Originally Posted by
Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3031359
True, I can also show countries in the world where women are property. Where men have multiple wives and some of them as low as 9 in age. Where people actively and openly have a relationship with an animal.
With that said I am unsure of what this has to do within our own country. I am approaching it from a U.S. law standpoint and a U.S. view. What the rest of the world does in this regard is no concern of ours really.....
A society has, without question, IMO, the right to self determination. Like I said, interesting can of worms.
science has shown the human brain is not fully developed at the young age.....but if the parents of a child consent to allow their 13 year old to marry and join with a 30 year old, the laws of this nation allow in certain states for the adult to still be prosecuted...regardless of consent. The psycological side of this shows this type of behavior to have long term emotional detrimental effects on the young.....but regardless of all that....
Everyone agrees to this and consents....so should the law stand in the way?
Kinda fuzzy logic - not on your part - but in that there is no firm deliniation. Big difference between the brain's biological development (roughly complete between age 18-22ish, dependent on gender) and emotional maturity, for example.
Nambla is a huge minority..........huge....should they receive the same rights and be given the same options and protections? If you say no.....then how are they any different than those asking for gay marriage as the minority?
I do say no.
For one thing, one situation involves consenting adults. The other does not. A society absolutely has a right to determine the age of consent.
Part of the purpose of the law is to protect minorities and those otherwise unable to speak for themselves. Gays fall under the former category and children under the latter. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can have both.
Neither are no where near the racial struggle of our historical past. and can't even be compared or seen as similarities.
I'll give you that on the Nambla argument. I won't on gay marriage. The two are in no way equivalent, and therefore cannot be lumped together as part of the same argument.
Marriage is a State sanctioned institution which the Constitution does not address. Instead, it is incentivised through the tax code. If an adult couple can enter into a contract with the State that allows them rights and grants them priveledges, then it is discriminatory not to extend those same rights and priveledges to another couple simply based on the pair's gender. (Tax breaks, insurance benefits, hospital visitation, the list goes on.)
To go even further...historically there have been empires that fell shortly after public acceptance of open and active homosexual acts/lifestyles. Now I will say this occurance did not itself bring about the fall of some of these empires, but my personal opinions is it did allow the door to open to other acts and thought process not healthy or conducive in an educated and civil society.....granted each of these empires did have other major problems and this was very small comparatively.
You're absolutely correct. I'm not sure on that one either. I could argue the order of events, but I don't think it really matters in the long run.
Perhaps we are too young yet, as a species, to distinguish the boundaries between excess and egalitarianism. I honestly don't know.
