If we have GAY Marriage will Under age Marriage be next?

[toeknee]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

[Mobulis]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

Your right it is normal but you don't have to accept it just don't interfere with it.

[BrittleBullet]

The natural order of progression is gay marriage, incest, and then polygamy.
After that its a tossup between who will be able to marry first; a 50 year old marrying a 5 year old or man marrying horse.

[traditional_woman]

I'm a part of several message boards, and have come across just about every topic known to man. You'd be suprised how many people already think that it's perfectly fine for ADULTS to sleep with teens and preteens. It doesn't matter if the ADULT is 21, or 51, and the child is 11-17. It's perfectly fine b/c it was ''the norm'', 60 yrs ago. One train at a time.

[shaveking]

I'm a part of several message boards, and have come across just about every topic known to man. You'd be suprised how many people already think that it's perfectly fine for ADULTS to sleep with teens and preteens. It doesn't matter if the ADULT is 21, or 51, and the child is 11-17. It's perfectly fine b/c it was ''the norm'', 60 yrs ago. One train at a time.Well, in actuality the "right" age depends on a variety of societal factors which vary from person to person and region to region and time period to time period. In modern society it's decided that a person should be 16+ (in general) for a person to adequately deal with the effects, but in actuality it may be many years older or a few years younger. We just follow a general rule to be safe.

Anyway, the point is that each case has real points to argue without resorting to slippery slope and naturalistic fallacies.

[traditional_woman]

Well, in actuality the "right" age depends on a variety of societal factors which vary from person to person and region to region and time period to time period. In modern society it's decided that a person should be 16+ (in general) for a person to adequately deal with the effects, but in actuality it may be many years older or a few years younger. We just follow a general rule to be safe.

Anyway, the point is that each case has real points to argue without resorting to slippery slope and naturalistic fallacies.

Yea, but when you have grown men stating the reasons why they are more compatible with ''kids'', it's quite disturbing;

''They are more fun''

''They are less demanding''

''Their bodies are more beautiful b/c they haven't had any kids''

''They are less career oriented''

''They are less argumentative''

To me, that just screams of someone who wants to control, dominate, and manipulate.

[shaveking]

Yea, but when you have grown men stating the reasons why they are more compatible with ''kids'', it's quite disturbingI'm well aware, fortunately most functioning societies don't base their laws on these kinds of selfish arguments.

[badkarma]

The natural order of progression is gay marriage, incest, and then polygamy.
After that its a tossup between who will be able to marry first; a 50 year old marrying a 5 year old or man marrying horse.
And then after that it will probably be Fauna! These sick and twisted Chlorophiles wanting to make icky icky love with there hibiscus! And probably just little baby seedling ones at that! What kind of world do we live in where a mans very hedge or his wife's window boxes are not even safe from these perverts?!?

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and EVErgreen!

[Buffalo]

Yea, but when you have grown men stating the reasons why they are more compatible with ''kids'', it's quite disturbing;

''They are more fun''

''They are less demanding''

''Their bodies are more beautiful b/c they haven't had any kids''

''They are less career oriented''

''They are less argumentative''

To me, that just screams of someone who wants to control, dominate, and manipulate.
It's disturbing because they are mentally ill. A rapist could give justification for why he prefers forced violent sex and that wouldn't make his position any more moral or legal. Gay marriage would be a government recognized contractual relationship between two consenting adults. Plain and simple. And it seems quite bad form to equate any crime or mental illness with a legal contract.

[ThrowCop]

Are there still people who do not have the brain power to understand that a child cannot sign a ****ing contract?

Neither can a dog

or a sheep

or a fern


Every time someone plays this slippery slope BS argument they make themselves look like drooling, backwoods fools.

[USAF Medic]

Are there still people who do not have the brain power to understand that a child cannot sign a ****ing contract?

Neither can a dog

or a sheep

or a fern


Every time someone plays this slippery slope BS argument they make themselves look like drooling, backwoods fools.

These things/items would all fall under property right now so seems a person should legally be able to do with them as they see fit. Contract or no people will eventually want the right to legitimize their "relationship" with them.
Be intersting to see in 50 years or so whether or not your opinion on this will be seen as that of a drooling, backward fool.

[Mimiheart]

When I got married eight years ago in AZ, I remember reading the laws here. A 13 y.o. could get married with parents' and court permission. That law has been changed since then to sixteen, but still.

In the meantime, why don't people understand the difference between consenting adults and manipulation and abuse of children? Is this really that difficult to understand? Whenever I see this question I always worry about the person posing it. Do they ever have conversations with adults and with children? How can you honestly compare the two? Even a conversation with a 17-year-old is very different from a conversation with a 25-year-old.

[Buffalo]

When I got married eight years ago in AZ, I remember reading the laws here. A 13 y.o. could get married with parents' and court permission. That law has been changed since then to sixteen, but still.

In the meantime, why don't people understand the difference between consenting adults and manipulation and abuse of children? Is this really that difficult to understand? Whenever I see this question I always worry about the person posing it. Do they ever have conversations with adults and with children? How can you honestly compare the two? Even a conversation with a 17-year-old is very different from a conversation with a 25-year-old.
Just a quick quip on this. To me it's like making the argument that if alcohol is legal for adults to partake in, it will ultimately be made legal for anyone to partake in.
So...... Alcohol has been legal to partake in for how many years, are the kids allowed to drink legally yet?

[BrittleBullet]

And then after that it will probably be Fauna! These sick and twisted Chlorophiles wanting to make icky icky love with there hibiscus! And probably just little baby seedling ones at that! What kind of world do we live in where a mans very hedge or his wife's window boxes are not even safe from these perverts?!?

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and EVErgreen!

:))

[BrittleBullet]

And then after that it will probably be Fauna! These sick and twisted Chlorophiles wanting to make icky icky love with there hibiscus! And probably just little baby seedling ones at that! What kind of world do we live in where a mans very hedge or his wife's window boxes are not even safe from these perverts?!?

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and EVErgreen!

I always thought that after animals, lamps or some other piece of furniture would come next. But plants does make more sense.
After that it would be people marrying characters from literature!

[ThrowCop]

These things/items would all fall under property right now so seems a person should legally be able to do with them as they see fit. Contract or no people will eventually want the right to legitimize their "relationship" with them.
Be intersting to see in 50 years or so whether or not your opinion on this will be seen as that of a drooling, backward fool.How many times does it take for people to understand that marriage is a CONTRACT between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS before it seeps into their gooey little melons?

[ThrowCop]

I always thought that after animals, lamps or some other piece of furniture would come next. But plants does make more sense.
After that it would be people marrying characters from literature!http://funnymovieshirts.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anchorman-funny-shirt-i-love-lamp-300x240.gif

[Dr. Funkenstein]

These things/items would all fall under property right now so seems a person should legally be able to do with them as they see fit. Contract or no people will eventually want the right to legitimize their "relationship" with them.
Be intersting to see in 50 years or so whether or not your opinion on this will be seen as that of a drooling, backward fool.

You're still not allowed to abuse animals. I guess if a person wanted to say they married their dog, it'd be within their rights. However, if they had sex with the dog, that would fall under animal cruelty...because Sparky can't consent.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

And then after that it will probably be Fauna! These sick and twisted Chlorophiles wanting to make icky icky love with there hibiscus! And probably just little baby seedling ones at that! What kind of world do we live in where a mans very hedge or his wife's window boxes are not even safe from these perverts?!?

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and EVErgreen!

:)) :))

That's going to stop when a man tries to marry his venus flytrap or cactus.

Honeymoon would be a bitch!

[Old_Mil]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

Polygamy will be next; they get around the underage question by pushing age of consent laws that drop the age down to 13 or 14.

[Buffalo]

Polygamy will be next; they get around the underage question by pushing age of consent laws that drop the age down to 13 or 14.
Who is they? I see no effort to push age of consent lower. And please don't bring up NAMBLA.

[Buffalo]

I always thought that after animals, lamps or some other piece of furniture would come next. But plants does make more sense.
After that it would be people marrying characters from literature!
Then we would have to allow polygamy, cause I figure at least a thousand forum members would want to marry John Galt.

[johnrocks]

Are there still people who do not have the brain power to understand that a child cannot sign a ****ing contract?

Neither can a dog

or a sheep

or a fern


Every time someone plays this slippery slope BS argument they make themselves look like drooling, backwoods fools.

:lol:+infinity and beyond. I wonder how many would have sex with a goat if it was legal:think: or how many do now in spite of the law:eek:

[johnrocks]

I always thought that after animals, lamps or some other piece of furniture would come next. But plants does make more sense.
After that it would be people marrying characters from literature!

Call me a plantist but don't mess with the poison ivy.:hand:

[Marleysdaddy]

Then we would have to allow polygamy, cause I figure at least a thousand forum members would want to marry John Galt.

:))

[BrittleBullet]

Then we would have to allow polygamy, cause I figure at least a thousand forum members would want to marry John Galt.

Polygamy would be legalized right after gay marriage, so it'd be kosher.

[BrittleBullet]

Call me a plantist but don't mess with the poison ivy.:hand:

Bad experience?
;)

[JimGP20]

How many times does it take for people to understand that marriage is a CONTRACT between CONSENTING ADULT HUMANS before it seeps into their gooey little melons?


Yes... a better example would be for blood brothers and sisters who are of legal age wanting to get married to each other.

[badkarma]

I always thought that after animals, lamps or some other piece of furniture would come next. But plants does make more sense.
After that it would be people marrying characters from literature!
And I introduce you to the Final fantasy House!
http://www.demon-sushi.com/warning/index2.html

Not literature but Video games. One of those women went on to California, where she "married" a character from a mid 90's play station game called Suikoden. She rented an apartment and went on to invite people (I use that word loosely), otherkin and otaku who also believed they were married to (or reincarnations of) video game characters to stay with her.

[Marleysdaddy]

Yes... a better example would be for blood brothers and sisters who are of legal age wanting to get married to each other.

and if we could find a way to prevent or remedy the genetic bottleneck problems potentially involved with that relationship, I might be okay with such a relationship

[mdk190]

Has Massachusetts allowed under age marriage in their state since they have allowed gays to marry? Once again nothing more then hyperbole and fear from the right.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

then we would have to allow polygamy, cause i figure at least a thousand forum members would want to marry john galt.

:)) :)) :))

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Yes... a better example would be for blood brothers and sisters who are of legal age wanting to get married to each other.

If they signed a contract promising to not bear children (borne of each other, obviously...if she gets a donation from an outside source, all good), I don't have a problem with it.

Even if the percentage of birth defects is low...it's not worth allowing that risk.

[Marleysdaddy]

I'm actually very upset with myself that I initially missed the opportunity to make this jokeThen we would have to allow polygamy, cause I figure at least a thousand forum members would want to marry John Galt.

Who is John Galt?

[ThrowCop]

Yes... a better example would be for blood brothers and sisters who are of legal age wanting to get married to each other.And?

[Buffalo]

i'm actually very upset with myself that i initially missed the opportunity to make this joke

who is john galt?
:d

[Buffalo]

:d
for some reason the smileys aren't working today. Anyone have a clue?

[BrittleBullet]

And I introduce you to the Final fantasy House!
http://www.demon-sushi.com/warning/index2.html

Not literature but Video games. One of those women went on to California, where she "married" a character from a mid 90's play station game called Suikoden. She rented an apartment and went on to invite people (I use that word loosely), otherkin and otaku who also believed they were married to (or reincarnations of) video game characters to stay with her.

Well, otakus sometimes do take that stuff a little far...
But if gay marriage is legalized, it'll eventually become the norm!

[birddog1]

for some reason the smileys aren't working today. Anyone have a clue?

They have all taken the day off to get gay married. I guess that is the slippery slope that people were talking about.

[Marleysdaddy]

for some reason the smileys aren't working today. Anyone have a clue?

hmmm...I did notice a few days ago that when I typed 'colon capital D' for a smiley, it worked, but whenever someone else quoted that post, it automatically changed to a lowercase d, which is not a smiley

Testing :D


ETA -

Apparently, Buffalo, it's a personal problem :razz:

[JimGP20]

And?


