"the Catholic Church Can’t Change." The Washington Post

[Autumn Dusk]

A sexual relationship between a 30 year old and 14 year old is illegal because the age of consent is put at 18 in America.  It should be obvious why its that way: because that's the typical age one gets a high school diploma.  I don't know why you think the age of consent is going to be lowered any time soon. 

 

 

As far as polygamy is concerned, we had that debate a long time ago in this country and it was deemed a threat to women's rights.  I don't know why you think women's rights groups would change their opinion on the matter. 

 

The age of consent has been highly challenged and is continued to be.  There are some states where a 14yo can get married.  There has been little attempts to change these laws.  Age of consent is actually 16 in most states in America.

 

And as far as poligimy...I don't believe it's a once faught, now gone battle.  Considering that "Big love" an other poligamy shows are very popular on cable TV, your qualms about woman's rights seem to matter little.  If it were such a concern, said TV shows would not be going into their 3rd and 4th seasons.

[add]

I don't care if the Church legitimizes gay marriage.  I honestly couldn't give two poos about whether or not the Church marries gay couples.  But the Church teaches that the state ought not recognize gay marriage and encourages its faithful to fight politically against the state recognizing gay marriage.  That's what I care about.  

 

 

Are you saying that the church should not have the freedom of expression?

 

[r2Dtoo]

The age of consent has been highly challenged and is continued to be.  There are some states where a 14yo can get married.  There has been little attempts to change these laws.  Age of consent is actually 16 in most states in America.

 

And as far as poligimy...I don't believe it's a once faught, now gone battle.  Considering that "Big love" an other poligamy shows are very popular on cable TV, your qualms about woman's rights seem to matter little.  If it were such a concern, said TV shows would not be going into their 3rd and 4th seasons.

As you know, the age of consent for marriage and the age of consent for sexual relationships are different.  Don't pretend that you don't know any better.

 

I don't think how long TV shows are running are a reflection of what can be accomplished in American politics.  

 

Are you saying that the church should not have the freedom of expression?

 

Someone forgot to take their meds this morning.

[Autumn Dusk]

As you know, the age of consent for marriage and the age of consent for sexual relationships are different.  Don't pretend that you don't know any better.

 

I don't think how long TV shows are running are a reflection of what can be accomplished in American politics.  

 

I'm not pretending to know any different.  The youngest that a person can get married stated in the laws is 13 years for females and 14 for males in NH with permission of the court and parents.  Kansas and 3 other state 14 with permission of the court and several allow 15/16 with permission of parents.  In many states 17yo's can get married with the permission of a parent and no input from the state.  There are extra fees involved, the lowest being $5 and the highest being $200.

 

Laws based on sexual activity of minors (those who are sexually mature) have been beaten back quite frequently....with preference given to goofy laws that go after 14yo's sexting their boyfreinds.  While these are serious issues, time should be spent trying to create laws that protect from predation, not stupidity.  I see the open acceptance of the sexuality of minors as a bridge into a time when minor's right to sexual relationships will be recognized.  I don't agree with it, but the impetus is there.

 

You didn't say American politics  you said women's rights groups which is about American opinions. As men retire and women take over, less radically woman's lib women will get in, and those "in touch" with American culture, for better or worse, and will have these more "opened" and "enlightened" opinions.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Autumn Dusk

[r2Dtoo]

I'm not pretending to know any different.  The youngest that a person can get married stated in the laws is 13 years for females and 14 for males in NH with permission of the court and parents.  Kansas and 3 other state 14 with permission of the court and several allow 15/16 with permission of parents.  In many states 17yo's can get married with the permission of a parent and no input from the state.  There are extra fees involved, the lowest being $5 and the highest being $200.

 

Laws based on sexual activity of minors (those who are sexually mature) have been beaten back quite frequently....with preference given to goofy laws that go after 14yo's sexting their boyfreinds.  While these are serious issues, time should be spent trying to create laws that protect from predation, not stupidity.  I see the open acceptance of the sexuality of minors as a bridge into a time when minor's right to sexual relationships will be recognized.  I don't agree with it, but the impetus is there.

 

You didn't say American politics  you said women's rights groups which is about American opinions. As men retire and women take over, less radically woman's lib women will get in, and those "in touch" with American culture, for better or worse, and will have these more "opened" and "enlightened" opinions.

Marriage and sexual relationships are different things.  I don't know why you are trying to equate the two.

 

First you say that laws regulating  the sexual activity of minors have been beaten back, and then you point to prosecutors going after sexting 14 year olds as proof of this.  If anything that seems to point in the other direction that laws regulating the sexual relationships of minors are in full force.

 

Your hypothesis about the future of the women's lib movement is highly theoretical, and probably way off base in my opinion.

[4588686]

 

Are you saying that the church should not have the freedom of expression?

 

 

 

No. 

[Autumn Dusk]

Marriage and sexual relationships are different things.  I don't know why you are trying to equate the two.

 

First you say that laws regulating  the sexual activity of minors have been beaten back, and then you point to prosecutors going after sexting 14 year olds as proof of this.  If anything that seems to point in the other direction that laws regulating the sexual relationships of minors are in full force.

 

Your hypothesis about the future of the women's lib movement is highly theoretical, and probably way off base in my opinion.

 

But isn't that the crux of the matter in homosexuality that two adults can have a sexual relationship and call it marriage?  

 

The laws regarding the criminal prosecution of the punishment of  physical sex acts of minors have been beaten back.  The focus has become on frivolousness things that can be better document.  It's on tangible items rather than sexual acts.

 

Parents and society would of greatly punished and shamed teen sex.  (unfortunately mostly women bore the brunt of the punishment) Now, it's everywhere you turn.

