18-20 year olds must be accompanied by an adult - Really??

[Bakincakes]

I posted the question on the G/L board.

 

It will be interesting to see if anyone has had this issue and how it was handled.:)

[kimberley]

I posted the question on the G/L board.

 

It will be interesting to see if anyone has had this issue and how it was handled.:)

 

I bet they would have to bring a notification from a lawyer? Post when you get the answer.

[thelion]

So if "underaged" pax can use a marriage certificate to get around the age cutoff..how in the world do lines handle gay couples?

 

Are they discriminated against because they can't produce a marriage certificate?

 

If they are married, legally they can have the same exception. This is regardless of if their current state accepts or acknowledges their marriage. But as of right now, RCI does not recognize civil unions under the age exception. Which I think sucks.

[MAZANDSTEVE]

Im surprised there is an exemption for those in the military, in my experience they can be the most troublesome at times.

[Lizcourt]

Im surprised there is an exemption for those in the military, in my experience they can be the most troublesome at times.

 

IMHO, someone who has made the choice to put their life on the line to defend our freedoms has earned the right to be treated as an adult. Kudos to RCCL for doing so.

[MAZANDSTEVE]

IMHO, someone who has made the choice to put their life on the line to defend our freedoms has earned the right to be treated as an adult. Kudos to RCCL for doing so.

 

 

People were on about the younger people going rampant and drinking too much etc................ and those in the military dont? I would say, more so IMHO. I just think there should be one rule for all if there is an age limit.

At the end of the day, a drunk 19 year old whether in the military or not is annoying.

[Bakincakes]

If they are married, legally they can have the same exception. This is regardless of if their current state accepts or acknowledges their marriage. But as of right now, RCI does not recognize civil unions under the age exception. Which I think sucks.

 

 

I think "legally" is the key word here.

 

Lots of States don't recognize gay marriage...or even gay civil unions.

[galavant3]

Im surprised there is an exemption for those in the military, in my experience they can be the most troublesome at times.

 

Very interesting! In my experience our young servicemen and women are among the most respectful and polite in that age group. I've always thought it was because the military stresses the importance of following rules.

[Lizcourt]

People were on about the younger people going rampant and drinking too much etc................ and those in the military dont? I would say, more so IMHO. I just think there should be one rule for all if there is an age limit.

At the end of the day, a drunk 19 year old whether in the military or not is annoying.

 

Hard to disagree with that last point, but here's the thing. There are LOTS of over-21's who are going to be drunk and disorderly on a cruise. After all, you don't suddenly get wisdom bestowed on you at your 21st birthday party. To paraphrase you, "at the end of the day, a drunk, whether over 21 or not is annoying." So the cruise line is -- appropriately, I agree -- playing the odds and setting a somewhat arbitrary cutoff age to try to exercise a little control over group it has decided -- again, I think appropriately -- is less likely as a group to have the maturity to exercise good judgment in that regard. It's reasonable, but its still arbitrary -- its a guess.

 

Now, you can make a heck of a case that someone who has made the adult choice to enter the military and who has voluntarily subjected themselves to military discipline, is a "better bet" for the cruise line when it comes to guessing what group of people is or is not likely to behave with the proper level of decorum. But frankly, I see it a bit more simply. We as a society give our military -- especially the grunts who, let's face it, the 18-20 year old military personnel are more likely to be -- precious little in the way of recompense for the service they offer us. Saying that we will treat them with a level of respect we don't accord an 18-20 year old who has not made that choice to serve is really not too much to ask, and is IMHO the very least we can offer them in thanks.

[MAZANDSTEVE]

Very interesting! In my experience our young servicemen and women are among the most respectful and polite in that age group. I've always thought it was because the military stresses the importance of following rules.

 

Whereas my experiences are different, we live near a port where military come into our town on time off and cause chaos. We have even taken one man to court for attacking my daughter because he was drunk. Im not saying they are all like that just like all other non military people are not.

[galavant3]

Hard to disagree with that last point, but here's the thing. There are LOTS of over-21's who are going to be drunk and disorderly on a cruise. After all, you don't suddenly get wisdom bestowed on you at your 21st birthday party. To paraphrase you, "at the end of the day, a drunk, whether over 21 or not is annoying." So the cruise line is -- appropriately, I agree -- playing the odds and setting a somewhat arbitrary cutoff age to try to exercise a little control over group it has decided -- again, I think appropriately -- is less likely as a group to have the maturity to exercise good judgment in that regard. It's reasonable, but its still arbitrary -- its a guess.