And what? You said that the other examples weren't valid because children and animals could not sign a contract. I gave an example where two adults can sign one. I thought it was pretty straightforward.

[Buffalo]

They have all taken the day off to get gay married. I guess that is the slippery slope that people were talking about.
Too funny.

[Buffalo]

hmmm...I did notice a few days ago that when I typed 'colon capital D' for a smiley, it worked, but whenever someone else quoted that post, it automatically changed to a lowercase d, which is not a smiley

Testing :D


ETA -

Apparently, Buffalo, it's a personal problem :razz:
I guess I'll just add it to the list.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

for some reason the smileys aren't working today. Anyone have a clue?

If the only letters in your post are capitalized, the system automatically makes them lowercase.

Ostensibly, it's to prevent posts from looking like...

I'M YELLING AT ALL OF YOU BECAUSE WHAT I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU THINK!!!!!

but the smilies do get unintended consequences.

I just use :) for it anyway.

[Marleysdaddy]

If the only letters in your post are capitalized, the system automatically makes them lowercase.

Ostensibly, it's to prevent posts from looking like...

I'M YELLING AT ALL OF YOU BECAUSE WHAT I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU THINK!!!!!

but the smilies do get unintended consequences.

I just use :) for it anyway.

Aha!...now I know why the capital D was changed to lowercase when my post was quoted a few days ago. Thanks!

[pdmike]

Where will it stop?

What business is it of yours?

[pdmike]

The natural order of progression is gay marriage, incest, and then polygamy.
After that its a tossup between who will be able to marry first; a 50 year old marrying a 5 year old or man marrying horse.

Well, we got trouble my friends . . . I say TROUBLE - right here in RIVER CITY!!!!

[Buffalo]

If the only letters in your post are capitalized, the system automatically makes them lowercase.

Ostensibly, it's to prevent posts from looking like...

I'M YELLING AT ALL OF YOU BECAUSE WHAT I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU THINK!!!!!

but the smilies do get unintended consequences.

I just use :) for it anyway.
Thank you.
edited cause I'm not sure the first would fly

[Pudge]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

It is illegal in every state for a 5 year old to sign a contract, which is what a marriage license is.

However, it is currently legal in many states for minors as young as 14 to marry legal adults so long as their parents consent. Even Ted Nugent, Mr. Conservative Hunter himself, got custody of a 17 year old teenage girl so he could marry her.

So, please, kindly know what the hell you're talking about before you crank up the hyperbole machine.

[Pudge]

Yea, but when you have grown men stating the reasons why they are more compatible with ''kids'', it's quite disturbing;

''They are more fun''

''They are less demanding''

''Their bodies are more beautiful b/c they haven't had any kids''

''They are less career oriented''

''They are less argumentative''

To me, that just screams of someone who wants to control, dominate, and manipulate.

My favorite is that "they can be bribed with treats and video games".

Oh, Uncle Paul...

[Pudge]

And then after that it will probably be Fauna! These sick and twisted Chlorophiles wanting to make icky icky love with there hibiscus! And probably just little baby seedling ones at that! What kind of world do we live in where a mans very hedge or his wife's window boxes are not even safe from these perverts?!?

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and EVErgreen!

"My, what sexy Azaleas you have growing there, mind if I sniff one of them?"

"Why thank you, sure, go ahea- wait, HEY! PUT YOUR PANTS BACK ON!"

Edited to add... though I feel sorry for anyone copulating with my rosebush.

[Pudge]

Polygamy will be next; they get around the underage question by pushing age of consent laws that drop the age down to 13 or 14.

Sure, because that will be something that just sneaks under the radar.

Age of consent laws have been changed in the past from a fixed age to a graduated scale, so that an 18 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend isn't considered a statutory rapist. The laws now allow anywhere between 2 and 4 years grace period depending on the ages of the couple. If you're 16 your partner must be 14 or older. If you're 18 they have to be 16, and so on. Not many states still have the blanket age of consent, so lowering it would require a lot of legislative reworking that would be made public. Any legislator who proposes to drop the age of consent to 13 would be voted out. It's political suicide. He'd have a better chance of staying in office if he proposed a law that mandated the kicking of puppies.

