If its okay to let gays get married

At 12/30/2009 11:14:32 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:52:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:42:16 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:36:07 AM, Koopin wrote:
Also, one could say why not let children get married to an older person.

Why not?

Because children aren't ready for it, that's why.

Who are you to say so? Oh wait...

Children aren't ready for it, but it's the responsibility of their pares to protect them if their parents feel that's what's best (which they should... because children are NOT ready for it if they want to become mentally healthy and functioning adults according to, oh, just about every psychiatrist). Please don't egg him on. I'd like to make perfectly clear that just because Reasoning thinks that pedophilic relationships are okay does NOT mean that gays feel that way. In fact, I think 100% of gays that I know would completely disagree with Reasoning (as would most rational people).

* parents ... sorry, my keyboard sucks hence the typos

At 12/30/2009 11:14:32 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:52:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:42:16 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:36:07 AM, Koopin wrote:
Also, one could say why not let children get married to an older person.

Why not?

Because children aren't ready for it, that's why.

Who are you to say so? Oh wait...

As L stated, children don't have the mental capacity to maintain and endure a relationship. This is a fact that I would almost bet you're aware of. This is what I hate about you "freedom fighters". You're trying to create liberties where they shouldn't exist.

At 12/30/2009 11:14:32 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:52:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:42:16 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:36:07 AM, Koopin wrote:
Also, one could say why not let children get married to an older person.

Why not?

Because children aren't ready for it, that's why.

Who are you to say so? Oh wait...

The reason he can say it is because he's looked at science and psychology and experience, and realizes what happens when you leave children to their own devices, only to be exploited by a much older and much more sinister adult.

See, he might be a fascist, but even he has a heart, because he cares about the well-being of those kids. Instead of saying, "well, I don't want to be the initial coercer," like its some sort of actual moral stand, Cody the fascist helps protect kids from molestation and exploitation. It's clear who has the real morality here.

Vokov, Libertarians don't care about "hearts" lol wrong choice of words... That'll just make them feel superior because they think they're on an enlightened, intellectual high road :p

At 12/30/2009 11:21:03 AM, theLwerd wrote:
* parents ... sorry, my keyboard sucks hence the typos

It's the wizard, not the "willy" ;)

At 12/30/2009 11:22:33 AM, Volkov wrote:

At 12/30/2009 11:14:32 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:52:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:42:16 AM, Reasoning wrote:

At 12/30/2009 10:36:07 AM, Koopin wrote:
Also, one could say why not let children get married to an older person.

Why not?

Because children aren't ready for it, that's why.

Who are you to say so? Oh wait...

The reason he can say it is because he's looked at science and psychology and experience, and realizes what happens when you leave children to their own devices, only to be exploited by a much older and much more sinister adult.

See, he might be a fascist, but even he has a heart, because he cares about the well-being of those kids. Instead of saying, "well, I don't want to be the initial coercer," like its some sort of actual moral stand, Cody the fascist helps protect kids from molestation and exploitation. It's clear who has the real morality here.

I sigged the latter part of this post. I'm not going to lie when I say that it was awesome.

What gives anyone the right to involve themselves with someone else's life?

At 12/30/2009 12:25:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
What gives anyone the right to involve themselves with someone else's life?

What gives us the right is when it starts affecting us, or others we know can't defend themselves. And its always affecting us.

No human is an island, Geo. Your actions will forever have an impact upon others, and it would be mighty hypocritical for you to say that you should be allowed to do whatever you want and then ask others not to interfere with your life. Your very presence is technically an affront to the ideal that "thou shalt not interfere." It's a nice dream, but wholly unrealizable unless you murder every other human on the planet.

At 12/30/2009 12:25:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
What gives anyone the right to involve themselves with someone else's life?

So true. Romantic relationships should be banned so that two potential partners can't intrude on each other's life decisions!