Should Child Marriages be Banned Worldwide?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does marriage have to equate with sex?

Not necessariy, but without it, why not consider being business partners, roomates or communal asexual hippies?

If you're just doing it for the tax benefits, I think that's a bit tacky.

 

[Quintessence]

How about incest, which happens a lot?

It does? Do you have any actual evidence that incest (which isn't a problem in any case) happens "a lot?" What does this even have to do with the topic?

So basically you are saying you are fine with a grown man marrying a female child, enjoying her sexually, and expecting her to be happy in her role? (Or maybe you're not interested in that last part -- she's a female after all, and what does her happiness have to do with anything?)

Boy, folks really do like bringing things up that don't have anything directly to do with the topic, don't they? Guys, if you'er going to try to make a case against child marriages, please at least avoid the "but they sacrifice babies on the altar of satan" level of nonsense. It's just sad and pathetic, and I've got no patience for it. Especially from people who know better. And if you're trying to be cute, it's really not.

 

[PruePhillip]

Really, I believed the Islamic Empire was ruled by a calif and later sultans who inherited their power through bloodline and acts of conquests in much the same way then Christian kings and emperors of the time.

It's often said that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I would be wary
of saying that - but there's a strong element of truth to it.

 

[Cooky]

Not necessariy, but without it, why not consider being business partners, roomates or communal asexual hippies?

If you're just doing it for the tax benefits, I think that's a bit tacky.

Those seem like just titles to me. But that's fine, because even "marriage" is just a title. I highly doubt that the concept of marriage was invented and then implemented. I think marriage is just a word to describe what people naturally do, and have been doing for a very long time - before the concept of marriage was identified.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Boy, folks really do like bringing things up that don't have anything directly to do with the topic, don't they? Guys, if you'er going to try to make a case against child marriages, please at least avoid the "but they sacrifice babies on the altar of satan" level of nonsense. It's just sad and pathetic, and I've got no patience for it. Especially from people who know better. And if you're trying to be cute, it's really not.

I understand what you are saying. But I tried to explain a post or 2 ago that I am concerned with the nature of the human person, not with culture per se. From my perspective, we get one chance at life, our life, the only life we will have. To allow someone else to arrange that life -- incuding in ways that make someone profoundly unhappy for all of that life -- seems wrong to me.

As a humanist, my focus is on trying to make my species accept the essential worth and dignity of every human person. And the right of every human person to seek (as the American Declaration of Independence says), "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." For me, it is an immense cruelty to deny any human any of those three things, and I therefore try to speak against the right of anyone to deprive another person of those rights.

Is there something, I wonder, so wrong with trying to make some of the crueller regimes and religions of our world see the error of their ways? Yes, I know about "The Prime Directive" in Star Trek, not to interfere in other cutures, but is the best way forward for our planet to really allow girls to have their clitorises removed (and sometimes the labia as well), for boys to be rituallly mutilated (which is what circumcision is), and for young people with little experience of life, let alone knowledge of who they themselves really are, be trapped in chains from which they have no hope of escape?

You may notice, I never said, as this thread suggests, that these things should be outlawed -- because I'm fully aware that there's no hope of enforcing any such thing. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to try to talk to people -- here or elsewhere -- about it. In the perhaps forlorn hope that it will do some good for some future humans.

 

[epronovost]

It's often said that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. I would be wary
of saying that - but there's a strong element of truth to it.

Officialy, according the World Democracy Index, this is indeed true. Note that the first proto/pseudo-democracy is over a thousand year older than Islam itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And then a few rules were added for some stability of the relationship for better care of children.

To allow someone else to arrange that life -- including in ways that make someone profoundly unhappy for all of that life -- seems wrong to me.

And I understand you as well. We have arranged marriages in India, but it is not a dictation. Generally, the boy and the girl are asked for their views. If they suggest someone, this is not disregarded. If they have objections to the match, the matter is not pursued any further. It is sort of collective decision between two people, two families. If it does not work out, then there is always an option for divorce.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Guys, if you'er going to try to make a case against child marriages, please at least avoid the "but they sacrifice babies on the altar of satan" level of nonsense. It's just sad and pathetic, and I've got no patience for it. Especially from people who know better. And if you're trying to be cute, it's really not.

