Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
And boymimbo's opposition to equal legal rights for polygamists (and no doubt other orientations) would certainly qualify as animus under Justice Kennedy's framework in discussing Section 3 of DOMA. Bring on the cases! Let the imaginations and libidos run wild!Quote: Beethoven9thIf I used the logic of many of the gay marriage supporters I've met over the years, I could call you a 'bigot' (for the above statement).
Quote: YesThereRealThis is the frist thing ive read on here and I dont get it hy does someone care about this esp polygamey and stuff? Is this srsly what you do hear?
It is making the point that gay marriage can lead to legalized polygamy and if you are for gay marriage based on the logic gay marriage supporters have used then they will have no choice to support polygamy or be considered the bigots they call us supporters of traditional marriage.
Quote: YesThereRealThis is the frist thing ive read on here and I dont get it hy does someone care about this esp polygamey and stuff? Is this srsly what you do hear?
Dear god..
Quote: YesThereRealThis is the frist thing ive read on here and I dont get it hy does someone care about this esp polygamey and stuff? Is this srsly what you do hear?
Here's my suggestion since you're new here: Block this thread if you don't like it.
Quote: SanchoPanzaAnd boymimbo's opposition to equal legal rights for polygamists (and no doubt other orientations) would certainly qualify as animus under Justice Kennedy's framework in discussing Section 3 of DOMA. Bring on the cases! Let the imaginations and libidos run wild!
And please, all of the people that voted that this is "good news" please stand up and be counted by sharing your opinion on polygamy and adult incest. It's not like it's a trap or anything, just a hypocrisy check. I'm sure the truly open-minded, non-discriminators among you will have no difficulty with this. And hey, you can always add an "I'm a bigot" vote since the way the poll was set up was either unknowingly completely useless, or a scheming attempt to show more support than actually exists.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyAnd please, all of the people that voted that this is "good news" please stand up and be counted by sharing your opinion on polygamy and adult incest. It's not like it's a trap or anything, just a hypocrisy check. I'm sure the truly open-minded, non-discriminators among you will have no difficulty with this. And hey, you can always add an "I'm a bigot" vote since the way the poll was set up was either unknowingly completely useless, or a scheming attempt to show more support than actually exists.
I support gay marriage and against incest and polygamy.No Big deal. Its common sense. I am simply expressing what I believe and being honest about it. Call me whatever names you want, I still believe what I believe. If you are against gay marriage, I would never call you a bigot. Are you now going to get into the gutter and call me a bigot?
Quote: terapinedI support gay marriage and against incest and polygamy.No Big deal. Its common sense. I am simply expressing what the majority believe in. No biggie. This is how people in the real world think, try living in it.
Interesting. As I'm sure you're aware and are possibly hoping I won't notice, your bigoted reply could easily be applied to gay marriage by those opposing it.
Let's try it on for size...
I support regular marriage and against gay marriage.No Big deal. Its common sense. I am simply expressing what the majority believe in. No biggie. This is how people in the real world think, try living in it.
Now if this line of reasoning were used to support opposition to gay marriage the person crass enough to express it would be crucified by the left as a bigot. Nothing even verging on factual is presented to support this argument, just pure ignorance.
This is called hypocrisy, and you're soaking in it.
Edited to add: Ah, I see you edited your post. Awesome. Let's pick up from where you changed your mind and continue from there.
Quote: terapined
I am simply expressing what I believe and being honest about it.
Hooray for you?
Quote: terapinedCall me whatever names you want, I still believe what I believe.
No one has called you any names, if you believe so please show us the post, I'm sure the management here will deal with situation as they deem necessary. I'm not concerned because I haven't called anyone any names.
Quote: terapinedIf you are against gay marriage, I would never call you a bigot.
Well, I'm not against gay marriage* but plenty of people that are against it are called bigots. Maybe you need to become more familiar with your team's play book. I'm sure rxwine or s2dbaker can make photocopies for you.
Quote: terapinedAre you now going to get into the gutter and call me a bigot?
Nope. Never have, never will. It's hardly my problem if you have difficulty coming to terms with what it means when you want to deny rights to some people while giving them to others.
* I prefer the term civil union. I think marriage should be a function of the church, and civil unions should be what government has to offer. But for the purpose of most of this discussion I think the terms can safely be used interchangeably.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyInteresting. As I'm sure you're aware and are possibly hoping I won't notice, your bigoted reply could easily be applied to gay marriage by those opposing it.
Let's try it on for size...
