[Jemian]

I hate to disagree but it sounds like the groom failed to pay the brideprice. It is against the law in California, but it isn’t the moral outrage that many are thinking. If the groom at age 18 has enough resources to pay the brideprice, than more-than-likely he has enough to sustain the bride and theoritically she won’t be still dependent on her parents. IMO, it is not morally wrong but culturally different.

No. My daughters have no such brideprice attached to them although we were once offered, or at least her brother (the freeper known as Jemians Terror) was offered, 7 pigs for our oldest (the freeper known as LionsDaughter). JemiansTerror politely referred the suitor to LionsDaughter’s even larger father.

[OneWingedShark]

>I hate to disagree but it sounds like the groom failed to pay the brideprice. It is against the law in California, but it isn’t the moral outrage that many are thinking.

I agree with you; brideprices, dowries, status and so forth have been considerations/factors in marriage, even in western culture, for far longer than hey haven’t.

[MarkL]

I hate to disagree but it sounds like the groom failed to pay the brideprice.

"How much for the women?"

"Your women. I want to buy your women"

Mark

[metmom]

It is against the law in California, but it isn’t the moral outrage that many are thinking.

Selling your 14 year old daughter for food isn't morally objectionable?

Treating people like property isn't a moral outrage?

The issue should be the moral outrage FIRST, and the fact that it's illegal is secondary.

What the heck is wrong with you?