You are on page 1of 13

#Jocelyn alcuizar

Barangay Tubod, Iligan City envisioned


being a God-centered, crime-free and
well-developed community of diverse
people living harmoniously and working
towards a sustainable economic, social
and environmental growth.
The chairman that never sleep! On call
24 hours a day doing her duty sincerely!
June 13 brgy tubod flag ceremony wd
station 4 chief, PS INSP Allan S Abalde,
brgy. Tubod council headed by kap Joy
Alcuizar with the 3 video carera
confiscated at prk. Lakambini turned
over to precinct 4 for further
investigation!
Women staff of the Barangay
celebrating IWD at the island of Bohol...
Signing of Memorandum of
Agreement(MOA) and Deed of Donation
for the Activation of Brgy. Tubod Fire
Substation .Nov. 26,2015 @ South 1- A,
Central School
Happening this morning @ Iligan City
Public Plaza,Capt. Jocelyn Y. Alcuizar
with Rosevi "Queeni" Belmonte for the
childrens month culmination program of
Daycare center Tubod, I.C
Now happening during flag ceremony @
brgy. Hall Tubod , Turn over of 17 sack
of rice for PWD's assistance, Capt
Jocelyn Yap Alcuizar and PWD Pres.
Rolly Macalisang
Acting City Mayor Ruderic C. Marzo and
Acting City Vice Mayor Providencio

Abragan Jr. & Rosevi "Queeni"


Belmonte together with Capt. Jocelyn
Yap Alcuizar , Induction Ceremony and
turn over of Handheld radio for the
Integrated Community Peacemaker
Scout Organization @Prk. Falcata Hills,
Tubod I.C.
Turn-over of 21 sacks rice to brgy.
Tubod federation of women as livelihood
from Cong. Varf Belmonte
Anti-Rabies Vaccination , Oct 11, 2015 ,
One La Salle wd Capt. Jocelyn Yap
Alcuizar @ South 1-A, Central School
Capt. Jocelyn Y. Alcuizar ,activities :
construction of tubod fire substation ,
tubod womens rice livelihood,inter brgy.
Basketball tournament,medical
mission,yearly operation tuli,lugaw
feeding,boys & girls Scout
insurance,PWD whellchair benefits &
plastic chairs for senior citizens
association,libreng haircut,yearly Tesda
scholars NCII
Environmental consultative meeting on
the construction of Robinsons Mall here
in the barangay.
Star Closing program on
entrepreneurship training,3rd batch
Commission on Human Rights staff
visited my Barangay for an interview
with the parents of the late PO2 Chum
Agabon,one of the fallen 44...
Rice Dispersal,a seed capital of Hon.
City Coun. Roy Openiano to Brgy.
Tubod Women's Association...

#deathpenalty
5 Arguments For And Against The Death
Penalty
The existence of the death penalty in
any society raises one underlying
question: have we established our
justice systems out of a desire for
rehabilitation, or out of a desire for
retribution? The lister has set out to
examine both sides of the debate over
the ethics and legality of capital
punishment, especially in the US, and
chooses neither side in any of the
following entries. They are not
presented in any meaningful order.
Against: It Teaches the Condemned
Nothing
What is the purpose of punishment?
We take our lead from one major
source, our parentsand they no doubt
took their lead from their own parents.
When your young child emulates what
he just saw in a Rambo movie, you give
him a stern lecture about what is real
and what is not, what is acceptable in
real life and what is not. When your
child tries some crazy acrobatic move
off a piece of furniture and hurts himself,
you might spank him to be sure that he
remembers never to do it again.So
when the child grows up, breaks into a
home, and steals electronics, he gets
caught and goes to prison. His time in
prison is meant to deprive him of the
freedom to go where he wants
anywhere in the world, and to do what
he wants when he wants. This is the
punishment, and most people do learn