It was never that. Child marriages did happen in India, they still happen, but there is a strict law against it. And the girls at any time can refute it by law, and many are doing that. My grandma was married at the age of seven and my grandpa was 14 at that time. But then, girls did not immediately started living in their husband's house. When my grandmother came to my grandpa's house for the first time, my great-grandpa carried her on his shoulders. But once the ritual of coming to her husband's house was completed, she went back to her father's place. It was many years before she came back after growing up and consumated the marriage. The second coming of the bride is known in India as 'Gauna' - Gauna - Wikipedia.

-> And even when the bride came to live with her husband, she would sleep in the women's quarter with her mother-in-law. Wife sleeping with the husband was sort of unthinkable. She had to pull down the veil when she was facing elder's or her husband. Sex was quite a furtive affair. I do not know how they managed it (but they did, as evidenced by their three progeny).
-> My grandpa was not a romantic sort of person. I do not think even in his younger days. He was a historian, archaeologist, numismatists, museum curator, and Sanskrit scholar. Received the highest scholarly award in British India.

 

[stvdv]

I'm not sure how some people make the leap from "child marriage" to "child abuse."

How about incest, which happens a lot?

It does?

Do you have any actual evidence that incest (which isn't a problem in any case) happens "a lot?"

What does this even have to do with the topic?

.

 

[McBell]

Do you require scholarly sources with my own analysis of them interjected or will a link to a simple vulgarisation article or even a link to a google search without comment suffice?

If you want some moe information about Canadian law on sexual consent, I can offer you this more detailed information.

Age of Consent to Sexual Activity

I asked for YOUR source.
The source that makes the claims or supports the claims you made or convinced you of the claims you made concerning the age 16.
The source(s) you have ALREADY used which convinced you the claims you have already made are valid.

Now here you are,
asking me what you should look for?

 

[epronovost]

I asked for YOUR source.
The source that makes the claims or supports the claims you made or convinced you of the claims you made concerning the age 16.
The source(s) you have ALREADY used which convinced you the claims you have already made are valid.

Now here you are,
asking me what you should look for?

In a debate the person making a claim has the burden of proof, but the other party needs to set out a standard of proof else the entire exercise could devolve in a fruitless exchange where the goalpost keeps changing. If you want to call on my burden of proof I'm perfectly fine with it, but please set your standard of proof so that I can fulfill my burden. I have access to both vulgarisation articles and several scholarly studies on the subject at my finger tips thanks to internet that I can reference you. I do not remember specifically which of them convinced me of such claim. The "original" one might not even be available online and was propably not in english either (I'm francophone).

So I'll repeat my question what's you standard of proof and what would you prefer me to link you vulgarisation articles or scholarly articles and books on the subject?

PS: I earlier mentioned the average age for first sexual relationship in Canada being around 16 years, but it's an error. I meant the median age being around 16 years old.

 

[PruePhillip]

Officialy, according the World Democracy Index, this is indeed true. Note that the first proto/pseudo-democracy is over a thousand year older than Islam itself.

Are there really ANY true Islamic democracies. By definition Islamic nations should be theocratic.

 

[epronovost]

Are there really ANY true Islamic democracies. By definition Islamic nations should be theocratic.

I don't think that's correct. There are many Christian nations that aren't theocracies. Having an official State religion doesn't imply that the priesthood is in power or that religious laws are applied. Look at Danemark for example. It has an official religion and an official Church, but it's a democracy. You could also qualify a country with a secular government with an overwhelming majority of muslim to be "and islamic nation" in character.

 

[Aupmanyav]

-> And even when the bride came to live with her husband, she would sleep in the women's quarter with her mother-in-law. Wife sleeping with the husband was sort of unthinkable. She had to pull down the veil when she was facing elder's or her husband. Sex was quite a furtive affair. I do not know how they managed it (but they did, as evidenced by their three progeny).

A flashback to life in India, around my childhood or before it (I am 78 years old, : The care of grandchildren was grandma's and grandpa's job, the daughter-in-law relieving of her the duties in the kitchen (but of course, the overall control was her's only). The man would be busy in his business or job. It was considered indecent for parents to pick up their children in presence of grand parents.

