Father claims 15 year old girl is capable of consent in Lesbian Rape Case
Father claims 15 year old girl from another family is capable of consent : I'm beginning to really like the change in Florida's government. First they stop handing out welfare checks to junkies. Now they are treating Lesbians under the same rules as Heterosexuals, gasp, what a concept! Don't sign this petition unless you are FOR statutory rape of younger girls by predatory lesbians. How many 18 year old boys have been prosecuted for having sex with 16 year old women under "minors can't give consent"? Special treatment for lesbians? Please, no.
Comments
What if there is no Evil One, no God, and no plan? Wouldn't it then make sense that women should be able to plan their lives in a way that allows them to have both a career and a family. My wife took off ten years to have and raise our two sons. The rest of the time she was on the pill. The boys are now men off on their own and she is enjoying a successful career. There was no plan but our plan and it worked out just fine.
Then all we have left to do good instead of evil is tradition. And all the more reason not to abandon it.
" Wouldn't it then make sense that women should be able to plan their lives in a way that allows them to have both a career and a family."
Not possible. Everybody, man, woman, theist, or atheist, is only granted 24 hours in a day.
My wife didn't take any time off, but she did change her career for one more fitting to the role of motherhood- and even then, one look at our house says that we've both taken on far too many responsibilities.
Also, I'd point out that your plan has *NOT* worked out fine at all. Neither of your children are married, they have no children of their own, and one has rebelled so far as to claim to be homosexual just to spite "our plan". Not much of a success rate, that.
Sexuality does not have to have an "evolutionary future". It's not about evolution, it is about human rights. Homosexuality is no longer considered to be a disorder other than by outmoded religions. It's not about winning. It's about doing the right thing.
Sexuality is about the evolution of the human species, and needs to be considered in that light. If we turn wrong things into rights, we don't deserve to survive or have freedom.
Ah! But they are only "wrong things" to religious people who have no say in the matter if the court decides they are rights. You can't fight the Supreme Court. Aren't the rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA overdue?
Why are you trying so hard to make what is wrong, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, we should go with the much more reasonable idea of a complete separation between civil unions and religious sacramental marriage and sever the destructive cord while we still can. Every household *legal*, only those who care to go the additional step of a church wedding *moral*. And the Churches free to refuse services to anybody they wish to.
Sometimes, when you find yourself on a slippery slope when hiking, the absolute safest thing you can do is stop climbing.
You've said this before. I don't see how doing that benefits anyone. The couple that goes through with a sacramental marriage is automatically married from a civil standpoint. Why would they not be. And I don't see where getting married by a justice of the peace makes a person any less moral than one who gets married by a priest. That's just silly to call the latter moral.
I can't believe I'm having to inform a wavering atheist of that idea.
The act done by a justice of the peace, can be dissolved by a justice of the peace (divorce).
The act done by an ordained minister is done by God (and as the ceremony states, what God has joined together let no man rend asunder).
Civil unions are a contract for setting up house, and have no bearing on sexuality whatsoever, and should be available to everybody regardless of sexual orientation, number of partners, age of partners, species of partners. The Justice of the Peace should not discriminate, Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.
The preacher, on the other hand, has a positive duty to uphold the moral code he was ordained under; discrimination is required, discrimination is what he was trained to do and what he was hired to do by the parish that pays his salary.
I fully agree that the state should not discriminate- but to expect the Church to not discriminate is to completely not understand what a moral code is for.
Thus the separation. And calling it two different things will emphasize that separation.
If you want the Church out of your bedroom, then you need to get your Government out of the Church- entirely.
There is nothing wrong with a Catholic marriage being recorded with the government. The government is not trying to control or interfere with the running of the Church. All the Church has to do is stop trying to tell non-members how to live their lives.
Seriously? Because of something done by Queen Elizabeth?
" they're interested in it specifically so that they can better control the Church through statements like ". All the Church has to do is stop trying to tell non-members how to live their lives."- which will quickly become "All the Church has to do is endorse marriages from anybody who comes to want one, because doing anything else will mean discrimination, which will allow us to shut down the church and grab the land"
That sounds like paranoia to me.
It happened there, it can happen here- and it's not like the Constitution matters one whit anymore.
There are beginning to be cases about annulments and divorcees in America already- in small towns that have set up their own HRC boards. And it isn't just Catholic groups that are being attacked in this fashion either.
First of all, this conversation came about after you mentioned the confiscation of Church property. It has completely unraveled and now we are discussing the absurdity of the Kights of Columbus refusing to rent their hall for a reception after a wedding between divorcees. Is there no limit to Catholic absurdity?
You see, what you call Catholic absurdity, is a coherent whole to me. I can't do one without the other.
The entire intent of the left is to make a society dependent upon the corporations and the government. Why are you astounded by the idea that destroying civilization makes a society dependent upon the corporations and the government which has no forgiveness, when that's the very thing you're trying to create?
I don't understand how people can become dependent on corporations. I don't want people to be dependent on government. I don't think that is the intent of the left. The intent of the right is to impose Christianity on this country.
Oh yes. Wouldn't that be wonderful. You'd like that, wouldn't you. Lets give up all our freedom and democracy and install a Catholic monarch.
I suppose it's worth keeping if you're an Ivy League Liberal (of either the Fiscal or Sexual variety) but for the rest of us, it's just tribute to the emperor.
Is that what you see when you look at our democracy? Some Catholics have become embittered because the more fanatical political positions that they take are being shot down by the electorate. So they would like to eliminate democratic rule and replace it with a Catholic dictatorship like that of the Vatican City.
It isn't just Catholics who have noticed either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia
Ecotopia was written in 1975.
I haven't believed that our rule was actually a democracy for a very long time. It is always either the fiscal libertine or the sexual libertine on the ballot, NEVER anybody actually moral. And usually with campaigns bought and paid for by the same group of corporations that brought us the banker's coup of 2007 in which we lost the Constitution.