The Hazards of Belief

Canadel · 16-02-2016 08:10AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Unfortunately, the idea of what a child is is subjective. Some believe that a child magically ceases to be a child on their 18th birthday, while others choose various other ages. It's really a gradual process and varies from child to child.

Fair point. I was basing my argument on the age of consent but again that is a fairly arbitrary number. Surely once you start going below the age of 15 for child brides my hypothesis holds true?

Absolam · 16-02-2016 08:32AM

Canadel wrote: »

Whatever your views are on SSM, the idea of child brides is objectively wrong and inhumane. It transcends the notion of cultural values. It really is a case of us being correct and them being wrong.

I'm not convinced of that; objectively western society over the last century or two is unusual throughout human history in the degree to which we infantilise young adults. And biologically, there isn't another species that doesn't reproduce upon reaching sexual maturity. It seems to me that our perspective is actually the objective outlier here. So from an objective point of view I'm not seeing an issue with 'child' brides i.e young adults who are sexually mature, even though from a cultural point of view the idea is distasteful.

Canadel wrote: »

The question becomes, as you say, whether we should enforce our values on someone who hasn't come to us because they want to be part of our culture but because staying where they were would cause their death? That's when things become more complicated. If they are remaining in the camps for the foreseeable future then I don't see what can be done about it, but if they are leaving the camps to live in Danish society then whatever about cultural differences and values, they should be treated the same as everyone else under Danish law.

So, you feel the Minister is wrong to separate married couples in the camps, but if they elect to remain in Denmark their marriages should be dissolved? Would that be quite the same as treating them the same as everyone else under Danish law, since they weren't married under Danish law? Does Danish law undo other acts that occurred in other jurisdictions? Considering SSM again, whilst Ireland didn't recognise SSMs from other jurisdictions, it didn't go so far as to separate couples that had them.....

silverharp · 16-02-2016 08:37AM

Absolam wrote: »

I'm a tiny bit wary of this... what if, for instance, same sex marriage were illegal in Denmark (I know it's not, this is just an example). If the Danish Integration Minister announced they would be forcibly separating husbands from their spouses in asylum centers would it be as readily accepted?
I kind of feel like what they're doing is seen as ok because it conforms to our cultural values, without considering whether other cultural values may be as valid as our own, or at least, to what degree are we really entitled to force our values on someone who hasn't come to us because they want to be part of our culture but because staying where they were would cause their death? Undoubtedly, to some degree if they're to live in our society, but I'm not really sure we've come to a reasonable conclusion of what is actually fair and humanitarian.

different thing, the uk for instance acknowledges Polygamous marriages if they were performed outside of the uk however this is more akin to I brought my slave with me now leave me alone its my culture. An 11 year old cant give consent. in pragmatic terms for Europe this kind of thing cant be allowed, the girl is less likely to finish education, more likely to get pregnant which means Western society will have to deal with their dysfunctional offspring.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 08:44AM

silverharp wrote: »

An 11 year old cant give consent. in pragmatic terms for Europe this kind of thing cant be allowed, the girl is less likely to finish education, more likely to get pregnant which means Western society will have to deal with their dysfunctional offspring.

Mmm... that would seem to be a matter of opinion too though. Sharia law doesn't permit marriage without consent, so if they're married then the 'child' has given consent; it's just that our culture doesn't recognise that consent as being valid. Other cultures do. I'm not going to address the unfounded assumption about dysfunctional offspring... best to just let that particular prejudice lie I think.

silverharp · 16-02-2016 08:49AM

Absolam wrote: »

Mmm... that would seem to be a matter of opinion too though. Sharia law doesn't permit marriage without consent, so if they're married then the 'child' has given consent; it's just that our culture doesn't recognise that consent as being valid. Other cultures do. I'm not going to address the unfounded assumption about dysfunctional offspring... best to just let that particular prejudice lie I think.

an 11 year old cant give consent anymore than an 11 year old consents to doing their confirmation, they will do what their parent tells them to do.
In social capital terms for the girl this is incompatible with the west, how can she possibly make a good parent?