I support regular marriage and against gay marriage.No Big deal. Its common sense. I am simply expressing what the majority believe in. No biggie. This is how people in the real world think, try living in it.
Now if this line of reasoning were used to support opposition to gay marriage the person crass enough to express it would be crucified by the left as a bigot. Nothing even verging on factual is presented to support this argument, just pure ignorance.
This is called hypocrisy, and you're soaking in it.
+1
A major factor is that we have a judiciary that is increasingly intent on legislating. Possibly because the Congress has so many logjams. For example, Congress specifically refused to do anything remotely involved with Obamacare as a tax. Yet that is the sole reason the High Court could put forth to approve the Affordable Care Act.Quote: YesThereRealI jus dont understand it. why is some much concerned???
The court has a similar problem with same-sex marriage. The court rested its decision mainly on the idea that the reason states do not recognize same-sex marriages is because that policy is evidence of an animus toward homosexuals. Well, the states, whose powers over policies like marriage are crystal clear under the Constitution, can still not recognize same-sex marriages. The court is saying those states are discriminating against homosexuals.
By all standards of logical reasoning and equal application of the law, there are few exceptions that could be applied. Judges, as in the British Columbia polygamy case previously cited, are reduced to declaring that the ends justify the means. That is a scary echo to many people, who would most likely prefer it reserved for times of war, catastrophes and similar emergencies.
Quote: chickenmanQuote: MonkeyMonkeyInteresting. As I'm sure you're aware and are possibly hoping I won't notice, your bigoted reply could easily be applied to gay marriage by those opposing it.
Let's try it on for size...
I support regular marriage and against gay marriage.No Big deal. Its common sense. I am simply expressing what the majority believe in. No biggie. This is how people in the real world think, try living in it.
Now if this line of reasoning were used to support opposition to gay marriage the person crass enough to express it would be crucified by the left as a bigot. Nothing even verging on factual is presented to support this argument, just pure ignorance.
This is called hypocrisy, and you're soaking in it.
+1
+2
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe court has a similar problem with same-sex marriage. The court rested its decision mainly on the idea that the reason states do not recognize same-sex marriages is because that policy is evidence of an animus toward homosexuals. Well, the states, whose powers over policies like marriage are crystal clear under the Constitution, can still not recognize same-sex marriages. The court is saying those states are discriminating against homosexuals.
Except the decision on DOMA appleis to the federal government, not to the states. Stateswho want to discriminate against same sex couples can still do so as far as thsi decision is concerned. The decision concerning a state applies to a different case. And the court dismissed that by citing lack of stnading from the group promoting the appeal.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
No one has called you any names, if you believe so please show us the post, I'm sure the management here will deal with situation as they deem necessary. I'm not concerned because I haven't called anyone any names.
Well, I'm not against gay marriage* but plenty of people that are against it are called bigots. Maybe you need to become more familiar with your team's play book. I'm sure rxwine or s2dbaker can make photocopies for you.
Nobody on this board has called me terrible names. I have not called anybody terrible names on this board. I am not part of any team. I simply believe what I believe. If you want to call me a hypocrit because I support gay marraige and agains incest and Polygamy, so be it. If somebody else on this board has called you a bigot, then that person is wrong as an individual. I am an individual, why do you think I am part of some team that approves you being called a bigot? We are all individuals on this board. If 2 people have the same views and one of those people usues terrible name calling, it does not mean the other person approves the name calling.
If you read actually everything about the LATEST on the BC polygamy case, the judges in the BC Supreme court overturned the lower court decision. You can read the full case notes here.
To REALLY dumb it down for those of you who pick parts of sentences to read, the court ruled that polygamy is harmful to women, children, and young men despite the freedom of religion clause in our Charter.
Summary is republished below:
Quote: BC Supreme Court
[1] By s. 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, (initially in 1890 and periodically since then in successive revisions to the Code), Parliament has prohibited the practice of polygamy. British Columbia asks this Court to declare whether this prohibition is consistent with the freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [Charter].
[2] Mr. Justice Binnie, in extra-judicial comments (Kirk Makin, “An Insider’s Glimpse at a Court in Transition”, The Globe and Mail, 24 September 2011), has suggested that the direction of any constitutional inquiry depends much upon how the good advocate, the good judge, the good appellate panel (and so on) characterizes the essential issue before the Court. Here, the Attorney General for British Columbia has said in opening that the case against polygamy is all about harm. Absent harm, that party accepted that s. 293 would not survive scrutiny under the Charter.
