Man forces daughter to marry her rapist

[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.

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...

Getting 2 months in jail is "not a huge issue"? It's a felony. He did time. Of course it's a huge issue.

So you're on record thinking a felony and a miscarriage are each "no big whoop" in the course of human life.

Wow. I'd hate to be your therapist.

 

[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."

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 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.

It's funny that you object to being pigeonholed for carrying a certain belief as "the hive" of Xtians as a whole, and yet in that very same post you espouse the exact belief that I'm talking about.

The only difference between rape and/or forcing your daughter to marry a rapist, and the misdeed of discrimination is a matter of degree. You misstate the law when you say any business can refuse service for any reason. They cannot. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Granted, it's hard to study long, long paragraphs (aside from those in the bible) from before you were born, but it's also necessary if you want to partake in the discussion and pretend to quote current law.

I'm well aware of the Old Testament and the New. As you pointed out, Jesus came to "fulfill the law" ant thus the OT applies equally. I was raised in the church, you can't out-bible me, sorry.

 

[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.

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

Because he raped your daughter, you fucking moron.

 

[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?

Because he raped your daughter, you fucking moron.

THAT is how pregnacy as ALWAYS been achieved.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Of course. Why would anyone be surprised? More ignorant religious "principals" on display.

 

[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"?

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".

Then I'm certain you'll investigate the story thoroughly and give some credibility to your "theory."

 

[ChrisL]

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?

Because he raped your daughter, you fucking moron.

The poster you are addressing is a retard.

 

[GaryDog]

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?

Because he raped your daughter, you fucking moron.

The poster you are addressing is a retard.

Sorry, I'm new here. I'll move on, lol.

 

[Katzndogz]

Didn't this used to be called a shotgun marriage? The possibility of forced marriage may have given men pause before they unzipped.

We do not treat pregnant rape victims kindly. Both Amanda Berry and Jaycee Dugard were forced to continue to care for the children of their rapists after they were supposedly rescued.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's funny that you object to being pigeonholed for carrying a certain belief as "the hive" of Xtians as a whole, and yet in that very same post you espouse the exact belief that I'm talking about.

Actually, what I was doing was defending a large group of people that you were treating as a hive mind. I didn't espouse their belief at all.

The only difference between rape and/or forcing your daughter to marry a rapist, and the misdeed of discrimination is a matter of degree. You misstate the law when you say any business can refuse service for any reason. They cannot. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Granted, it's hard to study long, long paragraphs (aside from those in the bible) from before you were born, but it's also necessary if you want to partake in the discussion and pretend to quote current law.

Actually, if you want to be SUPER, SUPER technical about it, that law that you just quoted only protects against descrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, or disability. There are extra laws in some states that prevent a business from denying service based on some other factors, but not every state. HOWEVER, you CAN refuse service to any of those protected groups so long as the reason is not stated, and you aren't specifying any of those groups specifically. Granted, it's hard to study long, long paragraphs from before you were born, but it's also necessary if you want to partake in the discussion and pretend to quote current law. Oh, I guess ending with that snide remark wasn't so civil of me, I'll try to treat you better than you treat me from now on.

I'm well aware of the Old Testament and the New. As you pointed out, Jesus came to "fulfill the law" ant thus the OT applies equally. I was raised in the church, you can't out-bible me, sorry.

Fulfilling the law and becoming the final sacrifice for every sin in the past, present, and future means that Moses' law no longer carried punishment in the afterlife. Furthermore, those laws were SOLELY for the original chosen people, the Israelites(Or Jews), and NOT for the new chosen people, anyone and everyone that chooses to follow the Christian God. The chosen people were only meant to follow those strict laws until those chosen people fulfilled God's plan to save everyone, and move into the second phase of belief, at which point, new laws were applied for the Gentiles that picked up the belief afterward so that anyone and everyone could be "saved". Being raised in a church doesn't mean you can 'out-bible' everyone, it only means you got to see a really neat building from the interior.

 

[ChrisL]

Fulfilling the law and becoming the final sacrifice for every sin in the past, present, and future means that Moses' law no longer carried punishment in the afterlife. Furthermore, those laws were SOLELY for the original chosen people, the Israelites(Or Jews), and NOT for the new chosen people, anyone and everyone that chooses to follow the Christian God. The chosen people were only meant to follow those strict laws until those chosen people fulfilled God's plan to save everyone, and move into the second phase of belief, at which point, new laws were applied for the Gentiles that picked of the belief afterward so that anyone and everyone could be "saved". Being raised in a church doesn't mean you can 'out-bible' everyone, it only means you got to see a really neat building from the interior.

