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

[Paul65]

Because a cruise line doesn't want to be in the business of determining was is a "de facto relationship equivalent to marriage." So, either they make it marriage or they eliminate the exception altogether.

 

I don't have a big problem with it, but then I'm not the type to look for reasons to cry discrimination. I doubt the exception would be there at all, if honeymoon trips following a wedding were not such a lucrative segment for the travel industry.

[galavant3]

 

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

 

Perhaps they are making exceptions and just not advertising it. I, personally, would prefer that they did not change to wording to include everyone over the age of 18. Especially since I am going on a spring break cruise next month :)

[CruisinGerman]

My hunch is that when it comes to an actual booking, the cruise line does not interpret "marriage" as it would be interpreted in times gone by, but rather does take into account the legal equivalents prevalent in society today.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[sparks1093]

My hunch is that when it comes to an actual booking, the cruise line does not interpret "marriage" as it would be interpreted in times gone by, but rather does take into account the legal equivalents prevalent in society today.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Any couple that can't provide the appropriate documentation shouldn't be allowed to book, regardless of their orientation. (Your Kenyan example is intriguing for if they are living together illegally how can they possibly be in a de facto marriage.)

[CruisinGerman]

Here in Spain, legal forms of marriage or marriage equivalent are:

 

marriage certificate (heterosexual or homosexual);

registration as a domestic partner (city hall in each city or town);

certificate of "living together in an affective relationship" (city hall in each city or town)

 

Spanish law specifically forbids a private company from not accepting any of the above as the equivalent of marriage. So a young heterosexual or homosexual couple that lives in Spain and books their cruise in Spain presents any of the above and gets to go on the cruise.

 

But now let's transfer the above analogy to the United States. If a young couple books a cruise in the United States and presents a "certificate of living together in an affective relationship" (whatever that certificate might be in the United States), does RCCL United States accept that as proof of marriage?

 

And the Kenyan couple cannot probably present any legal certificate, but rather would have to make their own declaration that they live together.

 

That is why I believe the language of the rules should be modernized, with the aim of still maintaining the spirit and purpose of the rule. Marriage is interpreted one way in Spain, another way in each state of the United States, another way in countries like Kenya, so the rule should be written in such a way so as to accept what is widely considered as marriage in the 21st century on a general basis, so as to avoid potential discrimination.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[wcook]

Random comments:

1) If RCI wants to give a small break to servicemen/women, I'm fine with that

2) Just a hunch, but the number of 18-20 year old gay couples who (a) have received whatever form of legal recognition their jurisdiction allows and (b) want to go on a mainstream cruise, is probably really, really small.

3) Again just a hunch, but if a gay couple 18-20 were to approach RCI with a recognition of civil union and ask to be allowed to book, RCI will find a way to make it happen.

[wcook]

That is why I believe the language of the rules should be modernized, with the aim of still maintaining the spirit and purpose of the rule.

We we start to hear of cases where non-traditionally-married gay couples are being turned down by RCI, we can worry about the language.

 

Until then, how about we allow RCI to keep the current language instead of coming of with some tortured langague to cover every possible situation?

[akcruz]

Random comments:

 

1) If RCI wants to give a small break to servicemen/women, I'm fine with that

 

2) Just a hunch, but the number of 18-20 year old gay couples who (a) have received whatever form of legal recognition their jurisdiction allows and (b) want to go on a mainstream cruise, is probably really, really small.

 

3) Again just a hunch, but if a gay couple 18-20 were to approach RCI with a recognition of civil union and ask to be allowed to book, RCI will find a way to make it happen.

 

I agree, if we were not talking about a specific age group here I can see how a policy change may be warranted. But considering we are talking about the group of individuals in the 18 - 20 year old range I think the number of people adversely impacted is extremely small.

 

Change the wording for that age range and lots of issues will spring up. Those college kids will find a way to get around it. And yes, I do have a college age child myself. While she is not one to bend the rules or go on such a trip as the cruise lines are trying to avoid, I am familiar with a lot of others her age that would!

