UN Says Minors Can Consent to Sex!

Says the country that still has many places where there is no minimum age of marriage

 

I am betting you have not read the original report

 

Errrrr no, sorry but you are wrong

https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us/



https://zontausa.org/end-child-marriage-in-the-usa/

 

https://www.newsweek.com/tennessee-bill-proposes-eliminating-marriage-age-requirements-1695209

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/social-media-posts-misrepresent-tennessee-bill-allowing-common-law-marriage/

 

Have YOU? I don't even know why I am replying to someone who seems to have me permanently on their ignore list! Why am I even OFF the list all of a sudden?

 

I agree.

I agree.

The word "undesirable" does not appear in the Washington Free Beacon article.

Well if the statement WAS connected to ostensibly undesirable organisations, why the hell would that be admitted to in the report?

 

No, it was not about two underage people of the same age.

 

Madness. But the UN report does not specify two underage people of the same age.

 

Are you talking about minors having sex with EACHOTHER?

 

Thanks for the friendly reply. But you did not answer the question. So I resent it!

 

Can you rephrase?

 

Well it does not specify two people of the same age.

 

I believe it does but you have to read the whole document, your quoting one specific section. As someone else has noted CONTEXT is the the key. You only get that by reading the entire text. For example it quite clearly comes out as opposing sex between minors and adults in some other sections of the document and the UN is on record has having a long history of supporting the fight against child trafficking for labor or sex. That last a matter of fact.

The report itself doesn't even deal exclusively with underage sex. That's just one of the topics covered and all of them are approached in a very convoluted mix of diplomatic and legalistic double talk. The point is the article linked to the first post is sensationalist for the purpose of attracting readers i.e clickbait. Next they'll be claiming the UN wants people to eat babies for breakfast! And no I'm no huge admirer of the UN. Not because I don't think that as a concept the institution has no merit but because I'm all to familiar with how useless it is at actually achieving anything.

 

Not over national law; and even less so, when those laws deal with such a culturally sensitive subject, as sexuality.

I wouldn't place much stock in the article, at any rate, as it clearly is meant to push Right wing demonization of the Left. It calls sex with minors "woke ideology," as well as characterizes it as the "progressive left's expansion," of what it considers human rights. That is language of the Right, that's not shy about getting its hands dirty, handing out a bunch of crap.


And it is especially ironic, as it is in several Red states, where laws allowing child brides, have recently been passed.

 

In reading the comments, it is obvious that most have never even bothered to read the report.

https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp...ciples-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf

 

However, that is not all that is in the report.

Considering how many prostitution scandals have involved the UN, that will likely make many happy.

Yeah, just ignore those opium poppies and cocoa plants, those 5 acres are for personal use.

Yep, everywhere must just allow beggars and people selling on the street wherever they want.

I actually read through that, and it seems like it is a recipe for disaster for any nation that adopts it.

 

It's the UN. As per usual trying to make motherhood statements that A) are as broad/inusive as possible and B) as inoffensive to everyone as possible. (The mutually contradictory nature of those ambitions not withstanding.) The end result is that they cant publish a lunch menu without offending someone because it either says too much or too little.

The main point however remains the same. Despite what was reported the intention of the report was NOT to claim that sex between adults and minors is OK! That claim is a media breakup.

 

Wait, you read the entire document?

 

Can you support that claim?

 

Other than the @Monash quote, where are those quotes from?

 

The first few pages (the introduction and then all section relating to the 'sex' issue). After that my brain started to shut down. Which brings us to another point and another reason why the news article was BS. NO-ONE other than some legal academics, bureaucrats and foreign policy wonks are going to read it or for that matter care what it contains. From experience the main purpose of most such reports is justifying the (generous) US dollar denominated salaries being paid to the committee that authored it.

You also have to remember the report isn't exclusively discussing legal issues relating to child sex. There are sections on AIDS, Homosexuality and drug taking etc. Which is another reason to doubt the original news article because (from memory) statements on those issues don't get much air play in their report. It just focused on the 'child sex thing' and went then to town on that.

