UN Says Minors Can Consent to Sex!

Do you honestly think a 10 year old "commercial sex worker" won't half adult johns?

 

The age difference isn't the issue. It sort of seems to me like you are trying to change the issue.
The issue is that if they should be allowed to have sex, they should be allowed to marry and have sex within marriage. Same age.

 

Oh really? Then name some.

Iran had nothing that Iraq needed, nor did Kuwait. The same goes for the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and all of the wars against Israel.

Exactly what resources have Pakistan and India been fighting over?

Hell, that is not even true for the Pacific War. Do not forget that all started because Japan wanted to expand its empire into Mongolia and China. "Resources" only comes up at the very end because their major trade partner finally got tired of their eternal conquests and cut off all oil and steel to them. An action that would not have happened at all if Japan had not attacked China almost 5 years before.

No, you are only attempting to make yet another claim that many have done, but has no actual historical basis in fact. Most wars are for pure dominance, various forms of hate, or to destroy a government that they see as competition or a rival. That is the reality.

But I am willing to see what evidence you are actually able to provide to back up that claim of yours. So tell me, exactly which wars have been started in the last 100 years over resources.

 

Lowering the age of consent would apply equally regardless of the age of the other participant.

Thats not what I asked. Again "Do any nations criminalize sex between 15yr olds?"

 

You've quoted no law countering what I have said.

 

More red herring.

 

Sooo girls being married to men 20+ years their seniors which invalidates “minimum age of consent” is a red herring?

https://www.unchainedatlast.org/laws-to-end-child-marriage/

 

It depends what that is referring to, Bowerbird.
The whole point of child marriage is to legally permit sex in a situation where it would otherwise not be legal (if they were not married).
The real issue, I think, would be determining whether the girl was forced (or coerced) into the marriage, whether she actually wanted to get married.
I do think there should be special protections written into the law for brides who are not adults. Maybe consider it a more minor form of rape, or sexual violation, if her husband has sex with her and she does not consent in that specific situation. Also make it more easy for the girl to be able to leave her husband and the marriage, then it would be for an ordinary adult woman who gets married.

 

And you think that also applies to ten year olds “married” to 60 year old men?

 

When you're talking about a 10 year old, I think that is an extreme grey zone. I would probably be against 10 years being permitted to marry.

It is a thing in India though. (Although the law does not recognize it)

 

Yes.

In Afghanistan today, all sex outside of marriage is illegal. And marriage is only allowed if both are 16 or older.

And this is actually not uncommon globally. Where any sex outside of marriage is illegal, and generally falls under adultery.

 

There was also something not uncommon at one time, that was a "Present Consent" marriage. That was common when one or both were children. It was legally binding as a marriage, but they did not live together and there was no sex until both were of the appropriate age.

In fact, that can even be seen in Star Trek. Spock was in a "Present Consent" marriage at the age of 7, and even today many cultures still practice this.

So I would agree, and be against marriage when one was 10. Unless it was a Present Consent Marriage, to be affirmed and consummated at a later date when they are of a more appropriate age.

 

Marriage doesn't invalidate all ages of consent. Yes, in some states like California, you'll have a problem if the parents and the Judge are in cahoots to do something evil. But what you're likely stirring the hornet's nest about is 40-year-olds marrying 16-year-olds. But the age of consent laws allow 40-year-olds to have sex with 16-year-olds in most states anyway. So, what's your point? Maybe a couple hundred of horror stories here and there? Yet, a hundred thousand children get raped on their way to illegally enter the U.S. and you shrug your shoulders?

If this really concerns you, you have to investigate an individual case which is particularly bad. Publicize the specific case to the state you're wanting the change to happen in and work to change the laws.

Regardless, it's still a red herring. The discussion is about age of consent - not age of marriage. At best you're pointing out loopholes but this isn't about loopholes. You're derailing the discussion.

The point the U.N. was trying to discuss was have age of consent laws can be needlessly damaging - especially when the punishment is as rash as the death penalty.

From the article,

"The enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them," according to the report, authored by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) with support from UNAIDS and the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity, and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees."

The U.N. is discussing 16 and 17-year-olds in most cases. 37 states of the Union put it at 16 and 17. Only 13 put it at 18. The Majority of the U.S. actually agrees with the U.N. And this is unrestricted with the age of the partner. The other states place age exemptions. Florida for example allows age 16 to have sex with age 23. The U.N. is simply pointing out that most of these ages are arbitrary and that people might want to consider "the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them."

 

This UN effort is likely at the behest of Muslim nations. Muhammad married Aisha when he was 53 and she was 9

 

Oh! For heavens sake! Read the actual report it does nothing like what is claimed

 

Nope.

"persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex"
"persons under 18 years of age"

8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf (icj2.wpenginepowered.com)

 

Thats if the child bride doesnt have her fathers consent. With his consent they dont have a minimum age of marriage for girls.

 

I'm still right. And the passage you cut and pasted from says under 18 - not under 16. Does anyone who is obfuscating and misrepresenting the passage list where it specifies under 16? Didn't think so.

 

Actually the entire document makes no mention of 16 years of age. YOU made that part up.
8-MARCH-Principles-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf (icj2.wpenginepowered.com)

 

I qouted the report and made no claims.

 

I have already long ago realized that even though the report is very short, very few in here have actually read it. That is not uncommon in here.

 

Problem is the age of consent varies from place to place, 16 here in the UK, 14 in Germany, 13 in Japan etc varies by state in the US

 

It makes no mention 9-year-olds or those under 16 years of age either.

You made that part up.

 

Ok, so then it includes under 13. Remember the report said:

"Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law..."

 

How is that a "law passed against the children?"