Should child marriage be banned?

[AGENT J]

1.)Because like I said it encourages the mentality that teenage pregnancy is okay if they get married
2.) and it removes the ability to stop other abusive or coercive marriages. Many unmarried couples raise children, they can do it for a year.

1.) how does it do that?
2.) how does it do that?

 

[Waddy]

I voted no, other. We treat a 12 year old as an adult for some crimes. We need to decide on a definition of "adult". Either you're an adult at 18, or you're not. If you are, then you should have ALL the rights, privileges and responsibilities of an adult. So long as we consider 12 year olds adults, they should be free to marry.

 

[SDET]

Why does that justify it? The couple can get married at 18 if they so desire. With that circumstance I would say there is high possibility of coercion by the parents.

It's justified to prevent a bastardized society.

 

[SDET]

I voted no because marriage is sometimes needed to escape poverty. Some of my late family members married to escape hunger in the 1930s.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I think there is some wiggle room with 16 and 17 year olds and I don't have an issue with different countries having different ages for such things because cultures vary and kids have to grow up a bit earlier in some places than others. Younger than 16, though, and I am less comfortable with it. Though frankly, I don't think ANYONE should get married until they are at least 25.

 

[OldFatGuy]

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?

Absolutely not. Let the kids get married as soon as they can talk. Let them suffer like the rest of us.

 

[trouble13]

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?

What is your argument against it being legal?

I have a reason why it should not be permitted but I'd like to hear your reason first.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

One country should have one law.

What a disaster states rights has turned into.

I cant tell if your being serious or sarcastic?

Do you really believe we should do away with state jurisdictions and adoot one federal set of laws that everyone must follow?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[jghiretire]

If there is so much potential for abuse why should it not be banned? Why do children need the ability to marry, especially those under the age of 16?

The ones that really gross me out are the 11 and 12 year olds married off to some old man. Please just shoot me.

 

[AmNat]

Who cares what they do till they turn 18?

You do.

 

[joko104]

Usually only delays it by a few months, and leads to a messy divorce on top of it and the child gets caught in the middle.

The child is caught in the middle regardless. If the parents do not agree, they essentially will go thru legal proceeding the same as a divorce anyway.

 

[Peter King]

Yup, ban the thing all together without court approval. I don't give a rats behind of religious freedom when it comes to the rights of children to be children and not to be married off to someone else. I really also don't give a rats behind about parental rights in cases like this.

 

[Carjosse]

What is your argument against it being legal?

I have a reason why it should not be permitted but I'd like to hear your reason first.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Because of the high likelihood of abuse and validity of a child's ability to consent to something like marriage.

 

[trouble13]

Because of the high likelihood of abuse and validity of a child's ability to consent to something like marriage.

I dont agree about abuse but i dont see how a child can be held liable for entering into a legally binding contract which makes the idea a bad one. Imo.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[joko104]

So what if they marry? If it doesn't work out they can divorce. If they have a child and/or have significant property and can't agree it will end up in divorce court anyway. If they do agree, a divorce case is no problem anyway.

This is just spitting on marriage. Nothing prevents teens having sex, making a baby or moving in together. If they break up they still will go thru family court over the child and probably property too. So really this isn't anything about protecting young people as a marriage license does offer SOME protection to both the teens and more importantly any child. It is just declaring hatred of marriage.

I would think that Democratic Party would be satisfied with over 75% of black children in a home with only 1 parent and that percentage increasing for everyone. But apparently they won't be happy until marriage and 2-parent families are totally eliminated in their quest for total fascist power over everyone about everything.

Bizarrely, most those same Democrats want to reduce the voting age to 16. If there is ANY issue for which the Democratic Party isn't 100% hypocritical, please say what it is.

 

[joko104]

Because of the high likelihood of abuse and validity of a child's ability to consent to something like marriage.

That could justify outlawing marriage by an older adult to someone under 18, but not two 17 year olds expecting a baby marrying.

 

[joko104]

Someone we know fairly well has a 16 year old son (white American) whose 15 year old girlfriend is pregnant, the daughter of parents and nearly an entire family that are illegally in the country (Latino). He is a high school dropout - would never go back - but is pretty good in construction and makes a modest living doing that and handyman work.

Neither family will let them move in with them and she is going to have the baby.

He could just walk away and let her chase him for child support. I could pay her the minimum child support and do nothing else. They could move in together and make a family. She and her family want him to marry her.

Which should he do? If they move in together into their own place to try to make a go at it, what possible benefit is there if they do not marry? What is the harm if they do - other than those of you who hate marriage in general?

 

[joko104]

A lot of people sure want to be control freaks over other people's lives. That is one of the flaws of democracy - mob rule and mentality.

All of you voting yes, do you think a pregnant teen under age 18 should be forced to have an abortion since you are so into controlling other people's and other people's children's lives.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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?

No, because boys can inpregnate girls and girls can get pregnant well under 18, and marriage is about stability and love for children.

I know of a small number of teenage shotgun marriages and most of them 12 years later are still on and their kids have the benefit of loving parents to raise them

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Someone we know fairly well has a 16 year old son (white American) whose 15 year old girlfriend is pregnant, the daughter of parents and nearly an entire family that are illegally in the country (Latino). He is a high school dropout - would never go back - but is pretty good in construction and makes a modest living doing that and handyman work.

Neither family will let them move in with them and she is going to have the baby.

He could just walk away and let her chase him for child support. I could pay her the minimum child support and do nothing else. They could move in together and make a family. She and her family want him to marry her.

Which should he do? If they move in together into their own place to try to make a go at it, what possible benefit is there if they do not marry? What is the harm if they do - other than those of you who hate marriage in general?

Teenage marriage is fairly common in Latin America relative to the US, what is the problem on the part of the Latino family? Do you know ?

 

[joko104]

I dont agree about abuse but i dont see how a child can be held liable for entering into a legally binding contract which makes the idea a bad one. Imo.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

That's false. Minors (those under the age of 18, in most states) lack the capacity to make a contract. So a minor who signs a contract can either honor the deal or void the contract. There are a few exceptions, however. For example, in most states, a minor cannot void a contract for necessities like food, clothing, and lodging. Also, a minor can void a contract for lack of capacity only while still under the age of majority. In most states, if a minor turns 18 and hasn't done anything to void the contract, then the contract can no longer be voided.

In addition, making a child also is an enforceable contract in all practical ways. No 17 year old male can say "ha ha, I don't have to pay child support because I'm under 18."

Of course, not everyone looks at marriage as entering a government contract and not everyone gets a marriage license who are, in fact, married.

What happened to all the ranting that the government should stay out of people's bedrooms?

 

[joko104]

Teenage marriage is fairly common in Latin America relative to the US, what is the problem on the part of the Latino family? Do you know ?

Teenage marriage is more the norm than exception throughout all of human history for which marriage existed - and for the most part the history of the United States. How or how did the human race survive?

Which teenagers do you think MORE get into legal problems? Teenagers running the streets? Or a teenager struggling to pay for and raise a family? I'm confident it is the latter.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Teenage marriage is more the norm than exception throughout all of human history for which marriage existed - and for the most part the history of the United States. How or how did the human race survive?

Which teenagers do you think MORE get into legal problems? Teenagers running the streets? Or a teenager struggling to pay for and raise a family? I'm confident it is the latter.

I’m not arguing against the concept in all circumstances, however if the Girl’s parents in the scenario you posted are opposed to this I’m interested to know why, because despite what you see in romantic movies, I think in general if the parents of the woman don’t like the man, in most cases there’s a good reason for it

I think my great grandmother was married to my great grandfather at 17, right before he went off to the war

 

[joko104]

Teenage marriage is fairly common in Latin America relative to the US, what is the problem on the part of the Latino family? Do you know ?

They want the two to marry, move in together and take care of themselves. The boy's father doesn't think it matters if the marry or not (he never formally married his wife now of nearly 3 decades), but does tell his son that he is responsible for the children and, like it or not, her. Plus explaining he has no choice now but to learn Spanish. :lol:

There has been some conflict between the families. Mainly her family trying to get his family to give them money for stuff. The father of the boy's response to them and his son is "hell no, none of you are getting a dollar from me" - other than his son can work for him and if so will be paid as he is an independent small business owner operating out of his home for misc. yard work and home repairs.

 

[joko104]

I’m not arguing against the concept in all circumstances, however if the Girl’s parents in the scenario you posted are opposed to this I’m interested to know why, because despite what you see in romantic movies, I think in general if the parents of the woman don’t like the man, in most cases there’s a good reason for it

I think my great grandmother was married to my great grandfather at 17, right before he went off to the war

Did I write it inaccurately? The girl's parents want them to marry for sure. They are not willing to let the two of them move in with them, nor is the father of the boy willing to do so. That is somewhat rare for Latino families as often their families act very collectively including for housing. Everyone involved are low income people.