Marriages before the age of 18: for or against? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15040340
Of course, I have nothing against the religious beliefs of people who adhere to their religion, however, for me personally, marrying of an adult man to a girl is immoral and I can not react indifferently to this topic.

Early marriage and early onset of sexual activity have long-term consequences for women's health.

Also, in poor countries, a young mother, being forced to quit her education and begin to do household work, is deprived of the opportunity to get a profession and is economically or completely dependent on her husband.
#15040355
Younger women have better odds where bearing children are concerned.

If you want to make things better, honey works better than vinegar. Support policies that support families.
#15040361
Modern medical science has made it possible for women to have children safely, even when older, although the chances of getting pregnant are reduced drastically after 40. It has more to do with their fertility dropping after age 30.

I generally support policies that support families(just not when it comes to promoting families to have children). There are already a great many policies in place, for this. I support smart people making families(especially having children) when they can both afford it, and when they are mature enough to understand the commitment that marriage really is.

note: In a world with over-population, the last thing we should be doing is promoting large families.
#15040362
Steve Dallas wrote:Of course, I have nothing against the religious beliefs of people who adhere to their religion, however, for me personally, marrying of an adult man to a girl is immoral and I can not react indifferently to this topic.

Early marriage and early onset of sexual activity have long-term consequences for women's health.

Also, in poor countries, a young mother, being forced to quit her education and begin to do household work, is deprived of the opportunity to get a profession and is economically or completely dependent on her husband.

I don't think religious beliefs have much to do with it.

People in the past might have forced the pace a bit because of lower life expectancies. These days people can expect to live a lot longer so there is no great rush to start knocking out heirs. Although you should not really leave having children too late either.

Ideally 18-26 is the best time to start having a family.
#15040363
SolarCross wrote:Ideally 18-26 is the best time to start having a family.
I disagree 100% Very few people at that age are financially well to do, and most are still trying to get their advanced education. That's why I suggested 27 or older.

Let's not also not forget that few people that age are mentally mature enough to have children. Of course, I know there are exceptions.
#15040369
Godstud wrote:I disagree 100% Very few people at that age are financially well to do, and most are still trying to get their advanced education. That's why I suggested 27 or older.

Let's not also not forget that few people that age are mentally mature enough to have children. Of course, I know there are exceptions.

Most? I hate to break it to you but most people are done with academic education by 18. Even most of those that go on to university are done with it by 21. Hardly anyone is aiming for a phd, lol.

As for mental maturity, that depends on what your responsibilities are. The earlier you get responsibilities, like being a parent, then the earlier you mature. One leads to the other.

If you never have children you have no reason to grow up.

The longer you put off having kids the fewer of them you can have, the more medical issues you risk and the older you will be when they grow up.

18-27 is peak fertility for a reason.
#15040379
SolarCross wrote:Most? I hate to break it to you but most people are done with academic education by 18
That's completion of high school(GED)... :knife: This would mean they'd have shitty job prospects and make less money.

SolarCross wrote:Even most of those that go on to university are done with it by 21.
:eh: 21? What did they take, a 2 year course at a community college? A typical university degree is 4 years, with only the smartest and brightest finishing them in 3.

SolarCross wrote:The earlier you get responsibilities, like being a parent, then the earlier you mature. One leads to the other.
Can you provide a source for this claim? I highly doubt it, as I have seen no evidence of this.

SolarCross wrote:The longer you put off having kids the fewer of them you can have, the more medical issues you risk and the older you will be when they grow up.
People are safely having children even when they are over 40, due to advances in medicine. The main issue is the decrease in fertility after 35.
#15040382
Godstud wrote:That's completion of high school(GED)... :knife: This would mean they'd have shitty job prospects and make less money.

PHD Gender Studies = £12k as fast food assistent + £100k debt
GED + trade apprenticeship = £80k year as Electrician or Plumber + 0 debt.

Don't be such a Boomer.

Richard Branson left school at 16 :excited:
#15040383
You're actually both right. The only thing anyone's said, that seems unfair, is this:

"If you never have children you have no reason to grow up."

Which is right and wrong (from my observations of others). It's not so straightforward as that IMHO. But I can't say you're wrong either..from my observations.

Nonetheless, it's very true that the age old adage of 'horses for courses' applies; some people are way more mature at 16 than most 90 year olds have ever been, and some people are ready to have kids at 18. Some people are never ready to have kids, or get married..

It's really variable. And it's the same with education/prospects..highly variable. Some of the most clever, high achievers never even had a high school education and self taught later, some privileged toffs who were given the best education money can buy have, on the other hand, achieved nothing & know nothing. It's just not straightforward..and that's why I say you're both very much correct in all your observations. :)
#15040388
Godstud wrote:note: In a world with over-population, the last thing we should be doing is promoting large families.


:hmm: Erm, hate to break it to you, but TFRs are very very low across much of the west and IIRC even lower in E Asia...

