Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was making the point there are some who argue anything and everything isn't harmful or wrong. I was using the term loosely. Today, many people would say a 17 year old marrying, or certainly 15 year old is morally wrong, but historically it wasn't seen that way.
Yes, morons can argue that there is "no victim" with child brides, but they're.... well.... morons.
<shrug>
A lot of things were seen as A-OK in the past. When we know better, we need to do better.
Pretty tough to make a reasonable argument to back to: a 14 yr old is OK to consent.
Do we know better than the past? Seems our country has arguably been going down the tubes.
Make your reasonable argument for a 12 year old being able to consent or enter into a legal contract (which is precisely what marriage is). I'll hear it.
How about Jim Crow and segregation? Slavery? Only white male land-owners being able to vote? Miscegenation? Prohibition? Internment camps?
Why do keep insisting that we could just do civil unions when those were specifically prohibited in many states and are not federally recognized the same as legal civil marriage?
And a definition of marriage was between a man in woman in about 40 states and only in a few others because of court rulings. The point is that changing the definition was not the only path to deal with what were some real issues for gay couples.
Make your reasonable argument for a 12 year old being able to consent or enter into a legal contract (which is precisely what marriage is). I'll hear it.
How about Jim Crow and segregation? Slavery? Only white male land-owners being able to vote? Miscegenation? Prohibition? Internment camps?
And yet, I'd bet you would be just fine with puberty blockers and sex changes for a 12 year old.
And a definition of marriage was between a man in woman in about 40 states and only in a few others because of court rulings. The point is that changing the definition was not the only path to deal with what were some real issues for gay couples.
But the constitution said they can't do that. The constitution trumps state law.
The point is that we are American citizens and as such deserve equal protection under the law. Marriage laws provide many legal protections which were being denied to American citizens. Sorry that you don't like the constitution.
And yet, I'd bet you would be just fine with puberty blockers and sex changes for a 12 year old.
I am fine with allowing parents and medical professionals to make medical decisions for the health and well being of minor children under their care. Gender reassignment surgery is not allowed on minors in the US.
Make your reasonable argument for a 12 year old being able to consent or enter into a legal contract (which is precisely what marriage is). I'll hear it.
How about Jim Crow and segregation? Slavery? Only white male land-owners being able to vote? Miscegenation? Prohibition? Internment camps?
Look, if people didn't want to fully accept homosexuality or gay marriage or whatever else, then that is their prerogative. I don't question it or judge like an all high and mighty democrat. And if the people want a change of policy it should come by way of the elected legislator, not the Court's new reinterpretations of long standing Constitution clauses and laws and even precedence.
But the constitution said they can't do that. The constitution trumps state law.
The point is that we are American citizens and as such deserve equal protection under the law. Marriage laws provide many legal protections which were being denied to American citizens. Sorry that you don't like the constitution.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage and sexuality. The legislator and to an extent (where the legislator hasn't acted) state courts can make whatever law they want regarding marriage, how it is defined, what it constitutes etc. It was SCOTUS that played the trick "the constitution says" cutting the electorate, legislator etc out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
