Good news!
Poll
 | 15 votes (20%) | ||
| | 22 votes (29.33%) | ||
| | 17 votes (22.66%) | ||
| | 41 votes (54.66%) |
75 members have voted
Quote: Mission146I 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.
Already have a guideline for that. And already tried it with 55 in the 1970s. 55 was a disaster. I just trust local authority more than having to GED fed approval.
Quote: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.
States have already set up the registration thing among themselves. As to minimums it is also something I do not care for. 10 mph over in congested LA is more dangerous than in the middle of nowhere in NM.
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.
- Should any activity be made legal if there is economic benefit?
- What would "as often as possible" mean in real world terms? Once a month, once a week, once a day, after each customer?
- The client could be notified? What about prosecuted?
Quote: Mission146
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.
Not tough, open to all. More customers = more economic benefit.
Quote: Mission146I 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.
Well, that would sure put a damper on the economic benefit party. The reason many married guys would want to do this is precisely because the gatekeeper at home won't let them have any. This would be like saying a married guy can only stop at the bar after work if his wife signs off on it... why do you think he wants that drink? :)
And why are we stating all of these things in terms of male customers and female service providers? Does this indicate a bias in our thinking?
Quote: YesThereRealr u guys saying girls shoudl be hookers???
Obviously this person is trolling. Misspells words
sometimes and spells them fine other times.
Makes nonsensical posts. Posts in every thread.
Where are the mod's on this.
Quote: EvenBobObviously this person is trolling. Misspells words
sometimes and spells them fine other times.
Makes nonsensical posts. Posts in every thread.
Where are the mod's on this.
What's wrong Bob, jealous? Someone horning in on your territory?
Quote: MonkeyMonkey- Should any activity be made legal if there is economic benefit?
- What would "as often as possible" mean in real world terms? Once a month, once a week, once a day, after each customer?
- The client could be notified? What about prosecuted?
A.) Perhaps, if there can still be an economic benefit after it is sufficiently regulated.
B.) Probably once a month.
C.) Prosecuted for what? Maybe if he were the only client who had that particular STD.
Quote:Not tough, open to all. More customers = more economic benefit.
Adultery is illegal in my model, so that was a consideration.
Quote:Well, that would sure put a damper on the economic benefit party. The reason many married guys would want to do this is precisely because the gatekeeper at home won't let them have any. This would be like saying a married guy can only stop at the bar after work if his wife signs off on it... why do you think he wants that drink? :)
And why are we stating all of these things in terms of male customers and female service providers? Does this indicate a bias in our thinking?
If they cannot have any, then they cannot have any. In such an event, and if having any means that much to them, then they can legally get a divorce (and are free to visit the whorehouses) or legally marry someone else.
I have no bias in my thinking, if a brothel of males catering to females, other males, or females catering to females could be profitable, or if a single brothel wanted to offer all of these options, then that would be fine. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, adultery would be illegal and a letter of consent from the legal spouse, presenting valid ID, would be required.
Quote: Mission146
C.) Prosecuted for what? Maybe if he were the only client who had that particular STD.
Well, if the workers (trying to use gender-neutral pronouns) were clean, then came up diseased it would had to have come from somewhere. Along that same line what about medical checkups (beyond the current DC done in Nevada brothels) for the customers?
Quote: Mission146
Adultery is illegal in my model, so that was a consideration.
Well, I can understand how your particular feelings can influence your outlook, but adultery isn't illegal, so don't we have to use that as a basis for the framework of the discussion?
Also, since gay marriage isn't widely accepted, in your world view are they committing an act that you believe should be illegal? And is the fact that in many cases it's not their fault does that mitigate any potential guilt in the matter?
Quote: Mission146
If they cannot have any, then they cannot have any. In such an event, and if having any means that much to them, then they can legally get a divorce (and are free to visit the whorehouses) or legally marry someone else.
Is this sort of statement not dissimilar to saying if gays want to get married then they are free to do so... to a partner of the opposite gender?
Quote: Mission146
I have no bias in my thinking, if a brothel of males catering to females, other males, or females catering to females could be profitable, or if a single brothel wanted to offer all of these options, then that would be fine. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, adultery would be illegal and a letter of consent from the legal spouse, presenting valid ID, would be required.
That was more just good natured ribbing, there have been attempts at brothels in Nevada with male service providers. It didn't work out so well.
Quote: AZDuffmanAlready have a guideline for that. And already tried it with 55 in the 1970s. 55 was a disaster. I just trust local authority more than having to GED fed approval.
States have already set up the registration thing among themselves. As to minimums it is also something I do not care for. 10 mph over in congested LA is more dangerous than in the middle of nowhere in NM.
55 is too low for a maximum permissible speed.
I agree with you on everything except license Registration, I think it should still be Federal, that way your Social Security Card would be the only acceptable form of ID to get one, of course, you'd still need two others.
The minimum fine would still only be if an officer decided to pull you over for speeding in the first place, and decided to issue the ticket. As now, the officer would still have some discretion in that regard.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyYou present some interesting points.
Well, if the workers (trying to use gender-neutral pronouns) were clean, then came up diseased it would had to have come from somewhere. Along that same line what about medical checkups (beyond the current DC done in Nevada brothels) for the customers?
They'd be prostitutes regardless of gender, I believe.
I agree that it would have had to come from one of the customers, but if the prostitute also passed the disease onto other customers, then you wouldn't strictly know which customer from whom it came. You could hazard a guess that it would be the least recent customer also having the disease, but then the prostitute may have had extracurricular sex with someone with the disease, so you don't really know.
What would be great is if it were profitable to have a prostitute specifically because the prostitute has a certain disease, and then customers also having the disease could choose to use the services of that prostitute.
This would also go well with the adultery law. If you had an individual who gave their spouse an STD, (which is why signature is required) and there was no spouse signature of file at a brothel (or the prostitute didn't have said disease) then the individual either committed adultery or illegally gained access to the brothel, both punishable by death.
Quote:Well, I can understand how your particular feelings can influence your outlook, but adultery isn't illegal, so don't we have to use that as a basis for the framework of the discussion?
Also, since gay marriage isn't widely accepted, in your world view are they committing an act that you believe should be illegal? And is the fact that in many cases it's not their fault does that mitigate any potential guilt in the matter?
The entire brothel thing is predicated upon the fact that I would make other forms of adultery and pre-martial sex illegal and punishable by death for adults, for minors, you would go to juvenile hall until attainting the age of 21.
Quote:Is this sort of statement not dissimilar to saying if gays want to get married then they are free to do so... to a partner of the opposite gender?
Can you please re-phrase the question? I'm not sure what you are asking me. Gays could marry a partner of the opposite gender, but I don't see why they would want to. Gay marriage would be Federally legal in my model, because it should be legal for everyone. Anyone can marry whoever they choose as long as neither partner is already married or is a minor.
Quote:That was more just good natured ribbing, there have been attempts at brothels in Nevada with male service providers. It didn't work out so well.
I didn't imagine there would be that great of a market for it, but if someone wanted to try a separate male brothel, offer homosexual services, or do both within the context of a brothel already offering heterosexual services for males, then they certainly could.
Quote: Mission146I agree that it would have had to come from one of the customers, but if the prostitute also passed the disease onto other customers, then you wouldn't strictly know which customer from whom it came. You could hazard a guess that it would be the least recent customer also having the disease, but then the prostitute may have had extracurricular sex with someone with the disease, so you don't really know.
Currently in Nevada (in the counties in which it is legal) a condom must be worn when partaking of the services of a legal prostitute. AFAIK, there has only been 1 case of an STD being given to a customer.
Quote: Mission146
What would be great is if it were profitable to have a prostitute specifically because the prostitute has a certain disease, and then customers also having the disease could choose to use the services of that prostitute.
You've entered into a hall of mirrors that I don't think I can follow you into.
Quote: Mission146
This would also go well with the adultery law. If you had an individual who gave their spouse an STD, (which is why signature is required) and there was no spouse signature of file at a brothel (or the prostitute didn't have said disease) then the individual either committed adultery or illegally gained access to the brothel, both punishable by death.
Pretty harsh penalty, care to expand on that line of thinking?
Quote: Mission146
The entire brothel thing is predicated upon the fact that I would make other forms of adultery and pre-martial sex illegal and punishable by death for adults, for minors, you would go to juvenile hall until attainting the age of 21.
You didn't mention that upfront, I assumed we were working in a semi-realistic framework. This renders several of the other areas of discussion moot.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyCurrently in Nevada (in the counties in which it is legal) a condom must be worn when partaking of the services of a legal prostitute. AFAIK, there has only been 1 case of an STD being given to a customer.
You've entered into a hall of mirrors that I don't think I can follow you into.
Pretty harsh penalty, care to expand on that line of thinking?
You didn't mention that upfront, I assumed we were working in a semi-realistic framework. This renders several of the other areas of discussion moot.
In order:
1.) You could definitely do that, I guess, but condoms basically only protect against AIDS, do they not?
