Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right decision. Finally! My stance is that same sex marriage is morally wrong and should be illegal. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not create true marriage. Neither two men nor two women can become one flesh.
But I think 14 year old hetrosexual and white Cousin's can still marry there...I could be wrong....
But I think 14 year old hetrosexual and white Cousin's can still marry there...I could be wrong....
I think this happen very often in AL...because nothing else could explain the clearly backward thinking that seems so pervasive in that state. In-breeding is a real killer of intelligence.
Playing Devil's Advocate here: 12 is NOT pre-pubescent these days. Many boys begin puberty younger and even begin growing public hair and masturbating regularly as young as 10. And with the prevelence of internet-use by younger kids, I HIGHLY DOUBT that he didn't know what was going on. He probably welcomed it. His parents found the texts and went to the authorities (which I am not defending her -- the parents were right because this IS illegal).
I'm not getting involved in the right/wrong aspect so far as the law itself.. It's wrong because the law says someone must be X age, and if they are below that.. Story over.
However.. Where did the AOC of 16 (going with that because it's the majority) start at? Some states the AOC for male/female sex is (or was, laws are changing on this, I believe) 16, but for homosexual it's 18.. Is that right? I'd say no.. If we're having equality for homosexuals.. Then AOC should be 16(or whatever), period. Outside of the law, is there something special that says it's OK for your son to have sex with another male at age 18, but not at age 16.. But, if he has sex with a girl at 16, it's OK?
But.. why is 16 the 'magic age'? Alot of people will agree that adolescent brains are not developed enough to have a drink until 21.. Some support raising the drinking age to 25.. Then, shouldn't AOC be 25? Why does everyone, so far as the law, think that 16 is some magic age where everything sex related becomes OK?
From a strictly physical maturity standpoint.. AOC could go down to 14 easily.. Arguments could be made for it to be lower. From a mental maturity standpoint.. I won't touch that one. It is 16.. Fine by me. Won't argue for it being lower or higher.
it really is silly to even allow a16 year old to sleep with an adult and I do not know why that is even allowed. 16 year olds can bw easily manipulated and exploited. 16 yr olds are do not have all the privileges as an adult.
I think this happen very often in AL...because nothing else could explain the clearly backward thinking that seems so pervasive in that state. In-breeding is a real killer of intelligence.
Um, it may not seem explainable by United States' standards, but if you look at certain foreign countries I think the thinking is pretty apparent. Alabama is part theocracy and dictatorship. Our ruling classes are the wealthy business people and ministers who interpret scripture to favor the wealthy. Everyone else, from teachers to farmers, are just members of an underclass that get the leftovers. Some of the so-called ministers and politicians are particularly dangerous; they subtly teach us not to think or to think only about certain issues, to fear them really, as there's no real transfer of knowledge. Most of us are too busy working, planning for better lives, or taking care of our families to investigate an issue raised in church or on the radio any further. We begin to believe this and worry about it. The problem is compounded when our preachers tell us to vote this way or that way, or God will not be pleased, because we want to please God. Everyone else has let us down, so we depend on Him heavily. When we go to the polls, the preacher's voice rings in our ear.
If you wanted to change this, there would have to be a personal element to it. You would have to actually show that you care. We're not a bunch of backwoods inbred fools, at least not from what I've seen, but we are weak people used to being oppressed and treated badly by others. A little human element might change these long-held opinions most of us cling to. We wouldn't turn down new jobs or other forms of help, no matter where it came from. It's very difficult to hate a friend, nearly impossible for many religious folks, actually. Most of us would probably even be grateful for the change if you came here and started "evangelizing" free thought and progressivism with a heavy Gospel element. We would finally be able to share ideas with one another at least.
I know that probably won't happen, though. That pattern of raping the South in the name of "progress" will probably continue. Our people will be seen as nothing but something to mock if one can stumble upon a fool that fits the proper stereotype, so we'll cling to our pride and way of life, and you will always have your poor lonely scapegoat. Of course we are as civil as anyone else, but we're too afraid of being destroyed for it, so we hide behind our stubbornness, and, more importantly, we hide behind the Bible; we're wary of change because of what our preachers, parents, and community leaders have taught us. As long as you come to us with anti-religious sentiment and challenge our way of life, most of us will continue to resist until the pressure becomes unbearable, and that's why we seem so backwards to the rest of you, I suppose.
Um im gay. And it wasnt a choice.If you make a law that says that a big huge portion of life I can't have because of sn unchosen difference than of course its done out of malice. Its a violation. Youre like an abuser who hits but says that they do it out of love. it impacts ourselves and our families and children and there's not even any benefit to you. So its acutally a textbook definition of malice
This is why I would legalize marijuana at the very least but still make, say public nudity, an infraction.. because public nudity infringes on the rights of others by having to see it in a culture where it's not accepted, however marijuana smoking is done in private and is supported by a good chunk of the population already.
Interesting that you should say this because this is exactly how many of us feel about homosexuals. I have no problem with them keeping their private lives private, as the government has no business inside anyone's home. I therefore have nothing against them personally, and feel they can do what they wish in the privacy of their home.