[3] The challengers, led by the Amicus Curiae, counter (primarily) that this case is about a wholly unacceptable intrusion by the State into the most basic of rights guaranteed by the Charter - the freedom to practice one’s religion, and to associate in family units with those whom one chooses.
[4] Which characterization shoulders the burden of persuasion here? As Binnie J. said, the answer largely dictates the direction of the analysis.
[5] I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm; more specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.
[6] Based on the most comprehensive judicial record on the subject ever produced, I have concluded that the Attorneys General and their allied Interested Persons have demonstrated a very strong basis for a reasoned apprehension of harm to many in our society inherent in the practice of polygamy as I have defined it in these reasons.
[7] I turn to some of the harms that are reasonably apprehended to arise.
[8] Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse. Competition for material and emotional access to a shared husband can lead to fractious co-wife relationships. These factors contribute to the higher rates of depressive disorders and other mental health issues that women in polygamous relationships face. They have more children, are more likely to die in childbirth and live shorter lives than their monogamous counterparts. They tend to have less autonomy, and report higher rates of marital dissatisfaction and lower levels of self-esteem. They also fare worse economically, as resources may be inequitably divided or simply insufficient.
[9] Children in polygamous families face higher infant mortality, even controlling for economic status and other relevant variables. They tend to suffer more emotional, behavioural and physical problems, as well as lower educational achievement than children in monogamous families. These outcomes are likely the result of higher levels of conflict, emotional stress and tension in polygamous families. In particular, rivalry and jealousy among co-wives can cause significant emotional problems for their children. The inability of fathers to give sufficient affection and disciplinary attention to all of their children can further reduce children’s emotional security. Children are also at enhanced risk of psychological and physical abuse and neglect.
[10] Early marriage for girls is common, frequently to significantly older men. The resultant early sexual activity, pregnancies and childbirth have negative health implications for girls, and also significantly limit their socio-economic development. Shortened inter-birth intervals pose a heightened risk of various problems for both mother and child.
[11] The sex ratio imbalance inherent in polygamy means that young men are forced out of polygamous communities to sustain the ability of senior men to accumulate more wives. These young men and boys often receive limited education as a result and must navigate their way outside their communities with few life skills and social support.
[12] Another significant harm to children is their exposure to, and potential internalization of, harmful gender stereotypes.
[13] Polygamy has negative impacts on society flowing from the high fertility rates, large family size and poverty associated with the practice. It generates a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behaviour. Polygamy also institutionalizes gender inequality. Patriarchal hierarchy and authoritarian control are common features of polygamous communities. Individuals in polygynous societies tend to have fewer civil liberties than their counterparts in societies which prohibit the practice.
[14] Polygamy’s harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists.
[15] I would answer the essential question before me: while s. 293 offends the freedom of religion of identifiable groups guaranteed by s. 2(a) of the Charter and the s. 7 liberty interests of children between 12 and 17 married into polygamy, the provision, save in its application to the latter group, is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. My reasons for that conclusion and the specific answers to the questions on the reference
Aside from the technicality cited in the last instance, the court most definitely did establish a wholly untenable situation that in no way can continue for any length of time.Quote: NareedExcept the decision on DOMA appleis to the federal government, not to the states. Stateswho want to discriminate against same sex couples can still do so as far as thsi decision is concerned. The decision concerning a state applies to a different case. And the court dismissed that by citing lack of stnading from the group promoting the appeal.
No "parts of sentences" were "picked." Here are cogent excerpts from the good citation posted on June 28, and it starts way up high in the piece, in the third graf:Quote: boymimboTo REALLY dumb it down for those of you who pick parts of sentences to read, the court ruled that polygamy is harmful to women, children, and young men despite the freedom of religion clause in our Charter.
"In his ruling, Bauman said while the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society. “I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” Bauman wrote in the decision that was handed down Wednesday morning in Vancouver. More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.” "
and
"Bauman acknowledged the infringement of the law on rights guaranteed by the charter, but concludes those limits are reasonable given the prohibition’s objectives."
Besides, it is also strange, to say the least, to see a country that once upon a time thought that it needed to augment its population start complaining about the downside. If high population density is now a concern there, that just might indicate a change in attitude toward interlopers from south of the border. See your No. 13: "Polygamy has negative impacts on society flowing from the high fertility rates, large family size and poverty associated with the practice. It generates a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behaviour."
One whole lot of social engineering going on, and some people are going to be favored and others are going to be dumped on. Social Darwinism, progressive style.
