Tenn. GOP proposes eliminating marriage age requirements
What do you think, pro or con?
Background:
https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-bill … ts-1695209Don't support it. I hope is never goes beyond the proposal stage. I think 17 is too young for anyone to get married.
It's insane.I happen to agree with you this time, it is insane......
Now I am going to SAY SOMETHING. It is beyond insane. It is positively medieval, even ancient. This is the 21st, not the 12th century. I am being mild here. I believe that there should be an age requirement for marriage-the minimum age should be 31, case closed.
Thanks for sharing that, but I would not go so far as say 31.....
I agree on the need for a minimum age requirement.I agree that the proposal is beyond insane, as you say. I think a minimum age of 31 is too late, though. A woman’s fertility declines as she approaches her late thirties. If she and her husband want to have several children, they shouldn’t be forced to have them in a short time period.
Women can have children as long as they have their periods. I still believe that the MINIMUM age for marriage should be 31. At that period of life, people are educationally & socioeconomically established. They also experimented regarding lifestyles-letting off steam.
For starters, women who become pregnant after age 30 are at an increased risk for miscarriage, birth defects, and pregnancy complications. There's loads of research to support these risks.
From the attached URL:
"The risk of chromosomal abnormality increases with maternal age. The chance of having a child affected by Down syndrome increases from about 1 in 1,250 for a woman who conceives at age 25, to about 1 in 100 for a woman who conceives at age 40. It is possible that risks may be higher as many statistics only report live births and do not take into account pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities that were terminated or ended due to natural pregnancy loss."
http://tiny.cc/8ogquz
Oh boy, I am not even going to touch this. You can read my thoughts on the matter. If I say something, I will be banned for sure.
Marriage between a man and a woman, is good. But parental consent must be obtain. And if parents or either party are failing in this, the blessing of an Uncle or an Aunty is enough for the go ahead. At 17 or !8, a man or woman is ripe for marrige. But they're immature they if these lack financial independence. Nevertheless, in the part of my country, specific the Wakirike(the Okrika) people, 15 is the minimum before the coming of the British. This age is still current by tradition and custom. Though the maximum age is now 18 years due to western education. The law or legislation will only tally this code or traditional convection as a people value. It varied all over Nigeria.
It is just ironic that the GOP speaks of protecting the innocence of the young; by attacking Judge Jackson over specious charges of being lenient in her judgement regarding child pornography cases, and protecting their children from "painful truths" of American History by offering fairy tales instead.
Yet the GOP in their hillbilly hypocrisy, allow children to be exploited in so brazen a manner as not providing a minimum of age of informed consent for those involved in this institution of marriage.
The conservatives sicken me, always speaking about the sanctity of marriage and interfering with private and consensual association among adults. Yet in regard to our most vulnerable citizens, they will subject them to the most base sort of exploitation.
To the Right: you offend and disgust me......
As Forest Gump says, "that is all that I have to say about that".And they're also proposing a Texas style abortion ban. So marriage at any age with extremely limited access to abortion. God help the 13 year old girls of Tennessee. It's a real hillbilly elegy.
Faye, have you heard? Your neighbor Oklahoma is proposing an abortion bill that makes Texas look liberal in comparison. I have this vision of old men exploiting prepubescent girls...
I heard about outlawing abortion from the point of conception. Patriarchy rules Supreme? So, the women of America want to be dragged around like so many Barbie dolls?
They can get away with it based on what they consider a sympathetic Supreme Court. What happened to Roe vs Wade?
So, what is the next outrage?
I wanted you to see that this is far beyond just political differences, it is more akin to freedom verses slavery. These Right oriented people are incorrigible. As regardless of your experience and pedigree, your reasoned arguments and presentation of factual data consistently fall upon deaf ears. As they descend to the lower levels of evolution, believing only those that they slavishly follow, truth is irrelevant as loyalty is more important.
I really am beginning to doubt that a "meeting of the minds" is possible.Oh yes I've read. Practically a near abortion ban really. The harshest in the country. Gov. Stitt of Oklahoma will not be outdone by Governor Abbott. Although there was probably some collusion between the two. Mr Abbott certainly doesnt want women fleeing into Oklahoma seeking abortion.
I see that nearly half of the patients Oklahoma providers are currently seeing are medical refugees from Texas.
These governors are really emboldened by a Supreme Court goon squad that appears poised to overturn or significantly gut Roe v. Wade. A whole lot is hanging on that decision.
"I really am beginning to doubt that a "meeting of the minds" is possible.
I agree and I have becoming increasingly frustrated but we have to keep plugging along and finding points of agreement where we can. Increasingly I find that so many differences between people are really just based on incomplete knowledge of an issue or misunderstanding of the issue. Media never helps either because they never go to the lengths of really trying to educate viewers on an issue both.
I just hope that when people hear broad sweeping definitive statements from politicians they start digging for facts immediately.
Those few who made this proposal do not represent the GOP as a whole any more than Maxine Waters, Gavin Newsom, Shirley Jackson Lee, etc. represent the democrat party as a whole.
Come on....each side has crazies in it.Damn, that contrarian devil is firmly rooted on my shoulder today.
Cred, this:
"Yet the GOP in their hillbilly hypocrisy, allow children to be exploited in so brazen a manner as not providing a minimum of age of informed consent for those involved in this institution of marriage.
The conservatives sicken me, always speaking about the sanctity of marriage and interfering with private and consensual association among adults. Yet in regard to our most vulnerable citizens, they will subject them to the most base sort of exploitation.
To the Right: you offend and disgust me......"
. . . is just plain partisan BS, (I didn't say bullshit because I don't want to aggressively challenge you because I know your thoughts will end up in a more sensible position).
You jumped in so quickly with the `it's about the children' indictment, and finger-pointing, that you appear to skip right past a few basic tenets that I think you would agree with.
I think any group that voluntarily makes a society has the right to make the rules—by majority decision, of their society. From a hippie commune to a nation. The greater society dictates the limits of that `right,' but all sub-societies have the right of determination within those limits.
That sounds all nice and democratic and stuff, but this issue exemplifies it. If the greater society of our republic doesn't place such limits, why would it be so extreme, (your above quote), for the sub-society of Tennesee to make their own rules?
To think about this rationally, when you are talking about restricting anyone's life-choices, you have to toss out the extremes. So I'm not buying the GOP Hillbilly child abuse criticisms. What is the rationalization for your measure, is it `If it saves one child . . . '?
You aren't thinking about it that way. You have jumped on it with partisan zeal thinking your trap has sprung. `Aha! got you now you disgusting conservative pedophiles and child abusers.
If you still want to use extremes as justification, how about this possibility:
A 15-year-old girl is in love, (really), with a 17-year-old boyfriend of 2 years. The boy is a solid citizen with a bright future and the girl's parents love him and support their future marriage. Then she gets pregnant. but she can't get married., she's `underage'. But she is old enough to legally get an abortion. Would you support such a legislative intrusion?
