‘A get out of jail free card’: GOP bill would eliminate age requirements for marriage

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2022, 08:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: My response was to your question about "what action needs to be take next".

To the part where they wrote and co-sponsored a bill with no age limit on marriage that has been fixed thanks to the public pressure.  That's the point.

Without it that bill gets signed off on and no one even "notices".

Since that is fixed we can now make fun of the rest of the bill that serves zero purpose...lol.

Or you can defend it.  It's a free country...and you get what you pay for. 

You responded to me with, "Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafted and sponsored by the gop.".

That's the complete opposite of "Thanks".

[GMDino]

(04-09-2022, 09:34 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You responded to me with, "Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafted and sponsored by the gop.".

That's the complete opposite of "Thanks".

It doesn't change how it was written and sponsored.  Then then felt the pressure and fixed it.  So no need to "tar and feather" them for that but to remind people they did it in the first place.

Then we move on to the next problem with the bill since it can still become a law.

"Moving on" seems to be the problem y'all have. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2022, 10:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: It doesn't change how it was written and sponsored.  Then then felt the pressure and fixed it.  So no need to "tar and feather" them for that but to remind people they did it in the first place.

Then we move on to the next problem with the bill since it can still become a law.

"Moving on" seems to be the problem y'all have. 

Not sure who "ya'll" are.

I was more than willing to move on from the issue with the bill . But again..... "moving on" is not "reminding people of their past sins". That's the complete opposite.

I'm asking you to explain your position. You seem to be bothered by the fact that the bill didn't include the age requirement in the beginning , so much so that you think people need to be "reminded of what the GOP did". Why?

[GMDino]

(04-10-2022, 09:13 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Not sure who "ya'll" are.

I was more than willing to move on from the issue with the bill . But again..... "moving on" is not "reminding people of their past sins". That's the complete opposite.

I'm asking you to explain your position. You seem to be bothered by the fact that the bill didn't include the age requirement in the beginning , so much so that you think people need to be "reminded of what the GOP did". Why?

I did not realize it was that hard for you so I'll do you the favor of explaining it...again.

The gop spends a month or so insisting that democrats/progressives/liberals are grooming children and are pedophiles or want tog o easy on pedophiles in order to groom.

In TN a bill is written and sponsored by the gop to create a special, new kind of marriage for straight people only but they also don't limit the age of said marriage.

Many people, including yours truly, thought this was bad and odd given the current gop talking point cycle.

Some, including people on this board wanted to only point out that Democrat run states also have bad laws as if that makes it any better.  To which I suggested they create a post about it or where we can discuss this child marriage laws.  But I think the real reason was just to "slam" me for talking about republicans, even though I was specifically talking about them and this one bill.

So, after some public outrage they add an amendment to change the age limit.  That's a good thing!

Most people were happy about that!

It does not, however, change what they did initially or the fact that this is still a bad bill.

Let's say someone wants to sell you a house that has a bad roof and is also twice the price that was listed.  You complain that this a really bad deal especially with price the way it is.  They come back, eventually and say it was just a mistake even though you've seen them do it before and they are still trying to convince you that there was nothing wrong with the price in the first place  They overlooked something and fix the price...but not the roof.  Do you say, well ok that's better and I totally trust you now and will buy the house?  Or do you say but you didn't fix the roof and you already tried to screw me once?  Would you continue to trust them even if they fixed one thing?  And would you never tell anyone that this place tried to screw you simply because they fixed it.

So unless you are of the opinion I should take down the thread I'm not sure what your end game is.  They fixed one of the bad things, the thing that was the initial point of the post but it also touched on how bad the bill is.  We can continue discussing that or maybe start a new thread, but that seems like a waste of time when we already have this one.

Now if you want me to praise the gop in TN for doing something they have done in the first place you're barking up the wrong tree.  Especially when the bill is bad overall too.

tl;dr the gop was accusing democrats of grooming, they wrote a law with no lower end age for marriage. The eventually fixed it but it is still a bad law that needs talked about anyway.

Have a great day.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

So, in summation, a thread was made to make a lame talking point and now that the reason for said talking point has been amended it's now on to a new talking point.


