Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
so your only concern is if the government sanctions it and not the act itself??If it’s not a legally-recognized marriage, then I don’t see the issue.
you just said you dont care as long as the government doesnt recognize it,,Too, not to.
I just don’t want children getting married. You apparently do.
thats only been the case in the last 75-100 yrs,,While I agree to your 14 year old comment... Historically men and women have paired off at thier respective Primes. Which usually means mid to late teen, very early 20's woemen; and late 20's , to mid 30's men. Biology will always thumb its nose at sociological convention...
While I agree to your 14 year old comment... Historically men and women have paired off at thier respective Primes. Which usually means mid to late teen, very early 20's woemen; and late 20's , to mid 30's men. Biology will always thumb its nose at sociological convention...thats a tough one,,
it sure isnt 40 yrs to a 14 yr old,,
my problem is who is the state to get involved in marriage,,
we have statutory rape laws that cover the perverts,, but after that the government shouldnt be the ones that give permission to get married,,
Yet here we are millions of years later. Who got it right?thats only been the case in the last 75-100 yrs,,
before that marrying at 13 was very common,,
Yet, here we are millions of years later. Who got it right?thats only been the case in the last 75-100 yrs,,
before that marrying at 13 was very common,,
nope we are just 75-100 yrs later,, and in some parts of the country they didnt age the same way and are closer to then than nowWhile I agree to your 14 year old comment... Historically men and women have paired off at thier respective Primes. Which usually means mid to late teen, very early 20's woemen; and late 20's , to mid 30's men. Biology will always thumb its nose at sociological convention...
Yet here we are millions of years later. Who got it right?
Make that make sense... Times may have changed... Peopled haven't. Not in a million years...nope we are just 75-100 yrs later,, and in some parts of the country they didnt age the same way and are closer to then than now
we are not a million yrs away from 75-100 yrs ago,,Make that make sense... Times may have changed... Peopled haven't. Not in a million years...
Typical of the groomers in the republic party.Hmmm....this seems a no-brainer, protecting youth from both adult predators and the consequences of poor decisions resulting in getting married too young, often leaving the state holding the bag regarding finances and minor children. Yet, some of the Republicans in Missouri oppose it?
Their logic seems flawed. They trot out some successful early marriages, a minority---and ignore the negative consequences--the majority.
View attachment 944689
Missouri Republican state representative Dean Van Schoiak (Image: Facebook / Dean VanSchoiak)
A bipartisan bill that would outlaw all child marriages in Missouri has run into resistance from Republicans in the Missouri House that could prevent it from becoming law. The legislation, filed by Sen. Holly Thompson Rehder, a Scott City Republican, and Sen. Lauren Arthur, a Kansas City Democrat, would prohibit anyone under 18 from obtaining a marriage license. Current law allows 16 and 17-year-olds to get married with parental consent. The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the bill on a nearly unanimous vote of 31 to 1 last month. But the legislation has since stalled in a House committee with just more than a week left in this year’s legislative session which ends on May 17.
Supporters of the bill say the opposition illustrates some lawmakers’ extreme and archaic views on marriage. Missouri previously had one of the nation’s most lenient laws surrounding child marriage and the state’s current law has been criticized as a loophole that leaves thousands of teenagers open to abuse and exploitation. “Any explanation used to justify opposition is nothing more than, you know, an excuse to protect predators,” Arthur said in an interview. The committee’s chair, Rep. Jim Murphy, a St. Louis-area Republican, said in an interview that there aren’t enough votes within the committee to get it to the House floor. Seven of the 14 committee members oppose the legislation and disagree with raising the state’s marriage age, he said. “It’s on the…going 16 to 18,” Murphy, who supports the bill, said of the opposition. “There’s just enough members in that committee that don’t think that’s a good idea.”
One of those lawmakers is Rep. Dean Van Schoiack, a Savannah Republican and vice chair of the committee. Van Schoiack said in an interview that he knows people who got married as minors, including a woman at roughly age 17. The couple, he said, is “still madly in love with each other.” “Why is the government getting involved in people’s lives like this?” Van Schoiak said. “What purpose do we have in deciding that a couple who are 16 or 17 years old, their parents say, you know, ‘you guys love each other, go ahead and get married, you have my permission.’ Why would we stop that?”
Rehder, who is running for lieutenant governor, pushed back in an interview. “The government does tell people when they can get married because we do have an age limit right now,” she said. “The fact that he feels that it’s okay for a parent to make a decision for a child, that is a lifetime decision, is offensive.” The legislation is personal for Rehder, who was married at age 15 to her 21-year-old boyfriend in 1984. A year earlier, her sister, at age 16, married her 39-year-old drug dealer, she has said. “As a child that did get married,” she said, “I would say I have a lot more insight to this issue than what he does.”
Humans in 2024, are no different than humans in 2024. BC...we are not a million yrs away from 75-100 yrs ago,,
and some backwoods cultures are closer to 1924 than they are to 2024,,
the cultures of people in 2024 are very different than those in 1924,,Humans in 2024, are no different than humans in 2024. BC...
Cultures may have changed... Human biology hasn't.the cultures of people in 2024 are very different than those in 1924,,
If it’s not a legally recognized marriage, then it looks more like “dating” as far as I’m concerned.so your only concern is if the government sanctions it and not the act itself??
so then you would be ok with a 50 yr old marrying a 16 yr old,,
as long as the government doesnt recognize it,,
thats just stupid,,
never said it did,,Cultures may have changed... Human biology hasn't.
I think dating is different, the laws are for sex not dating,,If it’s not a legally recognized marriage, then it looks more like “dating” as far as I’m concerned.
Is it legally allowed for a 16-year-old to date a 50-year-old? I believe that’s illegal as well.
I don’t care as long as it falls within the boundaries of the other laws.you just said you dont care as long as the government doesnt recognize it,,
I'm so confused,,
who cares if its legally recognized,,I don’t care as long as it falls within the boundaries of the other laws.
If two 17-year-olds choose to get “married”, I would say the marriage shouldn’t be legally recognized, but their actions also aren’t illegal. That’s way different if we’re talking about a 16-year-old “marrying” a 50-year-old, which should not be legally recognized and should also be punishable.
so you’re ok with a 50-year-old marrying a 16-year-old?who cares if its legally recognized,,
you really worship the government to much,,
so you’re ok with a 50-year-old marrying a 16-year-old?
