Author Topic: State of the Nation  (Read 23090 times)

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4155
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #280 on: February 14, 2020, 11:53:45 AM »
Frankly you're getting off the point of legal discrimination and changing to your favorite topic, i.e. the source of morality, of which Google will do a far better job of providing you with well-articulated perspectives that do not include aliens.

To the topic, I stand by my position: In a secular society (thank god!) that values liberal ideals of humanism and democracy, religious beliefs are not a valid reason to discriminate against someone else - or much of anything else, for that matter.

I'll wait patiently for the perspectives. I believe you sent one previously where the author had to redefine several terms. Very intellectually honest, that gentleman.

Like I said before, the baker was not discriminating against a person. He discriminated against an act. Do you have any evidence that the baker would not serve the gay couple in any other capacity?

Look at this way. African American couples comes into restaurant and waiter/owner kicks them out or refuses to serve anything. Gay couple comes in to bakery and wants cookies and wedding cake. The baker gives them cookies but declines wedding cake. Do you see the difference?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 12:21:54 PM by stahleyp »
Paul


LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5157
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #281 on: February 14, 2020, 12:23:11 PM »
Here's a starting point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality

Quote
Like I said before, the baker was not discriminating against a person. He discriminated against an act.

Exactly what bigots say to justify their bullshit treatment of people they don't like.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 12:29:26 PM by LC »
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8047
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #282 on: February 14, 2020, 12:29:00 PM »
The Vatican also allowed many (innumerable) children to be raped and turned a blind eye.

The law they have on the books legalizes rape of 14 yr old girls as long as the rape is preceeded by a marriage ceremony.

That is comparable to attempting to hide and cover-up a scandal?

HINT:  One of them they are doing unabashedly.  They don't even know it's wrong!



stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4155
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #283 on: February 14, 2020, 12:32:51 PM »
The Vatican also allowed many (innumerable) children to be raped and turned a blind eye.

The law they have on the books legalizes rape of 14 yr old girls as long as the rape is preceeded by a marriage ceremony.

That is comparable to attempting to hide and cover-up a scandal?

HINT:  One of them they are doing unabashedly.

Do you have a reference?

He's what I see:

https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/vatican-city

"The Age of Consent in Vatican City is 18 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 17 or younger in Vatican City are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law."

Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4155
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #284 on: February 14, 2020, 12:33:18 PM »
Here's a starting point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality

What about this do you find compelling?

lc, it's exactly what bigots say to justify it? The evidence seems to indicate the baker does not like the act vs the person (if he were agreeable to serve them in other ways). Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 12:36:02 PM by stahleyp »
Paul

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8047
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #285 on: February 14, 2020, 12:50:46 PM »
The Vatican also allowed many (innumerable) children to be raped and turned a blind eye.

The law they have on the books legalizes rape of 14 yr old girls as long as the rape is preceeded by a marriage ceremony.

That is comparable to attempting to hide and cover-up a scandal?

HINT:  One of them they are doing unabashedly.

Do you have a reference?

He's what I see:

https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/vatican-city

"The Age of Consent in Vatican City is 18 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 17 or younger in Vatican City are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law."

Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

You see what you want to see.  Here is what I see (using your linked reference page):

The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only).

And that matches precisely with my statement that the rape is legal if preceded by a marriage ceremony.

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4155
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #286 on: February 14, 2020, 12:56:55 PM »
The Vatican also allowed many (innumerable) children to be raped and turned a blind eye.

The law they have on the books legalizes rape of 14 yr old girls as long as the rape is preceeded by a marriage ceremony.

That is comparable to attempting to hide and cover-up a scandal?

HINT:  One of them they are doing unabashedly.

Do you have a reference?

He's what I see:

https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/vatican-city

"The Age of Consent in Vatican City is 18 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 17 or younger in Vatican City are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law."

Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

You see what you want to see.  Here is what I see (using your linked reference page):

The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only).

And that matches precisely with my statement that the rape is legal if preceded by a marriage ceremony.

Here's what that says:

Vatican City statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 18. The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only).

That seems to indicate if you have sex with someone under 18 (and that person isn't your spouse) it is considered statutory rape.

If you are 14 (or 16) you can have sex but only with your spouse.
 
Paul

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8047
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #287 on: February 14, 2020, 01:21:04 PM »
The Vatican also allowed many (innumerable) children to be raped and turned a blind eye.

The law they have on the books legalizes rape of 14 yr old girls as long as the rape is preceeded by a marriage ceremony.

That is comparable to attempting to hide and cover-up a scandal?

HINT:  One of them they are doing unabashedly.

Do you have a reference?

He's what I see:

https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/vatican-city

"The Age of Consent in Vatican City is 18 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 17 or younger in Vatican City are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law."

Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

You see what you want to see.  Here is what I see (using your linked reference page):

The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only).

And that matches precisely with my statement that the rape is legal if preceded by a marriage ceremony.

Here's what that says:

Vatican City statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 18. The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married(they can consent to their spouse only).

That seems to indicate if you have sex with someone under 18 (and that person isn't your spouse) it is considered statutory rape.

If you are 14 (or 16) you can have sex but only with your spouse.

Exactly as Iíve been saying: as long as the rape is preceded by a marriage crremony.

William Clark, in his mid-30s, took a bride aged 15.  No different from Harvey Milk save the ceremony, gender and secular laws.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 01:22:53 PM by ERICOPOLY »

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8047
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #288 on: February 14, 2020, 01:44:50 PM »
If you are curious why it's 16 for married boys and 14 for married girls in Vatican City, consider this:

The time when puberty begins varies greatly among individuals; however, puberty usually occurs in girls between the ages of 10 and 14 and between the ages of 12 and 16 in boys.

https://www.medicinenet.com/puberty/article.htm


Coincidence?  I think not!

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5157
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #289 on: February 14, 2020, 01:54:20 PM »
Here's a starting point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality

What about this do you find compelling?

lc, it's exactly what bigots say to justify it? The evidence seems to indicate the baker does not like the act vs the person (if he were agreeable to serve them in other ways). Do you have anything to suggest otherwise?
What do I find compelling about not requiring an imaginary figure to dictate my behavior? It begs the question.

The evidence I have is a baker didn't serve a gay couple solely because they were gay. I bet southern restaurant owners would gladly have served blacks if they just weren't black. You can dance around the subject all you want, re-frame it however you like, argue the meaning of the word "the", ultimately it makes no difference: discriminating against people because your religion says so is total bullshit and makes you a bigot.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom