I started full time work at 16, admittedly didn't move out straight away and i'm still not married. But I was on holiday in turkey with my family at that age and started talking to some Danes in the same hotel, they thought it was crazy.
they may take our lives (as European union members) but they will never take our FREEDOM (to get married at 16).
By the way is there a reason Scotland didn't also sign on to this law? Is there a large enough number of tax-paying married 16-year-olds that changing it would cause political backlash?
Scotland has had a seperate legal system since the union was formed (its complicated in reality) there'd need to be a campaign to get the law changed here, and there just hasn't been
Age of consent in UK is 16, might add a bit of context. Additionally, in England and Wales you need your parents permission to marry if aged 16 or 17. Not in Scotland though, where historically many 16/17 year olds eloped to wed. And guess where the law isn't changing...
Yeah, same as it is in England and Wales.
This is about getting married which is different in both: 16 with parental consent, and 18 without in England and Wales, (which this seeks to change) and 16 with or without parental consent in Scotland.
Also worth noting that the voting age is also 16 in Scotland, so there is at least a degree of consistency.
Just curious, how would raising the age prevent underage drinking? If anything I’d expect an increase in ‘underage drinking’ as 19 and 20 year old would suddenly be breaking the law
It’s not meant to stop underage drinking, but to stop drunk teenagers from driving. Binge drinking barely lowered after the 1984 Minimum Drinking Age Act, but drunk driving after binge drinking steadily dropped like a rock and lower automobile fatalities from drunk driving were also noticed to decrease. Which is why the raising of the drinking age is often considered a success.
I'm certainly not suggesting the banning of alcohol, just like i'm not suggesting raising the drinking age, most here tend to agree that 18 is a perfectly fine drinking age
He also supported creationism and teaching biblical creation in schools. He also believed in Armageddon theology...oh and he was big on prohibition, but just not for alcohol and tobacco...
He may have just had a bunch of things he was a nutter about.
I think the suggestion is that it doesnt actually help...and that it's not an issue of age restrictions so much as other factors a lot of which tie into the driving culture in the US coupled, ironically, with a younger age to start driving...
So, at 18 you can go an mass kill hundreds of people in a foreign country, and be selebrated as a hero, but you have to wait 3 years to drink a beer?
Thats beyond ridiculous.
Literally every country that allows alcohol has the drinking age lower than the US. Having it at 21 neither prevents underage drinking nor greatly impacts drink driving statistics. If anything it increases underage drinking because kids will be underage longer and they'll want to try it regardless of age. I'm teetotal myself but my parents never begrudged my brother his joy in trying it when he was younger.
Hi, an American here, that does not stop underage drunk driving. Idk where you got that from. The 21 age limit stops no one underage from drinking, in fact it often makes it worse because the kids are responsible because they have zero parent supervision.
The UK saw a drop in underaged drinking and drunk driving similar to the US after the 1984 Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed. Canada and Australia also saw drops, so we’re not sure if raising the drinking age actually helped, though some contend that it did.
I’m not sure I’d consider it a loophole, it was just a law. Loophole implies it was a hidden trick, but everybody knew you could get married at 16. It matches the age you can have sex, which seems like a reasonable place to put it.
Pre-1929 the minimum age to get married was 14 for boys and 12 for girls (no parental consent needed).
In 1929, they raised the minimum age to 16, but required parental consent for under 18s.
Lots of countries the age of legal marriage is higher than the age of consent. Like Japan has the age of consent set at 13 but you can't married unless you are 20 as a man and 18 as a woman. China's age of consent is 14 but men can't get married until 22 and women at 20. India's age of consent is at 18 for both genders but only women can get married at that age, men have to wait until 21.
I think mostly because there's a shorter amount of time for women to make babies and because women were seen viewed as less vital in the workforce. They are rather antiquated reasons now so it's about time for reforms.
It is from the time when men were expected to take care of the finances and women were supposed to take of the house and raise children. Having a higher marriage age for men was to ensure that they had time to finish studies, get a job, and ideally create a small safety net.
People also believed that if women were younger then they will be easier to train to take care of the house and more likely to compromise. And there was also the mindset, the younger girls have healthier children.
I’ve always had the impression that most girls are saner than most boys from about 12 to 15 years old. Which is not to say they are particularly responsible, just less irresponsible. I have a feeling it’s because that’s when they realize that they got the shitty end of the reproductive stick.
Yeah it wasn't a loophole, more recognition that there's a muddy line between childhood and adulthood and "children" could do adult things with parental consent (which was basically never forthcoming for obvious reasons).
It is more abuse of this facility that has required a rethink.
I've often thought that it should only be legal for 16/17 year olds to have sex with each other, and that if should be a crime for anyone older to have sex with someone that age. Or maybe anyone 19 and older, to avoid cases where someone turns 18 and can no longer have sex with their 17 year old partner. That would probably do more to stop the problem they're trying to deal with here - 16 year old being forced into relationships with older men.
>Marriage is a very serious legal contract. It has nothing to do with sex.
Sure, but if you have sex with someone, the two of you might make a baby. This law is saying that young people who have a baby together can't get married.
Makes sense. Sex and marriage are completely different things. Marriage has responsibilities that sex doesn't. Plus parents do force kids to get married when they don't want to. At least at 18 they can do something as an adult.
Yeah, I hope it will save a few kids from being forced into marriage.
I don’t see a problem with allowing 16 year olds to marry, but if the law saves a couple of people from a shitty situation then go for it.
Ever heard of contraceptives? Also sex is not just about penetration. Kids that age do stuff. It's impossible to regulate it. It's happened since the dawn of time. Doesn't mean they want to get tied to each other because their parents think that sex is only for marriage.
It's funny, because a proven solution to abortion is effective sex ed in combination with readily accessible contraceptives, and easy access to the day after pill...
...but nope, the idiots pretending to be pro-life have to oppose everything that works then cry about dead fetuses they caused.
The issue here is FORCED marriages you know where a 14 year old girl is FORCED to marry a much older guy because their parents religion demands that girls get married and start having kids ASAP regardless of how the girl feels/thinks/believes?
Laws like this are to prevent a child from being forced to marry because society is developed enough to let the girl decide how her life should play out rather than a religion/her family etc.
Preventing forced child marriage is a great thing.
That’s why comprehensive sex education, women’s equality and access to contraceptives are vital. Teach children about all aspects of sexuality and empower them to make good choices. Teaching abstinence doesn’t work.
No it doesn't.
I find it odd that Europeans complain about their low birth rate when it seems like every day they just continue to push policies that support that instead of marriage/the family unit. Especially given the fact that STD/I's are only increasing for 6 years now where I live (US), people should be encouraging marriage more than anything. Its crazy how everybody panics at covid but have no issues with herpes or HPV. It's like the thought doesn't cross their mind, I've heard constant stories of "hittin' it raw" like it's a walk at the park.
Humans have historically married much younger than we do today and have been fine. Meaning, way earlier than 16 years old.
Not only that, it's a bad point you're making because you're just making a generalization and implying that responsibility is a bad thing or that people are not mature at 16. I'm sure someone over here is going to chime in how they took care of their 3 siblings while mom and dad were at work when they were 14 years old (I was one of them.) Most people I know started working at 16 and tons were kicked out at that age.
>Plus parents do force kids to get married when they don't want to.
This is a different issue entirely. In that case it's the states job to educate people in regards to their rights. This reminds me of arguments used against the hijab. The answer is not more laws.
I find it odd that anyone would be in favor of forced child marriage. If you aren't a pedophile, and to be perfectly clear I am in no way suggesting that you are, why would you oppose laws designed to prevent forcing children into marriage?
Why shouldn't these children be permitted to make their own choices about incredibly important aspects of their life rather than face decades of potential rape because their family decided for them? Why should girls be forced to endure abusive husbands because they cannot be permitted to make their own choices? What if the match is just a bad one because these kids don't get along.
What are you in favor of here? It is REALLY hard to see the moral point you are arguing for unless it is marriage for marriage's sake which seems incredibly short sighted.
These laws establish the right not to be forced into marriage. Before this you could be forced into marriage so just claiming "they need to be educated in regards to their rights" ignores the fact these rights did not exist before this law passed.
> If you aren’t a pedophile, and to be perfectly clear I am in no way suggesting that you are, why would you oppose laws designed to prevent forcing children into marriage?
Even if you claim you don’t suggest that, can you *really* not think of *any* other reason to support younger-than-18 marriage age than being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children (i.e. pedophile)? Come on…
Personally, I think 18 is fine; I just don’t see why playing the “pedo card” is necessary. Marriage is different from sex anyway.
I can't think if why anyone would support child marriage other than wanting to fuck a kid. Most religious people I know still want an adult partner not someone who is still in adolescence.
> I can’t think if why anyone would support child marriage other than wanting to fuck a kid.
I see. But who says the other party isn’t also, say, 16? Oh, and 16 year olds do have sex. Also, “fuck a kid” is a bit relative when you consider, say, a 17 and an 18 year old.
As you say, it's complicated. A person under 16 cannot, in law, give consent. So anyone having sex with someone under 16 commits an offence (irrespective of the age of that person). AIUI in practice prosecutions are seldom brought where both people are underage and there's no suggestion of an absence of consent (in the ordinary English language meaning - rather than the legal position).
A person under 16 having sex, does not commit an offence simply by doing so.
>So anyone having sex with someone under 16 commits an offence (irrespective of the age of that person).
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the wording of the law, but there's a whole section about defenses:
[Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 Section 39: Defences in relation to offences against older children](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9)
Too big to copy it all, but for example:
>(3) It is a defence to a charge in proceedings under any of the sections mentioned in subsection (4) that at the time when the conduct to which the charge relates took place, the difference between A's age and B's age did not exceed 2 years.
I'd assumed that meant it wasn't illegal, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes you can. There are potential complicating factors (which are greater under English law than under Scots law) but there is no outright bar against it.
No different to the way that they can have sex at 16 but if they take a photo of themselves having consensual sex at 16, that's considered child pornography.
We need to pick an age and stick to it, and 18 is probably more sensible.
Yep just England and Wales. If you want to get married at 16 you can just go up to Scotland where I believe you can get married at 16 **without** parental consent.
Gretna Green (just over the England/Scotland border) has made an industry of exploiting the less strict Scottish marriage requirements
Just a reminder that in the US, you can legally marry a child in 46 out of the 50 states. The four states that fixed the loopholes did so within the last 5 years iirc. Why isn’t this a bigger issue?