Every country's government participates in social engineering in one way or another. It encourages marriage by giving tax breaks. It encourages child rearing by giving parents' two years of Employment benefits. It creates all-day kindegarten. It passes laws against and for gambling, and so on and so forth. Social Darwinism? Absolutely. A bad thing? Sometimes.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
Here are a few fun ones. If you're in favor of any of these please step forward and announce yourself. Feel free to indulge in regaling us with your opinions...
- It is illegal for a man to be sexually aroused in public. (INDIANA)
- The state definition of rape stated that it was a man having sex with a woman he knows not to be his wife. (WISCONSIN)
http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/dumb-us-laws-sex-love/#
I agree with the rule in Indiana, because I think sporting an erection (even clothed) around a minor amounts to gross sexual imposition and lewd conduct.
I agree with the Wisconsin law because adultery and pre-marital sex should both be illegal. However, it is possible to also rape one's wife, so I hope there is some sort of addendum to the law that covers that.
Outlawing arranged, would take care of 'forced" as well. Might rile some groups or cultures though.
Quote: rxwineYou could probably outlaw arranged marriages and that would do a lot to curb polygamy without actually outlawing polygamy. Since it would only leave the people who wanted to go into it of their own free will.
Outlawing arranged, would take care of 'forced" as well. Might rile some groups or cultures though.
If the marriage license or court officer asks or is required to ask "is this of your own free will?" they area already illegal. I don not know if this is the case but I can say even as a notary public I am required to not place my seal if it appears someone is being coerced or is not of free/right mind.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf the marriage license or court officer asks or is required to ask "is this of your own free will?" they area already illegal. I don not know if this is the case but I can say even as a notary public I am required to not place my seal if it appears someone is being coerced or is not of free/right mind.
Well, I don't know how it works in that Colorado area where polygamy is practiced. There's the law, then there's what they're really doing there I suppose.
But even the local lawmen there are part of the culture.
Quote: rxwineWell, I don't know how it works in that Colorado area where polygamy is practiced. There's the law, then there's what they're really doing there I suppose.
But even the local lawmen there are part of the culture.
When I was in AZ there was some sect near the AZ/NV border where they had to send an army of state troopers up because they were untouchable by the locals. AZ/NV were fighting to prosecute first. I forget how it ended up.
Social engineering should come far down the list of priorities that starts with security, both internal and external. Until those are under some reasonable control, along with other critical areas like a fair and vibrant economy and a workable education system, influencing or regulating personal lives should be limited to problems that injure the subjects themselves or those around them.Quote: boymimboEvery country's government participates in social engineering in one way or another. It encourages marriage by giving tax breaks. It encourages child rearing by giving parents' two years of Employment benefits. It creates all-day kindegarten. It passes laws against and for gambling, and so on and so forth. Social Darwinism? Absolutely. A bad thing? Sometimes.
Quote: terapinedNobody on this board has called me terrible names.
Then what are you complaining about? I think it's possible you don't "get" the distinction this board makes between a personal insult and stating an otherwise non-personal insulting opinion.
Insult:
Your breath smells like raw sewage.
Opinion:
When I smell your breath I am reminded of raw sewage.
perhaps not the best examples, but hopefully you get the gist.
Quote: terapined
I have not called anybody terrible names on this board. I am not part of any team. I simply believe what I believe. If you want to call me a hypocrit because I support gay marraige and agains incest and Polygamy, so be it.
I didn't call you a hypocrite, I said the behavior you're engaging in is hypocritical. Perhaps you're not a hypocrite at all, but simply lack the insight to identify hypocritical behavior.
See what I did there? I did NOT say you were stupid.
Quote: terapinedIf somebody else on this board has called you a bigot, then that person is wrong as an individual.
I don't think anyone has called me a bigot, I'm sort of the super anti-bigot because as I've stated numerous times: I want the same rights for everyone. To call me a bigot would be ridiculous and I'd laugh it off.
Quote: terapined
I am an individual, why do you think I am part of some team that approves you being called a bigot?
Sorry, will not engage or be a party to a fantasy version of reality. Good luck though.
Quote: terapinedWe are all individuals on this board. If 2 people have the same views and one of those people usues terrible name calling, it does not mean the other person approves the name calling.
Really? Thanks for letting me in on that secret. For my money though when I see a group of individuals that all hold the same opinion (in this case one that is hypocritical) I feel it's fair to use a shortcut term like 'team' as naming all the individuals would be cumbersome and would not extend to those that also hold the belief but are too... um, cowardly (had another word in mind but I don't use vulgarity in print) to express them.
