GOP official argues in favor of child marriage: Girls are ‘ripe’ and ‘fertile’
https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/05/gop-official-argues-in-favor-of-child-marriage-girls-are-ripe-and-fertile.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world857
Comments192https://www.nj.com/politics/2024/05/gop-official-argues-in-favor-of-child-marriage-girls-are-ripe-and-fertile.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
TRANS PEOPLE and DRAG QUEENS are BAD for KIDS but ALSO we should be able to MARRY CHILDREN!
-Republicans. All of them!
All school-girls are attracted to gross old men, therefore it's consensual and perfectly ok. And even if it isn't, they're only kids; what do they know? They'll learn to love their husbands in time. And if they don't, who cares? They're only women
I’m at a loss for words. How did this man not get shouted down for saying that out loud and in public?! Those are the thoughts of a predator, which is a position of power.
They’re degenerates.
In the name of honest, good degenerates, I protest these ghouls being lumped in with us. It's perfectly sane to want to have sexual relations with eg. military aircraft, and it is much more natural and socially beneficial than what these despicables imply.
If god didn’t want me to have sex with a C130 he should have made it so damn sexy
Fucking weirdos. SR 71's where it's at.
Reconnaissance aircraft? C'mon man, get your head in the game. Combat aircraft are sexy. Give me a Mirage any day.
More than meets the eye
All those guns and missiles < fast as fuck carrying just some cameras, always watching, invisible to radar. Don't even know it's there.
Werd
AC-130 is into some nastier shit
When you hear that clunk of the 135mm being loaded from the direction of your ass
I despise the image you just made me remember
Always have been, however without facing real consequences they’ve grown way too bold!
When they screamed about the degeneration of Western society it wasn’t a warning it was an announcement. Everything is just projection with these evil cunts
Full context:
I think this can be interpreted as "young people will inevitably get pregnant", not "young people should get pregnant".
Still wrongheaded and cringeworthy, but maybe not as monstrous as it initially looked.
No. That’s even worse.
They’re arguing that children should get married to provide for kids.
Reality: the only people that can afford to support not one but two children…. Are creepy old men.
The argument is that because kids might get preggo, they should be allowed to marry them and make them preggo
That’s fucked up.
I'm not sure he cares if anyone provides for them. Like many in the GOP, he seems to only care about preventing abortions without any thought to what happens next.
He doesn’t.
But he’s not just about preventing abortions.
They’re pedos.
Read as:
Dude's literally complaining that children getting abortions is easier than getting children married. No, that sounds exactly as ghoulish and monstrous as it appeared.
It originally appeared far worse to me, like the ravings of a pedophile.
As it should, given that I have never heard ‘ripe’ used by anyone but pedos.
In my mind there is no generous interpretation of his words as there is a paragraph which makes his statement worse in my opinion.
He wants marriage to 16 year olds to be legal; I don’t believe this is a good thing, especially if he also then argued for parental consent for marriages to adult men. It’s a huge red flag to me, personally.
Yeah but he skipped adoption and the idea that parents can continue to support their daughter even if she's not a virgin. Teens getting married because one of them got pregnant is not the first thing I want people to think of. A teen marrying her statutory rapist should be even farther down the list.
Repubs love voting for rapists and pedophiles.
Have you seen the GOP before?
I’m deeply familiar with them it’s never been in their nature to say the quiet part out loud in front of everyone! Rather it’s projecting their desires on others to vilify them, hopefully their looser tongues sink their ship. 🤢
He’s representing his constituency.
Removed from the delicate snowflake Conservative community lol
Oh, are the /r/Conservative mods here too?
Any conservative board or sub, will immediately be overtaken by fascist snowflakes. I mean who the hell would want to freely mod a conservative sub in their free time? The job description alone requires someone deeply disturbed
I have to disagree! I freely mod a conservative sub in my spare time.
It has definitely not been taken over by fascist snowflakes.
As proof, you are welcome to come and see for yourself: ☆ kbin conservative community ☆
You got me good
Subscribed
I was just thinking it would be fun to mod a conservative sub but take a conservative instead of a regressive viewpoint. Like: "people who do crimes should be held accountable regardless of their cult size," "investing in infrastructure or climate mitigation is huge ROI so we should do a lot of both," "we need regulations to manifest the invisible hand so the market can price things efficiently."
"Any investment by the government in a private company should be done through the purchase of newly issued shares so that the government has voting rights and can push them to take decisions in favour of the long term interests of the country first and foremost."
Right? It's fun as hell. And if they're insolvent that's just a fire sale on the stock. Why are we harming the free market's ability to price things by handing out money?
That would be an interesting idea.. IPO and issuing new shares incurs a 'tax' where say 10% of those shares belong to the government, with the end result that all publicly traded companies are 10% government owned
When they only have two brain cells to share, they have to pass them around communities.
Are people posting lemmy links on reddit? Why?
Can I get banned from there too?
The tired, old trope of "Every accusation is a confession" tends to be true with conservatives.
It’s grounded in disgust over violations of what they perceive to be natural. They see a 16 year old girl having a husband to be natural, they see a 16 year old AFAB boy as being a violation of the natural order. And since they see queerness as a sexual perversion and marriage as the sacred outlet of sexuality they see queer people as pushing sex on teenagers when they’re just encouraging them to settle down and have a family
Legitimately how do conservatives even try to defend this
"Biden has said worse"
"They didn't mean it like that"
"Your source is corrupt"
"They are lying about their age because they are immigrants"
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
The more you get angry, the more they can play victim.
I think you're underestimating the extent to which they really want these things, or their donors do. These issues aren't new, and many of them either trace back to before the founding of the country, or are proxies for other issues which do. They're just feeling bold these days.
It's a brain malfunction where cognitive dissonance apparently feels good.
We are right, you're wrong.
There is a defense for these laws! Which makes it doubly fucked up that I've never once heard a Republican utter it.
(Among other issues, marriage wipes out many legal complications of inheritance.)
Soooo, don't keep us waiting, what is it?
So does adoption. And properly managed wills, trusts, and estates.
Gross.
He believes child marriage should be an option, so abortion isn't an option. I would expect this from 4chan, not a government official.
Well that’s a gross new dog whistle to listen for.
“Freedom-loving couples” is shorthand for “oh shit I knocked up this ripe fertile child I was fucking, and I love freedom, so now I need to marty/own her instead of going to jail.”
Heyyyy 4chan’s b exposes paedos, conservative people DEFEND paedos. There’s a difference there!
I mean, I don’t know what he’s whining about. In most states all he has to do is get the parents’ permission, and he can marry her even if she’s underage. Maybe he’s mad that 12 states ban it completely?
On a side note, why is that a fucking exception in the law!?
I wish he gets every kind of cancer.
Fucking groomers going after kids with nothing but sex on their mind.
It’s either abortion or marriage, it seems. No other alternative. Also, Freedom loving couples? Never knew hippies to be into traditional marriage. Someone please shut this degenerate up for good.
"We need child marriage because it's the only solution to child rape!"
These people aren't even pretending anymore.
Me, who was adopted as a child: "Oh they forgot about adoption again. I'm shocked."
Same here but I NEVER think about that
"Freedom of Marriage".
So these two men who have been together for 10 years can get married?
"No, not like that..."
let's shut them all up for good. the world would turn on a dime within one decade.
I think the GOP intentionally spews some ridiculous shit like this every so often to make their regular shit look less crazy.
That’s not even a conspiracy theory; It’s literally why reps like MTG, Boeburt, and Ted Cruz exist. Their entire goal is to drag the Overton window farther to the right. They’re in safe seats where they don’t need to worry about reelection. So they’re able to spew batshit crazy far-right propaganda, and it makes the republicans in threatened seats look less crazy. Because if you’re in a threatened seat, you need to appear moderate to catch the swing votes. It allows those threatened republicans to continue to quietly vote along party lines without looking like a hardline republican.
Yep, to move the Overton Window to the right. The left should do this as well. If a group of real leftist put out a political platform it would make Biden look like a Republican.
Stuff like that
Where's the extreme position in that list? oO
(I know, to the average US citizen, most of those seem extremist :( )
That's the only extreme one to me. Higher taxes on billionaires is a reasonable take. Government forcibly seizing private property is not.
Honorable mention:
This would be extreme except it's not even possible, other countries are not interested in paying for their own defense.
Except that billions are never private property - you have to steal from people to accumulate that much wealth. Or inherit stolen wealth. Exception: stars, where people voluntarily spend that much money to listen to them / see them. Not an exception: sports stars who get paid from sponsoring / advertisement revenues which in turn are stolen by slave labour / low wages.
Nevertheless, no one needs billions, so taking all private properties above 1 billion still leaves those people with an obscene amount of money that honest work can not save up in a hundred(!) lifetimes.
As for the military exit: While I agree that it's not possible, I disagree on the reason - a sudden shift of military concentrations (e.g. weakening presence in some area) is unfortunately pretty much guaranteed to encourage someone to start an armed conflict somewhere. But that could be addressed in the form of the multi-lateral peace keeping forces mentioned.
Just one thing. You can't ban lobbying. You can and should highly regulate it. But you'd have to put your representatives in an isolation chamber if lobbying was banned. What we need to do is define anything more than a handshake passing between lobbyist and politician as a bribe. But Congress pulled the FBIs fangs decades ago now.
We could ban lobbying for consideration. (We already have a well-developed body of contract law which spells out the scope of consideration.) A lot of the effectiveness of lobbying comes not from donations, gifts, or other bribe-like transactions, but rather from the scope of their presence. For example, petrochemical lobbyists can show up in person every day of the week, exert direct pressure, and even soft influence like providing consultations or "expert opinion" about bills that come before Congress. The people affected by fracking, on the other hand, have lives to live, and the best that they're capable of is calling and writing letters occasionally.
Ban consideration in exchange for lobbying, instead. If an individual wants to go to D.C. and lobby on behalf of the petrochemical industry for no personal benefit whatsoever (not even covertly), great, that's democracy in action. They'd be on a level playing field with the rest of us.
Interesting... lol
But in all seriousness, I'd say the number of reps we have it wouldn't be impractical for a yearly complete IRS audit for each of them that has real consequences like losing your position, repaying victims fully, and/or going to prison.
Oh absolutely.
You're just describing the DSA
Ya, I wish they were more effective. I'd also like to see more from the less authoritarian side of the left.
Very hard to be authoritarian when you're at the bottom of the economic totem pole. Are you sure you're not just talking about the police, writ large?
I was speaking of the general authoritarian vs libertarian divide in the left. It's not about power excercised, it's about the power some on the left feel entitled to exercise to achieve their goals.
Everyone on the left wants to make the world a better place, eliminate hunger and homelessness, all that good stuff.
--> The terminology is confusing though as different groups use different words or definitions.
On the one side you have your (authoritarian) "socialists", and "communists" those who believe that order must be imposed from above by a powerful government and this government. Good social behavior is coerced by implied threat of force. This government of course is supposed to be and remain benevolent and always controlled by well-meaning socialists to ensure a functional socialist system. The DSA fits in here on the lighter side, "tankies" fit here on the extreme authoritarian end.
On the other side you have your anarchist types (who are also typically non-authoritarian communists), those who feel that any entity powerful enough to control society will inevitably end up controlled by the worst type of people (because this is what's happened in every state/government that has ever existed) and the we should look to non-state and non-coercive solutions.
This reads more like a right-wing interpretation of leftism than any kind of leftist internal critique.
That's an Orwellian critique. But Orwell was a Burmese cop turned UK intelligence official under Churchill. The Animal Farm / 1984 view of left-libertarianism is far more a right-wing propaganda critique intended to discourage any form of organizing or collective action. Hell it might as well be lifted directly from the CIA Guidebook on how to disrupt a meeting rules 1, 7, and 8.
And, in the end, the reflexive flight from any kind of organizational structure demonstrably doesn't work. You can have fully decentralized entirely non-violent organically assembled student protests on college campuses, and you'll still be accused of operating as violent, bigoted, fifth columnist dupes of wicked foreign governments. Meanwhile, you're squaring off against a heavily financed, tightly managed, rigid state hierarchy that can act with impunity in the face of a fractured and easily infiltrated opposition.
The foundation of left-anarchism is the cultivation of networks of trust. Not a reactionary fear of authority. When anarchists trust one another, they can and do form hierarchies and develop party discipline and even form state structures once they've achieved sufficient degrees of success. And its these trust networks that allow a community of anarchists to preserver after decades under siege by militant capitalists.
Ya, this is the response I always get from tankies.
I think you mean Abolish Cars
I don't think it makes sense to completely abolish cars. There will always be transport needs where public transport, trains, or bicycles just don't fit the bill. There will be car and racing enthusiasts for the next century (assume we don't collapse). The car industry needs to be reduced by 99% though, mostly transforming into maintaining existing cars rather than producing new ones.
Some people will want to or need to live or work where public transit systems would be impractical to build. You can't spend 80 million dollars on a transit system out in the sticks and you can't force everyone to live like sardines next to a bus stop.
I wish it was some strategic play to manipulate public opinion. But this is sincerely what white nationalists who have ingested too much Great Replacement Theory honestly think.
Teenage girls are just baby-making factors for the "correct" ethnicity. Everything about our civilization hinges on the level of pigmentation in our skin and the shape of our foreheads/lips. We need to be prepared for a War To End All Wars, and that means churning out an army of Ubermensch to combat the savage hordes.
It isn't an act. This is what they sincerely believe. 20 years of post-9/11 hysteria and migrant-bashing has produced a party dead set on doing Nazi shit all over again, but from the inside of the country that won the last big war.
20 years ago that was their plan, but now they used the BS to control the masses so long, and so thoroughly, that the rubes that the were playing have taken control of the party.
See: Tea Party Republicans.
They absolutely are what happened when the rubes got tired of the lip service and demanded action.
Now, if only the radicals of the left could do the same, grow tired of the lip service, and hijack the Democratic Party.
Let’s set aside morality, because that’s also wrong. It’s factually incorrect. You want someone to die in childbirth? Knock them up at 16. Early 20s are the actual reproductive prime.
Whoa whoa whoa...he didn't say ripe, fertile and likely to survive child birth... this is pretty consistent with thier priorities.
Yup. Whenever someone tries to justify underage marriage with “most fertile period” or “it’s always been the norm”, you know they’re a pedo. Teenage pregnancies are risky because the pelvis hasn’t fully developed, and the girl is more likely to suffer severe depression as well. Most fertile age is more like 19-32 not 12-18. Also, I live in the UK and marriage records kept by the church from the 1400s show the vast majority of girls married for the first time in their early twenties, not teen years :)
Yeah I looked up my family on the Mormon genealogy site and was surprised how many of the women married around 28-30 years old. Certainly not as teens and I really was surprised. Like, I as a modern woman had kids younger than a good chunk of my ancestresses.
Truth. Marriages at a super young age were not normal outside of nobility doing it for political alliance reasons and even then the general advice were not to try for a pregnancy because your risks of killing a young spouse were astronomically high. However the concept was popularized by fiction that basically wanted to trade on the idea of a gritty nasty medieval age where the darkness of the human soul cam be laid bare and how mankind has evolved into a kinder more civilized place... basically the same thematic itch as Warhammer grimdark logic.
In regards to the whole "darkness of the human soul" thing it really doesn't stack. People just want to believe their personal id (as in the Freudian concept, not "identity" ) is more universal than it is.
Remember: It’s not paedophilia if it comes from the Bible.
"Remember, its not pedophilia if it makes me come" - Republicans.
"Fuck dem kids"
-Republicans
Instructions very unclear. Are trans people pedophiles or not??? /s
Idk, need more information.
Which Senator are they having sex with?
I know it's a joke but it still feels like lampshading a transphobic statement. One day it would be nice to go through a comment section about stuff like this and not be personally and explicitly reminded that people draw a connection between transness and wanting to do unspeakable shit to kids. It hurts even when it is sarcasm.
...well being that I'm trans...
Yup and so am I. It's not a free pass for either of us.
You are free to feel that way
Relevant Classic Trevor Moore Song:
Songs of Olden Times https://youtu.be/l_fIWlu5zuo
Let us see if it shows up at the GOP convention...
What the actual fuck.
And they accuse us of being groomers
Yo United States, please save your country from these crazies.
I’m voting as hard as I can, but they’re making it as difficult as possible and even some of our leaders advocate for ignoring the votes.
If you’re voting, you’re not the problem. We’re failing at the polls and then complaining of the repercussions for their entire term.
Yo I live in California. I can’t vote for people in Mississippi.
Yet somehow conservatives think they can point at liberals as the “groomers.”
Because whatever disgusting, vile thoughts run through their heads is what they assume others must be doing.
Some call it projection... but it's projection because these are things they are OBSESSED with. They are so sick and lacking empathy and experience that can't imagine that others genuinely think differently than they do. Every accusation is an admission.
As always, it is all about Projection.
Ew. Ew, ew, ew. Gross in ways I didn't think an elected official could get away with in public.
Someone needs to do a wellness check on his kids, if he has any. Again... Ew.
With a statement like this, it's more likely he has grandkid-kids.
I just threw up a little in my mouth.
0.0
The exceptions in the law:
If the child is pregnant
If a judge okays it
If the parents okay it
Nothing wrong with this picture, nope, nope, nope. No abuse could possibly happen with this setup.
Oh most of those states don't even require a pregnancy. Just for the adults in the situation to approve of it. Technically the kid too but that's probably the easiest part.
What's amazing to me is the absolute caterwauling from grown men in the Republican party when you suggest you should have to be 18 to get married. Like that 75 year old guy is worried he won't be able to marry a high school girl.
LPT: If you have to sleep with the judge to get his approval, do it before the proceedure
This is very on-brand.
Remember though, there are bad actors and propagandists here that will try to convince you that both sides are the same.
They’re provably not.
VOTE LIKE LIVES DEPEND ON IT. Because they do.
Someone's certainly does, and you won't be the one picking whom.
Edit: I'm not sure what I meant by this. Needed a nap.
Are all conservatives disgusting, or just most?
It's an angler fish thing. Sometimes you see the nightmare lurking in the darkness, but usually you get the "some of the nicest people you'll ever meet!" facade.
Probably most. You'd see 1000s of articles every day non-stop, if 20%+ of people were this disgusting.
The fact that you can still be surprised is proof that most of them aren't this disgusting.
Idk man, they have to be some level of disgusting to keep voting these people in.
All. But as with most things, it's a spectrum.
Some are just a bit yucky.
Still, make sure to wash your hands.
Republican men can’t attract Republican women. So….
The issue attracting republican women, it's controlled republican girls. By marrying their female children at a young age, they've reduced their ability to escape the indoctrination cycle.
That and they want to be able rape post prepubescent children legally when their men hit midlife crisis age.
Yo what the fuck
And that’s just ONE official that is saying that aloud for the press to hear. Imagine how many of his colleagues, just as sick and twisted as him, are of the same opinion and just not saying anything.
There is no good Republican.
Something tells me the phrase A.R.A.B. isn't going to catch on
As problematic as it would be... You know most of them would abso-fucking-lutely hate it.
Which highlights the, almost assured, possibility that they would hate being called arab more than bastards.
Evangelical Christians specially believe we are the devil.
It’s perfect
A.R.A.B.
N.G.R. also sounds racist...
child rape party. party of people who want to rape children, want to ensure that child rapists do not face consequences, and want to ensure that raped children cannot escape the consequences of being raped.
Pedo party
One of the few parties deserving of Jim Jones fruit punch.
Yet complete silence from the Q anon community.
They're cheering it on.
His actual quote in the article is even worse
But the people wearing kink gear at pride events are the real predators!!!!!!!!!!!1111
Dude just said the quite part out load. If the GOP gets full control over the government, legalized child marriage would be rolled out in days.
Child marriage is already legal in quite a few states with parental permission. And there are a lot of terrible parents.
Of course it’s a crusty old white guy.
It’s a total coincidence that they want to force little girls to give birth too.
And I'm sure he was drooling a little when he said it
GOP is always projecting on other groups. People have to stop showing them any form of respect and treat them like lowlifes they are.
Keeping birth rates high is hugely important for capitalism to maintain its endless growth of wealth.
Indeed. The Far Right’s Campaign to Explode the Population
I'm gonna puke
Groo... Wait for it... Ooomers!
Tell me you're psycho-sexually underdeveloped without telling me you're psycho-sexually underdeveloped
Well, we know where his mind is.
For contrast the legal marriage age in Saudi Arabia is 18.
house of Reps or Rapes ?
Oh hey it's that joke I made earlier. Fucking wonderful.
I see they are using the tactics of religion - get them young.
Imagine this guy marrying your
daughterchild 🤢More importantly, is this some sort of ploy to get the angry young men vote?
My sis is 2 decades younger than me. She now the age our mom gave birth me to me. The idea of teen pregnancy kind of make me want to cry to think about it. Just so sad.
WHAT THE FUCK
wtf I thought this was the onion, I had to read where this came from like three times.
wtf..
This guy:
Pieces of shit like this aren't worth the price of a bullet to put them out of our misery.
They are not, but I'll gladly buy all the bullets required to keep children safe from religious idiots and republikkklowns.
Completely agree.
Probably on the latest version of Epstein's list.
Dude's not nearly rich or connected enough to hang with the Wall Street freaks or the Silicon Valley geeks. He's probably raping his way through his local church group, though.
Is this a headline from 200 years ago??
Ugh, but guys palestine...
Turns out the reality behind that Shane Gillis bit was that they were trying to go even lower
Where does the GOP get these guys?
In China, the phrase 豆蔻年华 refers to a girl of 13-14. Why? Because a famous poet likened the appearance of a child prostitute's developing vagina to a cardamom flower. Apparently that was totally fine, romantic even. I feel bad for the girl.
Anyway here's the flower:
So after searching a bit, "豆蔻年华" appears to translate to "cardamom years".
In case anyone else thought that the post above wasn't terribly clear.
thanks, i was curious about the translation, but didnt plan to search that myself without knowing what it meant!
Fire that pervert right now
How does the New Hampshire House of Reps have 400 members?
Because a single representative represents a lot fewer people their.
Dudes anthem is Into the Night by Benny Mardones.
The lyrics are so creepy, but the music slaps
Why? WHY WHY WHY
-Jess Edwards
The parts of the world where violent crime is lowest have the highest mean age of motherhood. Women in Australia and the UK, for example, wait until after 30 before having their first child.
The parts of the world where violent crime is the highest have the lowest mean age of motherhood.
Nobody should be encouraging pregnancy before age 30.
I don't think your conclusion is correct and a correlation between the two numbers is by far not enough to assume a causality between the two of them. I would rather assume there are a lot of other factors being involved. Like e.g. the education system, especially the amount of years spent on education before starting to work, the general wealth of the society, the social securities provided the government, like e.g. health care, unemployment support etc.
Exactly. It's kinda hard to spend years on education, years building a nest egg, when you haven't spent all that many years alive.
The correlation is through socioeconomic conditions, correct. Older parents have worked longer, saved more, and can provide greater opportunities to their children, which in turn creates a more prosperous society that values education, social security, etc.
People should just stop trying to interfere with people's private life in general. Get pregnant or don't, how is that a concern to me?
As long as it's two consenting adults, which should be obvious, but sadly apparently isn't.
Because every society where the average person starts a family before age 22 is described as "developing" or "impoverished" and every society where the average person starts a family after the age of 28 is described as "industrialized".
I challenge you to find an exception.
You are swapping correlation and causation to some degree. A country does not become industrialized by people starting to have kids at a later age. Rather, people start getting kids when their circumstances allow it: in industrialized countries, you rely less on children to provide for you when old, as there hopefully are social systems in place or you can save up on your own. Downside is, without social systems you also have to provide for yourself at old age, meaning people need to build up more savings before they feel ready for the financial burden a child is for around 20 years.
In developing countries, children often get little support above bare necessities and start contributing to the household income at a much earlier age, even before hitting their teens.
There is a theory that supports this:
Declines in fertility have been observed after a country has become industrialized. Not only did fertility decline, but the children people were having were generally 'of higher quality'.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE1751
This comes from Wiki, and this particular statement currently has 3 citations if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_growth_theory
That last take comes off as weird, ngl. Just let people do what they want.
I think you're reading more into my statement than what I actually said.
This thread is about a GOP official encouraging child pregnancy:
I don't think we should just let that GOP official do what he wants.
I think your criticism is about reproductive rights: that we should leave individuals to make their own decisions. I agree.
However, when the question comes up as to the best time to start a family, there is an answer: "after 30".