GOP Hillbilly hypocrisy? Take a second look at that and see if you still want to explain it. I think the real "hypocrisy" is feeling justified to make such decisions for others and demonizing anyone that doesn't agree as sickening and disgusting GOP hillbilly hypocrites.
To answer the age question, just as a perspective, I would fall into the 16-year-old with parental approval camp as the most sensible answer, but I don't have a problem with this legislation—relative to the point of your OP.
GAWell, GA, it IS partisan because the article clearly states that Republicams are pushing the legislation.
And as we both know from the Civil Rights Era, "States Rights" is not an absolute. You are subject to federal and constitutional provisions. Extreme abortion provisions, that penalize those assisting women getting an abortion out of state. What goes too far for you?
What about 10 and 12, years olds, what prevents such a marriage arrangement? Everything needs to be codified and a line has to be drawn somewhere or you will see cases just like this.
Your last paragraph is the sensible answer. While the state under the Republicans, I might add, can omit a minimum age requirement as they control the legislature, I point out the hypocrisy as I still believe that it leaves the young unprotected. When all the other stuff they kick about regarding protecting children they endlessly harp about.
It is a dumb and callous legislative initiative, but being Republicans in control, I should not be surprised that they would promote it.I don't know if the legislation is dumb or not. I didn't check. I was only addressing the criticism for the omission of a minimum age and the extreme extrapolations presented to trash those politicians that support the bill.
You present the 10 or 12-year-old question, what about my 15-year-old example, same thing?
The age stuff is just argumentive details. The real issue is more legislative restrictions on personal choice. On that count, I say this is a Tennessean issue that doesn't need government intrusion.
However, I can see the cause of your condemnation, the Republicans do the same thing to comparable Democrat actions. That doesn't make it right for them either.
GAWell, GA, the problem is that those under 18 cannot enter into a legally binding contact, so whether they like it or not, your example couple are still under the responsibity of parents or adult legal guardian. How well is that going to work? If I recall, compulsory school attendance is required of youngsters under 16 in most states. It is going to interfere with is or her conjugal duties and obligations. How practical is all of this?
It is not wise to omit a minimum age requirement, as where there are now no boundaries, people will abuse to the extreme. As I told Wilderness, there are more than a couple of states that operate below the 18/16 threshold. So, the practice is not unprecedented. It is just my opinion that it opens cans of worms that are better when remaining hermetically sealed.
I criticize Republicans for using the issue of children not out of any real concern for them, but to play politics.I am back again. Psychological studies authenticate that the human brain isn't fully developed until the age of 25. Teenagers aren't emotionally & psychologically equipped to enter into relationships, let alone marriage. Marriage is for adults. It is medieval, if not atavistic in nature. Society has progressed & have become more complex. Are these Tennessee legislators mad?
Yes, there were people who married as teenagers long ago. However, they were among the LEAST EDUCATED. As societies become more modernized & complex, people are becoming more educated to live in modern societies. Even decades ago, psychologists & sociologists vehemently decry teen marriages. Teenagers aren't mature enough psychologically to enter into marriage. They don't have the educational nor sociological means to make marriage work. Even the 20s are WAY TOO YOUNG to marry.
I hate to say this. Tennessee is a retrogressive state as is MIssissippi & the majority of Southern states. Southern states are among the least sophisticated states in America. Southern states aren't called the Bible Belt for nothing.It may be true about complete development of the human brain at 25. I can understand that but then if we use 25 as the magic number, where do we get our recruitment soldiers? Young people drive much of the economy, if you take away privileges, you have to take away responsibilities as well, as that is only fair.
Realistically, 16 with consent and 18 without makes the most sense in our current scenario.
You see, I was right. ;-)
You have worked your way into a sensible position. "It is not wise . . ." is a long way from the tone of your OP.
I agree with you, generally. I just don't think this is an issue for more government intrusion. And once some points were noted, (toss the extremes out of the discussion), and some comparisons made, (other states), the proposed law seems to be of a type that should be Tennesee's choice. It is not a slippery slide into child brides or pedophilia rings.
As for the contract stuff, damn Cred, who are we to mess with love by being `nit-picky'? Make it like the contract for your first car and let the parents co-sign.*
The Republicans usually do deserve criticism on issues like this, but I'm not making that call on this one—based on what has been presented.
*Double damn. I shouldn't have to note that that was joke.
GA
"Well, GA, it IS partisan because the article clearly states that Republicams are pushing the legislation."
Your link does not give any indication of liberal response, meaning it could be either positive or negative. Given that, your declaration that it is partisan can only be from an attitude that anything from Republicans is disgusting, partisan (no liberal would ever agree with anything from those awful Republicans) and horrible, no matter what it might be.
Right?Wilderness, if the read the article let me offer a quote from it:
"Democratic Representative Mike Stewart, who is on the subcommittee that passed the bill, said since there is no explicit age limit on the legislation, it could open up the possibility of covering up child abuse, WKRN reported.
"It should not be there as it's basically a get out of jail free card for people who are basically committing statutory rape—I mean it's completely ridiculous, so that's another reason why this terrible bill should be eliminated," Steward said.
---------
I will acknowledge that on further study, there are a couple of states without minimum age limits and a couple more with with age limits in the "tweens" so, it is not unprecedented.
I just thought that Republicans would be concerned about the potential for child abuse, as they always claim that they want to "protect the kids"....Again, I found zero indication that Democrats were fighting the bill - apparently they have no concern for our children or the abuse of them. Right? I mean, if you're going to make such silly statements, shouldn't you include anyone not actively fighting such a bill, not just the party (and all the members thereof) of the one or two people that sponsored it?
Personally, for me, I would find that 16, with parental or emancipation, should be the limit or 18 without one or the other. Just my opinion.Keep trying to spin it to win it, Wilderness. This is a Republicans initiated legislation when you look at what is behind it and the GOP attitudes regarding same sex marriage, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to determine the culprit.
At least you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes if you simply look at the origination and ignore any and all support from anyone else.
The point was that there is exactly zero indication in your link that Democrats have not jumped whole heartedly on board, but you refuse to acknowledge that lack of information and simply blame those evil Republicans. You can call that "spin" if you wish - I call it "looking for all the information". Get all the facts before condemning a whole party rather than the two or three people that proposed the legislation. Plus, although I disagree with it based on the scant information given, it is quite possible that I would agree if given the reasoning and all the facts rather than just "Those evil Republicans are at it again!".
Interesting:
In the UK:-
• From 1754 and prior to 1929 you could get married at 12 if you were female and 14 if you were male. Prior to 1754 there was no legal minimum age for marriage in the UK.
• In 1929 the minimum legal age was raised to 16 with parent’s consent or 21 without parent’s consent. This led to the popularity of Gretna Green, in Scotland (just across the border from England) for a while, as at that time (until 1939) you could still get married in Scotland from the age of 16 without your parent’s consent. Gretna Green came in its own as a sanctuary for underage marriage since the 1754 Marriage Act in England.
• In 1949 the minimum legal age with parent’s consent remained 16, but the legal minimum age for marriage without parent’s consent was reduced to 18.
However, currently going through Parliament is a new Bill to increase the minimum legal age from 16 to 18, in England and Wales, including same sex marriages. Although the legal minimum age for marriage at 16 with parent's consent (including same sex marriage) is set to remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Gretna Green Story: https://youtu.be/IuUkKpJH0McArthur,
I read that any adult sexual assualt on a minor under 16 as statutory rape.
I believe that under 18 you could marry only with your parents consent and even with that it was restricted to the age of 16 years. Yet there are many states that will permit marriage younger with parental consent. It has been a while since I have visited the stats on this and the patchwork of state laws regarding the subject.Yes, that’s what surprised me; the legal minimum age in the UK is 16 with parental consent and 18 without, albeit a Bill is currently going through Parliament that would raise the legal minimum age to 18 in England and Wales.
In the EU the minimum age for marriage, with and without parental consent, is 18 years.
Therefore I assumed it would be similar in the USA, and thus I am surprised that there are parts of the USA where you can get married below the age of 16.I see it, in the US, as a hold over from our past. My great grandfather left home at 14 to join a wagon train West, where he met my great grandmother. My grandmother left home in her early teens to go to a boarding school and my father quite school at 14 to work and help support the family financially. Young marriage, at 14 or 15, was common in our Old West as what we would now term "children" started their families.
What child today is capable of making such decisions and following through with them in their early to mid teens? The maturity level, and sense of responsibility, just isn't there in any but a small minority.Thanks for the feedback wilderness; most enlightening.
My great-great grandfather left school in Bristol in 1843 at the age of 14. He started an apprenticeship as a stonemason with his brother-in-law when he was 16 (1845), and a year later they both went to America to finish their apprenticeship. He then returned to Bristol in 1861 to see his dying mother, and never returned to America; a decision which as he wrote in his diary, he “forever regretted”. Nevertheless while in America he learnt the art of phrenology and on his return to Bristol set up a business as a phrenologist in the centre of Bristol, which he did for 40 years, until his retirement at age 70 in 1901. It was a good business; he was wealthy enough to employ a full-time live in servant to look after his four daughters while he was at work.
My grandfather left school at age 14 in 1920 and took up an apprenticeship as a shoemaker, which he did until his retirement at age 65. He also joined the union and was a staunch Labour supporter all his life, just like my mother.
I left school, and home, at the age of 16 to join the civil service.
My son left school at age 16 to go to college for two years to get the necessary qualifications to go to university at age 18.
I find your last paragraph very typically American attitude. In Britain teenagers and children as young as 11 are considered to be mature enough in attitude and knowledge to be able to make informed decisions to a certain point, and take on a certain level of responsibility. That’s reflected by the fact that the voting age in Scotland and Wales is now 16; and the fact that Parliament encourages the ‘Youth Parliament’, and allows them to debate and vote on issues in the House of Commons once a year.
The Youth Parliament was founded in 1998, and from 2007 has been able to use the House of Commons once a year to debate and vote on issues.
The Youth Parliament are made up from children from the age of 11 to 18 who are democratically elected by their fellow peers (school children in secondary school) to represent the interests of children. It’s through the efforts of the Youth Parliament that the voting age of children in Scotland and Wales has now been reduced to 16.
Youth Parliament debate ‘voting age’ in the House of Commons: https://youtu.be/u894bXZoyZsUK Youth Parliament: 'MPs Will Listen - Whether They Like It Or Not' https://youtu.be/55oapIYyBX8
"In Britain teenagers and children as young as 11 are considered to be mature enough in attitude and knowledge to be able to make informed decisions to a certain point, and take on a certain level of responsibility"
I don't think you would find disagreement with this in America. However, how many 11 year olds, given the opportunity, would quit school in favor of playing video games? How many are responsible enough to take over total care of another human being?
It is that that "certain point" and "certain level" that matter, and it is an exceedingly rare 14 year old child that is willing and able to maintain a marriage and care for a family. IMO, and don't think it matters whether that child is American or British. It likely matters if they are from a deep woods culture where children take on such responsibilities at an even younger age, and expected to do so by the time they are 34 or 14, but we don't require or expect children to do so in our culture, and they have to experience or expectation of it.In answer to your first point:-
Actually (at least in Britain) most children do want to learn; just as most adults want to work.
In fact you could ask the same question about adults, and (as least in Britain) you would get a similar answer to your original question about children e.g. “How many adults, given the opportunity, would quit work in favour of watching TV at home?”
Yep, not many children over 11 would find it easy to take over total care of another human being; or “be responsible enough”, as you put it. However, that can be said for a lot of adults as well, and in reality, when ‘push comes to shove’, most people (of any age), children and adults, will rise to the occasion and do what is necessary – you just need to give them a little trust, and some credit, and you might be surprised of what people (children and adults alike) are capable of.
As regards your last paragraph, I wasn’t talking about marriage, I was talking about sex.
I think we all agree that that marriage under the age of 16 should be illegal. But that isn’t going to stop children under the age of 16 from having sex; and in that respect, regardless to whether we condone it or not, to make it too difficult for children who are determined to have sex to get contraceptives is just increasing the risk of pregnancy. So if a child can demonstrate that he or she is competent enough to make decisions then why shouldn’t they be given the right to do so?
Under English and Welsh Law: Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own medical treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence
The consequence of the above law means that under age children can get the contrastive pill ‘free of charge’ from their doctor, without their parents knowing about it. Even when I was a teenager back in the 1970s, it was common practice for daughters under the age of 18 to get the pill from their doctor without their parents’ permission or consent.Well now, the "pill" is another matter entirely. While I completely agree with children using it under a doctor's care, I also recognize that it is different for a great many people. After all, such a practice is solely to enable the sinful practice of extra-marital sex, demeaning the child, welcoming Satan into their lives and removing the chance for everlasting life in heaven. It directly leads to eternal punishment in Hell and is solely used to encourage activities that lead there.
Given that mindset and belief of parents, it is clear that children are NOT mature enough, for children live in the "now", not the future, and are not competent to decide their futures at a young age.Regarding the first response, you are being sardonic, aren't you? You clearly don't believe what you have spouted about the illogical relationship regarding the pill, "satan", & "hell". No intelligent, educated person believe in satan & hell-such are medieval concepts. If more teenagers were responsible in using birth control, there would be less teenaged pregnancies & its deleterious resent. Get real man!
I agree with what gmwilliams says above.
Such beliefs had died out in Britain by the 1960s, the hippie’s era.
In recent decades Britain has become a secular society, so religion has nothing to do with it.
Who says it’s clear that children are not mature enough; living in the ‘now’ and not the ‘future’. From my experience, adults can be just as short-sighted and immature as children. And besides, children who are wise enough to use contraceptives are demonstrating that they are thinking of the future e.g. they don’t want to get pregnant or cause a pregnancy.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state … e-by-state
Here is a little background, Arthur. There are a few states that let youngsters marry at 10-12 years.Wow, I'm shocked, didn't expect that in the USA in this day and age.
And now for some facts:
In Tennessee, the law has always been that a 17-year old can marry WITH parental consent. That does not change under the bill.
This amended bill has nothing to do with marriage contracts for minors. The bill proposes that same-sex couples (only) can choose to have common-law marriages. That is what the bill is about. The bill does not say that children of any age can get married. The age requirement of 17 has not changed.
Here is the amended bill. You may want to take the time to read it so that you have the correct facts before making false assumptions promoted by Newsweek and Credence.
https://capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Amend/SA0709.pdf
That is not to say that I believe it is wise to marry early, even if 44 states (to include Democrat states) in the U.S. allow it to happen.
Again, this is a bill about common law marriage for heterosexuals. Period. The age requirement (for marriage or common-law marriage) would not be changed for Tennessee.
I do not personally agree with the bill and I believe it will be challenged by the Gay community.The only fact, Savvy, is that the lack of an age restriction upset enough people so that they amended the bill, yesterday.
https://www.actionnews5.com/2022/04/07/ … riage-law/
So, both I and Newsweek were correct based on the information we had at the time.It was two days ago, but okay. Are you willing to admit you deliberately mislead everyone into thinking that this bill is about something other than heterosexuals so that you might promote the lie that Republicans are pedophiles?
I highly doubt it.
I can list a whole lot of Democrat policies that harm children, such as open borders and the trafficking and Fentanyl that come with it and which is destroying our children as we speak; how Democrats promote abortion just before and after the birth of an infant; how Democrats refuse to give poor families vouchers for education into better schools, how Democrats promote reassignment medication and surgeries to children who haven't the brain capacity to know who they are yet.
So spare us your tirades about Republicans. Clean up your own Party. As a Democrat, Lefty, or whatever you call yourself, you should be calling your Congressman or Congresswoman every single day to demand they stop destroying our youth.No, i don't admit that, Newsweek is a responsible source of journalism. At the time I posted the article, there was no floor on the minimum age in the legislation.
Democrats supported Roe vs Wade, not abortion on demand nor the ridiculous GOP ideas of no abortion at conception.
This charter school stuff is just a ruse to get rid of public schools and reinstitute white academies and disparities in educational opportunities based on wealth.
Republicans, their platforms and philosophies still suck, but again that is just my opinion. Whatever you call me, I am more reasonable and ethical than any Republican, case closed?Wow. Just wow. Would you like to provide some backup to the statements you've made?
Any Data on Democrats promoting reassignment medication?
Any Studies that show charter schools promote higher learning or do they just funnel off More capable students leaving schools to atrophy because all students don't have the means to get to a charter or we're not offered an opportunity?
Some factual foundation for your claim that Democrats promote abortion before and after birth?
Any Specific policies that create an open border?In reading the exchange of comments between you and savvydating and Credence; the one thing that caught my eye was “Gender reassignment medication” to children.
I checked the NHS (National Health Service) website to see what they say on the subject in the UK, and found this information:-
• The subject has been challenged in the courts in recent years (no great surprise there); the first court case in December 2020, which made it illegal.
• However, this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in September 2021.
So now, as the law currently stands in the UK:
• Children under the age of 16 may, depending on their presentation, be assessed as legally competent to give informed consent, and
• For those aged 16 and 17 the courts have maintained a position that they are presumed to be able to give legally effective consent to treatment for hormone blockers or cross-sex hormones.Your laws seem to make more sense in my opinion. At least they appear to leave these highly personal decisions to the family with court guidance for younger individuals.
In this country, we have a party than increasingly tries to one-up each other or out do the other in how much they'd like the government to infringe upon or have a hand in your personal decision making. Particularly in autonomy over our own bodies.
Most recently we have the Governor of Alabama signing a bill into law that actually criminalizes gender affirming care for minors.
The bill makes it a FELONY for medical professionals to provide gender-affirming medical care people under 19. This includes gender reassignment medications.
Governor Ivey said in a statement that she signed the bill because she believes that "if the Good Lord made you a boy, you are a boy, and if he made you a girl, you are a girl."
Major medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association oppose restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and say they go against best practice standards and will harm the wellbeing of trans youth.
But as you may have noticed, many politicians here disregard science in favor of emotion. They generally rely on fomenting outrage.
Of course this legislation will face opposition and be fought in the courts. It will most likely make it to the Supreme Court in time.Wow, and I’m usually told by Americans that UK laws are too restrictive on individual rights; so it makes a refreshing change.
The other area of law which I find fascinating in how it differs between the USA & UK, whereby children and young adults are given more right in the UK is the drinking laws:-
• In the UK adult from the age of 18 can buy alcohol.
• In the UK, a young adult can drink wine, beer or cider in public provided some one over 18 buys it for you and it’s consumed with a meal at a table. British Cider being different to American cider e.g. British cider is made from fermenting apples to make alcohol (just like wine), and is just as alcohol as wine and beer.
• In the UK, children from the age of 5 can legally drink alcohol at home (or on other private premises) e.g. it’s customary in Britain (as in many European countries) to give children a drink at the table with a meal at home for special occasions e.g. Christmas, Easter etc.
Yet, as far as I understand it’s illegal to drink in the USA under the age of 21?
https://www.gov.uk/alcohol-young-people-lawYes, 21 is the legal drinking age here but of course most young people find ways around those laws.
Currently, I would colloquially say that we have a lot of nonsense invading our political arena.
American politics is primarily fueled by division on social or culture issues, with leaders trying to gain power by inflaming resentments and dividing people on mask-wearing, transgender students competing in athletics, or invocations of “cancel culture,” whether it’s OK to teach slavery, suing teachers because they acknowledge a student has gay parents, abortion bounty hunters and banning books that parents deem unacceptable. The culture war has colonized American politics.
We used to frown upon government regulation of private behavior but now the Republican party can't seem to get enough of it. And they whip their base into to outrage over just about anything except the issues that really matter like the economy, affordable health care, jobs, crime, gun violence, The quality of our public schools and more.
You hear virtually nothing from Republicans as a point of policy on any of these issues.
As a result , our November midterm elections will be contested on a playing field of rightwing outrage rather than a policy platform. It's ridiculous."And they whip their base into to outrage over just about anything except the issues that really matter like the economy, affordable health care, jobs, crime, gun violence..."
Faye, this would be funny if it were not so sad. My state, decidedly red, just passed the biggest education increase in our history. We have a decidedly lower crime rate and violence rate as well. As "affordable health care" simply means forcing others to pay for what a person wants but cannot afford, that one is a liberal talking point and not much else. Our economy is good enough that taxes are being cut, not raised, and excess taxes collected are being returned to the people for the second year in a row.
