should we re-think age limits?
 

times change, people change, we are doing stuff now because that's how we've been doing it for years.

i was thinking about age limits, and there are three areas i was wondering if we should think about changing the age limits on: voting; drinking; and sex.

what if we raised the voting age to 22? by that time most people are out of college (if they go) and have been working for a while and have a better understanding of life outside in the real world, not living under the auspices of mom and dad. i don't know if i want an 18 year old to help determine how i'm gonna live, we have different priorities, and like it or not, i know a lot more and have way more experience than a 18 year old.

what if we lowered the legal drinking age to non existent (but you can't buy until you are 15). i grew up with italian grandparents. coffee for breakfast, off to kindergarten and first grade, wine with dinner, shot of whiskey or anisette or B&B after church on sunday morning. drinking wasn't a big deal for me, i understood what it meant and that was that.

what if we lowered the statutory rape/age of consent.

kids are having sex when they are 14. years and years ago, and still in some countries, that was an age to be married. yeah, i know back then people lived to about 40 so 14 was middle aged, we live longer now, etc. but what if we lowered the age of consent? what if people could get married at 15 even if they didn't live in iowa?

here are two age of consent pages. they vary a small bit, i dont know which is correct

Age of consent

LEGAL AGE OF CONSENTomg (ageofconsent.com)omgomgomgomgomg Age du consentement à l’acte sexuel

(interestingly, afghanistan says it's illegal for man-man sex. HAH! homosexual pedophilia is a way of life there. i know this for a fact.)

is it an emotional/mental maturity thing? is that why the age of consent is higher? i know in some states, under some conditions, its lower. but if we started treating teens like adults, and expect them to act responsibly, and we taught them how to act and what to do, i think they can handle it.

i've met some very mature (rare, but i've met them) 16 year olds. i've met some very immature (sadly, not that rare) adults.

thoughts?

are there any age limits you would like to change?

Driving age should be raised to perhaps 17 to obtain a permit, and at least 18 to receive and be issued a valid license.

The age of consent for coplation varies greatly from region to region, but the average of what I find is usually a span in-between 16-18 years of minimum age that a person can consent to sex. To see a quick tablet overview of age of consent requirements from state to state and around the world, you can scan the list HERE.

Drinking age in the United States is the highest at 21 years of age. There are no limits on the act of imbibing alcohol in at least half-a-dozen countries well-known countries, including Portugal & China, while most other developed countries hover in-between the range of 16-18 years of age to legally drink.

I'll chime in to say that although I may not always agree with the political stances of green 18-year-olds, it should be their prerogative to become well-enough educated in matters of social agendas proposed by their respective political representatives in order to cast a ballot. I'd say a recommended age of 22 is fair enough, but I'd just as soon leave it where it is.

I say as soon as you are legally proclaimed an adult, you can do any and all of the above to your heart's content.

Drinking = 18
Cigarettes = 19
Voting = 18 (it's a basic right as an adult Squeeb - informed or not)
Driving = 19

etc. I think about 18, 19 most young adults are capable of restraining themselves or abiding the law (as much as adults do - which is very little). People like to point fingers at the young when they do small, stupid things. When the people pointing their fingers do it everyday.

A man of 40 gets in an accident and injures someone because he was driving irresponsibly and he gets sued/relies on insurance. A man of 20 does the same thing and it sparks debate on whether or not "kids these days etc etc". It pisses me off. being young does not equate irresponsibility. We should make testing and qualifying for licensing and such tighter perhaps, but lowering or raising age seems out of place in society today.

I have had this same conversation with Jeremy, the sexual age of consent in particular. It is a button that has been pushed over and over again. He believes the age of sexual consent should be 12, and he justifies it in a crazy way, saying there would be less child abuse, and cites the EU as evidence. I continue to tell him that no, that is not correct. To begin, the EU is not a country. I dont believe there are broad EU laws in re this subject. Second, if that were true, of course there would be less reported child abuse because the age is 12! Third, does that apply to boys and girls? Children do not have the wherewithall to be in sexual relationships. They may flirt with the idea, and just flirt, but they are not ready.

Tis subject came up with Jem because of his porn interest, and the book written by whoever that started in the industry when she was 14 or 16, and how it was a boon to her life and her career. My response was okay for that girl, I guess. However, where was a guardian of that girl, encouraging her to finish school, go to college, and then become the porn star that she is, when she was an adult and could make adult decisions. Isnt that what parents or adults do with children? Isnt that what theyre supposed to do? It is not often that I hear a mother or a father suggest the age of sexual consent be lowered when it comes to their children, unless perhaps theyre already abusing them.

Re the drinking and voting age, I would like to see them raised to 25. The age to drive, 16. The age to smoke cigarettes, 25. The age to enroll in a draft, never.

I think 16 is fine with a guardian present, 18 without.

I have had this same conversation with Jeremy, the sexual age of consent in particular. It is a button that has been pushed over and over again. He believes the age of sexual consent should be 12, and he justifies it in a crazy way, saying there would be less child abuse, and cites the EU as evidence. I continue to tell him that no, that is not correct. To begin, the EU is not a country. I dont believe there are broad EU laws in re this subject. Second, if that were true, of course there would be less reported child abuse because the age is 12! Third, does that apply to boys and girls? Children do not have the wherewithall to be in sexual relationships. They may flirt with the idea, and just flirt, but they are not ready.

Tis subject came up with Jem because of his porn interest, and the book written by whoever that started in the industry when she was 14 or 16, and how it was a boon to her life and her career. My response was okay for that girl, I guess. However, where was a guardian of that girl, encouraging her to finish school, go to college, and then become the porn star that she is, when she was an adult and could make adult decisions. Isnt that what parents or adults do with children? Isnt that what theyre supposed to do? It is not often that I hear a mother or a father suggest the age of sexual consent be lowered when it comes to their children, unless perhaps theyre already abusing them.

