Lie: “Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years “and a day” old).”

The Talmud strongly opposed formation of the marriage bond by sexual force (at any age) and punished those who acted in such manner (Kidushin 12b). Sanhedrin 55b says IF a girl is raped (casting the entire discussion as one which confirms a rape has occurred), THEN if she is younger than 3 she is still considered a virgin for the sake of later marriage. But IF she is older then 3 it is considered rape in the sense that it will affect her future marriage and therefore one of the compensations is that her father may demand the rapist marry her (thus supporting her for the rest of her life) as well as pay all the criminal penalties for the act of non-reproductive rape.

Remember that the man is not allowed to have sex with a 3 year old (Ketubot 11b) we are discussing what happens if someone does. The Talmud goes on to say that the father's right to marry off his daughter was to be used for her benefit. The age and manner of marriage is to a large extent a societal variable but at Kidushin 41a the rabbis taught: “It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter while she is young [but rather he should wait] till she has grown and says 'This is the one I want [to marry]” and this teaching is repeated elsewhere in the Talmud.

As I said before, taking things out of context and getting them from anti-Jewish sites isn't the way to understand Judaism.

So why are they discussing this? Because if you had to actually adjudicate cases like this you would have no question over whether or not a crime had occurred; the only question would be things like do you stone a child for an abomination committed by someone else; what sort of damage was committed, such as, can the girl get married later on or has the rapist damaged her such that she can't get married later, etc. and thus doesn't discuss or condone the act of rape itself, only the level of punishment levied against the rapist.