Yes, I'm happy with it at 16 as it currently is, for both marriage and sexual consent. I don't understand allowing sexual consent before allowing marriage. If you can have a baby, you should be allowed to marry. It seems logical.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So just stop it, NOW!
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
I sometimes think that age is just a number. In fact, I find myself saying that more as I get older.
Perhaps if the law allowed for exceptions with a court order, there might be some responsible 16 or 17 year olds out there. I've known some teens who were more responsible than adults more than twice their age. Some teens have had responsibility thrust upon them, possibly due to a sick or absent parent, and might have to quit school and help take care of their younger siblings.
Couple of quick questions and points...
1) Why not 15?
2) In Victoria (where I live) 16 and 17 year olds can marry, with the consent of their parents. What's your view on that? A 16 or 17 year old can marry 18 year olds also.
Totally agree.
Agreed. We have that in place here (Victoria) for 16 and 17 years olds.
It's just culture. It's been 16 here since forever so 16. It's what we're used to, it's when kids leave school. 16 as the age of consent is fine to most Brits since that's the way it's been since Victorian times. Not saying there's anything special about it, but it's normal here. Not sure why you're this bothered about the age tho when that's not my concern here.
You seem a bit confused, unless I'm reading you wrong. I'm saying yes 16 year olds should be able to marry, but with parental consent, as it's been for decades here. It matches the aoc.
It's the concept of having a legal line, versus the idea of when people actually have sex.
25% of women in Britain lose their virginity before the age of 16, regardless of the law.
And marriage is not required in any legal sense for people to have sex, nor to raise children, nor to have a committed relationship (I say this as a married man).
Equally, being married is no guarantee that people will raise children, or have a committed relationship. Or have sex, although I say the last with my tongue somewhat in my cheek, and as a married man.
Your original post...the one I commented on...was that it makes absolutely no sense to have a lower legal age of consent than it does marriage. But...apart from a potentially moralistic position which you're welcome to...I see no justification of that position at all. Why doesn't it make sense? Marriage and sex are not the same. And a legal contract is part of the deal with marriage.
Not confused, I'm trying to understand your position. Your original post was brief, and derisive of disagreement. I'm just trying to work out why you think there is no sense to be made in disagreeing with your position. I find that hard to believe. Having said that, I suspect our views on what the laws should be are very similar. I just don't find it easy to dismiss opposing views.
It's silly for the reason I've already stated. Sex makes babies, and to divorce the idea of sex from babies is unhelpful. Babies require being raised in a stable home and marriage facilities that. If the couple having sex didn't forsee such a possibility then frankly I think they are idiots. Having sex should not come without a price. I'm not saying the law would compel them to marry, but at the very least the option would be there instead of requiring them waiting two years.
Sex can make babies. I have three, but I've managed to have sex more than three times.
I wasn't suggesting divorcing sex from babies at all. Far from it.
Babies are best raised in stable homes...but marriage actually does very little to facilitate that in my experience. Still, we can agree to disagree on that one.
Whether the couple are idiots or not is hardly the point I'm trying to make. And...again...I suspect our positions on this are pretty close in terms of how we'd practically set-up the law (which will always be imperfect, since that's what laws are).
I don't get the judgemental language (in this case 'silly') around any who disagree with your view, is all. There are valid reasons to separate marriage law (contract law) from the age of consent. And there should be a recognition that no matter what the age of consent is, teens will have sex. It does somewhat interest me as to what logic you would use to determine the age of consent, why you think it's important, and what you hope it prevents, but at this point I think I'm being somewhat tangential, so apologies.
Wait, what? And all this time, I thought it was the stork.
I'm not sure it's legal to have sex with a stork, mate...