I'm sure it has and I'm sure there are Dems that would vote for it as well.
Understand that even though 75% of the Republican party is against homosexual marriage, well over 50% of the Democratic party is as well. You only implicated one group when the view has majorities in BOTH parties. Don't be hypocritical when even six out of 9 major Democratic candidates don't endorse homosexual marriage.
You mean it left the door wide open to allow adults to conduct whatever business they want in their own bedrooms with other consenting adults without government interference?
DAMN THEM! HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE UPON OUR RIGHTS TO BE OPPRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
And this is a bad thing because it differs from your moral attitude?
(Note: I am talking not about the guy $$$$ing a 13-year old, but only consenting adults)
Actually, no. I am very much against laws that attempt to criminalize sexual matters. However I am not hypocritically one way with it like many others.
In otherwords the biggest areas of sexual criminal intent today don't have to do with sodomy and homosexuals, they have to do with sexual harassment, rape and sexual assault.
If the government doesn't care if I have sex with a man, they shouldn't care if he thinks I oogled him either. Strangely enough they are working to remove the former, but not the latter.
Tolerance is a two way street. Sexual harassment especially use to be about power. Now it is about telling a dirty joke on your lunch, telling someone they look nice today and having them report you, of how someone feels that your interaction involved unwanted sexual attention that they can't prove but "felt."
Rape has to do, not with force or power, as it did in the past, but with consent and only from one party. Between 40-50% of rape allegations are false. Studies that attempt to measure pressure or coercion into sex show almost equal rates between men and women. Yet when a woman feels remorse about an encounter, it can be date rape, with a man, it can't. Most definitions of rape don't even allow for a woman or another man to rape a man since male consent is implied and never required.
I didn't mean to drone on, but I get a little pissed with the whole "my circle of tolerance is slightly bigger than your circle, so you are hateful and backward" thing. Almost everyone has something they won't tolerate. You imply that I wouldn't tolerate homosexual sex when in reality, I have never had a problem with it. In reality, my tolerance with regard to sexual matters is probably about as wide as can be, and much more equalized as well with regards to the motivations and actions of all sexes as well.
Why was his understanding not immediately evident upon even thinking about the issue?
Why make a silly mountain out of nothing?
and in endlessly turgid paragraphs stacked one upon the other? like usual.
Screwing in your bedroom is up to you (if you are an adult)
Marriage is NOT merely personal (as was assumed in AO earlier by one of your political constituents . . . . and perhaps that is why such a simple issue seems incomprehensible to you . . . )
or . . . ooops . . . . did my reply sound "too postmodern" for you?
did it hurt to think about it? . . . . to figure it out?!?!
If the government doesn't care if I have sex with a man, they shouldn't care if he thinks I oogled him either.
What if you rape him?
I don't see the connection you make here. I personally feel that the government (i.e. the law) should be involved if people are having their rights infringed whether that involves them being raped or having their boss, lecturer, colleague or flasher-in-the-park acting lewdly towards them.
You imply that I wouldn't tolerate homosexual sex when in reality, I have never had a problem with it.
I am? Where?
I was simply referring to your comment:
"Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost."
Which had less to do with gays and more with poly folk, if I understood you correctly.
I myself could care less if he screwed the adult part of lower Manhatten - not out of tolerance but because I don't see it as a matter that has to do with me.
or . . . ooops . . . . did my reply sound "too postmodern" for you?
did it hurt to think about it? . . . . to figure it out?!?!
I had hoped that the term "postmodern" (about which far too many people who toss the term around know staggeringly little) vis a vis this topic might be replaced with the phrase "go all Humbert Humbert," which is, I think, far more appropriate.
I don't see the connection you make here. I personally feel that the government (i.e. the law) should be involved if people are having their rights infringed whether that involves them being raped or having their boss, lecturer, colleague or flasher-in-the-park acting lewdly towards them.
The connection I make is that by most definitions, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to rape him. Most rape laws define rape as unlawful intercourse with a WOMAN without her consent. There are also many single gendered definitions with regard to things like domestic violence as well.
I had hoped that the term "postmodern" (about which far too many people who toss the term around know staggeringly little) vis a vis this topic might be replaced with the phrase "go all Humbert Humbert," which is, I think, far more appropriate.
