Author Topic: State of the Nation  (Read 12600 times)

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7249
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #290 on: February 14, 2020, 01:54:25 PM »
Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

Why Paul?



stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #291 on: February 14, 2020, 02:15:33 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 I’ve 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.

It looks like she was 16 and he was 37.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/william-clark-julia-hancock-wedding-jan-5-1808.htm

I think that's still immoral.

Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #292 on: February 14, 2020, 02:21:01 PM »
Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

Why Paul?

I would assume it has to do something with Mohammed and Aisha. Per the Islamic sources, he married her when she was 6 (or 7) depending on the source.  I believe he was 50 then. The relationship wasn't consummated until...9 (or 10) for what that's worth.
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #293 on: February 14, 2020, 02:28:13 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.

I see no reason to believe the baker was discriminating against an individual. I do believe the baker was discriminating against an action.

Let's take it a step further. A hot young lady says to you, "Hey, I'm lost. How do I get to the nearest post office?" You would probably help her with directions. No discrimination there.

Let's say a week later the same girl see you and says, "hey lc, I want you. Your wife is out of town so let's get busy." Being the moral and upright husband that you are you might say "Well, thanks for the offer but I respectfully decline." You are now discriminating! Evil, evil!


So if the gay couple had wanted cookies, he might have very well agreed (just like with directions). However, they asked for something he felt was immoral.
Paul

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4016
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #294 on: February 14, 2020, 02:36:02 PM »
Quote
I see no reason to believe the baker was discriminating against an individual. I do believe the baker was discriminating against an action.

Let's take it a step further. A hot young lady says to you, "Hey, I'm lost. How do I get to the nearest post office?" You would probably help her with directions. No discrimination there.

Let's say a week later the same girl see you and says, "hey lc, I want you. Your wife is out of town so let's get busy." Being the moral and upright husband that you are you might say "Well, thanks for the offer but I respectfully decline." You are now discriminating! Evil, evil!


This really is Olympic-level mental gymnastics you are performing to justify a crackpot interpretation of reality.

The baker refuses to bake a cake for the patron because of the patron's inherent nature as a homosexual

I refuse to cheat on my wife not because the lady is attractive, not even because she is a lady. It could be a grotesque man. It has nothing to do with the person or their nature. That is the difference between reality and your nonsensical analogy.

In the general case, I theorize this is what happens when the religious force themselves to believe in some backwards biblical bullshit. Deep down in their core as a human being they must know it's a crackpot belief system but instead of ripping it up and throwing it away, they twist and pull and contort their minds to justify it. It shows you how sinister this faith-based system of living is - it's easier to justify inhumanity rather than discard it.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | irm | mo | nlsn | pm | t | v

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7249
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #295 on: February 14, 2020, 03:39:21 PM »
Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

Why Paul?

I would assume it has to do something with Mohammed and Aisha. Per the Islamic sources, he married her when she was 6 (or 7) depending on the source.  I believe he was 50 then. The relationship wasn't consummated until...9 (or 10) for what that's worth.

In that case, why is it your position that no government can override religious law?  It appears secular law comes to the rescue, no?

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #296 on: February 14, 2020, 04:15:57 PM »
Quote
I see no reason to believe the baker was discriminating against an individual. I do believe the baker was discriminating against an action.

Let's take it a step further. A hot young lady says to you, "Hey, I'm lost. How do I get to the nearest post office?" You would probably help her with directions. No discrimination there.

Let's say a week later the same girl see you and says, "hey lc, I want you. Your wife is out of town so let's get busy." Being the moral and upright husband that you are you might say "Well, thanks for the offer but I respectfully decline." You are now discriminating! Evil, evil!


This really is Olympic-level mental gymnastics you are performing to justify a crackpot interpretation of reality.

The baker refuses to bake a cake for the patron because of the patron's inherent nature as a homosexual

I refuse to cheat on my wife not because the lady is attractive, not even because she is a lady. It could be a grotesque man. It has nothing to do with the person or their nature. That is the difference between reality and your nonsensical analogy.

In the general case, I theorize this is what happens when the religious force themselves to believe in some backwards biblical bullshit. Deep down in their core as a human being they must know it's a crackpot belief system but instead of ripping it up and throwing it away, they twist and pull and contort their minds to justify it. It shows you how sinister this faith-based system of living is - it's easier to justify inhumanity rather than discard it.

Instead of insulting me can you please explain why my argument is wrong? We need to differentiate between the action and the person (I think you might be confusing the nature of the person and the person).

For instance, if the baker was discriminating against the person we would expect him to do something like not sell them any goods or have them removed from the store. As far as I know, he didn't, which leads me to believe he was discriminating against an action instead of a person - just like you might discriminating against someone in one way but help them in another.

As I said before, deep down which are you more sure of: that God doesn't exist or that there is a true Moral North Star. You can't have the second without the first. ;)
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 04:26:49 PM by stahleyp »
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3320
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #297 on: February 14, 2020, 04:19:13 PM »
Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

Why Paul?

I would assume it has to do something with Mohammed and Aisha. Per the Islamic sources, he married her when she was 6 (or 7) depending on the source.  I believe he was 50 then. The relationship wasn't consummated until...9 (or 10) for what that's worth.

In that case, why is it your position that no government can override religious law?  It appears secular law comes to the rescue, no?

I don't believe I ever said no government can override religious law. I said no government can override our inalienable rights that God gave us (according to the Declaration of Independence).

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
Paul

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7249
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #298 on: February 14, 2020, 05:03:45 PM »
Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

Why Paul?

I would assume it has to do something with Mohammed and Aisha. Per the Islamic sources, he married her when she was 6 (or 7) depending on the source.  I believe he was 50 then. The relationship wasn't consummated until...9 (or 10) for what that's worth.

In that case, why is it your position that no government can override religious law?  It appears secular law comes to the rescue, no?

I don't believe I ever said no government can override religious law. I said no government can override our inalienable rights that God gave us (according to the Declaration of Independence).

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

What are the rights that God gave you?

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7249
Re: State of the Nation
« Reply #299 on: February 14, 2020, 05:24:59 PM »
Now if you look at countries in the Middle East, you'll see that there is no age specified. Know why?

Why Paul?

I would assume it has to do something with Mohammed and Aisha. Per the Islamic sources, he married her when she was 6 (or 7) depending on the source.  I believe he was 50 then. The relationship wasn't consummated until...9 (or 10) for what that's worth.

Paul,
In all of those Middle East nations, marriage is required for consent.

That makes the United States' protections for children not so different.  In the US, there is no Federal minimum age for marriage.  Some states have minimums, but in almost half of US states today, there is no minimum age of marriage.

I'm looking at a 1937 photo from the AP where a 9 yr old girl named Eunice Winstead is standing next to her 22 yr old husband, Charlie Johns at their home in Sneedville, Tennessee.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/

Eric
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 05:26:36 PM by ERICOPOLY »