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... lity-rate/


Obviously, in terms of current population (not wrt fertility), India & China top the list.

But much of the world is uninhabited, and 'reducing the population' is a dangerous thing to try and affect as change, I wouldn't think it wise to encourage that sort of thinking, despite the fact that your intentions are no doubt benign.
#15040389
SolarCross wrote:Don't be such a Boomer.
Don't be such a twit. I'm not a "Boomer".

SolarCross wrote:Richard Branson left school at 16
The exception does not prove the rule.

Education pays off in better jobs, higher salaries
Researchers at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found that lifetime earnings for college graduates are higher than for non-graduates, and workers with degrees in science, technology or engineering earn the most.

“The most lucrative major is petroleum engineer, but any major that has a strong mathematical basis has very high earnings out of college and long-term earnings that are really stellar,” said Anthony Carnevale, a co-author of the study.

The lowest paying degrees are those in education, counseling and the arts and liberal arts come somewhere in the middle.

“You can do pretty well with a liberal arts degree, and many end up going to graduate school,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-educ ... CW20110805

Presvias wrote:But much of the world is uninhabited, and 'reducing the population' is a dangerous thing to try and affect as change, I wouldn't think it wise to encourage that sort of thinking, despite the fact that your intentions are no doubt benign.
Yes, a great deal of the earth where it's uninhabitable, in uninhabited. :D

It's not about "space", or "room". It's about availability and limitations of resources.
#15040391
Well, if you're familiar with urban and suburban development, you'll no doubt be aware that...uninhabitable seeming areas were made habitable.

You would know..being a Canuck. :D

Nah, but if Oymyakon, Riyadh, Salt Lake City and Laayoune can prosper then...well, humans can probably make things work anywhere.
#15040392
You forgot the last part of what I said:

Godstud wrote:It's not about "space", or "room". It's about availability and limitations of resources.
#15040393
When my grandparents got married, my grandmother was 17 years old. She passed away at the ripe old age of 91, still married to the same man 74 years later. Grandpa followed her, at age 95, only five weeks later.

That said, I have no problem with someone marrying at age 18. Hell, at that age you can vote and you can die for your country. You should sure as Hell be able to get married if you want to. It wouldn't be my choice for my child (admittedly a moot point, as she's 33), but by pretty much every measure an 18 year old is an adult...
#15040394
And what proof do you base that assertion on?

The lack of resources is largely (not entirely, but largely) artificial because we've geared production towards things that bring in big $$$ as opposed to things we really need. Unfortunately, cash crops are far too common, just for example.

So you're not correct.
#15040517
Depends on the age of the couple.
I agree that adults (21+) should not be allowed to marry minors. However, I also support allowing marriage for teenagers between each other, generally speaking between 16 to 21 years old to each other.

And no, young women don't have to stop their education in marriage, various types of birth control do exist.
If you're going to argue that girls have to stop education if they got pregnant, then you'd have to ban all teenage sex not just marriage since teenage pregnancy is common outside of marriage.

Simply, have good sex-ed in schools and teach teenagers about birth control and planning to avoid having to hold the responsibility of childcare at a young age.
Abortion should be legal before a certain stage in the pregnancy, but not all people agree with abortion even if they're pro-choice, as such birth control and good sex-ed is the solution.


@late
Younger women have better odds where bearing children are concerned.

It depends, even if the mother is in good health, financial conditions may stand in the way of good care.

If you want to make things better, honey works better than vinegar. Support policies that support families.

Agreed; Personally, I support a state policy where young couples when the elect to get married receive initial support from a state fund to help them start their lives together, get a living space, etc.

@Godstud
I generally support policies that support families(just not when it comes to promoting families to have children). There are already a great many policies in place, for this. I support smart people making families(especially having children) when they can both afford it, and when they are mature enough to understand the commitment that marriage really is.

A system of social welfare fund where in young people in general receive a push to start their lives, be they single or couples, is preferable.
Under such system, young couples don't have to worry about financing their relationship in any decision to marry.

Regarding childcare, it comes in two parts;
1- It's all up to the choice of the parents, some couples choose to live life and enjoy their youth first before having a family while others choose to settle down early; It all depends on their choice.

2- A social safety net should exist funded by wealth taxes to support childcare irregardless of the circumstances of the parents.
Children should not suffer the consequences of any poor decisions their parents make, and, as such, there should be a social welfare fund on the side, managed by the state, to ensure that whenever the parents, for whatever reason, fail to support their family, this fund kicks in to ensure the well-being of the children by providing in place of any shortcoming from the parents.
This is, obviously, not limited to young couples or teenage pregnancy, but a general all-encompassing policy.
And there is enough money to cover it in all developed countries and most developing countries.


@SolarCross
The earlier you get responsibilities, like being a parent, then the earlier you mature. One leads to the other.