I'll end on an attempt to be egalitarian, something this thread was certainly not created to be. Proposed laws, both good and bad ones, often have unintentional omissions or unintended consequences. Fixing them before they are enacted, as happened here, is ideal. Sometimes the problem isn't noticed until after it is passed.

[GreenDragon]

(04-09-2022, 12:06 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: As long as they don’t put a price point measure into the bill.  christians these days, Amir?

What IS the sheckle to dollar exchange?

[GreenDragon]

Republicans:
Ketanji Brown Jackson is weak against child porn cases and pedophiles!

Also Republicans:
Let's pass this law making it legal to marry a child.

[Sled21]

(04-10-2022, 12:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, in summation, a thread was made to make a lame talking point and now that the reason for said talking point has been amended it's now on to a new talking point.


I'll end on an attempt to be egalitarian, something this thread was certainly not created to be.  Proposed laws, both good and bad ones, often have unintentional omissions or unintended consequences.  Fixing them before they are enacted, as happened here, is ideal.  Sometimes the problem isn't noticed until after it is passed.

Correct. As I pointed out in post #6, it was simply an oversight that would be addressed. It was, and was. Nothing to see here....

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-10-2022, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: I did not realize it was that hard for you so I'll do you the favor of explaining it...again.

Explain it again? You didn't explain anything in regards to what you meant by "people need to be reminded of what the GOP did". Now that you actually have i'll address it.

Quote:The gop spends a month or so insisting that democrats/progressives/liberals are grooming children and are pedophiles or want tog o easy on pedophiles in order to groom.



In TN a bill is written and sponsored by the gop to create a special, new kind of marriage for straight people only but they also don't limit the age of said marriage.


Many people, including yours truly, thought this was bad and odd given the current gop talking point cycle.


Some, including people on this board wanted to only point out that Democrat run states also have bad laws as if that makes it any better.  To which I suggested they create a post about it or where we can discuss this child marriage laws.  But I think the real reason was just to "slam" me for talking about republicans, even though I was specifically talking about them and this one bill.


So, after some public outrage they add an amendment to change the age limit.  That's a good thing!


Most people were happy about that!


It does not, however, change what they did initially or the fact that this is still a bad bill.


Let's say someone wants to sell you a house that has a bad roof and is also twice the price that was listed.  You complain that this a really bad deal especially with price the way it is.  They come back, eventually and say it was just a mistake even though you've seen them do it before and they are still trying to convince you that there was nothing wrong with the price in the first place  They overlooked something and fix the price...but not the roof.  Do you say, well ok that's better and I totally trust you now and will buy the house?  Or do you say but you didn't fix the roof and you already tried to screw me once?  Would you continue to trust them even if they fixed one thing?  And would you never tell anyone that this place tried to screw you simply because they fixed it.


So unless you are of the opinion I should take down the thread I'm not sure what your end game is.  They fixed one of the bad things, the thing that was the initial point of the post but it also touched on how bad the bill is.  We can continue discussing that or maybe start a new thread, but that seems like a waste of time when we already have this one.


Now if you want me to praise the gop in TN for doing something they have done in the first place you're barking up the wrong tree.  Especially when the bill is bad overall too.


tl;dr the gop was accusing democrats of grooming, they wrote a law with no lower end age for marriage. The eventually fixed it but it is still a bad law that needs talked about anyway.


Have a great day.

So a couple things.

1. Your initial post had nothing to do with the rest of the bill. Only after I mentioned it did it suddenly become a taling point for you.


2. My first point dismisses part of your roof example as it relates to the rest of the bill. Secondly, the part of your roof example  (the house being overpriced) that relates to age requirement doesn't really apply here. A house being overpriced and a bill omitting age requirements are completely different things that create completely different outcomes. House prices are subjective anyway and are determined by numerous variables. So at the end of the day, what one considers "overpriced" is of their own opinion.

3. You bring up the issue of trust, and this is part of the point I'm getting to. Speaking from your roof example you seem to be saying you don't trust the GOP because "they've done this before".

Done what before exactly? 

The idea that you should trust proposed bills because you trust the party pushing them is illogical. Im sure when you buy a house you buy it not because you inspected it and analyzed it in detail but because the guy selling it to you was one of your friendly neighborhood democrats and someone "reminded you" of that.

