The Gay Thread

Quote: DRich

Just curious, why is 18 the proper age? Why not 17, 19, 20, or 21? How different is a person at 17 years 364 days as opposed to 18 years?

To me, it should be about maturity. We just need some sort of a test to give all people before they marry.

I’d keep an age limit, but don’t object to people under the age limit being able to challenge it individually. If the person works, will the employer vouch that the person is a responsible employee. Things like that. Multiple sources though. You don’t want the authority figure to be the one the person is marrying.

When I was 17, my best friend was 18. My friend’s half brother was 26, and he was one of the least mature people I knew. So, there’s that.

Quote: DRich

Just curious, why is 18 the proper age? Why not 17, 19, 20, or 21? How different is a person at 17 years 364 days as opposed to 18 years?

To me, it should be about maturity. We just need some sort of a test to give all people before they marry.

For the same reason you cannot get a credit card at 17, you are making life changing choices at a young age.

Is there a massive difference between 17 and 18? No, but we need a firm line where people can make choices, give consent, and enter contracts etc....

There is no way to legislate maturity, we need a firm line that somebody becomes a self-sustaining entity. And, that is (in America) largely agreed to be 18, except for some bizarre exceptions.

There are still some States (and territories) where females (the age for females is often lower than males, which is bizarre and sexist) can still marry at 12 with parental order. And, this is America, not Saudi Arabia. When people hear that there are some States where females (and not males) can be wed with parental order at 12 they are in disbelief. Now to be fair most States and territories are not as low as 12, but there is a trend that the age that one can be married with parental order is lower for females across the board than males.

I personally do not see any reason that the minimum marriage age or age of consent for males and females should be different under any circumstance. I think it should be 18 across the board. The only exception that I can see justifying is just for 17 if somebody is in the military (because you can join the military at 17 if you sign a bunch of forms that basically make you an adult and you leave parental custody and become an adult for all legal purposes), but even that is a stretch (and I don't really think 17 should be allowed to join the military either in an ideal world). So it should be 18 across the board, no exceptions because that just opens a slippery slope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States

Quote: DRich

Just curious, why is 18 the proper age? Why not 17, 19, 20, or 21? How different is a person at 17 years 364 days as opposed to 18 years?

To me, it should be about maturity. We just need some sort of a test to give all people before they marry.

It's much easier to enforce arbitrary rules. Most of the legal system works that way. You might as well ask why is 55 mph a safe driving speed.

Quote: Pacomartin

It's much easier to enforce arbitrary rules. Most of the legal system works that way. You might as well ask why is 55 mph a safe driving speed.

That is not a fair comparison. Speed limits are determined by traffic studies and are fluid (modify with time). When a speed limit changes, even by 5mph up or down it is often the result of years if not decades of research and traffic studies for the road segment in question. I have seen one small segment of road lowered by 5mph be a huge ordeal (especially as different segments of the road are managed by different entities, city, county state in which case many levels of government need to come to the same page which can add several more years on its own), years of studies by all agencies, years of public hearings, traffic studies, reviews of history of the road, environmental impacts, etc.... its a massively detailed process that takes years (and lots of money) just to ensure optimal changes on small, relatively inconsequential (outside of local residents) roads. Then of course the process of reposting all of the signs and warning signs when changes do go into effect.

Unless you are referring to the general State Codes that (in most States) speed limits are "55mph unless otherwise posted" which is not as arbitrary as it sounds (its also rarely relevant as speed limits are assigned just about everywhere, I am sure there are some roads in some States where this is not the case, but I have not seen them), but its a from the 1970s energy crisis where that was determined to be the optimal speed for averages vehicles for the best fuel efficiency without too much risk. Should default speed limits change since the 19070s? In some cases they have, but its a long process, and many States cannot be bothered with other issues, and in my view 55 is a reasonable default speed if there is no posting for a greater limit (and now the necessity to limit fuel consumptions is more critical than ever).

In any case, the same science and necessary political processes cannot be applied to human biology, we do need an "arbitrary" age. There is no way a court can rule on "maturity".

Seems to me, I've heard of cases where a 16 year old kid is taking care of the younger kids in a family because the parent is an alcoholic or junkie. (probably saw it on one of the daytime talk shows). Anyway, it's something like that sort of situation where a kid has earned the cred of being an adult. Or should be able to if so desired. So, at least I believe it is sometimes possible to make such a judgment.

Quote: Gandler

There are still some States (and territories) where females (the age for females is often lower than males, which is bizarre and sexist)

Not really either. Females mature faster. Said laws go back to when you would marry off daughters young. Younger males were both better labor on the farm as well as might spend a hitch in the military before marriage. There was always a demand for younger women to marry off as there were more male pioneers than female. Often a factor of several to one. A single woman was not safe. If she was not a prostitute she would likely be treated as one.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not really either. Females mature faster. Said laws go back to when you would marry off daughters young. Younger males were both better labor on the farm as well as might spend a hitch in the military before marriage. There was always a demand for younger women to marry off as there were more male pioneers than female. Often a factor of several to one. A single woman was not safe. If she was not a prostitute she would likely be treated as one.

Yeah those laws should not exist in 2020 in America. Even if they made sense at some point in history (which I am skeptical about, maybe if we are talking 1700s...) they do not make sense today.

There is never a justified reason for a parent or guardian to marry off a 12 year old girl. There is also never a justified reason that the marriage age should be different for girls (always lower) and boys. It just needs to be 18 across the board (maybe 17 for people who enter active military at 17, but that is the only logical exception, but I would like that to become 18 as well).

Quote: Gandler

Yeah those laws should not exist in 2020 in America. Even if they made sense at some point in history (which I am skeptical about, maybe if we are talking 1700s...) they do not make sense today.

Talking up to the early 1900s. Why would you be "skeptical" about it "making sense?" It clearly did as it was very common.

Quote:

There is never a justified reason for a parent or guardian to marry off a 12 year old girl. There is also never a justified reason that the marriage age should be different for girls (always lower) and boys. It just needs to be 18 across the board (maybe 17 for people who enter active military at 17, but that is the only logical exception, but I would like that to become 18 as well).

12 is younger for even those laws. But consider Loretta Lynn married at 14. Jerry Lee Lewis married a 14 year old. It used to be if a woman was not married by her very early 20s something was wrong.

I have no issue with 17 year olds entering the military. Keeps them out of trouble. IMHO we are raising the age for too many things. We keep people "kids" for too long. Way too long.

Quote: AZDuffman

Talking up to the early 1900s. Why would you be "skeptical" about it "making sense?" It clearly did as it was very common.



12 is younger for even those laws. But consider Loretta Lynn married at 14. Jerry Lee Lewis married a 14 year old. It used to be if a woman was not married by her very early 20s something was wrong.

I have no issue with 17 year olds entering the military. Keeps them out of trouble. IMHO we are raising the age for too many things. We keep people "kids" for too long. Way too long.

I am skeptical about it making sense in the way that society was wrong for it then, and many women were forced into a life that they did not want because of it.

Many wealthy and famous people marry young people (sometimes alarming young as your examples). I am not sure that is a good defense. If anything it is an argument for a firm 18 requirement because people who have the means can find a way to influence a marriage (especially if the parents want the marriage).