The government cannot ban consensual sex, and equality in marriage contracts does not prohibit nor demand sex, anyway.
You are still 100% factually wrong. Only the exchange of official US currency for sexual services is prohibited. No other conditions are place upon consentual sex occurs. Provide evidence to the contrary.
Polygamy is banned. So is sex with a minor even if the minor is 17 years old and sexually active and consents to sex with a 19 year old.
Churches are typically organizes as a corporation, and have to limit their political comments if the church claims 501c3 tax exempt status. If they claim 501c4 they have much more freedom to speak. Note that some obvious political organizations such as The Center for American Progress (a literal mouthpiece for the Democrat party) are 501c4. And if a church does not go the tax exempt route, it can do whatever it wants. Churches should speak about social issues including politics. The idea that a person can separate their religious life from the rest of their life is ridiculous. And the idea the a persons vote is not influenced by their religion is also ridiculous.
Do t you verify anything? You did not need a high diploma in 1959. I guess cheap wine stops you from learning, I think that requirement was around 1966 You don’t realize that by your saying his story is unbelievable is a compliment. He is quite an unbelievable man You are also saying you lack comprehension and lack human empathy . My husband HAD to drop out of school to survive the devastating poverty he lived in. and the navy saved his life. The ignorance is that you can’t comprehend that brilliant people with awful lives drop out of school. They don’t have hope to ever go to college. The navy gave him hope As I told you, he was given a job as a back,office clerk with a GED. He wasn’t a trader...he became head of the accounting dept and he asked for a shot at the trading floor and they gave it to him because they recognized his potential and the rest is history. Mike Bloomberg was one of those who saw how bright he was We would go out with other traders and they would ask if he went to Wharton or Harvard etc because like you, they assumed he had gone to a top business school. He is an extraordinary man who took the risk. He was told if he didn’t make it on the trading floor he couldn’t go back. Talk about pressure.,...but again your don’t educate yourself and learn that things that are impossible today, were not then.thats what the uneducated do...but again, the compliment is you don’t believe he could be that extraordinary. If you don’t believe it...so be it. And of course you don’t read well enough because I never said I came from poverty....and I had a high avaerage which got me Into another Ivy League that included girls. You might also educate yourself that the woman you are talking about went to their grad school..not undergrad, because women weren’t allowed go to Harvard undergrad ...only Radcliffe She had to do her undergrad work at Wellesley ...a girls college. Please stop accusing me of lying and I won’t accuse you of being not being too bright I just mentioned to someone that I had written a best selling book for educators and the guy said, yeah, yeah, sure you did” and when he saw it he couldn’t give me credit...he said someone had to help. It was a compliment he didn’t mean to give.like you...I’m sure you will apologize for your errors too. lol Gotta run to my dumb husband who retired from Wall st in his 40s..because he could
Actually no it isn't, at least not directly. Bigamy, which is the illegal condition, is a person who possesses more than one legal marriage. I can go about claiming to have more than one spouse (and I do. I have a husband and two wives.), but unless there are multiple licenses or similar present, it is not Illegal. And while it might be technically possible to use Common Law marriage to set up the condition, it will not hold up under legal scrutiny. Such a case was brought before the Utah courts. They pulled that the state could not impose the Common Law state upon anyone who already possessed a valid legal license, or to which one common law status had already been applied. While the decision was eventually over turned, it was not because the higher court found it was legal to impose such a status. They over turned it because the people who brought the case to court had not had such a condition applied to them, thus rending it not applicable to the court system. Only had they been charged could they have challenged it in court. Beside, that is about marriage, which, on a legal basis, does not require sex. The argument is that consentual sex in and of itself is somehow illegal in the US. Partly true. In most states, they have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which provides for a certain age gap between the two. Most common is 2 to 3 years. So in most states, the 17 and 19 year olds have nothing to worry about. That said, a person under the age of consent (varies from state to state) is considered unable to be able to give informed consent, thus meaning that the act was not consentual sex.
