Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
i love their reasoning too... because a pregnant child should not only be forced to have the kid, but now be ~~allowed~~ forced to marry someone despite not having the reasoning ability to really do either.
there is just no way to spin this that doesnt show republicans for the ghouls they are.
There is a discussion about parental rights and how denying marriage would deny a 17 year old parent the same rights as an 18 year old married parent because of how marriage is tied up in all kinds of things. Of course they could address it by an amendment that grants the rights without needing the marriage, but instead they would rather just promote abusive situatuations instead.
Plus they are trying to increase the number of teen pregnancies through abortion bans, so making it more likely that people end up as underage parents.
Math major here: by inductive proof
n=18 If marriage is allowed for n, then we must also allow for n-1. Therefore: newborns can now get married.
Your first mistake was using math in Missouri.
Now jist wait a dern minute! Them numbers is lookin like letters! That's spicious! squints menacingly
Your proof doesn't end at 0. Embryos can get married.
I'm going further and I'm gonna marry my balls in Missourah.
I mean, even just saying a minors paternal rights are something that needs to be mediated by family court doesn't sound particularly terrible to me.
If you're a minor, we've already decided that you're not able to make a lot of legal choices for yourself.
You forgot the part where all of this is virtuous. See? It’s a good thing!
Nm
Kinda feel like anyone who opposes that should immediately be put on a watchlist and their browser histories put under intense scrutiny.
I kinda think the same for all Republicans.
Hmm my brain initially read this as "I kink shame all republicans" and...it kinda works?
Should, yes. Unfortunately, the police are filled with the same type.
See, it's that sort of partisan thinking that's dividing this country. A policy like that specifically designed to disproportionately target and imprison Republicans is the sort of decisive culture war nonsense that's the problem nowadays.
I think I just poes law'd myself.
I mean, realistically one wouldn't want a rule like that, because if there was one, they'd probably make a bill that had both a child marriage ban but also a whole bunch of heinous rights restrictions and such, and then accuse anyone against of being against because of the child marriage part, but I get the sentiment.
Riders are a whole other problem, agreed.
The legislation is personal for Rehder, who was married at age 15 to her 21-year-old boyfriend in 1984. A year earlier, her sister, at age 16, married her 39-year-old drug dealer, she has said.
That's the reality of child marriage. It's exploitation and child molestation. Keep in mind these are the same people who want LGBT+ people exterminated for being "groomers." The accusation is a confession.
A year earlier, her sister, at age 16, married her 39-year-old drug dealer, she has said.
Hey, this was just an algebraic error. He thought she was supposed to multiply by two and add seven rather than him dividing by two and adding seven. I'm sure it was an honest mistake.
Sigh... of course it did:-(.
I should be allowed to MARRY the CHILD I RAPE!
-Republicans trying to Protect The Children!
Also keep in mind that once a child is married to an adult, that adult is now the child's "guardian". So making important decisions like getting a divorce is now left up to the child's new guardian potentially leaving the child stuck with their new spouse/guardian until they are legally considered an adult.
Yeah, it’s so harmful. Marrying one’s molester is about the worst decision a teenager can make according to everyone I’ve known who’s done it
This is kind of gross. Eww…
How does a person argue for marrying children to help them with childbearing? How does somebody think that’s OK?
I don’t think a healthy adult should think of kids like that. It implies something deeply uncomfortable about your attitude towards children.
Of course they would be the ones trying to protect groomers - I'd love to see the day when Republicans reach self-awareness en-masse, but I expect to die long, long before that day arrives
this one is truly fucking wild to me, imagine lacking this level of self awareness.
"WE WAN SUM FUK ON THAT YOUNGIN'S ASS!"
It’s illegal for a minor to marry anyone over 21, as far as I can tell, all this does is make it so highschool sweethearts can’t get married, which is whatever.
I don’t care about people within 4 or 5 years of each other getting married, this whole thing seems like a waste of time and money
No it means they have to wait until both are at the age of majority.
Ok that’s fine too, I don’t really care that much about it, we don’t let them enter into legal contracts anyway.
"Trying to make it so Rapists can't marry the children they Rape is a waste of Time and Money."
-You
Did you read the article?
It specifically mentions that it bans minors from marrying anyone over 21, that means 16-20 4 year max that’s barely shit
I disagree with their reasoning behind it 100%, but that’s high school level romance.
Standard Romeo and Juliet law as far as age of consent.
We also don’t let minors enter into legally binding contracts, so that right there is a good enough reason to ban it, as marriage is essentially just a contract for you to be treated as one entity.
Both sides have decent arguments, I think that if we say they are old enough to have sex, they should be able to make their relationship “official”, but it should be able to be annulled for no reason for the first, 5 years, 10? Idk.
Pick an arbitrary number and stick with it, after that it is normal divorce.
Their kids, treat it like every other thing they do and make it a safe place to fail and gain experience.
Or don’t, I don’t really care, but I am willing to hear you out on why you don’t think the current laws are right!