2.) Fair enough. I thought it might be a good idea for something relatively common, like HIV. Should people with HIV not be allowed to engage in legalized prostitution if there were a lucrative way to facilitate such?
3.) Most criminal offenses result in the death penalty in my model, it's more economical than imprisonment.
4.) I'm happy to engage you in this discussion based upon current laws concerning adultery, if you like. I was simply explaining why I got on the subject in the first place.
Quote: Mission146
1.) You could definitely do that, I guess, but condoms basically only protect against AIDS, do they not?
Incorrect, condoms can provide protection from STD's including HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and syphilis. You can get them through having sex -- vaginal, anal, or oral.
fda.gov
Quote: Mission146
2.) Fair enough. I thought it might be a good idea for something relatively common, like HIV. Should people with HIV not be allowed to engage in legalized prostitution if there were a lucrative way to facilitate such?
Personally, I think the risks outweigh the benefits, but I can see how within a framework where the penalty for transgression is death, this could skew the risk distribution.
Quote: Mission146
3.) Most criminal offenses result in the death penalty in my model, it's more economical than imprisonment.
In the US we've found that LWOP is actually more economical than the death penalty, but your model doesn't sound like it has a lot of wiggle room for appeals.
Quote: Mission146
4.) I'm happy to engage you in this discussion based upon current laws concerning adultery, if you like. I was simply explaining why I got on the subject in the first place.
I think makes it a lot easier to discuss when the possibility of pulling wildly unlikely variations on reality out of nowhere is minimized.
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyIncorrect, condoms can provide protection from STD's including HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and syphilis. You can get them through having sex -- vaginal, anal, or oral.
fda.gov
Personally, I think the risks outweigh the benefits, but I can see how within a framework where the penalty for transgression is death, this could skew the risk distribution.
In the US we've found that LWOP is actually more economical than the death penalty, but your model doesn't sound like it has a lot of wiggle room for appeals.
I think makes it a lot easier to discuss when the possibility of pulling wildly unlikely variations on reality out of nowhere is minimized.
1.) Cool.
2.) Exactly, and I'm not sure what the risks would be. The only real risk I see is if a customer claims to have HIV (or whatever the case) when the customer does not. Of course, the customer would have to sign something stating he/she has the disease.
3.) No, you would get one appeal legally required to be adjudicated within three months.
However, I should also mention a higher standard would be used to convict. Specifically, a hung jury is a, "Not guilty," the individual cannot be retried. Juries would consist of eighteen individuals, all of whom would have to be college educated, as well.
4.) That's fine.
Quote: Mission146
What would be great is if it were profitable to have a prostitute specifically because the prostitute has a certain disease, and then customers also having the disease could choose to use the services of that prostitute.
Back in the 1980s I used to wonder if anyone would set up a matching service for AIDS carriers. I think the stumbling point would be that just because both people have it does not make the act any safer, both could get worse infections.
I am surprised the male-brothel thing has not taken off more. As a guess I would say promiscuous gay males have plenty of other options and to be found having gone to one would open lots of blackmail possibilities to those otherwise closeted.
I'm not sure why such brothels wouldn't have taken off, but the reason you suggest seems quite possible.
Let me laugh even harder.
At your continent-wide, centralized totalitarian utopia.
Quote: Mission146However, I should also mention a higher standard would be used to convict. Specifically, a hung jury is a, "Not guilty," the individual cannot be retried. Juries would consist of eighteen individuals, all of whom would have to be college educated, as well.
I don't see why bother. Is crowding more people together going to make them smarter? What if an individual spoiled with college education refuses death penalty for minor offenses on principle?
Three men who have completed their military service is well enough for any jury. They can also rotate the roles of the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.
But haven't you considered some leniency for adultery not resulting in inception, like punishing it in kind - with one rape per count of adulterous act, or a month's service in opposite gender's death row if counts can not be enumerated?
Quote: P90I don't see why bother. Is crowding more people together going to make them smarter? What if an individual spoiled with college education refuses death penalty for minor offenses on principle?
They'd be asked that, why wouldn't someone without a college education potentially do the same thing? In any event, anyone with a Philosophical problem with the death penalty would be automatically excluded.
I'd crowd them together just to make a non-conviction more likely, if I'm going to have the death penalty for the vast majority of felonies, I'd prefer to err on the side of not executing people.
Quote:But haven't you considered some leniency for adultery not resulting in inception, like punishing it in kind - with one rape per count of adulterous act, or a month's service in opposite gender's death row if counts can not be enumerated?
I have not considered that.
