|
Post by withlove on Jun 29, 2015 22:07:43 GMT -5
Yeah, it's good to be reminded of what abuse encompasses, right? I didn't post it b/c I'm not sure where we all stand with copying text from other people? I was under the impression that as long as it's credited to the website/author it is okay. It's nice to see the list here instead of clicking...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 22:33:35 GMT -5
Yeah, it's good to be reminded of what abuse encompasses, right? I didn't post it b/c I'm not sure where we all stand with copying text from other people? I was under the impression that as long as it's credited to the website/author it is okay. It's nice to see the list here instead of clicking... Thanks for reminder about copying text from other people. I wasn't thinking about that. It is from "Loveisrespect
"Loveisrespect (originally loveisrespect, National Dating Abuse Helpline) was launched in February 2007 as a project of the National Domestic Violence Hotline with a supporting grant from Liz Claiborne, Inc. It was the first 24-hour resource for teens who were experiencing dating violence and abuse and is the only teen helpline serving all of the United States and its territories.
In 2011, loveisrespect grew even stronger as The Hotline entered into a strategic partnership with Break the Cycle, another national leader in preventing dating abuse.
That same year with support from Mary Kay Inc., loveisrespect launched 24-hour text services as an addition to our phone and live chat services.
Vice President Joe Biden, who has spent decades working to end violence against women, premiered the text service and sent the very first text message to a loveisrespect advocate.
We are proud to call loveisrespect the ultimate resource to engage, educate and empower youth to prevent and end abusive relationships!"
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 29, 2015 22:44:14 GMT -5
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
I re-read the post.It was not making a connection to homosexuality, but pointing out the "next challenge" which has already begun.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 29, 2015 22:47:18 GMT -5
Oh, interesting background! Thanks, dmmichgood. I hope the convo doesn't degenerate into an argument about the people supporting it... There must be lots of sites with descriptions of emotional and verbal abuse. It's good for people to be educated about which behaviors are destructive and how damaging they can be!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2015 23:28:45 GMT -5
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
I re-read the post.It was not making a connection to homosexuality, but pointing out the "next challenge" which has already begun. Well, emy, go ahead & interpret as you like.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 30, 2015 5:22:32 GMT -5
So did I read correctly that the age of consent (at least in some of the U.S. states) is 12 to 16, given that the person seeking the consent is within 4 years of age of the consentor?
12 year-old girl; 16 yr-old boy; the girl can legally consent 13/17 - legal 13/18 - illegal 14/18 - legal 15/19 - legal 16/20 - legal 16/21 - illegal 17 and any age* - legal (*13 and up)
or to look at it another way:
45 year-old man / 17 year-old girl: Legal 45 year-old man / 16 year-old girl: Illegal
Is it morally objectionable to debate changing the age of consent so that the 45/16 scenario could be legal?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2015 6:14:17 GMT -5
It had nothing to do with revising the age of consent or any changes than the gender language. I also read the points that were raised during the confirmation hearings and the reasons that 16 was changed to 12. So there were "reasons" 16 was changed to 12?? "Reasons" implies the change was deliberate. If the change was done deliberately, with "reasons" for doing it, how could it be called a "drafting error" later? That doesn't make sense. The text that they were suggesting be modified was in chapter 18 of U.S.C. paragraph 2032. The same change was suggested for paragraph 1153. The suggestion was to substitute the text contained in the 93 rd Senate bill #1400, paragraph 1633 which was quoted incorrectly. It was recommended that the same language from the 93 rd Senate bill #1400, paragraph 1633 also be used in chapter 18 of U.S.C. paragraph 1153. Yes there were reasons why the change was made. It was long before the days of cutting and pasting digital text and when copying the text from the senate bill it it was either copied incorrectly of intermixed with paragraph 1631 which dealt with the definition of rape the age difference and would not have made a 17 year old having sex with a 12 year old illegal since it was within the 5 year age difference as provided in the proposed bill. The changes have indeed been looked at by a number of people, from both sides of the issue. It has been brought up a number of times in an attempt to paint the authors as supporting a reduction of the age of consent to 12. I have not seen any reference to the original authors commenting on the error. As I said earlier (and wish I has left it at that!), you believe as Lindsey Graham and others do that this was a deliberate attempt to lower the age of consent. And you have the text in black and white to prove it. Other than a typo consisting of a single digit I see no evidence that that was the case. Whatever the case, it was not put onto the United States Code.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2015 11:58:21 GMT -5
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. Actually a lot of the time these are the first things to happen in domestic violence situations. If a person just up and hit someone from the beginning, that person would likely have the self esteem to leave immediately. It is the subtle breaking down of self esteem that happens that makes it seem like it's your fault when someone finally does up and hit you. You've pushed them too far, been too frustrating to them for to long etc. Because your confidence is broken down you do tend to blame yourself when the actual physical violence starts. It's a process.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 30, 2015 21:33:01 GMT -5
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. Actually a lot of the time these are the first things to happen in domestic violence situations. If a person just up and hit someone from the beginning, that person would likely have the self esteem to leave immediately. It is the subtle breaking down of self esteem that happens that makes it seem like it's your fault when someone finally does up and hit you. You've pushed them too far, been too frustrating to them for to long etc. Because your confidence is broken down you do tend to blame yourself when the actual physical violence starts. It's a process. Thank you withlove & snow for what you have posted, once again it seems Bert thinks he knows it all & that we have no idea of what domestic violence is ! I also notice that he has no answer to my last post !
