Man forces daughter to marry her rapist

[GaryDog]

Father took teenage daughter out of state to marry her rapist

This is a biblical principle.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Because Christians seem to have a hard-on these days for ensuring that their "religious beliefs" are preserved and not interfered with by the law, I ask you, why should this man go to jail for following a sincerely held religious belief? This is analogous to the county clerks refusing gay marriage and bakers refusing to serve a cake to a gay couple about to be married, right?

If you believe it's not analogous (due to the harm to the girl), then explain why the civil rights of the gay people seeking a lawful wedding should be ignored while the civil right of the teenage girl not to be forced to marry her rapist is honored?

 

[The Great Goose]

Sounds like an excellent deterent and an example to all men who violate girls, whether by invitation or otherwise.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh brother.

 

[koshergrl]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

 

[GaryDog]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

That has zero to do with the topic.

 

[GaryDog]

Sounds like an excellent deterent and an example to all men who violate girls, whether by invitation or otherwise.

I assume you're trolling. Please don't.

 

[koshergrl]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

That has zero to do with the topic.

The topic is not about *rape* as you deceitfully labeled it in the thread title, it's statutory rape, which is a totally different thing. It's a case of two young people who had sex without the parents' knowledge or consent. The girl got pregnant, which is what often happens when sex takes place, especially among the young. So the family came together and facilitated a marriage between them, in order to help provide the incumbent child with a semblance of structure. The same thing that families have been doing since the creation of humanity.

The girl lost the baby, the marriage was annulled. Big whoop.

 

[koshergrl]

Sounds like an excellent deterent and an example to all men who violate girls, whether by invitation or otherwise.

Yup. If you make a baby, you're going to support the baby, AND the mother.

 

[The Great Goose]

Sounds like an excellent deterent and an example to all men who violate girls, whether by invitation or otherwise.

I assume you're trolling. Please don't.

Not at all. I admire the father for imposing his will on this man and making his daughter an honest woman.

 

[Arianrhod]

The topic is not about *rape* as you deceitfully labeled it in the thread title, it's statutory rape, which is a totally different thing.

And having sex with an underage girl after you've gotten her drunk is what, in your belief system - true love?

From the article:

"The convicted rapist reportedly began taking advantage of the teenager while she was drunk. But during his time in court, Seaton offered a number of excuses for why he raped Strawn's daughter.

“The responses you gave — that you did not know what you did was wrong, it was [an[ accident, no one was hurt, you didn’t plan it, you made a mistake, didn’t know how it happened and that the victim was overly affectionate — is hardly a glowing report," Judge Gregory Moeller said during the court proceedings. "It suggests you are completely unaccountable for your actions.""

Also, would you tell any woman who's had a miscarriage "big whoop"?

 

[GaryDog]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

That has zero to do with the topic.

The topic is not about *rape* as you deceitfully labeled it in the thread title, it's statutory rape, which is a totally different thing. It's a case of two young people who had sex without the parents' knowledge or consent. The girl got pregnant, which is what often happens when sex takes place, especially among the young. So the family came together and facilitated a marriage between them, in order to help provide the incumbent child with a semblance of structure. The same thing that families have been doing since the creation of humanity.

The girl lost the baby, the marriage was annulled. Big whoop.

No, it's about rape. It's about a man taking advantage of a young girl, and then that girl being victimized twice for it.

 

[TNHarley]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

One of my friends got married when she was 16. A girl I used to work with got married at 12. No shit.

 

[GaryDog]

Sounds like an excellent deterent and an example to all men who violate girls, whether by invitation or otherwise.

I assume you're trolling. Please don't.

Not at all. I admire the father for imposing his will on this man and making his daughter an honest woman.

The father was not the victim. The girl was. The father's will is irrelevant. If he wants to "impose his will" and testify against the young man at his criminal trial, or beat the shit out of him, I might at least shrug and nod at your sentiment.

But your assertion that re-victimizing a young girl regardless of her wishes is "just" is deplorable, and it means you're a sick, twisted motherfucker.

 

[koshergrl]

The topic is not about *rape* as you deceitfully labeled it in the thread title, it's statutory rape, which is a totally different thing.

And having sex with an underage girl after you've gotten her drunk is what, in your belief system - true love?

From the article:

"The convicted rapist reportedly began taking advantage of the teenager while she was drunk. But during his time in court, Seaton offered a number of excuses for why he raped Strawn's daughter.

“The responses you gave — that you did not know what you did was wrong, it was [an[ accident, no one was hurt, you didn’t plan it, you made a mistake, didn’t know how it happened and that the victim was overly affectionate — is hardly a glowing report," Judge Gregory Moeller said during the court proceedings. "It suggests you are completely unaccountable for your actions.""