 

Now, you can make a heck of a case that someone who has made the adult choice to enter the military and who has voluntarily subjected themselves to military discipline, is a "better bet" for the cruise line when it comes to guessing what group of people is or is not likely to behave with the proper level of decorum. But frankly, I see it a bit more simply. We as a society give our military -- especially the grunts who, let's face it, the 18-20 year old military personnel are more likely to be -- precious little in the way of recompense for the service they offer us. Saying that we will treat them with a level of respect we don't accord an 18-20 year old who has not made that choice to serve is really not too much to ask, and is IMHO the very least we can offer them in thanks.

 

Well said.

 

I don't doubt that the military has it's fair share of discipline problems. I do agree that if we expect them to spend 6 months on an aircraft carrier, we should allow them one week on a cruise ship.

[MAZANDSTEVE]

Hard to disagree with that last point, but here's the thing. There are LOTS of over-21's who are going to be drunk and disorderly on a cruise. After all, you don't suddenly get wisdom bestowed on you at your 21st birthday party. To paraphrase you, "at the end of the day, a drunk, whether over 21 or not is annoying." So the cruise line is -- appropriately, I agree -- playing the odds and setting a somewhat arbitrary cutoff age to try to exercise a little control over group it has decided -- again, I think appropriately -- is less likely as a group to have the maturity to exercise good judgment in that regard. It's reasonable, but its still arbitrary -- its a guess.

 

Now, you can make a heck of a case that someone who has made the adult choice to enter the military and who has voluntarily subjected themselves to military discipline, is a "better bet" for the cruise line when it comes to guessing what group of people is or is not likely to behave with the proper level of decorum. But frankly, I see it a bit more simply. We as a society give our military -- especially the grunts who, let's face it, the 18-20 year old military personnel are more likely to be -- precious little in the way of recompense for the service they offer us. Saying that we will treat them with a level of respect we don't accord an 18-20 year old who has not made that choice to serve is really not too much to ask, and is IMHO the very least we can offer them in thanks.

 

 

Yes I understand what you are saying and I take my hat off to those in the military, its a questionable thing to just exempt military (except those who are married) I mean what about nurses? they do a fantastic job too and firemen?? why are they not exempt?

[galavant3]

Whereas my experiences are different, we live near a port where military come into our town on time off and cause chaos. We have even taken one man to court for attacking my daughter because he was drunk. Im not saying they are all like that just like all other non military people are not.

 

I am certainly not doubting your personal experience! I do hope that the man in question was the exception and not the rule. Regardless, I hope that your daughter is ok and not suffering any lasting effects.

[galavant3]

Yes I understand what you are saying and I take my hat off to those in the military, its a questionable thing to just exempt military (except those who are married) I mean what about nurses? they do a fantastic job too and firemen?? why are they not exempt?

 

I think that is a great idea. I just don't think there are many nurses or firemen in that age group.

[Lizcourt]

Yes I understand what you are saying and I take my hat off to those in the military, its a questionable thing to just exempt military (except those who are married) I mean what about nurses? they do a fantastic job too and firemen?? why are they not exempt?

 

Yup, again, hard to disagree with that point. In the end, the limitation exception is probably no less arbitrary than the rule itself, but I still think its a reasonable and appropriate exception.

[CruisinGerman]

Dear friends:

 

RCCL's rules as to age limits are a bit old fashioned and out of touch from society in the 21st century for many reasons.

 

For example, I wonder how the following situation would be treated:

 

1. Two gay men, both age 19, live in Madrid, Spain. They live together and are married. They call RCCL and book a round-trip cruise from Barcelona. They are allowed to book because they are married.

 

2. Two gay men, both age 19, live in Nairobi, Kenya. They live together in a de facto marital relationship, basically in secrecy. Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya and, technically, punishable by imprisonment. They call RCCL to book a round-trip cruise from Barcelona.

 

Are they allowed to book the cruise? (I would hope they would be allowed to book the cruise if they either showed some paper indicating they live together or at least made a declaration to that effect).

 

Looking forward to some interesting responses.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[babyher]

I think that is a great idea. I just don't think there are many nurses or firemen in that age group.

 

 

You would be surprised how many clubs and halls will not rent out for police and fire department functions anymore after several bad incidents.

 

 

Actually bartended ina place that had a large nurse and hospital worker clientele. They aren't exactly Camp Fire girls after a few rounds of shots themselves.

 

 

There are good and bad in all groups.

