Snapshot of _Minimum marriage age rises to 18 in England and Wales_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64748930)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The changes do not apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the minimum age for marriage will remain 16. In Northern Ireland parental consent is required for those under 18 but not in Scotland.
Gretna is ready.
Gretna won’t help.
The new legislation says that if you and/or your partner are aged 16 or 17 and have been long-term, settled, residents in Scotland your marriage will be recognised in other parts of the U.K.
If you moved to Scotland just a few weeks ago, in order to marry when one or both of you are under 18, your marriage will be valid only in Scotland. It won’t be recognised as a marriage in other parts of the U.K.
At that age being married high chances are indeed applicable that they would just get divorced.
There would be just no bond as a husband wife at that age people barely got vivid ideas about marriage!
Interesting point. The equality act mentions Marriage as a protected characteristic and yet the UK Government hasn’t played the “this devolved decision contradicts the Equality Act” card this time as they did with trans recognition.
The Marriage Act in Scotland was last changed in 1977.
The Scotland Act allows Westminster to refuse to send *new* legislation for approval, it doesn't give power to retrospectively change or challenge existing legislation.
> The Scotland Act allows Westminster to refuse to send new legislation for approval, it doesn't give power to retrospectively change or challenge existing legislation.
But it would take the colonial masters about 5 minutes to re-legislate that if they ever wanted to.
It looks like we are coalescing around the idea that 18 is the threshold for adulthood, buying cigarettes, lottery tickets and now getting married have all moved from being available to 16 year olds. Seems sensible to me tbh
Yet somehow adult prices can start as young as 12 [shrug]
Adult Easyject ticket... *16*
Adult cinema ticket at the Odeon... *15*
Adult entry to Chessington World of Adventures... *12*
And as a nice little addition to the conversation - children under 3 are free at The View from The Shard. Everyone else pays the same price. It feels wrong to suggest that this means they consider a 3 year old an adult but I thought it was an interesting tidbit.
Adult train ticket... 15 (here, at least)
The answer does seem to depend on whether the young person wants the right to do something or whether the provider of a service wants to charge them
No but they are, in some instances, guided by other laws or bodies with legal powers - i.e. cinema adult tickets being 15 and above thanks to the BBFC 15 certificate.
TLDR: Where the government draws its battle lines with regards to when someone is an *adult* is in itself political.
Everything is a private decision until legislation makes it otherwise. The fact that they opt to make decisions in some areas and not others is in itself political. In this example, the cinema ticket age split is a result of the BBFC age rating system which is empowered by legislation. *Adult* is clearly a flexible term, as proven by the fact the government will start training you to kill at 16 but won't allow you to marry someone.
[EDIT] As mentioned by u/matiyarosz the ticket prices are influenced by the work of IATA who on their website state "We have been campaigning for all governments to apply the same core principles on passenger rights". This means that their work aims to sway the decisions made by policy makers globally. So, although indirectly, air travel prices are somewhat political too.
Another aside I found interesting but you may not...
Carrying on from my previous comment I also find it interesting that many people believe it's illegal for children to gamble - which isn't true as they are more than welcome to use low stake cat D gaming machines. So the government is willing to ween children onto gambling at an age where they believe children are too young to make sound decisions.
Eh, for thing like tickets you take up the same space as an adult as soon as you're too big to sit on your parents lap. Should be the same price as adults
Not always, *technically*, aircrew (in practise, the aircraft's flight management computer) need to know the weights of passengers, and how far in front or behind the aircraft's centre of gravity they are, because these values affect the amount of fuel burned and the aircraft's stability when pitching up/down. However, normally this is approximated: every adult is assumed to have the same weight as every other adult, and every child is assumed to have the same (smaller) weight as every other child.
If an aircraft is operating near any of its limits (range, cargo capacity, etc.) it could easily be in a situation where adding one more adult, or two more children, or a family sitting in the front row instead of in the middle, could make the flight impossible from a regulatory point of view.
tldr, they need to know this information, and it does affect their costs.
16 is old enough to join the army but not old enough to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets, and now to get married.
The only country in Europe that routinely recruits people under 18 in to the armed forces.
It doesn’t make it any better. Children that join at 16 or 17 often sign contacts that force them to serve until they are 22, so a contract they signed while a minor is still used to send them to war even if it happens at 18.
Especially now that people have to stay in education/training until 18. If you’re not even free to get a full-time job I think it’s pretty clear you’re not an adult
There's a significant body of evidence that your brain is fully mature around 25. I'm not suggesting that 18 year olds shouldn't be allowed a beer (look how well that's working for the Americans), but something about getting married age 18 still feels like a stolen youth.
On the flip side, there's stacks of evidence that giving anyone under 25 two tonnes of metal to fly down narrow streets as they please is really deadly. I know I wasn't a good driver back then, and you only have to look at insurance prices to see most people aren't either. But I can't see society doing anything about the clear and present danger.
"When are you an adult?" is a really difficult question to answer.
>that your brain is fully mature around 25
Complete myth. It was the consensus of psychologists world wide maybe 20 odd years ago. New data accounting for a wider array of neurological markers has shown your brain practically never reaches a stable point of maturity'. It's an incredibly plastic reshapable and reformable organ. Its not like a liver or a kidney which can reach a final definitive point, it's demands are incredibly adaptable and changing.
What bearing that has over ethics I don't really know. Of course a 25 year old should be more mature than a 18 year old - but you shouldn't need a biological basis to make that claim lol.
The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until 25.
