Parents give rights to their children. They have a right to do so
they are payingfor their childs room and board. It is the right
thing to do until the child or a teenager can function on their own.
This is what this is about. We are talking about teenagers living at
home and then reaching a stage of maturity when then can function on
their own as adults.
Once again nothing in there about denying rights based on race or
gender or anything else. It's about TEENAGERS!!!
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
You're speaking here of rights as something given to people by
other people; that's certainly not a libertarian conception.
You're wanting, if I understand you, to deny rights, like the
right to marry, to a group of people based on the demographic
characteristic of age. That seems to me formally identical to
denying rights based on race or gender. And I noted that your
justification was the same as it historically was in those cases.
From: tradergroupe [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 4:10 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed
ining the Debate but Missing the Point
Ask any parent of a teenager what rights they give their teenagers
if they are living at home and under are 18. How does saying a
teenager under 18 living at home needs to show as Starchild
suggested they that they be fully independent and responsible for
their own affairs before being emancipated twist into race and
--- In email@example.com, "Acree, Michael"
> I know very few people _over_ 18 whom I regard as "fully
independent and responsible for their own affairs," and I don't
think any such judgment should be a condition of possessing
You still seem to be implying that people over 18 have rights that
people under 18, as a group, don't. That seems to me simple age
discrimination, on a par with race and gender discrimination, and
justified by the same paternalism.
> From: tradergroupe [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:59 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed
> ining the Debate but Missing the Point
> Dear Michael;
> Nope, Starchild said anyone should be allowed to get married at
> age based on being fully independent and responsible for their
> affairs. As I pointed out how many teenagers do you know who are
> this capacity??? I also asked everyone to consider what you were
> like as a teenager and were you fully independent and
> for your own affairs???
> Nowhere was there any mention of blacks and women NOT being
> independent and responsible for their own affairs. Nowhere was
> any mention of Blacks and Women not being human.
> Where the heck did you dredge that up from???
> The age restriction on teenage marriages is an equal
> restriction and not based on race,creed,color,sex, sexual
> etc etc etc etc. And I also said exceptions could apply at
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
> --- In email@example.com, "Acree, Michael"
> > Ron:
> > You seem to be saying that people below a certain age don't
> possess the same rights as those above that age, which implies
> as was once said of blacks and women, they're not fully human.
> understanding you correctly?
> > From: Ronald Getty [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:30 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed
> Contributor: Joining the Debate but Missing the Point
> > Dear Starchild;
> > Try to define legally independent and responsible for their
> affairs when talking to a teenager. Good Luck! While there are
> teenagers who are very adult at a young age the majority just
> ain't. This is why I believe there should be some minimal age
> restriction arbitrary as it is at 18. Exceptions to the rule can
> applied for at anytime.
> > A question - not just for Starchild but everyone out there.
> > If it isn't to painful to think about - what were you like as
> 15 - 16 - 17 year old teenager? Anything approaching legally
> independent and responsible for your own affairs??? Whoo
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> > Starchild <sfdreamer@e…> wrote:
> > Or age, I would say, as long as the individuals involved
> > independent and responsible for their own affairs.
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> > > From: "Ronald Getty" <tradergroupe@y…>
> > >> Any two people 18 years of age or older can get married. I
> > > believe there should be any distinction or discrimination or
> > > dissension because of sex. <
> > >
> > > In addition, no prohibition because of number of individuals
> > > to marry, e.g., polygamy.
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > Click HereClick Here
> > <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?