No bill should be trusted at face value, ever. Because bills become laws and laws are what the public must follow. I'm not comfortable letting laws come into place simply because I trust the people who proposed the bill for it. 

But you feel compelled to demonize the GOP because they "screwed you the first time". Whether a bill was written right the first time shouldn't matter if the problem has been corrected. That should be a concern with any bill regardless of who wrote it and should be based on the language within the bill itself. Once corrected, you move on. No need to be divisive about something that's been fixed.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2022, 10:01 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Explain it again? You didn't explain anything in regards to what you meant by "people need to be reminded of what the GOP did". Now that you actually have i'll address it.



So a couple things.

1. Your initial post had nothing to do with the rest of the bill. Only after I mentioned it did it suddenly become a taling point for you.


2. My first point dismisses part of your roof example as it relates to the rest of the bill. Secondly, the part of your roof example  (the house being overpriced) that relates to age requirement doesn't really apply here. A house being overpriced and a bill omitting age requirements are completely different things that create completely different outcomes. House prices are subjective anyway and are determined by numerous variables. So at the end of the day, what one considers "overpriced" is of their own opinion.

3. You bring up the issue of trust, and this is part of the point I'm getting to. Speaking from your roof example you seem to be saying you don't trust the GOP because "they've done this before".

Done what before exactly? 

The idea that you should trust proposed bills because you trust the party pushing them is illogical. Im sure when you buy a house you buy it not because you inspected it and analyzed it in detail but because the guy selling it to you was one of your friendly neighborhood democrats and someone "reminded you" of that.

No bill should be trusted at face value, ever. Because bills become laws and laws are what the public must follow. I'm not comfortable letting laws come into place simply because I trust the people who proposed the bill for it. 

But you feel compelled to demonize the GOP because they "screwed you the first time". Whether a bill was written right the first time shouldn't matter if the problem has been corrected. That should be a concern with any bill regardless of who wrote it and should be based on the language within the bill itself. Once corrected, you move on. No need to be divisive about something that's been fixed.

In the meantime the bill was bad for multiple reasons.  One was mentioned in the OP.  It was bad and worthy of discussion.  It was fixed after being sponsored by multiple people who I assume didn't read the bill?  Anyway, once that was fixed YOU brought up the anti-gay part of the bill.  To which I replied that yes, the entire bill is bad and maybe it can be stopped with further public pressure just like how that pressure had them fix the age problem.

Then you've spent days asking why I'm now talking about something that the age problem in the OP.  After you brought it up.

You've asked if the sponsors and authors of the bill should be "tarred and feathered"  and I responded again that it was still a bad bill.

Then you said "this isn't about the rest of the bill"...and you "were more than willing to move on"...but keep asking for a response.

The the proof of the pudding is in the eating

(04-09-2022, 12:54 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Well that, and this is typical media/political hysteria. The talking point of this being a "pedophile bill" is clearly a strategic move to paint a damning picture of the GOP. The bill has since been amended to include the language everyone was requesting, but I'm sure now the talking point of this being an "anti gay bill" will be what the outlets switch to and include in their headlines.

(04-09-2022, 01:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah public opinion finally caught up with them...lol.  Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafter and sponsored by the gop.

And yes it is also an attempt to get around "gay marriage" but specifically only applying it to "one man" and "one woman".  But we already knew the gop would do that as it was in the bill originally.

It is just another law, based on religion, looking for a problem to fix that didn't exist and blew up in their face.

https://perma.cc/X9DB-62YN

(04-09-2022, 05:56 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: So then....what action needs to be taken now? Should the people sponsoring the pre-amended bill be tarred and feathered now?

(04-09-2022, 06:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well given the rest of the bill still stinks too maybe people will still hold their feet to the fire and get it stopped before it gets passed.

But "yay" they finally fixed part of it, I guess?

(04-09-2022, 07:58 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: This isnt about the rest of the bill. You specifically made the thread to point out that the GOP was pushing a bill that would promote child sex abuse and said nothing else about the rest of the bill. To which I responded that it was amended. You then pointed out that the bill was only amended because of public opinion.

To which I am responding, what's your point?

(04-09-2022, 08:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: My response was to your question about "what action needs to be take next".