Where did you learn this? Something you read, or do you have some kind of first hand knowledge? I suspect you read this in one of your "holy" books, or better yet "holey" books.

 

[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...

Getting 2 months in jail is "not a huge issue"? It's a felony. He did time. Of course it's a huge issue.

So you're on record thinking a felony and a miscarriage are each "no big whoop" in the course of human life.

Wow. I'd hate to be your therapist.

Lol.

Hey, I'm all for locking up criminals for loooonnnggg periods. And crazy people, too.

But the faggot brigade thinks differently. Like I said, if this was a fag and his underaged sex change recipient, you'd be doing a happy dance all over the place.

 

[koshergrl]

Incidentally, this situation would never have happened at all, if it wasn't for the fact that progressive douchebags refuse to keep criminals in prison:

"Moeller reminded Seaton that he was on probation for another crime in Bannock County when he raped the victim. He failed to notify his probation officer that he was moving to Ashton, where the crime occurred. Committing another crime while on probation doesn’t sit well with the court, Moeller said.

“If you had only followed the rules, none of us would be here today,” he said."

Yeah, if he had been kept in prison for his INITIAL crime, we wouldn't be here either.

Put crazy people and criminals in prison, and keep them there.

Stop imprisoning people for dumbass imaginary crimes ("hate speech" "tax evasion" "conspiracy" come to mind) and stop letting the killers and violent offenders out.

Seaton sentenced to 15-year unified sentence for child rape

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Where did you learn this? Something you read, or do you have some kind of first hand knowledge? I suspect you read this in one of your "holy" books, or better yet "holey" books.

Actually, I learned it from in-depth study of various religions, their parallels, and some preachers I speak with on occasion. I've also studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other books about perceptions and viewpoints on religious texts. I do a lot of reading. Thank you for your inquiry, I'm happy that you found my post interesting enough to read, quote, and ask about. Pleased to meat you.

 

[ChrisL]

Where did you learn this? Something you read, or do you have some kind of first hand knowledge? I suspect you read this in one of your "holy" books, or better yet "holey" books.

Actually, I learned it from in-depth study of various religions, their parallels, and some preachers I speak with on occasion. I've also studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other books about perceptions and viewpoints on religious texts. I do a lot of reading. Thank you for your inquiry, I'm happy that you found my post interesting enough to read, quote, and ask about. Pleased to meat you.

So you read about it and that makes it a fact, in your mind? I read Alice in Wonderland and lots of other books.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So you read about it and that makes it a fact, in your mind? I read Alice in Wonderland and lots of other books.

More that I formed my own opinion from possible interpretation of the scriptures. However, what I do believe to be fact just from the Bible itself is that Mosaic Law applied to Jews specifically.

Oh, you read Alice in Wonderland? I love Alice in Wonderland, it's a beautifully written series. Did you like it?

 

[ChrisL]

So you read about it and that makes it a fact, in your mind? I read Alice in Wonderland and lots of other books.

More that I formed my own opinion from possible interpretation of the scriptures. However, what I do believe to be fact just from the Bible itself is that Mosaic Law applied to Jews specifically.

Oh, you read Alice in Wonderland? I love Alice in Wonderland, it's a beautifully written series. Did you like it?

So you follow the OT, eh?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So you read about it and that makes it a fact, in your mind? I read Alice in Wonderland and lots of other books.

More that I formed my own opinion from possible interpretation of the scriptures. However, what I do believe to be fact just from the Bible itself is that Mosaic Law applied to Jews specifically.

Oh, you read Alice in Wonderland? I love Alice in Wonderland, it's a beautifully written series. Did you like it?

You did a very good job of explaining why we have the New Covenant. Well done

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So you follow the OT, eh?

Firstly, Mosaic Law is part of the Old Testament, secondly, I never said I was religious in any way, shape, or form, nor do I intend to reveal my personal beliefs. I'm only speaking of Biblical canon as I understand it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So you follow the OT, eh?

Firstly, Mosaic Law is the Old Testament, secondly, I never said I was religious in any way, shape, or form, nor do I intend to reveal my personal beliefs. I'm only speaking of Biblical canon as I understand it.

Mosaic law in the OT was made up of three parts, judicial, dietary and ceremonial, the New Covenant did away with the dietary and ceremonial laws. The New Covenant was brought forward to unite the Jews and the Gentiles