(August 7, 2015 at 5:37 pm)Ace Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 4:31 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: And I don't find any of your arguments compelling at all for the abolishment of all marriages.

Did not ask you but ok

You posted it in an open forum so you invited responses to your ideas.

(August 7, 2015 at 5:46 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 5:37 pm)Ace Wrote: Did not ask you but ok

You posted it in an open forum so you invited responses to your ideas.

True, not denying it. I am just saying that when you gave me your opinion, I never ask you for it.

(August 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Informed consent. Informed consent. INFORMED FUCKING CONSENT!!!


How many times does this have to be repeated? It is truly worrying that religious sorts have such a balk over this shit, especially as it pertains to children.

If they still don't get the difference by this point, they're fucking stupid.

"a child can give consent at age 10" did I really read that earlier? WTF. What 10 year old even knows about sex and if they do, what have their parents been telling them?

1. Informed consent is generally only applicable to medical procedures and is not used in consenting to the application of fundamental rights.

2. Informed consent is generally determined according to common law rules of consent and is distinguished from regular consent in terms of a recording of the consent in documentation containing terms and results of the acts to be performed. Also know as a contract, which is to be signed by the parties involved.

Meaning informed consent is not some kind of special ultra mega consent. It is simply express written consent that is recorded to satisfy the Statute of Frauds rather than implicit consent given by conduct. Now as we have stated already marriage is under contract law and a child may enter into a contract, especially contracts for necessaries that convey and dignity and security to the child. Meaning a child may give INFORMED CONSENT!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

So if you still cannot get the difference at this point, are you fucking stupid?

(August 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 2:34 pm)Ace Wrote: This board has backed polygamy and adult incest and yet it finds child sex bad, why?

Informed consent. Informed consent. INFORMED FUCKING CONSENT!!!


How many times does this have to be repeated? It is truly worrying that religious sorts have such a balk over this shit, especially as it pertains to children.

I agree it is very annoying to have to repeat one self.

First it was never argued  by anyone on this board informed consent, it was argued as consent only and consent adults. You are the first to use Informed Consent.

Second, I hate to break it to you but you have the wrong consent.  An Informed consent by legal definition is only to a medical procedure or treatment.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/findinga...of-consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent

Thus, informed consent it is not required in sexual relationships or marriage.

Third informed consent is illustrated by the teams in the contract that written down specifically in that contract and singed

In general, informed consent assumes that you are legally able to make your own decisions. However, like regular consent If you are not, the person who is legally allowed to make decisions for you can agree on your behalf.

------Side note --------
You guys really have to read the case of Warren Jeffs (who is a religious nut bag).

His alleged arrangement of illegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls.
Jeffs was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years to life and began serving his sentence at the Utah State Prison. The conviction, however, was overturned by the Utah Supreme Court on July 27, 2010, due to incorrect jury instructions.

They final got the fucker in Texas were he was found guilty of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of children. Jeffs was sentenced to life in prison plus 20 years, to be served consecutively, and a $10,000 fine for sexual assault of both 12- and 15-year-old girls.

One of his arguments that his lawyers used was the parents consented to have their daughters marry, thus not making the marriages illegal.

(August 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: If they still don't get the difference by this point, they're fucking stupid.

"a child can give consent at age 10" did I really read that earlier? WTF. What 10 year old even knows about sex and if they do, what have their parents been telling them?

I think you misread something. It was a comment by Anima made in responses to you. He did not say a 10 year old can give consent but that kids do develop young crush's. (that was why he put in the music video)

Anima: "what is to keep them from "waking up" again and noticing the child wants to be in a relationship with the adult? Or are we going to act like there are no cases where a 10 year old wants to have sex with their 24 year old baby sitter or be married to them?"

(August 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: It is truly worrying that religious sorts have such a balk over this shit, especially as it pertains to children.[/color]

It is very, very, very worrying that you don't seem to care at all what happens to kids  or to even keep in mind to always protect childern form getting hurt. That you seem to not even care that, just maybe, the law is open just enoff for bad things to happen. ( which the the ruling is very open to interpretation) Is it so to much to ask for laws to be examined closly to see if there are any slippery areas that needs to be fixed to prevent any possible harm to a child? Because Sadly the the truth is that there are those in the nation who nothing more then to b do harm to another.  Never be so prideful to think that no one will take advantage of anything ,(even the law) to achieve what they want?