Meanwhile, the crime rate in liberal areas is far above that in Republican ones. Taxes continue to rise, forcing people into poverty. Violence is pervasive, with rioting encouraged by liberal leaders.
Democrats really need to look at their failed programs and decide where their priorities are. Is it to protect illegal aliens from the ravages of American law, to force people to accept men in women's dressing rooms, to take more and more of what people have built in order to give it away to buy votes, or is it to build a better country for our people?Well, wilderness, in Idaho, as in the land of Oz, anything is possible
Perhaps, you need to reassess your comments regarding this
"Meanwhile, the crime rate in liberal areas is far above that in Republican areas"
https://news.yahoo.com/republican-contr … 37750.html
I am sorry to have been a bit short with you in a comment or two of mine. But you guys just always manage to get my dander up. And I should realize that you cannot help being what and who you have become over time anymore than I can."Well, wilderness, in Idaho, as in the land of Oz, anything is possible"
Sure is! All you have to do is get rid of the liberal idiots running your state and you, too, can live with low taxes, low crime, booming business and all the rest of what people need.
You might want to think, quite hard, about where that murder rate is coming from. The liberal cities in conservative states or the conservative run towns. We all know where murder rates are highest - the large, liberal run cities like Chicago, NYC, LA, etc., and it isn't the places were conservatism controls.
You can change, though, just as I could. All you have to do is look beyond what you are told, beyond the stories and the emotion laden cries, and find the root truths. And when you do you will find that most liberal policies are utter failures, that the only reason they exist is to chain people to their handlers in DC.Of course the murders higher in the nation's largest cities are higher due to sheer numbers, Boise with more quilting bees, is not counted. A sparsely populated place with a homogenous population. I would prefer Vermont that enjoys what you in Idaho do, but without all of the rightwing sadism. Also, it is not far from that wonderful bastion of liberal diversity, Montreal.
Did you even read the article?
Are you so fixated on the rightwing feedback loop that any challenge to your time honored opinion has to be discarded as liberal propaganda? That, for me, goes nowhere.
As for your last paragraph, when do YOU CHANGE and reconsider your attitudes and values virtually cast in bronze? I find conservative policies attitudes and policies unacceptable as alternative, that does not change the cost of a cup of coffee. I am satisfied with progressive policy and following your ideology and attitude we all would be worse off, in my humble opinion.
It is the cONSERVative idiot DeSantis and many like him in this state of Florida and his "don't say gay" that is making the state ever more uninhabitable for intelligent and reasonable people.Unfortunately it is not that murders are more numerous in liberal cities, but that the murder rate, per 1,000 people, is higher. Much higher.
Also unfortunately, for your scenario of my opinions, is that I am not a Conservative. It is true that I believe that we are responsible for ourselves, that we should obey the laws of the land and that it is incumbent on us to help those less fortunate (that does not mean that it is incumbent on me to force you to help - just that I will). Liberals have, and will continue, to come up with good things - gay rights are but one such example. But they are also responsible for a tremendous amount of poppycock; an attitude that we don't own what we have built (it belongs to liberals to do with as they wish), and the past few years a growing attitude that discrimination and racism, as well as decided sexism, is the norm of the day and is right and proper that it be so.
So, for me, I find myself fighting against the conservative platform quite a bit and the liberal one most of the time. Not all - as stated they do come up with some good ideas, but on the average they cannot seem to look beyond the end of their nose or past tomorrow and I find that to be extremely detrimental to our country, to our society and, quite often, myself and my loved ones.
Yes, I read the article, which is why I asked just where those murder rates were high. In the liberal cities or in conservative bastions. As usual with biased commentary only part of the story was given, with very important parts left out.
LOL Metropolitan Boise, a Homogenous population? Your ignorance is showing - we have a large Basque community, a large Hispanic population and considerable numbers of American Indians (Idaho hosts 5 Indian reservations, 2 quite close to Boise). As Boise also hosts Boise State University (some 26,000 students) and at least 4 other colleges/universities we also have a very diverse selection of young people, mostly quite liberal. I will grant you that Idaho, as a whole, is nearly 90% Caucasian, but the Treasure Valley (Boise and its suburbs) is not. It doesn't approach Chicago, Miami or LA for their diversity, but neither could it ever be considered "homogenous".Ignorant, am I?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-ci … in-america
Boise, Idaho ranks number 3 in the "whitest" cities in America. Looks likes you need to bone up on your research a bit. So, calling Boise diverse is a bit of a stretch, I would say.
And what you to continue to ignore is that there is going to be a higher homicide rate in Los Angeles than Boise, Idaho even per capita. The vast majority of the largest cities in America have Democrat administrations. Find even one of the 30 largest metropolises in America that is run by Republicans and do you observe much less crime is found there? Maybe it is just the very fact that they are large cities that explain the crime over the idea that Democrats control the administration, have you ever thought about that?
I simply do not have a great deal that I like about conservatism in America, today, from its cultural stance, to economics and politics, I am hard pressed. I acknowledge that even you take issue with the temerity of "religious right". So, you are not completely incorrigible. Outside some of this who can use what bathroom stuff, I can't abide with conservative policies and attitudes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of … crime_rate
If you note that per capita, the rate of crime is the same in Ft. Worth, TX, a pretty good sized city administered by Republicans as it is in New York City, as just an example, how do you explain that?
--------
"and the past few years a growing attitude that discrimination and racism, as well as decided sexism, is the norm of the day and is right and proper that it be so."
And until this disparity that adversely affects equal opportunity and equal access Is abated much more throughly than it currently is, it will continue to be "norm of the day"."Boise, Idaho ranks number 3 in the "whitest" cities in America."
Did they count illegal aliens? I did.
Did they count college students from a different town? I did
"Maybe it is just the very fact that they are large cities that explain the crime over the idea that Democrats control the administration, have you ever thought about that?"
Yes, but can't check it. While there may be one or two large conservative cities in the country, one or two does not a comparison make. I DO, however, look at where the extreme poverty is (homeless level) and it is all large cities. I DO look at where the slums are and it is all large cities. Poverty breeds crime; the question is whether liberal policies breed poverty and my answer is "yes". From excessive welfare to aiding addicts to get their drugs to encouraging the homeless to come to the city, to excessive business handicaps liberal policies encourage poverty.
American conservatism (regardless of what Republican elite is doing):
Secure our borders
People are responsible for themselves, not the government.
The Constitution is the law of the land, not to be ignored, changed (outside of the legal method).
Females shall not be required to compete in sports with males.
A reasonable financial "safety net" is useful and a very good thing. Considering over half our people as disabled either mentally or physically to the point they cannot provide for themselves is not a "safety net": it is socialism, though perhaps Marxism is a better term.
These are Conservative attitudes. Do you disagree with any of them?