Now you are a best selling author too. This just keeps getting better. Isn't the internet great, you can be anything. Next you will be princess Diana. In an earlier post, you were whining about men on the street cat calling at you. Now you say your husband went into the Navy in 1959. If you are anywhere close to his age that makes you knocking on 80. What neighborhood do they cat call 80 year olds?
It doesn't. Could you please point me to where I said that a religion requires a set of religious text in order to be a religion? I was just asking if you were aware if Wicca had a text. To be honest, I don't even know why I asked it. My original point was that no religious text that I know of supports same sex marriage. Even if a text doesn't specifically DENOUNCE something, if it doesn't specifically SUPPORT it, then the followers of the religion don't have any authority to adhere to it. They certainly can't be taken seriously. After all, if followers of a religion believe in something, then if they are serious about it, they should make sure that it is written down! If there is no text, then they should start one! Well it certainly isn't The Bible, I can tell you that! Not unless they have a very conveniently re-written version of it in order to change its interpretation, in which case it is no longer The Bible! However, given that I'm 99.9% sure that you're a Christian yourself, I'm sure that I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know! What do you mean, "areas?" Basis of what? Episcopal? Oh yeah, I totally misread it! Not at all. I'm not sure how you could think that I was implying that it did have to be towards you. I was just checking. What race though?
As part of a religion? But it would be consensual if the other person was within the "Romeo and Juliet" age gap right?
What is an example of a sex terms of contract? Are you under the impression that people in the US have to sign a contract and submit it to the government before having sex?
Thanks...it all true and you’re saying it unbelievable! That dig about age is so adorable.....just another prejudice. Oh yes, I give workshops in prejudice (unbelievable) and ageism is one form. There is also discrimination against people who aren’t smart , you’d learn something or maybe not..because you can’t admit when you not only make mistakes but call the educator with childish insults
No tax exempt organization should be involved in politics. That includes organizations such as the extreme left Center for American Progress and the Joyce Foundation. In fact, I believe there should not be any tax exempt option for anyone. Taxation should only be about funding the govt, not social engineering.
The point is that the govt can and does make legislation to enact moral decisions on the population. That includes legislating sexual activity and marriage.
Which is obviously incorrect in an ethical sense since a 17 year old can understand and want sex, and they do not magically acquire this ability upon turning 18. Also, a retarded 18 year old may not understand the consequences of sex, and THAT is who is unable to give informed consent as a matter of fact despite the law. And so the whole age thing is redundant, given that the actual issue is informed consent, and the mental ability to give informed consent is correlated with, but not determined, by age. It's less relevant to me personally now since I'm older and think women in their 20s are a lot more attractive than teens, but I still dislike seeing dumb guys get their lives ruined over something that wasn't real rape.
And you won't have a real argument from me on that. I spent quite a number of posts trying to make that point of why statutory rape is not necessary (but could be in some cases) actual rape to someone else in another thread. And the Romeo and Juliet laws are a step towards the fix, the concept being that at in the later teen years, they can make an informed consent with a peer, but an older person can have undue influence and thus make it uninformed consent. While I do not agree with that fully, and would rather see the law allow for exceptions if it can be proven before a judge that the "minor" in question can and did indeed provide informed consent, I also understand the need to provide a legal point by which to set the standard. That is why the age of consent varies from state to state. That said, the purpose of such laws is the protection of others, the one supposedly unable to provide that information consent. It is the same principle as to why people under certain ages cannot enter into contracts on their own. So while it does overlap into the area of sex, it is not based upon the idea of limiting what consenting adults can or cannot do. At worst it is the concept of what is legally an adult that needs changed.
Because young people are less capable of realizing the consequences or their actions, determining when someone should be an adult is very difficult. The part of the brain that controls this does not develop at a young age. The fact that all people mature at different times makes it even more difficult. When assigning an age to be considered an adult the litigators try to determine when most people have experience enough life so they will not be vulnerable to ill intentioned people. Because many of today's parents are extremely protective of their children, this trip into adulthood is even more retarded. In short, some are savvy at the age of 14 while others are hopelessly naive at the age of 22. This making picking an age where adulthood actually starts impossible.
