morgan,

I'm sorry I fed the jackal. I thought he stunk worse than normally.

I think that Spikey has hit the nail
right on the head.

It does appear that Polycarp is setting us up
on this thread - under the guise
of his hypothetical scenario.

The following summary that I came across from the site:

http://poligazette.com/2008/04/14/filing-for-divorce-at-eight/

sums it up:

"I'm almost speechless...there's no other way
to put this; if your culture sees even the
slightest bit of legitimacy in forced marriage of
little girls to older men (whether you are a Yemeni
tribesman or a Texas sect leader, or an Australian
paedophile), then your culture is...quite frankly
evil. I refuse to even entertain the idea that this
particular issue must be looked at from a
"culturally sensitive" point of view. If you treat
women like chattel, you're a neanderthal, and if
you treat little girls like sex toys, you're a
monster. Period."

I've now opened the door for a predictable
reaction...

Spikey perhaps some background reading will help you understand the reaction to PolyBoaz when he starts talking about young girls. The age has decreased by one but the same old themes are there. That opening post sounds a lot like the fellow who sees a shrink to talk about his "friend" who has a problem.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109&page=0#2085 (in particular the paragraph on dogs balls)

or the second paragraph of http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=109#2036

There have been numerous other posts which mention 9 year old girls in a manner which suggests Boazy thinks of them differently to the way most of us do. Truth be told I suspect that most of the posts have been part of an ongoing attack on Islam but I for one would never have considered that a 9 year old girl was sexually interesting let alone more son than an experienced woman.

For a general understanding of Boazy's approach to dealing with young girls see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=50#750

R0bert

R0bert

Thanks for the tip-off.

I begin to see the pattern.

Hi people....

well.. having let the 'drooling sharks' enjoy their frenzy for a while.. hopefully the dust has settled now and we can begin a discussion of this issue.

Foxy.. you were the closest to the point.. by showing an example of how a culture victimizes little vulnerable girls in the name of the example of its founder.

Any revulsion for that incident should be directed towards the person who initiated the practice and thus confirmed it to be 'valid' for all time by that example.

What I'm digging for.. is whether such acts are inherrently 'harmful' and evil.. or wrong.. whichever philosphical term one is comfortable with.

There are those who argue for the non harmful aspects of adult child sexual relations which are consentual..and of course the prime culprits here are Nambla.

Then there is the child sex political party in Holland (if it still exists)

But what disturbs me..is that a speaker invited to a major conference in Melbourne for one religious groups benefit.. says with a straight face..based on the example of their founder...that if a man of that faith today.. in his 50s.. wishes to marry a child of 8 or 9.. who has reached puberty..then it is valid and quite ok.
You may view this at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdc0sCvAfDo
He says this at the 7m 58s point.

Hence.. the subject of this thread.

If it is not always 'abuse' for an old bloke of 50+ to have sexual relations with a child... who has just reached puberty....then we can expect a certain group... to LOBBY for this in the same way they are currently lobbying for polygamy.
This..it is in the public interest for us to be informed on this, and to take responsible political measures to protect our culture and law.

It is not enough to say such a thing is NOW illegal.. democracy provides for changes to the law. We must pre-empt.

SPIKEY.. I'll avoid worrying about your rather colorful adjectives..and return to you a blessing instead.. "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" I'm sure you know who said that.

for your personal attention.. We know the practice is 'illegal' but is it "IMMORAL".. and would you go as far as to say 'evil'.. 'wrong'.. even 'sinful'? or perhaps it is just culturally relative?

Rather than me provide answers... I've thus far simply provided facts and asked for your responses.. what I personally think is colored by my faith.. so to some of you that would be inadmissable as you don't share that faith framework for life or morals.

So..the opinions I seek, for for political purposes rather than faith or religious purposes.

Those who live by a spiritual code and value system know where they stand..and they know when a person infringes that code.. even when the offender belongs to the Church concerned.. as we have all been witness to over recent years. Sadly.. some larger churches have sought to sweep such things under the carpet rather than face them squarely.
Such abominable behavior does not alter a syllable of the Lords condemnation for such behavior, which is absolute.