To the part where they wrote and co-sponsored a bill with no age limit on marriage that has been fixed thanks to the public pressure.  That's the point.

Without it that bill gets signed off on and no one even "notices".

Since that is fixed we can now make fun of the rest of the bill that serves zero purpose...lol.

Or you can defend it.  It's a free country...and you get what you pay for. 

(04-09-2022, 09:34 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You responded to me with, "Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafted and sponsored by the gop.".

That's the complete opposite of "Thanks".

(04-09-2022, 10:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: It doesn't change how it was written and sponsored.  Then then felt the pressure and fixed it.  So no need to "tar and feather" them for that but to remind people they did it in the first place.

Then we move on to the next problem with the bill since it can still become a law.

"Moving on" seems to be the problem y'all have. 

(04-10-2022, 09:13 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Not sure who "ya'll" are.

I was more than willing to move on from the issue with the bill . But again..... "moving on" is not "reminding people of their past sins". That's the complete opposite.

I'm asking you to explain your position. You seem to be bothered by the fact that the bill didn't include the age requirement in the beginning , so much so that you think people need to be "reminded of what the GOP did". Why?

I feel compelled to post what I feel like. Maybe you have some sort of proof that I have defended Democrats doing the same thing? Or perhaps you just don't like it when republicans are called out for anything?

Your singular obsession with the age component and how *I* shouldn't talk about the rest of the bill even when you asked me about it is a bit odd.

tl;dr: You brought up something, I responded and you want to know what I'm changing what I talked about in the OP.

So thank for your opinion.  I'll file it with the rest of them.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-12-2022, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote:  It was fixed after being sponsored by multiple people who I assume didn't read the bill?  Anyway, once that was fixed YOU brought up the anti-gay part of the bill. 

Correct

Quote:To which I replied that yes, the entire bill is bad and maybe it can be stopped with further 

Then you've spent days asking why I'm now talking about something that the age problem in the OP.  After you brought it up.

Incorrect.

You're misrepresenting this entire discussion. I haven't once asked you why you're talking about the anti-gay part of the bill. You took the time to repost multiple things that I said but decided to ignore what you said that started this whole back and forth in the first place.

I was specifically concerned with what you meant when you said "doesn't change the fact that it was originally ommitted". That's specifically what I was asking about. Your "argument" about the anti gay portion was not what I was responding to. I asked you to explain what your point was in pointing out that "the bill was only amended because of public opinion" to which your response to that was basically "because people need to be reminded of what they did, then we can move on".

How could I move on from that when you initially never actually explained your previous position regarding your comments in regard to the bill being amended? Saying, "because people need to be reminded of what they did" is not an argument and does not explain your post prior to that in which you said "Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafted and sponsored by the gop". 

Quote:You've asked if the sponsors and authors of the bill should be "tarred and feathered"  and I responded again that it was still a bad bill.

Then you said "this isn't about the rest of the bill"...and you "were more than willing to move on"...but keep asking for a response.

Yeah, for the reasons I just stated above. I precisely said "It's not about the rest of the bill" because your response to me from the beginning was about the amendment of the bill and then the 2nd part of that exact same post was a segue into the rest of the bill, to which I was saying "Well hold on, what did that first comment mean?".

Quote:I feel compelled to post what I feel like.  Maybe you have some sort of proof that I have defended Democrats doing the same thing?  Or perhaps you just don't like it when republicans are called out for anything?

I used Democrats as an example, but you seem to have no problem squaring up against the GOP with every chance you get.  You couldn't even accept the fact that the bill was amended and felt so "compelled" that you had to respond to me with "That doesn't change that the bill was wrong in the first place".

Quote:Your singular obsession with the age component and how *I* shouldn't talk about the rest of the bill even when you asked me about it is a bit odd.

Singular obsession? It's literally what the thread is about. Please point me in the direction of which post in this thread mentioned anything about the anti-gay angle until I brought it up? And again, I didn't say you couldn't talk about the rest of the bill, I was just specifically asking what your response to me meant in regards to the bill being amended. If you're going to frame the discussion, at least frame it properly.

I posted that the whole pedophile thing was just typical media/political dramatics.

You responded to me word for word with.... 

