[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You don't seem to understand the issue, at all.

The relationship was completely legal when it began. This was not an "adult" targeting a minor. They were both minors when it all began. Your comparisons are irrelevant.

No they aren't. You just like being indignant for the sake of it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You just like being indignant for the sake of it.

No I'm really not.

Regardless, the news report I originally posted appears to be wrong. Here is the arrest affidavit:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...=florida&_r=2&

So the relationship did not begin when the girls were 17 and 15, but when they were 18 and 14. Naturally, this changes my assessment of things a great deal. To me, the idea that a sexual relationship could go from legal to illegal simply because of someone's 18th birthday is outrageous. But that's not what happened here, it seems.

Still, I don't think anyone should be facing a 15 year jail sentence or sex offender registration for consentual sex, even with great age differences.

Regarding the gay angle, I just saw both parents on CNN. The other parents rejected the claim that this is motivated by anti-gay bigotrym, though they weren't grilled on their attitudes. (An unrelated note, they are an interracial couple, the husband white and the wife black, a rare combination.) They seem like nice people. My previous condemnation of them stemmed from my belief that they cunningly waited for the other girl's 18th birthday to pounce, which isn't true. It looks like they involved the police soon after discovering their daughter's predicament.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. The ACLU are supporting the girl being prosecuted, probably claiming the punishment is excessive. In Georgia, two separate cases of stat rape that applied 10 year jail sentences were commuted after two years, and soon after the Georgia legislature reduced stat rape to a misdemeaner. The ACLU is likely hoping for a similar outcome.

Kaitlyn Hunt’s sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl: The Florida teen’s case is about more than gay rights. - Slate Magazine

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

To me, the idea that a sexual relationship could go from legal to illegal simply because of someone's 18th birthday is outrageous.

Tell it to the judge.

[subego]

I'm surprised no one challenged me on my support for the pink agenda the destruction of marriage.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm surprised no one challenged me on my support for the pink agenda the destruction of marriage.

Why? You're right. Marriage doesn't fit within the framework of modern secular society, given the tenuous nature of partnerships these days, such antiquated structures no longer support 3/4 of current relationships.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Tell it to the judge.

Indeed, fix the law and stop blaming the idiots who manipulate it. If it were properly written, you wouldn't have these issues. The girl in Florida won't get 15 years, I'd say it'll be closer to 2-3, but she will be labeled as a sex offender, until the laws are properly amended.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why? You're right. Marriage doesn't fit within the framework of modern secular society, given the tenuous nature of partnerships these days, such antiquated structures no longer support 3/4 of current relationships.

Just wanted to be sure it was "for real".

[lpkmckenna]

Of all the things our politicians should be doing, ending marriage just for being "antiquated" doesn't merit any level of attention.

[subego]

I think most would agree, including the woman who made the statement.

[Chongo]

This should get interesting for our UK members, the Queen being "Defender of the Faith" and all.

Gay marriage would 'force Queen to break sovereign promise' - Telegraph

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who was Bishop of Rochester for 15 years, said that the Queen took an oath to "uphold God's laws" when she was crowned.
But the Bishop claimed that signing into law a Bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry would force her to break that promise she made upon her Coronation.

[subego]

We're still on your last post. What exactly was your problem?

[subego]

The irony here is I'd say the Bishop and the radical lesbian agree on a bunch here.

Both of them see marriage as holy matrimony.

The key difference here is the lesbian (correctly) sees that as a religious construction being forced upon the law, whereas the Bishop seems to feel it's his duty to give his beliefs legal teeth.

[Shaddim]

Okay, here's a good one. I know a couple of guys who live together, they want to be "life partners" and be together, but they aren't gay. They don't have sex with each other, they sleep with women (often the same women), but they don't want to live with any of them. In other words, it's like this huge bromance (think Chuck and Larry, but without acting like they're attracted to each other). So, they told me, "we want to get married", and they live in a state where gay marriage is legal. I told them, "you aren't actually gay." "No." I think a second. "One of you might meet a woman and decide you want to live with her." "I doubt it, we can't stand being around chicks, except for sex. We're perfect partners; we don't fight, we understand each other, we love all the same shit, and we never gripe or complain about what the other wants."

You know what, it does make perfect sense, at least for them. They want to receive the legal benefits of marriage, they look out for each other, and even love each other. All the elements for a relationship are there, except for physical desire. I think it's awesome. Anyhow, they asked me to officiate and I said I would, so I'm flying up to do that in two weeks. There won't be a bachelor party, the wedding itself is like one, with strippers and kegs. Should be a hoot.

[subego]

Sorry, no.

Your friends must have buttseks if they want these benefits.

