Marriage

[Sahkuhnder]

I don't understand your argument.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, you wish to change it, saying it can be between two adults. Is it completely CRAZY to even suggest to take it one step further and say that children can be permitted too? Isn't that what you're doing, trying to change laws?

Yes, it is legal to discriminate because of age. Ever read a contract? Age minimum is 18 for almost all of them (among other restrictions like 'sound mind').

Discussions about adults is valid. The law prohibits children from entering into contracts because they are too young to understand and would be victimized.

Sorry, that's not crazy. It's common sense and it's the law.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes, it is legal to discriminate because of age. Ever read a contract? Age minimum is 18 for almost all of them (among other restrictions like 'sound mind').

Discussions about adults is valid. The law prohibits children from entering into contracts because they are too young to understand and would be victimized.

Sorry, that's not crazy. It's common sense and it's the law.

Sorry to butt in but different states have different minimum ages to marry .

 

[garric]

Yes it is crazy to suggest that because children cannot give cosent in a proper manner but two adults can!

But who are you to judge?

You're using the same argument that I'm using to oppose gay marriage, yet you can not comprehend my train of thought. I'm trying to help you understand.

This issue can't be dismissed like that. Who are we to judge, who is anyone to judge? How can someone say "This is a good alternative", yet use the opposition's argument against another one?

I think this issue is too politically motivated.

 

[The Yankee]

Supposedly, a homosexual can't "physically" love a woman (aka, sex her up). However, could he not bond with her on an emotional level? Or is sex all that matters, now? Can't have sex with her, can't love her?

And two men could not have that emotional level?

What happened to the procreation argument?

 

[Stylesjl]

Sorry to butt in but different states have different minimum ages to marry .

Theres no civilised area that allows prepubescent children to have sex or marry

Edit: Removed question mark

 

[Zarn]

You basically just said that heterosexual adults are more capable of making decisions than homosexual adults. Do you even have any evidence on that?

You are grasping at straws here. There is no need to be defensive, either.

 

[garric]

And two men could not have that emotional level?

What happened to the procreation argument?

However, this whole argument is based on sex now, and money of course.

 

[Stylesjl]

But who are you to judge?

You're using the same argument that I'm using to oppose gay marriage, yet you can not comprehend my train of thought. I'm trying to help you understand.

This issue can't be dismissed like that. Who are we to judge, who is anyone to judge? How can someone say "This is a good alternative", yet use the opposition's argument against another one?

I think this issue is too politically motivated.

Okay here we go you wanna play bad arguments? I'll play

Hetrosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry of have sex because they cannot consent

Ooooo beat that one

 

[The Yankee]

However, this whole argument is based on sex now, and money of course.

Sex has absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Just ask a married man.

And what do we do about the gold digging marriages?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Sorry to butt in but different states have different minimum ages to marry .

Your not butting in, you're of course always welcome to join in the discussion.

Marriage is one of the few contracts that the 18 year age minimum is waived. When we talk about starting to allow 'children' to marry for the sake of this discussion I'll assume we mean actual children too young to currently get married anywhere, in other words pedophilia.

 

[GenMarshall]

Theres no civilised area that allows prepubescent children to have sex or marry

Edit: Removed question mark

Here is the listing of marriage age laws in the US:
US Marrage Laws

The youngest I have seen in that document is 14 as a minumum w/ a court order in South Carolina .

 

[Stylesjl]

However, this whole argument is based on sex now, and money of course.

Its based on getting the same rights as hetreos. Either remove hetero rights to marriage or grant it to homos too and then the complaining will stop

 

[Stylesjl]

Here is the listing of marriage age laws in the US:
US Marrage Laws

The youngest I have seen in that document is 14 as a minumum w/ a court order in South Carolina .

14... ouch

Even then though thats usually beyond the prepubescent stage. When i was reffering to children i was really meaning something along the lines of five year olds who defeinetely cannot consent to sex or marriage

 

[Left]

But who are you to judge?

You don't seen to have a problem with judging homosexuals.

 

[garric]

You don't seen to have a problem with judging homosexuals.

I was being sarcastic. Many liberals say this to me, implying that humans shouldn't judge other people's choices. However, it seems many wish to judge against pedophiles, so that's why I don't understand it.

 

[croxis]

Because pedophilia is NOT in the same psychological category as hetero or homosexuality. Pedophilia is rooted in a power dynamic. The other too (generally are not). Pedophilia also induses psychological harm tot he child and will continue the cycle of abuse into the next generation. Sans rape and domestic abuse, hetero and homosexuality do not do these things.

Two unlike things are being compared like they are similar, and this is bad logic so the argument can now be thrown out.

 

[MobBoss]

Its based on getting the same rights as hetreos. Either remove hetero rights to marriage or grant it to homos too and then the complaining will stop

No one has a "right" to be married. And people will complain regardless of what you do, either way.

That being the case, lets deal with it the way the majority wants. If a majority in a country wants homosexual marriage, fine, more power to you, but if not, fine, more power to you as well.

If it truly means that much to you, move to one of the four countries that allow it. End of discussion.

 

[blargh]

No one has a "right" to be married. And people will complain regardless of what you do, either way.

That being the case, lets deal with it the way the majority wants. If a majority in a country wants homosexual marriage, fine, more power to you, but if not, fine, more power to you as well.

If it truly means that much to you, move to one of the four countries that allow it. End of discussion.

...if anyone sees just reason why these two individuals should not be married, state your objections now or forever hold your peace.

Oh wait! Let's have an election with the question on the ballot. That'll be swell for voter turnout. It got someone a second term who got his first term through a court case.


Screw the courts and the constitution anyhoo. Let's rewrite it! Hell it's not such a big deal since there are like 19 or so states which allow termination of employees based on sexual orientation and it's not like they can join the military. Don't have to worry about a coup or something.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Truronian]

Get rid of marriage as a legal institution. No one is married legally. Offer civil unions to every couple. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious institution and carries no legal weight outside of religion.

This seems like a good idea. Marriage will remain 'sacred' but completely unimportant if you are ireligious, just as it should in a secular state.

That being the case, lets deal with it the way the majority wants. If a majority in a country wants homosexual marriage, fine, more power to you, but if not, fine, more power to you as well.

Tyranny of the mob then?

How many homosexuals would vote against gay marriage, I wonder.

Hetrosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry or have sex because they cannot consent

And of course, such a relationship is based solely on lust.

 

[MobBoss]

Oh wait! Let's have an election with the question on the ballot. That'll be swell for voter turnout. It got someone a second term who got his first term through a court case.

Do you not think the individual states have a right to have such a measure on their ballots? And he won the court case, along with the election...seems he won all the recounts as well as I recall...but lets not let facts stand in the way of good old paranoia.

Tyranny of the mob then?

As if Tyranny of the minority is any better. I suppose we should legalize drugs too since a tiny minority wants it. As long as politicians get elected by majorities, then keeping the majority happy is the goal.