Perfect, so it's not about consent at all. It's strictly about age, so stop pretending that it's about consent. Once again, you don't magically all of the sudden become "mature" on your 18th birthday. Many 18 year olds are in their last semester of high school.
Yes. I do not know what you're argueing here. Most people are able to consent adult decisions by the age of 18, hence why that age is used in most places. It isn't an arbitrary age, it's the age by which most people are mature enough, physically & emotionally, to consent to *** & other adult decisions.
As I said, unless you test for maturity for ALL marriages and/or remove the age restrictions, then it's primarily based on age and nothing else.
Different people mature at different ages, so can consent at different ages. Most people can consent by 18, so that's why that number is used in most places. If there was an easy way to test maturity, I'd be ok with a "maturity" test to make that decision. But since I live in reality, I'm fine with age of consent & parental consent laws being what they are.
You're just trying to hide behind "maturity", when the age is low, but in reality, it's not about maturity at all, as you don't care about older immature people. The intent maybe "maturity", but the discrimination is "age".
While people whom want to **** children are certainly "disenfranchised" by age of consent laws, the intent of the law is to protect children. Anti-*** laws protect who?
And I've consistently told you that is not an applicable answer. I'm not talking about the girl's age, maturity or her ability to consent. I'm specifically referring to the age of the male.
Me, in the quote just before that post... wrote:
And I've consistently told you there is no difference if the girl is old/mature enough to consent (with parental approval where applicable).
There's only a difference if she can't consent.
The teen's age, maturity and his/her ability to consent will NOT change due to the age of the partner.
No argument from me there, champ.
By "immature", do you mentally challenged?
Retarded works too.
So, what if both people are 15. Would you require the same exams and consent for the two 15 year olds to be sexually active? So, you are proposing on legalizing ***? Interesting. Please explain to me your plan of action.
15 year olds are still under their parent's care, so parental consent should be involved. *** is legal, amongst 15 year olds, in most places.
When you start calling organizations hate groups because they don't like and/or support you and calling people bigots because they don't like and/or support you, it's hard to say it's not.
Even if the group in the OP wasn't a hate group, I fail to see how one side calling the other side hateful is making America more ***.
Nope. P-philia Marriage is just about the last bastion left over from the Civil Rights era. Child lover Rights are Civil Rights. Black people used to get arrested for @#%^ing white people, *** people used to get arrested for @#%^ing *** people. Only one group still can't legally marry in most places.
I'm assuming that you didn't even bother to read about Civil Rights.
Interracial marriage laws had very little to do with Civil Rights. Contrary to popular belief, there was no spike in Black Americans to "forget/forgive" what had happened and go love the people that had been oppressing them for over a century.
I will just take this as your complete ignorance of Black America.
It's definitely the *** movement. Did you see how I just replaced "***" with "P-philia" in your argument and recreated the same exact argument. You can't create a logical comparison argument with skin color. That's what pro-homosexual supporters are TRYING TO DO. If society accepts poor comparisons between the ability to vote, go to school, ride a bus, buy a home, etc. with sexuality, then you've opened the door for them to copy and paste your argument. They have to rely on homosexuality as they are closer to social acceptance than they are.
* Note, it's not what end result that's the problem, it's the logic, or the lack thereof, used to get there.
If there is consent amongst both parties: There is no harm in black & white people *******. There is no harm in *** people *******. There is no harm in two 15 year olds ******* with parental consent. Nor would there be any harm in a 15 & a 35 year old ******* with parental consent. If there isn't parental consent, & the parents don't believe the 15 year old mature enough to make adult decisions, then there is harm to the 15 year old.
Whom is harmed by allowing *** people to **** & marry each other?
The same way you would disagree with any other lifestyle. Homosexuality isn't any different.
People are naturally born attracted to young children and it happens whether you agree with it or not. There might be legitimate laws preventing ACTIONS with children, but are you not freaked out by a guy who jerks off to non-pornographic pictures of children on the Internet? Would you accept "I was born that way"? Or would you think that he had a mental problem and/or a sicko?
While I think it's weird, I'm not going to legislate what people jack off too. Again, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't see a problem with it.
This wasn't in reference to marriage equality, because marriage is already equal, just not fair. I was referring to personal acceptance. You're cool with people not agreeing with other forms of sexual conduct, but questions anyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct.
I question why they "disagree" with it & depending on their answer, can then decide if they're a bigot or not.
If you're fighting for equality, then you must treat them no differently than anyone else.
I treat all as