Malaysia legalizes kiddy marriage for Mohammedans

[Nessus]

Malaysian state chided for allowing under age marriage


A decision by a Malaysian state to allow under age marriages has drawn criticism from women's groups.
Officials in Malacca state said the move was aimed at reducing the number of babies born outside wedlock.
But Minister for Women Shahrizat Abdul Jalil called the decision - which would allow Muslim girls under 16 and boys under 18 to get married - "morally and socially unacceptable".
The move came from the state government and its Islamic Religious Council.
The chief minister of Malacca, Mohammad Ali Rustam, said it was intended to address social problems.
"For the state government, this is the best step to deal with the problem of abandoned babies and unwed pregnancies," the Utusan Malaysia newspaper quoted him as saying.
Under age marriages would only be allowed on a case-by-case basis as decided by the Islamic court, Bernama news agency quoted Prime Minister's Department Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom as saying.
But the move has been roundly criticised by women's groups.
"This is a knee-jerk reaction, and such policies should not be carved out by state religious authorities but the federal Ministries of Women, Education and Health," said Ivy Josiah, the executive director of Women's Aid Organisation.
"We're turning back the clock when there's ample evidence to show that we should not condone child marriages."
Muslims make up about 60% of Malaysia's 28 million people. They are subject to Islamic laws which can be set at state level, while non-Muslims are subject to federal law.
A non-governmental organisation has recently set up the country's first "baby hatch", to accept unwanted babies from women including unmarried mothers.

Well, this can't go hilariously wrong at all!

[EyeKhan]

That's one way of dealing with teen pregnancy.

[Dreadnaught]

When I think about this, I don't have a super-duper problem with allowing underage kids to marry each other if both are under 18. I'm all for letting people make stupid choices.

But it's hard to see how a rule specifically allowing Muslims girls under the age of 16 isn't going to just facilitate some really backwards arranged marriages.

[EyeKhan]

When I think about this, I don't have a super-duper problem with allowing underage kids to marry each other if both are under 18. I'm all for letting people make stupid choices.

Why do you think there is an age of consent? Would you support legalizing cocaine and allowing companies to market it directly to young teens? You are, afterall, all for letting people make stupid choices, even teens, an age group that has since the beginning of our species demonstrated marked inability to use good judgement. :Bulb: At some point, do you think allowing people to make very bad decisions becomes a cost for the community as a whole?

[Khendraja'aro]

Must I remind some people again, that underage kids are actually incapable of making rational long-term decisions?

[Aimless]

Er, aren't there several places in the Western world, eg. in the US, where people under 18 can marry with parental consent?

[Nessus]

Er, aren't there several places in the Western world, eg. in the US, where people under 18 can marry with parental consent?

How many of them can marry under 16 though? Even if daddy dearest says so.

[littlelolligagged]

How many of them can marry under 16 though? Even if daddy dearest says so.

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/uni...ws/index.shtml

[Nessus]

Hot diggity

[EyeKhan]

People shouldn't be allowed to marry under age 25.

[Dreadnaught]

Why do you think there is an age of consent? Would you support legalizing cocaine and allowing companies to market it directly to young teens? You are, afterall, all for letting people make stupid choices, even teens, an age group that has since the beginning of our species demonstrated marked inability to use good judgement. :Bulb: At some point, do you think allowing people to make very bad decisions becomes a cost for the community as a whole?

Not sure why you're jumping down my throat on this, but people make stupid decisions all the time. I don't see an overwhelming need to prevent kids under 18 from marrying each other. As has been pointed out, this isn't totally uncommon in the Western world.

To get all cultural relativist, it's a relatively recent cultural trend to marry at later ages. This is probably good for people socially and emotionally, but it's also historically unusual and not necessarily for everyone. I have nothing in common with those who do voluntarily want to get married at the age of 16, but that's on them to make the choice and live with it (and probably get divorced).

[earthJoker]

But you know that this is Malaysia, it will probably not have a lot to do with willingly, at least not from the female part.