from it. In general, no one wants to go


back. But if that child grows up and
murders someone for their wallet or just
for fun, and they are in turn put to death,
they are taught precisely nothing,
because they are no longer alive to
learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a
person by killing him or her.
For: It is the Ultimate Warning
Nevertheless, if would-be criminals
know undoubtedly that they will be put
to death should they murder with
premeditation, very many of them are
much less inclined to commit murder.
Whether or not would-be criminals are
wary of committing the worst crime is an
importantand probably impossible
question to answer. Murder still
happens very frequently. So some
criminals disregard this warning for
various reasons. But the fact does
remain that many criminals who ride the
fence on committing murder ultimately
decide to spare the victims life.In a
larger sense, capital punishment is the
ultimate warning against all crimes. If
the criminal knows that the justice
system will not stop at putting him to
death, then the system appears more
draconian to him. Hence, he is less
inclined to break and enter. He may
have no intention of killing anyone in the
process of robbing them, but is much
more apprehensive about the possibility
if he knows he will be executed. Thus,
there is a better chance that he will not
break and enter in the first place.
Against: It Does Not Dissuade

If the foreknowledge of any punishment


is meant to dissuade the criminal from
committing the crime, why do people still
murder others? The US had a 2012
murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000
meaning that nearly 15,000 people were
victims of homicide that year. Capital
punishment does not appear to be doing
its job; it doesnt seem to be changing
every criminals mind about killing
innocent people. If it does not dissuade,
then it serves no purpose. The warning
of life in prison without parole must
equally dissuade criminals.
For: It PThere are many victims of a
single murder. The criminal gets caught,
tried, and convicted, and it is understood
that the punishment will be severe. But
the person he has killed no longer has a
part to play in this. Unfortunately, the
murderer has deprived his family and
friends of a loved one. Their grief
begins with the murder. It may not end
with the murderers execution, but the
execution does engender a feeling of
relief at no longer having to think about
the ordeala feeling which often fails to
arise while the murderer still lives on.A
system in place for the purpose of
granting justice cannot do so for the
surviving victims, unless the murderer
himself is put to death.rovides Closure
for Victims
Against: It Is Hypocritical
It is strange that a nation would
denounce the practice of murder by
committing the very same act. By doing
so, were essentially championing the
right to life by taking it from others. True

as a whole, we are not murderers,


and understandably refuse to be placed
in the same category as someone like
Ted Bundy. But to many opponents of
the death penalty, even Ted Bundy
should have been given life without
parole. The fact that he murdered at
least thirty peoplefor the mere reason
that he enjoyed doing ithas no bearing
on the hypocrisy, the flagrant
dishonesty, of the declaration that such
a person deserves to be killed because
he had no right to kill. If the goal of any
punishment, as stated above, is to teach
us those things we should not do, then
the justice system should more
adequately teach the criminality of killing
by refusing to partake in it.
For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals
Fear
If you read about Bundys life in prison,
waiting nine years for his execution, you
will see that the man exhausted every
single legal point he and his lawyers
could think of, all in an attempt to spare
him execution. He defended himself in
prison interviews by blaming
pornography for causing his
uncontrollable teenage libido, and for
causing him to think of women as
objects and not humans. He attempted
to have his death sentence commuted
to life without parole by explaining that it
was all pornographys fault, and that had
it never existed, he would have been a
good person.When that didnt work, he
pretended to come clean and tell police
where the bodies of unfound victims
were, so that their families could have

closure. He never once admitted that


he was a bad person, and just before
his execution, he claimed that he hadnt
done anything wrong. It was obvious
that he feared being put to death. He
did his best to avert it. This means that
he did not fear life in prisonat least not
as much as he feared capital
punishment. He had many opportunities
to kill himself in his cell, but he did not.
He might have done it a month before
his execution, when all hope for
clemency was gonebut he was afraid
of death. How many would-be
murderers have turned away at the last
second purely out of fear of the
executioners needle?
Against: It Is Always Cruel
In the end, though, death is always at
least a little painful. Perhaps the only
truly peaceful way to go is while asleep
but no one has ever come back to say
that this didnt hurt. If your heart stops
while you sleep, it is certainly possible
that your brain will recognize a problem
and wake you up at the very moment
when it is too late. So what we cannot
help but let Nature do, we ought not to
force on others for any reason. If we do
so, it might be fair to say that we lawabiding people, who embody the justice
system, are guilty of equal cruelty
towards criminals who commit murder.
The United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, for one,
dictates that no one shall be subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.In
the US, there are five legal methods of

execution: lethal injection, electrocution,


firing squad, hanging, and gassing.
These are all intended to be as painless
as possible, but they all run the risk of
accidents. John Wayne Gacy, who was
not afraid of death, was executed via
lethal injectionthe most efficient, riskfree method. Yet his death did not go as
planned.The sodium thiopental entered
his bloodstream successfully and put
him to sleep. The pancuronium bromide
was then administered successfully to
paralyze his diaphragm. This would
cause asphyxiation if the next chemical,
potassium chloride, were not
immediately administered to stop the
heart. But the potassium chloride had
congealed in its tube before Gacy was
brought into the room. He was
unconscious and unable to breathe for
several minutes while the last drugs
tube was changed. His death took
eighteen minutes, instead of the usual
seven. And whether or not he was in
great pain is impossible to determine.
For: It Is Not Always Cruel
Its true that cruelty should not be legally
toleratedand the five methods listed
above are very efficient in killing the
condemned before he or she is able to
feel it. Granted, we are not able to ask
the dead whether or not they felt their
necks snap, or the chemicals burn
inside thembut modern American
executions very rarely go awry. It does
happen, but the reported accidents
since 1976 number about ten
nationwide, out of 1,328.When the
condemned is fastened into the electric

chair, one of the conductors is strapped


securely around the head with the bare
metal flush against the shaved and wet
scalp. This permits the electricity to be
conducted directly into the brain,
shutting it off more quickly than the brain
can register pain.Hanging causes death
by snapping the neck of the condemned
around the second vertebraeinstantly
shutting off the brains ability to
communicate with the rest of the body,
and causing the heart to stop within
seconds.The firing squad involves five
men shooting the heart of the
condemned with high-powered rifles.
The heart is completely destroyed and
unconsciousness follows within
seconds.The gas chamber is now no
longer forced on the condemned,
because it frequently appeared to cause
more pain than was expected or
acceptable. The gas is usually
hydrogen cyanide, which inhibits
mitochondrial respiration in every cell of
the entire body, theoretically shutting off
the brain like a light switch. But it
requires that the condemned breathe
deeply. 1A
Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth
Ibt906Consider a pedophile who kills an
infant girl by raping her. There is an
unwritten code of honor in prisons that
virtually requires inmates to kill such
offenders. Probably half of Americas
prisoners were in some way abused as
children, and harbor a seething hatred
for those who abuse children. The
murdering pedophile is given the death
penalty, but will probably spend ten

years beforehand in prison. He will


most likely be housed in solitary
confinement for his own protection, but
there are frequently holes in such
protection, and the inmates may find
their way to him. And if this happens,
pedophiles are often gang-raped,
castrated, beaten to death, stabbed, and
sometimes even beheaded before
guardswho may deliberately ignore
the scenecan save them.Most
prisoners consider each other to be in
the same predicament, and treat each
other quite well in general. But they are
still in prison, and despair about their
lack of freedom. What is life like for
Zacarias Moussaoui, the member of the
September 11 hijacking teams who got
caught a month before the attack? A
single juror saved him from death. He
has, since 2006, been incarcerated for
twenty-three hours per day in a tiny
concrete cell, with one hour of daily
exercise in an empty concrete
swimming pool; he has no access to
other inmates, and only rare contact
with guards, who say nothing to him; he
can see nothing of the outside world
except a tiny sliver of skyand his will
be his life. Capital punishment is an
unnecessary threat. 1B
For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder
Scales-Of-Justice 2190214BThe justice
system basically attempts to mete out
punishment that fits the crime. Severe
crimes result in imprisonment. Petty
larceny is not treated with the severity
that is meted to grand theft auto, and
the latter, consequently, receives more

time in prison. So if severebut nonlethalviolence toward another is found


deserving of life without parole, then
why should premeditated homicide be
given the very same punishment? This
fact might induce a would-be criminal to
go ahead and kill the victim he has
already mugged and crippled. Why
would it matter, after all? His sentence
could not get any worse.If murder is the
willful deprivation of a victims right to
life, then the justice systems willful
deprivation of the criminals right to the
same iseven if overly severea
punishment which fits the most severe
crime that can be committed. Without
capital punishment, it could be argued
that the justice system makes no
provision in response to the crime of
murder, and thus provides no justice for
the victim.FlameHorse is an absolute
pacifist who loves animals, but eats
burgers. He will never write a list about
Ted Nugent.

