Another scumbag politician.

[BIGUN 1,122]

55 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

the point is that belief in states rights vs. national government authority seems to swing with the wind and the issue.

 Are we turning this into a Tenth Amendment discussion?

[SkyDekker 1,156]

17 hours ago, BIGUN said:

That was exactly his point. 

What if a 6 and 7 year old want to get married and the parents are fine with it? The fact is that we have generally recognized that children are not capable of fully understanding the gravity of their decisions and need to be protected from themselves. We have generally set the age of 18 at which they can do so. There is no reason for marriage to deviate from that.

[gowlerk 1,959]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

We have generally set the age of 18 at which they can do so. There is no reason for marriage to deviate from that.

In some places some people believe there is a good reason.....

In Judaism, Christianity, and some other Abrahamic religions, the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (referred to as the "creation mandate" in some denominations of Christianity) is the divine injunction which forms part of Genesis 1:28, in which God, after having created the world and all in it, ascribes to humankind the tasks of filling, subduing, and ruling over the earth.^[1][2] The cultural mandate includes the sentence "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth."

[SkyDekker 1,156]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

In some places some people believe there is a good reason.....

In Judaism, Christianity, and some other Abrahamic religions, the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" (referred to as the "creation mandate" in some denominations of Christianity) is the divine injunction which forms part of Genesis 1:28, in which God, after having created the world and all in it, ascribes to humankind the tasks of filling, subduing, and ruling over the earth.^[1][2] The cultural mandate includes the sentence "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth."

Right and it is exactly the rule of government to protect society against the negative impact of weird cults.

[gowlerk 1,959]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Right and it is exactly the rule of government to protect society against the negative impact of weird cults.

It actually made a certain amount of sense when it was written. Some people just don't want to move on. They are afraid of waking up I suppose.

[jakee 1,281]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

 Are we turning this into a Tenth Amendment discussion?

What is the discussion? You keep posting what someone else’s opinion is, but what’s yours?

[BartsDaddy 4]

26 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

 The fact is that we have generally recognized that children are not capable of fully understanding the gravity of their decisions and need to be protected from themselves. We have generally set the age of 18 at which they can do so. There is no reason for marriage to deviate from that.

But if they want to transition to different gender , we should deviate from that?

[JoeWeber 2,370]

2 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

But if they want to transition to different gender , we should deviate from that?

In my view absolutely not and it will be quite interesting to see how it gets parsed here. Just to get ahead of the parsing a bit I'm not thinking about wearing lipstick or lace undies (while they're still legal here) or any other self identifying other sex clothing etc. I'm thinking about medical procedures.

[billvon 2,481]

23 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

But if they want to transition to different gender , we should deviate from that?

If it's a whim?  No.

If it just might save their life, or solve a serious problem?  Yes.

When Hanne Gaby Odiele was 10, her parents took her for surgery to remove her testes - with her support.  That officially transitioned her to female.  She's now a supermodel.  Genetically male, but phenotypically female.

Cases like that are very rare.  Countrywide there are fewer than 20 bottom surgeries on kids aged 13-17 a year, and most are like the above - dealing with someone who was born intersex, or repairing a serious Prader-scale problem.

Puberty blockers are much more common, and allow the kid to wait until they are 18 to make the decision.  99.9% of the time they are a much better option.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

1 hour ago, BartsDaddy said:

But if they want to transition to different gender , we should deviate from that?

If there are medical decisions, a doctor should be involved. Wanting to get married may require a shrink, but it isn't a medical decision.

Personally I do think that irreversible procedures not driven by an underlying medical condition should not be done on those under 18.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

In my view absolutely not and it will be quite interesting to see how it gets parsed here. Just to get ahead of the parsing a bit I'm not thinking about wearing lipstick or lace undies (while they're still legal here) or any other self identifying other sex clothing etc. I'm thinking about medical procedures.

Personally I think a 16 year old should be able to get breast reduction surgery if it is causing serious back pain. Sorry to see you would object.

[billvon 2,481]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Personally I think a 16 year old should be able to get breast reduction surgery if it is causing serious back pain. Sorry to see you would object.

Yep.  In fact there are about 80,000 cosmetic surgeries a year performed on kids aged 13-19.  Top ones were breast augmentation, breast reduction, nose and ear reshaping and liposuction.  Most irreversible.

But one surgery to remove testes in a (phenotypical) woman and everyone loses their minds.