Re the drinking and voting age, I would like to see them raised to 25.

Age of consent: 12.
Drinking/smoking age: 18
Driving age: 15 (16 for license).
Voting age: 15.

If I could make the laws, this would be where they are. Got a question about em? Ask it.

Traci Lords, who may still have a casual career and celebrity due to her previous notoriety, but I don't believe the experience she went through as a young and confused teenage porn star could be considered a "convenient stepping stone" to the status she has today.

This is how I feel...

When it comes to drinking, voting, and smoking, once you're entrusted with the title of adult, whatever age that may be, you should be trusted to make your own decisions in life. That simple.

The age of consent part... Not so simple. Honestly, I believe a person should be able to make a conscious decision as to whether or not they want to have sex with somebody as soon as they're able to reproduce. So, the 13-16 area. I also think this is when one should be established as an adult, and left to make their own decisions, but that can't happen with the society we live in today. Children are not made to grow up that fast.

This dilemma brings up issues. How will a 15 year old properly take care of a child in our society? How can somebody who hasn't matured fully capable of making a decision about sex? So, as it stands, I think 18 is the proper age of consent because that's when one becomes an adult and accountable for their own actions.

consent: 16
driving: 18
drinking/smoking: 18
voting: 18

I'm not deviating very far from the way things already are. When it comes to age of consent I think 16 is a good place to be. Driving is something that I think should be raised to 18, but to start drivers ed around the same time, just get more practice before being let out on your own. Now when it comes to drinking, smoking and voting I think if you are old enough to be on your own in the world then you should be considered an adult.

Interesting that the OP proposes 22 as a voting age. I'm perfectly content with 18, but if I had to choose to change it I would actually lower it to 16. Not only does it give people a little control over the world they will enter into as adults, but it would create an opportunity to engage young people in politics when they're a captive high school audience.

As for the rest, I generally favor low numbers with the exception of driving.

I don't believe age of consent should be any higher than 16, perhaps even as low as 14. There should certainly be limits to the age gap between partners at such young ages though: a 16 and 14 year old is one thing, but a 25 and 14 year old is an entirely different story. Of course, a young age of consent only works if we get our heads out of our asses as a nation and start providing full sex education early on.

Both drinking and smoking should have an age limit of 18, and I'd raise the driving age to 18 as well. Like DaniGirl, I think we should stat teaching kids to drive around 15/16, but let's wait a little longer before unleashing them upon the world in their own private little killing machines.

Please tell me you mean "for drinking alcohol", because if you mean "for sexual intercourse" I DO NOT want to have to have that conversation with my daughter! :no:

Consent = 15
Smoking Pot (I believe in legalization)/Driving = 16
Voting/Marriage = 17
Smoking/Drinking/Military enlistment = 18


My feeling is, there aren't enough people voting as it is-- I am not in favor of any further restrictions on who gets to vote, and for that matter, let's knock a year off the minimum age, and let felons vote, even in the slammer.

The Federal age of consent should be 15, and if individual States want to go lower, I have no problem with that. Teenagers fuck. No sense letting some dumb cluck daddy hand his daughter's boyfriend over to the cops to get his life ruined as a sex offender. And give Roman Polanski some peace, the guy is ancient, and that was a long time ago.

I'm OK with driving being at age 16, and when the glorious day comes when America gets its head out of its ass and legalizes herb, I think 16 should be the potsmoking legal minimum age. It gives the kids something to party out with, and it's safer than lowering the drinking age.

No reason why kids are any less ready to get married at 17 rather than 18. Took me until I was 35 to feel even remotely mature enough and together enough to get married. Some dumb fuck thinks they're all set for it at 18, might as well let 'em get down to it at 17, it's no more stupid.

Smoking and Military Enlistment are both dangerous, and probably require second thought before beginning. Might as well keep it at 18. Drinking is also dangerous, but if you're old enough to smoke, and you're old enough to risk getting your nads shot off in the middle of back-ass nowhere for America's oil interests, it seems pretty stupid not to let you drink....

I missed the 16 w/guardian comment regarding drinking age. I'm tempted to agree with that, but then I also think of the irresponsible parents who just want to be their kid's friend and so they throw parties and provide alcohol. I don't want to legalize that shit. I think I'd rather just make the drinking age 16 than give such parents further incentive to be "friends" with their child.

---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 AM ----------

I think we need to be a little more complex than that with regards to felons voting, but I generally agree. Regardless of voting rights while in jail, I think it should be a federal crime to deny a citizen the right to vote once they have finished serving their time.

hmmmm.... interesting responses. Age of consent is fine with me at 16. I think 12 is waaaaay too young. Have you guys MET twelve year old girls? They don't have a clue.

The only thing I'd change, really, is the drinking age. And I wouldn't change it so much as add some extras for the younger crowd: you should be able to drink at 16 with permission from (and presence of) a parent. You can drink at 18, but with restrictions-- not in a bar at all, but in a restaurant until a certain time. Midnight, we'll say. Kind of like a "learner's permit," but for drinking.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'd be okay with raising the driving age to 17.

There are far too many road accidents so I think the driving age being 18 (as it is where I live), is good.

I think consent should be 16, which I think it is here. Before that, I seriously doubt any teenager has the maturity to understand much about sex, and I don't just mean physically.

Drinking and voting - 18 (also what it is in Portugal). Unlike what I see from Americans, we don't complain much about legal age to do things here so I think it works for us generally. Also, it's pretty easy to get a drink from 16 upwards. So maybe it could be 16, I don't see the harm. I think the occasional drop of wine or champagne in the home, for a celebration, with supervision, is also ok, before that age.