I tend to favor the death penalty for most things because I think it would act as a sufficient deterrent to many crimes. There is some argument as to whether or not it deters people from committing murder, but murder is often a crime of passion, anger or some nefarious scheme by which someone has to die. There are rare cases where someone who commits murder didn't actually mean to kill the other person.
However, take something like the death penalty for second offense DUI. I think that would be a deterrent. The current penalty for DUI is such that someone essentially performs a cost/benefit analysis and decides, "Well, I think I am good enough to drive." I don't think you see as much of that if the cost of a first time offense is never having a driver's license again and a second offense is death. Same thing with armed robbery, burglary, and things of that nature. If the mere act of armed robbery were to result in the death penalty, I doubt if as many people try it. Some people just don't have enough to lose (with the current penalties) to be sufficiently deterred from taking the risk, now they would risk losing their lives.
The thing is, beyond a point, most people don't know or care what the penalty is, they just know there is one, and that's either enough or it isn't. DUI is probably punished too leniently (largely because the definition is, depending on jurisdiction, either too strict or unknowable), but when you get to more serious crimes, someone who won't be deterred by a year or three behind bars and a lifelong record probably won't be deterred at all. Punishments other than for the most minor offenses are already meant to short-circuit cost-benefit analysis, and they do; they're scaled to the extent the surrounding world has become disenchanted with the notion of this person's sanctity. (This is also why having every aspect of law micromanaged by a single body up to three thousand miles away is a really bad idea.) An eye for an eye doesn't leave the whole world blind; it keeps them hearing. You may be happy to decorate the brothels with the entrails of horny teenagers, but frankly, that makes me more likely to wonder what rights you should have.
Quote: Mission146In any event, anyone with a Philosophical problem with the death penalty would be automatically excluded.
Presuming they'd tell you. Going to do deep analysis?
For this to work, you have to limit the selection to people who have already killed others, in military or police service.
Quote: Mission146I'd crowd them together just to make a non-conviction more likely, if I'm going to have the death penalty for the vast majority of felonies, I'd prefer to err on the side of not executing people.
Then it's "The harshness of our laws is balanced out by their lack of enforcement".
Quote: Mission146If the mere act of armed robbery were to result in the death penalty, I doubt if as many people try it.
There mere act of armed robbery does result in a death penalty in the states that have it, and in a highly likely self-defense death elsewhere.
If it was an automatic death penalty, I guarantee you that exactly as many people would do it as they do now. Not a single person per century would be deterred. It's already a high risk of death, making the risk higher by a tiny amount doesn't change anything at all.
But there is one thing that it changes. If theft, burglary and armed robbery are all the same, DP, I'm going to try and make sure I'm not caught. If I clear out a home, I'll make sure to check out the bedrooms, smother anyone asleep, then set it on fire. Fewer fingerprints, fewer witnesses, all that.
Dear Wingnuts mostly in the GOP: You've lost. Face it. It's over. This is not going to be repealed, not even if your party wins the White House, every seat in Congress, and even if it can pack the Supreme Court. It's not going to happen. Let it go.
Seriously, let it go.
But since I know you won't, then be aware your party will only tolerate being dragged down for so long.
Think about it.
More bodies to hurl into the matrimonial trenches.
I love how my client base has expanded.
Ka-ching!
*Just wondering: how do they ID themselves, if not as husband and wife?*
marriage has lost all meaning.. I predict Gays
will have far more divorces than straights do
and keep the divorce lawyers very very happy.
Ace?
Quote:Animals are next, they have rights too
Yes, animals have rights.
Good luck collecting your fee.
"I've got some doe," said the deer.
"I'll give you a couple fins," said the fish.
"Can you break a big bill?" asked the pelican.
Quote: NareedLet it go.
Seriously, let it go.
/\Says the person who resurrects over a year old threads.
It's tough some times to say the politically correct thing in this topsy-turvy world we live in.
Quote: MrVThis thread reminds me : should I address birth-male transgenders / transvestites as "he" or "she?"
It's tough some times to say the politically correct thing in this topsy-turvy world we live in.
Really? You need to go there again? Why not address people as they ask to be addressed and not worry about the rest?
I'm not just talking about personalities on this board: I live in Portland, which is a VERY liberal city filled with VERY many LGBTs.
Someday a transsexual will walk into my office wanting to get a divorce.
I'll be flummoxed as to how to appropriately address him / her.
Anyway, don't sweat it, I'll find a gay board and ask there, so hey, I withdraw the question.
Quote: WizardWas this the first thread with the "I'm a bigot" option?
I believe it was. :0) Still funny.
