Gay marriage

[là bạn điên]

So what you're saying is that a child cannot walk into a store and buy a shirt, a bottle of milk a movie ticket or a maccas meal?

None of those are contracts. Not even if you do your christian tricks and play around with words does that make it a contract. It would be a contract if the child was supplied with the shirt and agreed to pay the money in installments, a simple exchange is NOT a contract. If the child was supplied with a meal on the condition that he worked for the meal at a later date then it would be illegal.

Only problem is you're wrong. The law requires that ID be produced for buying knives - you have to be at least 16 (legally a child) - you also need to produce ID to buy/hire an MA rated movie or game or see an MA rated film in the cinema - you have to be at least 15. So in both these instances the vendor knows the age of the customer. FYI the vender is often represented by children 14 and over too - if you buy your cup of coffee from a 14 year old he's completing the contract - if a 14 year old buys one from a 14 year old, if a 15 year old buys a movie ticket from a 14 year old, etc, they're all entering into contracts with no adult intervention.

None of these are contracts

If a 17 year old fills up a car with fuel, and goes in to pay for it is the servo assistant going to siphon the fuel back out?

No because they are not contracts. I realise it is impossible for you to understand the nature of a contract and you will try every stupid rhetorical trick to back up your claim that your examples are contracts. Even if an Australian lawyer explained in detail why these were not contracts you would still continue to argue they were because you are a christian and cannot be convinced by facts.

What about bank accounts, how are children allowed to have bank accounts?

They aren;t allowed to borrow money. They can have a deposit account.

Children enter into contracts all the time.

Not legally

[Chas]

Children cannot consent or make contracts.

So what you're saying is that a child cannot walk into a store and buy a shirt, a bottle of milk a movie ticket or a maccas meal?

Only problem is you're wrong. The law requires that ID be produced for buying knives - you have to be at least 16 (legally a child) - you also need to produce ID to buy/hire an MA rated movie or game or see an MA rated film in the cinema - you have to be at least 15. So in both these instances the vendor knows the age of the customer. FYI the vender is often represented by children 14 and over too - if you buy your cup of coffee from a 14 year old he's completing the contract - if a 14 year old buys one from a 14 year old, if a 15 year old buys a movie ticket from a 14 year old, etc, they're all entering into contracts with no adult intervention.

If a 17 year old fills up a car with fuel, and goes in to pay for it is the servo assistant going to siphon the fuel back out?

What about bank accounts, how are children allowed to have bank accounts?

Children enter into contracts all the time.

If a 15 year old and an 18 year old are in a relationship living together independently, are you saying that their relationship should have no legal recognition?

Union between two consenting adults is the issue here, and extending that to all adults.

See? "TWO consenting adults" - you've already discriminated against other groups just by that statement, all you've done is proved my point.

Children do not enter into contracts, their parents or guardians are responsible for them. And the 18 year-old in your example will be charged with statutory rape in most jurisdictions.

Protecting children is not discrimination. You really are a fucking idiot.

[Ryantology]

I sometimes have to remind myself that there might not actually be barely-disguised eagerness to marry dogs or children behind these ostensibly rhetorical slippery slope arguments.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

If the slope was really that slippery, you'd think gay marriage would be legalized right after hetero was legalized. By now we wouldn't be talking about what to legalize.

---

And child marriages are legal in many countries, ironically those countries hate gays, too. That's religious logic for you.

[Belac Enrobso]

Pedophilia is just ok!
But plug a butt and your ass will be doomed that very day!

[Aractus]

None of those are contracts.

Yes they are. Go fucking learn something, here's the version for dummies:

http://www.ehow.com/info_8407728_retail-...tract.html

If you want the slightly more professional version here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_a...s_to_treat

Practically all retail purchases begin with an invitation to treat. This means for instance that say Woolies has a coke bottle on a shelf and a label that reads "Coke $3". This is the invitation to treat, and indicates that the merchant is interested in - or at least prepared to - sell the product that is labelled. They may not be prepared to sell it to just anyone, however indicating the price at $3 means that they are prepared to sell it at that price, and not more (but they may take less). This is an invitation to treat and not an offer - the merchant hasn't yet said "I would like to sell this product to you"; that would be an offer.

Now off you go and get a fucking clue.

[Ryantology]

Basic retail sales are a contract pretty much entirely on the part of the merchant. Other than paying the required price for the item, the buyer is, in no way, obligated to the merchant by legal contract.

Are you really such a wet numbskull that you're suggesting it's hypocrisy to allow children to buy a candy bar in a store if we don't also allow you have sex with a child, or enter into nuptials with a child? Because it sounds an awful lot like that's what you're insinuating.

[Esquilax]

Classic equivocation; just pretend not to see the differences, no matter how many times they're pointed out to you!

[Zen Badger]

If we keep letting these Christians marry, the next thing you know, we'll have to allow every other kind of perversion, too. People will be able to marry dogs.

Yes, good idea. If we prevent Christians marrying it should help control the spread of the infection.

Also it would be a good idea to prevent children from being exposed to Christianity until they're eighteen.

[Minimalist]

Looks like Virginia is throwing in the towel as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...e/4791715/

Virginia's attorney general won't defend the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage when it's challenged in federal court next week.

In a stunning reversal for a Southern state, newly elected Attorney General Mark Herring, a Democrat, said Thursday that the ban is unconstitutional and the state will instead side with two same-sex couples challenging it.

The reversal is but the latest in a rapid string of victories for the gay marriage movement. It follows federal court rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma. Last June, the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in California and struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Here's an interesting legal discussion of the issue.

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check...itics.html

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Windsor “requires that when state action discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, we must examine its actual purpose and carefully consider the resulting inequality to ensure that our most fundamental institutions neither send nor reinforce messages of stigma or second-class status. In short, Windsor requires heightened scrutiny. Our earlier cases applying rational basis review to classifications based on sexual orientation cannot be reconciled with Windsor.”

– Excerpt from a ruling January 21 by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, declaring unconstitutional the exclusion of individuals from serving on a jury because of their sexual orientation.

“The majority [in the Windsor decision] arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

– Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion last June in the Windsor case striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal marital benefits for already married same-sex couples.