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 09:09AM

Are people residing within a particular country not bound by the laws of that country? If you seek residence in a country, you do not have the right to break the law just because the practice in question is the norm in other countries.
If you are married to a child, is it legal to have sex with her/him in any European country?
Is it legal to marry a child in any European country?
Curious to know.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 09:22AM

silverharp wrote: »

an 11 year old cant give consent anymore than an 11 year old consents to doing their confirmation, they will do what their parent tells them to do.

A toddler can give consent; I'm sure you've observed what happens when they withhold it. Whether we accept a persons consent as valid for whatever purpose is a matter for society, western society differs from middle eastern society on this particular issue but neither can, I think, be objectively held as an absolutely correct position.

silverharp wrote: »

In social capital terms for the girl this is incompatible with the west, how can she possibly make a good parent?

Does she have to be compatible with the west to make a good parent? There seems to be no shortage of 21 years+ westerners who aren't good parents.

silverharp · 16-02-2016 10:07AM

Absolam wrote: »

A toddler can give consent; I'm sure you've observed what happens when they withhold it. Whether we accept a persons consent as valid for whatever purpose is a matter for society, western society differs from middle eastern society on this particular issue but neither can, I think, be objectively held as an absolutely correct position.

Does she have to be compatible with the west to make a good parent? There seems to be no shortage of 21 years+ westerners who aren't good parents.

Toddlers? Seriously! , we are talking legal consent here. It doesn't have to be objective , its a law based on a presumption.
A critical mass of people who are incompatible with the west is a bad thing, any basic laws which everyone else has to observe shouldn't have exemptions. Having ages of consent of 15 in Denmark's case and a marriage age of 18 is a simple way to give kids a chance to make informed choices or finish education. A lack of education is correlated to poor life outcomes so the Danes are going about this the right way.

Canadel · 16-02-2016 10:11AM

Absolam wrote: »

So, you feel the Minister is wrong to separate married couples in the camps, but if they elect to remain in Denmark their marriages should be dissolved? Would that be quite the same as treating them the same as everyone else under Danish law, since they weren't married under Danish law? Does Danish law undo other acts that occurred in other jurisdictions? Considering SSM again, whilst Ireland didn't recognise SSMs from other jurisdictions, it didn't go so far as to separate couples that had them.....

Fair point. I suppose it might have to depend on whether there is sufficient evidence of sexual relations occupying between a minor and an adult. Which would be difficult I imagine.

Absolam wrote: »

A toddler can give consent; I'm sure you've observed what happens when they withhold it. Whether we accept a persons consent as valid for whatever purpose is a matter for society, western society differs from middle eastern society on this particular issue but neither can, I think, be objectively held as an absolutely correct position.

Come on, you're being incredibly dishonest here. There is a clear difference between the consent given by a toddler and legal consent given by an adult. Do you really believe that toddler brides are ok too considering they can give the same consent as child brides and consequently adults according to you?

Absolam · 16-02-2016 10:36AM

silverharp wrote: »

Toddlers? Seriously! , we are talking legal consent here. It doesn't have to be objective , its a law based on a presumption.

You said "an 11 year old cant give consent anymore than an 11 year old consents to doing their confirmation"; I'm pointing out they actually can. If you want to talk about legal consent, we're going back to the original point; their consent was legal under Sharia law, it's just that our culture doesn't recognise that consent as being valid. Other cultures do. What right to we have to force our culture on someone who doesn't want to be part of it?

silverharp wrote: »

A critical mass of people who are incompatible with the west is a bad thing, any basic laws which everyone else has to observe shouldn't have exemptions. Having ages of consent of 15 in Denmark's case and a marriage age of 18 is a simple way to give kids a chance to make informed choices or finish education. A lack of education is correlated to poor life outcomes so the Danes are going about this the right way.

I think you're digging an even bigger hole here than you did with the 'dysfunctional offspring' bit. A 'critical mass of people who are incompatible with the west' is an extraordinary notion.

Canadel wrote: »

Come on, you're being incredibly dishonest here. There is a clear difference between the consent given by a toddler and legal consent given by an adult. Do you really believe that toddler brides are ok too considering they can give the same consent as child brides and consequently adults according to you?

No, I'm pointing out the distinction between Silverharps statement that an 11 year old can't consent, which is ridiculous, and the notion that an 11 year can't legally consent to marriage, which is exclusive to our society.

Neyite · 16-02-2016 10:48AM

looksee wrote: »

Can anyone explain why the church would - from the top - dig up a body and make it an object of worship? Really, have they nothing better to do?

Money spinner? Shrines make a mint. Look at Knock, Lourdes, Medjugorje. Relics, statues, rosary beads, holy water, miraculous medals and the like.

It's like rock stars. They make feck all on the album by the time everyone involved gets their cut, so where they make their real money is on tour, selling official merchandise.

silverharp · 16-02-2016 10:54AM

Absolam wrote: »

You said "an 11 year old cant give consent anymore than an 11 year old consents to doing their confirmation"; I'm pointing out they actually can. If you want to talk about legal consent, we're going back to the original point; their consent was legal under Sharia law, it's just that our culture doesn't recognise that consent as being valid. Other cultures do. What right to we have to force our culture on someone who doesn't want to be part of it?
I think you're digging an even bigger hole here than you did with the 'dysfunctional offspring' bit. A 'critical mass of people who are incompatible with the west' is an extraordinary notion.

No, I'm pointing out the distinction between Silverharps statement that an 11 year old can't consent, which is ridiculous, and the notion that an 11 year can't legally consent to marriage, which is exclusive to our society.

Unlike yourself obviously I am not a cultural relativist , there are certain practices which might be acceptable in the third world which are out of kilter with living in the west . I'm not digging any hole, it is not good to have parallel societies developing in the west. By your logic fgm should be available on the NHS :rolleyes:

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 10:54AM

Absolam wrote: »

You said "an 11 year old cant give consent anymore than an 11 year old consents to doing their confirmation"; I'm pointing out they actually can. If you want to talk about legal consent, we're going back to the original point; their consent was legal under Sharia law, it's just that our culture doesn't recognise that consent as being valid. Other cultures do. What right to we have to force our culture on someone who doesn't want to be part of it?

Personally my view is that if you live in a country, you abide by the laws of that country. If an 11 year old gets married in another country and the country in which the couple now resides does not recognize the law under which the marriage took place, so be it. The country has to impose it's own laws. All residents may not agree with all laws. That's democracy.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 11:23AM

silverharp wrote: »

Unlike yourself obviously I am not a cultural relativist , there are certain practices which might be acceptable in the third world which are out of kilter with living in the west . I'm not digging any hole, it is not good to have parallel societies developing in the west. By your logic fgm should be available on the NHS :rolleyes:

That's not a proposition I actually offered, so I shan't take offense that you're attributing it to 'my logic'. Whereas the notions that some people can't possibly make a good parent simply because of their age and cultural background, and that there are critical masses of people who are incompatible with the west.... that's all you.

galljga1 wrote: »

Personally my view is that if you live in a country, you abide by the laws of that country. If an 11 year old gets married in another country and the country in which the couple now resides does not recognize the law under which the marriage took place, so be it. The country has to impose it's own laws. All residents may not agree with all laws. That's democracy.

Sure... that's fine for immigrants. These are not people who choose to reside in Denmark however; they're people fleeing war. They would reside in their own country if they could. Nor am I saying Denmark must recognize their marriage, I'm questioning whether it is morally acceptable for Denmark to separate legally married husbands and wives simply because the marriage is one they don't recognise. Would it be acceptable for them to separate (not simply refuse to recognise) same sex couples if they didn't have same sex marriage?

silverharp · 16-02-2016 11:35AM

Absolam wrote: »

That's not a proposition I actually offered, so I shan't take offense that you're attributing it to 'my logic'.

You have suggested that its ok to ignore European law where it conflicts with a third world culture because who can say. I have made an inference based on your principle and it seems wanting as there are various examples where this would be silly and dangerous

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 11:36AM

Absolam wrote: »

Sure... that's fine for immigrants. These are not people who choose to reside in Denmark however; they're people fleeing war. They would reside in their own country if they could. Nor am I saying Denmark must recognize their marriage, I'm questioning whether it is morally acceptable for Denmark to separate legally married husbands and wives simply because the marriage is one they don't recognise. Would it be acceptable for them to separate (not simply refuse to recognise) same sex couples if they didn't have same sex marriage?

