So, in other words, you just don't like it?
If Sarah's too young (immature) to consent, I'm against it. If she's not & her parents agree to it, then its as ok as can be. Again, I urge you to google Courtney Stodden for an example of a child bride & you tell me if you think she's not warped because of it.
Your assumption of Sarah becoming some sort of a *** worker is no different than people assuming homosexuality will lead into p-philia or some other sexual distortion. Although either may happen, there is no correlation between the two. So, what if Tom and Sarah are relatively at the same maturity level? What is the scenario where Tom isn't taking advantage of Sarah? How is he taking advantage of Sarah any differently than John? In other words, how does Tom taking advantage of Sarah leads her to becoming a *** worker, but not John?
If Sarah's too young (immature) to consent, I'm against it. If she's not & her parents agree to it, then its as ok as can be regardless of any more hypotheticals you tack on. If Sarah can't consent, she's a victim regardless of who fuc
Replace "****" with ****** & the risks are virtually identical. Any argument to ban ****-*** using "health risks" also applies to vanilla ***, so that argument goes nowhere.
I'm sorry. My "goal" was to not go in circles. Maybe you misunderstood my intent. It takes you an average of 2 to 3 posts to answer one question. You answered your beef with the 35/15 couple. Now you have to answer why you think there is a difference. You answered your guestimated results, but you did not say why one ends up one way and the other doesn't. You've made some comments, but you haven't backed up any of your accusations. You're doing worse than what the FRC is/was doing. At least they tried to prove the correlation. If someone made similar types of accusations for homosexuals, you would lose your lid.
Oh before I forget.. it's on page 14. The amount of effort you're spending talking to me far exceeds the amount of effort of just reading post 14. heh, your choice.
If Sarah's too young (immature) to consent, I'm against it. If she's not & her parents agree to it, then its as ok as can be. Again, I urge you to google Courtney Stodden for an example of a child bride & you tell me if you think she's not warped because of it. Coward.
Doesn't two consenting adults include two adult siblings? Or an parent and their adult child? So.... What's your explanation for why you think either of those cases is "wrong"? Or, if you don't think they are, then why not fight for their rights to marry as well? And if not that, then isn't it perfectly correct for someone to point to one of those other cases as a valid slippery slope result of the fight for *** marriage?
I don't really care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. I don't care if two relatives want to get married (provided they don't have biological children). Polygamy doesn't really bother me either.
But I'm not going to argue for legalizing incest or polygamy & feel that the laws that cover them are fine as they are. Other people can try & make those arguments if they want too.
Why are those cases "wrong", but not *** marriage?
I think incest is wrong if its predatory & biological children are involved, but if its two consenting adults without biological kids between them, I don't find it "wrong" even if I personally wouldn't choose to do it. I feel pretty much same way about Polygamy, except they can have kids.
The point I'm trying to get at is that if your argument for including a group in some category doesn't also include a consistent rationale for continuing to exclude other groups, then your argument is effectively for including those other groups as well
Using that logic, if I wanted to exclude a group (homosexuals) from having *** I would also be making an argument for banning vanilla ***. I'm sure THAT'S the intention of any sodomy laws, isn't it?