Contracts were made with the sole purpose to be broken.

What has consent got to do with it?</font>[/QUOTE]<span style="color: lightblue">:| .
You have to sign a contract! You have to take vows that you'll love each other! Marriage, in western culture, is all about consent. </font>[/QUOTE]The real question comes in when is consent really offered, in some states you can marry at 14, in most you can marry at 16, both are still minor ages, and until less than 100 years ago it was frequent to pair children of that age or younger with men in their late 20's and even 30's, heck back during the days of the founding fathers girls as young as 10 could be married. Especially given that society back then was more prone to arranged marriages the consent of the people being married was usually not as big of an issue in the marriage as it is now, and given the weight of history, the consent of a parent can override the consent of the "child".

Course we've grown past that as a people now (or at least most of us like to think we have).

Without the independance dec there'd be no domestic laws bud. Right on Melchi baby. Milk it yo.

<font color=plum>True enough, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>. I'm sure BOTH sides feel they have superior arguments to support their views. I was referring to those who actually state or imply that thier view is morally or intellectually better as a part of thier argument. I could easily fall back on my religious convictions as providing moral superiority for opposing gay couplings, but I prefer to debate the issues based on secular issues instead of religious ones. Which is why I can support gay couplings even though it goes against my religious convictions.

From a purely legal POV, I can see no justification for denying gays the right to have civil unions that grant them the SAME benefits as marriage does hetero couples. I still feel the label "marriage" should be reserved for hetero couples. I know that is nit-picking over a label, but the gay side is guilty of the same behavior. If a "civil union" grants the same benefits as a "marriage", then WHY do they INSIST on their unions being called a "marriage"? If equal rights really IS their only concern, then it shouldn't matter how their coupling is labeled. Those that insist on the term "marriage" are NOT interested in equal rights. Rather, they are trying to force society to accept their behavior as "normal" - and that simply isn't going to happen in our culture any time soon (though it has become much more socially acceptable in the last few years).</font>

Whoah, Welcomed new user joins intrepid Dungeon Master in righting all wrongs on the CE board.

Well, I'm convinced. I've been so wrong all along. Now, lemme go find a gay to bash.

The best reply was either that:
1. a polygamic relationship is more than a couple
[Dude, duh, couple means "2."] or that

2. My logic led to only men marrying. [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1drinkspit.gif[/img]

Okay, off to protect the Declaration of Independence from those who would amend it to allow gays to marry!!!


[img]graemlins/tomcat.gif[/img]

Seriously??

Shamrock, I don't know about the accuracy of Morgie's post, but I do know that such laws are tempered by parental consent requirements. I think you'd find few states where someone of that age could marry without it.

Statutory rape laws also temper the statement. In most states, someone must be either 16 or 18 before they are of legal age to consent to sexual intercourse. For an adult (i.e. over 18) to have sex with such a minor is per se rape -- unless, of course, they are married (which requires parental consent).

Thanks for the info Timber. Still, 14 with parental consent seems a touch young to me... [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=plum>Hmmmm...I was going to say that Welcomed New User is an obvious recruit of intrepid Dungeon Master. A friend who was asked to register so they could serve as a personal cheering section, or perhaps the intrepid Dungeon Master himself creating a second ID from a different ISP.

But then, I tend to be cynical like that sometimes. :D </font>

Cerek, your penchant to conspiracy theories is second only to Azreds. :D
Or should I say [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

But I agree, he seems like a recruit. All fine with me, but he should make himself more acquainted with the TOS.

[ 05-02-2005, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]