That is what I think is very scary, is that you don't even want to think about any danger. To you it is a slippery slop argument always. The fact that childern could be possible victim does not even make you say " because it is kids we are talking about we need to look also at the slippery slop issues." No, instead " it is a slippery slop and not going to ever happen." . . . Really? Or do we only act when something happens and a good number of victims has been collected.

You want to just that this law is only for the gay people and that no one can every use it. But that is not how the laws work, it is open to every citizen to use for their  own legal arguments.

As stated before,  keep in mind that there are cases pending NOW that are using your argument for polygamy, (wither you agree with it or not). If they win there case do not be so naive that another non gay group will make use of that law and anotherthen. Even now pedophiles are also using your argument and truly do believe that they will also one day will be accepted in society just like you.

And that is what you are refusing to even partly acknowledge

(August 8, 2015 at 11:47 am)Ace Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: It is truly worrying that religious sorts have such a balk over this shit, especially as it pertains to children.[/color]

It is very, very, very worrying that you don't seem to care at all what happens to kids  or to even keep in mind to always protect childern form getting hurt. That you seem to not even care that, just maybe, the law is open just enoff for bad things to happen. ( which the the ruling is very open to interpretation) Is it so to much to ask for laws to be examined closly to see if there are any slippery areas that needs to be fixed to prevent any possible harm to a child? Because Sadly the the truth is that there are those in the nation who nothing more then to b do harm to another.  Never be so prideful to think that no one will take advantage of anything ,(even the law) to achieve what they want?

That is what I think is very scary, is that you don't even want to think about any danger. To you it is a slippery slop argument always. The fact that childern could be possible victim does not even make you say " because it is kids we are talking about we need to look also at the slippery slop issues." No, instead " it is a slippery slop and not going to ever happen." . . . Really? Or do we only act when something happens and a good number of victims has been collected.

You want to just that this law is only for the gay people and that no one can every use it. But that is not how the laws work, it is open to every citizen to use for their  own legal arguments.

As stated before,  keep in mind that there are cases pending NOW that are using your argument for polygamy, (wither you agree with it or not). If they win there case do not be so naive that another non gay group will make use of that law and anotherthen. Even now pedophiles are also using your argument and truly do believe that they will also one day will be accepted in society just like you.

Gay marriage and polygamy are not analogous, you are using a slippery slope argument, its fallacious and tired. There are reasons that polygamy/incents/pedophilia/beastiality are illegal that have nothing to with gay marriage. In order to make your argument work you would have to establish with evidence that the cost/benefit analysis of legalizing gay marriage is the same as those other forms of relationships. The laws for each type of relationship are made on an individual basis and for different reasons. You cannot just use factor that are the same in the relationship, you must also weigh the differences.

(August 8, 2015 at 11:47 am)Ace Wrote: Even now pedophiles are also using your argument and truly do believe that they will also one day will be accepted in society just like you.

And even if they are, they won't win, because our arguments don't apply to them. I already told you earlier that pedophilia is getting more stigmatised in our society, not less. It's because we live in a society that cares more about children now than it ever has before that this is so.

You are denying gay people the right of marriage under some false pretense that you give a fuck about children. I'd like to see where you have actively campaigned for welfare and financial help for single parents living in poverty. I'd like to see where you have donated and/or got involved with charities that help impoverished and/or abused children. Finally, I'd also like to see you come forward and say all the shit you're belching out now when a real case of child abuse happens. Until I see that, you can get out my face with this holier-than-thou attitude like childrens' rights mean the world to you, because I'm not seeing any real evidence for it at this point.

You're another armchair childrens' rights activist who uses childrens' rights as a prop for your anti-gay marriage views, and it's so transparent.

(August 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Informed consent. Informed consent. INFORMED FUCKING CONSENT!!!


How many times does this have to be repeated? It is truly worrying that religious sorts have such a balk over this shit, especially as it pertains to children.

If they still don't get the difference by this point, they're fucking stupid.

"a child can give consent at age 10" did I really read that earlier? WTF. What 10 year old even knows about sex and if they do, what have their parents been telling them?

The age of consent was 7 in Delaware in 1895.  During earlier times there was no minimum age of consent in America, especially in the South.

(August 8, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: If they still don't get the difference by this point, they're fucking stupid.

"a child can give consent at age 10" did I really read that earlier? WTF. What 10 year old even knows about sex and if they do, what have their parents been telling them?

The age of consent was 7 in Delaware in 1895.  During earlier times there was no minimum age of consent in America, especially in the South.

They were wrong to do things that way.  That is why they changed it.