Furthermore, using your "I believe what I believe so therefore I believe it," logic, I believe you to be on that team that is in favor or gay marriage and opposed to some others having the same rights. This was gleaned from your own words, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote: Mission146
I agree with the rule in Indiana, because I think sporting an erection (even clothed) around a minor amounts to gross sexual imposition and lewd conduct.
What if he's in a bar where minors aren't allowed? Also, you seem to be assuming that sexual arousal is synonymous with having an erection... there's a whole industry built on that not always being true. ;)
Quote: Mission146
I agree with the Wisconsin law because adultery and pre-marital sex should both be illegal. However, it is possible to also rape one's wife, so I hope there is some sort of addendum to the law that covers that.
Well, you're no fun. If one can't engage in a little recreational sexual violence what's this country coming to?
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
Quote: Mission146
I agree with the rule in Indiana, because I think sporting an erection (even clothed) around a minor amounts to gross sexual imposition and lewd conduct.
What if he's in a bar where minors aren't allowed? Also, you seem to be assuming that sexual arousal is synonymous with having an erection... there's a whole industry built on that not always being true. ;)
Quote: terapined (for accuracy, terrapined knows nothing about wisc law so I did not write the below. really. But for some reason Monkeymonkey thinks I am a wisc law expert. weird)
I agree with the Wisconsin law because adultery and pre-marital sex should both be illegal. However, it is possible to also rape one's wife, so I hope there is some sort of addendum to the law that covers that.
Well, you're no fun. If one can't engage in a little recreational sexual violence what's this country coming to?
Wow Monkeymonkey. very picky. Boy , I need to have all my ducks in a row to argue with you. Now you are quoting me as posting"I agree with the Wisconsin law because adultery and pre-marital sex should both be illegal. However, it is possible to also rape one's wife, so I hope there is some sort of addendum to the law that covers that." Seriously, where does this come from??? I understand your valid criticism of my weak posts (I do bong hits while typing, so sorry for the previous weak posts) but at least get it right. Why put words in my mouth, sorry, why put typed words in my mouth that never were never typed by my fingers. If you want to criticize my posts, you have every right to. My posts are weak and not well thought out but hey, the bong hits are tasty. I live in Florida, don't have the foggiest idea what the laws are in Wisconsin, nor do I care. How in the world can I post about Wisc law if I don't know Wisc law. (admitting lack of knowledge but its true). I am an expert in Lemon Kush, but that's a whole another subject. LOL
Its either a typo or somebody is monkeying up your posts :-) or you purposely did this but I doubt it. Hmm, maybe not. Seems like a bong hit would help YOU. Or maybe you are doing hits that's why your post above is FALSE. The lemon kush is killer isn't it. If you are partaking in the kush, all is forgiven.
I believe I just scored 1 point due to Monkeymonkey doing a poor quality control job on his posts. Get it together dude. Consider yourself corrected. Check, you asked to be corrected.
Peace
Ed the Deadhead
Quote: Mission146I agree with the rule in Indiana, because I think sporting an erection (even clothed) around a minor amounts to gross sexual imposition and lewd conduct.
So much for mens rea.
Quote: Mission146I agree with the Wisconsin law because adultery and pre-marital sex should both be illegal.
...yeah, good luck with that, Angelo.
Quote: NareedThe US Supreme Court pretty much struck down DOMA (the full name of that law is so nonsensical I won't repeat it).
So the poll is: how do you feel about it?
Of course when the headlines die down we'll get the full details. But this is a really, really, really good thing.
Lets hope they strick down the bilski thingtoo. That would be good news too !!
Quote: SanchoPanzaA major factor is that we have a judiciary that is increasingly intent on legislating. Possibly because the Congress has so many logjams. For example, Congress specifically refused to do anything remotely involved with Obamacare as a tax. Yet that is the sole reason the High Court could put forth to approve the Affordable Care Act.
The court has a similar problem with same-sex marriage. The court rested its decision mainly on the idea that the reason states do not recognize same-sex marriages is because that policy is evidence of an animus toward homosexuals. Well, the states, whose powers over policies like marriage are crystal clear under the Constitution, can still not recognize same-sex marriages. The court is saying those states are discriminating against homosexuals.
By all standards of logical reasoning and equal application of the law, there are few exceptions that could be applied. Judges, as in the British Columbia polygamy case previously cited, are reduced to declaring that the ends justify the means. That is a scary echo to many people, who would most likely prefer it reserved for times of war, catastrophes and similar emergencies.
lol can u say that again in simple english???