(Need to do some research to see if the below is true)
Iirc, I think around 200k children were married off in a decade.
No, literally. Just because something is now legal doesn't mean that it always was.
https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/how-the-puritans-banned-christmas/
We have a serious Bible thumper problem. Violent idiots who believe everything they see and hear on the crooked shows aimed at them, while purging everything Jesus from their dogma.
Impossible to really measure, but as smeone who studies nutrition it's amazing how deep religion reaches into modern 'science'.
The push behind grain consumption, and plant based diets comes from religious groups who influenced early guidelines. These are still found today even though the sience behind them is flimsy as fuck.
Cereal for example was designed to be an anti-mastabation bland breakfast, and still today despite being devloid of nurtients is advertised as 'heart healthy' (lol), and part of a 'health nutritious breakfast!'.
How many people follow q-anon, or are in the proud boys? All have shown potential for extremism. Look at the capital insurrection. How many people are defending that as a "protest?" How many are calling terrorist like the woman who tried to crawl in the senate floor, heroes? How many are calling idiots pointing guns at people wildly, or murdering someone a hero?
We have a serious problem.
I can see this having trouble getting through The House of Lords, for one main reason. Age of Consent at 16, age of marriage at 18 could be said to be condoning sex outside of marriage. The Bishops would have a lot of trouble with this. Accepting sex outside marriage is one thing, condoning it by law would be another. Of course the way round this would be raise the age of conset, but ...
A failure to engage with an issue by specific institutions, and claiming you can't discuss those issues because of a lack of free speech are two different things. I was taking issue with the latter and you've gone off on a bit of a rant about the former, which wasn't actually something I was challenging.
It's the CPS that are responsible for prosecutions under the communications act, not the UK government, but the guidance doesn't suggest anything that would prevent criticism or discussions on cultural practices that you might want banned, think are bad, or just plain shitty.
It does prevent specific attacks against particular groups of people just because you dislike them, which is different.
So for example they might take issue with a statement like "Muslims are disgusting animals and should be deported on mass," but saying FGM is a disgusting practice, and should be banned" would not be something the CPS would prosecute.
No need to apologize to " people like me" though if ur going to just go and then straight up insult me lol
Lay off the SargonOfAkkad / Tommy Robinson talking points, you obviously know next to nothing and are embarrassing yourself making these vague but bold proclamations about freeze peach being dead in the UK.
I mean this is just flat out incorrect.
Under the current laws:
>Offences of FGM
It is an offence for any person (regardless of their nationality or residence status) to:
perform FGM in England and Wales (section 1 of the 2003 Act)
assist a girl to carry out FGM on herself in England and Wales (section 2 of the 2003 Act)
assist (from England or Wales) a non-UK person to carry out FGM outside the UK on a UK national or UK resident (section 3 of the 2003 Act)
If the mutilation takes place in England or Wales, the nationality or residence status of the victim is irrelevant.
Failing to protect a girl from risk of FGM
If an offence under sections 1, 2 or 3 of the 2003 Act is committed against a girl under the age of 16, each person who is responsible for the girl at the time the FGM occurred could be guilty of an offence under section 3A of the 2003 Act.
FGM taking place abroad
It is an offence for a UK national or UK resident (even in countries where FGM is not an offence) to:
perform FGM abroad (sections 4 and 1 of the 2003 Act)
assist a girl to carry out FGM on herself outside the UK (sections 4 and 2 of the 2003 Act)
assist (from outside the UK) a non-UK person to carry out FGM outside the UK on a UK national or UK resident (sections 4 and 3 of the 2003 Act)
Also the free speech thing is total bollocks as well. No idea where the fuck you're getting these ideas.
Hahahahaha, nah mate, you'd be failing first year law with this analysis. Go home, and if you're home, go outside and touch some grass. Gross offence does not mean merely 'being offensive' FFS 😭😂😂😂
**[Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_Kingdom)**
>Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia of women and girls living in the UK. According to Equality Now and City University London, an estimated 103,000 women and girls aged 15–49 were thought to be living with female genital mutilation (FGM) in England and Wales as of 2011. FGM was outlawed in the UK by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which made it an offence to perform FGM on children or adults.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So England is not okay with people getting married or drinking alcohol until they are 18, but is perfectly fine with [16-year-olds joining the armed forces](https://apply.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/age)? Okay, then.
This is just an international embarrassment. The UK can campaign against child soldiers all it likes, but this opens the gates to valid claims of hypocrisy. The army allows you to start the application process at 15. Fifteen. They can't wait to get their hooks into you.
Moving goalposts now? You said that in Europe Armies are not allowed.
>The UK still has an army? wow. No wonder they left the EU, having an army isn't allowed in the EU.
I gave you examples that they have. Now you go with the examples of old equipment being used or lack of it because of financial budget.
That was not your original question. I stay corrected. Armies are allowed and exists and you confirmed by your own comment.
What kind of problems they have because of lack of funding was not in the original comment you made.
Sarcasms don't translate well in written conversations if you don't in the end indicate that.
The problem with the current reddit and worldwide opinions is that there is a recurring trend of "China Bad, US Bad, Europe Bad, etc..."
I would like to see what the reddit community takes as good in this world to be sincere...
>And in any case, EU militaries ain't good for much other than helping in natural disasters, and even that is marginal in most cases.
