1
   

Child brides as young as 8 (eight)...

 
 
coexist
 
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 12:10 pm
This thread is in no way intended to offend any people. I would just like to make a point.

It is important to know that girls during the Biblical and Islamic days used to be married off at young ages. It was quite different for men on the other hand, because physical power and the ability of living an independent life. 1400 years ago their life expectancy was much lower -- 25/40 for Women, bit more for men.

That is why you see girls as young as 9 or 10 were married to men as old as 30 or even older. The culture back then and in many third world countries today (NON-MUSLIM ONES TOO) is quite different than what you live in today. I do hope sincerely, that our well respected Christian people come except this fact. Thank you.

Child brides as young as 8 (eight) were common among the Byzantine emperors and nobility!

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors


Agnes-Anna of France,wife of Alexius II and Andronicus I of the Comneni Dynasty

Lynda Garland
University of New England, Australia

Andrew Stone
University of Western Australia


Quote:
The child empress Agnes of France was the spouse of two emperors of Byzantium, the boy emperor Alexius II Comnenus, and subsequently Andronicus I Comnenus, the latter's first cousin once removed. Agnes was born to King Louis VII of France's third wife, Adèle (or Alix) of Blois-Champagne, the daughter of Count Theobald II of Blois, in 1172. This made her the younger sister of the future French king Philip II Augustus. The house of Blois-Champagne was the second most powerful magnate house in France (after the house of Plantagenet). The emperor Manuel I Comnenus was looking for allies in the west, since the Peace of Venice in 1177 had effectively allied the Pope (Alexander III), the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, the other Italian communes and Sicily against him. After discussion with the count of Flanders, Philip of Alsace, who visited Constantinople in early 1178 on his way back from the Holy Land, Manuel sent an embassy, including Philip, to the French court over the winter of 1178-1179 to secure a match between his son Alexius (born in 1169) and the princess Agnes.[[1]] This match may have been opposed by the members of the house of Blois-Champagne, who were pro-German.[[2]]

According to William of Tyre, Agnes was only eight on her arrival at Constantinople, while Alexius was thirteen; in fact Alexius was born on 14 September 1169.[[3]] Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.[[4]]



Quote:
We hear little of Agnes during Alexius' reign (24 September 1180 to prior to 24 September 1183). It is highly unlikely that the match was consummated, as it was customary to import imperial brides from overseas at a young age to enable them to become acquainted with Greek and with their future ceremonial duties; certainly it was unusual under normal circumstances for Byzantine girls to marry before the age of twelve. However, shortly before Alexius completed three years as emperor, Manuel's first cousin Andronicus made himself co-emperor and then usurped Alexius's position altogether, putting him out of the way by having him throttled. Nicetas Choniates then, with morbid relish, claims that Andronicus (who was born c. 1118 and was thus about 65 years of age) sexually exploited the eleven-year old princess.[[13]] Despite the fact that his marriage to Anna, some fifty years his junior, may well have been made for political reasons -- and Andronicus had portraits of Mary of Antioch in the capital replaced with ones of himself either alone or accompanied by his child-bride[[14]]-- Choniates makes the most of the opportunity to ridicule Andronicus, his age and the incongruity of the alliance ('the overripe suitor embracing the unripe maiden, the dotard the damsel with pointed breasts, the shriveled and languid old man the rosy-fingered girl dripping with the dew of love').[[15]] According to Eustathius of Thessalonica as well, the match was repugnant to her, as she regretted Alexius' death and loathed Andronicus:[[16]] She was the young daughter of the king of France, and as everybody knew hated the union because she was full of intelligence; and after having experienced a different kind of gentle loving, she loathed the roughness of Andronicus. Sometimes, they say, she would imagine in her dreams that she saw the young Alexius, and would cry out his name, and she alone knew what she suffered.


roman-emperors.org
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,580 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 12:52 pm
So what is your point?

Marriages have been arranged politically thoughout the ages. Many times through proxy, the couple not even meeting until years later.

In many cultures girls were/are sold off at a young age, so the family can be rid of a "useless" female.

Are you implying that a girl of 8 makes an informed decesion to marry a grown man.
Or, that a grown man is marrying an 8 year old out of affection?


Also, you say this is important to know...#1, Why?
#2...do you think this is something the person of at least average intelligence is unaware of?

Then you said something about christians having to accept this fact?

Are you advocating this practice to be continued/revived?

Or do you just like little girls?
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 01:33 pm
Well, the example you cite certainly speaks well for the practice! Rolling Eyes

Are you advocating for the resurrection of the idea? Or just looking to arouse (no pun intended) a reaction?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 01:35 pm
Chai Tea wrote:
So what is your point?