Thank you for your support.
Cheers
Scott
But I think that yo actually have to READ in order to get the Humbert reference . . .
If the government doesn't care if I have sex with a man, they shouldn't care if he thinks I oogled him either. Strangely enough they are working to remove the former, but not the latter.
You can sue someone for ogling you? Or are companies instituting harsher rules? I think you're confusing yourself.
Quote:
Sexual harassment especially use to be about power. Now it is about telling a dirty joke on your lunch, telling someone they look nice today and having them report you, of how someone feels that your interaction involved unwanted sexual attention that they can't prove but "felt."
Report to whom? The police.
Quote:
Rape has to do, not with force or power, as it did in the past, but with consent and only from one party.
This sentence doesn't make sense.
The first part, before the second comma, deals with the psychology of rape. The second part, after the second comma, does not connect with the first part.
Unless you are saying that rape no longer happens with the attacker using overpowering physical force. Which not even you would venture to say.
Quote:
Between 40-50% of rape allegations are false.
Source?
Quote:
Studies that attempt to measure pressure or coercion into sex show almost equal rates between men and women. Yet when a woman feels remorse about an encounter, it can be date rape, with a man, it can't. Most definitions of rape don't even allow for a woman or another man to rape a man since male consent is implied and never required.
Why was his understanding not immediately evident upon even thinking about the issue?
Why make a silly mountain out of nothing?
and in endlessly turgid paragraphs stacked one upon the other? like usual.
Screwing in your bedroom is up to you (if you are an adult)
Marriage is NOT merely personal (as was assumed in AO earlier by one of your political constituents . . . . and perhaps that is why such a simple issue seems incomprehensible to you . . . )
or . . . ooops . . . . did my reply sound "too postmodern" for you?
did it hurt to think about it? . . . . to figure it out?!?!
Try decaf...really...
If marriage is not a personal issue, then I suppose you believe restrictions against homosexual marriage are okay, even when based on nothing more than history and religion.
The Texas court ruling is being used not only by this polygamist, but by homosexual marriage advocates. The right to privacy extends to well beyond sexual acts, otherwise how would it make abortion legal? The bar becomes, unless the state can prove a compelling interest, they have no right to tell you what to do with your body or your life. It is specifically why they choose to invoke it. It will help the cause of homosexual marriage, but the point is that it will help other causes as well.
The connection I make is that by most definitions, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to rape him. Most rape laws define rape as unlawful intercourse with a WOMAN without her consent. There are also many single gendered definitions with regard to things like domestic violence as well.
You can sue someone for ogling you? Or are companies instituting harsher rules? I think you're confusing yourself.
Report to whom? The police.
This sentence doesn't make sense.
The first part, before the second comma, deals with the psychology of rape. The second part, after the second comma, does not connect with the first part.
Unless you are saying that rape no longer happens with the attacker using overpowering physical force. Which not even you would venture to say.
Source?
What studies? Where?
I'm not going to rehash this with you Grove. You're quite frankly, not worth the time. I cited them for you in a prior thread and you dismissed them. I told you then and will now that if you choose to remain willfully ignorant that is your choice.
If you recall your own "pamphlet" that we discussed during the whole domestic violence thread had a big fat goose egg under male rape.
To be fair, a lot of states have shifted their language to something more gender neutral. The biggest issue is still federal law however since federal law often overrides state law, it is still an issue.
The "pamphlet" you're talking about the NCVS clip. That is about intimate partner violence, not society-wide rape.
Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker. I have never seen anything from anyone about women raping men in their peer group.
No one has said that men are not rape victims. The NCVS shows that there are plenty of male rape victims.
Interesting facts: 48% of male rapes are by strangers. 28% of female rapes are by strangers.
Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker because that is the definition. The reason you have not seen anything about women raping men within their peer group is because women cannot be defined as rapists (except perhaps with children) since they are not legally required to get consent.
There are states that have adopted gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a non-gender specific manner. Suppose you and a woman went out for drinks. You both tie one on and the have a roll in the sack. In the morning she claims she was to drunk to consent and thus you are a rapist. You could attempt to claim the reverse is true, that she never asked you if you wanted to have sex, but I have never seen a single prosecution of that. You are welcome to find a case where the prosecution has occured. I honestly wouldn't mind being wrong on that issue because I want gender equality on that issue and that would proof of movement toward it.