#LGBT

Four Traditional View Arguments: The


Big "Why?"

point of this rule? Where does this belief


come from?

Before examining the problems I believe


are inherent in the Traditional View, let's
take a look at the various reasons
people give for condemning same-sex
relationships. Not all Traditional Views
are the same, and some of the
arguments are better than others.

Here are the four most common


answers I hear to the question of why.

Of course, some people hold the


Traditional View simply because it is the
traditional view. I've heard people say,
"Two thousand years of church tradition
can't be wrong." But this approach
ignores just how often church tradition
has been wrong: when astronomers
challenged the traditional interpretations
of 1 Chronicles 16:30 and Psalm 104:5;
when abolitionists questioned the
Biblical support for slavery; when Martin
Luther posted his 95 theses in defiance
of the Catholic Church; when liberal
Christians began suggesting that
interracial marriage was not a sin in
God's eyes in these and many other
cases, social pressures were the
catalyst for reforming the church's
traditions. We are the body of Christ, to
be sure, but we are an all-too-human
body, and we're still growing to spiritual
maturity.
That's not to say that there haven't been
some misguided reformers as well. It
should go without saying that not
everyone who questions tradition is
right. But when we do question tradition,
we need to be able to ask "why": Why
does this tradition exist? What is the

Argument #1: "Our bodies were


designed for heterosexuality."
This argument is phrased different ways,
from the cliche (e.g. "God made Adam
and Eve, not Adam and Steve") to the
vulgar (e.g. various comments about
"plumbing"). The argument is the same:
God designed our bodies to interact in a
certain way, so we shouldn't use them in
any other way.
It's certainly true that God designed our
bodies with heterosexuality in mind;
that's how new human beings come into
the world. I don't think anyone can deny
that heterosexual sex is the way our
bodies were built to function. But does
that mean that using our bodies in any
other way is sinful?
God designed our ears and mouths so
we could communicate we listen, and
we talk. Every culture on earth
communicates this way. But some
people are deaf, maybe because they
were born that way or maybe because
of something that happened to them.
Either way, they can't communicate the
way the rest of us do, so they have to
improvise with what they have. Most
deaf people today use sign language to
communicate, and even though that's
not what our hands were designed for, it
gets the job done. None of us would call
that "sinful."

The argument that "you shouldn't do


that because that wasn't God's design"
is really more of an excuse than a real
argument. If anything becomes sinful
just because it wasn't part of the original
design of creation, we'd have to
condemn wheelchairs, makeup, openheart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, prepackaged foods well, you get the
idea.
Argument #2: "Sex is for procreation."
Some people will argue that procreation
is a necessary aspect of sex, so that
experiencing sexual pleasure in any way
that isn't open to the possibility of
procreation is a sin. This once
widespread belief is now primarily
taught only by the Roman Catholic
Church and is rejected by most
Protestants.
The Bible never says that sex must
always be used for procreation. In fact,
the Bible makes it clear that sex is for
other purposes as well; it forms a bond
between people (1 Cor. 6:16) and is a
marital responsibility (1 Cor. 7:3-5).
Procreation is only one part of the
reason for sex, and many couples have
sex on a regular basis without ever
conceiving (sometimes by choice; other
times not).
According to official Roman Catholic
teachings, sex is sinful whenever it is
not "open to procreation." But the RCC
applies this very inconsistently. Couples
are allowed to have sex even when they
know they are infertile, and fertile
couples can deliberately plan their

sexual encounters at times they know


they will not conceive (known as "natural
family planning"), as long as they don't
use condoms or other so-called
"artificial" means of birth control. Why
should sex by an infertile couple be
considered "open to procreation" when
sex with a spermicide isn't? Is Natural
Family Planning considered acceptable
only because it is less reliable? (If
condoms were less reliable, would they
be acceptable?) Is there really anything
"open to procreation" about a couple
who know they are infertile because of
physical deformities, age, medical
conditions, previous surgery, or any
other reason?
I know many wonderful Christians who
are Catholic, but with all due respect, I
believe this position is inconsistent and
without Scriptural foundation. After all, it
derives primarily from the teachings of
St. Augustine and is never mentioned in
the Bible. But if you're going to use this
argument anyway, you'd have to
condemn sterile heterosexual
relationships just as strongly.
Argument #3: "There are no examples
of same-sex marriage in the Bible."
This is a much better argument than the
first two. Essentially, it says this: If
extramarital sex is wrong, then gay sex
would only be permissible in a gay
marriage. But, the argument says, there
is no such thing as a gay marriage in
God's eyes; every marriage in the Bible
is heterosexual.

