Thoughts Lead To Appreciation
First, the dilemma a child encounters in relation to marriage are the handiwork of adults.
The dilemma is one of age, or more accurately, relative age.
To the legal system, the age of an individual is a determinant in the right to marriage.
Relative age – parent-child, elder-youth – directs who makes decisions on the timing of the other’s initiation to nuptial life.
In multiple cultures, a child’s disobedience of parents is heavily censured.
Should a parent arrange one’s marriage, the young person dares not to go against the parent’s decision.
Add religion, as if culture was not detrimental enough to a child’s rights, and parents are elevated to the position of gods, who must be obeyed.
The child’s ability to ponder the spouse chosen by parents reduces to the negative direction of zero.
On one hand, culture or religion deprives the young person of the right to say No.
On the other side, the legislation denies the youth of the right to say Yes.
The young person is hemmed between culture or religion and the law.
That certainly can not be freedom.
Children and young persons require not prohibition, but guidance in making own choices.
To the argument that a young person is incapable of right decisions over risk management, adults are worse.
An adult may be well aware of the negative consequences of certain decisions, but still proceed to act on those decisions.
Besides, who cause, endorse, effect and promulgate social injustices as a way of life in our communities?
Yes, adults, the same adults who restrict a child’s decision-making potentials over culture, religion and legislative Bills and Acts.
In my childhood, I resisted, verbally and in my reticence, adult and parental impositions, premised on my youth.
Adults are not always right was one firm rebuttal I employed when instructed I must obey my mother because adults are always right.