"Yeah public opinion finally caught up with them...lol.  Doesn't change that it was omitted when the bill was drafter and sponsored by the gop"."

You then continued by saying....

 "And yes it is also an attempt to get around "gay marriage" but specifically only applying it to "one man" and "one woman".  But we already knew the gop would do that as it was in the bill originally.

It is just another law, based on religion, looking for a problem to fix that didn't exist and blew up in their face."

Which I find funny because that part of your post actually seems pretty dismissive to the anti gay discussion but you're now acting as if that was something even worth discussing.

At the end of the day, what you're not understanding about all of this is that I was never asking you to talk about the rest of the bill. I was always asking you to explain what you meant in your first response to me in regards to the amendment of the bill.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-12-2022, 07:58 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Incorrect.

You're misrepresenting this entire discussion. 

Pretty much par for the course.

[*Nately120*]

There was a guy on one of those Chris Hansen things who mentioned a "marriage contract" with what he thought was a 12 year old girl, or something to that tune. I don't think it worked.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2022, 07:58 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Correct

Should have just stopped there.  It would have reflected better on you.

You brought up anti- gay.  I then responded to your questions even though they were, IMHO, nonsensical when you started with the "tarred and feathered" stuff.

Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer them.

The gop wrote and sponsored a bad bill with no age limit.  Public caught wind and they changed it.  Doesn't change what happened in the first place.  And I fully understand you want to say "both sides" in a thread about the gop.  Good for you.  Now go start a thread about that instead of asking why I was talking about republicans when the thread was about what republicans did.

Short of that you are the one who keeps wanting to talk about it.  And it is adding nothing to the story and is purely a personal thing. So I'll let you go on without me. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-13-2022, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Should have just stopped there.  It would have reflected better on you.

Whatever that means.

Quote:Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't answer them.

It's not that I didn't like your answer. It's that your answer was a non-answer. How can anyone rebut a statement like "Because they need to be reminded". That's not an actual argument. 

Quote:The gop wrote and sponsored a bad bill with no age limit.  Public caught wind and they changed it.  Doesn't change what happened in the first place.

Right. And this whole back and forth started because of that last sentence you just said and then offered a non answer to that was "Because people need to be reminded". Which again, is not an actual argument someone can argue against.

Quote:And I fully understand you want to say "both sides" in a thread about the gop.  Good for you.  Now go start a thread about that instead of asking why I was talking about republicans when the thread was about what republicans did.

?????

I'm completely lost here. Not sure how you inferred I was making a "both sides do it" argument out of anything I said in this thread. Also not sure where I ever asked "why you are talking about republicans".

Quote:Short of that you are the one who keeps wanting to talk about it.  And it is adding nothing to the story and is purely a personal thing. So I'll let you go on without me. 

Keep talking about what? I already refuted what you said. You haven't offered a counter argument, therefore there's nothing more to discuss until you do, which I won't hold my breathe for.

And "a personal thing"? I've actually been pretty restrained throughout this entire discussion. You're the one saying things like "I didn't know it'd be this hard for you to understand" and "You should have stopped there it would have reflected better on you".

If anyone's being personal here. It's you.

[BigPapaKain]

1. Most sexual assaults on minors are perpetrated by family members
2. Republicans say people who teach minors about secuality are 'groomers'
3. Republicans only want family members teaching minors about sexuality

Do with that what you will.

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2022, 04:17 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 1. Most sexual assaults on minors are perpetrated by family members
2. Republicans say people who teach minors about secuality are 'groomers'
3. Republicans only want family members teaching minors about sexuality

Do with that what you will.

I think it's just as simple as people Republicans don't like, democrats, teachers, liberal celebrities, are just being painted as preying on children because it's the most viscerally unpleasant thing you can accuse someone of. 

Qanon wrote the playbook on this and how effective it is on typical conservative demographics, white women in particular, and it's just been assimilated into the main GOP platform.

[GreenDragon]

https://www.actionnews5.com/2022/04/06/proposed-legislation-could-legalize-child-marriage-tennessee/

[GreenDragon]

Sounds like they wanted to make it legal to be a pedophile, as long as you marry your victim.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Is there somewhere in this proposed bill that over-rides the current state legal limits on marriage?
Or was it just written with the basic assumption that it would follow those current limits?