I don't think old people should be able to vote because I don't want their out dated morals affecting my life. This is the only response I have to raising the voting age.

I'm all for re-thinking limits. Any thinking at all is good, in my opinion.

I think the legal age for anything is determined by how well we educate our children. Unfortunately for the US, We do such a bad job at educating our children about sex, drugs and voting that we have to restrict them pretty much as long as possible.

I also agree with Jetee, Once we're "adults" and no longer restricted to the number of hours we're allowed to work and we can fight in wars and vote, why not buy alcohol? It's a stupid restriction.

There's a lot of "I"s in this post..

I don't know about lowering the age of consent though. Teenagers are pretty stupid and easily influenced. Hell, I remember when having a car was the easiest way to pick up girls.

A set age for anything doesn't make much sense for me. People develop at different rates. I propose a new method: when one is certified physically and mentally mature by both a physician and psychiatrist, they gain adult responsibilities.

True. However...being 46, I know a lot more and have way more experience than a 22 year old. It's the way life works. Keep the voting age at 18.

Drinking age...18. Any age with a parent or guardian present. The reason being that 18 year olds are old enough to decide upon the next President of the United States, old enough to sign the dotted line to kill or be killed for their country, old enough to climb behind the wheel of a 2000lb peice of metal and glass and hurtle it down a highway. But 18 is to young to decide what brand of beer they would like to drink? I don't think so. We, in the US of A, make entirelly to big a deal over the "evils" of alcohol. I believe that if we stopped making such a big deal over it, then it really wouldn't be a big deal.

Driving? 17 to obtain a learner's permit, and drive with a licensed driver with a minimum of 5 years experience. 18 to legally drive.

Age of consent is something else altogether. I would like to say 16. But, does that mean that I, as a 46 year old, could legally have sex with a 16 year old. I don't really like that scenario. I have to think about this one for awhile. Waaay to many variables, that if removed, create even larger problems. This one's not so easy.

18 seems, to me, to be the "magic number". Hopefully, if the mentors in their lives have done an adequate job, then most 18 year olds should have the tools at their disposal to make reasonably sound decisions. Most...I hope.

I'm generally in favor of lowering age requirements except for driving which is more of a public safety issue. Age of consent and drinking are more of a personal issue and the government should probably stay out of it as much as possible or at least err to the low side. Just because you think that something should not be illegal does not mean you advocate it.

Drinking: 16
There's no way we're going to be able to take a bite out of alcohol poisoning in college unless we allow kids to grow up learning how to drink responsibly with parents. They shouldn't learn about alcohol away from home.

Consent: 16
I had sex at 14, which I think might have been a bit young, but 18 is silly. Most kids start masturbating around 12, experimenting with sex from 14-15 and are sexually active by 16. If we lower consent to 16, we can start sex ed earlier.

Marriage: 18

Voting: 14
I've posted about this elsewhere, but frankly I don't think there should be a part of the population that can't vote. I'd be willing to compromise at 14, though. 18 is out of the question.

Driving: 18
After 18 you take a written test and earn your permit, then take mandatory classes for 6 months. At 18.5+, you take the drivers test. If, at any point during the age of 18 and 20 you are caught speeding or driving recklessly, drinking and driving, etc. you don't drive again until you're 20. You can utilize our public transportation system.

Military enlistment: 22
If that. 18 isn't old enough to decide that the country is worth your life yet. Short of a war on the scale where a draft is necessary for mere survival, you should be about the age of a college senior before being able to enlist.

Ok I don't know if you were joking or not so now I'm asking, why 12? That is way too young, do you have kids and would you be ok to know that they are sexually active at 12? Well POA says that he feels that once you can reproduce you should be responsible enough to have sex, but the way the world is right now kids are not informed enough and not mature enough to make rational decisions that can effect there whole life. If we start allowing kids to have sex at that young of an age we will have more young pregnancies and other issues.

Yet, 14 is old enough to decide upon the next President? :orly:

Military service isn't a right, voting is.

I gave my daughter (age 9) a glass of wine with our Sunday lunch. It was a thimble full of sparkling rose with a top up of soda water (basically just enough wine to give colour to the water), but I see nothing odd about that - it's how I was brought up, and I hope that by the time she's looking out for herself in social situations, she has enough experience of what alcohol is for and how it works to not end up as a drunken slut puking in the street.

This isn't about rights, Will. Driving, drinking and having sex are not rights either. We are discussing age requirements.

You asked why 14 is old enough. It's old enough because it's a right, the same right you and I enjoy. If you were being taxed and had to follow laws of a government in which you had no representative, wouldn't you hold a tea party? I would. Everyone in the US under 18 is taxed and is required to follow laws without representation.

This is about rights.

Exactly, how does a 14 year old who doesn't work pay any kind of taxes?

You aren't really subjected to the whims of the voted in government officials until you become an adult. Your parents are.

Maybe, once one enters the working world and does have to pay taxes and further contribute to society, they should be allowed to vote. I can see that, but I can't see how a non-contributing child should have a say...

Sales taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Supreme Court Rules Strip Search of 8th Grader Was Illegal | NBC Washington
Look what happened when elected school board officials were left in charge. The SCOTUS had to step in.
I understand your point exactly. From now on all adults out of work cannot vote. If I remember recent polling correctly, that's nearly 10% of the population.

If the kid doesn't have a job, he's not spending his own money. This means said kid is not being taxed. Whoever gave him the money is.

This was illegal. This shouldn't happen, and this not happening should be, and is, handled by the people who do have a say.

Why not? If you don't contribute to your community, why be able to have a say in how it's ran?

