CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are there benefits to child marriage?
Does child marriage have any redeeming qualities for the child, the couple, or society, or is it something entirely negative?
Child Marriage defined as a marriage where at least one of the parties to the marriage contract, when the marriage is consummated, is no younger than puberty, and before they are legally recognized as an adult.
Studies (many,many) have shown that child marriages (or arranged marriages) last longer and people are more happy than those in contemporary mutually-exclusive marriages.
Not to mention, the financial security of the family is planned and employed before either of the parties have their first job. Here in the "free world", the majority of parents struggle to make ends meet.
I believe that child marriage does have many benefits, to society, to the child, and to the married couple.
1. The child learns responsibility and parenting skills quickly, and becomes a productive member of society rather than idling their childhood away playing and wasting time.
2. The parents have more time to spend growing and loving together.
3. The parents are able to become more connected and emotionally supportive of their children, because they ages are not so distant.
4. The parents get to enjoy their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, while they are still youthful.
5. There is more chance that a couple will be able to work out their differences and become closer together emotionally because they are more impressionable and have more time to spend working on getting along.
6. It encourages a steady relationship and fidelity, rather than prolific promiscuous sex.
7. Economically a mother is better off wed rather than unwed, regardless of age.
8. It can provide the child with a sexual learning environment safe from STDs, abusive partners, abandonment, and ridicule.
9. It prevents a young father from abandoning the mother of his children.
There are many young and unwed mothers in poverty, relying on charity, taxpayer funded benefits and handouts, or unsavory activities to keep themselves and their child/ren alive day to day. If these mothers had been wed before engaging in sex, they and their families would have been far better off economically, and their children would not be stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty.
Young kids will have sex anyway, or experiment sexually in some manner. If they were married when they started becoming interested in these things, they would more chance to have a physically and emotionally safer learning environment to experiment and grow in.
Marriage itself is a Formative Institution. You're not supposed to go into it knowing how it works, you're supposed to grow into it, and let the marriage define the two partners (two people coming together as one single united unit). When a person is married at a younger age, their personality has not had enough time to harden and solidify. With a more malleable personality, fewer personality conflicts will be had between the two married partners, which overall results in a much happier, loving marriage over time. See this article: http://www.abigmessage.com/are-there-advantages-to-early-marriage.html
Another article about the same family. And they weren't just threatened with separation, the husband was convicted and sentenced.
His wife remains happy with her decision, they have remained married, and now after he's gotten out, they still live together and have had more children together.
Another article about the same family. And they weren't just threatened with separation, the husband was convicted and sentenced.
His wife remains happy with her decision, they have remained married, and now after he's gotten out, they still live together and have had more children together.
child marriage is not at all helpful to the child in any way...in fact in spoils the childhood of the child only...children are pushed into these relationships even before they can understand what actually it is...they have to shoulder responsibilities at a very age...they are immature and physically and mentally not ready to bear children..
Shouldering responsibilities is what makes children grow. If you don't push them out of their comfort zone, they will never grow up, nor will they mature, and they'll end up as irresponsible, immature, selfish adults. What is childhood, but the stage where children can make mistakes and gain in experience without suffering the full brunt of the natural consequences? It's certainly not the time to coddle children and let them do nothing but play and play and play.
What is puberty, but the precise definition of being ready to bear children? If they weren't naturally ready, they wouldn't be physically capable of doing so. Were children in the middle ages immature and not ready to bear children? What about the several thousands of years before that? Who are we to think we know better than our predecessors? Every generation thinks they know better than the previous, but that doesn't make it so, it just proves how completely vain and proud we are.
Do you support then, a 12 year old girl voluntarily engaging in relations with her 13 year old boyfriend, out of wedlock, and then being abandoned when she conceives?
I think everyone should have the opportunity to make their own choices in life, for the same reason I frown down upon indoctorination of religion at a young age, I am against allowing two children to be married off to each other (as I am understanding this new thing I have come across called "child marriage). When you marry two children off, yes they do grow up accustomed picked out for each other and may get a head start on things, but they have been strongly coerced into marrying a specific person, and the more coercion their is in a choice I'd argue the less of a choice it really is.
