• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should child marriage be banned?

Should child marriage be banned?

  • Total voters
    35
Carjosse said:
The divorce rate for those married below the age of 18 is almost 50%, half of all marriages end in divorce. It is a fact. They can wait because then at least they of the age to make an informed decision. Why should we allow the potential for abuse of minors just for the sake of teen pregnancies?
Click to expand...

Who are you to determine whether a 16 or 17 year old is mature enough to make an informed decision ? People mature at different rates and ages. There is nothing magical about turning 18.
 
Logician Man said:
Who are you to determine whether a 16 or 17 year old is mature enough to make an informed decision ? People mature at different rates and ages.
Click to expand...

We draw the line at 18 for everything else. You can consent to a marriage but cannot sign your own contracts or vote?
 
Carjosse said:
So any crime that is not worse than murder should be not be enforced at all?
Click to expand...

Obviously not, but there are limited resources, and priorities must be set.

All sorts of stuff SHOULD happen, but we can in reality on make a certain amount of that happen.

So how many homicide detectives, meter maids, dog catchers, highways patrol, fast water rescue, etc should we trim so that 16yos don't get married consensually? Or are we raising new taxes for this?

Please continue to disregard the entire scofflaw angle, where they just declare themselves married and skip the civil ceremony (I'm assuming Canadian marriages are the same as in the U.S., with the two components separate.)

You're seeking to control the uncontrollable. It doesn't go well.
 
Carjosse said:
I was watching a show on Netflix and it talked about child marriage among gypsies. It reminded of an article and video I saw a while ago.

From the Idaho Statesman:


Apparently Idaho Republicans are all for child marriage, seemingly citing religious freedom and parental rights. I strongly suggest reading the article, it is something.

Only Delaware and New Jersey currently ban child marriage. 17 states do not even have a minimum age. As Wikipedia points out Afghanistan has stricter child marriage laws than 19 states. I think it is unacceptable if any jurisdiction allows those under the age of 18 to be married.

So what say you?
Click to expand...

Throughout the vast majority of history, 17 year olds married, went to war, worked full time, and were tried as adults. The idea that a 17 year old getting married is some sort of abomination is absurd on its face.
 
WillyPete said:
Obviously not, but there are limited resources, and priorities must be set.

All sorts of stuff SHOULD happen, but we can in reality on make a certain amount of that happen.

So how many homicide detectives, meter maids, dog catchers, highways patrol, fast water rescue, etc should we trim so that 16yos don't get married consensually? Or are we raising new taxes for this?

Please continue to disregard the entire scofflaw angle, where they just declare themselves married and skip the civil ceremony (I'm assuming Canadian marriages are the same as in the U.S., with the two components separate.)

You're seeking to control the uncontrollable. It doesn't go well.
Click to expand...

In Canada it is quite often used to persecute those who try to take children abroad for child marriages in India or the Middle East for example. It also allows authorities to intervene, without the law they cannot do anything to stop and persecute those who participate in a coerced wedding.
 
Carjosse said:
We draw the line at 18 for everything else. You can consent to a marriage but cannot sign your own contracts or vote?
Click to expand...

No we don't draw the line at 18 for everything else. You can't buy alcohol or tobacco until you're 21. You're the religious one. Is it your contention that a 17 year old pregnant female and the 17 year old father of her child who she is madly in love with should 'live in sin' until they turn 18, or should they not be allowed to live together at all , in your opinion ?
 
Logician Man said:
No we don't draw the line at 18 for everything else. You can't buy alcohol or tobacco until you're 21. You're the religious one. Is it your contention that a 17 year old pregnant female and the father of her child who she is madly in love with should 'live in sin' until they turn 18, or should they not be allowed to live together at all , in your opinion ?
Click to expand...

I think the 21 for alcohol is ridiculous, everything should be 18. Since when am I the religious one? You don't have to be religious to think that teenage pregnancy should not be encouraged. What harm comes in having them wait a year to ensure others are not victims of abuse and coercion?
 
Last edited:
Carjosse said:
In Canada it is quite often used to persecute those who try to take children abroad for child marriages in India or the Middle East for example. It also allows authorities to intervene, without the law they cannot do anything to stop and persecute those who participate in a coerced wedding.
Click to expand...

New idea to me, and I'm not sure I'm following. You're saying people take underage kids overseas to marry each other, then come back?

Or they take one kid overseas to marry a kid from India or the ME and bring the new kid back?

Or an adult goes overseas marries, and tries to bring back an underage wife (or vice versa?)

That complicates things, naturally, with the laws of the other nation being in play.

Still doesn't stop them from considering themselves married and living as such. What could short of mind reading police? Seems like overall your rule is just stamping paperwork DENIED and calling it good, unless I'm missing something.

Again to be clear, if there is abuse then it doesn't matter what their age or whether they are married.
 
Carjosse said:
I think the 21 for alcohol is ridiculous, everything should be 18. Since when am I the religious one? You don't have to be religious to think that teenage pregnancy should not be encouraged. What harm comes in having them wait a year?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. Should a 17 year impregnated female and her 17 year old boyfriend who are deeply in love be deprived of living together, or should they just 'live in sin' ( to use an old adage ), until they turn 18 ?
 
AGENT J said:
Define banned?
I have no problem with certain loop holes.....

in todays age i dont see a need to be married at 16 / 17 but with consent of parents/judge/social worker i really dont care.

as for states that dont ban it . . well . . thats because its basically not needed. one needs to be 18 to consent to a legal document or there has to be a legal loop hole . . so a law banning it is kind of pointless . . . its like the religious freedom laws . . we already have religious freedom

is there some FORCING of marriage of minors that families are doing that im unaware of that would slide by a judge and case worker? then maybe but typically i see no reason for a banning law cause the rules of consent already apply
Click to expand...

Carjosse said:
Full ban, no loopholes. I don't think those under the age of 18 should be able to make the the decision about marriage.
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
Nah i wouldnt support that then

theres people that have gotten married 19yr old to 17yr old with parental consent and judge approval and that doesnt bother me one bit, especially if it involves a pregnancy. why would it :shrug:

if it ever became an issue id support getting a case worker involved for additional approval but then im good again

theres even those super rare heart string cases where maybe the 17yr old is dying from something and they get married because of that . . i wouldnt want to be the dick that supported stopping that

im good with consent laws being what they are 18 to consent and anything else requiring special steps like lawyers and judges and case workers
Click to expand...

This seems to really have you fired up . . do you have some logical argument why there should be some national ban at 18 a with no loop holes and the "need" for it when consent laws already do that?

is there something you are leaving out? some crisis? some personally known story that makes this even worthy of a cause?
 
Logician Man said:
You didn't answer my question. Should a 17 year impregnated female and her 17 year old boyfriend who are deeply in love be deprived of living together, or should they just 'live in sin' ( to use an old adage ), until they turn 18 ?
Click to expand...

Who cares what they do till they turn 18?
 
Carjosse said:
Who cares what they do till they turn 18?
Click to expand...

What a silly question. The two 17 year olds who are in love and expecting a child together they both dearly love care. Should they be allowed to get married and prepare for their child as a loving couple, live together unmarried, or neither ?
 
WillyPete said:
New idea to me, and I'm not sure I'm following. You're saying people take underage kids overseas to marry each other, then come back?

Or they take one kid overseas to marry a kid from India or the ME and bring the new kid back?

Or an adult goes overseas marries, and tries to bring back an underage wife (or vice versa?)

That complicates things, naturally, with the laws of the other nation being in play.

Still doesn't stop them from considering themselves married and living as such. What could short of mind reading police? Seems like overall your rule is just stamping paperwork DENIED and calling it good, unless I'm missing something.

Again to be clear, if there is abuse then it doesn't matter what their age or whether they are married.
Click to expand...

Usually they take their daughters from Canada back to home their home nation and leave them there to my understanding. But the other way around also occurs. It is still a crime in Canada even if it is legal in the country they are travelling to.
 
Logician Man said:
What a silly question. The two 17 year olds who are in love and expecting a child together they both dearly love care. Should they be allowed to get married and prepare for their child as a loving couple, live together unmarried, or neither ?
Click to expand...

Live together unmarried, no one is saying they can't. They can do whatever, they can live on different planets if they wanted to for all I care. What exactly urgently requires them to get married?
 
Carjosse said:
Live together unmarried, no one is saying they can't. What exactly urgently requires them to get married?
Click to expand...

Personal choice,insurance issues to name a couple....To put the shoe on the other foot, what skin is it off anyone else's backside if they choose to get married before they turn 18 ?. I know if my wife had become impregnated before we turned 18, we would have most definately gotten married.
 
Logician Man said:
Personal choice,insurance issues to name a couple....To put the shoe on the other foot, what skin is it off anyone else's backside if they choose to get married before they turn 18 ?. I know if my wife had become impregnated before we turned 18, we would have most definately gotten married.
Click to expand...

Because like I said it encourages the mentality that teenage pregnancy is okay if they get married and it removes the ability to stop other abusive or coercive marriages. Many unmarried couples raise children, they can do it for a year.
 
Most people are talking about marriage between young people who are almost adults - 16 or 17. They will shack up until they are of legal age if that is the case. However, the question is child marriage. That includes children, say an 8, 9 12, 14 year old girl married to, say a 35 year old man because the girl was told to (forced) by her parents. In what universe is that ok?? If you think that does not happen, you would be very wrong. Happened in Sydney a couple of years ago and it happens all the time. I guarantee you that it happens in America too, just doesn't make it to the news. I don't understand how anyone could condone child marriage.
 
Carjosse said:
Usually they take their daughters from Canada back to home their home nation and leave them there to my understanding. But the other way around also occurs. It is still a crime in Canada even if it is legal in the country they are travelling to.
Click to expand...

Wow, didn't know that was a thing.

The problem is that control for things like this is an illusion.

At most, you can prevent a formal, legal wedding but the actual marriage, the meaningful one, exists outside of that. It seems perfectly obvious what love wrought teens will do in the face of this.

You would create an entire class of otherwise law abiding criminals to sooth your personal morality, and it wouldn't even work.
 
Carjosse said:
Because like I said it encourages the mentality that teenage pregnancy is okay if they get married and it removes the ability to stop other abusive or coercive marriages. Many unmarried couples raise children, they can do it for a year.
Click to expand...

So your stance is don't allow the young, pre-18 couple to have the option to get married, and have their child be labeled as 'illigitimate'....a.k.a a 'bastard' child if it's a male. Is that your stance you're going with ?
 
Logician Man said:
So your stance is don't allow the young, pre-18 couple to have the option to get married, and have their child be labeled as 'illigitimate'....a.k.a a 'bastard' child if it's a male. Is that your stance your going with ?
Click to expand...

You are the one labeling them, not me. It is not 1387, people don't care about that anymore.
 
Carjosse said:
Because like I said it encourages the mentality that teenage pregnancy is okay if they get married and it removes the ability to stop other abusive or coercive marriages. Many unmarried couples raise children, they can do it for a year.
Click to expand...

What can I do but laugh.
 
Carjosse said:
You are the one labeling them, not me. It is not 1387, people don't care about that anymore.
Click to expand...

Those aren't 'my' labels. Those are the societal labels which are clearly defined in any dictionary, and they carry stigmas. You're not in any position to speak for everyone as to whether anyone/everyone cares about those stigmas/labels.
 
Logician Man said:
Those aren't 'my' labels. Those are the societal labels which are clearly defined in any dictionary, and they carry stigmas. You're not in any position to speak for everyone as to whether anyone cares about those stigmas/labels.
Click to expand...

It is quite common these days, common law couples are becoming more and more common and many have children, you will find that the vast majority do not care at all. I am assuming it is the same demographic that rails against same-sex marriage.

The stigma will only come from the teenage pregnancy as it should.
 
Carjosse said:
It is quite common these days, common law couples are becoming more and more common and many have children, you will find that the vast majority do not care at all. I am assuming it is the same demographic that rails against same-sex marriage.

The stigma will only come from the teenage pregnancy as it should.
Click to expand...

Maybe you will find out what happens when one 'assumes.' YES ?
 
I suppose it's what you're used to. Scots law says 16, English law was 18, and Gretna Green (in Scotland) became famous as an eloping destination, being just over the border. It became a literal cottage industry! You can still get married there today.

Gretna Green - Wikipedia

Younger than 16 is questionable, but if you can sign your life away to the armed forces, then marriage should be open to you too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom