Possible draft position statement | Child brides in Canada | Forum

Learn about OpenID

 
You must be logged in to post Login Register


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Minimum search word length is 4 characters – Maximum search word length is 84 characters
Wildcard Usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Home Forum Abuses Child brides in Canada Possible draft position statement

Possible draft position statement
Page:   1  
UserPost

6:21 am
April 30, 2010


jbash

Member
Print this Post
1

Post edited 12:49 pm – May 7, 2010 by jbash

Here, for discussion, is one of the suggestions that have been made for the CPAA's basic policy position.

THIS IS NOT ADOPTED POLICY. In fact, many CPAA members and volunteers have not seen it. It's here to stimulate community input. Is it on the right track? If so, what should be changed? If not, where should we go?

Position on Minors in Conjugal and Sexual Relationships

We reject exploiting or disregarding the vulnerabilities of anyone in a relationship, including vulnerabilities related to age. Laws restricting marriage, conjugal cohabitation, and sexual activity by and with minors are proper. Such laws should apply identically to monogamy and polyamory.

Entering into a conjugal relationship, or into a binding conjugal commitment, whether monogamous or polyamorous, is a matter which may have serious and lasting effects on a person's well-being and that of others. Sexual activity, even without conjugality, is also a significant and life-affecting decision.

Young people may be led into, or may freely choose, arrangements which are unsuited or harmful to them. The concept of legal majority is rooted in this fact, as are the ages of consent applied to sexual activity.

We do not believe that minors should in general be bound to conjugal commitments, and we support legal restrictions which protect them from being so bound. We likewise support legal restrictions on minors entering into conjugal relationships without binding commitment. We recognize that the restrictions on simple conjugality may rightly differ from those on binding conjugal commitments, but take no position on whether the law should in fact apply a distinction in this area.

We support legal restrictions on sexual activity with and by minors. Because all three are different decisions having different impacts, the restrictions on sexual activity may properly differ from those on conjugality, which may again differ from those on binding conjugal commitment.

We take no position on the specific age or other criteria which should be applied in any of these three cases, or indeed on the age or other criteria to be used to determine legal majority. We believe that such criteria should be decided with close attention to available scientific knowledge about child and adolescent development, and that the liberty and personal choice interests of minors should be soberly weighed against their interests in being protected from harm. We have not studied, and have no particular objection to, the age criteria presently applied to monogamous relationships, and would have no particular objection to the application of identical criteria to polyamorous relationships.

Irrespective of legal or public policy considerations, we believe that conjugal, romantic and sexual relationships should be conducted with affirmative concern for the autonomy, feelings and well being of all involved. This includes due consideration and respect of personal vulnerabilities, including those associated with immaturity.

5:47 am
May 7, 2010


jbash

Member
Print this Post
2

Post edited 12:49 pm – May 7, 2010 by jbash

This is a possible addition. It's been broken out from the main suggestion because it could be controversial. It would actually change existing law for monogamy as well as for polyamory/polygamy. Under existing law in most or all provinces, minors can marry with parental consent at a younger age than without such consent. This power opens the door to pressure and abuse by parents. On the other hand, giving this power to others would enable pressure and abuse by those others.

Possible text:

If the law recognizes special circumstances in which minors may enter conjugal relationships or commitments, we believe that those circumstances should in each case be evaluated by an impartial party representing the interests of the minor in question. We are concerned

that, because of personal or cultural factors, the parents of some minors may sanction conjugal commitments by those minors which are nonetheless inappropriate for them. We therefore oppose allowing a parent to unilaterally permit a minor to undertake an otherwise prohibited conjugal relationship.

If we did adopt something like this, who should we suggest that those "impartial parties" be?

8:09 am
July 10, 2010


Kimmie

Member
Print this Post
3

I would suggest a therapist or a child psychologist, personally. As for everything else written, I agree completely.

7:34 am
September 11, 2010


q

Guest
Print this Post
4

Here is a suggested revision – I removed "are proper" – I don't think we need to approve of those laws first and then say they should apply. Saying they "are proper" leaves open the possibility for the reader to object if they think that there is something wrong with any of those laws (for example if they think the age of consent is wrong). We don't need to say they are proper and THEN that they should apply identically to monogamy and polyamory – we can go straight to our point which is the apply equally part. Other minor revisions throughout:

We reject exploiting or disregarding the vulnerabilities of anyone in a relationship, including vulnerabilities related to age. Laws restricting marriage, conjugal cohabitation, and sexual activity by and with minors should apply identically to monogamy and polyamory.

Entering into a conjugal relationship, or into a binding conjugal commitment, whether monogamous or polyamorous, is a matter which may have serious and lasting effects on a person's well-being and that of others. Choosing to engage in sexual activity is also a significant and can be a life-affecting decision. 

It is possible that young people may choose or be led into relationships and/or sexual activity that is inappropriate and/or harmful. Laws exist that are designed to protect young people. The CPAA supports them all. 

Specifically:

We support legal restrictions which protect young people from being bound to conjugal commitments and legal restrictions on minors entering into conjugal relationships without binding commitment. We recognize that the restrictions on simple conjugality may rightly differ from those on binding conjugal commitments, but take no position on whether the law should in fact apply a distinction in this area.

We support legal restrictions on sexual activity with and by minors. Because each are different decisions having different impacts, the restrictions on sexual activity may properly differ from those on conjugality, which may again differ from those on binding conjugal commitment.

We take no position on the specific age or other criteria which should be applied in any of these three cases, or indeed on the age or other criteria to be used to determine legal majority. We believe that such criteria should be decided with close attention to available scientific knowledge about child and adolescent development, and that the liberty and personal choice interests of minors should be soberly weighed against their interests in being protected from harm. We have not studied the age criteria presently applied to monogamous relationships, and fully support the application of identical criteria to polyamorous relationships.

Irrespective of legal or public policy considerations, we believe that conjugal, romantic and sexual relationships should be conducted with affirmative concern for the autonomy, feelings and well being of all involved. This includes due consideration and respect of personal vulnerabilities, including those associated with immaturity.

9:50 pm
October 17, 2010


Avistew

New Member
Print this Post
5

I personally think this part

 

We reject exploiting or disregarding the vulnerabilities of anyone
in a relationship, including vulnerabilities related to age. Laws
restricting marriage, conjugal cohabitation, and sexual activity by and
with minors should apply identically to monogamy and polyamory.


is  enough. I'm not sure what the rest is for. It seems to focus on agreeing with the current laws, and I'm not sure why we need to state that we do beyond the quote above.

I would prefer a statement saying that we don't think polyamory should get a different treatment, and that people who break child bride laws should be prosecuted on that basis, and not on something else (for instance polygamy), because we believe the number of other partners is irrelevant.
No Tags
Page:   1  
Topic RSS