Well, you're free to have your opinion on that matter, but that's not what this debate is about. The debate is not about whether Child Marriage is "right" or if it should be allowed, or if coercion is involved in its practice, the debate is about whether or not there are any benefits, any at all that could be found, socially, personally, religiously, or practically, that are a result of the practice of child marriage.
So you say there is one negative. Does that one negative mean that all surrounding aspects are also negative? Or is there any possibility that even just one good thing could be found relating to the practice?
Does child marriage have any redeeming qualities for the child, the couple, or society, or is it something entirely negative?
It is negative for the child because the child can't decide with maturity, it is negative for the couple because the couple never really chose to be a couple with maturity, and bad for society because it allows the child to make a life changing decision for the rest of your life, thus entirely negative. If the couple ended up unhappy in the long run, now because of their decision as a children they have to go through all the complications of divorce later on in life. Two kids dating until they are old enough to get married has just as much benefits as two kids marrying other than the financial benefits but that shouldn't be the reason anybody marries. Maybe in some cases a benefit can come out, like the kids growing up to be a very happy, healthy couple, but in the grand scheme of things the act in and of itself within society is not beneficial, as the cons outweight the pros, and one can get the same benefits just being together.
So you do agree there are, or can be, some benefits to the practice, your only disagreement is that they are outweighed by the cons? Then you belong in the other camp, because this side is for arguing there are no benefits whatsoever.
Allowing a child to make a like-changing decision? Don't young people already do that now? They engage in premarital sex, and often even become pregnant out of wedlock. I would think that this would be a far more life-changing decision, with much further reaching consequences, and an all around terrible result for the mother, far far worse than simply deciding on getting married.
Poverty stricken unwed mothers have no one to care for them, or their child. They are stuck in a place almost impossible to get free from both mentally and economically, even sometimes forced to resort to theft, or prostitution to get by, in the very worse off of areas, they might even be forced to prostitute their infant child just to live day to day.
How is this a more desirable result than child marriage? And yet this is what happens in the deep dark bellies of the places where child marriage is looked down upon. Marriage prevents all those things from happening, because there is economic and emotional support for the mother.
So you do agree there are, or can be, some benefits to the practice, your only disagreement is that they are outweighed by the cons? Then you belong in the other camp, because this side is for arguing there are no benefits whatsoever.
I do not agree that there are any benefits to just allowing children to just get married, maybe on a case by case basis, but this debate isn't asking whether or not there are benefits for any particular cases but benefits in general.
Allowing a child to make a like-changing decision? Don't young people already do that now? They engage in premarital sex, and often even become pregnant out of wedlock. I would think that this would be a far more life-changing decision, with much further reaching consequences, and an all around terrible result for the mother, far far worse than simply deciding on getting married.
Poverty stricken unwed mothers have no one to care for them, or their child. They are stuck in a place almost impossible to get free from both mentally and economically, even sometimes forced to resort to theft, or prostitution to get by, in the very worse off of areas, they might even be forced to prostitute their infant child just to live day to day.
They are still illegal, just because the child does it, doesn't make it right. We can't strongly enforce it, because it would be silly to punish teens for that as they are only affecting themselves, and usually things only affecting themselves shouldn't be illegal, I think that varies with youth a little bit. It should be discouraged however and not made easy for them.
How is this a more desirable result than child marriage? And yet this is what happens in the deep dark bellies of the places where child marriage is looked down upon. Marriage prevents all those things from happening, because there is economic and emotional support for the mother.
Economical and emotional support should be given whether the pregnant teen couple is married or not, and allowing them to get married only encourages said behavior.
Benefits in general, as opposed to no benefits at all, includes case-by case benefits.
point 2, I agree. However, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong? everything should be case-by-case, and only a individual can make those sorts of decisions. If they choose poorly, they get the consequences.
Allowing them to get married, and strongly encouraging them to, actually inhibits such promiscuous behavior. A child knows at least that marriage is a serious commitment. To permit flippiant behavior beforehand is actually far more encouraging than threatening marriage for doing so.
Benefits in general, as opposed to no benefits at all, includes case-by case benefits.
I disagree.
point 2, I agree. However, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong?
