SCoates wrote:I did not. My initial post was very polite. I said that you seemed to say something which I did not believe you meant. You're position is entirely incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the exact words you stated being in contradiction to what you intended to state.
You act as though I've attacked your beliefs, which I have in no way done. The fact is the Government prevents adults from marrying children. It does not matter how you chose to interpret that fact. It remains a fact, and your initial statement was that the government should have no such control.
I apologize if I was incorrect in assuming you were only playing dumb. But I still believe that to be the case. If you wish me to believe otherwise you are welcome to persuade me.
Jeez, SCoates, lighten up. I never felt my beliefs were attacked. The fact that the Government prevents adults from marrying children is just that. How else is one to interpret statutory rape laws? It is a rather just law, and it protects our children, INCLUDING my 5 year old daughter.
The issue was "jurisdiction," I guess. But since the gay marriages that took place in our great city of SF were ALL between consenting ADULTS, how is it possible for you to interpret that I also meant children? Kinda like when Satorum assumed that humans will marry animals next if gay marriage becomes the law.
So put it to rest, SCoates. We're NOT talking about children, o.k.? We're talking about the right to marry whoever you love as consenting adults. I don't remember this thread mentioning ANYTHING about children until you showed up.
