Using Lawrence v Texas Fuels Polygamay In Equal Consideration As Gays For Marriage

Yet if you parents opposed you employment, it would have been illegal.

 

Nothing could be more false. By that logic companies would never have to pay any children who got jobs without their parents signing.

LOL Are you kidding? When you work for someone, anyone with a business who pays taxes on you and you get paid for the work that is a contract. My God this is common knowledge.

 

Both genders can marry. There is no gender discrimination. There is sexual preference discrimination. Do not lie about what I said.

 

We understand the gay militants can't justify their moronic emotions and translate into an actual argument as to why homosexuality and only homosexuality should be granted state sponsored marriage. Every time they call us "homophobes" for demanding an actual argument not based on emotion it only makes them look like emotional teenage children driven by emotion and not facts.

 

Because heterosexuality just like race is a proven genetic trait. Why should something that has no proof in genetics like homosexuality be elevated to that level?

 

Do you have links to this proven fact? Peer reviewed studies, not some made up blather.

 

LOL not for a second.

Read the last part for the first time.

Therefore, if someone -- a corporation, a customer -- contracts with a minor, the contract is voidable by the minor or the minor's guardian before the minor becomes an adult and, in most cases, for a period of two years and sometimes longer [after that]. Voidable means the minor or his guardian can elect, for any reason, not to honor the contract.... There is nothing that a third party [someone contracting with a minor] can do to stop that.

The contact between and minor and a business is as it states real.

More:

There are a few exceptions to the legal contract age. The most important is that minors have the right to work and, therefore, to be paid for their work according to the terms of an employment agreement. The parent of a minor cannot demand payment or benefits on behalf of their minor child according to a contract if the payment or benefits have already been given to the minor. The other major exception relates to necessities. A minor cannot be held liable for contracts involving items necessary to existence at their accustomed standard of living if there is no legal guardian to provide the items. Minors, however, can be liable for the purchase of luxury items and cannot reverse a cash transaction on a theory of contractual incapacity.

Read more: What Is Legal Contract Age? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5030458_legal-contract-age.html#ixzz1w6mLhRit



The question was can minors enter contracts without a parent's consent.

Answer, absolutely.

Enjoy your fail. again.

 

Wrong again. They were never asked therefore their opinion was never considered.

I was as a child allowed to apply and receive employment on my own entering into a contract with a company receiving money for work.

 

If a contract is voidable by the minor, or their guardian, then it is not a legally binding contract. BINDING means BINDING. Not voidable.

 

No, we are driven by reason and intelligence. The homophobes, on the other hand, take pride in their own ignorance. You people know you have not a single valid argument against marriage equality, but you are proud to be bigots nonetheless.

 

"intelligent homophobe" is an oxymoron. Homophobia, by definition, is due to the lack of knowledge.

See what I mean?

I'd like you to repost what you originally posted in here before you changed it to the above. Why? Because I've said some very nice things to you in these anti-gay threads. Look them up.

 

LOL If it wasn't "binding" then no company would ever have to pay for their labor. Honestly, think before posting.

The very fact that they can enter into an agreement where they get paid for their work is BINDING. The company can't just refuse to pay.

 

Still waiting for your argument I've only asked for 3 times.

Sigh. More emotional rhetoric without supporting evidence. Why am I not surprised?

I've already presented my arguments. I'm still waiting for yours so I can tear them apart.

 

See what? Did you even bother to read what I was responding to? Of course not. Did you present an arguement that would allow for homosexuals and only homosexuals to be granted state sponsored marriage as requested? Of course not.

Thanks for staying predictable.

 

It was down to the splitters.

 

Now, where are we?

On the point of people being able to marry or not marry. A man can marry a woman; two men can't marry; two women can't marry. Sexual preference has nothing to do with it, it is about same-sex marriage being illegal. That is, the right to marry is being denied on the basis of sex. That can and should be changed and there are sound reasons for doing so.

The primary reason is that all people should have equal rights or the concept of human rights becomes ridiculous.

If marriage is a human right,
And it is denied to people of the same sex
Then people of the same sex are denied a human right.

 

You haven't presented (*)(*)(*)(*). Come up with a valid well-reasoned argument against marriage equality for LGBTQ folk, or else shut up and let the march toward equality take its course.

 

Pray tell....what is "Q"?

Is it polygamy? Why or why not?