[CruisinGerman]

But I think the rule could be worded a little differently for the 21st century.

 

Just a few words need to be changed to modernize the policy.

 

"proof of marriage, of a relationship equated to marriage as recognized in the home jurisdiction of the passenger, or of living together in an affective relationship"

 

A change similar to the above would include who it's really meant to include and exclude the young groups of friends who book cruises to get drunk and be rowdy.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[sparks1093]

Here in Spain, legal forms of marriage or marriage equivalent are:

 

marriage certificate (heterosexual or homosexual);

registration as a domestic partner (city hall in each city or town);

certificate of "living together in an affective relationship" (city hall in each city or town)

 

Spanish law specifically forbids a private company from not accepting any of the above as the equivalent of marriage. So a young heterosexual or homosexual couple that lives in Spain and books their cruise in Spain presents any of the above and gets to go on the cruise.

 

But now let's transfer the above analogy to the United States. If a young couple books a cruise in the United States and presents a "certificate of living together in an affective relationship" (whatever that certificate might be in the United States), does RCCL United States accept that as proof of marriage?

 

And the Kenyan couple cannot probably present any legal certificate, but rather would have to make their own declaration that they live together.

 

That is why I believe the language of the rules should be modernized, with the aim of still maintaining the spirit and purpose of the rule. Marriage is interpreted one way in Spain, another way in each state of the United States, another way in countries like Kenya, so the rule should be written in such a way so as to accept what is widely considered as marriage in the 21st century on a general basis, so as to avoid potential discrimination.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

That's the rub, the couple from Spain has paperwork signifying their status, the Kenyan couple does not. There some jurisdictions here in the States that recognize common law marriage and there must be some procedure whereby that may be documented, but it would still be documented. We aren't talking about being denied an essential need, we are talking about a cruise. The cruiseline has a rule that says those under a certain age may not book a cruise unless certain conditions are met. This is about age, not orientation.

[CruisinGerman]

But rather it's about people within that age group, who are basically subject to the same circumstance of "marriage", having certain paperwork in one jurisdiction, other paperwork in another jurisdiction, and perhaps no paperwork in a third jurisdiction.

 

But since they are all universally part of the same "circumstance", the paperwork or lack thereof, because of the way something happens to be worded by the cruise line, should not prevent them from booking.

 

That's all I am advocating. Universal treatment of what can be considered the same "circumstance" in the 21st century.

 

I think I've made my point -- so maybe it's time for me to move on to something far more important like discussing whether or not to wear a tie in the MDR on formal night.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

[negc]

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.

 

How is that any different from so many other situations where the actions of a minority adversely affect everyone in a group? It may be sad and it may not be totally fair, but it is what it is. Cruise lines aren't the only ones who have imposed age restrictions. Please remember that when anyone proposes sanctions on an entire category of people, be they teens, senior citizens etc. based solely on the actions of a few.

[barbiecruiser]

I am booked for the MOnarch in March my room has a 21, 18,18,19 year olds.

[barbiecruiser]

Straight from RCL site:

 

 

 

Q: What is Royal Caribbean International's Age Policy?

 

A: No Guest younger than the age twenty-one (21) will be assigned to a stateroom unless accompanied in the same stateroom by an adult twenty-one (21) years old or older. A guest's age is established upon the first date of sailing.

[MAZANDSTEVE]

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

 

 

You can start your training at 18 in the UK.:)

[sparks1093]

But rather it's about people within that age group, who are basically subject to the same circumstance of "marriage", having certain paperwork in one jurisdiction, other paperwork in another jurisdiction, and perhaps no paperwork in a third jurisdiction.

 

But since they are all universally part of the same "circumstance", the paperwork or lack thereof, because of the way something happens to be worded by the cruise line, should not prevent them from booking.

 

That's all I am advocating. Universal treatment of what can be considered the same "circumstance" in the 21st century.

 

I think I've made my point -- so maybe it's time for me to move on to something far more important like discussing whether or not to wear a tie in the MDR on formal night.

 

Kind regards,

 

Gunther and Uta

 

Overall I agree with what you are saying, it's the third jurisdiction that is the issue. Are the cruise lines supposed to allow couples to self-declare without documentation? Seems like they would be opening the floodgates if they did that. I apologize if I stepped on your toes, it wasn't my intent to do that:o.

[babyher]

Years ago when the younger generation was calling marriage outdated and advocating "living together". They always used the "It's an outdated ceremony and it's only a piece of paper."

 

Well when certain circumstances arise . That piece of paper is more important that the Constitution, The Gettysburg Address, and the Magna Carta.

 

You can self proclaim you and your significany other any title or status you want , but get it in writing and get whatever official or legal documentation you need.

 

The hell with getting on a cruise. Your very life, health and financial well being may depend on it one day.

 

A cruise line is not out to change every city, state and countries outlook on "What is a marriage" . They are looking out to save themselves the possible trouble of a ship full of out of control unsupervised young people.

 

You want to sail , have the documentation

[galavant3]

You can start your training at 18 in the UK.:)

 

I think if exceptions are made for other professions they should require that the passengers have actually completed training.

 

I don't think there are many nurses or firefighters in the US between the ages of 18-20. However, I would not have a problem if they extended the benefit to those professionals from other countries. I can't imagine that the numbers would be significant.

 

Bottom line, no one has asked me for my opinion yet and I am not anticipating that they will any time soon :)

[MAZANDSTEVE]

I think if exceptions are made for other professions they should require that the passengers have actually completed training.

 

I don't think there are many nurses or firefighters in the US between the ages of 18-20. However, I would not have a problem if they extended the benefit to those professionals from other countries. I can't imagine that the numbers would be significant.

 

Bottom line, no one has asked me for my opinion yet and I am not anticipating that they will any time soon :)

 

 

I think all the nurses and firefighters are about 18-20 here............. well thats how young they look to me, LOL.:D

[galavant3]

I think all the nurses and firefighters are about 18-20 here............. well thats how young they look to me, LOL.:D

 

Tell me about. And looking younger every day.

[sustyse]

Sue L, hope you can help me here with information. My husband and I are cruising with RCI in August. Two of our daughters, aged 18 and 20, have now said they would like to go on the cruise also. We have a JS on deck 10, and I know that there is an interior cabin available on the same deck. Our cabin no. is 1040 and their cabind no. would be 1007. Do you think that we will be able to book the cabin in one of their names given that their cabin would be quite near ours?

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help.

[yj2cute]

Sue L, hope you can help me here with information. My husband and I are cruising with RCI in August. Two of our daughters, aged 18 and 20, have now said they would like to go on the cruise also. We have a JS on deck 10, and I know that there is an interior cabin available on the same deck. Our cabin no. is 1040 and their cabind no. would be 1007. Do you think that we will be able to book the cabin in one of their names given that their cabin would be quite near ours?

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help.

 

I'm not sure that that cabin is close enough. The cruise line wants the cabin to be next door or "adjacent". One option of to put one parent's name with one child on each booking. Then you'll have to do the key swap thing onboard.

[sustyse]

I'm not sure that that cabin is close enough. The cruise line wants the cabin to be next door or "adjacent". One option of to put one parent's name with one child on each booking. Then you'll have to do the key swap thing onboard.

 

That's our only other option really. But then it means one of us loses extra cruise credits for the JS and one of the daughter's gets them instead!

[yj2cute]

That's our only other option really. But then it means one of us loses extra cruise credits for the JS and one of the daughter's gets them instead!

 

A spouse has the same staus as the other, so he wont really lose anything.

[sustyse]

A spouse has the same staus as the other, so he wont really lose anything.

 

Wasn't aware of that. Feel much better now! Thanks a lot.:)