This is Denmark we are talking about. Quite simply, under Danish law they are not legally married. Sharia law is not Danish law. In the case of a grown adult having sex with a child, if under Danish law, this is illegal, the adult should actually be prosecuted. The cultural or ethnic background of the parties involved should have nothing to do with it.

The recognition or non recognition of SSM has nothing to do with this.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 11:42AM

silverharp wrote: »

You have suggested that its ok to ignore European law where it conflicts with a third world culture because who can say. I have made an inference based on your principle and it seems wanting as there are various examples where this would be silly and dangerous

Actually I haven't suggested any such thing, so it's a baseless inference. And in fairness, it's not an inference, it's a wild extrapolation.

I've pointed out that our cultural basis for deciding a legal age of consent is not objective, and in fact is out of kilter with almost every culture in the history of civilisation. Given that, I'm questioning whether, regardless of whether Denmark recognises those marriages, it has a right to separate spouses, especially when they have no desire to be in Denamrk, only to be somewhere where they're not being shot at and bombed.

Shrap · 16-02-2016 11:46AM

Absolam wrote: »

Given that, I'm questioning whether, regardless of whether Denmark recognises those marriages, it has a right to separate spouses, especially when they have no desire to be in Denamrk, only to be somewhere where they're not being shot at and bombed.

Perhaps they have the right to offer a choice to these child-brides, given that that consent was not an option for them in the first place. Now they are in a place where consent is not only a requirement, it also has an age limit, below which consent cannot be given. Would be nice to think they would be given a choice in the matter this time.

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 11:46AM

Absolam wrote: »

Actually I haven't suggested any such thing, so it's a baseless inference. And in fairness, it's not an inference, it's a wild extrapolation.

I've pointed out that our cultural basis for deciding a legal age of consent is not objective, and in fact is out of kilter with almost every culture in the history of civilisation. Given that, I'm questioning whether, regardless of whether Denmark recognises those marriages, it has a right to separate spouses, especially when they have no desire to be in Denamrk, only to be somewhere where they're not being shot at and bombed.

But they are in Denmark and Denmark has a right to impose the law of the land on those residing within its borders. Sharia law is not recognised.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 11:46AM

galljga1 wrote: »

This is Denmark we are talking about. Quite simply, under Danish law they are not legally married. Sharia law is not Danish law. In the case of a grown adult having sex with a child, if under Danish law, this is illegal, the adult should actually be prosecuted. The cultural or ethnic background of the parties involved should have nothing to do with it.
The recognition or non recognition of SSM has nothing to do with this.

I'm not disputing whether in Denmark they are legally married; I'm contending with Denmarks right to separate them, and whether it would be considered appropriate to separate a same sex couple on the same basis.
The cultural background is relevant because these are not people who are willingly engaging with Danish culture; they don't want or choose to be there, it's just where they've ended up fleeing a war and they are not saying they want to stay there.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 11:48AM

galljga1 wrote: »

But they are in Denmark and Denmark has a right to impose the law of the land on those residing within its borders. Sharia law is not recognised.

The law of the land does not require those couples to be separated, yet that is what the Danish Integration Minister is doing.

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 11:50AM

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not disputing whether in Denmark they are legally married; I'm contending with Denmarks right to separate them, and whether it would be considered appropriate to separate a same sex couple on the same basis.
The cultural background is relevant because these are not people who are willingly engaging with Danish culture; they don't want or choose to be there, it's just where they've ended up fleeing a war and they are not saying they want to stay there.

See my answer above. They are in Denmark and subject to Danish law. I cannot see the point in bringing in hypothetical comparisons. It is a clear cut case.

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 11:54AM

Absolam wrote: »

The law of the land does not require those couples to be separated, yet that is what the Danish Integration Minister is doing.

I am not up on Danish law but I would hope that it is within the legal remit of the state to protect the welfare of children within it's borders. That would probably cover removing a child from the company of an adult where a sexual relationship is known or suspected.

silverharp · 16-02-2016 12:02PM

Absolam wrote: »

Actually I haven't suggested any such thing, so it's a baseless inference. And in fairness, it's not an inference, it's a wild extrapolation.