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jun 30, 2015 23:05:34 GMT -5
Actually a lot of the time these are the first things to happen in domestic violence situations. If a person just up and hit someone from the beginning, that person would likely have the self esteem to leave immediately. It is the subtle breaking down of self esteem that happens that makes it seem like it's your fault when someone finally does up and hit you. You've pushed them too far, been too frustrating to them for to long etc. Because your confidence is broken down you do tend to blame yourself when the actual physical violence starts. It's a process. Thank you withlove & snow for what you have posted, once again it seems Bert thinks he knows it all & that we have no idea of what domestic violence is ! I also notice that he has no answer to my last post ! You're welcome. It is such an important thing to be clear about. I hate that it is a divisive issue between anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 1, 2015 9:19:56 GMT -5
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? Historically, mankind demonstrated that he has the capacity to become self-centered to the point he fails to recognize the underlying purpose of sexual drive and pleasure: namely, to reproduce. I generally take a conservative position on the government's role to guide family affairs. If the policy is to allow gays and unmarried couples to have children, it doesn't make sense to abort this policy mid-stream. If the policy is to dis-allow gays and unmarried couples to have children, assuming the benevolence of said government, the intent is to define and empower the traditional family unit and structure.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 1, 2015 9:28:57 GMT -5
No doubt concubines always came with problems, i.e. Sarah's jealousy. Everything works better one-to-one. There are many models in nature of mating and reproduction and raising of offspring that are not one-to-one. This speaks to the third reason I gave for being "homo-phobic": the mis-defining or abuse of the meaning of 'natural'. If I see an instance of cannibalism in the natural world, does that give me a reason to be? If I see an instance of apparent capriciousness in nature, such as the destructiveness of an 'act of nature', can I justify being capricious? Justifying behavior by what is natural is folly. Asking what is becoming behavior because we have a Nature is habilitative and wise. Lucky you are if hear a convention gem like that from your college professors today.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 1, 2015 9:32:58 GMT -5
So far God hasn't said much about his point of view. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 1, 2015 9:34:33 GMT -5
At some point in history it became undignified to have more than one mate. End of story. How could that be! Did God change her mind? Was the revelation refined?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 1, 2015 9:53:37 GMT -5
Jesus didn't think so.
Matthew 19:4-6
...4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 1, 2015 10:25:49 GMT -5
There are many models in nature of mating and reproduction and raising of offspring that are not one-to-one. This speaks to the third reason I gave for being "homo-phobic": the mis-defining or abuse of the meaning of 'natural'. If I see an instance of cannibalism in the natural world, does that give me a reason to be? If I see an instance of apparent capriciousness in nature, such as the destructiveness of an 'act of nature', can I justify being capricious? Justifying behavior by what is natural is folly. Asking what is becoming behavior because we have a Nature is habilitative and wise. Lucky you are if hear a convention gem like that from your college professors today. I suspect that what you perceive as being "Natural" has a lot to do with how, where, and when you were raised...i.e. "nurture".
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2015 10:34:32 GMT -5
This speaks to the third reason I gave for being "homo-phobic": the mis-defining or abuse of the meaning of 'natural'. If I see an instance of cannibalism in the natural world, does that give me a reason to be? If I see an instance of apparent capriciousness in nature, such as the destructiveness of an 'act of nature', can I justify being capricious? Justifying behavior by what is natural is folly. Asking what is becoming behavior because we have a Nature is habilitative and wise. Lucky you are if hear a convention gem like that from your college professors today. I am guessing the reason that the 'nature' comment comes up when discussing these things with theists is because the bible uses that as justification.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2015 10:36:25 GMT -5
Jesus didn't think so. Matthew 19:4-6 ...4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."… First, can you define "one flesh"? And what makes them "one flesh"?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 1, 2015 11:40:03 GMT -5
So there were "reasons" 16 was changed to 12?? "Reasons" implies the change was deliberate. If the change was done deliberately, with "reasons" for doing it, how could it be called a "drafting error" later? That doesn't make sense. The text that they were suggesting be modified was in chapter 18 of U.S.C. paragraph 2032. The same change was suggested for paragraph 1153. The suggestion was to substitute the text contained in the 93 rd Senate bill #1400, paragraph 1633 which was quoted incorrectly. It was recommended that the same language from the 93 rd Senate bill #1400, paragraph 1633 also be used in chapter 18 of U.S.C. paragraph 1153. Do you have a reference to what the 93rd Senate bill #1400, paragraph 1633 said? Can you quote it here? Thanks. What is the proof that is exactly what happened? I hope it's something more concrete than Volokh's guesses and speculations. Here's what Volokh said; "Here's what I now think the report was probably intending to recommend" and "the report quite likely was intended to quote". Without confirmation from the authors it's guessing. Huh. There were quite a few people working on that report. Even Ginsburg's husband worked on the previous version in 1974. None have felt moved to comment. Why not, and confirm all the guesses as true - if they are actually true? The final 1977 report was funded by taxpayer money. There should be some responsibility and accountability, unless we don't deserve that from our government. Until at least one of the original author's confirm "typo" or Volokh's and Timothy Noah's guesses there is no proof what the guesses is what actually happened. People need to acting as if Volokh's and Noah's guesses are the only possibility. Believing something doesn't make it true. "you believe as Lindsey Graham and others do that this was a deliberate attempt to lower the age of consent." You don't get to define what I believe - I do. I wonder if it was a deliberate attempt to lower the AoC, I don't know that it was. I do know, like Gene pointed out, that 12 is an age of significance various places in current US code. Some wondered if 12 was intended to be a Federal floor that would be a minimum the States could use or raise if they preferred. That is still speculation though - it would be nice to find something, anything, from the original authors of "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" published in 1977. Until that happens it's all guesses.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2015 12:19:57 GMT -5
What is the proof that is exactly what happened? I hope it's something more concrete than Volokh's guesses and speculations. Here's what Volokh said; "Here's what I now think the report was probably intending to recommend" and "the report quite likely was intended to quote". Without confirmation from the authors it's guessing. The named authors do not seem to have commented and the 15 students were unnamed and none seem to have commented.The recommendation was created and published. It was then up to the drafters of the US code whether to implement the recommendations or not. Nope, it doesn't. Did it ever make it into the US code? You are right. But I can speculate on what you believe based on the contents of your posts.And somewhat of a moot point since the those paragraphs have been repelled from section 18 USC Because of agressive editing this question was deleted: Do you have a reference to what the 93rd Senate bill #1400, paragraph 1633 said? Can you quote it here? Thanks. The text of the bills from the 93 rd senate are not available on line. I pulled the information from the text you referenced in an earlier post. If I recall relevant pieces of that bill or the identical bill H.R. 6046 were quoted in the reference you provided as well as the recommended replacement text. Jesse_Lackman, you are right, there is no proof as to why the 6 was replaced with a 2. Other than to make Ginsberg look like she was supporting a very low age of consent or to make Roberts look very conservative in comparison it was not a big point in history. But thanks for the exercise!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 1, 2015 12:24:17 GMT -5
I wonder if it was a deliberate attempt to lower the AoC, I don't know that it was. I do know, like Gene pointed out, that 12 is an age of significance various places in current US code. Some wondered if 12 was intended to be a Federal floor that would be a minimum the States could use or raise if they preferred. That is still speculation though - it would be nice to find something, anything, from the original authors of "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" published in 1977. Until that happens it's all guesses. And somewhat of a moot point since the those paragraphs have been repelled from section 18 USC Which paragraphs, the ones Gene's comments refer to?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 1, 2015 13:10:19 GMT -5
And somewhat of a moot point since the those paragraphs have been repelled from section 18 USC Which paragraphs, the ones Gene's comments refer to? When I went to look at the current text for the paragraphs in question - 18 U.S. Code § 2031, 2032 - Repealed. I didn't look to see if they had been replaced.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2015 13:17:22 GMT -5
Actually a lot of the time these are the first things to happen in domestic violence situations. If a person just up and hit someone from the beginning, that person would likely have the self esteem to leave immediately. It is the subtle breaking down of self esteem that happens that makes it seem like it's your fault when someone finally does up and hit you. You've pushed them too far, been too frustrating to them for to long etc. Because your confidence is broken down you do tend to blame yourself when the actual physical violence starts. It's a process. Thank you withlove & snow for what you have posted, once again it seems Bert thinks he knows it all & that we have no idea of what domestic violence is ! I also notice that he has no answer to my last post ! I volunteer on the distress lines so I have heard a lot of things most probably don't hear or know about unless they live the situation. It is one of the hardest calls I get because most of the time they are deathly afraid and calling when the spouse has gone to the store. But they won't leave and take the kids, too afraid. All you can do is try, educate and be there for them. The cycle is a vicious one. It starts with the emotional and verbal abuse, escalates to the physical abuse, peaks with her ending up hurt and him remorseful (I'll never do that again). Then comes what they refer to the honeymoon stage where things are all great, the woman is lulled back into a sense of security and then it all starts over again, subtle at first leading to her in being in a physically dangerous situation again. I went through it myself, though not to the same degree because I saw the pattern and got out of the marriage. I owe my work environment in Forensic Psychiatry at that time to knowing the signs and having the support by co workers to leave. I was lucky. I was, ironically enough, screening men for a group that our department was running at the time call 'for men who batter their wives'. I was their first contact so I heard all the reasons why they were needing to be part of the group. Lots were very remorseful and wanted to change and were signing up voluntarily. Some though, didn't see what they did as abuse, she asked for it. Those were the hard ones to listen to. When you hear that the only reason they are attending the group is so they can get her back, you hope like everything that the group will be beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2015 13:20:57 GMT -5
So far God hasn't said much about his point of view. How do you know? How do you know? That's the key question isn't it? No one knows when it comes to God, though plenty like to claim they do.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 1, 2015 19:35:49 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. Well it seems Bert has "pinned himself down" with this one !
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 2, 2015 7:36:20 GMT -5
Jesus didn't think so. Matthew 19:4-6 ...4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."… First, can you define "one flesh"? And what makes them "one flesh"? The scripture confirms and conveys the ideal of the physical and spiritual bond of the reproductive archetypes. In families, the will of the various individuals are consolidated or resolved into one, more or less. An analogy might be two trees growing side by side, corroborating, conferring, and deferring as they grow towards their common interests.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 2, 2015 7:43:53 GMT -5
How do you know? That's the key question isn't it? No one knows when it comes to God, though plenty like to claim they do. What do you gain by being similarly presumptuous?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 2, 2015 7:50:51 GMT -5
First, can you define "one flesh"? And what makes them "one flesh"? The scripture confirms and conveys the ideal of the physical and spiritual bond of the reproductive archetypes. In families, the will of the various individuals are consolidated or resolved into one, more or less. An analogy might be two trees growing side by side, corroborating, conferring, and deferring as they grow towards their common interests. The question had to do with the definition of 'one flesh' and from what event is it created. Do you believe that the each person looses their individuality to the common entity that is the 'married couple'? Do you believe, as it states in 1 Corinthians 7, that each member no longer has authority over their own body but does have authority over their partner's body? So this could apply to same sex couples as well - two individuals maturing side by side, corroborating, conferring, and deferring as they grow towards their common interests.
|
|