I don't think that is a good argument, I could use that argument to justify murderers.
everything should be case-by-case, and only a individual can make those sorts of decisions. If they choose poorly, they get the consequences.
So should we allow kids to have sex with anyone they choose even if that person coerced them? should we allow kids to smoke cigarettes? should we allow kids to drink alcohol with no regulation? I disagree, we have to look out for children in society. To have a society that doesn't limit them because of their youth is incredibly unrealistic.
Allowing them to get married, and strongly encouraging them to, actually inhibits such promiscuous behavior.
Fear that they may go and get pregnant is not reason to try and swaying them to get married before they have obtained the maturity for that decision. Secondly, teens married will be likely to mate everyday, the more times you mate, the more likely one will eventually become pregnant. Teen whom aren't married I doubt will have as much sexual opportunities as Teens who are.
A child knows at least that marriage is a serious commitment.
Not necessarily, children often don't have a mature and true grasp of what love means. They don't have much experience with love, and when feeling the slightest romantic feelings have nothing to compare it to. The married couple may grow up to realize they don't love each other at all. Also those aren't the right reasons to get married, one should get married after dating for some time and building up a relationship and determining whether or not they are really right for each other.
To permit flippiant behavior beforehand is actually far more encouraging than threatening marriage for doing so.
Not allowing children to marry keeps children from making such decisions, if two kids truly do love each other, they will wait till they are of age to marry.
So you would prefer a society where the child does not have a choice to marry, but is forced to Not marry? Which choice should be taken away? The choice not to marry, or the choice to marry? Why can't the two choices coexist in the same society?
Children aren't mature enough to make a lot of decisions in life, which is why we don't let them drive cars, drink, have sex, etc. I don't think children are mature enough to be able to marry each other, it is a decision that affects the rest of your life.
Hardship Licenses permit children to drive cars. One point refuted.
Drinking alcohol has only recently in human history been prohibited to non-adults. Parents can still offer their own children alcohol in the privacy of their own home. Two point refuted.
Many cultures permit children to learn about sex or even engage in it (see the Mangaia culture http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_sexuality ). It's only in our self-supposed "high-enlightmentment" of western civilization that we think differently. Point three refuted.
Furthermore, Child marriage has been traditional marriage for most of human history, it's only been the past 100 years that it's been looked upon as unfavorable, or "wrong" in some manner. The Hebrews of the Bible practiced it, Muslims still practice it, some islanders and some native South Americans still practice it, and many others used to practice it before they were culturally invaded.
Children can't drink alcohol on their own however cause they don't have the maturity to make that decision, with a parent looking out for them, the parent has the maturity to know what is best for the kids.
Many cultures permit children to learn about sex or even engage in it (see the Mangaia culture http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cultural_differences_in_sexuality ). It's only in our self-supposed "high-enlightmentment" of western civilization that we think differently. Point three refuted.
Just because another culture allows it, doesn't make it right, it doesn't refute my point that children aren't mature enough to make those decisions.
Furthermore, Child marriage has been traditional marriage for most of human history, it's only been the past 100 years that it's been looked upon as unfavorable, or "wrong" in some manner. The Hebrews of the Bible practiced it, Muslims still practice it, some islanders and some native South Americans still practice it, and many others used to practice it before they were culturally invaded.
Once again just because someone participates doesn't make it ethical, or ideal. If someone commits murder does it make murder ok? It still doesn't refute my point that children simply don't have the maturity to make those decisions. Every society limits the freedoms of the young because of this, children typically have less freedoms and it is for the best interests of the child.
So, basically your argument now is that a child needs an adult to make the decisions for the child because the child is not mature enough to make them. You say yourself, "the parent has the maturity to know that is best for the kids,"
While I would disagree with that assessment (there is no evidence to support that every adult or parent has any more maturity than the child they are making the decisions for), assuming that is your pretense, you have just admitted that if the parent determines that the child is ready for marriage, then it is ok for that child to marry.
While I would disagree with that assessment (there is no evidence to support that every adult or parent has any more maturity than the child they are making the decisions for), assuming that is your pretense, you have just admitted that if the parent determines that the child is ready for marriage, then it is ok for that child to marry.
