N.H. lawmaker opposes new marriage bill, says teens are of ‘ripe, fertile’ age
N.H. lawmaker opposes new marriage bill, says teens are of ‘ripe, fertile’ age
A New Hampshire lawmaker argued against a bill in the state’s House of Representatives last week that would set the state’s minimum age of marriage at 18.
“If we continually restrict the freedom of marriage as a legitimate social option, when we do this to people who are a ripe, fertile age and may have a pregnancy and a baby involved, are we not in fact making abortion a much more desirable alternative, when marriage might be the right solution for some freedom-loving couple?” Edwards said.
Pedophile in plain view GOP doesn't even have to hide it anymore. These fucks come right out and say it and get voted for anyway.
Roy Moore barely lost an election despite cruising malls and trying to fuck teenagers.
Right because they think pedos are lurking around every corner and gaining positions of power, but also that it's all just a made up witch hunt if one of their guys gets caught trying to diddle a kid.
So at the risk of severe down votes, I'm going to approach this by what he means, and not how everyone is taking it. And to get it out of the way, what he's saying is still wrong, just not, I think, in the pedo or ephebo or whatever way.
I believe the point he is making are they are at a prime biological point for reproducing, they have all the hormones going and all the adult-like systems in place to make them want to have sex (presumably with each other). And he's absolutely right. We in the more sex positive left have been saying it for a long time, which is why we push for better sex and reproductive health education.
His standpoint is, we can't stop them from having sex, so removing the option to marry makes abortion a better option. I agree completely, but where we differ is that I think that's good to have that option and continue their lives to start careers and have children on their own terms, and he thinks it's bad because teenage moms are better than abortions (and, really, better all around).
Our standpoint: they're going to have sex anyway, so give them the education and resources to prevent pregnancy, and abortion available as a last resort.
His standpoint: they're going to anyway, so make sex a scary thing that leads to pregnancy, and then make the only avenue marriage. Because MORE BABIES.
I think his actual standpoint is really shitty. We don't need to read shit into what he's saying to amp up the rage bait.
Well done. These kinds of spins happen a lot where the Republican is still in the wrong, often by a lot, but leftists will discredit, or at least dilute, legit arguments against them with responses to the worst version that is pushed of whatever story. You've done a good job of breaking down a different approach
Alright, but also let's not pull a muscle bending over backwards to find the peanuts in this pile of shit. Too often, conservatives are the worst possible version of whatever they are half-pretending they aren't. There's a very good chance that an anti-abortion lawmaker is exactly as misogynistic as this quote makes him seem. When people reveal themselves, believe them.
Agreed, there's also a lot of noise coming from anonymous accounts on social media designed to get politically extremes riled up against each other.
The NH house is full of these crazies. Mildly conservative state with a lot of rural area, and the house is four hundred people. None of this ever gets as far as the state senate.
Hoenstly, it increases the crazy talk but it is closer to actual democracy, so i see the appeal.
Turns out there are plenty of crazy people that vote for crazy people, but at least your rep may actually care about what you want as a constituent. It also limits any one crazy persons influence, so that's a win.
I don't think Marriage should have any legal basis whatsoever. It's a religious ritual, and I don't think the government should get involved in it. With that said, since marriage does have a legal basis allowing minors to be married is an utterly deranged practice.
I can see his point from a biological standpoint.
For most mammals, females start breeding when they're sexually mature, and males breed when they're able to compete with the adults, which is well after sexual maturity. Human evolution is no exception.
So historically, human females evolved to reproduce earlier than 18 years old.
But that purely biological argument willfully ignores the human construct of complex societies. It takes much longer for our species to reach societal maturity than even 18 years. 18 is still a child completely unable to support oneself or contribute to society as an equal. Are we are far longer living now than our species was even a short time ago. We don't need to reproduce in our teens so that we can fully raise our offspring before we die in our 30s or 40s. And in fact, in reproducing young, it puts you at a severe societal disadvantage WRT competing.
So yeah, pretty blatant bad faith premise to support the conclusion he wants.
I've always thought it odd that people would ever reference nature when contemplating morality. Nature is evil. Beautiful, able to give rise to glorious wonders, and yet the most abjectly evil thing to exist. If your best argument is an appeal to nature, then you're probably wrong.
I'm glad I see more people these days making arguments the way you are; granting the opponent's entire premise and then showing it doesn't matter. It's an absolutely deviating rhetorical tactic, and one I'm fond of.
Jess Edwards, you’re a creepy old fart. Go away.
Creepy and gross, although I do have to give Edwards a HEAVILY QUALIFIED compliment on his explanations. From a political perspective, they sound almost reasonable if you don’t think about them too much. That’s the work of an experienced politician/bullshit artist.
Still, no matter how well you do a creepy thing, it remains creepy.
Fertile thots, ripe thicc. Vote GQP.