Should minors be allowed to marry? That’s the question before the Peruvian Congress.
The gender feminists, who are opposed to marriage as an institution, say “absolutely not.” They claim that thousands of girls and adolescents will be subjected to forced marriages and unions, which makes them more vulnerable to being victims of violence.
But at the same time they claim that, when it comes to promoting contraception, abortion, and sexual diversity among adolescents from 12 to 17, anything goes. Girls should have sexual relations whenever they feel ready, they say.
No mention of sexual violence here.
Congressman José Luis Balcázar unleashed a firestorm when he said that having sexual relations “helps the psychological future of women.”
Immediately the unanimous gender feminist contingent, including the Minister for Women, declared war on Balcázar. How dare a man suggest that sex was good for women.
The irony of it all?
The Congressman was only repeating what these same feminists have been maintaining for decades as a key component of their “sexual and reproductive rights for girls and adolescents” agenda.
The reason is that while feminists detest marriage, and regard it as a form of legalized rape, they embrace loveless and childless sex as somehow liberating for teenage girls.
For example, in criticizing Congressman Balcázar’s comments, the Minister for Women, Nancy Tolentino, said that with minor marriage “we would be covering up a rape with a minor.” Then she bizarrely said that her ministry’s lawyers would consider suing Congressman Balcázar because she was not going to allow him to say that having sexual relations was in any way good for young girls.
But of course, she and her ministry say exactly the same thing all the time.
For girls and adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age, the ministry proposes “promoting, from the Ministry of Health, access to information and contraceptive methods in a timely manner.” It also provides training for what it calls “responsible sexual activity,” that is, having sexual relations and “protecting yourself from unwanted pregnancies.” In fact, the Ministry says openly that its standard practice is to give all kinds of contraceptive methods to minors without the authorization of their parents or guardians.
The well-known “Gender NGOs” are also scandalized by the idea of girls or adolescents getting married. But they are all in when it comes to promoting promiscuity for minors.
On its official website, PROMSEX welcomed the eradication of minor marriage, describing the practice as an “extreme expression of gender inequality.” But at the same time, they insist that these same adolescents have the right to have sexual relations, “to enjoy adequate sexual and reproductive health and, therefore, to live their sexuality in a safe and informed way, free to make the decisions they prefer.”
Of course, for PROMSEX these decisions include all the colors of the LGTBIQ+ rainbow flag, along with the variety of sexual orientations and acts that go with them.
The choir of the UN agencies sings the same tune. The WHO is scandalized by marriage for minors and opposes the practice, but it supports a lifestyle replete with free sex, and provides contraceptives and abortion to adolescents to encourage this.
UNICEF calls child marriage a serious violation of human rights, but prescribes the same licentiousness for “sexual and reproductive health” as the WHO.
In recounting this list of double standards, let’s not forget that, in the midst of the COVID pandemic, access to contraceptive methods for adolescents was considered more urgent than the genuine needs of the public. The same ideology prevailed in the United States, when abortuaries were prioritized, while churches and synagogues were forcibly closed.
“Gender” promoters say that minors should not marry and have sex within the marriage bond because they do not have the capacity to exercise their sexual freedom or give their consent.
But at the same time, they insist that these same adolescents can consent to sex in any way, shape or form, with whomever they want, even exploring their sexuality through homosexual, bisexual relationships, and the like.
The gender feminists insist that the young have access to a wide array of contraceptives, the morning-after pill, and abortion. They also say that young girls can even chemically or surgically “change” their sex.
That is, they can do everything except get married.
The real problem is not “marriage for minors, yes or no?” The real problem is to understand why the rate of adolescent pregnancy continues to increase.
The answer is that the gender feminists have spent decades–and tens of millions of dollars from foreign NGOs and the government–telling young people to have sex at an early age.
The solution to child marriage is to discourage young people from exposing themselves to sexual relations at all. After all, with rare exceptions, they are not in a position to assume the responsibility that such activities demand.
But the feminists do not encourage self-control and maturity, but promote the “hit and run” culture, offering abortion as a fail-safe when “safe sex” fails them, as it inevitably does.
Who has benefitted from the “gender” crusade?
Not the young, certainly, but rather the NGOs that promote this propaganda with foreign funding and then stick the state with the expenses.
They care little about the genuine and beneficial development of girls and adolescents. They prefer promoting the fairy tales that pay off for their millionaire business partners.
A few years ago these same groups fought to decriminalize sexual relations of adolescents over 14 years of age, arguing for their “right to freely exercise their sexuality.”
Gender groups then insisted that children should be able to exercise this freedom with adults over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years of age.
But marry? Why, that’s violence!