His point is that he went absolutely ballistic in his first thread at this site when i asked him about Mohammed's many character flaws, but specifically marrying and matrimonially raping Ayesha when she was nine years of age.

He's attempting to justify the act.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 01:41 pm
That explains why the idea of marrying young girls is categorized under Religion and Spirituality...

Sheesh. Is there no act so foul that it hasn't been committed in the name of one god or another?
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:20 pm
Just the idea that a child is married off to an adult man is offensive to me. Recently there was a series of photos and an article on this practice in the NY Times Magazine. When I first flipped through I thought I was looking at grandfathers and their granddaughters - the were wedding pictures. When I read the article I was appalled that these little girls are regarded as no better than goats. They are sold to highest bidders and treated like slaves by their new family. They end up pregnant before their bodies are fully capable of giving birth and suffer terrible physical consequences, including death. The girls themselves talk about how they would have liked to have stayed in school or with their families, but how their families could not afford them so they were sold like animals to the highest bidder. In some cases they were given away when a father could not pay his debts. This barbaric practice brings shame on the people who do it and the world that allows it.

We can look into history and find many disgusting and evil social practices, it's doesn't mean we can use history to justify the application of them today.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:33 pm
Setanta wrote:
Chai Tea wrote:
So what is your point?


His point is that he went absolutely ballistic in his first thread at this site when i asked him about Mohammed's many character flaws, but specifically marrying and matrimonially raping Ayesha when she was nine years of age.

He's attempting to justify the act.



It looks like that thread has been pulled.

wow, musta be good.
0 Replies
 
coexist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:39 pm
It is most likely that your great great great...grandmother were married at a very young age. That is something people should except.

It was widely practiced and should not be blamed entirely on Religion. That is the point. Most people living today are probably related to somebody who were once married at a young age.

As the article said, it 'were the 'norm' rather than the exception'.

Of course it is not an excuse to do this today. Obviously it is punishable by law.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:45 pm
My ancestors were Vikings, so my great great great great... grandmother was probably some poor villager raped and carried off to Norway by my great, etc. grandfather after he killed her kinfolk and burned down her town.

Thanks for dredging that up...
0 Replies
 
coexist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:48 pm
Setanta wrote:
Chai Tea wrote:
So what is your point?


His point is that he went absolutely ballistic in his first thread at this site when i asked him about Mohammed's many character flaws, but specifically marrying and matrimonially raping Ayesha when she was nine years of age.

He's attempting to justify the act.


It would be the same thing as me saying that your 'great great great grandfather had once raped your great great great grandmother...

Which is true.

That is a fact you must accept. You can't solely accuse other people of something your ancestral connections have also been involved in.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:53 pm
Unless you can provide evidence, that's simply a baseless accusation. You have only provided examples from the Roman Empire. None of my ancestors were Byzantines, nor Greeks, nor in any way affiated with the Roman Empire, early or late.

So you're just peddling bullshit. You have no way of knowing that any such thing occured with any of my ancestors.

Are you ready now to explain why anyone should admire a man who was illiterate, a ne'er-do-well who subsisted by marrying a series of rich widows, and who matrimonially raped a nine-year-old girl?
0 Replies
 
coexist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:59 pm
Setanta wrote:
Unless you can provide evidence, that's simply a baseless accusation. You have only provided examples from the Roman Empire. None of my ancestors were Byzantines, nor Greeks, nor in any way affiated with the Roman Empire, early or late.

So you're just peddling bullshit. You have no way of knowing that any such thing occured with any of my ancestors.

Are you ready now to explain why anyone should admire a man who was illiterate, a ne'er-do-well who subsisted by marrying a series of rich widows, and who matrimonially raped a nine-year-old girl?


You have zero proof.

However, i'm 100% sure about your pedophiliac ancestors. (note: the word 'epidemic') .They're still at it today.

Study: Child sex abuse 'epidemic' in U.S.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/10/child.exploitation/

Laughing
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:01 pm
coexist wrote:
Obviously it is punishable by law.


Not in all countries.


My fathers family came directly from Africa.

My mothers family were right here in America when the white folks invaded them.

My mothers side of the family is Cherokee... I have no doubt that MANY women in my direct blood line were raped, sold, married, tortured..
possibly before they were 8.

My fathers side came from Africa.
I have no doubt that the tribes in Africa are still having what we would consider " inappropriate marriages" based on age alone.

But, I am not going to drudge through history to wear a chip on my shoulder due to my great great great great grandmother ( or whom ever ) being 11 when she was married


in reality there is nothing I can do about it.

Just like there is nothing I can do for the women who were married before they were 10.

THere are still tribes, societies, countries, cities..etc.. that marry young.

Pigmy ( insert weird name here) in the rain forests usually have children by the time they are 10. And that is some what considered a late bloomer.


Someone going to go after them for child abuse??

Just because we as a country think that people should not marry at the age of 10, does not mean that it isn't socially acceptable, and expected in other countries for this practice to happen.

If you are raised in a society that promotes young women as potential wives, and not as children for sexual abuse.. whos to say that the man who is marrying is looking at them as a pedophile would? ANd not as a man who is thinking something along the lines of .. " she will live long for my children.. She will outlive me. There for, she will be around to take care of my ailing parents, our childrens children etc...."


Remove society tabu, and you have a basic ground for other kinds of marriage to stand on .

If a man marries a girl at the age of 10 when he is 30, she will out live him, and continue to provide for their children after his death. That is a way to secure stability for his offspring, his parents, and other parts of his family.

I know a man from Turkey who explained 'young marriages' to me once, and this is often what is seen when someone thinks of marrying a YOUNG woman.



All of that aside, I too think it is a horrid practice and cant stomach the thought of a 30 year old man even CONSIDERING a girl that young as a wife.

But , I was not raised in a society that promotes that, or doesn't think it is wrong.


I dunno..


Confused
0 Replies
 
coexist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:03 pm
Study: Child sex abuse 'epidemic' in U.S.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A study released Monday revealed that between 300,000 and 400,000 U.S. children -- many from middle class homes -- are victims of some type of sexual exploitation every year.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/09/10/child.exploitation/

20th century ? Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:04 pm
I'm still not clear. So your point is that because pedophilia occurs today that it was okay for Mohammed?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:16 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
I'm still not clear. So your point is that because pedophilia occurs today that it was okay for Mohammed?


Quite.


I find it amusing that while the poster states respected christians need to accept this, not one person so far that has posted on this thread is a christian.

Go figure.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:17 pm
coexist wrote:
You have zero proof.


That certainly applies to your specious contentions about my or anyone else's ancestors.

As for your boy Moo-hammed:

Apologia at Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan

Wikipedia article about "Aisha"

Commentary on Ayesha at Everything2-dot-com

Ayatollah Komeini wrote:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.


Source at the Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation web site

And there's plenty more where that came from.

I'm speaking specifically of the actions of Mohammed, as reported by Muslims. No reputable Muslim scholar denies that Mohammed married Ayesha when she was nine years of age.

You're just generalizing on the bais of child abuse reports. If child abuse were common, and accepted norm in the United States, you wouldn't be able to find reports about it. It is not a norm, it is not common, and it is deplored in this society.

So, then, can you explain why we should admire a man who was illiterate, a ne'er-do-well who lived well by marrying a series of rich widows, and who matrimonially raped a nine-year old girl?
0 Replies
 
coexist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:28 pm
Chai Tea wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
I'm still not clear. So your point is that because pedophilia occurs today that it was okay for Mohammed?


Quite.


I find it amusing that while the poster states respected christians need to accept this, not one person so far that has posted on this thread is a christian.

Go figure.


You sound like an Indian Hindu ? 'Chai Tea' ?

A nine-year-old girl weds dog ? Evil or Very Mad

Oh dear!
0 Replies
 
coexist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 03:32 pm
Setanta wrote:
coexist wrote:
You have zero proof.


That certainly applies to your specious contentions about my or anyone else's ancestors.

As for your boy Moo-hammed:

Apologia at Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan

Wikipedia article about "Aisha"

Commentary on Ayesha at Everything2-dot-com

Ayatollah Komeini wrote:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.


Source at the Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation web site

And there's plenty more where that came from.

I'm speaking specifically of the actions of Mohammed, as reported by Muslims. No reputable Muslim scholar denies that Mohammed married Ayesha when she was nine years of age.

You're just generalizing on the bais of child abuse reports. If child abuse were common, and accepted norm in the United States, you wouldn't be able to find reports about it. It is not a norm, it is not common, and it is deplored in this society.

So, then, can you explain why we should admire a man who was illiterate, a ne'er-do-well who lived well by marrying a series of rich widows, and who matrimonially raped a nine-year old girl?


Laughing Brain damage or brain dead Laughing ?
What a load of bull.

Aisha was nineteen at the time of the consummation of her marriage
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 08:15 pm
coexist wrote:
It is most likely that your great great great...grandmother were married at a very young age. That is something people should except.
And, wisely, many do.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Child brides as young as 8 (eight)...
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2025 at 07:41:31