What would you want? The physical unsafety and material deprivation of a refugee camp; or taking a chance at a better life with a husband who offers you a way out of there?

Sure, you may want to have instead 3, 5, 10 different options. But when you have the options you have, it is just wrong to take one away because it isn't the absolute optimal one.

I was talking about choice for the girl to make the option, optimal or not. I do not see you addressing that point at all, and if you truly do believe the fathers should be making these choices, than shame on you. Both as a GLer and as a youth liberationist.

shouldn't you, as a GLer, be questioning the situation that will be endured by the girls in these marriages instead of simply single-mindedly cheerleading the measure and declaring it "civilized" solely because it legally allows such a union?

It is an improvement over being displaced, exiled, homeless, AND deprived of this way out.

It sure is more civilized than sending them back to the place they're escaping from because the marriage isn't recognized, as the rest of Europe and the US would do.

My main concern, again, is this: Where is the choice of the girl in all of this? I think you should probably acknowledge whether the girl's choice in the matter is a valid one in your argument before we proceed. If it is, then all other considerations can and should be taken into consideration. That is a much bigger concern to me than whether or not any given option is "optimal" or "ideal."

The only way to know is to open the choice for them.

I'm not arguing against any type of option for girls to consider.

Am I concerned that some of these may be forced marriages? Yes. But it is absurd to pretend that by banning marriage then the girls who would be forced into marriage by their families wouldn't be abused in other ways or otherwise deprived of opportunities.

Opening up the opportunity for another type of wrong doesn't negate a previous type of potential wrong. It simply adds a greater range of bad possibilities. So no, I will not support forced marriage, or think it's somehow "better" than other bad "alternatives." Moreover, I will only support child marriage if there are measures to at least minimize the chances that any girls are being forced into it (which is different from simple familial pressure, as Baldur noted; I am talking about the girl being something told by her father like, "You have no choice in the matter, so shut up and get in that wedding dress and over to that aisle or you will be severely punished! I know what's best, not you!")

I am also not going to argue about the "lesser or greater" forms of abuse. Compulsion to do something one does not want to do if they themselves are not willing to consider the option is a form of abuse, and is no better than any other types of abuse. This is the same type of lack of agency for girls that we supposedly oppose the antis over, only in the opposite direction. We shouldn't be supporting it simply because it so happens to be an abusive situation that allows us access to girls rather than denying it under all possible circumstances. The nature of the circumstances under which we have said access is important, and we GLer's should consider it so.

It is also absurd to assume that all marriages will be forced.

Again, I make no such assumption. I want this to be a major consideration. As a youth liberationist and a GLer, I do not support either the compulsion of any course of action for a girl, nor the outright banning of any possible option of her simply because she is a girl (and not a woman). You know I'm no fan of monogamous marriage, especially not for GLer's and younger people, but I would never support the compulsory banning of that option.

But I'll be sure to tell you when I ask my new wife!

Stop it. Can't you just get another cat? (And yes, do not think I forgot about that one cat you used to have).