Pot calling kettle

People are different. I believe that some could be mature enough to marry at sixteen. I would have done so if it had been possible. However we were constrained not just by social pressure, but by money (lack of). I went to university at sixteen and my boyfriend, at twenty, was only part way through getting his professional qualifications, so we had no money. Others of our generation were working by that age and some did marry in their teens. If we have now in effect raised the school leaving age to eighteen, that does make it more difficult.

The adverts are about girls as young as 8 marrying much older men. What's so wrong with the charities telling us about it?

Legally a 16 year old is a minor in the U.K. , but hardly comparable with an 8 year old being married off and unable to give consent, a 16 year old is above the age of consent in the U.K. m so can agree to marriage. I think that is the difference.

It's the principle. If a girl/boy is classed as a child then she/he is a child regardless of how close to 18 she/he may be. Under the law a child is a child. We are hypocritical to condemn others before we put our own house in order. Child marriage is wrong whenever and wherever it takes place.

There is a big difference between the law that says no marriage before 18 without parental consent and marrying of a child of 6 to a man of 58. It isn't hypocritical to say that.

I'm not saying that statement is hypocritical. I'm saying that if we condemn child marriage then it must mean all child marriage. We can't pick and choose when a child is a child. Would it be OK for a girl of 16 to marry a man of 58 if she wanted to and had parental consent? Or what if it was a 16 year old boy and a 58 year old woman? Two wrongs don't make a right. We either condemn child marriage or we don't. We say that children can't give consent but then we say that at 16 they can consent to something as important as marriage.

i can't get the point you are making.
it seems to be splitting hairs.
the age of consent here is 16.
that is the cut off point. that is the comparison.
those charities are campaigning on behalf of younger children, who have no possibility of consent, or not.
are you saying they should just give up on that work and instead try to raise the age of consent here to 18, and if successful only then go back to trying to protect those much more vulnerable children.
can't see many agreeing with you on that. seems an odd approach to take.

But we allow them to hold a drivers license at 17 and to serve in the armed forces carrying firearms also at 17 so I think your statement that a child is a child until 18 is not always correct

People always bring up the military, driving, drinking in pubs and not being allowed to see 18 certificate films etc when discussing cut-off ages for all sorts of things, as though they are linked in some way. They aren’t.

Legally, it is correct that a 16 year old is a child. There are age requirements for starting and leaving school, or drawing a pension, for instance. Reaching one milestone doesn’t mean that someone has access to all age-related milestones.

It does seem anomalous that someone can make the decision to marry yet not to watch a film, but that might be an argument against censorship rather than early marriage- the two things are not connected and one doesn’t cancel out the other.

My point is that we criticise child marriage whilst allowing it in our country. Seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle. We need to continue to battle for children throughout the world but also put our own house in order. Why are children allowed to marry at 16? Is it because the age of consent is 16? Is it a way of trying to prevent young people from having sex outside of marriage? Marriage is a huge commitment. Saying that children cannot get married won't affect them having sex but will save some of them from inappropriate marriages. A child isn't deemed capable of making major decisions. Therefore they are not allowed to take out a personal loan, have a credit card or take out a mortgage because such things are too important. This is only money but we protect them from themselves because we think that they would not be able to manage such responsibilities. However we don't protect them from the commitment and responsibilities of marriage. Young people feel emotions so strongly it's not surprising that some want to get married but is it wise that they do so? If we ensure that they cannot get married until they are 18 we can protect our children whilst continuing to campaign to protect others.

It might make more sense to unify the age of consent, the age of marriage without parents consent, the age of criminal responsibilty, the school-leaving age and the voting age all at sixteen.

I know a lot of couples who were married at 16,most of them are still together 20 or 30 years on.One couple got married the day after she left school at 16 and we met them recently out celebrating their 36th wedding anniversary.It was quite normal in Scotland for 16 year olds to get wed right up until the late 80's or early 90's .No one batted an eyelid at it

vampirequeen, yes, of course we should change our law to allow marriage for over eighteens only.

However, I think the 'put own house in order' argument is always a total cop out. Nothing is stopping us taking action on all child marriage - at the same time.

You can't directly compare the two situations either. There is the important matter of consent.

At work, I've been involved in safeguarding a girl who was being forced to 'holiday' (get married) by her parents. The police were involved.