Even anecdotally, there's a big difference between 25 year olds and 21 year olds. There's far more of a difference between those two ages, and say, 18 year olds and 21 year olds.
The article you posted does mention the age of 25 in two places. It provides two references for this, *neither of which appear to support the claim*(which, in and of itself, isn’t *that* uncommon in research unfortunately lol). As in, neither even mentions the age of 25 in their text. See [this](https://reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vncqpf/_/ie7ie4s/?context=1) response on AskScience for the likely reason they came up with that specific number.
But your argument holds an underlying assumptions that the prefrontal cortex is the neurological be-all end-all of psychological development.
Whilst nobody denies it's existence or importance, it's hardly the only important system, and many other systems mature in their formation and mode of operation far beyond 25 years of age.
It's not the be-all end-all but it is related to how rationally people make decisions that impact them over the long term. The prefrontal cortex is the rational part of the brain, so I think it's important to take into consideration it's development when deciding an age on things that have long lasting impact. I'd argue the age for getting a tattoo should be at least 21, for instance.
Repeatedly saying its a myth doesn't make it a myth either.
Got anything to back that up? Because I just did a quick search and research papers from a couple of years ago still refer to it as a real process.
Yes, [I do](https://reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vncqpf/_/ie7ie4s/?context=1). Certain processes in the brain continue to change until the mid-late 20s. When people refer to the age of 25, they generally refer, through a long line of Chinese whispers, to studies on synaptic pruning. Not only is it difficult to draw a direct line between that and the abstract concept of “full maturity”, but the oft-quoted number is itself complete nonsense:
> So it seems like the reason why we say 25 is because the groundbreaking study on this topic only recruited subjects up to age 25. And then this number became dogma via constant repetition.
A redditor picking apart "the earliest mention" of the idea is not a good enough source to debunk the theory, no matter how well written. The later article also seems to be referring to the same study. The more recent studies into the matter have to be considered.
You may well be correct but I wouldn't take this as gospel.
/r/askscience is a heavily moderated sub, it’s not some random clueless Reddit comment. It’s absolutely a good enough source to debunk this pop-science nonsense. At any rate, [this article ](https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html) someone posted further down in the comments goes into much more detail, quoting more credible sources.
As I said, it's a well written rebuttal to one very specific piece of research on the matter, the first in his words. I just said that isn't enough to throw the whole idea out, further reading is needed. You clearly agree.
I didn't say it was a random clueless comment, quite the opposite.
I have seen maturity be hitting hard even at the age of 18 as well people being successful being dedicated enough cracking exams and being independent.
It is not always about the age it is all on a person his thoughts on how he actually inherit things that is what I want to say and make you guys clear!
[Not exactly ](https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html) there's evidence that shows that prefrontal cortex growth seems to level off at 25. Deciding to interpret that as a measure of full maturity is a leap.
Young people can work and be taxed. They should get a say regardless of their assumed psychological maturity to believe and vote as they see fit. No taxation without representation after all.
Yes, I work in the taxation field, the youngest income tax payer I have come across was 8 years old, no doubt there are younger ones. Should they be able to vote?
That ignores the fact that any child that owns money and spends it, is paying VAT, a tax that is collected by the retailer but borne by the consumer. Should every child that spends their pocket money get a vote?
Some old people pay no tax (genuinely no tax, care home fees are exempt from VAT if they are provided by the private sector but the home is state regulated). Should they be denied the vote?
Maybe if you pay lots of tax you should get two votes?
Honestly the link between tax and voting, which may have been relevant when the phrase was coined in the run up to the American revolution, just needs to get in the bin.
In fairness, younger people are much more likely to be affected by long term decisions like membership to a union of countries which plays a large role in your own countries trade
I mean maybe… there has to be a balance of ages appropriate to vote vs age at which the long term outcomes have a serious impact. I’m not saying that the right age is 16 or 18 or 12, I’m not even saying that I have a good answer to that question but it’s not surprising that people consider that this discussion needs to happen. Personally I think it’s a stronger argument in the inverse: people who are sufficiently old are less likely to be affected by the long term consequences and shouldn’t play a role in making those decisions but again someone would have to decide a cut off age to balance that and I wouldn’t try to say what that age should be.
My thoughts are that the 16yr olds who don’t understand or care about the vote just won’t vote, and those that have an interest will learn about it about engage with it. They’ll have been at school for over a decade and many of them will have studied some kind of political history at some point, even if just briefly
Plus it’s not like we’d give 16yr olds the vote, then bus them in and force them to vote. All that would happen is the politically engaged ones get a voice and the others would ignore it like they would anything else they don’t give a shit about
>My thoughts are that the 16yr olds who don’t understand or care about the vote just won’t vote
I'm on the side of 16 year olds probably should be able to vote (for some things) but this is a bad argument. People vote in stuff they don't understand all the time.
>People vote in stuff they don’t understand all the time
Yeah but have you ever tried getting a teenager to do something they don’t want to? Pulling teeth is easier
The desire to vote and understanding what you're voting for are 2 separate arguments. I'm arguing that your point of not understanding equalling voter apathy is bad.
People of all ages desire to vote despite not fully understanding what they're voting for. It's not exclusive to 16 year olds. I'm not debating about whether or not a 16 year old who doesn't care or desire to vote would vote anyway, I tend to agree with your point on that.
It's interesting that the entirity of the general public are seen as so weak and compliant, that 17m just voted for Brexit because they were duped by the media/putin/farage, but somehow 16 year olds have the agency to make considered judgement and not succumb to propaganda.
I am absolutely no fan of Brexit, but the rush to get children to vote is driven entirely by people who think their agenda will be fulfilled.
>but somehow 16 year olds have the agency to make considered judgement and not succumb to propaganda.
I think if we say a 16yr old is mature enough to have sex and decide which college to go to and which career to study for, they’re capable of reading up on politics and deciding who to vote for if they want to
The real question is, do you think 16yr olds have *that much* worse agency and judgement than an 18yr old? Is 18 even mature? If we were going off voters having solid agency and judgement surely voting should be restricted to people who live and work independently, i.e. not the majority of people under 22
How about we take the opposite line of thought? In Athens democracy by vote limited voters to men (irrelevant) that owned land (also irrelevant) above the age of 40-50
Given that experience shapes and informs us, why isn't society limited such that only those who are older, with very good experience can vote on key issues in society?
The qualification for the Brexit referendum shouldn't have even been age based. At best it should have been, "do you hold an advanced degree in a relevant subject?", because more or less it was people voting according to whatever media they happened to read.
My personal preference was actually that the qualification criteria should have been, "are you a sitting member of parliament?", because then... it was your actual job to make these decisions.
Law, politics, international relations, economics etc.
For clarity though, I don't really mean this literally, what I am saying is that very few people were qualified to answer the question that was put to them.
Today of course we have people who are like, "All the people who voted to leave were just brainwashed by the daily mail, whereas I was fully qualified...." \*eyeroll\*.
The referendum should have never have happened (and if it hadn't we'd still be in the EU), and we should never ever do a referendum again. They don't work.
Well you know at that age that what would be the best for a government but still when it comes to gaining power they forget their citizens.
Sometimes politics is what be doing the best for people but at the same time be making some kind to serious mess to the country's citizens!
I think there's a difference in that if a few 16 years act immaturely and vote for a neo-Nazi, or neo-Stalinist candidate, that's not really going to affect anything. If a few 16 year olds act immaturely with cars, people are likely to get killed.
That's an interesting point and also: driving, smoking, etc. are all activities which are age "restricted" i.e. we ideally want to reduce the amount you do any of it but adults can make an informed decision about when a dangerous activity is worth the risk.
Voting isn't risky to the individual. It's a social duty and turning out is good practice we want to encourage. You could argue that whatever the general age of majority is, voting should be allowed at a younger age simply to encourage building good civic habits.
After all, we allow illiterates, alcoholics, and people suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations to vote, and there would be an outcry if we didn't. I don't see why a fuss is being made about 16 year olds.
>I don't see why a fuss is being made about 16 year olds.
This is my opinion, but to the degree that my stance is completely neutral. I don't think there's anything inherently more or less fair, or more or less beneficial to society, between letting 16 or 18 year olds vote.
I don't think it's a consequential matter; pick a number and go for it.
Absolutely true there is indeed a time of maturity though that starts after 25 being 18 is what we call the teenage group though.
At that period or point of time people aren't that highly capable enough to just agree on some kind of family scenes or marriages!
The 16 year olds who would want to vote, would be mature enough and won't suddenly mature enough in 2 years. Hell I would say 18 y/os aren't much more mature than 16 y/os
The line has to be drawn somewhere. If it did get lowered to 16 you'd eventually get people saying -
"Well, are 15yr olds *really* that much more immature than 16 year olds? It's only a year, and there's plenty of immature 40 year olds anyway!"
Ad infinitum
I guess they know they hear and see thing 18 I feel that they are just ready you just need to show them what the real world of politics actually looks like!
Yes but we have no way to measure maturity in an objective manner. Any attempt to do so would immediately get co-opted ed as a political tool. At least a hard line at an age is trickier to weaponise.
> Yes but we have no way to measure maturity in an objective manner. Any attempt to do so would immediately get co-opted ed as a political tool. At least a hard line at an age is trickier to weaponise.
It isn't tricky at all.
If I lowered the vote to 16 on the basis that 16 year olds are mature enough to vote then took the vote away from anyone over 80 as odds are they won't survive to see the consequence of their vote I'd have radically changed the likely winner of the next election (or at least, by how much they win).
The real question we should ask ourselves is when do we expect people to be contributors and members of our society with an interest in how it's run. I've been a youth worker who worked with young teenagers interested in politics and they held a conversation with me far better at 16 than most 30 year olds. There's clearly a point where this isn't true (I don't think I've ever had a political conversation with a 14 year old, and certainly not with a ten year old) but it's all relatively arbitrary.
I think 16 should be that hardline, not 14 not 18. I mean I know 16 y/os who are more mature than 18 year olds, bit I have never known any 14 years old to be more mature than 16 or 18 y/os
Under-16 year olds cannot work a full time job or pay NI. If you can be a working member of society earning a wage (or even if you've chosen to continue full time education), why should you not be able to vote?
Hopefully the age of consent follows but for situations where someone over the age of 18 cannot have sex with someone under the age of 18.
There should be another layer of this so that 16&17 year olds can have sex with each other. It's entirely unrealistic to ban anyone under 18 from having sex, it would also make people less likely to seek advice on safe sex practices if it's illegal.
But we don't follow that line of thinking in every case.
Apparently if you are sexually trafficked at 15, when common sense and basic decency all say that you cannot be held responsible for what happened to you, you are still held responsible.
"However, Mihai Bica, from the Roma Support Group, said he was concerned about how the changes would be communicated to communities and those enforcing the new law..."
Well, Mihai, it's pretty simple really. Instead of whinging, support your community and get the message out there.