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
- All sex toys are banned. (GEORGIA)
To add to the "stupid law" discussion: This is not really enforced. Basically sex toys (vibrators, etc.) just have a sticker saying "for novelty use only" and can be bought at adult "novelty stores" in Georgia; their selection was comparable to Missouri, which doesn't have a dumb law like this. Not shocked about Georgia having this rule, they just started allowing Sunday sales of alcohol in stores after I moved away. I guess if a cop caught you using a toy for sexual gain in your home, I guess it would be illegal.
Also if the "erection in public" law was generally enforced, we would then have too many 13-year olds in jail. Also, that's Indiana, no Sunday sales of alcohol in stores. Seeing a connection?
Quote: WizardManagement encourages posts on such topics to be placed in DT, for future reference.
Kinda makes you wish for the good old days, with dice controllers ruling the bandwidth instead of the shrill bigotry of the rainbow crowd!!
Quote: DeMango
Kinda makes you wish for the good old days, with dice controllers ruling the bandwidth instead of the shrill bigotry of the rainbow crowd!!
More threads that can't be related to gambling or at least maybe to Vegas should be over on DT. But if you're going to complain about threads you don't like I'm going to complain about users who can't be bothered to block threads and users.
I have all dice control threads blocked.
Quote: tringlomaneTo add to the "stupid law" discussion: This is not really enforced. Basically sex toys (vibrators, etc.) just have a sticker saying "for novelty use only" and can be bought at adult "novelty stores" in Georgia; their selection was comparable to Missouri, which doesn't have a dumb law like this. Not shocked about Georgia having this rule, they just started allowing Sunday sales of alcohol in stores after I moved away. I guess if a cop caught you using a toy for sexual gain in your home, I guess it would be illegal.
I'm surprised there's any truth to it at all. "Stupid laws" are notoriously often made up out of whole cloth.
Quote: EvenBobDear god..
Yes, the monkeys typing out Shakespeare are real.
Quote: tringlomaneTo add to the "stupid law" discussion: This is not really enforced. Basically sex toys (vibrators, etc.) just have a sticker saying "for novelty use only" and can be bought at adult "novelty stores" in Georgia; their selection was comparable to Missouri, which doesn't have a dumb law like this. Not shocked about Georgia having this rule, they just started allowing Sunday sales of alcohol in stores after I moved away. I guess if a cop caught you using a toy for sexual gain in your home, I guess it would be illegal.
Also if the "erection in public" law was generally enforced, we would then have too many 13-year olds in jail. Also, that's Indiana, no Sunday sales of alcohol in stores. Seeing a connection?
i know they dont have that law in mo... :)
Quote: terapinedWow Monkeymonkey. very picky. Boy , I need to have all my ducks in a row to argue with you. Now you are quoting me as posting"I agree with the Wisconsin law because adultery and pre-marital sex should both be illegal. However, it is possible to also rape one's wife, so I hope there is some sort of addendum to the law that covers that." Seriously, where does this come from???
Hard to believe you're truly that dense but I'll go ahead and lay it out for you just in case.
- I responded to you and this forum doesn't have a multi-quote function, so I had to copy q=terapined into my c&p buffer to easily cut apart your post for response.
- Then, I responded to Mission. The first quote was already taken care of, and then I (oh my god...) mistakenly just used what was in my c&p buffer.
- I didn't notice because I was in a hurry to get out the door for work. It's corrected now so you can stand down with the hysterics. Most people that have been around forums more than 10 minutes know this can sometimes happen, and other than being (to most people) kinda funny, it's no big deal.
Quote: terapined
I understand your valid criticism of my weak posts (I do bong hits while typing, so sorry for the previous weak posts) but at least get it right. Why put words in my mouth, sorry, why put typed words in my mouth that never were never typed by my fingers. If you want to criticize my posts, you have every right to. My posts are weak and not well thought out but hey, the bong hits are tasty.
Next time try the water and let us know how that works out,
Quote: terapined
I live in Florida, don't have the foggiest idea what the laws are in Wisconsin, nor do I care. How in the world can I post about Wisc law if I don't know Wisc law. (admitting lack of knowledge but its true). I am an expert in Lemon Kush, but that's a whole another subject. LOL
Its either a typo or somebody is monkeying up your posts :-) or you purposely did this but I doubt it. Hmm, maybe not. Seems like a bong hit would help YOU. Or maybe you are doing hits that's why your post above is FALSE. The lemon kush is killer isn't it. If you are partaking in the kush, all is forgiven.