Quote: MrVThis thread reminds me : should I address birth-male transgenders / transvestites as "he" or "she?"
What you should do is show a little manners and stop obsessing over things that don't affect you.
Quote: EvenBobAnimals are next, they have rights too, now that
marriage has lost all meaning..
Oh, you couldn't get married before? How sad.
Quote: 10DollarBri68 members have voted in this poll but there are 85 total votes...
Polls can be set up to either allow only 1 vote or multiple votes.
This one probably allowed multiple votes.
Quote: EvenBobnow that
marriage has lost all meaning..
Marriage has not lost any meaning.
Males and females continue to get married these days and it means the same to them regardless if gays are also allowed to get married.
If a male and female get married today, how is this marriage without meaning?
It was actually funny, as opposed to sad, in other polls...
You could almost say the poll, as it was set up, was a bit of a bullying tactic...
Quote: beachbumbabsWhy not address people as they ask to be addressed and not worry about the rest?
Because they don't decide for me. If I
want to be called 'Your Majesty' and
demand everybody do it, most of them
won't. If a man wants to be addressed
as a woman, doesn't mean I'm wrong
not to do it. Nor will I do it.
Quote: soxfanI wonder how long it will be now, before muslims come crawling out of the woodworks to demad their "right" to multiple wives, hey hey?
This is so bogus that this opens the door to legal polygamy.
This was always one of those false conservative arguments against gay marriage.
Couple years ago, a couple of states allowed gay marriage. Still polygamy illegal
So far 1/2 the states allow gay marriage. Still polygamy illegal.
With 1/2 the states allowing gay marriage, the conservative's Pandora box of legal polygamy is literally open yet nothing on the polygamy rights.
Shows how ridiculous this argument is.
How long soxfan? Do you see any cases?
Should have happened by now.
It hasn't happened by now because it wont happen.
Quote: terapined
Should have happened by now.
It hasn't happened by now because it wont happen.
But it is happening, all the time. A fed judge
made it one step closer last Dec, it's only
matter of time now that my two male cousins
can get married.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court
It really depends on how you feel afterwards.Quote: MrVThis thread reminds me : should I address birth-male transgenders / transvestites as "he" or "she?"
.
Happy as a rainbow at a gay pride parade.Quote: RSI voted "I'm happy" sixteen times.
Quote: AxelWolfHappy as a rainbow at a gay pride parade.
Someone get that damned unicorn some bean-o. :)
Quote: EvenBobBut it is happening, all the time. A fed judge
made it one step closer last Dec, it's only
matter of time now that my two male cousins
can get married.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/16/sister-wives-defeat-polygamy-law-in-federal-court
They already can...I've suggested many times that my heterosexual brother and cousin do it before anyone else does so they can be on the news and shame the family.
Quote: SonuvabishThey already can..
I meant it's only a matter of time till
plural marriage is legal, now that
marriage no longer has any meaning.
That's absurd. Whether or not gays can or cannot get married has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage to two individuals.Quote: EvenBob
marriage no longer has any meaning.
I may joke about gays. However I don't believe its a choice (no praying the gay away). I don't care if people are gay, straight or confused. I wouldn't not be friends with someone who was gay, just because they were gay (as long as they can laugh at gay jokes).
As a kid I didn't want to associate with a gay person, however that's only because they were made fun of and I didn't want to be made fun of.
I do like to know upfront if a friend is gay, finding out years later is not fun. I certainly dont expect people to lead with, "hi im Bruce, I'm gay"
A heads up at some point is all I ask.
Feel free to PM me Bob if you need to get something off your chest or decide to come out of the basement. ☺
Quote: SonuvabishThey already can...I've suggested many times that my heterosexual brother and cousin do it before anyone else does so they can be on the news and shame the family.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
Did you actually read the article?
The govt has absolutely no right to determine who can live together.
The judge ruled correctly.
If a couple of chicks want to move in with me, the govt cannot prevent it.
That's what the judge ruled on.
This case in no way allows legal polygamy marriage license.
Please cite a case regarding polygamy marriage that a judge has ruled on.
Quote: 10DollarBri68 members have voted in this poll but there are 85 total votes...
Democracy Chicago Style? ;)
Quote: NareedWhat you should do is show a little manners and stop obsessing over things that don't affect you.
A local law school is now in the forefront of "animal law," an absurd legal concept if ever there was one.
Will a gnu or a tapeworm be brought into my office someday by its handler, seeking a divorce?
Is that really any different than gays now being permitted (sometimes and in some places) to marry and divorce?
It's a gnu world.