I agree with the first half of this


argument; I believe that sex should be
reserved for marriage. Whether we like
it or not, sex forms a bond with others,
and that bond is difficult if not impossible
to break. When people have sex without
a commitment, it can take quite an
emotional and psychological toll once
the relationship ends. (Cameron Diaz's
character in Vanilla Sky asks her exboyfriend, "Don't you know that when
you sleep with someone, your body
makes a promise whether you do or
not?") Anonymous sexual encounters
and one-night stands can be even more
harmful, not to mention the potential for
STDs. Promiscuity ultimately results in a
loss of self-respect, a devaluing of sex,
and potential damage to others. So I
agree with this argument that sex ought
to be in a marriage relationship, where
the physical bond is matched by a
relational bond and isn't just an
incidental side-effect.
And yes, it's true that there are no
same-sex marriages in the Bible. But
that's what we'd expect anyway. Samesex marriages weren't a part of the
cultures in which the Bible was written,
so obviously we wouldn't expect to see
stories of men and women with samesex partners. [2] In ancient Israel
especially, marriage was as much about
inheritance rights as anything, which
resulted in such bizarre practices as
levirate marriage (where men were
required to take a dead brother's wife
and produce heirs for him Deut. 25:56; Gen. 38:8) and God-ordained
polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam.

12:7-8). Even more shocking, a master


could buy wives for his male slaves and
then keep the wife and kids for himself
after setting the slave free (Exodus
21:2-4), and women were forced to
marry their rapists (Deut. 22:28-29).
There's a lot more that could be said
about these practices and the rationales
behind them, but that would be a bit offtopic. The point is this: Biblical examples
of marriage reflect the culture both in
what they include and what they do not.
Many things aren't mentioned in the
Bible, either because they weren't part
of the culture at that time (e.g. computer
porn) or because they weren't especially
important issues to the Biblical authors
(e.g. masturbation). In cases like these,
we use general Biblical principles to
address the issue, relying on the Holy
Spirit for guidance. I'm going to suggest
later in this essay that there are good
Biblical reasons for supporting samesex relationships even though they don't
appear anywhere in Scripture.
This particular Traditionalist argument
has one other shortcoming. These are
supposed to be arguments about why
same-sex relationships are sinful; yet
this argument doesn't answer that
question. It shifts the issue from "sex" to
"marriage," but it still doesn't tell us why
God would condemn a loving,
monogamous, Christ-centered marriage
between two people of the same sex.

To get the answer to that question, we


have to move on to the fourth (and final)
Traditional View argument
Argument #4: "Because God says so."
(aka "There's a rule against it.")
Yep, this is what it comes down to. No
matter how wordy, complex, or
sophisticated they get, every Christian
Traditionalist argument I can think of
ultimately relies on this basic principle:
God has a rule against same-sex
relationships, and even if we don't fully
understand or can't explain the rationale
behind it, in the end we're just expected
to obey, like Abraham sacrificing Isaac.
I'm not entirely comfortable with this
answer, since it makes God seem
arbitrary, and I don't believe God is
arbitrary. By the same token, if God tells
me to do something, then I want to obey
Him. So if God really does say so if
there really is a divine rule against
same-sex relationships then we need
to follow it.