I'm just saying that children have no real responsibility, and aren't made to make adult decisions. Voting is a right that comes with a lot of responsibility and involves adult decisions.

That's not how ownership works. If money is given, the ownership changes. Besides, what if that kid earned the money raking grandma's front yard? That's not even a gift, it's a real contribution.

Some kids have paper routes as young as 12, btw (at least they did when I had a paper route about 12 years ago).
Regardless, elected officials do create and enforce laws to which children are subject. A 14 year old can be charged with breaking the law. A 14 year old can be arrested for breaking the law, but cannot be a part of the process by which we elect law makers? That's patently unfair and, frankly, it's possibly unconstitutional.
Because voting is a right, not a privilege. We allow unemployed people to vote because they still pay taxes and they still are subject to our laws. Being citizen means paying taxes and obeying the law in exchange for governmental services and the right to vote.
In theory, sure, but in practice voting is more often the result of partisanship or ignorance. We can't disallow the right to vote based on merits because it opens the floodgates. What if today we make it illegal for unemployed people to vote and tomorrow we make it so that the amount of taxes you pay determines how much your vote is worth? It's a slippery slope we shouldn't have any part of. Either everyone can vote or everyone can vote. There's no half-way.

I'm getting away from my point a little, so let me make it clear, I agree that working should have nothing to do with voting. I was just pointing out that if a child earns no money, they don't pay taxes. They don't pay for anything on their own, and, therefore, taxes aren't a loss to them.

My point is that I disagree that just anybody should have the right to vote. What happens when we turn your floodgate analogy around 180 degrees? Do we allow five year olds to vote? Mental capacity and experience have to come into account here. That's what becoming an adult, and taking on the responsibilities included, is all about. Just like everything else being discussed in this thread, the age limit should be set at when one is determined an adult. Our society has deemed that determination as the age of 18.

Because that is the age we choose to make people accountable for their own actions, that should also be the age we're allowed to make any decisions and be accountable for those as well. Sure, a 14 year old can be arrested and convicted of a crime, but, unless it's a particularly heinous crime, they'll also get little more than a smack on the wrist.

When you're a child in this country, your parents represent your opinion. That is how we have set things up. Until that changes as a whole, voting is something that should be left to adults.

Btw, I wasn't joking. I believe the age of consent should be 12. It's only recently in human history that we've arbitrarily decided 18 is the age of maturity, and decided that that (or a couple years earlier) is when you're allowed to start having sex.

I believe at puberty, there are theoretically some children able to give their consent. It's got to be what -they- want though, and I totally understand introducing age-difference restrictions so that those in a position of power over them can't abuse their position. Were the age of consent lowered to 12, we would need a slew of new laws to protect the children in similar ways that they are today. But I don't believe that a blanket ban saying 'sex is wrong' is entirely appropriate until age 16ish.

Obviously I need to give more thought to this to really convey a proper position.

What does "pay for anything on their own" mean? Getting money as a gift means a transfer of the ownership of that money. If you don't think children pay for anything, feel free to visit a drug store near an elementary school at around 2:30 p.m.

I got an allowance from I don't know how old because I did chores and such around the house, which mean I had undeclared income long before I was 14 to spend how I saw fit, and every dollar I spent on a taxable item was taxes. I paid taxes long before I was 18, and so did you.
If mental capacity and experience are not prerequisites for adults to vote, why should they be for children?
We try kids as young as 14 as adults all the time. Some people arrested and convicted before turning 18 are serving life sentences.
My parents both voted Republican in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and my dad in 2000. They did not represent my views.

---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

Knowing consent to sex is a tricky thing. Some young adults are mature enough to make a proper determination, but some aren't. Shoot, some adults don't have the maturity or experience to make a proper determination.

Are you kidding me? Take a look at the tobacco taxes. Tax, tax, tax and tax some more. No representation there. We aren't even allowed to smoke in open air sports stadiums that were built with cigarette taxes. Why? "Cause who'se going to fuss? Only us dirty neer do well smokers.

Sales tax? By that line of thought, my 6 year old is taxed every time he buys a new bakugon, or tranformer toy, with his allowance. Should he vote? Come on, Will. You're a smart man. Exercise a little common sense with this.

Now here's an idea, and with our ecomony in the state that it's in, this'll have the side effect of creating jobs, thousands and thousands of jobs (and raise taxes).

A side from that, the age limits should be set to where the majority of people are mature enough to handle being in those situations.

Driving - 16: This is a limit I'm ok with. Here in CA, you have to go through a driver training course as a requirement to get your licence if the person is between 16 and 18 years of age. Not all parents (including mine) are willing to pay around $500 for their inexperianced driver to roll around in their only car. I would like to remove the driver training requirement for a driver's licence, but add a day of driver training to any moving violation made while the person is still a minor.

Concent - 18: I'm sticking to the 18 years of age on this one. Mostly since that's the age (most) teenagers finish high school. Girls who become pregnant as teens have a tendancy to drop out. The high school I went to has a pregnant minor program that offers day care and a few other services to help teen moms finish school. More of these services So in case an under age girl does become pregnant, there's a system in place so that they can continue their high school education and possibly move on to college.

Although I don't have any numbers for the ages of the fathers that causes teenage girls to become pregnant, I have noticed that these guys are usually in their mid to late twenties. So let's not give them permission to pick up on teenagers by lowering the age of concent.

Drinking - 18: Ok, let's get this straight. At 18, you can be drafted into war and sent to kill and die for the US, but under no circumstances can are brave soldiers have a shot of scotch?! Also, people from 18 - 20 will go to underground parties and have their keggers. When the drinking age is lowered to 18, it will become common to see these younger people in bars and clubs, drinking in public where they can be monitored in case something goes astray. They'll learn that having a designated drive can be a cool thing, they'll drink in front of their parents and family instead of hiding away with a 40 or bottle of Jack, and they won't have to stargger through the streets to get home if these young people are drinking at home.