[galavant3]

Dear friends:

 

RCCL's rules as to age limits are a bit old fashioned and out of touch from society in the 21st century for many reasons.

 

For example, I wonder how the following situation would be treated:

 

1. Two gay men, both age 19, live in Madrid, Spain. They live together and are married. They call RCCL and book a round-trip cruise from Barcelona. They are allowed to book because they are married.

 

2. Two gay men, both age 19, live in Nairobi, Kenya. They live together in a de facto marital relationship, basically in secrecy. Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya and, technically, punishable by imprisonment. They call RCCL to book a round-trip cruise from Barcelona.

 

Are they allowed to book the cruise? (I would hope they would be allowed to book the cruise if they either showed some paper indicating they live together or at least made a declaration to that effect).

 

Looking forward to some interesting responses.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

I think the bottom line is that there has to be some sort of age policy in place. I understand why they don't want to have 19 year olds cruising by themselves. Sort of along the same lines, car insurance for men is very high. Their rates go down when they turn 25 or when they get married. Apparently, experience shows that men over 25 and men that are married as less likely to have an accident. Perhaps the decision was based on past history of cruisers in this age group.

 

Regarding couple number 2 - I don't know the answer, but perhaps if they called RCI and explained the situation, an exception could be made. It seems like exceptions to the rules are quite common.

 

Personally, I agree with their decision to have a minimum age to cruise solo.

[CruisinGerman]

Debmarie:

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the reasoning for having the age limit on the cruises.

 

I think their policy could be worded a bit differently so as to take into consideration the reality of the 21st century and thereby avoid offending certain people or denying boarding to a group of people who might not otherwise be denied boarding because of factors such as where they live.

 

I think a re-writing of their policy might be in order.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[kimberley]

Debmarie:

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the reasoning for having the age limit on the cruises.

 

I think their policy could be worded a bit differently so as to take into consideration the reality of the 21st century and thereby avoid offending certain people or denying boarding to a group of people who might not otherwise be denied boarding because of factors such as where they live.

 

I think a re-writing of their policy might be in order.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

I totally agree.

[Paul65]

Debmarie:

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the reasoning for having the age limit on the cruises.

 

I think their policy could be worded a bit differently so as to take into consideration the reality of the 21st century and thereby avoid offending certain people or denying boarding to a group of people who might not otherwise be denied boarding because of factors such as where they live.

 

I think a re-writing of their policy might be in order.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

I think they'll likely leave it the way it is. If they don't require proof of marriage, then there is no policy. Anyone could simply make the claim that they're married, and what - is RCI going to investigate each case?

 

They have the age policy to cut down on rowdy groups of teenages booking a cruise and disturbing other passengers. They have an interest in letting younger married couples book, because they don't want to be completely cut out of the honeymoon options for those young newlyweds. It's all business and not a political statement.

[CruisinGerman]

but you avoid answering the question of whether the two young men from Kenya will be allowed to board.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[twoputt.plusone]

What about those who don't partake in that type of behavior? I'm 30 now, but when I was 18-20 i can count on one hand the number of alcoholic drinks I consumed. I also had a large group of friends that did they same thing. We would rather have sat around and played Monopoly or Risk than get hammered. While that behavior may be rampant, it doesn't include everyone, but everyone gets punished for it. It's rather sad if you ask me.

 

Have you ever been on a cruise during spring break where under 21 year olds were put in cabins together without adult supervision? Well I have and believe me it wasn't fun. It was the only time we'd booked a suite and they completely ruined it for us. That rule came about for good reason.

[Paul65]

but you avoid answering the question of whether the two young men from Kenya will be allowed to board.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Oh, I thought it was clear that they wouldn't be, because RCI requires proof of marriage under that exception to the age rule. Now, it's possible that someone at RCI would waive that requirement, but if not, then they wouldn't be able to book w/o proof of marriage.

[CruisinGerman]

So if RCI requires "proof of marriage", a man and woman who live together under a "domestic partnership agreement" or other de facto marriage equivalent in the United States wouldn't be allowed to book, either, under your interpretation.

 

When I say that the wording should be modernized, since RCCL is merely trying to avoid groups of young people that book cruises for the sole purpose of drinking and being rowdy, but makes an exception for "married" young people, shouldn't that wording be changed in today's society to something like "people who are married or otherwise live together in a de facto relationship equivalent to marriage"?

 

Why are we letting the cruise lines continue with potentially discriminatory or offending practices that we would not tolerate in other circumstances?

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta