Do supposedly enlightened progressive liberals here think it's a good idea to have children experiment with sex when under the age of fifteen?

Don't they think establishing a commitment is important to a relationship?

Where do they think babies come from?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tsL_HJwaM

 

Only if they are wearing camouflage and making duck whistles.

I don't think the govt should be involved in marriage in any way. No tax breaks or subsidy... no certificate... no nothing.

I'll take care of a grown man trying to court my teenage daughters. But the govt is there for redress if you prefer. Common sense.

PkrBum wrote:I don't think the govt should be involved in marriage in any way. No tax breaks or subsidy... no certificate... no nothing.

I'll take care of a grown man trying to court my teenage daughters. But the govt is there for redress if you prefer. Common sense.

What type and how much redress should the government provide?

After all isn't that what the government is doing by providing welfare and now Obamacare?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

  

I mean redress of harm... such as laws already agreed upon like an age of consent, to drive, to drink... etc.

To act incase of harm/complaint... adhering to due process. Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Not in this country it shouldn't. What people fail to realize when they want the govt to enforce their religious beliefs... is that is exactly the same thing progressives want to do with their social engineering. Just because you FEEL that you're justified... doesn't make it so in a truly free country/society. Sooner or later the power they wish to wield will be turned upon them both.

PkrBum wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Not in this country it shouldn't. What people fail to realize when they want the govt to enforce their religious beliefs... is that is exactly the same thing progressives want to do with their social engineering. Just because you FEEL that you're justified... doesn't make it so in a truly free country/society. Sooner or later the power they wish to wield will be turned upon them both.

your comments make me want to get nakied

Chrissy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Not in this country it shouldn't. What people fail to realize when they want the govt to enforce their religious beliefs... is that is exactly the same thing progressives want to do with their social engineering. Just because you FEEL that you're justified... doesn't make it so in a truly free country/society. Sooner or later the power they wish to wield will be turned upon them both.

your comments make me want to get nakied

Lol... that should be legal too. I can understand protective clothing... but why should there be laws enforcing modesty?

Free boobs..!! and balls or whatever... what's the big deal?

PkrBum wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Not in this country it shouldn't. What people fail to realize when they want the govt to enforce their religious beliefs... is that is exactly the same thing progressives want to do with their social engineering. Just because you FEEL that you're justified... doesn't make it so in a truly free country/society. Sooner or later the power they wish to wield will be turned upon them both.

your comments make me want to get nakied

Lol... that should be legal too. I can understand protective clothing... but why should there be laws enforcing modesty?

Free boobs..!! and balls or whatever... what's the big deal?

I have no problem with it. however, I can show my boob cleavage much easier than you can you ball cleavage lol not fair lololololol  

PkrBum wrote:I mean redress of harm... such as laws already agreed upon like an age of consent, to drive, to drink... etc.

To act incase of harm/complaint... adhering to due process. Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

What if one of the parties in question claims harm due to the unwanted burden of a child?

Does that make the government not only the arbitrator, but the benefactor as well, of the one with the child?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

  

PkrBum wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Not in this country it shouldn't. What people fail to realize when they want the govt to enforce their religious beliefs... is that is exactly the same thing progressives want to do with their social engineering. Just because you FEEL that you're justified... doesn't make it so in a truly free country/society. Sooner or later the power they wish to wield will be turned upon them both.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBmtaFq0kvQ

  

The govt should have no monetary interest in the process except the court costs. The interested parties should bear that burden as well as the paternal responsibility. The pattern now has been to claim an inability to name the father... I ain't buying that shit.

A court with no bias would simply determine the best interest of the child and order the other parent to provide support. That's the intended purpose of the judicial branch... not creating enormous agencies to bleed away the revenues meant for the child.

I know being an unwed parent is tough... it always has been. That alone should discourage the situation... not reward it with welfare. Name the father and recover the appropriate support from that person... refuse to do so... and suffer the consequences.

We really only need a level playing field and a fair arbiter. The system isn't this big and complex to just provide that service.

Government selection has supplanted natural selection.

Their religion of social justice is a growing complex multifaceted organism. It grows in an environment that becomes barren as it takes up space and nutrients like any bacterial infection. Engulfing all in it's quest to survive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qEsTCTuajE

  

An elephant is a mouse constructed to government specifications.

PkrBum wrote:

Bob wrote:

PkrBum wrote: Non of this pertains to marriage or union of willing adults.

Nor should it imo. Why is the govt involved at all unless one of the parties claim harm? It's just more conditioned overreach.

Because many folks believe the Bible dictates what marriage is and the Bible overrules everything else.

Not in this country it shouldn't. What people fail to realize when they want the govt to enforce their religious beliefs... is that is exactly the same thing progressives want to do with their social engineering. Just because you FEEL that you're justified... doesn't make it so in a truly free country/society. Sooner or later the power they wish to wield will be turned upon them both.

The problem is Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz and John Boehner and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and everybody in every baptist church are not gonna go along with you on that. They've heard your argument and they still believe the bible defines what marriage is and the bible should be the basis of how our laws define what marriage is as well.

Bob wrote:
The problem is Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz and John Boehner and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and everybody in every baptist church are not gonna go along with you on that.  They've heard your argument and they still believe the bible defines what marriage is and the bible should be the basis of how our laws define what marriage is as well.

The liberals around here with their religion of social justice are just as discriminating. Otherwise they'd get out of every mature willing companions bedroom instead of just those they approve of.

What makes your religion of social justice any better than any other religion?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I