Voting - 18: Let's leave it here, since it was lowered from 21 after the Vietnam war since we were sending people to kill and die, yet they weren't old enough to have any way to vote against it.

Of course there's representation. Everyone 18 and over that smokes (other than convicts, that's for another thread) has an elected representative and the opportunity to vote. You smoke, you can vote. Bam, representation.
You seem to be having a completely different debate in your head.
By my line of thought, your 6 year old shouldn't have to pay sales tax. That's the deal. Either no taxation or taxation with representation.

The reason I think 14 is the golden age is because 14 year olds can be tried as adults, but it's exceedingly rare for it to happen younger than 14. If one can be tried as an adult, one should have the right to vote on laws.

Give this a read.

@ 777: I'm with you all the way.

Driving is complex and requires attention. 16 is just fine. But make the tests WAY harder and parents either pay for the lessons or teach their kids proper driving skills. And the tests required each and everytime road rules are violated.

Sex HAS to be 18. C'mon people!! Look at the complexities involved in sex. Of course WE ALL want to bump uglies but are under 18 year olds really ready for the phsychological effects of sexual activity? Besides, what about underage/early preganancys? Teen's are well known for recklessnes and irresponsible behaviours because (well duh!!) They're fucking reckless and irresponisble ... ALL of them are. Your daddy was so was you mom and her momma and daddy before her!!

When a child wants something they'll usually go to their parents and ask for the money. When the parent gives them the money to buy said item, they include tax. The child wouldn't get as much money if it wasn't for the tax. So, it's inconsequential to the child whether or not there are taxes.

Some children do get allowances. I didn't. I did my chores to earn the roof over my head, the shirt on my back, and the food on my plate, but I get your point.

You said in another post "no taxation, or taxation with representation". I can almost get behind the first half of that, but how do we stop adults from giving children their money to buy them things so they don't get taxed?

There should be prerequisites to become an adult, but, unfortunately, that's not how the society we live in works.

If it's a heinous crime they don't deserve any rights, anyway...

They did represent your views. That doesn't mean they represented them properly...

It doesn't matter how they got the money, they got the money. It's their money to spend. When they spend the money, some of it goes to the government. It's really that simple.
Bingo. If it were easy to ensure that children weren't going to be used by adults to avoid paying taxes, I'd simply say don't tax people until they're able to vote... but that doesn't work. The only way to do this is to allow kids to vote.
What rights? Children are taxed without representation, they can't vote, they are often subject to illegal searches, many can't freely practice their own religion... things aren't all that hot for kids and teens. The very least we can do is allow them the freedom to have their voices heard by the government. Allow them the opportunity to become aware that they can change their condition through the right of voting.
Okay, so if you vote for one person but your vote is counted for another, at least your government represented your views... though they didn't represent them properly.

Will, nowhere, in the Bill of Rights, are you guaranteed no taxation without representation. In that document, the two are very seperate and very distinct. "No Taxation Without Representation!" was a phrase used by Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, in a sermon in Boston, in 1750. I happen to agree with it, but that's not the point.

Voting is a right guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. As is the right to keep and bear arms, in the 2nd amendment. If, by your reasoning, 14 year olds should be afforded the right to vote based on the fact that they are tax paying citizens, then should these same 14 year old citizens be permitted to own and carry firearms? I have little doubt that you would be one of the first to join me in a resounding "Hell No!". (though for clearly different reasons) There is a reason that 18 is considered the age of majority. Children do not, and should not, have rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. They do not live under a Democracy. They live under the iron fisted dictatorship of their parents.

Nowhere did I say I was quoting the Bill of Rights with that particular phrase and sentiment, I was directly quoting protesters in the 13 colonies in response to the Sugar Act (among other things) but was referencing several parts of the Constitution that talk about representation including the 15th. Note, though, I said "probably". I'm no constitutional scholar and I'm certainly no judge.
You'd be wrong. My take on guns is that I cannot stand their existence but I must recognize the Second Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings on it. If some asshole adult can have a gun because of some stupidly outdated law, I can't imagine why we shouldn't give them to kids. I think we both know that adults are commonly prone to stupid decisions and stupid mistakes that make the Second Amendment seem like outright lunacy. If we are to accept such lunacy, allowing any and every yahoo to have a gun, what the heck kind of arbitrary line is 18? What flash of maturity and good judgment occurs between 17 and 18 that means the difference between rightfully having a weapon of murder and not having that weapon?

It's the illusion of responsible governance. "Well yes, these can do nothing but harm or kill, but at least we aren't giving them to children!" Look how responsible we all are. :rolleyes:

@Xerxys: I'm just saying make the age of consent 12. Not make it legal for a 45 year old man to coerce a 13 year old child into having sex.

Look Will, I know that you love to argue, and to disagree with me just to argue, but did you really type that with a straight face? Seriously?

Phhht, well yeeeaah. I think my first marriage illustrates your point rather nicely. :rolleyes:
That point conceded. But at some point we have to pick a point where we say that our children are grown, and it's time for them to assume full responsibility for their actions and enjoy the rights and privileges that come with it. For things like voting, gun ownership, military service and so on...that arbitrary age should be 18. We have to set the bar somewhere. 18 makes as much if not more sense, to me, as any other. 14? No freakin' way, man.

I don't argue for the sake or arguing. The Second Amendment made sense hundreds of years ago, but it makes no sense now, and yet many people support it. My argument is more to point out the true absurdity of giving any idiot a gun by pointing out the hypocrisy of not allowing a 17 year old to have a gun because of some sort of inability to be responsible. It's a silly and unsupportable double standard.
We have a long history of insisting on setting the bar for rights somewhere arbitrary because we assume there needs to be a bar.

The exclusion of any group from franchise requires positive justification, you can't just rest on precedent or your laurels. What's your actual reason for not wanting kids to vote? Is it because you don't think they would be responsible voters? Do you think their votes would be heavily influenced or controlled? Do you think kids are already represented by parents? Do you think kids will vote for selfish or illogical policies? All of these are easily debunkable.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. You didn't give your daughter some wine in order to make her like you more out of some desperate attempt to be her friend instead of her parent. Right now, there are too many people who want to be the "cool" parent by throwing alcohol-filled parties for their kids. I'd rather just give those kids the ability to do it themselves and strip those parents of that method of befriending their kids.

You can already do that over here, either for educational purpose or religious purpose. Your child, not anyone else's child. Getting them drunk is another story.

Drinking: 21 Younger if parent is present to teach you how to drink responsibly (such as Daniel above)

Consent: 18

Marriage: 25 (I was actually leaning more towards age 30)
Live your life a bit first, seriously. Go to school. Get a job. Play the field. Get to know yourself. Learn how to support yourself.

Voting: 18

Driving: permit at 16, license at 18. License at 17 if you have completed a driving course and have a job.

Military enlistment: 21
Young adults need time to see there is life other than the military. Joining the military should be an informed choice, not something done because they were so young they weren't sure what else to do (many of my classmates did that).

Dude, I shudder at the thought of two 13 year olds going at it!! How in heavens name will a person under the age of 16 be able to deal with the psycho-emotional ramifications of sex?

Sex my friends is a confusing and complex issue. I have no idea why it's downplayed so much. I'm not saying list the 13 year olds as sex offenders, educate them by all means ... just don't trivialize it with the "but muuuuum, everyone's doing it" mentality.

Sexual maturity varies tremendously from one person to another, so I'll leave that to someone smarter than myself :p

For everything else, a person should be granted all the rights of an adult at 18. I know it's a oft repeated argument, but it has merit, so I'll repeat it again--if you're old enough to enlist in the military, you're old enough to drink a beer.

That also includes driving. The driving age was set at 16 at a time when young people played a larger role in familial responsibilities, especially in agrarian settings. That is no longer the case.

voting-18 (it is)
drinking-18
military-17 (it is, with parental consent)
driving-17

I just ran across this article. Age of Consent for Religion.

Let?s have an Age of Consent for Religion


I think it's a great idea. How can you really be dedicated and faithful to a religion if you never know the alternatives.

I totally agree it's a good idea, but you'd have religious groups crying foul. I think that particular idea may have its day after a few decades when the religious people are about equal to unreligious, but for the time being I'm afraid that kind of idea can only really take root in less religious countries in places like Europe.

I have found that from reading the statistics of different sites, and different organisations, that the pregnancy rate, and the promiscuity rate has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY since the early to mid seventies, and even more severely in the nineties and 2000s. I would like to see the age of consent raised to 18, as well as the driving age. Drinking age should be eighteen as well. If you are an adult and can do anything you want at eighteen, then you should have the choice to drink as well. I'm not saying that it's wise for some to do this, however, it doesn't make sense to say I am an adult at 18 and that I can vote, and do ANYTHING, EXCEPT drink. Europe has (depending on the country) no drinking age, or it is 16-18 depending on the country. They have a healthy respect for alcohol. That also needs to be better enstilled in this country. As for voting, I think 18 is fine. I find that most immature 18 year olds don't care and are too busy partying to concern themselves with politics. I'm not saying it's right, it's rather sad actually, but I'd be more concerned with the consistency of the law. If you notice, some are tried as adults at 18 and some are not, in a court of law. If the books say one is an adult at 16 or 18, then they should be tried as such regardless of the crime. Otherwise, raise the age of concent to 21. As for sex...it's a big responsibility and not everyone has the same (and some don't have any) religious beliefs. I think that a law should be passed that if you are under the age of 16 or 18 and are caught in sexual activity, you should be held accountable for it. There are too many people putting themselves in positions because they are letting their hormones rule their thoughts rather than common sense. In the throws of passion a 14 year old is not going to say, oh it's possible that I could winde up pregers, and have to raise a kid for the next 18-20 years. He and she will not think that abortion is a big thing, but that is risky, AND expensive. It's something that is taken too lightly. Drinking under age I don't have a problem with within itself, but the fact that a 14 year old likes to go about doing things to the fullest extent (thus risking getting drunk) it raises concern where you have to think...will that 14 yr old truly consider the consequences, and if they do consider them, do they really fully understand the ramifications of their decision. A kid moving out at 16 has very limited view of what it's like to live as an adult. You have bills, and the people you pay your bills to don't always give second chances like Mum and Dad might. They also tack on " consequences " for those that they do give "second chances" to. Not only that, but you have to do EVERYTHING on your own. Responsible for your automobile or form of transportation, shopping for food, paying medical bills, paying household bills. Then there are the incindences where things don't concern bills. You hit another car...and yours is totalled...no big deal you buy another one. But what if the other person sues you (regardless of whos fault it is)? Can you emotionally handle it? Mum and Dad can't go to court for you. They can't write a letter or promise you are going to work until the damages are paid off. What if you go out with your friends and get drunk one night, and get caught? You're an adult now, your parents aren't going to spring you for it. They can't. It's not their responsibility, what about your medical bills that are unpaid...sooner or later you are going to be refused health benefits because you can't pay the pending expenses due off.