It has been scientifically proven that the brain starts to develop the skills that comes with maturity as they grow significantly, and we aren't fully mature until the age of 25
Parents have that right with certain things depending on the extreme of the cases, for example parents can't legally give their kids permission to smoke cigarettes before the age 18, nor allow them to move out on their own.
perhaps we can have a system where a psychologist allows two kids to marry whom is educated on the matter of relationships and can determine if they are in the relationship for all the right reasons. So under certain conditions maybe, I am still not sure but I think that is more arguable.
A mature brain does not mean a mature personality, which is far more detrimental than just not being "conscious" enough to make major decisions.
parents should have all rights regarding their children's future. No psychologist will ever be attached enough to care enough to make the right decision for the child. Though it allows for poor parenting, it is better than an all-around subpar decision.
A mature brain does not mean a mature personality, which is far more detrimental than just not being "conscious" enough to make major decisions.
True but a mature personality comes with a mature brain typically. Whom typically has more maturity and far better skills on making decisions? children or adults? It's self evident. A mature personality also comes with experience.
parents should have all rights regarding their children's future. No psychologist will ever be attached enough to care enough to make the right decision for the child. Though it allows for poor parenting, it is better than an all-around subpar decision.
I think it should still be up for the parents somewhat, but the psychologist is still necessary for the determination, a parent alone can't decide that their child is allowed to emancipate, the state also must approve it based on the parents permission and whether or not the child can support themselves. This is the closest I can see this being beneficial for their to be a child marriage.
Typically you're right, it's adults with more maturity, but children with significant experiences mature much faster than those who are permitted to idle away their childhood.
Keep the state out of Private Affairs. It'll only corrupt things and make them worse for it's own benefits. No government should have any power to interfere with parenting or "grant permission" for a parent to make a decision about their child. What is a paper form going to help some uninvolved official somewhere make a significant life decision for a child they'll never know, where the various factors and influences are completely unknown and unreported. Consider how well governments have run orphanages, and then tell me they should be making parenting decisions.
But I think we've drifted far too off topic of the debate now.
Typically you're right, it's adults with more maturity, but children with significant experiences mature much faster than those who are permitted to idle away their childhood.
I do acknowledge that their are some kids whom are quite mature for their age, but most kids aren't however, and allowing all children to marry at such a young age will be something majority of children aren't mature enough for.
Keep the state out of Private Affairs. It'll only corrupt things and make them worse for it's own benefits. No government should have any power to interfere with parenting or "grant permission" for a parent to make a decision about their child. What is a paper form going to help some uninvolved official somewhere make a significant life decision for a child they'll never know, where the various factors and influences are completely unknown and unreported. Consider how well governments have run orphanages, and then tell me they should be making parenting decisions.
Like I said to have a society that doesn't limit freedoms based on youth is highly unrealistic. Emancipation is a form to file, to have someone of the age of 16 become an adult. The form is only approvable by the state depending on if the child is being abused or if the parents are simply allowing the child to move out, it must then be approved based on the child's capabilities to survive on its own. If we are going to allow two young childs to marry, then at the very least have a relations psychologist approve it on the permission of the parents. Orphanages are a whole other ordeal entirely.
Well, the debate is whether or not there are benefits to a child's marriage, whether it is advised by a parent, or sought after by the child's own volition is relatively irrelevant. Is it so happens, I support the parent's right to say yes or no to a child's marriage, because they can see further into the future than the child (but not an ability to force their child into one if it is not desired by the child)
Currently, it is already legal for a public judge to approve or disapprove of a marriage application that has the consent of the marrying parties, and the parents of any underaged parties, there is no need for a psychologist in addition. I disagree a judge should be neccessary however, as the parents should be the final arbiters of such decisions regarding their children, not a disinterested state.
Bringing up orphanages was simply to illustrate how terrible government is when it comes to taking care of children and making decisions for them.
Well, the debate is whether or not there are benefits to a child's marriage, whether it is advised by a parent, or sought after by the child's own volition is relatively irrelevant. Is it so happens, I support the parent's right to say yes or no to a child's marriage, because they can see further into the future than the child (but not an ability to force their child into one if it is not desired by the child)
There are no benefits for child marriage in general, at least none that two children dating can't have.
Currently, it is already legal for a public judge to approve or disapprove of a marriage application that has the consent of the marrying parties, and the parents of any underaged parties, there is no need for a psychologist in addition. I disagree a judge should be neccessary however, as the parents should be the final arbiters of such decisions regarding their children, not a disinterested state.
When it comes to something like this, I think it is necessary for the state to be involved. The state doesn't care about the child like the child's parents do, yes. We are kind of a statistic to the government, because the government has to be fair to all of us.
up orphanages was simply to illustrate how terrible government is when it comes to taking care of children and making decisions for them.
Well yeah, when the government is the only guardians for a large multitude of children, the government can't do the job of a parent. Governments can't love children like a parent and care for them as such. However a government does know what it is doing when governing children in society. Do you agree that an age limit on cigarettes, driving, drinking, sex, the pursuit of educations, etc are all bad decisions on the government's part?
Child Marriage defined as a marriage where at least one of the parties to the marriage contract, when the marriage is consummated, is no younger than puberty, and before they are legally recognized as an adult.
I said "when consummated at puberty or after" because otherwise, I would be opening the door for sex with the sexually immature, which are obviously are not mature enough sexually to have sex.
Whether it is a bad thing or not, however, is not the question of the debate. The debate is about whether there can be benefits to it's practice, or not. And I have yet to see anyone refute the potential benefits I have listed on the other side.
I'm fine with people being married as children, only if both are children and they don't sleep together. A mature adult sleeping with a 13yo is sick, and I don't agree with two 12/13yo sleeping together either, maybe if they were 14, but otherwise I think they're too young.
Puberty is the time in which a child becomes sexually mature enough to bear children. If that is not an adequate definition of being old enough to have sex, I don't know what is. And if the age is old enough, what should it matter what the age range between the parties is? An 80 year old with a 20 year old is perfectly appropriate.
12 year olds, and even younger, have sex regardless, as evidenced by the statics I posted earlier. It would be far better to marry them off at this age than to permit them to engage promiscuously in dangerous sex.
What one personally considers sick and wrong, and perfectly appropriate, is not a good measure by which to rule on anything.
That policy is used in middle eastern countries. The girls are forced to bear children at that age. It's not healthy and tears their bodies leading to diseases like fistula and most likely death.
Just to clarify, most marriages end up that way anyway, where one or both parties has/have annoying habits or world views that grate on the other party's nerves, and yet the two are forced to work together because the are married.
But that's part of marriage, couples are supposed to learn and grow together and work through their various and annoying differences.
Yes, but a Divorce is lengthy and messy. Ideally a divorce should only be the last resort for marital trouble. When one side absolutely refuses to work things out, or abuse is rampant.
While divorce will always be possible, being married forces more commitment and effort on the two parties than if they were simply living together. It is additional incentive to work things out rather than to escape the issues. Because there is more incentive to stay together and work things out, than to not, I consider it a benefit.
Because obviously adult marriage is adult rape, am I understanding you correctly?
Rape is rape, it doesn't require marriage, and it happens in some marital relationships regardless of ages. Children will engage in sex regardless, if given the chance, as statics point towards many 12 year olds having had sexual relations.
Marriage on the other hand does not necessitate rape, as your comment insinuates, and it protects the child from promiscuity, and abandonment by their sexual partner.
Rape is rape is rape, which is forced, and often violent, sexual relations, with another person. Which I will never support.
Statutory Rape however is rape by "statute," and meaningless when compared to real rape. A 16 year old having voluntary relations with her 18 year old boyfriend, can be classified as Statutory Rape, even though no "child" was harmed, and the action was entirely voluntary, and no real rape or violence was performed.
Change the statute age, and it's no longer rape, it's just consensual relations, like all the others.
Which then is the real problem? Violent Rape, or Consensual Relations with a party that just happens to be defined by an arbitrary statute law as a "child?"
Only according to legal statues, and the age that defines one as a child unable to consent varies throughout the world. If the laws change, the age of consent changes, what then defines who is "able to give consent" or not?
Furthermore, "children" of "variable ages" are still permitted even in America to be married with their parent's consent even at this time now. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