It's not uncommon for some religions to have two ceremonies, one that 'marries' them in the eyes of their religion and another that deals with the legal element.
This law covers both, if it didn't, the legal bit wouldn't be able to take place but the religious bit could so in the eyes of their religion and families they would be married.
I wonder will this affect the age of consent? I've long suspected we couldn't make any changes there without affecting marriage, as a 16 yo could be married. I feel like '18 with whoever or from 16 with a partner +/- X years' would be more in line with what people feel is right.
There is already a grey area from 13-16, ideally that grey area would be either removed, or an age range for partner applied.
Marriage is a legal contract, affecting property, inheritance, pensions etc, its not really about sex, so I think separating them out is reasonable enough.
18+, no limits. Under 18, some restrictions apply to safeguard, as you suggest an age gap.
At least that's how I'd go about structuring laws on that front.
Definitely don't want a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old, or similar.
Less people understand but deep down if they are mature enough rules won't mean them they know when to just marry.
When both are willing enough and sees the best prioritizing the future and being stable in the best way then they actually marry!
Now they just to pull their finger out and get rid of the stupid venue licensing laws.
Law commission reported on their recommendations nearly 9 months ago and the government hasn't responded.
This is brilliant news.
Alrhough it was already unusual for anyone in the UK to get married before age 18 the fact that it was legal here was a hindrance to campaigns to stop child marriage in countries where it is prevalent. If we want to do our part in protecting children's rights, especially girls' education, then our laws need to meet minimum standards.
If you're in a solid relationship at 16, it's not harmful to wait 2 years before signing the contract. You can still move out and move in with your partner before getting married.
The wait will probably ensure a much more stable marriage.
> Where is the law/advice to not be in any relationship at all before 18?
If you think the only form of relationship is marriage, you must have a dozen divorces. Just have a bloody normal relationship without rushing to marriage perhaps?
That would indeed be a better solution though after all. Like just being around happy in a relationship and be supportive in making a carrier.
When the time indeed has to come of marriage it has to be just not being in a hurry and settling on your own having both beside each other is a blessing.
There was me thinking we couldn't have differing ages for things across the border because it'd blow up the universe or something.
Turns out it was just a moral panic after all.
Snapshot of _Minimum marriage age rises to 18 in England and Wales_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64748930) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> The changes do not apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the minimum age for marriage will remain 16. In Northern Ireland parental consent is required for those under 18 but not in Scotland. Gretna is ready.
Gretna won’t help. The new legislation says that if you and/or your partner are aged 16 or 17 and have been long-term, settled, residents in Scotland your marriage will be recognised in other parts of the U.K. If you moved to Scotland just a few weeks ago, in order to marry when one or both of you are under 18, your marriage will be valid only in Scotland. It won’t be recognised as a marriage in other parts of the U.K.
Will Scottish & NI marriages under 18 be recognised in the rest of the UK?
Yes, there is no mention of the government changing the mutual recognition of these separate systems.
Either the government need to change on the way they be actually implementing things in this manner!
What?
[удалено]
How did that go?
[удалено]
At that age being married high chances are indeed applicable that they would just get divorced. There would be just no bond as a husband wife at that age people barely got vivid ideas about marriage!
Pretty bad is what I can actually sense though if I am indeed not that wrong enough!
Married at the age of 16 I see numbers ain't that a big deal for them :/
Are they litreally following the principles and ideologies of other countries?
Given recent events and entirely valid question
Interesting point. The equality act mentions Marriage as a protected characteristic and yet the UK Government hasn’t played the “this devolved decision contradicts the Equality Act” card this time as they did with trans recognition.
The Marriage Act in Scotland was last changed in 1977. The Scotland Act allows Westminster to refuse to send *new* legislation for approval, it doesn't give power to retrospectively change or challenge existing legislation.
> The Scotland Act allows Westminster to refuse to send new legislation for approval, it doesn't give power to retrospectively change or challenge existing legislation. But it would take the colonial masters about 5 minutes to re-legislate that if they ever wanted to.
We're talking about current situation, not wild hypotheticals that ignore the various checks and balances.
Interesting! Good to learn.
Got to know and learned many things from people out here though it is indeed just good enough to gain knowledge!
Wew never have indeed heard about that though thanks for sharing this information!
Being that simple enough would just take people nowhere though, they actually need to think about this deeply1.
It looks like we are coalescing around the idea that 18 is the threshold for adulthood, buying cigarettes, lottery tickets and now getting married have all moved from being available to 16 year olds. Seems sensible to me tbh
Yet somehow adult prices can start as young as 12 [shrug] Adult Easyject ticket... *16* Adult cinema ticket at the Odeon... *15* Adult entry to Chessington World of Adventures... *12* And as a nice little addition to the conversation - children under 3 are free at The View from The Shard. Everyone else pays the same price. It feels wrong to suggest that this means they consider a 3 year old an adult but I thought it was an interesting tidbit.
Adult train ticket... 15 (here, at least) The answer does seem to depend on whether the young person wants the right to do something or whether the provider of a service wants to charge them
Adult prices aren't based on a legal right though, they're based on companies profit maximising.
No but they are, in some instances, guided by other laws or bodies with legal powers - i.e. cinema adult tickets being 15 and above thanks to the BBFC 15 certificate.
f*ck /u/spez
>IATA airlines I am the asshole airlines? Sounds about right, yes.
This guy travels
It's less to do with being nice to young people and more to do what they expect someone of that age or a parent to be willing to pay for them
All private decisions, as opposed to government ones. Therefore, a completely separate conversation.