 

I'd been thinking about the story, below. I'd thought I'd heard of one or two others, but I was probably mistaken. Perhaps I'd been thinking of the numerous Red States that have lowered the working age for children, and allowed them to work in dangerous places, like meat packing plants, and to serve alcoholic beverages, at 16. That story, if you hadn't heard about it, I can definitely back up.

This one about the marriage, appears to have just been a mistake, on the legislators' part which, once it drew worldwide attention, they corrected. The sponsors say this was about supporting marriage, by creating some paperwork to make more official, common law marriages. The problem was they didn't think to include any age limits. So, theoretically, children could have used this law to wed. Besides child marriage, critics also raised concerns of this law paving the way for child sex abuse.

What seems clear is that this was the Tennessee Republicans' attempt to fight a culture war against the LGBTQ movement.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.actionnews5.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/?outputType=amp

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WMC) - Some Tennessee Republicans want to make common law marriage legal. But the bill being pushed through the legislature this week doesn’t have any age requirements and opponents say that paves the way for allowing child marriage.

Twenty-four Tennessee Republicans are sponsoring this legislation and right now it is making headlines around the world. Newsweek, The Hill and The Daily Mail in the U.K. have all written about it, Twitter is all abuzz about it, and all eyes are on the Volunteer State as people wonder if the state’s lawmakers are about to legalize child marriage.

State Rep. Tom Leatherwood, the Republican from Shelby County who represents Arlington, sponsored House Bill 233, introducing it in the Children and Family Affairs Subcommittee on April 23. The legislation is designed to legalize common law marriage in Tennessee as a way to push back against the LGBTQ movement.

“I’ve seen a change in the tide, and if there’s any hostility, it’s against those people who do believe marriage comes from God, not from government and do believe it’s between a man and a woman,”* said Leatherwood...

State Senator Raumesh Akbari from Memphis told Action News 5: “It’s ugly enough Republicans are advancing an unconstitutional bill to undermine marriage equality, but the fact that this bill reopens the debate on child marriage is outrageous. Kids need time to grow and mature. Kids need to be kids, not brides and mothers.”

The bill passed the House subcommittee and now goes before the House Civil Justice Committee on April 6, and the full Senate will hear the bill on Thursday, April 7.
<End Snip>


* I must disagree with that sponsor of the bill; the hostility, clearly, seems to be coming from him, towards the LGBTQ community, who he is characterizing as being hostile towards marriage.

As an aside, Tennessee has really gone overboard with attacking these type of lifestyle choice issues, using patent pretexts, to excuse authoritarian negation of civil rights. In their recent anti-drag law, for instance, as I understand, while drag shows are still permitted, the performers are not allowed to walk on the street, in drag. The law actually goes so far as to dictate the clothing, people are allowed to wear, and they criminalized the wearing of any clothing that is not meant for one's birth gender. How ridiculous is that? What is wrong with a guy, wearing a dress, or a woman wearing a man's suit? Obviously, for anyone who is trans, this makes the way they normally dress, illegal. That is clearly an attack on that group; it is something which rightfully is a first Amendment freedom of expression; the state has absolutely no interest in, or right to regulate, the way citizens dress (apart from mandating genital coverage); and this is nothing but a closed-minded attempt, to go back in time.

 

as long as common law marriage has to be agreed to by both parties and is not forced on someone, everyone has the right to say no

 

"The U.N. report echoes the thinking of groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which condones pedophilia and works to abolish age-of-consent laws. While the report stops short of calling for the legalization of sex with minors, it maintains that those under 18 years of age have the mental capacity to willingly have sex with older individuals. The report is raising red flags with experts who say the United Nations is trying to mainstream underage sex as it pushes a woke ideology that has long existed at the fringes of society."

So if the UN is saying a minor has the mental capacity to willingly consent to sex what prevents minors from legally engaging in sex with adults? This is why the UN report is so disturbing. many countries have different laws regarding the age to consent which can influence the UN.