This is the standard in most of the civilized world, if I am not very much mistaken...
It's not horrible. You just have to explain how it would allow homosexual marriage, but not polygamy.
If you are fine with polygamy, then don't worry about it. However there are plenty of homosexual marriage advocates who claim it will allow it, but not polygamy. I'm asking them to support that assertion. If that isn't your assertion, then don't worry about it.
It's not horrible. You just have to explain how it would allow homosexual marriage, but not polygamy.
If you are fine with polygamy, then don't worry about it. However there are plenty of homosexual marriage advocates who claim it will allow it, but not polygamy. I'm asking them to support that assertion. If that isn't your assertion, then don't worry about it.
Nick
How does homosexual marriage allow polygamy? I really don't get it. I mean, why doesn't heterosexual marriage allow polygamy? Because society decided that polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Why couldn't you still say that polygamy shouldn't be allowed?
Could you state succinctly why the Massachusetts ruling allows polygamy? Or are you talking about the Texas Lawrence decision - but that wasn't about marriage, right? I'd just like to hear the argument, because I honestly don't get it.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Are you denying that it has been proposed?
I don't think it would ever happen though.
I'm sure it has and I'm sure there are Dems that would vote for it as well.
Understand that even though 75% of the Republican party is against homosexual marriage, well over 50% of the Democratic party is as well. You only implicated one group when the view has majorities in BOTH parties. Don't be hypocritical when even six out of 9 major Democratic candidates don't endorse homosexual marriage.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
You mean it left the door wide open to allow adults to conduct whatever business they want in their own bedrooms with other consenting adults without government interference?
DAMN THEM! HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE UPON OUR RIGHTS TO BE OPPRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
Hey, I said I wanted that in postmodernist prose!
Nick
Originally posted by Smircle
And this is a bad thing because it differs from your moral attitude?
(Note: I am talking not about the guy $$$$ing a 13-year old, but only consenting adults)
Actually, no. I am very much against laws that attempt to criminalize sexual matters. However I am not hypocritically one way with it like many others.
In otherwords the biggest areas of sexual criminal intent today don't have to do with sodomy and homosexuals, they have to do with sexual harassment, rape and sexual assault.
If the government doesn't care if I have sex with a man, they shouldn't care if he thinks I oogled him either. Strangely enough they are working to remove the former, but not the latter.
Tolerance is a two way street. Sexual harassment especially use to be about power. Now it is about telling a dirty joke on your lunch, telling someone they look nice today and having them report you, of how someone feels that your interaction involved unwanted sexual attention that they can't prove but "felt."
Rape has to do, not with force or power, as it did in the past, but with consent and only from one party. Between 40-50% of rape allegations are false. Studies that attempt to measure pressure or coercion into sex show almost equal rates between men and women. Yet when a woman feels remorse about an encounter, it can be date rape, with a man, it can't. Most definitions of rape don't even allow for a woman or another man to rape a man since male consent is implied and never required.
I didn't mean to drone on, but I get a little pissed with the whole "my circle of tolerance is slightly bigger than your circle, so you are hateful and backward" thing. Almost everyone has something they won't tolerate. You imply that I wouldn't tolerate homosexual sex when in reality, I have never had a problem with it. In reality, my tolerance with regard to sexual matters is probably about as wide as can be, and much more equalized as well with regards to the motivations and actions of all sexes as well.
Nick
Why was his understanding not immediately evident upon even thinking about the issue?
Why make a silly mountain out of nothing?
and in endlessly turgid paragraphs stacked one upon the other? like usual.
Screwing in your bedroom is up to you (if you are an adult)
Marriage is NOT merely personal (as was assumed in AO earlier by one of your political constituents . . . . and perhaps that is why such a simple issue seems incomprehensible to you . . . )
or . . . ooops . . . . did my reply sound "too postmodern" for you?
did it hurt to think about it? . . . . to figure it out?!?!
Originally posted by trumptman
If the government doesn't care if I have sex with a man, they shouldn't care if he thinks I oogled him either.