[BIGUN 1,122]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

What if a 6 and 7 year old want to get married and the parents are fine with it?

You're getting kinda silly. The Statutory Rape law for each state has a range. None of them include, 6,7,10 year olds. If it were up to me, no one would marry until they were 25, finished college or vocational school, had a $10,000 nest egg and taken five classes on parenting. 

But, nobody called me for my opinion.   

[JoeWeber 2,370]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Personally I think a 16 year old should be able to get breast reduction surgery if it is causing serious back pain. Sorry to see you would object.

I wouldn't and you should have read that in. To be clearer: sex changing medical procedures.

[BIGUN 1,122]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

She's now a supermodel.  Genetically male, but phenotypically female.

Cases like that are very rare.  Countrywide there are fewer than 20 bottom surgeries on kids aged 13-17 a year, and most are like the above - dealing with someone who was born intersex, or repairing a serious Prader-scale problem.

This has to be the most educational post on the subject. 

[jakee 1,281]

28 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If it were up to me, no one would marry until they were 25,

OK, so you disagree with the person whose opinion you were posting and you do think it's the government's business to overrule the parents. Not sure why that had to be so hard to find out.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

35 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You're getting kinda silly. The Statutory Rape law for each state has a range. None of them include, 6,7,10 year olds. If it were up to me, no one would marry until they were 25, finished college or vocational school, had a $10,000 nest egg and taken five classes on parenting. 

But, nobody called me for my opinion.   

So your idea is that when you are legally allowed to have sex you should be legally allowed to get married?

[SkyDekker 1,156]

46 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You're getting kinda silly. The Statutory Rape law for each state has a range. None of them include, 6,7,10 year olds. If it were up to me, no one would marry until they were 25, finished college or vocational school, had a $10,000 nest egg and taken five classes on parenting. 

But, nobody called me for my opinion.   

Yet in Kansas one could get married at 15, but sex at that age is statutory rape in Kansas.

[BartsDaddy 4]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Yet in Kansas one could get married at 15, but sex at that age is statutory rape in Kansas.

No at 15 they cannot get a marrige lisence. Have to be at least 16 with parent permission. Quick google search reveals that.

Edited May 14 by BartsDaddy
To add last sentence

[BIGUN 1,122]

1 minute ago, BartsDaddy said:

No at 15 they cannot get a marrige lisence. Have to be at least 16 with parent permission.

"If you are 15 years old, a judge may give consent and issue the marriage license if the marriage is in your best interests. Otherwise, a license will not be issued to anyone under age 16."

https://www.kscourts.org/Public/Apply-for-Marriage-License/Marriage-License-Application-FAQs#:~:text=You must be 18 years,not have a legal guardian.

[BIGUN 1,122]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

So your idea is that when you are legally allowed to have sex you should be legally allowed to get married?

So, you quoted my opinion and then ask this. C'mon, Brother. 

[SkyDekker 1,156]

29 minutes ago, BartsDaddy said:

No at 15 they cannot get a marrige lisence. Have to be at least 16 with parent permission. Quick google search reveals that.

If you are 15 years old, a judge may give consent and issue the marriage license if the marriage is in your best interests.

https://www.kscourts.org/Public/Apply-for-Marriage-License/Marriage-License-Application-FAQs#:~:text=You must be 18 years,not have a legal guardian.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

26 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

"If you are 15 years old, a judge may give consent and issue the marriage license if the marriage is in your best interests. Otherwise, a license will not be issued to anyone under age 16."

https://www.kscourts.org/Public/Apply-for-Marriage-License/Marriage-License-Application-FAQs#:~:text=You must be 18 years,not have a legal guardian.

Yes...so at 15 you can get married, but sex would be considered statutory rape.

Wisconsin is another state where your argument doesn't hold true. 16 year olds can get married (with parental consent) but sex cannot be consented to until 18. But at least when you have sex with your underage bride you are only committing a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.

[BIGUN 1,122]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

another state where your argument doesn't hold true.

My personal opinion is the older the better for both sex and marriage.   

[SkyDekker 1,156]

9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

My personal opinion is the older the better for both sex and marriage.   

Fair enough. I thought you had alluded to statutory rape laws preventing young marriage. Personally I think criminalizing sex for young people is not good policy. I am comfortable with "close in age exemptions" allowing consent for 14 year olds. But, I see no reason for anybody under 18 to get married. I specially don't agree with allowing parents to consent to that. Not all parents have the best interest of their children at heart.