Pot calling kettle

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I was far too immature to be married at 16, or even possibly 18! Just the way things were in those day!

Any forced marriage is wrong whatever the ages of the bride and groom but my OP isn't about forced marriage, it's about child marriages and the fact that they are allowed in the UK.

I'm not suggesting that we change the laws regarding 16/17 year olds marrying. My point is that it is hypocritical of us to condemn child marriage in other countries/cultures when it is legal and practised in this country. I think (don't know for a fact) that parental consent is required in most/all countries for a child marriage to take place but parental consent doesn't make that right. Anyone under the age of 18 in this country is a child. Therefore we allow child marriage just as other countries do.

I want to clarify my remark about a 16 yr old being happy to marry... not of course if " grooming" was involved. I was thinking about a couple of kids ' in love' ..
.

I dont think they compare but I think it's useful to have discussions about consent in this country. Some other countries as far as I understand have different consent laws depending on the age gap so a 16 year old wouldn't be able to consent with a 30 year old for example. That seems to me a way of protecting children.

Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry a 13 year old girl in America years ago? remember reading about it and thinking "heavens can't believe that's allowed" although I believe it is in some states.

Surely the issue is more to do with a marriage being a contract made excluding the proper consent of one, or both, of the people being married.
If a 16 year old is pro- active in the choice to marry and enters the marriage willingly & happily then not really an issue.
There is, I understand still an issue in some " Christian" religious groups in the USA where young girls are ' promised' to older men.
These 'cultural' differences were universal at one time, especially amongst wealthy families..our own RF included and indeed even the Charles & Di fiasco does not hold up well to close scrutiny.
Forcing or manipulating anyone into a marriage is wrong at any age..but even worse when children are involved and seeing girls as a commodity to be sold is always wrong, wherever it happens.

I think your argument for allowing marriage at 16 would be a lot stronger if you actually made an argument for it, rather than saying that we should do it because otherwise supporting calls to outlaw child marriage elsewhere is hypocritical.

I don’t think the charity adverts are “telling people what to do”. Marrying selling young pre pubescent girls to older men is not comparable to consenting 16 year olds in this country. This practice is usually linked to desperate poverty and if charities wish to raise awareness on this issue and tackle the situations that force families to acquiesce to such practices, I fail to see why people shouldn’t feel free to support such charities. Forced/ child marriage is illegal in the U.K., so I cannot see why charities should not be free to campaign to end child exploitation elsewhere.

16 & 17yos can vote in Scotland-only elections.

I agree.

but they can't vote until they are 18, can they ?
what would be the advantage of allowing 16 year olds to marry without parental consent. ?
there is no comparison with the situation in some countries where esp girls are abused, coerced etc and the law and practice here.

I haven’t seen any adverts about this topic but I agree with Doodledog that the age of consent and of marriage should be the same.

If you use the same measure of young people being children until they are 18, then they shouldn’t be able to vote until they are 18, either.

I'm lost.
Our age of consent is 16.
The link was to the U.S statistics, where the states have different conditions to being legally able to wed.

England should follow Scotland and allow marriage at sixteen witbout parental consent