|
Post by someguy on Jun 29, 2015 1:28:48 GMT -5
Why's that? She could be perfectly happy being a lesbian. Maybe even happier than with you. If not in the name of liberty then in the name of diversity, you should encourage her to try it. I can understand that many Christians dislike or fear a lifestyle that is different from their own. What I don't understand is why they consider such a lifestyle or lifestyles an imposition on Christians, when it is they who are trying to impose on everyone else. Exatcly whathat. This is the crux of it for me. Who cares, the only ones who actually care are the ones who have been imposing their views and beliefs on others for who knows how long. Let it alone. Let them marry. What the heck is gay marriage anyways...happy marriage??? Marriage has been legal for all in Canada for at least a decade and what negative has happened? Nothing. People get married and their spouse gets access to their extended benefits, and pension. I don't care if two men marry each other or two women. Why? Because it is their lives and they are entitled to live it as they choose. They are happy and that makes me happy. To tell them they have to live their lives according to the belief or dogma of another is an interesting approach that I think many Christians haven't really bothered to think all the way through.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 29, 2015 1:41:06 GMT -5
What has Ginsburg et al said about it? That would mean a lot more to me than what Volokh says. Jesse, did you ever consider that some people of the caliber of Justice Ginsburg who had explained something once already So you can't find anything directly from Ginsburg and the other authors? Ok.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 1:52:47 GMT -5
Ok, were your parents professing Bert? If so you have proven that you cannot answer the question you asked. Unless you think its ok for children to have abusive parents & to witness domestic violence. Never had the same "professing upbringing"many of my dear friends have had (not something to discuss here though.)
As I see it, a lot of what normal kids go through with broken homes and the violence and sex culture of TV, is akin to abuse - "normalized" abuse.
And an increasing number of "parents"don't even monitor what their kids watchon TV anymore - let alone the internet(and that is well documented.)
I knew it, Bert.
I knew IT from your posts, I determined a long time ago that you did not grow up in the **TRUTH**
You did not understand anything at all about what it was like to grow up in the **TRUTH** and your absolute inability to find anything at all wrong with the deception of what we had been told indicated you were definitely NEW to it all!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 1:56:41 GMT -5
Jesse, did you ever consider that some people of the caliber of Justice Ginsburg who had explained something once already So you can't find anything directly from Ginsburg and the other authors? Ok. Why don't YOU look? You are the one all upset by it!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 29, 2015 2:33:33 GMT -5
So you can't find anything directly from Ginsburg and the other authors? Ok. Why don't YOU look? You are the one all upset by it!I'm not upset. You, rational and matisse are acting like I'm an ignoramus for not knowing that the "16 to 12" change was a "drafting error" and "was corrected a long time ago in subsequent documents". I've been trying but can find NOTHING from the the authors about a "drafting error", any error, later corrections, or revisions. All I can find is the 1977 version "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" I linked, and an earlier 1974 version of it called "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law". What are the "subsequent documents" and "corrections"? Where can I find them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 3:08:03 GMT -5
Quote - "your absolute inability to find anything at all wrong with the deception of what we had been told"
Dmmichgood, last week I heard about the Woman of Samaria, and the story of Phillip meeting the Eunuch. As far as I could see it was pure G.O.S.P.E.L. No reference to anything other than the life of Jesus. No global-warming or help-the-poor campaigns. Pure Gospel. Some people are offended at that. They claim they want more, but settle for far less.
I knew a woman who wasn't happy in the meetings. She was seriously out of place. She went searching for books on us, and found The Secret Sect. Now whenever I speak to her she brings up this book. What has she found? Nothing at all - she doesn't even attend a church, even a global- warming one.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 29, 2015 3:10:13 GMT -5
Never had the same "professing upbringing" many of my dear friends have had (not something to discuss here though.) As I see it, a lot of what normal kids go through with broken homes and the violence and sex culture of TV, is akin to abuse - "normalized" abuse. And an increasing number of "parents" don't even monitor what their kids watch on TV anymore - let alone the internet(and that is well documented.)
ps I am with a friend who right now who is watching some man break up his marriage and three kids so he can marry another man. It's on TV, and it's more "normalization." Interesting word, that. Bert the "professing upbringing" you think you missed out on may not always be as good as you think ! I had a very strict "professing upbringing" where domestic violence was the norm, as long as it all looked ok on the outside and everyone kept quiet it was ok ! But as a child growing up in this environment it was NOT ok. So again I don't think we can answer your question, just because a family goes to meetings, missions, conventions and everything looks wonderful on the outside does NOT mean the children have a wonderful childhood.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 29, 2015 3:12:12 GMT -5
Never had the same "professing upbringing"many of my dear friends have had (not something to discuss here though.)
