Thread

1. xvxvx · 1790824930 · focus · HN ↗

   Campaigners always use examples of old men marrying young girls but that’s not common at all.

   96% of children getting married were 16 or 17, and 85% of the adults marrying those children were 18-23. Not quite the horror show that campaigners push.

   I agree that no one under 18 should be getting married, I just question their tactics.

   1. porkshoe · 1790825616 · focus · HN ↗

      So your concern is that the marketing of a child marriage ban shows the p95 outcome, not the p50?

      Weird.

      1. jacobolus · 1790827169 · focus · HN ↗

         It's clear to most people that a marriage between someone 50 and someone 14 is a serious power imbalance, coercive beyond the younger person's ability to consent, and nearly everyone in our society thinks it seems gross and wrong. But as far as I can tell such marriages have not been happening in California. Prior to the new law, the consent of the parents and a judge was required.

         (Personally I think a marriage between someone 50 and someone 18 still seems bad. But the way our legal system works, once someone is 18 anything goes.)

         It's less clear that a marriage between a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old or between a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old is inherently problematic. If, for example, the woman of such a couple gets pregnant, being married could give helpful legal protection/advantage, since most of our laws are written around the default expectation of married parents.

         According to a news article from a few years ago, groups opposing a previous ban on child marriages in California included the ACLU (who claimed that it "unnecessarily and unduly intrudes on the fundamental right of marriage without sufficient cause") and Planned Parenthood (who said the law should "not impede on the reproductive rights of minors and their ability to decide what is best for them, their health and their lives").

         1. anilgulecha · 1790832231 · focus · HN ↗

            A law saying 18 is minimum marriage age (pretty much all across the world), is simpler to implement that

            Marriage OK if (p1>18 && p2 > 18) || (p1>16 && p2 <20) || (p1>17 && p2 <22) ..

            Marriage is a civil institution that provides social advantages, and waiting till 18 isn't really a burden for a 16 and 19yo that want to get married, and get those benefits.

            1. tasuki · 1790853500 · focus · HN ↗

               No need for conditionals, there's the x/2+6 rule.
   2. malfist · 1790826051 · focus · HN ↗

      > but that’s not common at all

      No one is saying it's common. They're saying it shouldn't happen at all.

   3. porkshoe · 1790826334 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

   4. Aeolun · 1790826647 · focus · HN ↗

      Yeah, I also question the distinction between a 17 year old marrying a 50 year old and an 18 year old marrying a 50 year old. Does your judgement suddenly magically get better after you turn 18?

      1. john_strinlai · 1790826750 · focus · HN ↗

         you have to draw the line somewhere, and 18 (or 21) is a common place to draw the line.
      2. nine_k · 1790832626 · focus · HN ↗

         At 18, you magically become fully legally responsible for your actions, while at 17 years 11 months 25 days of age much of the responsibility rests on your parents.

         1. fragmede · 1790833124 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes because the alternative, letting humans use squishy subjective judgement, is too easily abused and subject to corruption.
      3. anal_reactor · 1790844856 · focus · HN ↗

         > Does your judgement suddenly magically get better after you turn 18?

         What I see is that we shelter kids from reality because they're just kids, then these kids grow up to be irresponsible adults, then in turn we create more rules about sheltering "young adults" from consequences. It's a feedback loop.

         1. Henchman21 · 1790865991 · focus · HN ↗

            I’ve thought, since I myself was a child, that the reason adults “shelter” kids from reality is that the adults would have to explain their actions to their children. Modern life is predicated on allowing injustice to persist that is incomprehensible to children. If we don’t keep this from kids, then we have to justify our own actions. Can’t have that! Not in this society. Maybe if society was good and just in any way we wouldn’t need to lie to our kids about it.

            The thing you should be feeling now after reading that is shame.

      4. cykros · 1790865440 · focus · HN ↗

         Part of the age line is the fact that we're all admitting that keeping kids in the public school system is keeping them steeped in avoiding thinking for themselves and making their own decisions.

         Adulthood used to begin at 13 or so across the world. That didn't mean a 13 year old was going to run the tribe or anything, but then, a junior developer doesn't run the software company either at 25. But adulthood meant having responsibilities, obligations, and being expected to make your own decision. Our school system is designed very specifically to prevent this from happening.

         Given that, it does sort of make sense that IF you're being subjected to that sort of psychological abuse, perhaps we can't expect you to be able to make responsible decisions. Those who can generally are the exception, not the rule.

         Perhaps rather than drawing all these lines though, we should be seriously considering getting rid of a school system that was modeled off of the Prussian model, which the Nazis were known to enforce, and which is still the ONLY option even in modern day Germany, regardless of how much the parents want to or are capable of home schooling children.

   5. owebmaster · 1790855067 · focus · HN ↗

      It's because of arguments like these that people like Stallman fell into disgrace. There's no logic in defending pedophilia and definitely no benefits in defending it, it doesn't matter if you think it's a good argument.
   6. ndsipa_pomu · 1790925894 · focus · HN ↗

      Why do tactics matter?

      Pretty much everywhere that is civilised sets a minimum age for marriage which is often close to or the same as legal adulthood and I fail to see why the U.S. doesn't do this. Why would you consider someone capable of making a huge decision such as marriage and yet not be considered old enough to vote or drink alcohol?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.