I've pointed out that our cultural basis for deciding a legal age of consent is not objective, and in fact is out of kilter with almost every culture in the history of civilisation. Given that, I'm questioning whether, regardless of whether Denmark recognises those marriages, it has a right to separate spouses, especially when they have no desire to be in Denamrk, only to be somewhere where they're not being shot at and bombed.

Out of kilter with history? History is irrelevent , alot of things we do now are out of kilter with history. And the standard isn't objective , it doesn't have to be. Its modern utilitarianism versus historic utilitarianism. Here we have a situation where the historic is out of kilter with the modern.

Nodin · 16-02-2016 12:20PM

marienbad wrote: »

Not really Nodin , whatever about the rights and wrongs of the story and the source of the story the fact of the matter is that the country receiving refugees has a system of values and laws and it is not unreasonable to expect asylum seekers to comply with those .

Similarly it is not unreasonable for families of those young people to expect proper protection for those children .

But the fact is certain values are non negotiable .

That's another matter. The fact is that the article, if not read in full, is somewhat misleading.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 12:31PM

Shrap wrote: »

Perhaps they have the right to offer a choice to these child-brides, given that that consent was not an option for them in the first place. Now they are in a place where consent is not only a requirement, it also has an age limit, below which consent cannot be given. Would be nice to think they would be given a choice in the matter this time.

Well, at least in theory, they were offered a choice; the bride to be's consent is a prerequisite of Sharia law for marriage, remember? And I wouldn't want to just presume none of these couples observed their own laws.
However, it doesn't seem they can be offered a choice in Denmark (to be married, anyway), since the law prohibits them from making that choice. I certainly agree they should have a choice whether or not to be separated from their husbands; neither their husbands not the Danish Minister for Integration should be making that choice for them.

Absolam · 16-02-2016 12:31PM

galljga1 wrote: »

See my answer above. They are in Denmark and subject to Danish law. I cannot see the point in bringing in hypothetical comparisons. It is a clear cut case.

The point is to contrast what is happening with a separation of couples that we would find less acceptable to determine if the situation is an equitable one, or one motivated by cultural differences.

galljga1 wrote: »

I am not up on Danish law but I would hope that it is within the legal remit of the state to protect the welfare of children within it's borders. That would probably cover removing a child from the company of an adult where a sexual relationship is known or suspected.

I would hope so too; I'd also hope it's not within the remit of the state to separate couples on the basis that they may at some point engage in an act that is illegal in the state, given that act if carried out outside the states jurisdiction was not illegal.

silverharp · 16-02-2016 12:33PM

Nodin wrote: »

That's another matter. The fact is that the article, if not read in full, is somewhat misleading.

Why?

Absolam · 16-02-2016 12:39PM

silverharp wrote: »

Out of kilter with history? History is irrelevent , alot of things we do now are out of kilter with history. And the standard isn't objective , it doesn't have to be. Its modern utilitarianism versus historic utilitarianism. Here we have a situation where the historic is out of kilter with the modern.

I didn't actually say out of kilter with history? I said out of kilter with almost every culture in the history of civilization. Not that history is irrelevant mind you; history encompasses the rationale and construction of our legal systems, so it's fairly relevant.
Anyway, I wasn't asking if the standard was objective; I was saying that we should be considering Denmarks actions objectively, so as not to allow our cultural bias interfere with respectful treatment of refugees. Cultural bias that might lead people to imagine that such refugees will produce dysfunctional offspring, or can't possibly make good parents, or are a critical mass of people incompatible with the west. That sort of thing, you know?

galljga1 · 16-02-2016 12:40PM

Absolam wrote: »

The point is to contrast what is happening with a separation of couples that we would find less acceptable to determine if the situation is an equitable one, or one motivated by cultural differences.
I would hope so too; I'd also hope it's not within the remit of the state to separate couples on the basis that they may at some point engage in an act that is illegal in the state, given that act if carried out outside the states jurisdiction was not illegal.

Comparing this with other scenarios is simply deflecting from the issue at hand.

I worry about your stance outlined in the high lighted text above. It this case, we are talking about adults having sex with children. Quite simply, this is wrong and for any person or religion to state otherwise is wrong and in this case, the Danish authorities acted correctly.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments