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

[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.