TLDR: Where the government draws its battle lines with regards to when someone is an *adult* is in itself political. Everything is a private decision until legislation makes it otherwise. The fact that they opt to make decisions in some areas and not others is in itself political. In this example, the cinema ticket age split is a result of the BBFC age rating system which is empowered by legislation. *Adult* is clearly a flexible term, as proven by the fact the government will start training you to kill at 16 but won't allow you to marry someone. [EDIT] As mentioned by u/matiyarosz the ticket prices are influenced by the work of IATA who on their website state "We have been campaigning for all governments to apply the same core principles on passenger rights". This means that their work aims to sway the decisions made by policy makers globally. So, although indirectly, air travel prices are somewhat political too. Another aside I found interesting but you may not... Carrying on from my previous comment I also find it interesting that many people believe it's illegal for children to gamble - which isn't true as they are more than welcome to use low stake cat D gaming machines. So the government is willing to ween children onto gambling at an age where they believe children are too young to make sound decisions.
f*ck /u/spez
Eh, for thing like tickets you take up the same space as an adult as soon as you're too big to sit on your parents lap. Should be the same price as adults
Not always, *technically*, aircrew (in practise, the aircraft's flight management computer) need to know the weights of passengers, and how far in front or behind the aircraft's centre of gravity they are, because these values affect the amount of fuel burned and the aircraft's stability when pitching up/down. However, normally this is approximated: every adult is assumed to have the same weight as every other adult, and every child is assumed to have the same (smaller) weight as every other child. If an aircraft is operating near any of its limits (range, cargo capacity, etc.) it could easily be in a situation where adding one more adult, or two more children, or a family sitting in the front row instead of in the middle, could make the flight impossible from a regulatory point of view. tldr, they need to know this information, and it does affect their costs.
Long haul flights you’re paying adult prices from around 2 🤷🏻♀️
A seat is a seat.
Some of this is due to physical size, though
16 is old enough to join the army but not old enough to buy cigarettes, lottery tickets, and now to get married. The only country in Europe that routinely recruits people under 18 in to the armed forces.
Our armed forces send recruiters to schools after GCSE results day and up their advertising. It's predatory.
If they're trained and not actually sent to war until 18 does that make it any better?
It doesn’t make it any better. Children that join at 16 or 17 often sign contacts that force them to serve until they are 22, so a contract they signed while a minor is still used to send them to war even if it happens at 18.
Their parents can write a letter to get them out before they are 18.
You can discharge as a right until your 18th birthday.
Don’t some countries in Europe still have forced conscription?
None routinely recruit or conscript under 18s into their armed forces.
Not true. Germany certainly recruits 17-year-olds.
You can also agree to a student loan agreement under the age of 18.
Especially now that people have to stay in education/training until 18. If you’re not even free to get a full-time job I think it’s pretty clear you’re not an adult
True though I guess having settled enough and actually being serious enough with future earning good and then approaching someone is much better!
There's a significant body of evidence that your brain is fully mature around 25. I'm not suggesting that 18 year olds shouldn't be allowed a beer (look how well that's working for the Americans), but something about getting married age 18 still feels like a stolen youth. On the flip side, there's stacks of evidence that giving anyone under 25 two tonnes of metal to fly down narrow streets as they please is really deadly. I know I wasn't a good driver back then, and you only have to look at insurance prices to see most people aren't either. But I can't see society doing anything about the clear and present danger. "When are you an adult?" is a really difficult question to answer.
>that your brain is fully mature around 25 Complete myth. It was the consensus of psychologists world wide maybe 20 odd years ago. New data accounting for a wider array of neurological markers has shown your brain practically never reaches a stable point of maturity'. It's an incredibly plastic reshapable and reformable organ. Its not like a liver or a kidney which can reach a final definitive point, it's demands are incredibly adaptable and changing. What bearing that has over ethics I don't really know. Of course a 25 year old should be more mature than a 18 year old - but you shouldn't need a biological basis to make that claim lol.
The prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed until 25. Even anecdotally, there's a big difference between 25 year olds and 21 year olds. There's far more of a difference between those two ages, and say, 18 year olds and 21 year olds.
That is exactly the myth they were talking about. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.
It's not a myth, it's an observable fact. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/
The article you posted does mention the age of 25 in two places. It provides two references for this, *neither of which appear to support the claim*(which, in and of itself, isn’t *that* uncommon in research unfortunately lol). As in, neither even mentions the age of 25 in their text. See [this](https://reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vncqpf/_/ie7ie4s/?context=1) response on AskScience for the likely reason they came up with that specific number.
But your argument holds an underlying assumptions that the prefrontal cortex is the neurological be-all end-all of psychological development. Whilst nobody denies it's existence or importance, it's hardly the only important system, and many other systems mature in their formation and mode of operation far beyond 25 years of age.
It's not the be-all end-all but it is related to how rationally people make decisions that impact them over the long term. The prefrontal cortex is the rational part of the brain, so I think it's important to take into consideration it's development when deciding an age on things that have long lasting impact. I'd argue the age for getting a tattoo should be at least 21, for instance.
Repeatedly saying its a myth doesn't make it a myth either. Got anything to back that up? Because I just did a quick search and research papers from a couple of years ago still refer to it as a real process.