Very true, agreed.



@Godstud
The earlier you get responsibilities, like being a parent, then the earlier you mature. One leads to the other.

Can you provide a source for this claim? I highly doubt it, as I have seen no evidence of this.

A study? Not sure for the moment if there is any, didn't do any research.
But, I do know that this is the case with most people in Baalbek as they grow up being used to holding responsibilities and engaging in the real world from a young age, ending up starting their adult life much earlier than even surrounding populations.

And teenagers being taught to handle responsibility from a younger age makes them more resilient than their peers who did not receive such experience and as such giving them years of added experiences.

That's why in my family, for example, boys specifically have to leave home at age 15 to start their own lives with the initial stages supported by the family ofcourse, and we all start getting into the workplace very early on at 11-12 to get used to. (Not child labor enslavement, but more in training and working with close family businesses and ventures to get a handle on work)

Even most of those that go on to university are done with it by 21.
:eh: 21? What did they take, a 2 year course at a community college? A typical university degree is 4 years, with only the smartest and brightest finishing them in 3.

Enter my ego here :p
I'm 23 soon to be 24, have a degree in banking and finance and a degree in mechanical engineering where half was done in courses and the other in practical experience, and currently pushing for specialization in mechatronics engineering.

And Lina is 22, and has a degree in linguistics and cultural communications, with masters coming very soon.

And we're not special by any means BTW, infact I'd say we both got distracted too much by starting a family that we underperformed in this regard in comparison to the rest of our families and sorrounding families in our area in Baalbek.
When there is a large push on education in a community like the case of Baalbek in the past 3 decades, it's not uncommon to see people with not one but multiple PhDs and degrees all around.
It all depends on how much education is valued and how significant the push for it is, age and financial capacity are minor factors in this regard.

In a world with over-population, the last thing we should be doing is promoting large families.

Actually no, I disagree.
The world doesn't have an over population problem, it has a distribution problem.
Right now, if I remember correctly, we produce enough to support in excess of 10 billion people living regular middle-class lives. I'll find the paper shortly, I quoted it once here before.
The problem is flawed or lack of efficient usage and distribution of resources, along with excess waste ofcourse.


EDIT:

However, global food production is incredibly efficient. The world’s farmers produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population. That’s enough to feed 10 billion (we are at 7.6 billion currently).

Our inability to feed the entirety of the world’s population is mostly due to food waste. Globally, 30–40% of all food is wasted.
#15040550
Presvias wrote:And what proof do you base that assertion on?

The lack of resources is largely (not entirely, but largely) artificial because we've geared production towards things that bring in big $$$ as opposed to things we really need. Unfortunately, cash crops are far too common, just for example.
The world's resources are LIMITED. We could, however, fit trillions of humans on the earth, if you were merely looking at the space to do so, and not the other problems it might create..

Just because you can put 300 people into your two bedroom home, shouldn't be a reason to do it. Humans aren't rats, and food does need to be produced for humans, and that takes arable land, which is more limited than you might think, with the majority of it in North America.

David Attenborough: The planet can’t cope with overpopulation
Earth’s carrying capacity
More people means more carbon footprints - more cars, waste and emissions, more houses and infrastructure to be constructed using the world’s limited resources, more mouths to be fed using more water and energy in food production. So, how many people is too many?

Scientists are still undecided on the Earth’s "carrying capacity" - the maximum number of people it can support indefinitely - with estimates ranging widely between 500 million and more than one trillion.

Part of the reason is that our consumption of resources varies massively across the globe.

“An average middle-class American consumes 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and almost 250 times the subsistence level of clean water,” according to Professors Stephen Dovers and Colin Butler in their paper, Population and Environment: A Global Challenge.

“So if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, then the planet might have a carrying capacity of around 2 billion. However, if people only consumed what they actually needed, then the Earth could potentially support a much higher figure.”

As developing countries catch up with the rest of the world, you might think their carbon footprint grows at the same rate, but, according to research, between 1980 and 2005, many of the nations with the fastest population growth rates had the slowest increases in carbon emissions.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/ ... opulation/

As World’s Population Booms, Will Its Resources Be Enough for Us?
New projections of escalating growth increase the tension between humanity’s expanding needs and what the planet can provide.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... hropocene/

SSDR wrote:No human should belong to any other human. Marriage is a form of slavery and its social construct must be abolished.
Absolutely false. People(in most places) are not forced into marriage. Your idea is completely laughable, and ridiculous! :knife: :lol:

@BigSteve When many grandparents were alive and getting married really young(even then not all that common), society was almost completely different, buying power was greater, and you didn't have "helicopter parents".
Trump, Oh my god !

That's the point I was trying to make, while thes[…]

1) China has already butt in by trying to influ[…]

Turn, turn, turn

Investigating whether Biden violated the Foreig[…]

As I said earlier, if the Secession of the Southe[…]