your example was under the legal age of consent) could garner that much
support to get the ground swell necessary to make such a change possible.
More likely would be to get the age of consent reduced, but even that would
be a huge struggle, in fact I could more easily see the age of consent
rising to something like 18 or 21.
-----Original Message-----
From: Monique Boea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:29 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
It is unlawful for a man to sleep with his daughter.
Why would it be surprising that one day a group may want to change this law?
-----Original Message-----
From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:58 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
Monique
You keep saying this. I see no reason why gay marriage would make it
ok to have sex with children, nor have you supported this assertion.
Dana
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:48:53 -0400, Monique Boea
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> where does it stop then?
>
>
> We are going to become a law-less society, so everyone can be happy.
>
>
> If that's where we're going then so be it.
>
>
> I'll still be a conservative, Christian, republican.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:59 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage
>
> Monique Boea wrote:
> >
> > But if a group of people can change laws (and PLEASE don't compare this
> > to the black human rights issue) then what is to stop other groups from
> > changing the laws to further change marriage, age limits, sex limits,
> > crime, etc. Like a man wanting to marry his daughter. Do we further
> > change the laws to accommodate him? Or a woman who wants to sleep with
a
> > 14 year old.
>
> How do you think we got the current laws?
>
> That's right, we got the current laws because groups of people could
> convince sufficient people to change the existing law to their views. That
> is a continuous proces and has served over hundreds of years to produce
the
> laws that are currently in place.
> Are you seriously suggesting we stop changing law, send the entire
> legislative body home and live with the current laws forever?
>
> Jochem
> _____________________________________
>
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