# Same-Sex Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage
Legal proceedings and legislative action
in a number of countries have given civil
recognition to same-sex marriage
relationships, and the question of samesex marriage continues to be widely
debated. As we confront this and other
issues, we encourage all to bear in mind
our Heavenly Fathers purposes in
creating the earth and providing for our
mortal birth and experience here as His
children. God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he
him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth (Genesis 1:2728).
Therefore shall a man leave his father
and his mother, and shall cleave unto
his wife: and they shall be one flesh
(Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a
man and a woman was instituted by
God and is central to His plan for His
children and for the well-being of
society. Strong families, guided by a
loving mother and father, serve as the
fundamental institution for nurturing
children, instilling faith, and transmitting
to future generations the moral
strengths and values that are important
to civilization and crucial to eternal
salvation.
Changes in the civil law do not, indeed
cannot, change the moral law that God
has established. God expects us to
uphold and keep His commandments
regardless of divergent opinions or
trends in society. His law of chastity is

clear: sexual relations are proper only


between a man and a woman who are
legally and lawfully wedded as husband
and wife. We urge you to review and
teach Church members the doctrine
contained in The Family: A
Proclamation to the World.
Just as those who promote same-sex
marriage are entitled to civility, the same
is true for those who oppose it. The
Church insists on its leaders and
members right to express and advocate
religious convictions on marriage, family,
and morality free from retaliation or
retribution. The Church is also entitled to
maintain its standards of moral conduct
and good standing for members.
Consistent with our fundamental beliefs,
Church officers will not employ their
ecclesiastical authority to perform
marriages between two people of the
same sex, and the Church does not
permit its meetinghouses or other
properties to be used for ceremonies,
receptions, or other activities associated
with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless,
all visitors are welcome to our chapels
and premises so long as they respect
our standards of conduct while there.
We affirm that those who avail
themselves of laws or court rulings
authorizing same-sex marriage should
not be treated disrespectfully. The
gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to
love and treat all people with kindness
and civilityeven when we disagree.
As members of the Church, we are
responsible to teach the gospel of Jesus

Christ and to illuminate the great


blessings that flow from heeding Gods
commandments as well as the inevitable
consequences of ignoring them. We
invite you to pray that people
everywhere will have their hearts
softened to the truths of the gospel, and
that wisdom will be granted to those
who are called upon to decide issues
critical to societys future.

Early Marriage Problems

#barangaytubod

Child marriage is also indicative of the


levels of development of a region or
country and is generally conducted
between very young girls and older
men. In many parts of the world child
marriage is a gratification for
overcoming the familys financial
and social needs.

Among the 44 barangays comprising


Iligan City, barangay Tubod was the
most populous.
Barangay Tubod, Iligan City envisioned
being a God-centered, crime-free and
well-developed community of diverse
people living harmoniously and working
towards a sustainable economic, social
and environmental growth.

There are numerous problems a couple


can face when marriage happens at an
early age for them. Early marriage which
is also referred to as child marriage is
common all over the globe and has
inflicted dangerous and devastating
effects on young children who are
compelled to tie the knot in most cases.

Causes of early marriage:


Early marriage can arise due to a
number of reasons such as these:
To raise the economic and social status
Religious hurdles and barriers
Gender bias promotes early marriage of
girls
Lack of education
Myths and misconceptions about early
marriage
Pressures from older members of the
family and community

#early marriage

The notion that early pregnancy leads to


larger families and hence providing for
heirs to the throne

Some communities regard their girl


children as a burden and think of getting
rid of them by marrying them off early in
a patriarchal society

Mental and emotional stress in girl


brides is high because they are not old
enough to cope with maternal, marital or
in law issues.

Harmful effects of early marriage:

Though the respective Governments


and society is doing much to abolish
early or child marriage through
campaigns, laws, policies and individual
support of people, it is still a far reaching
dream for young girls who are still
repeatedly forced into such liaisons.

Early marriage can cause severe


problems like the following:
Psychological and emotional stress like
forced sexual relations, denial of
freedom and personal development as
household chores now become a
priority.
Denial of personal development and
education.
Maturity levels become an issue as the
little girl is now expected to play the role
of a mother.
Girl children undergo severe health
problems like pregnancy and childbirth.
Girl brides are also involved in early
childhood care.
Threat to contracting sexually
transmitted diseases increases when
girl children are exposed to such an
environment.
As girl children are still vulnerable and
submissive, they can be subject to the
atrocities of domestic violence and
abandonment.

Early marriages have stretched far and


wide through time and countries and
finally reached America as well where
children in their mid-teens are taking
independent steps of tying the knot with
their partners. Most early marriages are
considered to be forced which is true but
children entering into an early marriage
out of choice should also be warned of
various personal and health issues that
can complicate their lives forever.