[Nessus]

Not sure why you're jumping down my throat on this,

Do you find it surprising that when you say outrageous and/or reprehensible things, people tend to balk at you?

The idea of protecting people from each other and themselves is very much ingrained into modern, civilized societies crafted from the wisdom granted by secular humanism. Even moreso when said people are considered to have a diminished capacity for understanding the choices they're making, and the repercussions thereof.

I will not speculate as to why you've chosen to espouse the kind of "lol ppl r dum, let them ruin each other" nonsense which is usually the purview of angsty and mis-informed adolescents, since we're being nice nowadays, but please do not pretend to be surprised that someone took umbrage to it.

A hundred years ago, in the West, women were de facto property of their fathers, and then husbands. It was for the purposes of that "culture" of violence, abuse and domestic Hell that these laws for marrying children were crafted for. The miracle of secular humanism, reason and empathy for other human beings has enabled us, now, for a brief moment, to realize that half of the human species is not some kind of plaything or toy to be crushed under a husband's heel when it is convenient or amusing. Your "cultural relativism" is offensive, absurd and patently childish. I cannot comprehend the mind-set which pretends to be a modern urban socialite and in the same breath declares that people that happen to have been born in the wrong country deserve to have their nose and ears lopped off. Or would you draw a line between physical abuse and emotional abuse whereby it becomes okay to protect people from each other? Or some degree of physical violence? Where does the "cultural relativism" end and reason begin?

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, Dread, people make dumb decisions all the time. That does not mean that all those dumb decisions should be allowed to become reality, especially when it comes to an age group where a dumb decision is the default rather than the exception.

[Dreadnaught]

Do you find it surprising that when you say outrageous and/or reprehensible things, people tend to balk at you?...Your "cultural relativism" is offensive, absurd and patently childish. I cannot comprehend the mind-set which pretends to be a modern urban socialite and in the same breath declares that people that happen to have been born in the wrong country deserve to have their nose and ears lopped off.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you not see how this is an over-the-top misinterpretation?

But it's hard to see how a rule specifically allowing Muslims girls under the age of 16 [to marry] isn't going to just facilitate some really backwards arranged marriages.

This is what I mean when I say please stop jumping down my throat.

[Nessus]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you not see how this is an over-the-top misinterpretation?

It may be a misrepresentation of what you were thinking when you wrote your post, but it's the reality of the situation under Mohammedan rule. The idea of combating kiddy rape by letting the would-be rapists marry them kinda hinges on the idea that you can't rape your wife. And if she has the audacity to demand humane treatment, well. You gotta show the bitch what is what, now don't you.

It's all fine and well to prattle on about "cultural relativism hlorf borf" because it sounds nice and dreamy; hey we're accepting other people and their customs, but the point here is that those customs are human rights violations. That you are so okay with the idea when you don't have to consider the real-world consequences is hardly anyone's fault but your own.

And on top of that, you opened this whole line of reasoning with the most smug, self-satisfied attitude I've seen in awhile, "I think it's okay to let dumb people do dumb shit because LOL!", when ostensibly the discussion is about some nice gentleman marrying a 12-year-old to impregnate her; who is supposed to be the funny dumb-dum there? The man?

Or did you just want to parade your light-gummint-good pseudo-libertarian attitude in a tangentially related thread? That's okay, I didn't even react to your first post but to defend that behaviour? For fuck's sake, man.

[EyeKhan]

Not sure why you're jumping down my throat on this, but people make stupid decisions all the time. I don't see an overwhelming need to prevent kids under 18 from marrying each other. As has been pointed out, this isn't totally uncommon in the Western world.

I see a pretty compelling almost self-evident case not to have kids getting married under 18. And are you really using "lots of people do it, so it must be ok" to shore up your argument?

To get all cultural relativist, it's a relatively recent cultural trend to marry at later ages. And a very good one. This is probably good for people socially and emotionally, but it's also historically unusual and not necessarily for everyone. I have nothing in common with those who do voluntarily want to get married at the age of 16, but that's on them to make the choice and live with it (and probably get divorced).