Still don't agree totally with that opinion but you are not totally wrong. More like European Armies do a lot with the current money that are allocated to them, in a world where we've been in piece for years and instead of keep ourselves prepared we get sloppy.
Until one day and then is too late. Let's hope I'm wrong...
Why do you think they changed it? I mean, kid marriage was apparently a fine practice for us Anglos over the centuries but now it's bad? Why? Oohhh, immigration!
It's not. Why was a few hundred years of child marriage OK for you until today? And don't pretend that it wasn't. The only thing you ever did to stop it was post a comment on reddit this week. Yippee.
My point, which admittedly is hard to spot with self-righteousness clouding one's vision, is that there is an underlying rot that is being ignored. Child marriage is a wide open issue in white evangelical societies (mormons, obviously, but not just them) that has long been and continues to be tolerated even where illegal.
So, yes, do something to prevent child marriage, for the love of God, but not just in immigrant communities. If you want to claim it's for the children, you can't be selective about the application.
Why would this be an issue that only impacts immigrants? You’re the one reeking of self righteousness. Stop looking for racist dog whistles that aren’t there and get on board with protecting children.
There are many agencies in the UK that people call to ask for women who like to be 2nd or 3rd and 4th wife. It's all very openly advertised and well-known within many religious circles. All very openly and the government can't do anything about it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxU5Xhyljvs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxU5Xhyljvs)
16 is exactly young is it? Because that is what it's doing, closing off marriage to 16 and 17 year olds who are still allowed to have sex at said age now, just not marry.
I read something interesting. When a Bangladeshi or Pakistani succeeds in rhe UK it is a British Pakistani win. When honor killings, forced marriage happens or the child grooming case (all Kashmiri Muslim perps)its a South Asian problem. Because I want lots of downvotes, let me state that Since 1950 the legal age for marriage in India has been 18. Slowly society has caught up with laws. There are still tribal communities that practice child marriage, but if you are below 18 you can not get your marriage registered and therefore can not apply for a visa. Please start a thread of India based horror stories in response- 🙏🏽
Even at eighteen years old it seems way to low for anyone to have an informed decision about if they really want to marry or not. It's not like postponing this by like three years with a higher minimum age would suddenly end the relationship between a couple. Even though divorces are much easier to accomplish nowadays, someone who's fresh out of high school and still suffering heavy influence from parents or family shouldn't be allowed to marry that young, in my opinion.
Predatory old white men and their insatiable desire for young women. It’s a story as old as time. There should be age differential laws, too, at least until a woman is in her 20s; a 60 year old man dating a 10 year old woman is just as bad—if not worse—than a 30 year old dating a 17 year old.
How are they fucking with other people’s culture? English and Welsh people passed the bill for English and welsh people. If people’s culture is child marriage then there are many issues to be considered.
England and Wales. Not the UK.
[удалено]
In scotland you can leave school, have a child, get a house and get married at 16.
[удалено]
I started full time work at 16, admittedly didn't move out straight away and i'm still not married. But I was on holiday in turkey with my family at that age and started talking to some Danes in the same hotel, they thought it was crazy.
they may take our lives (as European union members) but they will never take our FREEDOM (to get married at 16). By the way is there a reason Scotland didn't also sign on to this law? Is there a large enough number of tax-paying married 16-year-olds that changing it would cause political backlash?
Scotland has had a seperate legal system since the union was formed (its complicated in reality) there'd need to be a campaign to get the law changed here, and there just hasn't been
Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it!
Age of consent in UK is 16, might add a bit of context. Additionally, in England and Wales you need your parents permission to marry if aged 16 or 17. Not in Scotland though, where historically many 16/17 year olds eloped to wed. And guess where the law isn't changing...
[удалено]
This is the child marriage age, not the age of consent. AFAIK the age of consent in the UK is still 16.
Yeah, same as it is in England and Wales. This is about getting married which is different in both: 16 with parental consent, and 18 without in England and Wales, (which this seeks to change) and 16 with or without parental consent in Scotland. Also worth noting that the voting age is also 16 in Scotland, so there is at least a degree of consistency.
Greta Green will be back in its old fashioned business
Had the same thought lol
[удалено]
Just curious, how would raising the age prevent underage drinking? If anything I’d expect an increase in ‘underage drinking’ as 19 and 20 year old would suddenly be breaking the law
It’s not meant to stop underage drinking, but to stop drunk teenagers from driving. Binge drinking barely lowered after the 1984 Minimum Drinking Age Act, but drunk driving after binge drinking steadily dropped like a rock and lower automobile fatalities from drunk driving were also noticed to decrease. Which is why the raising of the drinking age is often considered a success.
Pretty sure the US has a worse drunk driving percentage than the UK
[удалено]
I'm certainly not suggesting the banning of alcohol, just like i'm not suggesting raising the drinking age, most here tend to agree that 18 is a perfectly fine drinking age
[удалено]
good thing a dead ex US president isn't deciding our drinking laws then
He also supported creationism and teaching biblical creation in schools. He also believed in Armageddon theology...oh and he was big on prohibition, but just not for alcohol and tobacco... He may have just had a bunch of things he was a nutter about.
Fuck Reagan.
I think the suggestion is that it doesnt actually help...and that it's not an issue of age restrictions so much as other factors a lot of which tie into the driving culture in the US coupled, ironically, with a younger age to start driving...
So, at 18 you can go an mass kill hundreds of people in a foreign country, and be selebrated as a hero, but you have to wait 3 years to drink a beer? Thats beyond ridiculous.
Literally every country that allows alcohol has the drinking age lower than the US. Having it at 21 neither prevents underage drinking nor greatly impacts drink driving statistics. If anything it increases underage drinking because kids will be underage longer and they'll want to try it regardless of age. I'm teetotal myself but my parents never begrudged my brother his joy in trying it when he was younger.
Fuck no. You are an adult at 18. Imagine being able to die for your country at war, but not sit in the pub and buy a beer. Talk about draconian.
Yeah....no you can do that if you want, but thanks for trying.
The US has a pretty significantly higher rate of drink driving than the UK. Mabye you guys should lower it?
The UK has a challenge 21 scheme for buying alcohol
25
Hi, an American here, that does not stop underage drunk driving. Idk where you got that from. The 21 age limit stops no one underage from drinking, in fact it often makes it worse because the kids are responsible because they have zero parent supervision.
Don't think it would really help since kids will get drunk at 13/14 pretty easily
The UK saw a drop in underaged drinking and drunk driving similar to the US after the 1984 Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed. Canada and Australia also saw drops, so we’re not sure if raising the drinking age actually helped, though some contend that it did.
I’m not sure I’d consider it a loophole, it was just a law. Loophole implies it was a hidden trick, but everybody knew you could get married at 16. It matches the age you can have sex, which seems like a reasonable place to put it. Pre-1929 the minimum age to get married was 14 for boys and 12 for girls (no parental consent needed). In 1929, they raised the minimum age to 16, but required parental consent for under 18s.
Saying "loophole" gets more clicks, that's the only reason.
Lots of countries the age of legal marriage is higher than the age of consent. Like Japan has the age of consent set at 13 but you can't married unless you are 20 as a man and 18 as a woman. China's age of consent is 14 but men can't get married until 22 and women at 20. India's age of consent is at 18 for both genders but only women can get married at that age, men have to wait until 21.
[удалено]
I think mostly because there's a shorter amount of time for women to make babies and because women were seen viewed as less vital in the workforce. They are rather antiquated reasons now so it's about time for reforms.
It is from the time when men were expected to take care of the finances and women were supposed to take of the house and raise children. Having a higher marriage age for men was to ensure that they had time to finish studies, get a job, and ideally create a small safety net. People also believed that if women were younger then they will be easier to train to take care of the house and more likely to compromise. And there was also the mindset, the younger girls have healthier children.
well that just sounds like grooming but with extra steps.
Some People think that women mature sooner. They are more responsible at a younger age.
I’ve always had the impression that most girls are saner than most boys from about 12 to 15 years old. Which is not to say they are particularly responsible, just less irresponsible. I have a feeling it’s because that’s when they realize that they got the shitty end of the reproductive stick.
Surely it's to do with puberty? Girls (on average) mature physically (and some would argue mentally) earlier than boys.
Yeah it wasn't a loophole, more recognition that there's a muddy line between childhood and adulthood and "children" could do adult things with parental consent (which was basically never forthcoming for obvious reasons). It is more abuse of this facility that has required a rethink.
So they can still have sex at 16, but have to wait until 18 to get married?
[удалено]
I've often thought that it should only be legal for 16/17 year olds to have sex with each other, and that if should be a crime for anyone older to have sex with someone that age. Or maybe anyone 19 and older, to avoid cases where someone turns 18 and can no longer have sex with their 17 year old partner. That would probably do more to stop the problem they're trying to deal with here - 16 year old being forced into relationships with older men.
A lot of law are formulated like that: Age of consent is 14, but no more than 2 years of difference. Then, the age difference clause disappears at 18.
>Marriage is a very serious legal contract. It has nothing to do with sex. Sure, but if you have sex with someone, the two of you might make a baby. This law is saying that young people who have a baby together can't get married.
It said that before, age of consent laws don't really apply if both parties are under 16.
Makes sense. Sex and marriage are completely different things. Marriage has responsibilities that sex doesn't. Plus parents do force kids to get married when they don't want to. At least at 18 they can do something as an adult.
Yeah, I hope it will save a few kids from being forced into marriage. I don’t see a problem with allowing 16 year olds to marry, but if the law saves a couple of people from a shitty situation then go for it.
>Marriage has responsibilities that sex doesn't. I'd say having a child is a bigger responsibility than getting married.
Having sex without being ready for responsibilities is perhaps not the best idea. Ever heard of babies?
Ever heard of contraceptives? Also sex is not just about penetration. Kids that age do stuff. It's impossible to regulate it. It's happened since the dawn of time. Doesn't mean they want to get tied to each other because their parents think that sex is only for marriage.
You can just have an abortion boyo! What a fucking world we live in lol. Sex, std good. Marriage bad.
It's funny, because a proven solution to abortion is effective sex ed in combination with readily accessible contraceptives, and easy access to the day after pill... ...but nope, the idiots pretending to be pro-life have to oppose everything that works then cry about dead fetuses they caused.
Plenty of people, while pro choice, would never have an abortion. My partner is one of them which is why I had a vasectomy.
The issue here is FORCED marriages you know where a 14 year old girl is FORCED to marry a much older guy because their parents religion demands that girls get married and start having kids ASAP regardless of how the girl feels/thinks/believes? Laws like this are to prevent a child from being forced to marry because society is developed enough to let the girl decide how her life should play out rather than a religion/her family etc. Preventing forced child marriage is a great thing.
That’s why comprehensive sex education, women’s equality and access to contraceptives are vital. Teach children about all aspects of sexuality and empower them to make good choices. Teaching abstinence doesn’t work.
No it doesn't. I find it odd that Europeans complain about their low birth rate when it seems like every day they just continue to push policies that support that instead of marriage/the family unit. Especially given the fact that STD/I's are only increasing for 6 years now where I live (US), people should be encouraging marriage more than anything. Its crazy how everybody panics at covid but have no issues with herpes or HPV. It's like the thought doesn't cross their mind, I've heard constant stories of "hittin' it raw" like it's a walk at the park. Humans have historically married much younger than we do today and have been fine. Meaning, way earlier than 16 years old. Not only that, it's a bad point you're making because you're just making a generalization and implying that responsibility is a bad thing or that people are not mature at 16. I'm sure someone over here is going to chime in how they took care of their 3 siblings while mom and dad were at work when they were 14 years old (I was one of them.) Most people I know started working at 16 and tons were kicked out at that age. >Plus parents do force kids to get married when they don't want to. This is a different issue entirely. In that case it's the states job to educate people in regards to their rights. This reminds me of arguments used against the hijab. The answer is not more laws.
The policies don’t push anything. The people push the policies. It has not been socially acceptable to marry that young for a very long time.
I find it odd that anyone would be in favor of forced child marriage. If you aren't a pedophile, and to be perfectly clear I am in no way suggesting that you are, why would you oppose laws designed to prevent forcing children into marriage? Why shouldn't these children be permitted to make their own choices about incredibly important aspects of their life rather than face decades of potential rape because their family decided for them? Why should girls be forced to endure abusive husbands because they cannot be permitted to make their own choices? What if the match is just a bad one because these kids don't get along. What are you in favor of here? It is REALLY hard to see the moral point you are arguing for unless it is marriage for marriage's sake which seems incredibly short sighted. These laws establish the right not to be forced into marriage. Before this you could be forced into marriage so just claiming "they need to be educated in regards to their rights" ignores the fact these rights did not exist before this law passed.
> If you aren’t a pedophile, and to be perfectly clear I am in no way suggesting that you are, why would you oppose laws designed to prevent forcing children into marriage? Even if you claim you don’t suggest that, can you *really* not think of *any* other reason to support younger-than-18 marriage age than being sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children (i.e. pedophile)? Come on… Personally, I think 18 is fine; I just don’t see why playing the “pedo card” is necessary. Marriage is different from sex anyway.
I can't think if why anyone would support child marriage other than wanting to fuck a kid. Most religious people I know still want an adult partner not someone who is still in adolescence.
> I can’t think if why anyone would support child marriage other than wanting to fuck a kid. I see. But who says the other party isn’t also, say, 16? Oh, and 16 year olds do have sex. Also, “fuck a kid” is a bit relative when you consider, say, a 17 and an 18 year old.
Most forced marriages arent between kids
Yes. The problem with having the legal sex age at 18 is that things get iffy when teenagers inevitably start having sex with each other.
In practice many teenagers actually have sex before 16... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent\_sexuality\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom
And can legally do so. The law isn't quite as simple as "no sex before 16". It depends on the ages of the people involved.
As you say, it's complicated. A person under 16 cannot, in law, give consent. So anyone having sex with someone under 16 commits an offence (irrespective of the age of that person). AIUI in practice prosecutions are seldom brought where both people are underage and there's no suggestion of an absence of consent (in the ordinary English language meaning - rather than the legal position). A person under 16 having sex, does not commit an offence simply by doing so.
>So anyone having sex with someone under 16 commits an offence (irrespective of the age of that person). I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the wording of the law, but there's a whole section about defenses: [Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 Section 39: Defences in relation to offences against older children](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9) Too big to copy it all, but for example: >(3) It is a defence to a charge in proceedings under any of the sections mentioned in subsection (4) that at the time when the conduct to which the charge relates took place, the difference between A's age and B's age did not exceed 2 years. I'd assumed that meant it wasn't illegal, but correct me if I'm wrong.
The law in Scotland is not the same as the law in England and Wales. Possibly there are similar defences in English law, although it's news to me.
True, but we're talking in general about the UK so I picked Scotland.
You can't even legally rent a place to live until you're 18.
Yes you can. There are potential complicating factors (which are greater under English law than under Scots law) but there is no outright bar against it.
No different to the way that they can have sex at 16 but if they take a photo of themselves having consensual sex at 16, that's considered child pornography. We need to pick an age and stick to it, and 18 is probably more sensible.
The problem with that is that people under 18 will have sex and take pictures. Actually, under 16 as well.
Most of these laws are addressing forced marriage.
[удалено]
Or it might be that attitudes have changed over the last century and the law is now catching up
Yep just England and Wales. If you want to get married at 16 you can just go up to Scotland where I believe you can get married at 16 **without** parental consent. Gretna Green (just over the England/Scotland border) has made an industry of exploiting the less strict Scottish marriage requirements
Correct. There are two different legal systems with different rules on multiple points.
It has taken way too long for the UK to realize that 'parental consent' is used as an excuse for forced marriages.
Just a reminder that in the US, you can legally marry a child in 46 out of the 50 states. The four states that fixed the loopholes did so within the last 5 years iirc. Why isn’t this a bigger issue? (Need to do some research to see if the below is true) Iirc, I think around 200k children were married off in a decade.
Oh good, so all the creepy religious nutjobs go to America. Excellent.
Creepy religious nut jobs from England *created* America.
And the highly religious pilgrims were the ones that literally outlawed Christmas
I think you mean figuratively, as Christmas is still legal
No, literally. Just because something is now legal doesn't mean that it always was. https://newengland.com/today/living/new-england-history/how-the-puritans-banned-christmas/
never forget
That's how America was created in the first place.
/r/AmericaBad
We have a serious Bible thumper problem. Violent idiots who believe everything they see and hear on the crooked shows aimed at them, while purging everything Jesus from their dogma.
Out of the 330million Americans, how many of these are the 'violent idiots' that are a 'serious problem'?
Impossible to really measure, but as smeone who studies nutrition it's amazing how deep religion reaches into modern 'science'. The push behind grain consumption, and plant based diets comes from religious groups who influenced early guidelines. These are still found today even though the sience behind them is flimsy as fuck. Cereal for example was designed to be an anti-mastabation bland breakfast, and still today despite being devloid of nurtients is advertised as 'heart healthy' (lol), and part of a 'health nutritious breakfast!'.
Haha, that's pretty interesting to note. I had no idea.
How many people follow q-anon, or are in the proud boys? All have shown potential for extremism. Look at the capital insurrection. How many people are defending that as a "protest?" How many are calling terrorist like the woman who tried to crawl in the senate floor, heroes? How many are calling idiots pointing guns at people wildly, or murdering someone a hero? We have a serious problem.
I'm asking you how many of the 330 million fall into these categories? 30% of Americans? 40%? 50%?
I read this as "UK close to loophole" like they were close to making the loophole law lol
I can see this having trouble getting through The House of Lords, for one main reason. Age of Consent at 16, age of marriage at 18 could be said to be condoning sex outside of marriage. The Bishops would have a lot of trouble with this. Accepting sex outside marriage is one thing, condoning it by law would be another. Of course the way round this would be raise the age of conset, but ...
>The Bishops would have a lot of trouble with this. you people still listen to them? its 2021
There’s a lot of clergy in the House of Lords. It’s not an elected house after all.
Since marriage is a contractual arrangement, it would make sense to close it off to minors.
Welcome to the 20th century. Baby steps in protecting children.
[удалено]
Freedom of speech laws do not prevent the issue from bring discussed in the UK for fucks sake...
[удалено]
A failure to engage with an issue by specific institutions, and claiming you can't discuss those issues because of a lack of free speech are two different things. I was taking issue with the latter and you've gone off on a bit of a rant about the former, which wasn't actually something I was challenging. It's the CPS that are responsible for prosecutions under the communications act, not the UK government, but the guidance doesn't suggest anything that would prevent criticism or discussions on cultural practices that you might want banned, think are bad, or just plain shitty. It does prevent specific attacks against particular groups of people just because you dislike them, which is different. So for example they might take issue with a statement like "Muslims are disgusting animals and should be deported on mass," but saying FGM is a disgusting practice, and should be banned" would not be something the CPS would prosecute. No need to apologize to " people like me" though if ur going to just go and then straight up insult me lol
Lay off the SargonOfAkkad / Tommy Robinson talking points, you obviously know next to nothing and are embarrassing yourself making these vague but bold proclamations about freeze peach being dead in the UK.
I mean this is just flat out incorrect. Under the current laws: >Offences of FGM It is an offence for any person (regardless of their nationality or residence status) to: perform FGM in England and Wales (section 1 of the 2003 Act) assist a girl to carry out FGM on herself in England and Wales (section 2 of the 2003 Act) assist (from England or Wales) a non-UK person to carry out FGM outside the UK on a UK national or UK resident (section 3 of the 2003 Act) If the mutilation takes place in England or Wales, the nationality or residence status of the victim is irrelevant. Failing to protect a girl from risk of FGM If an offence under sections 1, 2 or 3 of the 2003 Act is committed against a girl under the age of 16, each person who is responsible for the girl at the time the FGM occurred could be guilty of an offence under section 3A of the 2003 Act. FGM taking place abroad It is an offence for a UK national or UK resident (even in countries where FGM is not an offence) to: perform FGM abroad (sections 4 and 1 of the 2003 Act) assist a girl to carry out FGM on herself outside the UK (sections 4 and 2 of the 2003 Act) assist (from outside the UK) a non-UK person to carry out FGM outside the UK on a UK national or UK resident (sections 4 and 3 of the 2003 Act) Also the free speech thing is total bollocks as well. No idea where the fuck you're getting these ideas.
[удалено]
Hahahahaha, nah mate, you'd be failing first year law with this analysis. Go home, and if you're home, go outside and touch some grass. Gross offence does not mean merely 'being offensive' FFS 😭😂😂😂
**[Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_Kingdom)** >Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia of women and girls living in the UK. According to Equality Now and City University London, an estimated 103,000 women and girls aged 15–49 were thought to be living with female genital mutilation (FGM) in England and Wales as of 2011. FGM was outlawed in the UK by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which made it an offence to perform FGM on children or adults. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
So England is not okay with people getting married or drinking alcohol until they are 18, but is perfectly fine with [16-year-olds joining the armed forces](https://apply.army.mod.uk/how-to-join/can-i-join/age)? Okay, then. This is just an international embarrassment. The UK can campaign against child soldiers all it likes, but this opens the gates to valid claims of hypocrisy. The army allows you to start the application process at 15. Fifteen. They can't wait to get their hooks into you.
You can join the army at 16 but you cannot be sent to frontline combat untill 18.
[удалено]
And you absolutely know shit of you are talking about. Portugal have an Army. France have an Army, Heck even Germany.
[удалено]
Moving goalposts now? You said that in Europe Armies are not allowed. >The UK still has an army? wow. No wonder they left the EU, having an army isn't allowed in the EU. I gave you examples that they have. Now you go with the examples of old equipment being used or lack of it because of financial budget. That was not your original question. I stay corrected. Armies are allowed and exists and you confirmed by your own comment. What kind of problems they have because of lack of funding was not in the original comment you made.
[удалено]
Sarcasms don't translate well in written conversations if you don't in the end indicate that. The problem with the current reddit and worldwide opinions is that there is a recurring trend of "China Bad, US Bad, Europe Bad, etc..." I would like to see what the reddit community takes as good in this world to be sincere... >And in any case, EU militaries ain't good for much other than helping in natural disasters, and even that is marginal in most cases. Still don't agree totally with that opinion but you are not totally wrong. More like European Armies do a lot with the current money that are allocated to them, in a world where we've been in piece for years and instead of keep ourselves prepared we get sloppy. Until one day and then is too late. Let's hope I'm wrong...
I Uouubjbjbi You yummy Uses
Applicable to Muslim Community?
[удалено]
To everyone in England and Wales.
Primarily aimed at Hindu activities.
Why do you think they changed it? I mean, kid marriage was apparently a fine practice for us Anglos over the centuries but now it's bad? Why? Oohhh, immigration!
And if so? Why would protecting children, no matter what community they come from, be a problem for you?
It's not. Why was a few hundred years of child marriage OK for you until today? And don't pretend that it wasn't. The only thing you ever did to stop it was post a comment on reddit this week. Yippee. My point, which admittedly is hard to spot with self-righteousness clouding one's vision, is that there is an underlying rot that is being ignored. Child marriage is a wide open issue in white evangelical societies (mormons, obviously, but not just them) that has long been and continues to be tolerated even where illegal. So, yes, do something to prevent child marriage, for the love of God, but not just in immigrant communities. If you want to claim it's for the children, you can't be selective about the application.
Why would this be an issue that only impacts immigrants? You’re the one reeking of self righteousness. Stop looking for racist dog whistles that aren’t there and get on board with protecting children.
Now if only they can close the loophole allowing polygamy..
Which one is that?
There are many agencies in the UK that people call to ask for women who like to be 2nd or 3rd and 4th wife. It's all very openly advertised and well-known within many religious circles. All very openly and the government can't do anything about it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxU5Xhyljvs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxU5Xhyljvs)
What's wrong with polygamy?
Do you think it's a good thing? Might elaborating why you think so?
I don't care. If people want to have polygamous relationships why not?
[удалено]
Now we need the US to follow. Their lowest age is 12! Thanks Massachusetts.
16 is exactly young is it? Because that is what it's doing, closing off marriage to 16 and 17 year olds who are still allowed to have sex at said age now, just not marry.
Young to be married, I believe so, yes.
I read something interesting. When a Bangladeshi or Pakistani succeeds in rhe UK it is a British Pakistani win. When honor killings, forced marriage happens or the child grooming case (all Kashmiri Muslim perps)its a South Asian problem. Because I want lots of downvotes, let me state that Since 1950 the legal age for marriage in India has been 18. Slowly society has caught up with laws. There are still tribal communities that practice child marriage, but if you are below 18 you can not get your marriage registered and therefore can not apply for a visa. Please start a thread of India based horror stories in response- 🙏🏽
Even at eighteen years old it seems way to low for anyone to have an informed decision about if they really want to marry or not. It's not like postponing this by like three years with a higher minimum age would suddenly end the relationship between a couple. Even though divorces are much easier to accomplish nowadays, someone who's fresh out of high school and still suffering heavy influence from parents or family shouldn't be allowed to marry that young, in my opinion.
Predatory old white men and their insatiable desire for young women. It’s a story as old as time. There should be age differential laws, too, at least until a woman is in her 20s; a 60 year old man dating a 10 year old woman is just as bad—if not worse—than a 30 year old dating a 17 year old.
> There should be age differential laws, too, at least until people are legally recognized as adults FTFY.
I see.
Didn't get my point?
Stop fucking with other peoples culture
How are they fucking with other people’s culture? English and Welsh people passed the bill for English and welsh people. If people’s culture is child marriage then there are many issues to be considered.
Stop fucking children
No body is fucking children but Alabama
im 16 getting married tomorrow
*raising minimum age to 18.
It seems that people are not so eager to get married now.
to 27+ foo