The TV adverts involve little girls as young as eight - who don't have the choice to decline. We are talking about child rape. Of course we need to reduce and stop it asap.

Support charities, sponsor a girl, do whatever you can to bring change to the world - then the adverts won't prick your conscience, make you feel so guilty or uncomfortable.

Child marriage like child prostitutes is just a way of covering for the vile men who want to use wee girls.A CHILD cant consent to marriage nor can she consent to sex with a "client" both are clearly abuse
.A 16 year old is deemed to be able to make her own mind up..well nowadays,not that many years ago shotgun weddings happened a lot when the girl got pregnant .The age of responsibility ,criminal or otherwise is about 10 isn't it? Used to be 8 in Scotland

Those adverts do promote education about girls rights as well as the right not to be a child bride, like the right not to have to get FGM. I am always skeptical about charities in case most of the money doesn't get to where it's needed them most.

FGM is wrong and child marriage is wrong. If a significant amount of money is going to the charity and helping those kids, good. But realistically, it's costing a lot just to advertise on TV- and then someone's probably earning a salary or two.

since the age of consent is 16, marriage, with parents' consent in england and wales, also had to be possible at 16, to avoid the possibility of illegitimacy.
in such cases it was thought that parents would readily agree to the marriage, but otherwise probably not.
attitudes have changed over time, and illegitimacy is not viewed as it previously was.
bearing in mind that parents' consent is needed for 16/17 marriage, i don't think it is a much of a problem.
i can't comment on scottish law and practice.

Lavazzalst you comment "But realistically, it's costing a lot just to advertise on TV- and then someone's probably earning a salary or two."

is true to a point but nowadays charities are big business and need to be professionally run. They cannot be volunteer led. I agree the high salaries seem out of keeping but , rather like I said on another thread capitalism creates these situations where to get people who will improve the work of the charity you need to pay a salary to attract highly experienced people. Most charities will be able to demonstrate that a TV advert promotion brought in significantly more funds than the cost of the advert.

The issue really is about who “owns” the girls body. Whether she is being treated as a chattel, over which a contract whether verbal or written is done.

To my mind it is almost like slavery.

the reality of life in many poorer countries, esp for girls and women is often only a precarious step above some of of slavery.
by comparison i don't see the present law here re marriage as a problem, certainly not a priority.

meant to say, some sort of slavery.

I agree with the comment about charities needing to employ expert fundraisers, and therefore needing to pay for that expertise.

A small charity such as a local fundraiser can get by with well-meaning volunteers running cake bakes and sponsored walks, but when you need enough funds to build wells or educate children, that's just not going to be enough, and a TV ad can reach hundreds of thousands of people to spread the message of the campaign.

When it comes to collecting money, again they need professionals, who command professional salaries. It's a shame that so many people object to this and withdraw their support when they find out that not every penny goes direct to the cause.

That's true that it has to be big to make a difference and also it shows the TV advert works and has made an impact because here we are discussing it and everyone knows about it.

I hope they raise lots of money to give those girls a better life. No female should go through FGM or be sold to an old man in a forced marriage.

There is quite a bit of difference between a ten year old in Africa being sold into an arranged marriage (and forced to undergo Female Genital Mutilation beforehand plus probably being systematically raped after marriage) and a 16 year old choosing to get married in the UK with their parents permission. Also, at Gretna Green in Scotland, sixteen year olds can get married without parental consent anyway. Since when has sixteen been regarded as childhood? I had a full time job at fifteen as many people also did.

I've been noting all the excuses in this discussion:

Charity begins at home!

Should 16-18 year olds get married?

Will my donation be 'wasted' on salaries and advertisements?

hmm - all 'reasons' to ignore the adverts?

and yet, yes, we do all know about it, and those who still do nothing feel uncomfortable. We can't help but realise that a little girl is so much safer in the UK.

I am saying that we should campaign for all children so yes keep campaigning abroad but sort ourselves out at the same time.

vampire queen, your OP has prompted an interesting discussion so that is good. I've tried but so far failed to understand what you're wanting when you say we should continue to campaign against child marriage "but sort ourselves out at the same time".

I'm still stuck in the point I made earlier. A 16 year old who grew up in this country and wants to marry her boy friend (or girl friend) is in an incomparable situation with a 7 year old in a third world country entering a forced marriage with a much older man.