Posted on 01/23/2005 11:02:03 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
At the center of the cases is the Romani culture, brought here in recent years by immigrants from the Balkan region, people mostly from Bosnia or Albania. Though the practice often skirts the law here, the tradition of Romani girls marrying in their teens is for some families so important they resist changing their ways. Even with their parents' consent, teens cannot legally marry in North Dakota or Minnesota until they turn 16.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
Just 100 years ago, girls in this country routinely married at 14 or so; boys at 16. Now, people of both genders are waiting until their mid-to-late twenties before marrying.
I wonder what effects on our society have occurred due to this change?
Bump for later.
In ancient time, people died a lot earlier. There is no urgent need to get married at a young age anymore.
So basically, it's only the muslim culture we are supposed to respect and let them do what they want, every body else has to leave their customs & traditions at the gate...not that I agree with girls marrying at 14 & 16, but come on..these feminists can't tell one culture they are wrong and then turn around and cow tow to another, and ram the "respect for diversity" argument down our throats.
First question, why are they even here? Aren't these people also known as gypsies and famous for their scams? And why is Social Services involved when the bride price is $20K USD -- doesn't that indicate that the family has enough cash and should not be on welfare?
100 years ago most people lived on farms...
We must keep our laws, and vigorously prosecute these stone age idiots.
If they are all allowed to prey upon the young and vulnerable, their cultures will never come into the 21st century.
What concerns me more is: what detrimental effect has been had on our society and/or culture due to the rapidity of the change? I think possibly many.
How many of the cultures where this custom is still practiced have signifigantly lower lifespans?
True: and there was a subsequent need for people to work that land; therefore, there was a need for many children; therefore you married young and reproduced often.
However, by that same rationale, with the longer lifespan, we need to be having more kids to pay for the retirement pensions for the increasing population age. Therefore we should be having more kids and marrying younger....
It's a complex question, with the easy answers a little to pat for me.
The only questions worth discussing are the difficult ones....
Family structure was different as well. There were extended families with several older generations living either living under the same roof or nearby that were capable of assuming some of the child care duties.
My prediction for the future is a return to the extended multigenerational family unit out of economic necessity...I'll also predict that this will significantly lower the divorce rate from its current 50% mark.
Two changes:
Fornication has become a necessity, and unmarried single motherhood has become inevitable.
The total birth rate declines and the rate of unwed motherhood goes up.
I've tried the "fornication as necessity" approach in my younger days. The girls didn't buy it...
Think about it FRiend; your prediction is well underway.
As 100 years ago, it is economic necessity that drives this. You can already see where it is not uncommon for 3 - 4 generations of welfare families live under one roof, and I have seen lots of "mother-in-law suites" in recent years. The problem in the former case, is none of those generations is providing much family support; you and I pay for that. In the latter, health care and housing costs have made it necessary for families to come together. Economics again, and it is logical that you will see this trend first in the lower economic strata.
Let me say here that I would be outraged to see my little girl (2 months old) get married at 14, or 16, or even 18: but I have only been married for 2.5 years and am now 37 years old. And she is my first child! Most of my friends were just getting married in their late 20's and started kids in their early 30's. I will have only 2 children most likely. None of my friends has more than 3.
My mother and father married at 17 and 19 respectively; and my eldest sibling was born before my mother's 19th birthday. There are 7 of us brothers and sisters. My grandmother and grandfather were 15 and 18 respectively - first child born within 1.5 years. 9 kids total.
Like I said: I wonder what other mysteries can be found in our cultural evolution.
But most of them do at age 18, not to mention age 27.
Postponing marriage into the mid-to-late twenties engenders a whole raft of social and emotional pathology for teenagers and men and women in their early twenties.
I think that was clee1's point.
Give that man a ceegar!
It makes sense that the extended family would begin to show up in the lower income brackets, but I doubt those extended families will resemble the middle class extended family for a lot of reasons, including the pathologies of drugs, etc. that rampant in housing projects and other low income areas.
It was a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.