RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 4, 2015 at 10:38 am
(This post was last modified: June 4, 2015 at 10:53 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Still stuck on "we're going to continue discriminating against you in order to avoid kids get hitched"?
@Rob, a contract signed by a minor without parental consent can be voided at will by the minor and is thus, in effect - no contract at all. The other party cannot expect to receive the agreed upon, and cannot expect the courts to coerce it (in contrast to any legal and enforcable contract with an adult, in contrast to what a party can seek -and how- with an adult). If the minor so much as breathes the words that's the end, no further questions asked, no further action available. As before, it seems that we don't have much trouble with nuance in our law.
The OP continuously asks us to to play ball on his field, and this is becoming hilariously tranparent. -So what- if marriage were so defined (would then allow children to marry - no sex implied-)? We can either be ok with that, or void it effectively and justifiably just as we have done with contract law in the general, and how the relationship between parties and minority is handled. The constant implication that our law is incapable of what it -doesn't even have to do, is as absurd as the insinuation that it can't when it plainly and demonstrably can.....it is horseshit from the wallet to the penis (and OP knows it , lol). I'm surprised that this hasn't gotten the usual "homosexuality=/=pedophilia" responses from the boards. /twocents.
@Rob, a contract signed by a minor without parental consent can be voided at will by the minor and is thus, in effect - no contract at all. The other party cannot expect to receive the agreed upon, and cannot expect the courts to coerce it (in contrast to any legal and enforcable contract with an adult, in contrast to what a party can seek -and how- with an adult). If the minor so much as breathes the words that's the end, no further questions asked, no further action available. As before, it seems that we don't have much trouble with nuance in our law.
The OP continuously asks us to to play ball on his field, and this is becoming hilariously tranparent. -So what- if marriage were so defined (would then allow children to marry - no sex implied-)? We can either be ok with that, or void it effectively and justifiably just as we have done with contract law in the general, and how the relationship between parties and minority is handled. The constant implication that our law is incapable of what it -doesn't even have to do, is as absurd as the insinuation that it can't when it plainly and demonstrably can.....it is horseshit from the wallet to the penis (and OP knows it , lol). I'm surprised that this hasn't gotten the usual "homosexuality=/=pedophilia" responses from the boards. /twocents.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