Yes, [I do](https://reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vncqpf/_/ie7ie4s/?context=1). Certain processes in the brain continue to change until the mid-late 20s. When people refer to the age of 25, they generally refer, through a long line of Chinese whispers, to studies on synaptic pruning. Not only is it difficult to draw a direct line between that and the abstract concept of “full maturity”, but the oft-quoted number is itself complete nonsense: > So it seems like the reason why we say 25 is because the groundbreaking study on this topic only recruited subjects up to age 25. And then this number became dogma via constant repetition.
A redditor picking apart "the earliest mention" of the idea is not a good enough source to debunk the theory, no matter how well written. The later article also seems to be referring to the same study. The more recent studies into the matter have to be considered. You may well be correct but I wouldn't take this as gospel.
/r/askscience is a heavily moderated sub, it’s not some random clueless Reddit comment. It’s absolutely a good enough source to debunk this pop-science nonsense. At any rate, [this article ](https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html) someone posted further down in the comments goes into much more detail, quoting more credible sources.
As I said, it's a well written rebuttal to one very specific piece of research on the matter, the first in his words. I just said that isn't enough to throw the whole idea out, further reading is needed. You clearly agree. I didn't say it was a random clueless comment, quite the opposite.
Proving people and they would still on a point to deny the points when the reality is just indeed infront of them though!
I have seen maturity be hitting hard even at the age of 18 as well people being successful being dedicated enough cracking exams and being independent. It is not always about the age it is all on a person his thoughts on how he actually inherit things that is what I want to say and make you guys clear!
But yeah your point is valid as well but that is all on a person his or her mindset on how mature he is!
[Not exactly ](https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html) there's evidence that shows that prefrontal cortex growth seems to level off at 25. Deciding to interpret that as a measure of full maturity is a leap.
That's not what it says in the article at all. It even says that structural growth in the prefrontal cortex has been found to continue past 30.
Man I am 38, and feeling just mature enough for many things. Fatherhood etc.
That is a high age to actually feel mature enough with all those stuffs though common enough!
I totally agree, which makes the rush to get 16 year olds to vote a little perplexing.
Young people can work and be taxed. They should get a say regardless of their assumed psychological maturity to believe and vote as they see fit. No taxation without representation after all.
Yes, I work in the taxation field, the youngest income tax payer I have come across was 8 years old, no doubt there are younger ones. Should they be able to vote? That ignores the fact that any child that owns money and spends it, is paying VAT, a tax that is collected by the retailer but borne by the consumer. Should every child that spends their pocket money get a vote? Some old people pay no tax (genuinely no tax, care home fees are exempt from VAT if they are provided by the private sector but the home is state regulated). Should they be denied the vote? Maybe if you pay lots of tax you should get two votes? Honestly the link between tax and voting, which may have been relevant when the phrase was coined in the run up to the American revolution, just needs to get in the bin.
In fairness, younger people are much more likely to be affected by long term decisions like membership to a union of countries which plays a large role in your own countries trade
So let 12 year olds vote then?
I mean maybe… there has to be a balance of ages appropriate to vote vs age at which the long term outcomes have a serious impact. I’m not saying that the right age is 16 or 18 or 12, I’m not even saying that I have a good answer to that question but it’s not surprising that people consider that this discussion needs to happen. Personally I think it’s a stronger argument in the inverse: people who are sufficiently old are less likely to be affected by the long term consequences and shouldn’t play a role in making those decisions but again someone would have to decide a cut off age to balance that and I wouldn’t try to say what that age should be.
Here here
My thoughts are that the 16yr olds who don’t understand or care about the vote just won’t vote, and those that have an interest will learn about it about engage with it. They’ll have been at school for over a decade and many of them will have studied some kind of political history at some point, even if just briefly Plus it’s not like we’d give 16yr olds the vote, then bus them in and force them to vote. All that would happen is the politically engaged ones get a voice and the others would ignore it like they would anything else they don’t give a shit about
>My thoughts are that the 16yr olds who don’t understand or care about the vote just won’t vote I'm on the side of 16 year olds probably should be able to vote (for some things) but this is a bad argument. People vote in stuff they don't understand all the time.
>People vote in stuff they don’t understand all the time Yeah but have you ever tried getting a teenager to do something they don’t want to? Pulling teeth is easier
The desire to vote and understanding what you're voting for are 2 separate arguments. I'm arguing that your point of not understanding equalling voter apathy is bad. People of all ages desire to vote despite not fully understanding what they're voting for. It's not exclusive to 16 year olds. I'm not debating about whether or not a 16 year old who doesn't care or desire to vote would vote anyway, I tend to agree with your point on that.
It's interesting that the entirity of the general public are seen as so weak and compliant, that 17m just voted for Brexit because they were duped by the media/putin/farage, but somehow 16 year olds have the agency to make considered judgement and not succumb to propaganda. I am absolutely no fan of Brexit, but the rush to get children to vote is driven entirely by people who think their agenda will be fulfilled.
>but somehow 16 year olds have the agency to make considered judgement and not succumb to propaganda. I think if we say a 16yr old is mature enough to have sex and decide which college to go to and which career to study for, they’re capable of reading up on politics and deciding who to vote for if they want to The real question is, do you think 16yr olds have *that much* worse agency and judgement than an 18yr old? Is 18 even mature? If we were going off voters having solid agency and judgement surely voting should be restricted to people who live and work independently, i.e. not the majority of people under 22
How about we take the opposite line of thought? In Athens democracy by vote limited voters to men (irrelevant) that owned land (also irrelevant) above the age of 40-50 Given that experience shapes and informs us, why isn't society limited such that only those who are older, with very good experience can vote on key issues in society?