As I see it, a lot of what normal kids go through with broken homes and the violence and sex culture of TV, is akin to abuse - "normalized" abuse.
And an increasing number of "parents"don't even monitor what their kids watchon TV anymore - let alone the internet(and that is well documented.)
I knew it, Bert.
I knew IT from your posts, I determined a long time ago that you did not grow up in the **TRUTH**
You did not understand anything at all about what it was like to grow up in the **TRUTH** and your absolute inability to find anything at all wrong with the deception of what we had been told indicated you were definitely NEW to it all!
Dmmg, I agree ! The more generations that have been part of the F&W the more indoctrinated we are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 3:14:09 GMT -5
Roselyn, you say you suffered 'domestic violence' in your 'professing upbringing.' I seriously doubt 'domestic violence' is the norm in my church. You are suggesting that in fact it IS the norm. That's the first problem. The second one is the definition of 'domestic violence', some feminists suggest this could even be a man yelling at a woman. Some here might think it's denying children the things most other children enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 29, 2015 3:40:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 29, 2015 4:41:41 GMT -5
Roselyn, you say you suffered 'domestic violence' in your 'professing upbringing.' I seriously doubt 'domestic violence' is the norm in my church. You are suggesting that in fact it IS the norm. That's the first problem. The second one is the definition of 'domestic violence', some feminists suggest this could even be a man yelling at a woman. Some here might think it's denying children the things most other children enjoy. Bert I suggest you re-read what I wrote: I said I had a "professing upbringing" where domestic violence was the norm. I did not say that domestic violence was the norm amongst the F&W ! Also just to clarify I am well aware of the definition of domestic violence. I seen first hand things that no child should see happen to their mother, so DO NOT dare tell me I don't know the definition of domestic violence. Bert I am still waiting for a reply to this. I believe I have answered both your so-called problems.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 29, 2015 4:43:05 GMT -5
Roselyn, you say you suffered 'domestic violence' in your 'professing upbringing.' I seriously doubt 'domestic violence' is the norm in my church. You are suggesting that in fact it IS the norm. That's the first problem. The second one is the definition of 'domestic violence', some feminists suggest this could even be a man yelling at a woman. Some here might think it's denying children the things most other children enjoy. Also Jesse maybe before you like Bert's post or agree with him wait & see what my reply is, you seem to think you are the only person who has ever had any life experience !
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2015 7:28:16 GMT -5
What I'm saying is you and rational would never make a "mistake" like that even here on a post. I have made much bigger mistakes on this message board. I once wrote a number of posts and addressed them to mdm in error. About a week later I realized the error, acknowledged the error, and posted the correction. People do that. And my error was more than a single number mistyped. It was many paragraphs. One error in over 150 pages of text that was worked on by multiple people and then assembled to form the text? I am surprised there were not more errors.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 29, 2015 7:54:25 GMT -5
There may be some basic misunderstandings about the "age of consent": "Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18. Www.legalmatch.Com
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2015 8:24:19 GMT -5
This point, along with others was raised in the confirmation hearings. The reasons for the change from 16 to 12 was elsewhere. The point of the reduced age of consent was raised in the prepared testimony of Paige Comstock Cunningham and again by Susan Hirschmann. While there were pages of comment regarding Ginsburg's stand on abortion there was no mentioned concern of the reduced age of consent point stated. The reason that the 16 was changed to 12 was explored in detail by Eugene Volokh here.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jun 29, 2015 8:40:02 GMT -5
So am I understanding correctly that while the "issue" was raised by others, RBG was not questioned directly about age of consent during the confirmation hearings for her seat on the Supreme Court.
If this is true, I don't see why she would make a public comment about the document published during the 1970's.
She was confirmed by an overwhelming majority of the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 29, 2015 8:40:47 GMT -5
It's got nothing to do with that. I don't know who "Graham" is and haven't read anything about his views. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has views just like yours. How did you happen to come across the 16/12 change?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jun 29, 2015 14:44:17 GMT -5
It's got nothing to do with that. I don't know who "Graham" is and haven't read anything about his views. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has views just like yours. How did you happen to come across the 16/12 change?
I said how I came across the change - I didn't read anything Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it.
Rational you don't get to say something like this without being specific. That's not a very rational thing to do. What views of Sen. Lindsey Graham's are just like mine?
This point, along with others was raised in the confirmation hearings. The reasons for the change from 16 to 12 was elsewhere. The point of the reduced age of consent was raised in the prepared testimony of Paige Comstock Cunningham and again by Susan Hirschmann. While there were pages of comment regarding Ginsburg's stand on abortion there was no mentioned concern of the reduced age of consent point stated. The reason that the 16 was changed to 12 was explored in detail by Eugene Volokh here.
Oh good grief! I read all of Volokh's speculations about why the 16 was changed to 12. He never denies there was in fact a change on page 102 of "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" published in 1977. He's guessing about why there was a change. It's obvious from the commenters at his site a lot of them are not buying what he's selling - probably because he's guessing about author's intent and the book's authors don't seem to have ever commented on the change or the reasons for the change. Any rational person would conclude that Volokh never talked directly to any of the original authors about the change and reasons for it - if he had he would have said so somewhere in all his comments on the issue.
It's on page 102; "Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years." The recommended substitution was gender neutral and included; "(3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old." That is a recommended change in age from 16 to 12. It was a drafting error, acknowledged years ago. The paper was only concerned with gender neutral language changes.
Acknowledged as a drafting error by the actual authors? I'd love to see that. I've been looking and can't find anything. If you can find something about this from any of the original authors let me know.
I did look at the link. It is not unheard of for errors to get through. I read scientific journals and from time-to-time, notes about various errata in previous issues are published. It is not ideal, but it is also not as "lame" as you suggest. Plus the fact that the issue has been addressed many times between the publication and today - by people from both sides of the arguments. Why are you making lame excuses for other people? The writers of that document caught their error and issued a correction years ago. You didn't do your homework carefully enough to notice that there was a corrected version. A quick acknowledgement and it could be the "end of story". If that is too difficult for you, we can just drop it without any acknowledgement from you of your error. I really don't care either way.
Ok, please, you rational or dmmichgood, find at least one source for the book's original authors addressing this issue and referencing it as a "drafting error." Even a comment from any of the original authors confirming Volokh's speculations would be great. It's not right to make me look like an idiot in a patronizing and condescending way without backing up what you say.
"The writers of that document caught their error and issued a correction years ago."
I'd like to see solid documentation for that. If the writers of that document caught their error and issued a correction years ago any rational person would think Volokh would have said so in all his comments on the issue. Let me know if you find any documentation on this.
"You didn't do your homework carefully enough to notice that there was a corrected version."
I've already asked you, rational, and dmmichgood for something, anything, to document the fact there was a corrected version, corrected after the 1977 copy I linked. If you can't find a link or copy of the corrected version at least tell me what the correction was. We know what the 1977 copy said, if it was corrected later what was it corrected to? If you can find anything let me know.
|
|
terry
Senior Member
Posts: 328
|
Post by terry on Jun 29, 2015 15:28:17 GMT -5
Tell that to the kids of heterosexual unions being raised by two mom's or dad's who were willing to foster and adopt them when no one else would. Better yet, stay away from the kids, the last thing they need is your nasty vibe. That's a tear-jerker. I don't think cohabiting gays should be allowed to adopt. Children should not be deprived of the contribution of both sexes, nor should they be injected into the normalization of gay behavior without their consent. So they should just be shunted from foster home to foster home, right? What about single parents, should they be required to get married in order to keep their children?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 29, 2015 16:34:38 GMT -5
yeah, but for how much longer? Bert, Jesse,
NAMBLA has always been a small group & are getting less support all the time!
It is always the 'old hat' first arrow slung by homophobic & fundamentalist Christians groups!
NAMBLA really has nothing to do with homosexual orientation!
Get over it!
I don't think we were talking about the connection between homosexuality and NAMBLA. We were discussing what might be the next step by taking note of what has been on the "change" radar.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 29, 2015 16:39:43 GMT -5
Never had the same "professing upbringing"many of my dear friends have had (not something to discuss here though.)
As I see it, a lot of what normal kids go through with broken homes and the violence and sex culture of TV, is akin to abuse - "normalized" abuse.
And an increasing number of "parents"don't even monitor what their kids watchon TV anymore - let alone the internet(and that is well documented.)
I knew it, Bert.
I knew IT from your posts, I determined a long time ago that you did not grow up in the **TRUTH**
You did not understand anything at all about what it was like to grow up in the **TRUTH** and your absolute inability to find anything at all wrong with the deception of what we had been told indicated you were definitely NEW to it all!
You may be assuming something he didn't say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 18:25:33 GMT -5
What "deception" is that Emy?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 29, 2015 19:24:53 GMT -5
What "deception" is that Emy? Did I say something about deception? What I meant to imply is that you may have grown up in a prefessing home without the usual kind of professing environment. I'd say that growing up with a lot of abuse of any kind would not be typical. Or maybe one parent goes to meeting and one doesn't. Or... some other non-typical experience. So did you profess in meetings as an adult?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 29, 2015 19:49:08 GMT -5
Roselyn, you say you suffered 'domestic violence' in your 'professing upbringing.' I seriously doubt 'domestic violence' is the norm in my church. You are suggesting that in fact it IS the norm. That's the first problem. The second one is the definition of 'domestic violence', some feminists suggest this could even be a man yelling at a woman. Some here might think it's denying children the things most other children enjoy. Bert I suggest you re-read what I wrote: I said I had a "professing upbringing" where domestic violence was the norm. I did not say that domestic violence was the norm amongst the F&W ! Also just to clarify I am well aware of the definition of domestic violence. I seen first hand things that no child should see happen to their mother, so DO NOT dare tell me I don't know the definition of domestic violence.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 21:38:05 GMT -5
Bert, Jesse,
NAMBLA has always been a small group & are getting less support all the time!
It is always the 'old hat' first arrow slung by homophobic & fundamentalist Christians groups!
NAMBLA really has nothing to do with homosexual orientation!
Get over it!
I don't think we were talking about the connection between homosexuality and NAMBLA. We were discussing what might be the next step by taking note of what has been on the "change" radar. It was Jesse who first brought up the subject of NAMBLA after Bert posted something about age of consent. See Jesse's post yesterday at 15:11
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 21:44:23 GMT -5
I knew it, Bert.
I knew IT from your posts, I determined a long time ago that you did not grow up in the **TRUTH**
You did not understand anything at all about what it was like to grow up in the **TRUTH** and your absolute inability to find anything at all wrong with the deception of what we had been told indicated you were definitely NEW to it all!
You may be assuming something he didn't say. I don't think that I am assuming very much.
I watched too many posts of Bert's.
Of course he could answer the question as to whether he know anything about the **TRUTH" until he was an adult but I rather doubt that he will.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 29, 2015 21:46:48 GMT -5
The second one is the definition of 'domestic violence', some feminists suggest this could even be a man yelling at a woman. Some here might think it's denying children the things most other children enjoy. Hi, Bert. If we take gender out of the equation, do you believe that verbal abuse and emotional abuse are real things? Here is one quick summation of that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 21:59:21 GMT -5
The second one is the definition of 'domestic violence', some feminists suggest this could even be a man yelling at a woman. Some here might think it's denying children the things most other children enjoy. Hi, Bert. If we take gender out of the equation, do you believe that verbal abuse and emotional abuse are real things? Here is one quick summation of that. Thanks, withlove. I think that needs posting . Emotional abuse includes non-physical behaviors such as threats, insults, constant monitoring or “checking in,” excessive texting, humiliation, intimidation, isolation or stalking.
There are many behaviors that qualify as emotional or verbal abuse:
-Calling you names and putting you down.
-Yelling and screaming at you.
-Intentionally embarrassing you in public.
-Preventing you from seeing or talking with friends and family.
-Telling you what to do and wear.
-Using online communities or cell phones to control, intimidate or humiliate you.
-Blaming your actions for their abusive or unhealthy behavior.
-Stalking you.
-Threatening to commit suicide to keep you from breaking up with them.
-Threatening to harm you, your pet or people you care about.
-Making you feel guilty or immature when you don’t consent to sexual activity.
-Threatening to expose your secrets such as your sexual orientation or immigration status.
-Starting rumors about you.
-Threatening to have your children taken away.
|
|