Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do conservatives lack the ability to remember the past or are they willfully ignorant

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 01:57 PM
Original message
Do conservatives lack the ability to remember the past or are they willfully ignorant
of even recent history in their life time? I am having a debate about laws vs moral laws. The conservative seems to think that laws against adults getting with kids is a moral law thats been around since 1776. If memory serves me right didn't laws against sex with children come out in the 1990's? I know in some southren states girls as young as 12 were allowed to marry anyone reguardless of their age. Plus the fact the law was not a moral law but based on the grounds of harm to the young person. Anyhow the debate was about the nit wit that wants to say birth control is a form of abortion and the conservative is trying to bring up that we already have moral laws on the books so its ok for moral laws to be made. LOL got to love these deep debates at times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. (Rimshot)


That and it's so much easier to keep f***ing up instead of rethinking your actions and possibly admitting you were wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Laws based on moral opinion held by one religion
but not necessarily another should be off the books.

All religions agree on theft and murder and variations along that line, so those laws are safe.

However, the nanny state laws that try to outlaw sin are doomed to failure and only make sin more attractive than it already is, creating black markets and criminal gangs and all sorts of problems we wouldn't have if the religious would just realize the only morality they can ever control is their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. We haven't been able to marry that young in these "southren"
states in decades.

For the record, the US has no federal law against child marriage, but ALL states have restricted marriage to at least 16 or above (16-18 with parental consent). Anyone younger than 16 must petition the court. This is true in nearly ALL states, "southren" or not.

(Sorry, the South-bashing has to be corrected in even its most subtle forms or it festers - your main topic was actually quite interesting, but let's not blame all things odd on us Southerners. OK?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. No offense ment to southreners my friend................
I had an aunt that married a 67 yo when she was 13, she was from Alabama. She was my uncles second wife btw, they married in 1960 after her hubby passed on leaving her with 3 younguns at the ripe old age of 25. I also know that in the late 1970's some southren states still had parental consent laws with girls under 16, a friend of mine who was 21 in 79 and had a shot gun wedding with a 14 yo in a southren state, I think it was Ark. But my memory isn't what it used to be. I know the south has progressed since then and wasn't south bashing in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. Willfully lack the ability to remember
Ignorance is bliss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Dunno 'bout that.
Ever met a happy skinhead neonazi?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. they are just evil
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. Willingly or unwillingly, they are still ignorant.....nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. In the early 1900s, it was probably OK for marriages for kids as young as 14 or even 13.
Child marriages were only recently outlawed relatively speaking, and I doubt there were laws against child marriage back in 1776. They were more concerned about other things then, such as invasion by foreign European powers and developing domestic industry instead of relying on European powers for manufactured goods.

Anyone ever read Romeo and Juliet? They were both teenagers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. kinda common for girls to marry at 16, 17 or 18 even 15
but not much younger that I have seen, going back to the 1600s in America. And generally not for young men. Most young men didn't have the means to start their own families until they were in their mid twenties. Sometimes 15 year old males would leave home and work as farmhands, but not that often in my research. More often even the married young man is still living on the home farm with either his or her parents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Most girls were taken by much older grooms, usually in their late 20s or even older.
At least, that was the way things went for a long time.

Juliet was supposed to be married off in the play, and Shakespeare, for whatever reasons, made her 13 years old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. not most, although it was fairly common
I think the 8 children of Joseph Loomis (born 1590) were more representative. The ages of (groom, bride) - (31, 25), (27, 23), (24, 21) , (48, 18) but for her 2nd marriage (21, 31), (27, 27), (29, unknown) and for his 2nd marriage (39, 18), (27, 15) (25, 18). Only 3 out of ten marriages there have huge age gaps and in only one of ten is the bride under 17. That sort of pattern seems more typical, a bride from 18-24 and a groom 1-8 years older. In my research on Catholics in Germany the bride is almost always over age 20, at least before 1805. I cannot say what was going on in England, nor anywhere else pre 1600s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. I cannot find information on the history
but I am quite sure it goes back way before 1990. This book says

http://books.google.com/books?id=-u6OgdOpN9AC&pg=PA548&...

"beginning in the 1880s the Women's Christian Temperance Union began a massive drive to protect adolescent girls from sex, launching a nationwide effort to raise the age of consent (which was as low as 10 in some states)."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
14. Ahistoricism is central to being conservative....
If they acknowledged things changing in the past, they wouldn't be able to argue for the status quo *now*.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
16. They have a simple minded view of the world
They may have an inkling that it is more complex than that, but they can't handle that, so repeatedly insist that it is simpler than it is, as a way of comforting themselves that they are in complete control.

1776 indicates he wants to believe the good old U.S. of A. stopped that scourge of child sex!

Moral laws are just moral laws, if some of them coincide with the laws that are passed, that doesn't mean they are all passable and Constitutional.

Equating birth control with abortion simply abuses the English language. When they equate abortion with murder they are doing the same thing. The reason there is a separate term for abortion is that it is a different thing. It was against the law at one time, too. Now it's not. Murder still is. Murder is a different thing.

Conservatives believe they can make things the way they want by redefining words.

They also do this with the word "socialist." You can give them dictionary definitions of the world, but they still insist on changing the meaning of the word so that it includes liberal Democrats in the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC