I think you're applying contemporary marriage standards to a couple from the late 70s, when the average age of marriage was significantly younger and societal expectations and the economic situation were much different. You acknowledged that adulthood comes with certain experiences, I believe, and children in the 1960s and 1970s often gained those experiences and responsibilities at an earlier age than children born in the 1990s and 2000s. They were often able to secure stable employment and housing at earlier ages. Further, where the Potters are concerned, they live in a society which doesn't have a university to delay entry into the job market, and therefore there isn't a mechanism to put off the independence of adulthood the way many do today.
Every time you use that argument, I feel obliged to remind you that in the 1970s it was legal to beat women within marriage and to put gay people in prison for being gay. Does that mean that, because it was “normal” by the standards of the time, it was right? Child labour was normalised at one point, did that stop it from being child labour and turn it into something acceptable? Is slavery beyond criticism simply because, in its time and context, it was normalised?
Please, if you’re going to try to rebut this, at least look for solid arguments. Your replies are always incredibly easy to dismantle.
