child bride predation v. mary's perpetual virginity

[Open Heart]

And nowhere does the convention even mention marriage.

Read the whole thing on Child Marriage:
Child marriage | UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund
"Child marriage is a human rights violation. Despite laws against it, the practice remains widespread, in part because of persistent poverty and gender inequality. In developing countries, one in every four girls is married before reaching age 18. One in nine is married under age 15."

 

[Open Heart]

So why are you expecting her parents to be involved in checking your son out?

Because we remain parts of our families. Parents don't decide who their children marry, but out of concern, they offer advice. Similarly, the child should check out the future spouse's family, since they aren't just marrying their fiancee, they are marrying their fiancee's family.

 

[RDKirk]

You are mixing up the various things that I'm saying. You are mixing up what I have said about the UN with what I have said about California. And then there is my own conclusion, which is also separate.

1. The UN says that marriage under the age of 18 is CHILD marriage and is a human rights violation.

No, it does not say that, not at all.

2. California gives age 18 as the age of lawful consent to sex -- for a man to have sex with a girl under 18 is statutory rape.

And it's already been pointed out to you that in California, marriages can be legal under the age of 18. And that's also true under the UN convention.

I am saying that when you look at 18 being the age of consent to sex, therefore, SINCE choosing to marry is a much more complicated decision, its age should ALSO be AT LEAST 18.

That's your opinion, shared by no actual society.

 

[RDKirk]

Read the whole thing on Child Marriage:
Child marriage | UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund
"Child marriage is a human rights violation. Despite laws against it, the practice remains widespread, in part because of persistent poverty and gender inequality. In developing countries, one in every four girls is married before reaching age 18. One in nine is married under age 15."

Read the actual convention, not a blog post.

 

[RDKirk]

Because we remain parts of our families. Parents don't decide who their children marry, but out of concern, they offer advice. Similarly, the child should check out the future spouse's family, since they aren't just marrying their fiancee, they are marrying their fiancee's family.

Checking out the future spouses's family was the role of the parents in an arranged marriage.

You seem to think that parents had no concern for their daughters when they arranged marriages.

Nobody wants ugly grandchildren.

 

[Open Heart]

Read the actual convention, not a blog post.

That was an official website put up by the UNFPA. It makes things quite clear. Your interpretation of the convention is not accurate.

This is from their published 74 page document "MARRYING TOO YOUNG; End Chid Marriage":
"Despite near-universal commitments to end child marriage, one in three girls in developing countries (excluding China) will probably be married before they are 18. One out of nine girls will be married before their 15th birthday."
End Child Marriage | UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund

 

[Open Heart]

Checking out the future spouses's family was the role of the parents in an arranged marriage.

You seem to think that parents had no concern for their daughters when they arranged marriages.

Nobody wants ugly grandchildren.

You really seem to be sticking your foot in. Look how much stuff you are attributing to me that I haven't said. I'm not against arranged marriages at all, so long as the couple consent as well. I'm only against CHILD marriages.

 

[All4Christ]

Read the whole thing on Child Marriage:
Child marriage | UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund
"Child marriage is a human rights violation. Despite laws against it, the practice remains widespread, in part because of persistent poverty and gender inequality. In developing countries, one in every four girls is married before reaching age 18. One in nine is married under age 15."

To be fair, that doesn’t necessarily say that under 18 is always child marriage. It is providing statistics from various countries. Combine that with the 1989 treaty, and you have an official statement:

OHCHR | Convention on the Rights of the Child

I’m not saying that child brides are ok, but I do think it is important to be fully accurate with statements.

Did you know that Austria has the age set at 17? It is somewhat different even in non-developing countries. Interesting to think about.

 

[Open Heart]

To be fair, that doesn’t necessarily say that under 18 is always child marriage.

To be fair, it does. It gives "1 out of 4 under 18" as an example of a child marriage that is a human rights violation.