I would leave it where it is rather than lower it, but at the same time...I'd only raise the ages if there has to be some change...but lowering it would be a mistake.

It's the proverbial problem of the child testing the waters... you draw the line in the sand, they are going to cross it at some point...it's human nature.

Has anybody raised the point about legalized gambling yet?

In the US, it is directly tied into a person's legal age of consumption, and therefore, in many regions throughout the country, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to even step foot on the casino floor.

If the drinking age is lowered to 18, here in the US,
I would like to see the legal BAC levels for driving,
lowered to, .02 ( for drivers of all ages, also)

I'm not sure how problematic this could be, in practice.
There have been some instances of persons with medical conditions,
that can skew a breathalyzer test.

It does irk me that some kids who are 18 or 19 just spout what they're hearing at home or from their friends but isn't that the way some 30, 40, 60, 80 yr olds are? Some people never think for themselves and never seem to learn from their or our past either. I doubt we could ever get the age for voting changed.

As for the Legal Drinking age... I thought kids were allowed to drink with a legal guardian present in their legal guardians home. If that's the case then kids could drink even now, the way you did. Too many kids aren't as educated as you were with regards to how to drink responsibly. If the legal age was changed then we'd have younger, less responsible kids drinking without adult supervision and more often. It's bad enough the kids to manage to get liquor now even though it's not legal.

And Finally... as to the age of consent/statutory rape age. I don't think it should be lowered but I do think that we should rethink cases such as a 17 yr old dating another 17 yr old who turns 18 and suddenly mom and dad have an issue with their little girl having sex with an 18 yr old. If they had a relationship before one of them turned 18 the 18 yr old should not be able to be charged with statutory rape. It's unfair to the couple and especially the one who happened to turn 18. Like a pair of teens are going to suddenly stop having sex when one of them turns 18. Beyond that, I think there should be more freedom given to the judges to not crack down on kids who are underage and who have sex with older kids or adults. If you think about it, a 16 or 17 yr old who ends up having sex with a 30 yr old could possibly have a better experience than two teens together, especially if the 30 yr old truely cares about the 16 yr old. * Please note that I'd prefer kids waited till they were 18 anyway but that's another thread on it's own. The biggest thing about not changing the age for kids to have sex is that kids need as much encouragement as possible to avoid having sex and especially getting pregnant until they finish highshool at least. I personally don't want to encourage kids to drop out of highschool by allowing them to get married earlier. There is so much breaking up and making up going on at that age that I think we'd probably end up with a much higher divorce rate AND higher dropout rate. What good would that do?

Yes, to me the idea of 2 13-year-olds going at it is distasteful. However, the age of consent is a law in place to punish one or the other of the parties engaged in the sex. I don't believe either of the 13 year olds should be punished. Educated? ABSOLUTELY. Punished? No.

In NJ, there are tiers to the age of consent. If you are above 18, anything goes. If you are 16 or up (our age of consent), anything goes except caretakers...that must wait til 18. If at least one party is below the age of 16, it is still legal until the two parties differ in age by at least 4 years. So a 14 year old and a 17 year old is legal. However, if either party is 12 or under, it is illegal, end of story. If there were 12 year olds having sex...yes, it's illegal, but I think it'd be the parents that were punished, rather the children.

So, I think that's a pretty reasonable system, instead of just 'ANYONE UNDER 18 CAN NEVER HAVE SEX OR BE THROWN IN JAIL', which seems to be a prevailing school of thought.


P.S. When you say 'my friends' it makes me feel exactly the same as when Jon McCain said it: as if I'm being patronized. Just a thought. Nor do i want to trivialize this issue. Legalizing something doesn't mean encouraging it. Just making it so that in the above example, a 17 year old and a 14 year old, the 17 year old isn't thrown in jail regardless of the situation. Which is what happens in a state where the only law is 16 = age of consent.

---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

Hopefully this automerges my doublepost cuz I'm lazy. xD.

Absolutely agreed: this is another farcical example showing the inanity of a hard and fast 'age of consent'. However, when u bring up your 16 v 30. Let's change that a bit, let's say 13 and 30. Suddenly, it seems a lot more predatory to me. Even if the 30 year old truly cares for the 13 year old...I think there's way too much pressure on the girl at that age because of the age/maturity difference. It's just not a relationship among equals, and at that age, that's a problem to me. Predatory is the key word.

Jozrael, I totally agree with your first response to Xerxys...I have to process the other one thoughl. I knew you were intelligent beyond book smarts.

I dunno Jozrael, I kinda like the "anyone under 18 will DIE if they have sex" law because really, kids are easy to scare into submission ....

No, that came out wrong.

I'm of the opinion that many people will inherently do what is right. In this case, by heeding their parents wishes as well as following whatever education (I still think should be enforced) on the entire issue.

The reason I think to lower the age of consent would be counteractive is because it now gives children freedoms to toy around with sex. If you throw your hands up with the "they're gonna do it anyway" argument ... it defeats the purpose. As far as punishment goes ... well, it's a law. You don't break laws, period. I want the punishment to be reasonable, don't assign draconian punishments on kids who are constantly confused about their state of puberty/sexuality.

I'll try to avoid using "dude/my friends/man" in my posts, I write how I talk sometimes ...

I guess the 'dude/myfriends/etc.' thing is very subjective, cuz the other ones you listed don't bother me at all. I guess it's just cuz McCain iconized the 'my friends' phrase and left a terribly bad taste in my mouth because of it.

On topic!

I think some people will inherently do what is right...by -why is having sex before the age of majority wrong-. I think that's an incredibly subjective topic. On the one hand you have the religious folk who think it's wrong to do before marriage. I don't think their opinions are relevant to the law of when it is -legal- to have sex.