People at the age of 16 have no business making life decisions. What they "want" needs to be taken with a great deal of scrutiny. The "historically unusual" argument is vastly worse than the "lots of people do it." It's historically unusual for groups of people not to be committing genocide against each other all over the world. It's historically unusual for women in the Western world to be considered something more than property, to say nothing of allowing them to work, get an education, or a divorce. Its historically unusual for the major nations of Europe to go so long without a war. You see what a can of worms justifying something today with "its historically unusual???"

[Dreadnaught]

You're really not one to talk about smug self-satisfied attitude, Nessus. And I don't appreciate the frequent blowups that make talking to you like walking on a minefield. This is/was a light conversation, but maybe I should have realized otherwise because you made this thread.

But why is banning legitimate (if misguided) marriage the solution to rape and forced marriage? Rape and forced marriage should be legally and culturally combated -- shutting people out of legitimate unions isn't the most direct way to do that. Two 16 year olds who marry is ostensibly no big deal. It becomes a big deal when there is a culture of rape and forced marriage, which can frankly happen at any age.

[EyeKhan]

Do you not see how this is an over-the-top misinterpretation?

What exactly did you mean when you said this, if not exactly what it says???

When I think about this, I don't have a super-duper problem with allowing underage kids to marry each other if both are under 18. I'm all for letting people make stupid choices.

[littlelolligagged]

I see a pretty compelling almost self-evident case not to have kids getting married under 18. And are you really using "lots of people do it, so it must be ok" to shore up your argument?

People at the age of 16 have no business making life decisions. What they "want" needs to be taken with a great deal of scrutiny

So a 16-year-old should be forced to abort if she gets knocked up? Or, even better yet, forced to carry the kid and then have it yanked away from her and put up for adoption (which is, in my opinion, even crueler than a forced abortion would be)?

Or maybe it is just the girls problem, and the boy shouldn't have to be involved in any way? No need for him to marry her and try to take some responsibility, he shouldn't have to ruin his life, too.

[EyeKhan]

But why is banning legitimate (if misguided) marriage the solution to rape and forced marriage? Rape and forced marriage should be legally and culturally combated -- shutting people out of legitimate unions isn't the most direct way to do that. Two 16 year olds who marry is ostensibly no big deal. It becomes a big deal when there is a culture of rape and forced marriage, which can frankly happen at any age.

Not sure about rape and all that, but what two 16 year olds who want to marry really need is their parents to send them away to separate schools. If they still want to marry when they come back, and they're old enough to have champaigne on their wedding night, then have at it. But IMHO people shouldn't get married until 25 at the earliest, though I recoginize that that is going a bit far. And as far as legitimacy is concerned, that's determined by the law. If the law says you can't drink or marry until you're 21, then your marriage isn't legitimate until you're 21. It's no argument to let 16 year olds screw their lives up.

So a 16-year-old should be forced to abort if she gets knocked up?

Are you equating getting knocked up and having a forced abortion with not allowing children to marry their highschool sweetheart, while still in highschool????

Or, even better yet, forced to carry the kid and then have it yanked away from her and put up for adoption (which is, in my opinion, even crueler than a forced abortion would be)?

Where'd you get all this straw?

Or maybe it is just the girls problem, and the boy shouldn't have to be involved in any way? No need for him to marry her and try to take some responsibility, he shouldn't have to ruin his life, too.

Getting knocked up at 16 is the worst reason ever to get married. Are you denying that? Dread's talking about letting kids make horrible life-long decisions freely, you're advocating shot gun weddings, hardly a free decision. IMO every girl under 18 ought to be on some sort of birth control inplant so horrible no-win scenarios like this can be avoided while at the same time letting kids have loads of sex. [James Earl Jones Voice] We have the technology. [/James Earl Jones Voice]

[littlelolligagged]

Are you equating getting knocked up with choosing to marry your highschool sweetheart, while you're still in highschool???? Where'd you get all this straw?

Getting knocked up at 16 is the worst reason ever to get married. Are you denying that? Dread's talking about letting kids make horrible life-long decisions freely, you're advocating shot gun weddings, hardly a free decision. IMO every girl under 18 ought to be on some sort of birth control inplant so horrible no-win scenarios like this can be avoided while at the same time letting kids have loads of sex. [James Earl Jones Voice] We have the technology. [/James Earl Jones Voice]

You're the one saying the 16 year olds should never be allowed to get married, or even make life decisions. I disagree. If a teenage girl gets pregnant hopefully her parents can give her advice, but it should be completely her decision about what to do. Not her parents, not her church, not the school guidance counselor - she is the one with the hard choice to make.

That's where I got the straw, you said something exceedingly offensive.

[Aimless]

Wait why can't they just get divorced at 20 if it really isn't working out??

[EyeKhan]

You're the one saying the 16 year olds should never be allowed to get married, or even make life decisions. I disagree.

Not without a lot of scrutiny from adults with veto power, like parents. So we'll have to disagree on this one.

If a teenage girl gets pregnant hopefully her parents can give her advice, but it should be completely her decision about what to do. Not her parents, not her church, not the school guidance counselor - she is the one with the hard choice to make.

And she is the one of the group likely least equipped to make the decision. There's a conundrum for you.

That's where I got the straw, you said something exceedingly offensive.

I'm sorry you were offended, but its the truth. 16 year old children should not be getting married or having children. Period. Each is a mistake no matter how you look at it.

[Aimless]

You're absolutely right but who should have the right to make such decisions about a minor's body?

[littlelolligagged]

You're absolutely right but who should have the right to make such decisions about a minor's body?

Her body, her choice.

[Aimless]

Her body, her choice.

It's the only conclusion I can reasonably come to!

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm sorry you were offended, but its the truth. 16 year old children should not be getting married or having children. Period. Each is a mistake no matter how you look at it.

Having seen the positive result of this first hand, you are over reaching with this attitude of "each time, EVERY TIME damnit!"

[EyeKhan]

You're absolutely right but who should have the right to make such decisions about a minor's body?

Probably it should be decided by a mix of the minor, his/her parents, and whatever outside advisors they choose to include, such as their favorite clergy, social worker, guidance counselor, psychologist, doctor, whatever.

Having seen the positive result of this first hand, you are over reaching with this attitude of "each time, EVERY TIME damnit!"

I'm glad it worked out for you and yours. You are blessed. But 16 year olds still shouldn't be getting married or having children. The vast majority are not likely to have as positive an outcome.

Her body, her choice.

It's the only conclusion I can reasonably come to!

Note this discussion is in fact supposed to be about deciding to do something like get married or have a child before fact, not reacting to an unplanned pregnancy. They are completely different scenarios.

Lilo / Aimy / OG -- Should 16 year olds in America who've fallen in love be allowed to purposefully decide to get pregnant and/or married and start their families early? I'm not talking about what to do after the girl is knocked up because the condom broke. I'm talking about two kids living at home with mom and dad, working through their Sophmore/Junior year in highschool, going to sock hops in the gym and sneaking candy into

[littlelolligagged]

Note this discussion is in fact supposed to be about deciding to do something like get married or have a child before fact, not reacting to an unplanned pregnancy. They are completely different scenarios.

Lilo / Aimy / OG -- Should 16 year olds in America who've fallen in love be allowed to purposefully decide to get pregnant and/or married and start their families early? I'm not talking about what to do after the girl is knocked up because the condom broke. I'm talking about two kids living at home with mom and dad, working through their Sophmore/Junior year in highschool, going to sock hops in the gym and sneaking candy into the movies. Should they just decide to have a baby? Or get married? Is that ever a good decision in this context?

They do it all the time. Your disapproval isn't going to make it change.

I'd say it is much better for the dopey love-struck teens to get married without having a child than it would be for them to have to get pregnant or have some other extenuating circumstance. Like someone (Minxy, I think) pointed out - is it really so terrible if they get divorced after a few years?