 

[All4Christ]

To be fair, it does. It gives "1 out of 4 under 18" as an example of a child marriage that is a human rights violation.

Exactly how does it say that grammatically? The other document from the UN is very clear. The sentence you quoted does not explicitly say what you wrote here. It lists two different ages there.

I’m not saying I disagree with your opinion, though 17 would be fine in my opinion, but there are conflicting statements...one in a treaty - and one in an article.

 

[Open Heart]

Exactly how does it say that grammatically? The other document from the UN is very clear. The sentence you quoted does not explicitly say what you wrote here.

First, I speak English. I minored in English. I've taught English. The UNFPA document says what I said it says.
Secondly, I think the conventions wording is ambiguous.

And it raises questions. For example, if I were to interpret it the way some in here do, it would seem to say that a girl of 15 in a country that was lazy and had no age of consent law could not be married as a child bride, but that same girl, in a country that at least TRIED and had an age of consent of 15, she could be legally abused. Now THAT makes no sense.​

And so since the wording is ambiguous, I say that this interpretation is not the correct one.

 

[All4Christ]

First, I speak English. I minored in English. I've taught English. The UNFPA document says what I said it says.
Secondly, I think the conventions wording is ambiguous.

And it raises questions. For example, if I were to interpret it the way some in here do, it would seem to say that a girl of 15 in a country that was lazy and had no age of consent law could not be married as a child bride, but that same girl, in a country that at least TRIED and had an age of consent of 15, she could be legally abused. Now THAT makes no sense.​

And so since the wording is ambiguous, I say that this interpretation is not the correct one.

I would read it the same way except for the explicit sentence in the treaty...which I believe we need to look at all UN sources and look at them as a whole. That is an important part of understanding.

 

[Open Heart]

I would read it the same way except for be explicit sentence in the treaty...which I believe we need to look at all UN sources and look at them as a whole.

Would you at least agree that the UNFPA is interpreting it as I am?

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[All4Christ]

Would you at least agree that the UNFPA is interpreting it as I am?

I believe that they consider 18 to be the appropriate age, but they also respect local law in many places throughout their treaties and articles.

 

[All4Christ]

Apologies...I misread. I believe the UN as a whole believes that 18 is the appropriate age but throughout their treaties, they respect local custom within reason. The UNFPA does write an article that includes anything under 18 as an undesirable age for marriage, which can be understood easily to mean than marriage under 18 is a violation of human rights.

That said, should I read the article from the UNFPA without other treaties / articles from the UN, yes, I would conclude that they are stating that marriage under the age of 18 is a violation of human rights.

 

[RDKirk]

Apologies...I misread. I believe the UN as a whole believes that 18 is the appropriate age but throughout their treaties, they respect local custom within reason. The UNFPA does write an article that includes anything under 18 as an undesirable age for marriage, which can be understood easily to mean than marriage under 18 is a violation of human rights.

That said, should I read the article from the UNFPA without other treaties / articles from the UN, yes, I would conclude that they are stating that marriage under the age of 18 is a violation of human rights.

There are no signatories to the article. The signatories are to the convention.

 

[Open Heart]

I believe that they consider 18 to be the appropriate age, but they also respect local law in many places throughout their treaties and articles.

I can't agree with your interpretation. I don't see how you can possibly get that out of the UNPFA documents that I offered.

 

[All4Christ]

I can't agree with your interpretation. I don't see how you can possibly get that out of the UNPFA documents that I offered.

If you read my second post, I clarified that I was referencing the UN as a whole, including treaties, etc, not the article you posted. There are many many more articles and treaties than the one you posted.

 

[Open Heart]

If you read my second post, I clarified that I was referencing the UN as a whole, including treaties, etc, not the article you posted. There are many many more articles and treaties than the one you posted.

My question to you was specific to the UNFPA. Please do answer the question that I actually asked. Would you be so kind as to scroll back and try again.

I've only seen a quote from one convention. If you have more quotes with citations, do post them, please.