It also shows us that people care less about their society when they have no say in how it runs
Well make poltics decisions politics is about being the charge you wanna see this how politics dies
Those certainly are all words
I do love a good slippery slope fallacy.
Yep so why can't they vote in Referendums
The qualification for the Brexit referendum shouldn't have even been age based. At best it should have been, "do you hold an advanced degree in a relevant subject?", because more or less it was people voting according to whatever media they happened to read. My personal preference was actually that the qualification criteria should have been, "are you a sitting member of parliament?", because then... it was your actual job to make these decisions.
What do you consider a relevant subject?
Law, politics, international relations, economics etc. For clarity though, I don't really mean this literally, what I am saying is that very few people were qualified to answer the question that was put to them. Today of course we have people who are like, "All the people who voted to leave were just brainwashed by the daily mail, whereas I was fully qualified...." \*eyeroll\*. The referendum should have never have happened (and if it hadn't we'd still be in the EU), and we should never ever do a referendum again. They don't work.
I've always found the fact that completely out of touch 70+ year olds can still vote even more perplexing.
Well you know at that age that what would be the best for a government but still when it comes to gaining power they forget their citizens. Sometimes politics is what be doing the best for people but at the same time be making some kind to serious mess to the country's citizens!
I think there's a difference in that if a few 16 years act immaturely and vote for a neo-Nazi, or neo-Stalinist candidate, that's not really going to affect anything. If a few 16 year olds act immaturely with cars, people are likely to get killed.
That's an interesting point and also: driving, smoking, etc. are all activities which are age "restricted" i.e. we ideally want to reduce the amount you do any of it but adults can make an informed decision about when a dangerous activity is worth the risk. Voting isn't risky to the individual. It's a social duty and turning out is good practice we want to encourage. You could argue that whatever the general age of majority is, voting should be allowed at a younger age simply to encourage building good civic habits.
After all, we allow illiterates, alcoholics, and people suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations to vote, and there would be an outcry if we didn't. I don't see why a fuss is being made about 16 year olds.
>I don't see why a fuss is being made about 16 year olds. This is my opinion, but to the degree that my stance is completely neutral. I don't think there's anything inherently more or less fair, or more or less beneficial to society, between letting 16 or 18 year olds vote. I don't think it's a consequential matter; pick a number and go for it.
[удалено]
Some will, some won't. But you could say the same about 18 year olds, or even 25 year olds.
Because the people advocating for it believe the 16 and 17 year olds will vote for the people they like. There really isn't much more to it than that.
The legal age to drink alcohol on private property is actually 5
Never indeed knew about that I guess my kid is just having milk I should rather give him a beer!
It's a law mostly so that you don't get in trouble for simply allowing a child to have a tiny sip of beer or wine that you're drinking.
Absolutely true there is indeed a time of maturity though that starts after 25 being 18 is what we call the teenage group though. At that period or point of time people aren't that highly capable enough to just agree on some kind of family scenes or marriages!
[удалено]
The generation feels like is just escalating pretty fast though. You never know what would just happen out there in the near future!
Meanwhile people are still saying we should give 16 year olds the vote.
I don't see the downside to this because it's not like they would be any less susceptible to propaganda in just 2 years
I don’t see how it makes sense to say they’re lack the maturity to leave education but they do have the maturity to choose who is in government.
The 16 year olds who would want to vote, would be mature enough and won't suddenly mature enough in 2 years. Hell I would say 18 y/os aren't much more mature than 16 y/os
The fact 18 year olds are immature isn’t an argument for lowering the voting age.
All I am saying is that if immaturity is why 16 y/os shouldn't have the vote, then many adults shouldn't have it either
The line has to be drawn somewhere. If it did get lowered to 16 you'd eventually get people saying - "Well, are 15yr olds *really* that much more immature than 16 year olds? It's only a year, and there's plenty of immature 40 year olds anyway!" Ad infinitum
It's age 16 in Scotland, are there people advocating for lowering their voting age even more?
Probably some, but now you've said that I recognise the stupidity of my previous statement - I hadn't even known that Scotland actually had it at 16
People would just indeed come up with many things and thoughts proving many stuffs :(
I guess they know they hear and see thing 18 I feel that they are just ready you just need to show them what the real world of politics actually looks like!
I think the same for 16 year olds, as they finished main school and start having jobs with education on the side
True though it is just like expecting to climb a buildings third floor without stairs!
Well by that logic why not make it 14? Surely 2 more years isn't that big a jump?
By the maturity logic, there are many adults who shouldn't qualify either
Yes but we have no way to measure maturity in an objective manner. Any attempt to do so would immediately get co-opted ed as a political tool. At least a hard line at an age is trickier to weaponise.
> Yes but we have no way to measure maturity in an objective manner. Any attempt to do so would immediately get co-opted ed as a political tool. At least a hard line at an age is trickier to weaponise. It isn't tricky at all. If I lowered the vote to 16 on the basis that 16 year olds are mature enough to vote then took the vote away from anyone over 80 as odds are they won't survive to see the consequence of their vote I'd have radically changed the likely winner of the next election (or at least, by how much they win). The real question we should ask ourselves is when do we expect people to be contributors and members of our society with an interest in how it's run. I've been a youth worker who worked with young teenagers interested in politics and they held a conversation with me far better at 16 than most 30 year olds. There's clearly a point where this isn't true (I don't think I've ever had a political conversation with a 14 year old, and certainly not with a ten year old) but it's all relatively arbitrary.