[Shaddim]

I think it's great, why should sex be the defining characteristic when choosing a partner?

[subego]

I think it's wonderful, too!

As long as they have plenty of anal and prove it to the government.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it's wonderful, too!

As long as they have plenty of anal and prove it to the government.

Why? Not even all gay men participate in anal sex.

[subego]

Well, it's time to start if they want the A.O.K. from Uncle Sam.

[subego]

This is America.

We like our beer cold, our TV loud, and our homosexuals doing it in the butt.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I doubt it, we can't stand being around chicks, except for sex.

More seriously, isn't that kinda weird?

I try not to judge people. If that's good for them, then great, but that attitude throws up red flags on messed up shit in their past.

[Shaddim]

What constitutes a great day for them is to sit and play video games for hours on end, that's what they do. I've known them for over a decade and you almost never see one without the other.

I imagine they live by the Golden Rule, but I've never asked.

[subego]

No, I mean being unable to stand being around another gender. Especially for men. It's a little more common to have all men be on a woman's shit list.

[Shaddim]

I believe most of the animosity stems from one of them being married before, and being massively screwed over when his wife left after stripping their accounts and cleaning all the valuables out of their house while he was at work.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

No, I mean being unable to stand being around another gender. Especially for men. It's a little more common to have all men be on a woman's shit list.

I learned not too long ago that its more common than I would have thought for a certain kind of man to have a general dislike of all women. A certain kind of gay man to be more specific.

[subego]

Well, I was trying to lightly loafer around that, but yes, the type of man who hates all women does exist, and in my experience they're gay.

Do these friends live in an environment where it's considered okay to be gay, or is it the kind of place where that gets hidden?

Speaking of which, how do gays get treated in Tennessee? I know there's going to be a spread, but I'm still curious about your experience.

[subego]

"[H]ates" is too strong a word (though that exists too), "has serious issues with" is more accurate.

[Shaddim]

Well, they live in Baltimore, I'm not sure how gay-friendly that is, but Maryland does allow SS marriage.

No, I wouldn't say they hate women, that is too strong a word, they distrust and would rather not hang out with them. They aren't homosexual.

As for TN, for the most part people here just don't care, as long as gay couples (male or female) aren't making out in public. But then, hetero couples are likely to get called out for that too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They aren't homosexual.

How do you know? You probably aren't even their type.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you know? You probably aren't even their type.

Why are you all up in their bedroom? Demanding they be having the butt sex, insisting they're gay when he's telling you they're not, etc... why is any of that your business?

Does the notion that two guys would get married to share their lives together outside of sex violate your sanctity of marriage paradigm to such a degree that it just doesn't make sense to you any more? Damned kids these days!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

How do you know? You probably aren't even their type.

They say they aren't. Also I've known them for 10+ years, and during that time I've not seen any indications that they're sexually attracted to men.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why are you all up in their bedroom? Demanding they be having the butt sex, insisting they're gay when he's telling you they're not, etc... why is any of that your business?

Does the notion that two guys would get married to share their lives together outside of sex violate your sanctity of marriage paradigm to such a degree that it just doesn't make sense to you any more? Damned kids these days!

I know. Annoying isn't it?

This is but one of the reasons civil unions make more sense, but people* are like "nooooooo, that's all homophobic".

Okay then. If you want to be Gay married, then by Jove you need to be gay!


That's my jokey response. My non jokey response is I'm with the radical lesbian. **** your* antiquated binary system of relationships, and **** your* laws shoving them down my throat.


*Not you personally.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They say they aren't. Also I've known them for 10+ years, and during that time I've not seen any indications that they're sexually attracted to men.

Well, not counting the whole spending all my time with a dude and issues with women part I presume.

[subego]

I think the real test for them is how they react to insinuations they're gay.

If they think that's funny, then they're probably not gay. If it pisses them off or makes them uncomfortable, they're probably hiding something.

The fact they want to get married seems to indicate the former.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know. Annoying isn't it?

This is but one of the reasons civil unions make more sense, but people* are like "nooooooo, that's all homophobic".

For real playa! People are just too touchy on this one.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, not counting the whole spending all my time with a dude and issues with women part I presume.

I said they aren't sexually attracted, no one mentioned anything about socially.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know. Annoying isn't it?

This is but one of the reasons civil unions make more sense, but people* are like "nooooooo, that's all homophobic".

What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

[subego]

It depends.

In a basic sense, one is strictly a legal construct while the other is a weird socio-religious-legal thingamajig.

To be clear, I'm for dissolution of straight marriage too. They should all be civil unions.

[Chongo]

Would you put limits on these "civil unions"?

