BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
So you haven't read the Bible? Figures...This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.
So you haven't read the Bible? Figures...This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.
this is just wrong, sorry. in addition to the polygamy people have mentioned, interracial marriages used to be illegal in the states. so no, in recent decades, marriage has been redefined as between a man and woman of any race, not just a man and woman of the same race.This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.
Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.
Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?
Our law in PA is, I believe, that the age of consent is 18 unless both parties are underage, in which case it is 16. Though if the person is 16 or 17 engaging with an adult (18+), I think it's a misdemeanor unless you're a teacher or priest (I believe the phrasing is "in a position of power").Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.
I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....
Again, Iron Horse, I ask you: give me a list of all the bad things that have happened since SSM became legal in Massachusetts 10 years ago.
February 15, 2013
Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester informed grade K-12 school principals that they must allow boys and girls of any age who self-identify as transgender to use the public school bathroom and locker room of their choosing—making it the first time in state history that boys would be allowed in girls bathrooms (and vice versa) at the student’s will.
The eleven page, single-spaced policy document, quietly implemented at the start of a three-day weekend and school vacation week, lays out a laundry list of far-reaching new rules related to ‘gender identity’ in public schools. Boys who ‘identify’ themselves as girls can now use the girls’ “restroom, locker room, and changing facility,” and vice versa. Principals are told to make it clear that students can use whatever restroom “corresponds to the student’s gender identity.” According to the document, “discomfort [ of the rest of the student body or from parents ] is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”
The new policy also impacts locker rooms and interscholastic athletics. All school teams will now essentially become coed, as students can play on whichever team they feel matches their gender identity. The policy even cites an example of a male student participating, as a girl, on an all-girls’ cheerleading squad.
Citing the specific language of the policy, Andrew Beckwith, attorney for Massachusetts Family Institute, warned that the definition of transgender “is extremely broad.” “If a male student tells his teacher he feels like a girl on the inside, the school has to treat him in every way as if he actually is a girl. School personnel may be forbidden from informing the parents of their child’s gender decisions, and students can even decide to be one gender at home and another at school.” Beckwith added that this requirement to ignore a basic truth of anatomy even extends to other students, as the policy states that referring to a transgendered student by their birth name or sex “should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline.”
“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Boston mayor Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”
he has been married 7 sacred times.
and regarding the bakery, I basically agree with what most have said: the bakery absolutely should legally be required to provide service to all clients. refusal to do so is discrimination, as the ruling judge said.
Oh my God. What are you even talking about?Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.
That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.
Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.
"He had not discriminated against gays, except for when he discriminated against gays."Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.
How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?
How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.
What are you talking about? The government didn't force anyone to serve anything they don't already serve. The government is just saying you can't pick and choose your customers based on discrimination.What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?
What are you talking about? The government didn't force anyone to serve anything they don't already serve. The government is just saying you can't pick and choose your customers based on discrimination.
Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.
That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.
Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute
And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:
Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.
Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.
And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?
What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?
What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?
Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.
And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?
"Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."
Ehh, what does SSM have to do with transgender kids?Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.
That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.
Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute
And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:
Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.
What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?
I don't agree with this, but, taking INDY's premises, I can see how there is a narrative here at work beyond that of human rights.
If you accept the premise that a family with a husband, wife, and kids is an ideal to be desired in America, as the best way of raising kids to inherit the country, SSM can fit into a wider narrative. Being pro-SSM is just one view of many that removes the aforementioned view of a family from its pedestal, from its position of being the core institution around which society should revolve. In a view where men and women are biologically assigned, generally speaking, somewhat different personality traits, and it is their duty to work together to unite those traits and raise a family (or their duty to themselves, or to God, to unite those traits as an ideal way to live even without children), acceptance of SSM, like normalization of being transgendered, can seem part of a wider narrative that makes what should be deemed sacred less so.
You also thought the definition of marriage has never changed. Should we really trust your knowledge of the law?I think the judge is wrong.
You also thought the definition of marriage has never changed. Should we really trust your knowledge of the law?