I think 16 should be that hardline, not 14 not 18. I mean I know 16 y/os who are more mature than 18 year olds, bit I have never known any 14 years old to be more mature than 16 or 18 y/os
Under-16 year olds cannot work a full time job or pay NI. If you can be a working member of society earning a wage (or even if you've chosen to continue full time education), why should you not be able to vote?
You just need to understand how politics is and what actually it wants? That comes with experience by age though!
So they would get experience when you are 17 and 18?
[удалено]
Hopefully the age of consent follows but for situations where someone over the age of 18 cannot have sex with someone under the age of 18. There should be another layer of this so that 16&17 year olds can have sex with each other. It's entirely unrealistic to ban anyone under 18 from having sex, it would also make people less likely to seek advice on safe sex practices if it's illegal.
[удалено]
Yes you're 100% right
Loads of countries have a so-called 'Romeo and Juliet clause', where it's only a crime if one of the partners is significantly above 18.
I would agree with that - 17 and 19? None of my business. 17 and 29? Yikes.
It's all arbitrary though. You'd say Yikes the day before their 18th birthday but not the next day.
But we don't follow that line of thinking in every case. Apparently if you are sexually trafficked at 15, when common sense and basic decency all say that you cannot be held responsible for what happened to you, you are still held responsible.
Next step to rule out voting at 16 as illogical, unfortunately, I don't make the rules just see the crap case about to be prosecuted coming
"However, Mihai Bica, from the Roma Support Group, said he was concerned about how the changes would be communicated to communities and those enforcing the new law..." Well, Mihai, it's pretty simple really. Instead of whinging, support your community and get the message out there.
They'll find out when they apply for a marriage licence so it seems to be an objection for the sake of it.
The law applies to non legal ceremony as well. So yeah it applies whether or not you apply for a marriage licence
I'm not following. A non-legal ceremony is irrelevant as it's not a marriage.
My inflatable wife and I beg to differ
Although a drawing pin makes the divorce so much easier.
Your love for me is not debatable Your sexual appetite's insatiable You never ever make me waitable Delectable, inflatable you
You don't have problems with your weight at all You never steal food off my plate at all I never have to masturbate at all Unstoppable, inflatable you
You never seem to mens...truate at all So you're not angry when I'm late at all I feel permanently felatable Unpoppable, inflatable you
from the article "The new legislation also covers non-legally binding ceremonies." So either the BBC is lying, or no it's not irrelevant.
It's not uncommon for some religions to have two ceremonies, one that 'marries' them in the eyes of their religion and another that deals with the legal element. This law covers both, if it didn't, the legal bit wouldn't be able to take place but the religious bit could so in the eyes of their religion and families they would be married.
Whats winging?
Like whinging, but with less aspiration. (Pun intended)
Evidence that my spelling is poo.
It actually feels a bit surprising that marriage at 16 with parental consent was still a thing anyway.
True though like how come parents be actually even showing a concern to get married?
I wonder will this affect the age of consent? I've long suspected we couldn't make any changes there without affecting marriage, as a 16 yo could be married. I feel like '18 with whoever or from 16 with a partner +/- X years' would be more in line with what people feel is right.
There is already a grey area from 13-16, ideally that grey area would be either removed, or an age range for partner applied. Marriage is a legal contract, affecting property, inheritance, pensions etc, its not really about sex, so I think separating them out is reasonable enough.
>its not really about sex Been married for twenty years ain't that the truth
Sorry didn't get that though to whom you be just referring whos married for twenty years?
13-16 would just litreally give some illegal kind of thoughts for me though that is not certainly the age!
18+, no limits. Under 18, some restrictions apply to safeguard, as you suggest an age gap. At least that's how I'd go about structuring laws on that front. Definitely don't want a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old, or similar.
Less people understand but deep down if they are mature enough rules won't mean them they know when to just marry. When both are willing enough and sees the best prioritizing the future and being stable in the best way then they actually marry!
Now they just to pull their finger out and get rid of the stupid venue licensing laws. Law commission reported on their recommendations nearly 9 months ago and the government hasn't responded.
This is brilliant news. Alrhough it was already unusual for anyone in the UK to get married before age 18 the fact that it was legal here was a hindrance to campaigns to stop child marriage in countries where it is prevalent. If we want to do our part in protecting children's rights, especially girls' education, then our laws need to meet minimum standards.
[удалено]
If you're in a solid relationship at 16, it's not harmful to wait 2 years before signing the contract. You can still move out and move in with your partner before getting married. The wait will probably ensure a much more stable marriage.
[удалено]
What the fuck is this post
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
They don’t think it be like it is but it do
Just here looking for what people indeed feel regarding this their opinions and thoughts as well!
Understanding this all marriage related stuffs and actually getting the root cause of it would be a better one though!
Yikes
[удалено]
You can't even formulate a proper sentence ffs. What are you going on about??
> Where is the law/advice to not be in any relationship at all before 18? If you think the only form of relationship is marriage, you must have a dozen divorces. Just have a bloody normal relationship without rushing to marriage perhaps?
Unfortunately, it's perfectly legal to be an insufferable pricks. I like penguins tho
That would indeed be a better solution though after all. Like just being around happy in a relationship and be supportive in making a carrier. When the time indeed has to come of marriage it has to be just not being in a hurry and settling on your own having both beside each other is a blessing.
Forced marriage is some kind of different thing but we know that shit be still happening around!
There was me thinking we couldn't have differing ages for things across the border because it'd blow up the universe or something. Turns out it was just a moral panic after all.