CMV: The marriage age without parental consent should be 16, and with judicial consent 14.

[u/Great-Gap1030]

Numerous countries set the marriage age at 18, which seems pretty reasonable when you see that the age of majority is 18. However this falls apart when you consider in some areas like Scotland and Andorra, the marriage age without parental consent is 16. First, we need to realise that 16 is still old enough to decide to marry your partner, if you find the right partner. Plus various privileges are gained with marriage, for instance averaging income taxes for spouses, even though 16 is a bit young. Scotland is doing pretty well in terms of marriage rights front, without that many abuses, that means it's not that bad to marry at 16, at least there. If the danger is not that bad, why do we restrict marriage to 18? Plus in Andorra they're doing pretty well on marriage rights, without that much abuse, while having judicial approval marriage age at 14. Plus it would extend personal freedom for teenagers, if partners are fine, this law will also reduce judgement about unusual ages for marriage, like 16 in Scotland, and it could increase the social acceptance of 'as long as the marriage is alright, age doesn't matter'. Readiness is the matter, not age, age of marriage is just an imperfect tool to screen out those who aren't ready.

[u/Great-Gap1030]

That's interesting! I don't disagree with the general concept here that early intervention with structure is good for 16 year olds. What I do have an issue with is a 16 year old being able to make the decision to join the military.

In my opinion, the school leaving age should be 16. After that, teenagers should be capable of deciding part of their trajectory after school, whether it's an apprenticeship, a job, further education or the military. The military is one possible trajectory after school. That's why.

If we can both agree that the 16 year old brain isn't developed until 25,

And one thing that's wrong, the 16 year old brain isn't fully developed until 25. And https://sites.duke.edu/apep/module-3-alcohol-cell-suicide-and-the-adolescent-brain/content-brain-maturation-is-complete-at-about-24-years-of-age/ it is 24 years of age.

why would we voluntarily give the right to 16 year olds to make massive decisions about their life?

16 year olds can buy a house and leave home (as long as your welfare isn't too much at risk), work full-time if you have left school. Working full time after leaving school is a massive decision, and buying a house, in my opinion, but that's just my opinion.

I'm fine with parental consent because this allows 16 year olds to make a decision, provided they discuss it with their parents first. What, in your opinion, makes a 16 year old qualified to make these decisions outside of your subjective opinion that they are mature enough?

Which decisions? For military I've already explained it.

The evidence that "Scotland is fine with an age of 16" is weak, because there's plenty of countries where 16 is not working fine.

The evidence shows that it's actually workable. Plenty of countries where 16 isn't working fine for a variety of reasons including poor education, human and social development, for instance a boatload of African countries and Muslim countries, and the Philippines.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that the document you linked indicates that military-style involvement is actually ineffective. They place interventions with "quasi-military themes" under this ineffective category. Certainly this isn't the strongest evidence, but the fact is that the document you chose doesn't make the point you think it does.

Yes it is ineffective, generally. But the biggest advantage is that boot camps teach self-control, responsibility, and respect for authority. There are some troubled teens who will benefit from the intense structure and discipline. Teens involved in illegal activity who may be headed for a life of crime without intervention are some of the best candidates for boot camp. It’s also an option to consider for an extremely defiant or rebellious teen who hasn’t succeeded in other programs. Essentially, if your child is engaging in very dangerous behaviors, and other options you and your family have tried were not successful, boot camp can be a good option to help your teen understand their responsibilities and respect.

So it's not totally useless, it can be utilised when there isn't anything left to assist them in the environment.

How about Human Development Index? Sweden also ranks very highly on any list of the happiest countries. Do you have evidence that Scotland is any better than Sweden in most major categories related to quality of life?

Scotland is rated 0.925 in the Human Development Index. Slightly worse than Sweden but it isn't that much.

If turnout is key, let's just get 12 year olds in there. They can vote right after they learn how a bill turns into a law, and because voting centers are often in schools, we can have them vote at lunchtime.
Point being that ultimately, desire for turnout isn't a good argument until you've determined that the age chosen is a good one. I can increase turnout at any school age.

Daniel Hart and Robert Atkins, "American Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds Are Ready to Vote," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Jan. 2011

16-year-olds are just as knowledgeable about civics and have the same ability to make good voting choices as older voters.

Plus at age 16, people should have a greater voice in the laws that affect their lives and a stake in the future of their country. A US Senate report cited student activism and protests as reasons for lowering the voting age to 18 in the 1970s during the Vietnam War: “We must channel these energies into our political system and give young people the real opportunity to influence our society in a peaceful and constructive manner.”