How stoned does one have to be to go on at such length over such a common non-issue. I guess we have the answer.
Quote: terapined
I believe I just scored 1 point due to Monkeymonkey doing a poor quality control job on his posts. Get it together dude. Consider yourself corrected. Check, you asked to be corrected.
Peace
Ed the Deadhead
Get over yourself, you didn't discover the cure for cancer.
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
Get over yourself, you didn't discover the cure for cancer.
+4 {cumulative for the last three posts ;-) }
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyHard to believe you're truly that dense but I'll go ahead and lay it out for you just in case.
- I responded to you and this forum doesn't have a multi-quote function, so I had to copy q=terapined into my c&p buffer to easily cut apart your post for response.
- Then, I responded to Mission. The first quote was already taken care of, and then I (oh my god...) mistakenly just used what was in my c&p buffer.
- I didn't notice because I was in a hurry to get out the door for work. It's corrected now so you can stand down with the hysterics. Most people that have been around forums more than 10 minutes know this can sometimes happen, and other than being (to most people) kinda funny, it's no big deal.
Next time try the water and let us know how that works out,
How stoned does one have to be to go on at such length over such a common non-issue. I guess we have the answer.
Get over yourself, you didn't discover the cure for cancer.
Chill out dude, I found an obvious oversight (I didn't say mistake) in the great monkeymonkey post and ran with it. Just wanted to have a little fun with it. I figured the longer I went on with it, the better chance you would blow a gasket and respond point by point in a detailed response. Thanks, got what I wanted and its a hoot. Thanks for giving me a chuckle this morning. Love you monkeymonkey, you don't ignore :-)
Quote: terapinedChill out dude, I found an obvious oversight (I didn't say mistake) in the great monkeymonkey post and ran with it. Just wanted to have a little fun with it. I figured the longer I went on with it, the better chance you would blow a gasket and respond point by point in a detailed response. Thanks, got what I wanted and its a hoot. Thanks for giving me a chuckle this morning. Love you monkeymonkey, you don't ignore :-)
Wow, you got me to respond in the thorough manner in which I'm accustomed. Congrats.
Don't stoners laugh at everything anyway? Doesn't sound like much of an accomplishment on my part.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyWhat if he's in a bar where minors aren't allowed? Also, you seem to be assuming that sexual arousal is synonymous with having an erection... there's a whole industry built on that not always being true. ;)
It is irrelevant if he is in a bar, I wouldn't put an addendum to the law to cover someone in a bar.
Quote:Well, you're no fun. If one can't engage in a little recreational sexual violence what's this country coming to?
I don't know.
I don't know if I would permit married individuals to use the services of the Government-sanctioned whorehouse. That'd be a really tough decision. I probably would, but only with a letter from the wife giving specific consent, I'd probably also require she initially come with him the first time to present a valid State I.D. along with signing the notice of consent.
Quote: Mission146The one thing I would say is that I would permit pre-marital sex, but only with respect to prostitution. It would also have to be a Government licensed and sanctioned whorehouse, and the reason is, you could tax the Hell out of it, so there is an Economic benefit to its legality. Furthermore, the whores would be checked for diseases as often as possible, and a client list would be maintained at all times should any of the whores be found to have a disease so the client could be promptly notified.
I don't know if I would permit married individuals to use the services of the Government-sanctioned whorehouse. That'd be a really tough decision. I probably would, but only with a letter from the wife giving specific consent, I'd probably also require she initially come with him the first time to present a valid State I.D. along with signing the notice of consent.
I agree it should be done as NV does it, but sales tax and that is it.
Here is a dilema, though. Woman is unemployed and you are supposed to accept a job to keep unemployment. Brothel offers her a job. Should she be forced to take it or lose UC or welfare benefits?? Not suggesting it cannot be fixed, but rather to open discussion.
Quote: AZDuffmanI agree it should be done as NV does it, but sales tax and that is it.
Here is a dilema, though. Woman is unemployed and you are supposed to accept a job to keep unemployment. Brothel offers her a job. Should she be forced to take it or lose UC or welfare benefits?? Not suggesting it cannot be fixed, but rather to open discussion.
No, she should not have to take that job.
I would do more than Sales Tax, you have to have a Federal Tax as these would now be Federally-sanctioned brothels. Whether or not the State wants to slap a separate Sales Tax on it is an onus upon the State, I'd be unconcerned with whether or not they tax it additionally.