Also, would you tell any woman who's had a miscarriage "big whoop"?

I suspect there is more to the story, there almost always is. I suspect the writer covering the story isn't being entirely forthcoming, or doesn't have all the facts. I also imagine that the primary objective of the dad was to provide the best situation possible for his daughter and the child she was carrying.

In other words, that article really doesn't tell you much except what the writer wants you to know, or to believe. No quotes, no sources. My editors would have given it a big fat "D".

 

[koshergrl]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

One of my friends got married when she was 16. A girl I used to work with got married at 12. No shit.

My speech teacher and his wife were married at 15 as well.

Big fucking deal. Progressive nutters...if this was two faggots getting married and the parents had funded a sex change for the 14 year old, Gary would cream his panties.

 

[koshergrl]

Believe it or not, parents often give permission for underaged daughters to get married. One of my oldest friends was married to his high school sweetheart when he was 15 and she was 16. She was pregnant. They were married, finished school, had a few more kids, were together until the kids were grown. Now they have different spouses, but they are still very close as are all their kids.

That has zero to do with the topic.

The topic is not about *rape* as you deceitfully labeled it in the thread title, it's statutory rape, which is a totally different thing. It's a case of two young people who had sex without the parents' knowledge or consent. The girl got pregnant, which is what often happens when sex takes place, especially among the young. So the family came together and facilitated a marriage between them, in order to help provide the incumbent child with a semblance of structure. The same thing that families have been doing since the creation of humanity.

The girl lost the baby, the marriage was annulled. Big whoop.

No, it's about rape. It's about a man taking advantage of a young girl, and then that girl being victimized twice for it.

Looks like he got convicted and did his 60 days. Apparently the court didn't think it was a huge issue.

And neither did the dad. But hey, if Gayry says they're all wrong, I'm sure he has some inside info...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Father took teenage daughter out of state to marry her rapist

This is a biblical principle.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

I'd first like to point out that what you're reading off is actually Moses' law, which Jesus came to fulfill later. In the new testament, these laws were only applied by Jews. That law was only to condition them to take sleeping with a woman more seriously. I'd prefer you take a more informed approach to situations like this, instead of using it as a tool to attack people who believe differently from you as a whole. Why don't you treat them as individual people, rather than some kind of hive mind? I assure you, Christians are not the Zerg.

Because Christians seem to have a hard-on these days for ensuring that their "religious beliefs" are preserved and not interfered with by the law, I ask you, why should this man go to jail for following a sincerely held religious belief?

There are many ways to bring this topic up to the forum without needlessly attacking an entire group of people over the actions of a minority. This is not one of those ways. However, answering your question, while laws should not be created to undermine freedom of religion, there is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom of practice. If a religious practice is destructive to those around them, it most likely violates a law. Something like this may not TECHNICALLY violate the law, but I agree that it should, as it's destructive to the daughter and protects a criminal.

This is analogous to the county clerks refusing gay marriage and bakers refusing to serve a cake to a gay couple about to be married, right?

As I explained in a different post, any business can refuse service to any person for any reason. It's their right as a business. The refused customer can just go to their competitor. However, no, no it isn't. This is dodging the law, not applying your right to refuse service.

If you believe it's not analogous (due to the harm to the girl), then explain why the civil rights of the gay people seeking a lawful wedding should be ignored while the civil right of the teenage girl not to be forced to marry her rapist is honored?

Firstly, not having a cake baked for them is hardly the same thing. It's not destructive to them in any way, does not perform a criminal act, and does not protect a criminal act. The other case you've brought up is protection of a criminal act, infringement upon the rights of someone, a daughter no less, and then blaming it upon a belief rather than admitting you're a mentally ill.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because Christians seem to have a hard-on these days for ensuring that their "religious beliefs" are preserved and not interfered with by the law, I ask you, why should this man go to jail for following a sincerely held religious belief?

Fuck his belief. lol

 

[The Great Goose]

Sounds like an excellent deterent and an example to all men who violate girls, whether by invitation or otherwise.

I assume you're trolling. Please don't.

Not at all. I admire the father for imposing his will on this man and making his daughter an honest woman.

The father was not the victim. The girl was. The father's will is irrelevant. If he wants to "impose his will" and testify against the young man at his criminal trial, or beat the shit out of him, I might at least shrug and nod at your sentiment.

But your assertion that re-victimizing a young girl regardless of her wishes is "just" is deplorable, and it means you're a sick, twisted motherfucker.

Why beat the shit out of the father of your grandchild?

 

[GaryDog]

Because Christians seem to have a hard-on these days for ensuring that their "religious beliefs" are preserved and not interfered with by the law, I ask you, why should this man go to jail for following a sincerely held religious belief?

Fuck his belief. lol

The only acceptable answer thus far.