However I and a majority of others do not want to see where the current slippery slope on homosexuality will lead. I suspect public displays of affection will become more common for example, which many people find repulsive. Many homosexual apologists/activists want to be loud, proud and flaunt it. Rest assured if society gives it's tacit approval, it won't be long before it starts being more common since there will not be as much social stigma to discourage it.
Those are strange points.
Marijuana smoking done in private IS NOT EXACTLY "supported by a good chunk of the population", or it would be law in more states than the less fingers on a single hand, but it has to start somewhere. I {and others} DO NOT APPROVE OF marijuana smoking. ALSO: IT DOES infringe on someone else's rights when that marijuana smoker gets into his/her car to go buy more marijuanawhile under the influence and kills someone...just like with alcohol {and both are likely to think while under the influence that they ARE SAFE when driving}!
Two gay men or lesbians getting married doesn't have to bother anyone... You people ALL ASSUME you know what goes on in their bedroom. I never presume to know what goes on in heterosexual people's bedrooms, even when they have kids, and I DO KNOW where babies come from and how to get them!! And some people think making babies is repulsive. Especially in public. Go figure.
AND NUDITY has been around ALL our lives, we come into the world NUDE, and we ARE ALL NUDE under clothing we CHOOSE TO WEAR or have to by law. I {and many others} SEE no objection to nudity, I {And otheres} have even attended nudist colonies.
I personally {AND MANY OTHERS as well} DON'T want to see HETREOSEXUAL people slobber all over each other in public either, some of whom MIGHT AS WELL be having sex while at it- you'd think they WERE by their motions, BUT THEY CAN, now can't they? WHY NOT GAYS?
Gee, on those arguments, I'd rather see nude Gay people smoking marijuana, drinking beer and making out in public. IT MAY JUST happen someday..you just watch!
When I read a silly post like yours, I don't whether to laugh or cry.
Did you take a civics or a political science class in your school? It sure doesn't sound like you did. If you had, maybe you'd realize that under the Constitution that under the supremacy clause that federal law prevails over state law when the two conflict. Its what keeps this country together. Its what keeps us from fragmenting into 50 different nations. Your post illustrates a complete ignorance of the way America is run.
All this apparently went completely over your head. Instead, you fall back on some kind of "moral" justification that many of us no longer share. If you have this view because you think the Bible tells you that it is so or whatever, I don't really care. What I care about is that under our system, our Constitution does not establish any one religion. You may have these private views. You do not have the right to use the legal system to write those views into law. If you don't like gay marriage, fine. Don't marry a gay person. Don't tell the rest of us how we have to live.
The judges in Alabama are violating the law of the land. If the citizens of Alabama allow them to do it, I question whether Alabama is really part of the USA.
Please show me where the Constitution says that gay marriage must be allowed and recognized everywhere.
Those of us who are not in favor of "gay marriage" have to just sit quietly on the sidelines these days, and keep our mouths shut, because dissenting opinions are just not permitted on forums like this, and that's multiplied many times over if our opinion is based in religious teaching. So much for "open discussion."
Those who dare open their mouth and say something get called all manner of epithets and ugly names. Mean-spirited, acrimonious verbal abuse is the norm for anyone not waving a flag in favor of gay marriage.
In a supposedly enlightened society, perhaps that's the most objectionable element of all.
Not that many years ago, our courts ruled (again and again) that homosexual marriage was a violation of our laws. What changed? The constitution? No. Just public opinion.
That's what governs us today - public opinion.
I agree with you completely. Political correctness has made some "free speech" and value systems unacceptable, and those viewpoints that were majority views just 10-15 years ago are now considered unacceptable. Liberals are trying to pass new laws that would make criticizing homosexuals or other protected groups "hate speech". This would make it hard for a conservative religious person to hold a job, have friends or even maintain their freedom. This country is becoming less free every day, and its too late to stop the massive shift to the left through democratic means. Unless we have a rebellion or half the country secedes again they own this nation, and people who disagree with the "new America" had better shut up and get out of the way or face the wrath of their system. The fact that they are getting away with this in the south is proof of the depth of their victory. Our founding fathers must be just sick with what we have allowed to happen, not really the issue of gay marriage but the fact that the federal government has gained this much power and the states have done nothing to stop it. Again this is not just on gay marriage but a multitude of issues. In my opinion its time to break out the grey uniforms and revisit the spirit of 61.
Please show me where the Constitution says that gay marriage must be allowed and recognized everywhere.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This seems pretty clear to me. All individuals have the same rights and protections. If two individuals of the same-sex want to marry, they have that right. It's very simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
I'm going to get a real kick out of watching the federal government - once again - drag Alabama by the ear into the 21st Century. This is gonna be funnier than hell.
Yeah, it will happen whether they want to or not. It really is no different from segregation. I don't know how soon, but eventually same-sex marriage will be nationally recognized.
Yes, even in Alabama.
Last edited by PanapolicRiddle; 03-06-2015 at 12:41 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