[subego]

Not many. What did you have in mind?

[subego]

They could absolutely be used for group marriage, if that's what your asking.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

They could absolutely be used for group marriage, if that's what your asking.

What about age limits or close relatives?

[subego]

For age, it would be the age when someone can enter into their own legal contract without their parents' consent.

Close relatives can go for it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

What's the difference between man and woman or short and small? Marriage has a definition. Different words have different meanings, some more or less accurate for use in particular scenarios. Marriage is presently defined as and has been defined from time immemorial as a bond of lifelong union between a man and a woman; historically a means of granting the ownership of women to men and a formalized decree that offspring would maintain their positions as biological heirs. i.e. marriage does not equate to citizen, but has always held a more exclusive regard for relationships. Civil Union implies a broader scope, equates merely to citizen as a less restricting trait of the relationship and more appropriately aligns with the only reasonable purpose a marriage status would serve from the perspective of the government -- the civil census.

Otherwise, you may have to ask those who find the ideal of "civil unions" so detestable.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, here's a good one. I know a couple of guys who live together, they want to be "life partners" and be together, but they aren't gay. They don't have sex with each other, they sleep with women (often the same women), but they don't want to live with any of them.

It ain't no fun if the homies can't have none!

OAW

[Shaddim]

Well, homie, but yeah.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What's the difference between man and woman or short and small? Marriage has a definition. Different words have different meanings, some more or less accurate for use in particular scenarios. Marriage is presently defined as and has been defined from time immemorial as a bond of lifelong union between a man and a woman; historically a means of granting the ownership of women to men and a formalized decree that offspring would maintain their positions as biological heirs. i.e. marriage does not equate to citizen, but has always held a more exclusive regard for relationships. Civil Union implies a broader scope, equates merely to citizen as a less restricting trait of the relationship and more appropriately aligns with the only reasonable purpose a marriage status would serve from the perspective of the government -- the civil census.

Otherwise, you may have to ask those who find the ideal of "civil unions" so detestable.

So from a legal perspective, nothing.

[subego]

Both Prop 8 and DOMA are history.

I'm certainly pleased with the result, but I want to look more closely into the opinions.

This is yet again a situation where I think there may be some legitimacy to Scalia's thinking, but his dissents are so heinously abusive I have to Silkwood shower the ego off my face afterwards.

[P]

The Prop8 one basically boils down to "California didn't want to defend it, and the concerned citizens can't appeal". It's a 5-4 decision, but not along the usual lines - the majority is Roberts-Scalia-Ginsburg-Breyer-Kagan.

DOMA is straight along the usual lines, with judges basically voting their political opinion. Someone feel free to explain their reasoning, I didn't understand it. The Scalia dissent was quite amusing, though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

So from a legal perspective, nothing.

Welcome back to the thread. Somehow I get the impression had SCOTUS been 5-4 in the other direction, I would've been ignored entirely. From the legal perspective, marriage is not defined at the Federal level, as I said would and should be the case in the first place. While the legal perspective™ in attempting to define marriage in the other 30+ States that don't allow SSM can and will be challenged in short order, it is not quite as cut and dry as you suggest and IMO "civil unions" are still more precise; particularly for anyone interested in "marriage equality".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by P 

The Prop8 one basically boils down to "California didn't want to defend it, and the concerned citizens can't appeal". It's a 5-4 decision, but not along the usual lines - the majority is Roberts-Scalia-Ginsburg-Breyer-Kagan.

DOMA is straight along the usual lines, with judges basically voting their political opinion. Someone feel free to explain their reasoning, I didn't understand it. The Scalia dissent was quite amusing, though.

The reasoning of dissent was that the people's representatives voted on an implemented DOMA and that it takes a lot of hubris for a court to legislate from the bench. i.e. If Congress has voted on and implemented legislation, SCOTUS will most often find a way to support that will, not unlike the decision to maintain the health insurance mandate as a "tax" in spite of the fact that its authors and proponents insisted it wasn't a tax. But most of the scathing Scalia ire was directed at how the affirming position was written to suggest anyone supporting the traditional definition of marriage, any State with laws as such, representatives in all capacities including Congress itself and President Bill Clinton et al. who signed DOMA into existence are all now de facto bigots. He also had some colorful ways of describing the behavior of the Justices in arguing this issue as being little more than partisan brawling.

I agree with the DOMA decision (thought such legislation at the Federal level was an overstep) and since none of California's representatives appeared to defend the will of Californians giving way to the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court of California; there's not a lot you can do to argue against that, but it can be argued that your representation will no longer rest in your elected officials, but in how the POTUS stacks the SCOTUS.