[Pudge]

Yes... a better example would be for blood brothers and sisters who are of legal age wanting to get married to each other.

It would still be a very unlikely scenario, though. There just aren't a lot of close blood relatives out there who wish to be married, and as long as there is no risk for creating a child with birth defects, as creepy as it sounds to me, it's really none of my business if they choose to have a sexual relationship and commit themselves to each other.

[traditional_woman]

It's disturbing because they are mentally ill. A rapist could give justification for why he prefers forced violent sex and that wouldn't make his position any more moral or legal. Gay marriage would be a government recognized contractual relationship between two consenting adults. Plain and simple. And it seems quite bad form to equate any crime or mental illness with a legal contract.

Uhh, I was commenting on the 'what's next' question, and since he brought up kids and sex, I commented on it. Geez everybody's so quick to defend gays when nobody is even bashing, or in this case, 'comparing' them.

[Buffalo]

Uhh, I was commenting on the 'what's next' question, and since he brought up kids and sex, I commented on it. Geez everybody's so quick to defend gays when nobody is even bashing, or in this case, 'comparing' them.
understand and I apologize for implying that you were equating gay marriage to pedophilia.

[traditional_woman]

understand and I apologize for implying that you were equating gay marriage to pedophilia.


No worries. Thanks for apologizing. That's sexeh in a man:angel:

[JimGP20]

It would still be a very unlikely scenario, though. There just aren't a lot of close blood relatives out there who wish to be married, and as long as there is no risk for creating a child with birth defects, as creepy as it sounds to me, it's really none of my business if they choose to have a sexual relationship and commit themselves to each other.


The number of people wishing to do this is irrelevant. Fair is fair, right? If even one brother and sister wants to get married to each other, than they should be able to do just that. At least the "logic" of the left says so.

[Marleysdaddy]

Fair is fair, right? If even one brother and sister wants to get married to each other, than they should be able to do just that.

And I think Pudge made that clear when he typed
it's really none of my business if they choose to have a sexual relationship and commit themselves to each other.

[ThrowCop]

And what? You said that the other examples weren't valid because children and animals could not sign a contract. I gave an example where two adults can sign one. I thought it was pretty straightforward.It was straightforward and it was also an absurd example, IMO.

[captusa]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

In some states a man can marry at 14 and a girl at 13 (with parent permission) and one state any age with parental or judges permission.
At the moment nothing prevents a state from raising or lowering any age requirements.
Check:
This information was as of 1999.
The states with the lowest minimum age requirements have changed them according to a 2003 dated internet cite.

[JimGP20]

It was straightforward and it was also an absurd example, IMO.


The whole subject is absurd. I was just trying to fit in.

[ChloeP]

Ok...well, if the literary figures thing comes true I've got dibs on James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie Fraser (also known as Jamie) got it?!?

[Buffalo]

No worries. Thanks for apologizing. That's sexeh in a man:angel:
;) not afraid to admit when I'm wrong. What the heck am I doing on this forum? :))

[King Cantona]

The natural order of progression is gay marriage, incest, and then polygamy.
After that its a tossup between who will be able to marry first; a 50 year old marrying a 5 year old or man marrying horse.

You righties often outdo yourselves as far as your view of 'natural progression' is concerned, this post is just pure idiocy and I don't even know why I bothered to respond............Just bored I guess......:rolleyes:.......

[Buffalo]

You righties often outdo yourselves as far as your view of 'natural progression' is concerned, this post is just pure idiocy and I don't even know why I bothered to respond............Just bored I guess......:rolleyes:.......
Sarcasm.

[Marleysdaddy]

yeah...King your sarcasmometer may be due for a tune-up :D

[Mimiheart]

Ok...well, if the literary figures thing comes true I've got dibs on James Alexander Malcolm MacKenzie Fraser (also known as Jamie) got it?!?
*sigh*

As much as I love Snape, I don't think I'd want to be married to him. The guy has baggage.

[Marleysdaddy]

*sigh*

As much as I love Snape, I don't think I'd want to be married to him. The guy has baggage.

Ya think? (my favorite character from the series, by the way...and I think Alan Rickman was a GREAT choice.)

[ChloeP]

*sigh*

As much as I love Snape, I don't think I'd want to be married to him. The guy has baggage.


yeah...Snape does, but Jamie.........sigh........

[I am the Eggman]

Where will it stop?

I don't know, but it better stop before they allow people to marry baked goods. Think of all those poor apple pies and loaves of bread. It's just soooooo wrong.

[Mimiheart]

Ya think? (my favorite character from the series, by the way...and I think Alan Rickman was a GREAT choice.)
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m315/mimiheart/5422830-2.gif

[King Cantona]

yeah...King your sarcasmometer may be due for a tune-up :D

Yeah, sorry about that, in my defence I've just got off a couple of flights and I'm a bit befuddled....:))...

Not to mention jetlagged...

[Marleysdaddy]

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m315/mimiheart/5422830-2.gif

Brava :clap:

[Mimiheart]

Brava :clap:It's one of my favorite livejournal icons. That and:

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m315/mimiheart/5422830-3.gif

[Sceptic]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

I would like to point out that the answer is in the OP's original statement;

It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurtOtherwise, where will it end? I mean, is it NORMAL that you should take an impressionable child and indoctrinate it with Stone-Age superstitions, teaching it to bow down before some mythical entity for whom there is no evidence whatsoever?

Disgraceful behaviour, misleading children in that way. Thankfully, we're beyond all that.

[sgdp]

How the heck does comparing an adult marrying a non-consenting non-adult compare with two adults signing a contract? :think:

You know, they also asked where it would end when they allowed blacks to marry whites. :rolleyes:

[CaptC]

After reading all the posts, I just had to add my 2 cents worth:

Marriage is unilaterally accepted as being between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN.

Homosexual "marriage" is not a marriage.

Anybody bother to figure out that there are sodomy laws in every state? Allowing homosexuals to co-join in any way shape or form violates those laws.

DOES ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT EVEN CARE???

I guess not, if some special interest group has enough clout or else whine and cry loud enough and long enough they can get to do whatever they want. :hand:

[Buffalo]

After reading all the posts, I just had to add my 2 cents worth:

Marriage is unilaterally accepted as being between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN.

Homosexual "marriage" is not a marriage.

Anybody bother to figure out that there are sodomy laws in every state? Allowing homosexuals to co-join in any way shape or form violates those laws.

DOES ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT EVEN CARE???

I guess not, if some special interest group has enough clout or else whine and cry loud enough and long enough they can get to do whatever they want. :hand:
You're right. Sodomy laws need to be upheld. Except for that pesky Lawrence vs Texas case that declared them unconstitutional. But **** that. Government should be enforcing unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court is just a bunch of activist scumbags right?
I want big brother in the bedroom. I want only sexual acts that can lead to procreation.

[Mimiheart]

Anybody bother to figure out that there are sodomy laws in every state? Allowing homosexuals to co-join in any way shape or form violates those laws.
You should do your homework before making blanket statements. Not all fifty states have sodomy laws on the books, most repealed them years ago, not including Lawrence vs. Texas which invalidates them anyhow. The only states that have sodomy laws are:

Alabama (only affects unmarried couples.)
Florida
Idaho
Indiana (no oral or anal sex or sex objects)
Kansas (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
Louisiana
Michigan (state of the law here is ambiguous, really)
Mississippi
Missouri (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
North Carolina
Oklahoma (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
South Carolina
Texas (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
Utah
Virginia

[captusa]

After reading all the posts, I just had to add my 2 cents worth:

Marriage is unilaterally accepted as being between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN.

Homosexual "marriage" is not a marriage.

Anybody bother to figure out that there are sodomy laws in every state? Allowing homosexuals to co-join in any way shape or form violates those laws.

.......
Obviously if Marriage is unilaterally accepted as being between 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN then there would not be any contraversity.
FYI The legislators, voters and judges that have voted for, recognized and authorized same sex marriages in several states ARE part of the universe.

As far as sodomy laws are concerned, many of those archaic laws are no longer on the books in many states and they were different in all states.
They also imposed limits on heterosexual activities.
Oral sex between heterosexual couples were defined as sodomy in many states with Alabama being the only one of those states that exempted married couples.