What if you rape him?
I don't see the connection you make here. I personally feel that the government (i.e. the law) should be involved if people are having their rights infringed whether that involves them being raped or having their boss, lecturer, colleague or flasher-in-the-park acting lewdly towards them.
Originally posted by trumptman
You imply that I wouldn't tolerate homosexual sex when in reality, I have never had a problem with it.
I am? Where?
I was simply referring to your comment:
"Instead they gave what adults do in their bedroom a privacy right and now the reality is coming home to roost."
Which had less to do with gays and more with poly folk, if I understood you correctly.
I myself could care less if he screwed the adult part of lower Manhatten - not out of tolerance but because I don't see it as a matter that has to do with me.
Originally posted by pfflam
or . . . ooops . . . . did my reply sound "too postmodern" for you?
did it hurt to think about it? . . . . to figure it out?!?!
I had hoped that the term "postmodern" (about which far too many people who toss the term around know staggeringly little) vis a vis this topic might be replaced with the phrase "go all Humbert Humbert," which is, I think, far more appropriate.
Thank you for your support.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
What if you rape him?
I don't see the connection you make here. I personally feel that the government (i.e. the law) should be involved if people are having their rights infringed whether that involves them being raped or having their boss, lecturer, colleague or flasher-in-the-park acting lewdly towards them.
The connection I make is that by most definitions, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to rape him. Most rape laws define rape as unlawful intercourse with a WOMAN without her consent. There are also many single gendered definitions with regard to things like domestic violence as well.
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
I had hoped that the term "postmodern" (about which far too many people who toss the term around know staggeringly little) vis a vis this topic might be replaced with the phrase "go all Humbert Humbert," which is, I think, far more appropriate.
Thank you for your support.
Cheers
Scott
But I think that yo actually have to READ in order to get the Humbert reference . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
But I think that yo actually have to READ in order to get the Humbert reference . . .
Indeed. And if you don't get the Humbert reference, you ought not be using the term "postmodern" anyway.
Cheers
Scott
If the government doesn't care if I have sex with a man, they shouldn't care if he thinks I oogled him either. Strangely enough they are working to remove the former, but not the latter.
You can sue someone for ogling you? Or are companies instituting harsher rules? I think you're confusing yourself.
Sexual harassment especially use to be about power. Now it is about telling a dirty joke on your lunch, telling someone they look nice today and having them report you, of how someone feels that your interaction involved unwanted sexual attention that they can't prove but "felt."
Report to whom? The police.
Rape has to do, not with force or power, as it did in the past, but with consent and only from one party.
This sentence doesn't make sense.
The first part, before the second comma, deals with the psychology of rape. The second part, after the second comma, does not connect with the first part.
Unless you are saying that rape no longer happens with the attacker using overpowering physical force. Which not even you would venture to say.
Between 40-50% of rape allegations are false.
Source?
Studies that attempt to measure pressure or coercion into sex show almost equal rates between men and women. Yet when a woman feels remorse about an encounter, it can be date rape, with a man, it can't. Most definitions of rape don't even allow for a woman or another man to rape a man since male consent is implied and never required.
What studies? Where?
Originally posted by pfflam
didn't you see Emmanuel Goldstein's post?
Why was his understanding not immediately evident upon even thinking about the issue?
Why make a silly mountain out of nothing?
and in endlessly turgid paragraphs stacked one upon the other? like usual.
Screwing in your bedroom is up to you (if you are an adult)
Marriage is NOT merely personal (as was assumed in AO earlier by one of your political constituents . . . . and perhaps that is why such a simple issue seems incomprehensible to you . . . )
or . . . ooops . . . . did my reply sound "too postmodern" for you?
did it hurt to think about it? . . . . to figure it out?!?!
Try decaf...really...
If marriage is not a personal issue, then I suppose you believe restrictions against homosexual marriage are okay, even when based on nothing more than history and religion.
The Texas court ruling is being used not only by this polygamist, but by homosexual marriage advocates. The right to privacy extends to well beyond sexual acts, otherwise how would it make abortion legal? The bar becomes, unless the state can prove a compelling interest, they have no right to tell you what to do with your body or your life. It is specifically why they choose to invoke it. It will help the cause of homosexual marriage, but the point is that it will help other causes as well.