I don't think sex is inherently wrong, period. I think it's a natural, amazing human function. And I don't want to bar that from people based on age simply because some people think it's morally wrong.

The issue, I think, that you are focused on is the downsides of sex. It's a huge emotional investment, and can result in pregnancy/disease. Plus, there are sexual predators. These are valid points. However, again, I don't think it's my place to forbid people from having sex because I wasn't emotionally ready for it at a certain age...they may very well be. That leaves the risk of pregnancy/disease and predators as I think the only reasons for an age of consent.

I would be far more supportive of additional education along the pregnancy/disease front. Tbh, my education trained me well for it. I was realistically prepared ever since high school, and the basics in middle school. Perhaps moving those up a couple years to provide the tools for minors to understand sex better would be a wise choice.

Then, there is the issue of predators. As I said, that's tricky ground. While I don't support a 'anyone under age X cannot have sex' hard and fast rule, we must look to -protect- the minors from predatory adults. That's why I'm supportive of the laws in my state, which while more complex, more adequately address the issue of predators. Really, the age of consent in NJ is 12, but there are additional restrictions up til age 16 (and then a single one til 18). I think that's an ideal system, and very maturely dealt with.

I will never use the 'they'll do it anyway' argument...because I don't think there's anything wrong with them doing it. I'm not opposed to teenagers having sex. I'm adamantly for protection from predators and additional education, though.

I repeat myself ><. Sorry, just trying to make sure I addressed all of your points.

As far as breaking laws, I think we can all agree that we have great laws, but we also have unjust laws, stupid laws, unnecessary laws, and possibly even laws that violate the human rights of some of our citizens. Just creating a law to enforce an outdated mode of viewpoint (the religious right enforcing their SEX IS BAD message) is counterproductive and possibly even unconstitutional. Hence why I don't think there should be -any- punishment on the kids. The realities of pregnancy and disease enforced through vigorous education and cautioning parents with their well-meaning values should be enough deterrents, in my opinion.

voting - should stay 18 even though the current times seems to indicate that 18-21 year olds haven't been taught about the real world yet

driving - should stay at 16

consent - texas has it about right at 17

drinking - should be lowered back to 18 and the feds should cut the power trip out of their ass by withholding monies to states that don't keep it at 21. It's absolutely non-sensical for a man or a woman who can pick up a rifle and be sent to fight/die for their country, but not drink a beer afterwards.

most other things should be kept or moved to 18. as time has marched forward from the days when a 16 year old was considered a full grown man, we've been forced to extend the development of our children at the behest of the government. It would only destabilize society if we forced the people to accept adulthood at 16.

I thought about this a little more and I change my view. 18 for everything. If we are old enough to vote, drive, live on our own then we should be old enough to drink and have sex. The age of consent should be when you are an adult. Im not saying that you shouldn't have sex until you are 18, Im just saying that you shouldn't be able to fuck a 20 year old or older until you are 18. Its not that long to wait.

In the UK you can work and pay tax at 16, cant vote until 18... I see that as a mjor flaw.

If you are coerced to fund the state you should have the right to vote for the part of it that is accountable.

In the UK the age of consent is quite confused between 16 and 18

You can work at 13 part time (like as a paper boy), but you can work fulltime at 16 (although I think they are trying to force people to stay in education till 18 soon)

You can screw and smoke at 16, join the army at 17, drive a moped at 16, a car at 17, vote at 18, drink booze at 18, in a pub (but 16 in a restaurant with a meal) marry at 16 (or 18 without parental consent), work at 16, you legally are an adult at 18... until very recently the gay sex age of consent was different to the straight sex age of consent but that changed 10 years or so.

I think it makes sense to set one "age of consent" which I would place at 16.

I find it incredible that you can join the army at 17 (although you arent supposed to fight till 18) but you cant rent an action movie legally. That you can be married at 16, but not rent a movie with nudity in legally. That you can pay tax but not vote.

At 16 a lot of people arent grown up, but Im not grown up at 31...

Ideally (not saying it could work at the moment) there should be no age related laws at all. Just tests for said activities. The rest have to do with responsible parenting. Laws can't change that. Laws are not a substitute for wisdom and guidance.

Want to take part in politics? prove that you know something about it. Nothing too difficult, just be able to name a few presidents, name a few important laws, that kind of thing. Pick some multiple choice answers about how the government works. If you can understand what's going on there's no reason you shouldn't be able to vote.

Want to drink? Up to your parents. They already control the rest of your safety, why is drinking so special?

Want to drive? Prove it (IMO the test should be harder though).

Sex? Up to you and those that take care of you. No, that doesn't mean 40 year olds will marry 12 year olds. There are still (not sure what their name is) laws that take into account state of mind. If a 40 year old sleeps with a 12 year old the kid was almost certainly taken advantage of and the 40 year old can still be gotten for a new appropriately modified version of statutory rape or those state of mind rape laws. But 12 year olds that want to sleep with other kids? Why not? It'll be the same as it is now. My friends and I started having sex in 8th grade. The responsibility is still on the parents. The law or lack of wouldn't change that.

Military and such would be state of mind and physical related. They already have those tests in place. Just need to add a bit to the state of mind part and make sure they're making their own decision.

Everyone matures at different paces, physically and mentally. Arbitrary age laws are worse than none at all because it gives people the illusion that they don't have to take responsibility for their kids. That the government and FCC will do it for them. And they are arbitrary. Plenty of other working countries have much much lower age laws or none at all and they work fine on that fact.

ThAt sounds fantastic to me, but writing sufficiently objective tests would be difficult, to say the least. There would be ways to skew the tests towards your party and I'm sure they'd create even more fights in our political infrastructure that wouldn't necessarily end in the best laws being passed.