AND
Anybody bother to figure out that there were anti-miscegenation laws in many states? Allowing couples of different races to co-join in any way shape or form violated those laws




Why are the sodomy laws any more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that many states had anti-miscegenation laws forbidding interracial marriage ?

[captusa]

You're right. Sodomy laws need to be upheld. Except for that pesky Lawrence vs Texas case that declared them unconstitutional. But **** that. Government should be enforcing unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court is just a bunch of activist scumbags right?
I want big brother in the bedroom. I want only sexual acts that can lead to procreation.
I am agreeing with your point.(ignoring the sarcasm)
I believe the Lawrence vs Texas case involved the gathering of evidence violated rights of privacy and the ruling pretty much helps keep Big Brother out of the bedroom.
BTW What is the statute of limitations for sodomy in Virginia.
My ex and I violated them several times.

[Buffalo]

I am agreeing with your point.(ignoring the sarcasm)
I believe the Lawrence vs Texas case involved the gathering of evidence violated rights of privacy and the ruling pretty much helps keep Big Brother out of the bedroom.
BTW What is the statute of limitations for sodomy in Virginia.
My ex and I violated them several times.
:dance:

[Polkfan]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.

Last time I checked, a five year old cannot sign contracts.

[Polkfan]

When I got married eight years ago in AZ, I remember reading the laws here. A 13 y.o. could get married with parents' and court permission. That law has been changed since then to sixteen, but still.

In the meantime, why don't people understand the difference between consenting adults and manipulation and abuse of children? Is this really that difficult to understand? Whenever I see this question I always worry about the person posing it. Do they ever have conversations with adults and with children? How can you honestly compare the two? Even a conversation with a 17-year-old is very different from a conversation with a 25-year-old.

That sounds a lot like work.

[Polkfan]

I am agreeing with your point.(ignoring the sarcasm)
I believe the Lawrence vs Texas case involved the gathering of evidence violated rights of privacy and the ruling pretty much helps keep Big Brother out of the bedroom.
BTW What is the statute of limitations for sodomy in Virginia.
My ex and I violated them several times.

That's part of what made the sodomy laws so laughable, because while it was technically illegal, they only enforced them against homosexuals.

[Broseph]

Where will it stop?
Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.
What will we do when a 50 year old guy says his RIGHTS are being violated because he want a relationship and marriage to a 5 year old?
It should stop at ADULTS 18 years old can do what they want if no one is is getting hurt, MARRIAGE is for a "NATURAL" MAN and a WOMAN, anything else is SOMETHING ELSE, call it what ever you want but it can NEVER be the same as MARRIAGE, equal but never the same.


What's next? The planet will explode. It's the only logical next step after allowing gays to marry.

[CaptC]

You should do your homework before making blanket statements. Not all fifty states have sodomy laws on the books, most repealed them years ago, not including Lawrence vs. Texas which invalidates them anyhow. The only states that have sodomy laws are:

Alabama (only affects unmarried couples.)
Florida
Idaho
Indiana (no oral or anal sex or sex objects)
Kansas (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
Louisiana
Michigan (state of the law here is ambiguous, really)
Mississippi
Missouri (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
North Carolina
Oklahoma (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
South Carolina
Texas (same-sex sodomy acts illegal)
Utah
Virginia

You forgot Georgia - more sex laws (including sodomy) than any other state.........for that matter, more laws than any other state.

GEORGIA STATE MOTTO: Arrive on vacation, leave on probation.

[Mimiheart]

You forgot Georgia - more sex laws (including sodomy) than any other state.........for that matter, more laws than any other state.

GEORGIA STATE MOTTO: Arrive on vacation, leave on probation.They were struck down with Powell vs. Georgia (a Heterosexual case) in 1998.

[Mimiheart]

Apparently Missouri repealed theirs in 2006, so you can take them off the list too.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Just because 2 people of the same sex have a relationship does not mean EVERYONE has to accept them as a NORMAL relationship.

I'm not saying these two things are any way related, but your comment above is almost word for word what my two grandmothers said about Interracial marriages.

[Guild-Sfire]

Yea, but when you have grown men stating the reasons why they are more compatible with ''kids'', it's quite disturbing;

''They are more fun''

''They are less demanding''

''Their bodies are more beautiful b/c they haven't had any kids''

''They are less career oriented''

''They are less argumentative''

To me, that just screams of someone who wants to control, dominate, and manipulate.

What message boards are these?

[bitterclinger84]

Yea, but when you have grown men stating the reasons why they are more compatible with ''kids'', it's quite disturbing;

''They are more fun''

''They are less demanding''

''Their bodies are more beautiful b/c they haven't had any kids''

''They are less career oriented''

''They are less argumentative''

To me, that just screams of someone who wants to control, dominate, and manipulate.

Which isn't a bad thing, if you're into that kind of thing. But seriously, if there's that kind of an age situation, that's just icky.

But there's a huge diff between a 50 y/o being with a 5 y/o and a 20 y/o being with a 17 y/o.

[bitterclinger84]

Are there still people who do not have the brain power to understand that a child cannot sign a ****ing contract?

Neither can a dog

or a sheep

or a fern


Every time someone plays this slippery slope BS argument they make themselves look like drooling, backwoods fools.

That brings up a point. Why is 18 the magical age for everything? I know some 15 year olds who are WAY more mature than half the college kids that I know.

[USAF Medic]

and if we could find a way to prevent or remedy the genetic bottleneck problems potentially involved with that relationship, I might be okay with such a relationship

So since there MIGHT be POTENTIAL problems genetically with offspring, who do not as of now exist, you have no problem denying these two consenting adults the right to marry?

[USAF Medic]

If they signed a contract promising to not bear children (borne of each other, obviously...if she gets a donation from an outside source, all good), I don't have a problem with it.

Even if the percentage of birth defects is low...it's not worth allowing that risk.

How "low" a risk are you suggesting the bar be set at.
Perhaps you feel all people should be genetically screened prior to marrying to determine whether we need a "non-procreation" contract.

[USAF Medic]

Gay Marriage is legal in 5 states and counting. Get used to it. How does one couples marriage hurt another couple? It doesn't. The act of being married only effects the two getting married and their loved ones closest to them. God forbid a gay person is happy.

Have an open mind, you might need help one day and are you going to turn it down if you find out their gay?

Don't be a basic and fear gay people, you look foolish. Act like adults and mind your own business. If God wanted everyone and thing to be the same, we would only have one color ect...

Infinate Diversity in Infinate Combinations. Its in nature everywhere.


See in America we don't have to "get used to" anything we don't agree with.
You're advocating "rolling over" and it's hardly American

[bitterclinger84]

Gay Marriage is legal in 5 states and counting. Get used to it. How does one couples marriage hurt another couple? It doesn't. The act of being married only effects the two getting married and their loved ones closest to them. God forbid a gay person is happy.

Have an open mind, you might need help one day and are you going to turn it down if you find out their gay?

Don't be a basic and fear gay people, you look foolish. Act like adults and mind your own business. If God wanted everyone and thing to be the same, we would only have one color ect...

Infinate Diversity in Infinate Combinations. Its in nature everywhere.

First of all.... What's a "basic"?

Second of all, no one said we don't want people to be "happy". Gay marriage is not about happiness, it's about forcing your opinion of what's right on the majority.

Thirdly, how many people here are actually AFRAID of homosexuals? I LIVE with a gay guy!!

[captusa]

See in America we don't have to "get used to" anything we don't agree with.
You're advocating "rolling over" and it's hardly American

In America everyone has the same rights unless there are compelling reasons for limiting those rights.
In America you don't have to like what someone else is doing but if it doesn't interfer with your freedom you do have to get used to it.

[captusa]

First of all.... What's a "basic"?

Second of all, no one said we don't want people to be "happy". Gay marriage is not about happiness, it's about forcing your opinion of what's right on the majority.

Thirdly, how many people here are actually AFRAID of homosexuals? I LIVE with a gay guy!!

No one has to accept any opinion.
You can believe same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage or any other marriage.
You don't have to believe what they are dong is right.
You just can't have everyone conform to your opinion of what is right just because your OPINION is the majority opinion.
Refer to Bill Of Rights.