Yuyutsu,
Do you really consider that a 12 yo girl is mature enough to make a decision about marriage? Isn't that what parents are for, to make decisions for kids until they are mature to make their own decisions.
The law is there to protect kids from themselves and irresponsible parents.

Just how young would you allow girls to make decisions about sexual activity and marriage?

You also said, earlier, that polygamy has no victim, so apparently should be allowed.

It is a struggle for most young couples, so what about the situation where a wife assists her husband to get established financially and finally, after years of hard work they are more comfortable and the husband decides to get a 'new model' wife. I say the first wife is a victim. Then when he karks it she may have to share his estate with the new wife. I do not think that is very fair.

Yuyutsu, how is nose-picking bad for you?

If nose-picking or eating too much is bad for you, you are doing it to yourself.

But does a 8-year old girl really have the maturity to make decisions like getting married?

Most people would agree people who are *capable* of making decisions should have the right to make them.

The question here is: are children capable of such responsibility?

Banjo, pre-nuptial agreements would address any such questions.

And the wives married the husband, not each other, so neither has any entitlement or responsibility regarding the other wife.

Dear Banjo,

I am happy to relate to questions of morality, good and evil, but before we start let me make clear that morality and law are two different things: the state is NOT a guardian of morality and has no authority to do so.

Any legitimate authority of the state comes from people who authorise that state to act in their name - specifically to protect them from violence and fraud by others. A state has therefore no other legitimate powers, other than the sum of legitimate powers which individuals invested in it. If we accept that it is legitimate for individuals to interfere with others in self-defence, then this allows the state to protect those who sought its protection (explicitly or implicitly), but not others who didn't.

So much about the law - now off to the realm of morality:

'Maturity' is a relative term and one must ask "mature for what?".
Science tells us for example that a human child is ready to survive alone in nature from about the age of 8.
Modern and especially Western society is very complex and unnatural, so one is not ready to function independently within it by the age of 8. Instead, one requires about 10 more years of education/indoctrination to be considered 'mature'. Even then we find people in society who are still immature at the age of 80!

For a family, therefore, who wishes to integrate into modern Western society, marrying and having a baby at 12 is inappropriate, mainly because it would interfere with the girls' studies and job-prospects. However, one should not arbitrarily assume that people wish to integrate into their society unless those people actually expressed that desire. If one for example (either parent or child) asked the state for welfare-payments or schooling, then that constitutes an implicit desire to integrate - but room must always be left for those families who do not wish to have anything to do with modern Western society and/or the states it created.

(continued...)

(...continued)

So maturity age, Banjo, depends on culture and aspirations, as well as individual circumstances. As each case is different for every child, you should leave this to parents who represent their children best.

Nevertheless, should a child of any age be able to express clearly their informed and unambiguous wish to come off the control of their parents and come under state-protection instead, then the state should be able to grant his/her wish and take over.

Regrading polygamy,

The situation you describe is an abuse of a polygamous relationship: abuse, unfortunately can occur in any kind of relationship. Husbands cheat on wives, wives cheat on husbands and both can bequeath everything to their neighbour's dog - but all that can be done with or without being married. None of it, of course, is moral.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Yuyutsu, how is nose-picking bad for you?>>

The point is not whether nose-picking is bad for you or whether I personally believe so, but that there are many people around (including doctors) who sincerely believe that nose-picking is bad.

If I don't want to have those people enforcing their belief that nose-picking is wrong on me, then I should not enforce on others my own beliefs of what I happen to think is wrong.

<<But does a 8-year old girl really have the maturity to make decisions like getting married?>>

Wouldn't you agree that a boy of 8.5 with a degree of self-control as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibNeGq4Ygp4 is more mature than most of us? I would trust him behind the wheel more than most 21-year olds!

<<The question here is: are children capable of such responsibility?>>

Some are, some are not.

What I am saying is that in the case where a whole family - both parents and their child, are in agreement, then their combined power as a united family should be at least as good as that of any adult. Nothing less than that can protect children from the tyranny of anti-nose-pickers.

Yuyutsu "but room must always be left for those families who do not wish to have anything to do with modern Western society"

Then why are they here?

You don't move half way around the planet to *not* be part of another society.

"combined power as a united family"

And what of the combined power of a united people?

If you give validity to a family, why not a neighbourhood, a city, a regional/state population, a nation?

There have been laws for ages about marriage and the age at which you can agree to it.
Have you heard any outcry from the Australian people about it?

"the tyranny of anti-nose-pickers."

Your example is fatuous.
No such "tyranny" would ever exist.

You'd need first to get the media talking about it, then get a petition signed by thousands and sent to parliament.

Then you'd need to get a majority of MPs to agree that not only is nose-picking undesirable, but that it should be *illegal*.

Our laws are not a reflection of this or that individual's preferences.
They are decided by large groups of people (parliaments) elected by and expected to serve an even larger group, the nation or its regional divisions.

That is why we generally don't see such ridiculous laws being made.

Where controversial laws are made, there is no end to the public response, so they tend to get repealed/amended pretty quick (the members and party responsible want to get reelected).
At least once a case enters the public awareness (e.g. Andrew Bolt).

Yuyutsu,
If you believe the crap you wrote in your last two posts, you are a nutter.

Have a look at some figures relating to deaths of young females in third world countries that are a direct result of getting pregnant and giving birth too young. The fact is their bodies are not developed enough for the birthing process. Then come back and tell me a girl of 10 or 12 can make rational and considered decisions regarding marriage.

On polygamy. A few blokes do have mistresses but having more than one wife is very different. In recent times a rich mans mistress tried to get portion of his estate and the courts ruled against her. Had she been a legal wife, the outcome may be very different.

The first wife is a victim of polygamy.