• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grand Old Pedo party

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
74,369
Reaction score
43,616
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Look at the pedo party do their thing while they are always talking about protecting the children.

 

EdwinWillers

"Who will tell us the truth?"
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
10,559
Reaction score
7,641
Location
Red Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Deviants 'N Charge is jealous they didn't think of it first??

Couple questions:
  • If the primary purpose of the bill is to establish a common-law marriage between "one man" and "one woman" - why is the focus instead on the fact that it's missing age limits? Make no mistake - I happen to agree that age limits are appropriate and should have been included, but what is the motive for the OP calling all Republicans pedophiles?
  • Why is the dem's solution in the Tennessee legislature to throw the bill out entirely? Why not just insert age limits and move on? From my read of the article, there was no intent in leaving out age limits; when asked about the bill its author reiterated the bill's intent - “So, all this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” Leatherwood said. The author of the article however pressed on with his point, saying the bill opened the door for possible child marriages, to which its author admitted - “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said. At which point the reasonable question to ask would be:
  • Why did Leatherwood not include a specific age limit in the bill? We're not told. All we read are concerns and conjectures about "possible" issues and some inserted stats from UNICEF about marriages under the age of 18 and a statement from the Sexual Assault Center of Middle Tennessee - when the omission might have been entirely innocent, an oversight? But again, rather than simply insert an age limit into the bill and moving on, there's all this hullabaloo over something the legislature could easily edit, rather than "eliminated" as a "terrible bill." Doesn't it seem plausible there's some other reason for wanting to eliminate the bill -- besides a simple age limit that's so easily edited?
  • I still wonder where the OP is finding justification in this story for making the inflammatory assertion that all Republicans are pedophiles?
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
101,665
Reaction score
80,079
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Look at the pedo party do their thing while they are always talking about protecting the children.


Like we didn't know this already.

Sex, genitals, underage marriage - this is the new GOP.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
74,369
Reaction score
43,616
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
More GOP pedo protecting. This time from Desantis illegally holding off a public records request.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,461
Reaction score
11,778
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The Deviants 'N Charge is jealous they didn't think of it first??

Couple questions:
  • If the primary purpose of the bill is to establish a common-law marriage between "one man" and "one woman" - why is the focus instead on the fact that it's missing age limits? Make no mistake - I happen to agree that age limits are appropriate and should have been included, but what is the motive for the OP calling all Republicans pedophiles?
  • Why is the dem's solution in the Tennessee legislature to throw the bill out entirely? Why not just insert age limits and move on? From my read of the article, there was no intent in leaving out age limits; when asked about the bill its author reiterated the bill's intent - “So, all this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” Leatherwood said. The author of the article however pressed on with his point, saying the bill opened the door for possible child marriages, to which its author admitted - “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said. At which point the reasonable question to ask would be:
  • Why did Leatherwood not include a specific age limit in the bill? We're not told. All we read are concerns and conjectures about "possible" issues and some inserted stats from UNICEF about marriages under the age of 18 and a statement from the Sexual Assault Center of Middle Tennessee - when the omission might have been entirely innocent, an oversight? But again, rather than simply insert an age limit into the bill and moving on, there's all this hullabaloo over something the legislature could easily edit, rather than "eliminated" as a "terrible bill." Doesn't it seem plausible there's some other reason for wanting to eliminate the bill -- besides a simple age limit that's so easily edited?
  • I still wonder where the OP is finding justification in this story for making the inflammatory assertion that all Republicans are pedophiles?
The reason it's a terrible bill is that it does an end run around the federal law making same sex marriage legal. It allows discrimination against gays who wish to marry. It protects clerks who refuse to marry gays.

Pastors already have the right to refuse to marry a couple for their beliefs. This bill would allow government officials to do the same.

It's a lousy bill.
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
74,369
Reaction score
43,616
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
More GOP pedo protecting. This time from Desantis illegally holding off a public records request.
 

EdwinWillers

"Who will tell us the truth?"
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
10,559
Reaction score
7,641
Location
Red Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The reason it's a terrible bill is that it does an end run around the federal law making same sex marriage legal. It allows discrimination against gays who wish to marry. It protects clerks who refuse to marry gays.

Pastors already have the right to refuse to marry a couple for their beliefs. This bill would allow government officials to do the same.

It's a lousy bill.
...perhaps that's true; perhaps it's not. Given the information provided, I'm not sure where you get such claims given, none of those concerns were raised by the OP or the article the OP cited - and neither does it address the OP's accusation of all Republicans being pedophiles.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
31,028
Reaction score
9,321
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Deviants 'N Charge is jealous they didn't think of it first??

Couple questions:
  • If the primary purpose of the bill is to establish a common-law marriage between "one man" and "one woman" - why is the focus instead on the fact that it's missing age limits? Make no mistake - I happen to agree that age limits are appropriate and should have been included, but what is the motive for the OP calling all Republicans pedophiles?
  • Why is the dem's solution in the Tennessee legislature to throw the bill out entirely? Why not just insert age limits and move on? From my read of the article, there was no intent in leaving out age limits; when asked about the bill its author reiterated the bill's intent - “So, all this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” Leatherwood said. The author of the article however pressed on with his point, saying the bill opened the door for possible child marriages, to which its author admitted - “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said. At which point the reasonable question to ask would be:
  • Why did Leatherwood not include a specific age limit in the bill? We're not told. All we read are concerns and conjectures about "possible" issues and some inserted stats from UNICEF about marriages under the age of 18 and a statement from the Sexual Assault Center of Middle Tennessee - when the omission might have been entirely innocent, an oversight? But again, rather than simply insert an age limit into the bill and moving on, there's all this hullabaloo over something the legislature could easily edit, rather than "eliminated" as a "terrible bill." Doesn't it seem plausible there's some other reason for wanting to eliminate the bill -- besides a simple age limit that's so easily edited?
  • I still wonder where the OP is finding justification in this story for making the inflammatory assertion that all Republicans are pedophiles?
The DNC would never do this, because their support base wouldn't allow it.
 

EdwinWillers

"Who will tell us the truth?"
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
10,559
Reaction score
7,641
Location
Red Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The DNC would never do this, because their support base wouldn't allow it.
Do what, specifically? Make the inflammatory accusation that all Republicans are pedophiles? Might I point out - they just did it.

Moreover, it's the DNC base that supports all manner of deviant behaviors - even to the point of celebrating them, so I'm not sure where you get the notion they wouldn't allow it. They in fact promote it.
 

AmNat

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2019
Messages
7,123
Reaction score
1,922
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Look at the pedo party do their thing while they are always talking about protecting the children.

I see nothing in the bill that changes Tennessee's existing laws regarding capacity to marry.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
46,618
Reaction score
20,966
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The reason it's a terrible bill is that it does an end run around the federal law making same sex marriage legal. It allows discrimination against gays who wish to marry. It protects clerks who refuse to marry gays.

Pastors already have the right to refuse to marry a couple for their beliefs. This bill would allow government officials to do the same.

It's a lousy bill.
Thats is actually a legitimate objection to the bill, unlike the idiocy in the OP.
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,461
Reaction score
11,778
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
...perhaps that's true; perhaps it's not. Given the information provided, I'm not sure where you get such claims given, none of those concerns were raised by the OP or the article the OP cited - and neither does it address the OP's accusation of all Republicans being pedophiles.
I read the bill. It's what it sounded like to me, but I don't claim to be an expert at translating government speak.

It's stupid to say Republicans are pedos or Dems are pedos. But this is a political board so we're gonna hear some stupid stuff.
 

bomberfox

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2019
Messages
30,983
Reaction score
11,467
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Look at the pedo party do their thing while they are always talking about protecting the children.

I am not sure that was the intention of the bill, but it certainly is the result of the way it was written, and they didn't care when it was pointed out to them. The bill is a bad bill, and should die a horrlble death instead of getting passed.


I am not sure I like the common law marriage laws anyway, I have seen it abused a couple of times.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
31,028
Reaction score
9,321
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Do what, specifically? Make the inflammatory accusation that all Republicans are pedophiles? Might I point out - they just did it.

Moreover, it's the DNC base that supports all manner of deviant behaviors - even to the point of celebrating them, so I'm not sure where you get the notion they wouldn't allow it. They in fact promote it.
Was referring to the law the OP article is about, in response to the first line of your post indicating that they would. Or at least wanted too.
 

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
15,817
Location
Seattle Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Deviants 'N Charge is jealous they didn't think of it first??

Couple questions:
  • If the primary purpose of the bill is to establish a common-law marriage between "one man" and "one woman" - why is the focus instead on the fact that it's missing age limits? Make no mistake - I happen to agree that age limits are appropriate and should have been included, but what is the motive for the OP calling all Republicans pedophiles?
  • Why is the dem's solution in the Tennessee legislature to throw the bill out entirely? Why not just insert age limits and move on? From my read of the article, there was no intent in leaving out age limits; when asked about the bill its author reiterated the bill's intent - “So, all this bill does is give an alternative form of marriage for those pastors and other individuals who have a conscientious objection to the current pathway to marriage in our law,” Leatherwood said. The author of the article however pressed on with his point, saying the bill opened the door for possible child marriages, to which its author admitted - “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said. At which point the reasonable question to ask would be:
  • Why did Leatherwood not include a specific age limit in the bill? We're not told. All we read are concerns and conjectures about "possible" issues and some inserted stats from UNICEF about marriages under the age of 18 and a statement from the Sexual Assault Center of Middle Tennessee - when the omission might have been entirely innocent, an oversight? But again, rather than simply insert an age limit into the bill and moving on, there's all this hullabaloo over something the legislature could easily edit, rather than "eliminated" as a "terrible bill." Doesn't it seem plausible there's some other reason for wanting to eliminate the bill -- besides a simple age limit that's so easily edited?
  • I still wonder where the OP is finding justification in this story for making the inflammatory assertion that all Republicans are pedophiles?
It's funny how Republicans always accuse others of doing the horrible stuff they do. Guilt?
 

MaryP

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Messages
19,461
Reaction score
11,778
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not sure that was the intention of the bill, but it certainly is the result of the way it was written, and they didn't care when it was pointed out to them. The bill is a bad bill, and should die a horrlble death instead of getting passed.


I am not sure I like the common law marriage laws anyway, I have seen it abused a couple of times.
I thought those common law marriages were long gone?
 

lurchadams

Zoom Warrior
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
31,842
Reaction score
15,817
Location
Seattle Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
...perhaps that's true; perhaps it's not. Given the information provided, I'm not sure where you get such claims given, none of those concerns were raised by the OP or the article the OP cited - and neither does it address the OP's accusation of all Republicans being pedophiles.
All Republicans ARE pedophiles. You must be new here.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
74,369
Reaction score
43,616
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I see nothing in the bill that changes Tennessee's existing laws regarding capacity to marry.
Maybe you should speak with the bill's sponsor.

The bill’s sponsor, Tom Leatherwood (R-Arlington) said the law being considered would add a new marriage option for Tennesseans.​
“There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said.​
 
Top Bottom