"And until this disparity that adversely affects equal opportunity and equal access Is abated much more throughly than it currently is, it will continue to be "norm of the day"."
Tell me; do you find that there was 'equal opportunity and equal access to male candidates for the recent SCOTUS seat? You don't want equality; you want discrimination against individuals that have never participated in any kind of racism or sexism in their lives. Presumably as a punishment for what was done hundreds of years ago - there can be no other reason to discriminate against people innocent of any wrongdoing. Pretending that a group (black people) given priority over other individuals of a different race is not discrimination is incomprehensible. We all know better in spite of the fantasy that Caucasian males cannot be discriminated against by definition.Illegal aliens? Why are you bringing in this information that is not supported or proven but is just an observation of yours in place of encyclopedic study and reference?
Until you have enough conservative run cities with which to make a comparison, your observation is just personal and irrelevant to what we are talking about.
Again, specious arguments and comparisons about poverty and Democratic administered large cities? Since there are virtually no large metropolises controlled by Republicans what which to compare, how can you really say liberal policies are the cause of poverty and slums? There are no really large cities, Democrat or Republican that are free of them, except of course, Boise Idaho, that you want to use as a model? Poverty is existent and a part of just being a large city.
It a problem that I always have with you, your personal observations are anything but objective and can be never used as information to support your arguments. Your observations need to be supported with objective data before I can enter it as evidence of your point.
Oddly enough, I agree with every point that you made. Yet, regardless, I cannot think of any two forum members that are as far apart as you and I. Many of your points and our differences come down to extent and degree, where I could take issue. Because I agree in principle, they must not be just conservative principles.
Did not Ronald Reagan announce that he was going to put the first woman on the bench, Sandra Day O'Conner? Did I hear a lot of howling about that? White men have had their values overwhelmingly dominating the court with their sheer numbers for 2 and a half centuries, perhaps it is time for others to have a say? Even the great Ronald Reagan understood the idea of inclusion, and you still do not?
The sins of the fathers....
Your forebears are responsible for a terroristic attack on blacks over a very long period of time and much of what was residual from that remains today. We will, at a minimum require the truth about these events and not have them shrouded for your comfort and convenience.
Your forebears spent centuries discriminating against non-whites creating disadvantages that cross over many generations. and is much of the reason why we are relatively behind in so many factors within American life today. Even Richard Nixon, hardly a liberal, acknowledged a need for a remedy in the face of that reality.
Caucasian males are the wealthiest, have the most power and influence within this society, so don't try to tell me that you guys are the underdogs.
I have seen in the Rightwinger and the Trump movement a determination by them to keep it that way at all costs. And mark my words, they will prove in the near future just how far they are willing to go to retain that power....
Well let's not forget that Democrat-run cities fuel the economy and keep many red states afloat.
Democratic-voting areas fuel a whopping two-thirds of the American economy. Republican-led parts of the United States, on the other hand, are generally, remarkably unproductive.
The economic divergence between red and blue states is staggering and growing rapidly. While income and education levels are increasing at a swift rate in Democratic areas, they are stagnant or declining in red states, which seems like a recipe for disaster. Some call it brain drain.
But in terms of crime, even a cursory analysis of crime in America roundly debunks Republican claims that Democratic policies fuel violence.
First and foremost, crime rates dropped at a remarkable rate under President Bill Clinton. And
Six years into Barack Obama’s presidency, violent crime reached a two-decade low.
Crime is also highly concentrated. A study of large U.S. cities found that 5 percent of city streets account for a whopping 50 percent of criminal activity.
Democratic voters surely inhabit far more than the small sliver of neighborhoods where an outsize proportion of violent crime occurs, deflating GOP attempts to link crime to Democratic policies.
Let's try to take into account the entire picture with all of the confounding variables that impact the claim there is a straight line between Democrat governance and crime. This is a spurious association at best.
Also, let me throw this in there. There is an epidemic of opioid and alcohol-fueled suicides, overdoses and accidental overdoses ravaging red states such as Kentucky and West Virginia and Oklahoma.
Drug-related deaths involving opioid are higher in these rural areas even after adjusting for population density and the ratio of nonmedical users to medical users is higher in rural areas as well.Nationally representative surveys have indicated that, in rural areas, not only are there higher mortality and injury rates but also adolescents are more likely to use prescription opioids nonmedically than are their urban counterparts.
Is this related to Republican policy? Or an outcome of many factors and variables?If you want to talk about what different sections of the country contribute, don't forget that a large majority of our food comes from the breadbasket, conservative center of the country. Or that the majority of our oil comes from conservative states. That our concrete anthills produce most of the money (but not the products) just means that white collar workers are paid more.
"Democratic voters surely inhabit far more than the small sliver of neighborhoods where an outsize proportion of violent crime occurs, deflating GOP attempts to link crime to Democratic policies."
Are you suggesting that the tiny portion of Republicans living in the slums are what determines the philosophy used to run a Democrat city? I don't think so.
Yeah - I watched a TV report on opioid use in (I think) West Virginia coal mining country. Miners get Black Lung and are prescribed opioids until thoroughly hooked. With the mines shutting down and towns shrinking that's hard to get any more so they move on to a non-prescription form. Really sad.
On the other hand, rural areas don't typically have masses of addicts sleeping on their streets and overrunning their hospitals.
But assume you're right and it is Conservative policies that are causing it. What are they? Conservatives don't typically legalize dangerous drugs; liberals do. Conservatives don't supply drugs to addicts; liberals do. What conservative concepts are causing the drug usage? Does it carry over to Cocaine (the drug of choice for white collar workers, I think), LSD, meth or others? Or is it just that rural people choose opioids over other mind altering drugs?Don't twist yourself into a pretzel trying to absolutely definitively pin blame on one party or the other. I was just trying to point out that far too many are taking that simplistic view while ignoring all of the factors that impact the situations we've talked about.
Do any particular policies cause any of these problems? To what extent I'm not really sure. But I do know that the endless finger pointing, hyper partisanship and blame game does prevent any of them from being solved or ameliorated. When are people going to realize that we the people are really the only losers in the game of politics.
Politicians can make any issue partisan. People need to look beyond that and discover that there's a whole lot more to any issue than a straight line to one party.
But then what happens? We all sort of end up in the middle with a give and take, a natural equilibrium and a rational analysis of issues? How would elections be won if their wasn't blame, outrage and misrepresentation?
Here in the U.S. there is a Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA), which is 21 years of age set by the The Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984 and all the states abide by that. BUT, underage drinking varies by all fifty states while some are the same in some ways. There are eight exceptions to the MLDA, which are stated at the beginning of the article linked below. Take a peek while considering who in this forum lives where, such as I live in California.
States That Allow Underage (under 21) Alcohol Consumption by Britannica ProCon.org (Updated 3/10/16)
https://drinkingage.procon.org/states-t … nsumption/Thanks for your reply Faye.
Yes, what you say is what I find so strange about American politics e.g. politics so polarised.
From a European perspective the Democrats are not seen as a left-wing party but a centralist party (similar to our Liberal Democrats in the UK). So from a European perspective there isn’t a great deal of a political gap between the Republicans and Democrats and therefore there shouldn’t be such a gulf between the two to cause Americans to be so divided and polarised.
In contrast, in the UK (as across Europe) there is a wide political spectrum; in Britain, from the Socialist parties, like Labour, to the Capitalists like the Conservatives. Yet, for the bulk of the time, on most matters, in spite of the wide political gulf most political parties in the UK work together quite well most of the time.
For example, the Parliamentary Select Committees, which plays an important part of Parliament in holding the Government to account are made up from a cross-selection of political parties to represent their percentage of seats won in the General Election; for example (at this time) in a typical Select Committees of 11 MPs, the composition might be five Conservatives, one Liberal Democrat, and five Labour MPs, or four Labour and one from another opposition party, such as the Green Party. The Green Party often being invited to sit on the Select Committee if the subject matter is related to ‘Green matters’ such as the Environment or Renewable Energy etc.
What are select committees and how do they work? https://youtu.be/iLvNmMJmD0w
Politizing the age a boy or a girl should marry is not right. It spell dracula. It should be left to custom, culture, and tradition. Has a society be birth by politics or culture? I subscribe to the later. Otherwise, why d'you think political wranglings that results in legislative are being challenge in courts of law and change for good?
"It should be left to custom, culture, and tradition. " . . . . and the majority choice of the people.
GA
Guys, we've wondered much away from the discoure, the age requirement of marraige for youths? And now, we're talking about crime, murder, economy, income, race issues, and much...things too diverse.
The age should be when they are adults. End of story.
18 years of age.
NOT before.
Finis.Good God, at 18 a person's an adult? Be it so. Seriously, at 32 I got married to a girl of 16 according to the Wakirikenes(the Okrika people) custom and tradion, my culture.
I agree with Miebakagh; 16 is more realistic than 18.
The real issue is one of sex before marriage.
For conservatives, it seems the ideal is this:
If girls get pregnant, they should not get abortions, After all, Human Lives Matter.
Q. Who can argue such a sentiment?
A. Women who get pregnant and are not ready to take on the task/role of being a mother or wife.
Dilemma: What is a girl to do if she wants to keep her baby, stay with the guy who got her pregnant and she is only 16 or 17?
Presto! Lower the age of marriage and allow these teenagers to get married. These pre-adults will be expected to raise a child, support the child and deal with modern life in some capable way.
Q. Doable? Can teens in this day and age take on responsibilities as though they were adults?
A. Parents would have to help them. Without their help I would say, NO.
With their help, I guess so. But is this really the best scenario for the teens and the new infant?
Its actually quite a problem and it is society's job to find a solution.
In the past it was: no sex before marriage, self control, abstinence, being good, being a person of integrity, listening to parents, listening to priests. Are parents and priests taking a position on premarital sex these days?
Wondering!It seems as if you're speaking as one that has pass out of the marriage rites of the Wakirikenes, the Okrika people. In the distance past, especially before the coming of the Bible and the Church Missionaries, if a girl attain the marriageable age of 15 years, and miss any of these fine rules you've outlined, and unless her parents forgives her, she'll be either disgrace, and sold into slavery. The 21st century is a sure permissive age. You can get away with it. For the education and enlighenment the West and Orient has introduce. Any girl at 13 these days wil like to experiment with the pill! You're okay? I'm okay?
Births by age and Race from 1940 - 2012. Look for patterns to substantiate you theory. For instance births for under age 19.
Births by Age and Race of Mother
https://www.infoplease.com/us/populatio … ace-mother
Of course one should consider the population for those age groups for each year. Also, population growth rate would be helpful.
U.S. Population Growth Rate 1950-2022
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/U … rowth-rateIt's a simple matter of common sense. Parents, priests, ministers, clergy members, counselors, psychologists and family members must urge their youth to abstain from premarital sex until they find true love. The youth can be encouraged to accept that sex is for the purpose of finding happiness through loyalty to one another and through raising a family. It is to bring love and joy into the world. It is to bring love and joy to each other. It is to bring love and joy to a new soul coming to earth from the arms of angels.
Is enlightened thinking too much to ask for, to guide the youth toward, to strive for?
I really do not think it is.Are you saying parents and religious leaders/counselors aren't doing as you suggest?
All that may sound great, but when has it "really" worked?
We are becoming more enlightened as time goes on.
We are starting to realize that children listen to their parents/guardians because they love them. This love allows the adults in charge to impress upon their children's minds and hearts what is best for them. Childhood, (through 18 yrs.,) is also the time to consistently set the boundaries which will lead to worthwhile, successful and fulfilling lives.
Parents and guardians should know this fact regarding human development: willing obedience manifests in the early stages of human development, when the world is being absorbed by the child in an indelible way. Because of this natural urge to follow the parents, parents are able to guide their children toward healthy, happy lives. All they really need to do is set good examples and provide common sense boundaries. Forcing, punishments and threats never work ... and may backfire.
In the past, frank discussions were not engaged upon and common sense guidelines were not encouraged. Instead, fire and brimstone was threatened by priests. Then the opposite occurred; counselors and psychologists said, "Go ahead, here are some birth control pills and condoms." Today, Parents fail to, (and cannot,) limit their children's exposure to sexual content in TV shows, movies, technological screens/internet, etc.
Yet, suddenly, Conservatives decide to prohibit abortions without addressing the urgent need to encourage the youth to AVOID sex before marriage. Sorry, Conservatives, it doesn't make sense to stop girls who wish to correct their mistakes.
If we do not agree with abortions, we must prevent pregnancies by amping up our efforts to enlighten / educate the youth. Efforts to prevent abortions can also be accomplished by showing the horrors of abortion procedures. With the availability of videos on-line, we can reveal scenes of babies' arms and legs being ripped or cut off in the womb ... and then what happens to one, should it survive the abortion ... how the child is abandoned, without arms or legs, to die with no one daring to comfort, nurse or hold what they have so heartlessly mutilated.
Unless we talk to our children and instill enlightened reasoning and realistic consequences, we will surely de evolve, rather than evolve toward greater awareness, as I believe we are destined to do.The point you make in the first paragraph has always been true. That guidance should always be part of the relation between children and parents, so what is changing?
Children can be willful and depending upon personalities, discipline is required. Parents are fighting a losing battle with ubiquitous media, as I see 10 year olds with cell phones. This kind of access to the world simply was not available in the past.
Conservatives always hype the moral side without providing practical solutions. Not just abortions, but I have heard that they are after birth control as well. When a woman's rights and very existence is defined by her reproductive functions, the patriarchs win. It is back to coat hangers and barefoot and pregnant and any advances made regarding their rights and opportunities in this society will be rolled back on that basis.
Sex is primal and its has never been easy to get kids to restrain themselves as most of the parents did not restrain themselves in their youth. There was time that pregnant girls were taken out of the high schools as bad examples for the others, now giving birth under such circumstances is heralded, the negative peer pressure is no longer there.
Nobody likes abortions, but there has to be balance between a Woman's prerogative regarding her reproductive options and abortion on demand. I thought that Roe vs Wade was that compromise. But conservatives are determined to have their views of where life begin apply to everyone. And that is "typical" conservative.
As to talking to our children regarding enlightened reasoning and realistic consequences, I believed that we have always been doing that.
Arthur, you're welcome. But that's the marriageable age for a girl if her suitor has strong financial muscles. Otherwise, he made put her into a family mess and mess up her life. Enjoy the day!
Sixteen is too young. A girl does not know her own mind yet.
How do I know?
I was sixteen. I had no idea what I wanted or what kind of man would be a good man. I remember some guy fresh out of the army wanted to marry me at sixteen. I remember all the stupid thoughts that came from my ignorant, open mind. Finally, one of my friends said, "He just wants you for sex." and I got rid of him as fast as I could.At 16 certain girls are immature. Those with a good home educational background are the excemption. Further, my custom will induce an Iria Bo or a virtious lady into marriage peageant for a period of time. This prepare girls for more training on sex and womanhood, motherhood, home economics, and... And depending on which part of the town the girl come from, training can be from 6 to 12 weeks. So these graduates are good to say bye bye to spinsterhood, before the age of 17 or 18. Nevertheless, some girls do wait till 25 for to get a good western education, and self-professed. That's what my first daughter did.
Girls, universally, are not mature enough at sixteen to be led by the nose by some big 'ol creepy man. And that's what all men are to these sensitive females, at this stage of their development. Spare the poor things. Let them stay home to continue their development on their own terms, with willing obedience to their parents ... who love them more than any husband ever could. Please spare them the misery of having to grow up too fast and miss out on important joys of life, leading to a better connection between their inner lives and the world.
I am very happy for your daughter.
Not all, some women at 16 are more than capable in knowing her own mind.
In passing: One family we met, a number of years ago, the grandmother, mother and daughter all got pregnant and married at 16; and it was one big happy family.
I left school and home, and started work at 16; and I was mature enough at that age to make such decisions.
I met my wife when she was 17, and her parents had no objection to me taking her on a week’s holiday (vacation); shortly after meeting we decided to get engaged on her 18th birthday.
It’s not a question of 16 is too young, it’s a question of 16 maybe too young; dependent on the individual – that’s why the current laws in most countries is that young adults can marry at 16 with their parents’ consent e.g. if the young adults under 18 don’t know what’s good for themselves, then their parents ought to be mature enough to make the right decision?Arthur, as to the point you raise in the last paragraphe, I noted such occured in my locality. Apart the accidental pragnancy before marriage, some culture will now oddly produce the grandma, mother, daughter partern, because it's desireable. In a culture like mine, income is the dorminating factor. While middle income earners send they girls to secondary schools(popularly called college) here, those with low income parents has no alternative but to get a small trade and get married at 16 or 17.
Yeah, I understand, it used to be rather similar here in Britain up until the 2nd world war. Even in my youth, in the 1970's it was common for kids who didn't want to go to college to leave school at 15 and start a trade, or stay on school for an extra year until they were 16 and then go to college from 16 to 18 with a view of possibly going onto university at 18.
Frankly, in my entire life I have never met any male, female. or couple married at age 16. For that matter not one of my friends through my adult life now more than forty years did any of them marry before age twenty. With family all my brothers and sisters (two of each) did not marry until around twenty-two after graduating college or establishing themselves in chosen job/career and save some bucks. Me, I never married, yet cohabitated for a portion of life. So, that is my anecdotal evidence for what it is worth.
Yet, poking about looking for kernels to form some semblance of a view I see at least since 1890 median age of marriage here in the U.S. has never been less than twenty.
Meidan Age of First Marriage. 1890 to present
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Cens … s/ms-2.pdf
Who Marries and When? Age at First Marriage in the United States: 2002 by Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db19.htm
I agree Family Values are instrumental to forming a person's view of marriage, yet I really don't at this time feel here in the US our society is falling into the depths of hell and sin. At least the data and studies I have found don't support that. Oh well . . .Yeah, it’s a very similar picture in the UK.
• Back in 1851 the mean average age of marriage in England and Wales was 27.8 for men and 25.9 for women.
• It stayed relatively stable right up until 1970, when the mean average age started to rise sharply, and has been rising sharply ever since.
• Although the lowest mean average age since 1851 was in the late 1960s when it fell to 27.2 for men and 24.7 for women.
In 2018 the mean average age in England and Wales for:-
• Men marrying women = 38.1 years old.
• Women marrying med = 35.8 years old.
• Men marrying men = 40.4 years old, and
• Women marrying women = 36.9 years old.
So as you surmise; what is all the fuss about?
This is pretty scary I think. Because this means a 50 year old guy can may a 14 year old and no cares?
Related Discussions
- 18
Why do people have an issue with others stating there are varying levels of R.ap
by Peeples 11 years ago
Why do people have an issue with others stating there are varying levels of R.ape?In the forums, on facebook, everywhere it seems there is debate over this after recent news. My question is why are people offended by others stating that there are varying levels of R.ape?
- 65
Happy Moms Day: Hillbilly CONservatives Snuff Women’s Inherent Rights
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
And WOMEN are Furious: Can you imagine, here in the year 2019, this extreme infringement upon a woman's sacred body and her right to control it is now occurring in some of the hillbilly states where women’s inherent rights and progress toward a brighter more prosperous and empowering future spells...
- 31
Proposed GOP Bills. Do you detect a theme here?
by Susan Reid 13 years ago
Wish I could say this is a David Letterman "top 10" list. Pick one, pick them all.It's not just the proposed cuts in funding, it's (in some cases) the rationale behind these bills that makes me wonder. Is this 2011 or 1951?Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War 1) Republicans not only...
- 13
When a 19 year old asks you whether or not to marry at that age, whats the right
by Lewis Wanjohi 11 years ago
When a 19 year old asks you whether or not to marry at that age, whats the right answer
- 16
To Save Conservatism From Itself, I Am Voting for Harris
by Kathleen Cochran 3 weeks ago
Opinion David FrenchI believe life begins at conception. If I lived in Florida, I would support the state’s heartbeat bill and vote against the referendum seeking to liberalize Florida’s abortion laws. I supported the Dobbs decision and I support well-drafted abortion restrictions at the state and...
- 31
McConnell blocks bi-partisan bill to prevent Russian meddling.
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
Despite yesterday's warning from Robert Mueller about the Russian meddling, Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators blocked a voter securitybill from coming to the floor. They're afraid of Trump so much they believe passing such a needed bill will make Trump angry. So much for the integrity...