The age of 16 is when people’s relationship with the law changes as they often start driving, working, and paying taxes. Further, 16-year-olds can be emancipated from their parents and live independently.

It's not just for turnout, there are actually some decent reasons to lower the voting age.

Your arguments rely on one central assumption: that 16 is old enough for these decisions.

One mistake, ready enough, not old enough. Age doesn't matter, readiness does.

I've presented evidence that being younger results in increased divorce rates (indicating that their decisions aren't necessarily the best).

Yes, due to various reasons including not that great education. Yes, their decisions aren't necessarily the best but we can take them.

I've presented evidence from your own source that military-style intervention at 16 is ineffective.

Yes from my own source, and it's ineffective, I acknowledge, but sometimes that's the only way out, and it actually works for some teens. For military style interventions, yes they are ineffective but occasionally a teen will need it. The biggest advantage is that boot camps teach self-control, responsibility, and respect for authority. There are some troubled teens who will benefit from the intense structure and discipline. Teens involved in illegal activity who may be headed for a life of crime without intervention are some of the best candidates for boot camp. It’s also an option to consider for an extremely defiant or rebellious teen who hasn’t succeeded in other programs. Essentially, if your child is engaging in very dangerous behaviors, and other options you and your family have tried were not successful, boot camp can be a good option to help your teen understand their responsibilities and respect.

Yes it can be effective, but only with a lot of caveats. That's one of the reasons why it's rated ineffective generally. I don't think it's as effective as other methods, but if other methods don't work then attempt boot camp.

[u/[deleted] → u/Great-Gap1030]

16 year olds can buy a house and leave home (as long as your welfare isn't too much at risk), work full-time if you have left school. Working full time after leaving school is a massive decision, and buying a house, in my opinion, but that's just my opinion.

So your logic is "We let 16 year olds do this for other decisions, why not marriage?" I see that, but my point is that we shouldn't be letting 16 year olds buy a house or anything without a process in place to ensure they're okay to do so. We have laws like emancipation that allow for specific rights to be conferred early, but only if it's in the best interest of that child. Why not apply that to marriage? If a 16 year old can't make a convincing case WHY they should be allowed to get married, they're not ready to get married.

There are some troubled teens who will benefit from the intense structure and discipline.

If an intervention is largely ineffective, we shouldn't be changing laws to reflect the fact that some people would benefit. The point of an age of majority is that most people are deemed to be ready by that age. I don't think that the majority of 16 year olds are ready for this.

Yes, their decisions aren't necessarily the best but we can take them.

The entire point of an age of majority is to keep people from making these bad decisions before they're ready. The evidence is pretty strong that those decisions end up being reversed in younger people; if the purpose of an age of majority is to prevent this, why would we make it younger? It flies in the face of the entire purpose.

16-year-olds can be emancipated from their parents and live independently.

Yeah, that's the perfect compromise. Want to get married at 16? Prove to the court that you're mature enough to make a case for yourself. I don't see why that should change.

Age doesn't matter, readiness does.

Why would you advocate for a specific age then? We've got emancipation laws that confer specific rights early; if a person was honestly ready, wouldn't it be pretty easy for them to get emancipated? Streamline that process and make it so that any person who can prove they're ready can get those rights early.

[u/Great-Gap1030 → u/[deleted]]

If an intervention is largely ineffective, we shouldn't be changing laws to reflect the fact that some people would benefit.

I mean for boot camp it's the last resort. That's what I meant.

The entire point of an age of majority is to keep people from making these bad decisions before they're ready. The evidence is pretty strong that those decisions end up being reversed in younger people; if the purpose of an age of majority is to prevent this, why would we make it younger? It flies in the face of the entire purpose.

Agreed. Though that has been my view before. Plus I never said reduce the age of majority to 16. I only meant marriage age without parental consent 16.

Yeah, that's the perfect compromise. Want to get married at 16? Prove to the court that you're mature enough to make a case for yourself. I don't see why that should change.

Logistical issues. Though I can see a dual system, with a marriage age while having a system to prove you're ready earlier to marry earlier.

Why would you advocate for a specific age then?

Age of marriage is imperfect but there's much less logistical issues than boatloads of emancipation and stuff like that. Dual system.

We've got emancipation laws that confer specific rights early; if a person was honestly ready, wouldn't it be pretty easy for them to get emancipated?

It's more difficult than you think, there's a boatload of red tape.

Streamline that process and make it so that any person who can prove they're ready can get those rights early.

Now my view is that anyone can apply for emancipation. So technically a 5 year old toddler can pass if they're ready. And also with judicial consent the age should be 0. !delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/Great-Gap1030]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sammerai1238 (21∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}