View Full Version: Question to liberals

Cyber Nations Forums > The Boiler Room > Question to liberals

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Title: Question to liberals
Description: Regarding gay marriage...yeah, yeah


Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:16 AM (GMT)
You ask conservatives "Who are you to define marriage?", yet most liberals are opposed to polygamy, marrying relatives, minors, or animals. I don't understand. Who are you to define marriage as between two consenting people?

Conservatives want to define marriage has been tradition for thousands of years and as the vast majority of Americans see it - between a man and a woman. Liberals want to extend marriage to any two consenting adults. Both groups want to define and limit marriage.

However, the common argument is "refusing to allow gays is discriminatory". I would like to hear from the liberals who are for gay marriage, but against people being allowed to marry animals, minors, relatives, or perhaps 30 other people. If you think just because Americans are discriminating because we follow the traditional marriage, then who are you to define marriage to EXCLUDE the marriage of relatives, minors, animals, or more than one other person?

The first things I'm going to hear are:

1. Animals can't consent
2. Minors can't consent

Well who says they can't? Aren't laws preventing a person from marrying a minor or animal that they love discriminatory? I mean come on, how does it affect your marriage? How does it affect you if I married 50 other people and we loved each other? And who are you to say that my animal can't consent?

This will get interesting

timewarp - September 1, 2007 01:18 AM (GMT)
How about the government just gets the hell out of marriage all together. Remove all incentives for a legal marriage, and just leave it to the public. That would solve everything, wouldn't it?

Z'ha'dum - September 1, 2007 01:19 AM (GMT)
We had this debate once before Mel; animals cannot consent because biology says their minds are not advanced enough to understand the concept, the same is true of children. I have no problem with polygamy.

The idea marriage has been the same for thousands and thousands of years is a lie. Even limiting our findings to Christian traditions, you find polygamy, marriage with children, bans on marriage between races, and so forth. Every time one of these things changed, so too did the definition of marriage.


Deniz Baykal - September 1, 2007 01:19 AM (GMT)
I don't care if you married 1000 people, but marrying an animal is clearly not the same, polygamy I do not care if you do it, Minors can easily be influenced and made to think that if they marry someone that it will be good... that would be why those are illegal... but as I said before I have no problem with Polygamy at all, I would have it legal to marry multiple wives/husbands/both. Of course I am not a Liberal so...

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:20 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (timewarp @ Aug 31 2007, 08:18 PM)
How about the government just gets the hell out of marriage all together. Remove all incentives for a legal marriage, and just leave it to the public. That would solve everything, wouldn't it?

I completely agree, but that's not happening any time soon. Government will always insist that it has it's hand in marriage for the sake of equality.

Rynka - September 1, 2007 01:20 AM (GMT)
An animal can't raise a human child. A gay/lesbian can.

Deniz Baykal - September 1, 2007 01:20 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (timewarp @ Aug 31 2007, 07:18 PM)
How about the government just gets the hell out of marriage all together. Remove all incentives for a legal marriage, and just leave it to the public. That would solve everything, wouldn't it?

Sounds like the Libertarian view. :J

Esau of Isaac - September 1, 2007 01:21 AM (GMT)
Mel, you were already defeated in this debate. Are you going to state pages of logical fallacies again?

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Joules - September 1, 2007 01:21 AM (GMT)
What a horrible assumption that only liberals support same-sex marriage rights.

Minors and animals are not afforded free will in our society. Adults are.

There is no good argument against polygamy.

Opethian - September 1, 2007 01:21 AM (GMT)
As a libertarian-leaning individual I would count myself as socially liberal. I have no issues with polygamy. Hell, I'd pay a lot of money to transport Rush Limbaugh to an alternate universe where polygamous gay marriage is legal just to see him finally keel over from the "big one".


timewarp - September 1, 2007 01:23 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Deniz Baykal @ Aug 31 2007, 09:20 PM)
Sounds like the Libertarian view. :J

Well, I am a libertarian, go figure, huh? :v:

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:23 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Z'ha'dum @ Aug 31 2007, 08:19 PM)
We had this debate once before Mel; animals cannot consent because biology says their minds are not advanced enough to understand the concept, the same is true of children. I have no problem with polygamy.

The idea marriage has been the same for thousands and thousands of years is a lie. Even limiting our findings to Christian traditions, you find polygamy, marriage with children, bans on marriage between races, and so forth. Every time one of these things changed, so too did the definition of marriage.

First, there's no biological proof that someone can't communicate with their animal just like there's no biological proof someone is born homosexual. According to most liberal arguments, I'm surprised they don't have a more open mind for those people who believe with all their hearts they can communicate with their animals. Where's your open mind?

Second, if a child loves an adult man why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? They love each other and how does it affect your marriage? The law says it's illegal, but shouldn't the law therefore be changed to stop the discrimination? Just answer this: If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, then why can't the law be changed to make the consenting age 16? Or 5?

Third, do you think relatives should be allowed to marry?

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:24 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

The Dreamer - September 1, 2007 01:26 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

indoslavokia - September 1, 2007 01:27 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:16 PM)
You ask conservatives "Who are you to define marriage?", yet most liberals are opposed to polygamy, marrying relatives, minors, or animals. I don't understand. Who are you to define marriage as between two consenting people?

Conservatives want to define marriage has been tradition for thousands of years and as the vast majority of Americans see it - between a man and a woman. Liberals want to extend marriage to any two consenting adults. Both groups want to define and limit marriage.

However, the common argument is "refusing to allow gays is discriminatory". I would like to hear from the liberals who are for gay marriage, but against people being allowed to marry animals, minors, relatives, or perhaps 30 other people. If you think just because Americans are discriminating because we follow the traditional marriage, then who are you to define marriage to EXCLUDE the marriage of relatives, minors, animals, or more than one other person?

The first things I'm going to hear are:

1. Animals can't consent
2. Minors can't consent

Well who says they can't? Aren't laws preventing a person from marrying a minor or animal that they love discriminatory? I mean come on, how does it affect your marriage? How does it affect you if I married 50 other people and we loved each other? And who are you to say that my animal can't consent?

This will get interesting

True true, however, doesn't Islam allow you to have more then one wife XD

Opethian - September 1, 2007 01:27 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:16 PM)


1. Animals can't consent
2. Minors can't consent


You'll hear those things because they're true.

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:27 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Shinigami - September 1, 2007 01:28 AM (GMT)
Relatives shouldn't be allowed to marry because inbreeding causes deformed children. A normal person wouldn't have to even ask about marrying animals, and children can marry, with the consent of their parent/legal guardian

The Dreamer - September 1, 2007 01:28 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Well scientifically, a 17 1/2 year old can consent to marriage knowing full well what it entails. Only the law is stopping him/her.

Shinigami - September 1, 2007 01:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 07:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

No, this guy is just a UMD

Opethian - September 1, 2007 01:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

You find me an animal and prove it understands marriage and consent, and you will have a viable platform.


Shinigami - September 1, 2007 01:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Well scientifically, a 17 1/2 year old can consent to marriage knowing full well what it entails. Only the law is stopping him/her.

You have to draw the line somewhere

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:30 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Shinigami @ Aug 31 2007, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Well scientifically, a 17 1/2 year old can consent to marriage knowing full well what it entails. Only the law is stopping him/her.

You have to draw the line somewhere

So the line liberals create is the correct line to be drawn and the only true non-discriminatory line?

The Dreamer - September 1, 2007 01:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:29 PM)
Well scientifically, a 17 1/2 year old can consent to marriage knowing full well what it entails. Only the law is stopping him/her.

We're not talking about that. My comment was in regards to your "open mind" retort. I was calling it out as nothing but rhetoric considering Esau of Isaac's statement was not subjective like you suggested.

Opethian - September 1, 2007 01:31 AM (GMT)
Everyone knows adulthood is an arbitrary number. That hardly means a 17-year-old consenting is the same as a 7-year-old doing the same. You argument is hinging upon a fuzzy border of "adulthood" and some personal conjecture that animals might be able to consent, perhaps.


Saniel - September 1, 2007 01:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:23 PM)
First, there's no biological proof that someone can't communicate with their animal just like there's no biological proof someone is born homosexual. According to most liberal arguments, I'm surprised they don't have a more open mind for those people who believe with all their hearts they can communicate with their animals. Where's your open mind?



Nor is there proof that they can.
But then, you are just trying to bait people yet again at this point.
QUOTE
Second, if a child loves an adult man why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?  They love each other and how does it affect your marriage?  The law says it's illegal, but shouldn't the law therefore be changed to stop the discrimination?  Just answer this:  If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, then why can't the law be changed to make the consenting age 16?  Or 5?

Because 5 year olds can not sign contracts of any kind. Nice strawman though.
QUOTE
Third, do you think relatives should be allowed to marry?

No, I do not. But then I do not have the moral flexibility of most right wingers.

Doitzel - September 1, 2007 01:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Sep 1 2007, 02:23 AM)
QUOTE (Z'ha'dum @ Aug 31 2007, 08:19 PM)
We had this debate once before Mel; animals cannot consent because biology says their minds are not advanced enough to understand the concept, the same is true of children.  I have no problem with polygamy.

The idea marriage has been the same for thousands and thousands of years is a lie.  Even limiting our findings to Christian traditions, you find polygamy, marriage with children, bans on marriage between races, and so forth.  Every time one of these things changed, so too did the definition of marriage.

First, there's no biological proof that someone can't communicate with their animal just like there's no biological proof someone is born homosexual. According to most liberal arguments, I'm surprised they don't have a more open mind for those people who believe with all their hearts they can communicate with their animals. Where's your open mind?

Second, if a child loves an adult man why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? They love each other and how does it affect your marriage? The law says it's illegal, but shouldn't the law therefore be changed to stop the discrimination? Just answer this: If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, then why can't the law be changed to make the consenting age 16? Or 5?

Third, do you think relatives should be allowed to marry?

If you can get an animal to give written consent and sign all the legal documents, demonstrating that it understands what it's getting into, I see no problem. Have you got a best man yet, Mely? :)

Children cannot consent to marriage for the same reason they can't smoke, buy alcohol, or join the military. They're, in the eyes of the law, too young to understand the implications and the responsibility of a binding legal contract such as marriage. It has nothing to do with the principle of polygamy and everything to do with protecting minors from their own stupidity.

And yes, relatives should be allowed to marry if they desire. However, it should be noted that incestuous relationships between members of the opposite sex are dangerous to any offspring that may be born of the pair. Incest is perfectly okay, inbreeding is not, as it does endanger a third party.

This is all very simple, Mely.

QUOTE (Mely Ranen)
Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Opethian @ Aug 31 2007, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

You find me an animal and prove it understands marriage and consent, and you will have a viable platform.

What constitutes proof? My Dog hasn't learned English. It does, however, know a language that only me and the dog know. I can teach you the language if you would like and then I'll show you the dog consenting when I ask it.

How's that sound?

Opethian - September 1, 2007 01:32 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:31 PM)
QUOTE (Opethian @ Aug 31 2007, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

You find me an animal and prove it understands marriage and consent, and you will have a viable platform.

What constitutes proof? My Dog hasn't learned English. It does, however, know a language that only me and the dog know. I can teach you the language if you would like and then I'll show you the dog consenting when I ask it.

How's that sound?

Sounds like you're grasping at straws. Also, "liberals" didn't create the age of adulthood; I'm not sure what you're yapping about with that.

Shinigami - September 1, 2007 01:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (Shinigami @ Aug 31 2007, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:29 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

Is that what I said?

Well scientifically, a 17 1/2 year old can consent to marriage knowing full well what it entails. Only the law is stopping him/her.

You have to draw the line somewhere

So the line liberals create is the correct line to be drawn and the only true non-discriminatory line?

No, but the genral consensus among both major political parties is that 18 is a good place to draw the line at.

Ask a conservative, I'm pretty sure they'd agree with me also

Actually most conservatives think it should be higher anyway

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Doitzel @ Aug 31 2007, 08:31 PM)
Children cannot consent to marriage for the same reason they can't smoke, buy alcohol, or join the military. They're, in the eyes of the law, too young to understand the implications and the responsibility of a binding legal contract such as marriage.

Doitzel came back to post in one of my threads? Wow....I'm honored :P

But why is that the law? If we allow law changes for certain groups, why not other groups such as those in the 6-17 age range?

Esau of Isaac - September 1, 2007 01:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 05:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Oh, I have no place at all. But science does. There are simple tests to observe as to whether or not it is an intelligent being.

Doitzel - September 1, 2007 01:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Sep 1 2007, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (Opethian @ Aug 31 2007, 08:29 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:27 PM)
QUOTE (The Dreamer @ Aug 31 2007, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE (Esau of Isaac @ Aug 31 2007, 08:21 PM)

An animal cannot understand marriage.

Who are you to decide who can understand what is going inside an animal's head over someone else? Where's your open mind?

Uh, yeah. Nice rhetoric, but not scientific.

So only scientific approved marriages should be lawful?

You find me an animal and prove it understands marriage and consent, and you will have a viable platform.

What constitutes proof? My Dog hasn't learned English. It does, however, know a language that only me and the dog know. I can teach you the language if you would like and then I'll show you the dog consenting when I ask it.

How's that sound?

Sorry, marriage contracts are written in English. Unless he can speak and understand a language that the government understands and recognises ...

By the way, you really should change your avatar to the picture I linked at the end of my previous post.

Opethian - September 1, 2007 01:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 09:34 PM)

But why is that the law? If we allow law changes for certain groups, why not other groups such as those in the 6-17 age range?

It's based both on basic observation (you can't tell me you believe a child IS able t understand such things) and fundamental psychological research regarding the development of abstract thought.


Shinigami - September 1, 2007 01:36 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:34 PM)
Doitzel came back to post in one of my threads? Wow....I'm honored :P

But why is that the law? If we allow law changes for certain groups, why not other groups such as those in the 6-17 age range?

Because if we let 6 year olds marry they'd probably all get a same sex mairrage with there best friend and then get a divorce a few years later

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:37 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Saniel @ Aug 31 2007, 08:31 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:23 PM)
First, there's no biological proof that someone can't communicate with their animal just like there's no biological proof someone is born homosexual.  According to most liberal arguments, I'm surprised they don't have a more open mind for those people who believe with all their hearts they can communicate with their animals.  Where's your open mind?



Nor is there proof that they can.
But then, you are just trying to bait people yet again at this point.

Because 5 year olds can not sign contracts of any kind. Nice strawman though.

No, I do not. But then I do not have the moral flexibility of most right wingers.

Of course I understand that 5 years old can sign contracts, but only the law is holding them back. The law is discriminating against them. a 17 1/2 year old can't marry, but someone 6 months older can? Discrimination! Where is your open mindedness?

Why can't a 16 or 17 year old marry someone? They consent, they love each other, and it doesn't affect your marriage. Please tell me why the law shouldn't be changed to accommodate these groups. That's all I want...is an explanation at why these laws shouldn't be changed, but others should.

Raiden of Xerrex - September 1, 2007 01:38 AM (GMT)
BTW all marriage is to gay people is a a tax break ;)

(Adds to the flames)

Z'ha'dum - September 1, 2007 01:38 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
QUOTE (Z'ha'dum @ Aug 31 2007, 08:19 PM)
We had this debate once before Mel; animals cannot consent because biology says their minds are not advanced enough to understand the concept, the same is true of children.  I have no problem with polygamy.

The idea marriage has been the same for thousands and thousands of years is a lie.  Even limiting our findings to Christian traditions, you find polygamy, marriage with children, bans on marriage between races, and so forth.  Every time one of these things changed, so too did the definition of marriage.

First, there's no biological proof that someone can't communicate with their animal
Yes, there is. Neurology makes it painfully obvious animals lack that mental capacity and ability to form abstract thoughts. Your denial does not change this.
QUOTE
just like there's no biological proof someone is born homosexual.
Yes, actually there is, but this is a derail anyway.
QUOTE
  According to most liberal arguments, I'm surprised they don't have a more open mind for those people who believe with all their hearts they can communicate with their animals.  Where's your open mind?
Just in front of my sense of reason. Upon passing through the former, you silly analogy collides with latter and dies a horrible, painful death in writhing agony on the floor of my brain pan.

QUOTE

Second, if a child loves an adult man why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
Because children lack the capacity to make rational judgments and contain abstract thoughts as a hundred years of psychology and neurology tell us. As marriage is a contract, like all contracts, it requires the participant to be in a rational frame of mind, a frame of mind a child cannot achieve.

QUOTE
They love each other and how does it affect your marriage? 
It doesn't, however it puts them in a position to be exploited and harmed when they lack the mental capacity to avoid the situation to begin with. Children not getting married has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage, only protecting them from would be predators and the hardships and responsibilities that come with marriage.

QUOTE
The law says it's illegal, but shouldn't the law therefore be changed to stop the discrimination?
No, because it is not a law that discriminates against a class but a law that protects a class from those that would prey on them.

QUOTE
Just answer this:  If the law can be changed to allow gays to marry, then why can't the law be changed to make the consenting age 16?
It can. People of that age are allowed to get married meeting certain requirements.

QUOTE

Or 5?
The same biological reasons talked about above.

QUOTE

Third, do you think relatives should be allowed to marry?
doesn't bother me any. There is nothing that can be done to stop them from living together or having a child together anyway, so if they do they should be afforded all the same legal rights and protections as anyone else.

Mely Ranen - September 1, 2007 01:38 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Shinigami @ Aug 31 2007, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE (Mely Ranen @ Aug 31 2007, 07:34 PM)
Doitzel came back to post in one of my threads?  Wow....I'm honored :P

But why is that the law?  If we allow law changes for certain groups, why not other groups such as those in the 6-17 age range?

Because if we let 6 year olds marry they'd probably all get a same sex mairrage with there best friend and then get a divorce a few years later

That's the actual reason? The government wants to have laws restricting to prevent divorces? I think you should leave these types of debates to Zhadum and Saniel, sir.




* Hosted for free by zIFBoards