Should there be a different type of marriage category for younger teens?

Which is not that long ago, in the grand scheme of things.

 

Her consent and ability to provide informed consent is indeed enough alone for her part within either marriage or sex.

That's part of what I have been saying. Her maturity, which we typically codify into law as an age, is what defines whether or not she can provide informed consent, as opposed to consenting without really knowing what she is consenting to.

Obviously all parties involved in either sex or a marriage must give their own informed consent to the event. Since we consider adulthood the point at which one has the ability to provide informed consent, then the parents of either potential spouse are not relevant to the event.

If the parents' consent is required then the individual is not (legally at least) capable of providing informed consent, and thus should not be allowed to marry.

Any teen period, and duh. But still that doesn't mean that there should not be consequences for those who take advantage of the inability of the underaged individual to provide informed consent. It is also the reason why we have Romeo and Juliet law to cover when both individuals are close enough in age that such taking advantage is likely not present.

If she in unable to provide informed consent when not married, then she is also incapable of providing informed consent when married. Even within the legal confines of marriage, informed consent must be given or it is rape. This is true at any age.

If that is what you are taking from my posts, then either you are not bothering to really read what I am saying, or, and my apologies if this is true, I am not being clear in what I am saying. But given that others have been able to clearly understand my intended points, I am doubting the latter. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that there is a specific breakdown in understanding between us.

That said, my arguments, are first, not limited to just females. As I and others have pointed out, these principles apply to both males and females with regards to ability to provide informed consent. Secondly, we are saying that you cannot bypass the ability to provide informed consent simply by allowing the underaged person to get married. If the person in question is allowed to get married, then they also have the ability to provide informed consent such that they can engage in sex with anyone of any age, and enter into any legal business relationship, such as retaining a lawyer and filing for divorce.

In the end, there is no need for any special category of marriage to be used with underaged individuals. Either they can provide that informed consent or not. At best the laws need to be changed to reflect that. The ability to marry underage would mean the ability to provide informed consent, thus meaning being a legal adult, thus meaning that the underaged individual should receive an automatic emancipation if so married, thus preventing any, as you said, " take(ing) away (of) certain legal rights and trap(ing) a young girl into a marriage."

 

What possible reason - TODAY - does a 13 year old child have for being married.

 

No, it's not. If it were then the entire issue in the opening post would not be an issue.

You seem to be unnecessarily trying to make this a black & white, either/or issue.

I am saying there is a grey zone between those two extremes.
Yes, we all recognize there is an age where the girl is too young to give consent to anything, and another age where the girl is old enough to give consent all by herself to sex with anyone or marriage.

But there are also things in-between. The girl might be old enough to consent to sex, but not to a guy that's older than a certain age. Or she might be old enough to consent to sex but not to marriage.
Both of those things are already in the current law. So you can't claim it's either all or nothing.

 

Your thought process on this is simply not logical.

It might be if the ONLY issue that was at play was her consent, but it's not.


I think a child can sometimes consent to some things, but not when their parents know it's bad for them.
An analogy might be if 16 year old girl wants to fly on a plane to New York City and try to get hired at a modeling agency. A 16 year old girl can do that if she wants, but the parents have veto power.

 

Why does anyone?

 

My thoughts is why. Marriage is culturally meaningless

It's very realistic to say it isn't something you do once.

 

Marriage has financial and sexual consent legal implications.

Which still is not necessarily relevant to my argument, because special exemptions can be made to make sure this isn't being abused.

 

not any different than any other contract.

It seems like the only point in this is for it to be abused.

 

Sorry, what point are you trying to make?

I don't see why you'd say that. You could place a limit on both individuals so they could only engage in this sort of underage marriage relationship one time in their lives.

 

that marriage is culturally meaningless.

It's just a civil contract

The only reason to allow them to marry underage is to force them into a relationship they are not ready for.

 

Aside from the fact that such is a subjective value, the very fact that a vast majority want marriage within the law shows that it is culturally meaningful. You might find it meaningless, but you are in the minority.

 

You almost seem to be acting like that would be a worse thing than the girl having multiple casual sex partners.

 

There is nothing worse than forcing a child into sex.

 

Forcing them to enter a contract or not doesn't have any effect on that.

Marriage isn't a magical spell that compels monogamy. Further if it wasn't my choice to get married I would feel no commitment to whoever I was forced to marry.

It's almost like marriage has no cultural meaning.

 

It seems that you don't seem to be able to see the forest through the trees.
Do you realize the point of this? Yes or no?

In other words you are worried that this will just be an excuse for a 21-year-old to legally sleep with a 15-year-old, and they will still be out there having plenty of other sex with other people?

That's very cynical thinking.

 

How do you think this proposal could end up forcing the girl into sex? You seem to be drawing a false equivalency here.
"Marriage = forced sex"?
"Marriage when the girl is any age less than 18 = forced sex"?

Are you worried that even with all those protections built into the system (parents agreeing, girl giving her consent, judge signing off on it, independent social worker doing a basic investigation) there is still a possibility a girl could end up getting coerced?

 

Young and mid teens are children, so yes.

 

Isn't that very black & white thinking?

"18 year old girl needs no protections." "17 year old girl can't consent and it's rape"

 

no, no one should be allowed to get married until they are old enough to buy beer ( which should be 18 )

 

If I'm not understanding your point that's a problem with you I wouldn't know if I'm understanding your point the way you are intending on meaning it.

It's incumbent upon you to communicate your point clearly. I don't do riddles.

no. I'm more worried about parents coercing their children into entering civil contracts.

Well it wasn't my thinking at all so next time just ask if you don't know instead of guessing.

I'm not going to guess with what point you're trying to make if it's unclear you need to clear it up.

 

That can happen when the girl is 18 too.
Why are there no protections whatsoever to try to make sure 18 year olds are not being coerced into marriages, but we don't think those less than 18 are qualified to do so under any circumstances, no matter what type of legal protections are in place to try to make sure they are not being coerced?

 

It should have been obvious. It's mainly an issue of sexual consent. Two people fall in love. They want to be close to each other and sleep in the same bed and plan to share their lives together.
The argument that such relationships should be forbidden in the case of casual sex is not exactly the same type of argument that it should be forbidden in the case of a marriage.

I find it ironic that those on the Progressive Left who in general tend to be so in favor of liberalization of sexual relationships seem to be so against this.

It's almost like there's programming in them that says "Sex is good. Marriage is bad and subjugates and exploits women."

 

A person that's 18 is considered an adult.

 

Your point being?
Are we resorting to sudden cut-offs and black & white thinking again?


Shouldn't a girl who is a little less than 18 have the opportunity to get married also, with some extra protections built in?
Seems like with those extra protections built in, the chances of this being used to exploit her would be very low.