Quote: Mission146No, she should not have to take that job.
I would do more than Sales Tax, you have to have a Federal Tax as these would now be Federally-sanctioned brothels. Whether or not the State wants to slap a separate Sales Tax on it is an onus upon the State, I'd be unconcerned with whether or not they tax it additionally.
I do not see why they need to be federally sanctioned. They could keep receipts low enough to not be engaging in "interstate commerce" and simply regulated by the states. Last thing I want is the feds regulating one more thing. Constitutionally it would be state-level as well, though I realize the feds don't read the 10th much.
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not see why they need to be federally sanctioned. They could keep receipts low enough to not be engaging in "interstate commerce" and simply regulated by the states. Last thing I want is the feds regulating one more thing. Constitutionally it would be state-level as well, though I realize the feds don't read the 10th much.
1.) The Tenth Amendment sucks, everything short of decisions specifically Governing the actions of a Municipality, (Too Micro to be dealt with on a Federal level) or addendums to Federal Laws to make them more stringent, should be handled Federally, and all laws should be Universally applied, without exception.
***That said, a State could add additional laws and regulations, provided the effect be more stringent than that of the Federal laws alone, and that such are not added in contravention of the Federal Law.
2.) It needs to be Federally sanctioned, because if it is not, then there could be no Federal Tax on it. It should be taxed Federally, to be sure, and also by the State if the State so chooses.
3.) The Federal Tax revenues would be partially re-allocated to the States in the form of Education and Senior Services by way of determining how much revenue came from each individual State and re-allocating it proportionally to same. That is after the costs of implementation and regulation have been met, of course.
Quote: Mission1461.) The Tenth Amendment sucks, everything short of decisions specifically Governing the actions of a Municipality, (Too Micro to be dealt with on a Federal level) or addendums to Federal Laws to make them more stringent, should be handled Federally, and all laws should be Universally applied, without exception.
Be careful what you wish for, the 10th Amendment keeps us free perhaps more than any other. Without it the government would have no limits on power. I always liked local control better than someone hundreds to thousands of miles away making the decisions.
A good example is speed limits. Why should there be one limit for all states? Local authorities can best tell if the road they see all the time can better handle 65 or 75 mph, why do they need to check with DC? Now if there were brothels, same thing. Local authorities know what neighborhoods might or might not work, with the feds you would get a "one size fits all" rule, and we all know how well those one-size-fits-all hats fit.
2.) It needs to be Federally sanctioned, because if it is not, then there could be no Federal Tax on it. It should be taxed Federally, to be sure, and also by the State if the State so chooses.
We already have the income tax on it, I do not see the need for more excise taxes unless we are going to eliminate the income tax completely, which I would prefer we do. We need to change the Constitution, however, so it would not be re-instituted later.
Quote: AZDuffman
A good example is speed limits. Why should there be one limit for all states? Local authorities can best tell if the road they see all the time can better handle 65 or 75 mph, why do they need to check with DC? Now if there were brothels, same thing. Local authorities know what neighborhoods might or might not work, with the feds you would get a "one size fits all" rule, and we all know how well those one-size-fits-all hats fit.
I concur with your perspective on this matter, but my suggestion would be that the Federal Government would have a restriction stating no speed limit can exceed x, perhaps x would be 90 mph. The States/Municipalities could then have a more stringent regulation, i.e. a lower speed limit.
The Federal Government would also proscribe minimum penalties for speeding, and all driver's licenses would be Federally-Issued, so an individual who was Suspended/Revoked would have zero probability of getting a license in another State, because States would not issue them.
Municipalities would handle all Municipal speed limits, States would govern any reduction in speed limits for areas not specifically designated as within the limits of one Municipality or another.
Quote:We already have the income tax on it, I do not see the need for more excise taxes unless we are going to eliminate the income tax completely, which I would prefer we do. We need to change the Constitution, however, so it would not be re-instituted later.
I agree that all Income Taxes should be abolished and replaced with a flat Federal Sales Tax in addition to any State/Federal excise and luxury taxes imposed on all goods that are deemed unnecessary to survival. Food/Beverage, however, would always be tax free if bought from a store/convenience, restaurant purchases would be subject to the flat sales tax.
Quote: WizardManagement encourages posts on such topics to be placed in DT, for future reference.
It's not like the second top poster here, who also happens to be the top poster on DT, didn't know this. The motives for starting this thread here are questionable.
