[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by MarissaW

As I said, it was an observation, not an argument. It does mean that.

Oh, it was your observation. I confused that with reality. My bad.

Originally Posted by MarissaW

Thank you for making my point for me.

Yes laws change. But what happens 100 years from now isn't really relevant to today's discussion is it?

Originally Posted by MarissaW

"Unable to give consent" MEANS taking advantage of a minor.

Not really so.
For instance, an intoxicated adult may be deemed incapable of giving consent. Or the case of a mentally retarded individual with such a mental defect that regardless of age, they may be found incapable of giving consent.

But getting back to the case of why young children can't marry, it's simply because the LAW forbids it, not because of their capacity to consent as you claimed.

Originally Posted by MarissaW

Brothers and sisters are not legally allowed to marry because of the chances of birth defects. Do you really believe the reasons a minor is not able to marry are the same as why close relatives are not allowed to marry? It's closer to your comprehension, not my argument that has a case of teh Phail.

So, if I read your response correctly, you are agreeing that marriage is NOT a fundamental right. Or is it just not a fundamental right to certain classes of people. Do you see the fault in your position here?

Originally Posted by MarissaW

I'm very serious. There is an active contingent trying to pass polygamy laws. They will never pass, not because of fine upstanding moral beings such as yourself, but because it would play hell with out tax code. There is such a thing as pragmatism, even in law.

Honestly, equating prohibitions against multiple spouses to the Tax Code is unfounded in logic. It's pretty weak sauce you're serving there.

Commenting on another's moral position really doesn't need to be part of the discussion re: whether or not marriage is a fundamental right.

Originally Posted by MarissaW

In that case, perhaps we should put it to the "will of the people" as represented through the legislature if we should deny the vote to naturalized citizens. As you say, voting may be a fundamental right, but it certainly can be restricted. We wouldn't want the wrong people voting, now would we?

You probably had a point there, didn't you?

Originally Posted by MarissaW

I'm so glad you said that. I would have hated to continue wondering if you were really a bigot or merely looking at the situation from a different perspective.

There you go again Cupcake. You just can't avoid throwing rocks.

Originally Posted by MarissaW

Many times, yes.

The world is wrong isn't it?

Originally Posted by MarissaW

I know. I wish I were proved wrong WRT stupidity and bigotry more often.

Hum, I saw an event last Nov. 4th that pretty much demonstrated bigotry isn't as alive and well as you may think. At least not so in the real world.

Originally Posted by MarissaW

Perhaps you'd care to go back to my first post in which I said that I don't believe such a thing as 'fundamental' rights exist, merely those we fight to get and keep and those given to us by government.

So, they don't exist except if they do? Is that what you are saying?

Originally Posted by MarissaW

As for the rock throwing: sometimes them sanctimony bubbles, they need burstin'.

More rocks from you Cupcake? Unnecessary. We're having a discussion here, let's not make it personal. Fair enough?