Nick
The connection I make is that by most definitions, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to rape him. Most rape laws define rape as unlawful intercourse with a WOMAN without her consent. There are also many single gendered definitions with regard to things like domestic violence as well.
That is interesting if true. Sources?
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
You can sue someone for ogling you? Or are companies instituting harsher rules? I think you're confusing yourself.
Report to whom? The police.
This sentence doesn't make sense.
The first part, before the second comma, deals with the psychology of rape. The second part, after the second comma, does not connect with the first part.
Unless you are saying that rape no longer happens with the attacker using overpowering physical force. Which not even you would venture to say.
Source?
What studies? Where?
I'm not going to rehash this with you Grove. You're quite frankly, not worth the time. I cited them for you in a prior thread and you dismissed them. I told you then and will now that if you choose to remain willfully ignorant that is your choice.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
That is interesting if true. Sources?
If you recall your own "pamphlet" that we discussed during the whole domestic violence thread had a big fat goose egg under male rape.
To be fair, a lot of states have shifted their language to something more gender neutral. The biggest issue is still federal law however since federal law often overrides state law, it is still an issue.
Nick
If you recall your own "pamphlet" that we discussed during the whole domestic violence thread had a big fat goose egg under male rape.
You are fighting a strawman there.
The "pamphlet" you're talking about the NCVS clip. That is about intimate partner violence, not society-wide rape.
Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker. I have never seen anything from anyone about women raping men in their peer group.
No one has said that men are not rape victims. The NCVS shows that there are plenty of male rape victims.
Interesting facts: 48% of male rapes are by strangers. 28% of female rapes are by strangers.
Originally posted by trumptman
The bar becomes, unless the state can prove a compelling interest, they have no right to tell you what to do with your body or your life.
Horribile dictu.
This is the standard in most of the civilized world, if I am not very much mistaken...
Originally posted by groverat
So no sources then?
You are fighting a strawman there.
The "pamphlet" you're talking about the NCVS clip. That is about intimate partner violence, not society-wide rape.
Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker. I have never seen anything from anyone about women raping men in their peer group.
No one has said that men are not rape victims. The NCVS shows that there are plenty of male rape victims.
Interesting facts: 48% of male rapes are by strangers. 28% of female rapes are by strangers.
Male rape is almost always an issue of a male attacker because that is the definition. The reason you have not seen anything about women raping men within their peer group is because women cannot be defined as rapists (except perhaps with children) since they are not legally required to get consent.
There are states that have adopted gender neutral language, but it is still applied in a non-gender specific manner. Suppose you and a woman went out for drinks. You both tie one on and the have a roll in the sack. In the morning she claims she was to drunk to consent and thus you are a rapist. You could attempt to claim the reverse is true, that she never asked you if you wanted to have sex, but I have never seen a single prosecution of that. You are welcome to find a case where the prosecution has occured. I honestly wouldn't mind being wrong on that issue because I want gender equality on that issue and that would proof of movement toward it.
Nick
Originally posted by Smircle
Horribile dictu.
This is the standard in most of the civilized world, if I am not very much mistaken...
It's not horrible. You just have to explain how it would allow homosexual marriage, but not polygamy.
If you are fine with polygamy, then don't worry about it. However there are plenty of homosexual marriage advocates who claim it will allow it, but not polygamy. I'm asking them to support that assertion. If that isn't your assertion, then don't worry about it.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
It's not horrible. You just have to explain how it would allow homosexual marriage, but not polygamy.
If you are fine with polygamy, then don't worry about it. However there are plenty of homosexual marriage advocates who claim it will allow it, but not polygamy. I'm asking them to support that assertion. If that isn't your assertion, then don't worry about it.
Nick
How does homosexual marriage allow polygamy? I really don't get it. I mean, why doesn't heterosexual marriage allow polygamy? Because society decided that polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Why couldn't you still say that polygamy shouldn't be allowed?
Could you state succinctly why the Massachusetts ruling allows polygamy? Or are you talking about the Texas Lawrence decision - but that wasn't about marriage, right? I'd just like to hear the argument, because I honestly don't get it.