 

I don't believe that my synopsis is off base.  Gay behavior was never considered ok and began to be accepted in the 70's (free love) and 80's and in 30 years is now normative through the use of TV.   Polygamous behavior has about 10-20 years to go but it's getting there.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Autumn Dusk

[add]

No.

No you say, You have repeatedly Criticized the church teaching and how they Express their beliefs.

How is that not trying to stop religious expression? Edited February 15, 2013 by add

[r2Dtoo]

But isn't that the crux of the matter in homosexuality that two adults can have a sexual relationship and call it marriage?  

 

The laws regarding the criminal prosecution of the punishment of  physical sex acts of minors have been beaten back.  The focus has become on frivolousness things that can be better document.  It's on tangible items rather than sexual acts.

 

Parents and society would of greatly punished and shamed teen sex.  (unfortunately mostly women bore the brunt of the punishment) Now, it's everywhere you turn.

 

I don't believe that my synopsis is off base.  Gay behavior was never considered ok and began to be accepted in the 70's (free love) and 80's and in 30 years is now normative through the use of TV.   Polygamous behavior has about 10-20 years to go but it's getting there.

The crux of the matter is not that two adults can have a sexual relationship and call it marriage.  No one is arguing that a hook-up equates marriage.

 

It has always been difficult to prove that minors are having sex unless they are actually caught in the act.  Prosecutors who are going after 14 year olds sexting are trying to go after child porn.  I don't see how that's frivolous.

 

Gay behavior has been around in every civilization for as long as history can tell, the only thing ever standing in way of it's acceptance has been religion.  And it's not just through TV that gay behavior has become normative.  Plenty of people have gay friends, family members, and look up to icons that happen to be gay.  If the only gays you know are from TV you'd probably think gay marriage was ridiculous actually.

[Autumn Dusk]

The crux of the matter is not that two adults can have a sexual relationship and call it marriage.  No one is arguing that a hook-up equates marriage.

 

It has always been difficult to prove that minors are having sex unless they are actually caught in the act.  Prosecutors who are going after 14 year olds sexting are trying to go after child porn.  I don't see how that's frivolous.

 

Gay behavior has been around in every civilization for as long as history can tell, the only thing ever standing in way of it's acceptance has been religion.  And it's not just through TV that gay behavior has become normative.  Plenty of people have gay friends, family members, and look up to icons that happen to be gay.  If the only gays you know are from TV you'd probably think gay marriage was ridiculous actually.

 

Poligamy and child marriage have ALSO been around for as long as history.  My point is you cannot pick and choose.  Either you defend only one kind of sexual relationship as being normal  OR you open the law and general consensus to all other sexual relationships that are not considered couth right now.  You can't use the argument that it's ok because it was done in history.  Bestiality was also done.

 

My point about minor sex is that it's considered ok.  Mandated reporting laws for teachers and doctors do not extend to teen sex.  It is encouraged by the media and by ever diminished parental rights laws over teen health.  What is being prosecuted are things which do not address the problem at all, beucase heaven forbid, we tell teens that they can't have sex.  Right now we just tell them they can't take pictures of it.

[r2Dtoo]

Poligamy and child marriage have ALSO been around for as long as history.  My point is you cannot pick and choose.  Either you defend only one kind of sexual relationship as being normal  OR you open the law and general consensus to all other sexual relationships that are not considered couth right now.  You can't use the argument that it's ok because it was done in history.  Bestiality was also done.

 

My point about minor sex is that it's considered ok.  Mandated reporting laws for teachers and doctors do not extend to teen sex.  It is encouraged by the media and by ever diminished parental rights laws over teen health.  What is being prosecuted are things which do not address the problem at all, beucase heaven forbid, we tell teens that they can't have sex.  Right now we just tell them they can't take pictures of it.

My point was there are other arguments besides religion that you can make againist those relationships.

[Autumn Dusk]

My point was there are other arguments besides religion that you can make againist those relationships.

 

There are other arguments you can make against homosexuality, too. They don't have to do with religion.    Spreading of STD's for one.  Most of the other reasons have also been wiped out as social norms change.

[4588686]

No you say, You have repeatedly Criticized the church teaching and how they Express their beliefs.

How is that not trying to stop religious expression?

 

 

Freedom of expression does not mean that you get to express your beliefs and nobody gets to criticize what you say.  

There are other arguments you can make against homosexuality, too. They don't have to do with religion.    Spreading of STD's for one.  Most of the other reasons have also been wiped out as social norms change.

 

 

Lesbians have far lower STI rates than heterosexual couples.  

[add]

Freedom of expression does not mean that you get to express your beliefs and nobody gets to criticize what you say. 

 

Hasan, on 15 Feb 2013 - 12:37, said:

“The Church teaches that the state ought not recognize gay marriage and encourages its faithful to fight politically against the state recognizing gay marriage.  That's what I care about. “

 

What The Church teaches ought or ought not to teach or encourage is basic form of free expression.

 

 

[4588686]

Hasan, on 15 Feb 2013 - 12:37, said:

“The Church teaches that the state ought not recognize gay marriage and encourages its faithful to fight politically against the state recognizing gay marriage.  That's what I care about. “

 

What The Church teaches ought or ought not to teach or encourage is basic form of free expression.

 

 

 

 

And what about that suggests that I don't think that the Church has a legal right to advocate their awful view about how the state should take a poo on gay couples?

 

The Church can advocate their bigoted and awful position and then I get to say, 'hey, that's really floopied up and you should stop advocating that awful idea.'  I'm not trying to get the state to smash their freedoms then way they are advocating the state floopy with the lives of gay people.  

Edited February 15, 2013 by Hasan