Once, a woman (not even related to our family or community) carrying her child saw my great grandparent coming up, she put down her child on a platform and walked away. My great grandpa had to pick up the child and bring him home. Such was the concept of honor for elders in my city (Jodhpur, Rajasthan).

 

[Harel13]

Why? Is it unreasonable to suppose that there are things that ought not to be part of so-called "religious practice," or if they are, then to work to have them removed? I think we managed that on the human sacrifice front a long time ago, so why not in other areas? If it is wrong to mutilate the genitals of little girls, or to marry them before they are ready AND ABLE to give truly informed consent, then why should we acquiesce when a religion says, "we want to do it anyway?" That is not saying "down with" that religion, it is saying, "keep the religion, but down with the practice."

The OP has created a number of threads now titled "should x be banned?" and x is always some religious practice. Collected, these are religious practices practiced by two religions in particular. What does that tell you?

 

[epronovost]

In a debate the person making a claim has the burden of proof, but the other party needs to set out a standard of proof else the entire exercise could devolve in a fruitless exchange where the goalpost keeps changing. If you want to call on my burden of proof I'm perfectly fine with it, but please set your standard of proof so that I can fulfill my burden. I have access to both vulgarisation articles and several scholarly studies on the subject at my finger tips thanks to internet that I can reference you. I do not remember specifically which of them convinced me of such claim. The "original" one might not even be available online and was propably not in english either (I'm francophone).

So I'll repeat my question what's you standard of proof and what would you prefer me to link you vulgarisation articles or scholarly articles and books on the subject?

PS: I earlier mentioned the average age for first sexual relationship in Canada being around 16 years, but it's an error. I meant the median age being around 16 years old.

I'd like to make an adendum to this post. After further research. The actual median age for a first vaginal sexual relationship in Canada is overing around late 18 years old though the first "sexual encounters" is around 15 years old. These numbers are very comparable in pretty much all western country with basically around 1 year of variance. Of course these stats need to be taken with a grain of salt since people have a tendency to lie on survey concerning such delicate subject and by the fact that "fist sexual encounter" and "first vaginal sexual intercourse" can leave the door open to a variety of exceptions. It turns out I was wrong. It wasn't around 16, but more accurately around 18 years old.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't think that's correct. There are many Christian nations that aren't theocracies. Having an official State religion doesn't imply that the priesthood is in power or that religious laws are applied. Look at Danemark for example. It has an official religion and an official Church, but it's a democracy. You could also qualify a country with a secular government with an overwhelming majority of muslim to be "and islamic nation" in character.

I accept your point - but generally speaking many Muslim Middle East nations are not
democratic. Indonesia is. Maybe Lebanon. And Turkey...

 

[epronovost]

I accept your point - but generally speaking many Muslim Middle East nations are not
democratic. Indonesia is. Maybe Lebanon. And Turkey...

The only democracies in muslim majority country are in order: Malaysia (flawed democracy at rank 43), Tunisia (flawed democracy at rank 53), Indonesia (flawed democracy at rank 64). The rest are either hybrid regime or worst. The region of the Middle-East and Northern Africa is the region with lowest ranking when it comes to democracy.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Hello....
The thing is, how did an accurate survey take place?

'Mary, you're fifteen, yes?'
Yes.
Mary, now tell the truth for this important survey.......
Oh, of course!

Not sure, but they (whoever provides the evidence) seem to agree about such.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why the age of 16 for the age of consent? Well basically because at that age teenagers have acquired enough experience and knowledge about sexuality to make their first attempt safely and in a sane context. It also happen to be the average age for the first full sexual intercourse of people in Canada (and pretty much the rest of the developed world). Note that the age of consent in Canada also contains a disposition for teenager aged between the age of 14-17 to have consenting sexual intercourse that doesn't extand to 14 years old with legal adults as to protect the experimental stages of sexuality from legal action by vindictive or overprotective parent or other party. The reasonning being that 14 years already have the right to professional secrets.

PS: note that the mariage law doesn't require parental consent at any point including for 16 and 17 years old spouses.

Are you sure about this, as I don't think that is true (unless things have changed) - it seemingly being between 17 and 18, or later.