1 2
#1452166
Gressil
Actually Barton it's Biblical, Joseph was 90 and Mary was 13.
9/27/2012 12:24:09 PM
#1452173
Nagol
An eleven year-old child cannot legally consent, and you know it. Enjoy burning in hell for violating the ninth commandment.
9/27/2012 12:43:36 PM
#1452178
dfmfundies
@ John:
And one of the three was Clarence Thomas, who apparently never believes the Constitution gives individuals the right to much of anything.
If Thomas's jurisprudence held sway, he'd be the Court's slave, not a justice.
9/27/2012 12:56:22 PM
#1452187
dfmfundies
@ Gressil:
Actually Barton it's Biblical, Joseph was 90 and Mary was 13.
Doesn't count. Catholics believe that Mary lived her whole life a virgin.
9/27/2012 1:03:02 PM
#1452198
Old Viking
Everybody agrees you're feeble. What's so wild about that?
9/27/2012 1:34:56 PM
#1452201
JB Mason
*AGE* of *CONSENT*, fucktard.
9/27/2012 1:37:09 PM
#1452207
The Crimson Ghost
Worst argument ever!
9/27/2012 2:06:41 PM
#1452229
GigaGuess
So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?
No. An eleven year old cannot give informed consent.
Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?
I don't see the issue. Without a will, inheritance could get pretty sticky, but otherwise, as long as everyone's on the up and up, I see no reason to deny them.
So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door to what we're seeing now not only with gay marriage but with what they're calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine. And that's a wild decision
Open Marriages ALREADY happen. There are many married couples who swing. And again, for polyamorous couples, if it works for them, and no one is being deceived as to the status of all involved, good for them. Why does it matter so much to you?
9/27/2012 3:35:40 PM
#1452239
I am the one who knocks
9/27/2012 4:31:06 PM
#1452248
Vet Emergency
Jesus H. Christ, I'm going to Hulk out the next time I hear some grade-A moron compare gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality. CONSENT, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?!
9/27/2012 4:52:41 PM
#1452250
Alencon
"So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?"
No, because the eleven year-old girl is not an adult. You left out the "adult" part.
"Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?"
No, because marriage is a legal contract defined by the state. However if five guys want to make love to one girl, that's constitutional.
9/27/2012 5:10:04 PM
#1452259
tracer
I would accuse you of making a Slippery Slope argument, except you probably think the word "slippery" is a sin.
9/27/2012 5:43:50 PM
#1452281
9/27/2012 6:49:40 PM
#1452294
Snarker
I wish I had a slippery slope as big as yours. My sled would probably get me across state lines.
9/27/2012 7:35:31 PM
#1452303
Berny
Consent can only be given by an adult. Is that so fucking hard to understand?
9/27/2012 7:55:41 PM
#1452331
Ebon
Why can fundies never understand the concept of informed consent?
9/27/2012 10:08:07 PM
#1452527
dfmfundies
@ Ebon:
Why can fundies never understand the concept of informed consent?
Because evidence that they understood it at one time could be used against them when they get caught screwing a minor.
9/28/2012 8:20:06 AM
#1452546
Paler_Face
So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?
No, because an 11-year old has not reached the age of content yet, and can therefore no consent to anything.
Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?
Though polygamy is tricky, I don't think there should be a law against it. Monogamy is now the standard simply because that is legally complicated enough as it is. Multiple partners would multiply the complixity of the already overly complicated rules quite a lot.
I would be fine with it if they al managed to have a stable relationship with each other, though.
So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door to what we're seeing now not only with gay marriage but with what they're calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine.
You get a more free society with more potential options for everyone? Sounds like a good thing to me.
9/28/2012 8:43:48 AM
#1452723
TheReasonator
"has opened the door to...open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine. And that's a wild decision."
Well guess what there are no laws that say a marriage is invalid if it is an open marriage, no need to "open" any doors.
9/28/2012 8:07:48 PM
#1452785
Stonespiral
I've noticed people like this have no concept of 'informed consent'.
9/29/2012 4:10:03 AM
#1457843
Cuneas
I'm acually totally in favor of polyamorous marriages being legalized, as long as they're handled in a modern, decent way and not as glorified harems, and believe they _will_ be legalized in the next hundred years.
Hell, they would probably already be legal if religious nuts like the Mormons weren't giving them a bad name.
10/12/2012 6:13:52 PM
#1513335
Mark Poe
Wait a second... since when did fundies even care about consent?
3/8/2013 7:50:04 AM
1 2