Pelosi, Who Pushed Through 'Non-Gendered Language' Calls Herself Wife, Mother, Grandmother, Daughter

Children don't have rights until 18. When they become legal adults.
The ages of consent have all been going up for hundreds of years, not down.

Polygamy isn't a moral issue, it's a legal issue.

 

Are you saying the past is a guide to the future? What is the law concerning child
porn - and how many million using it will eventually force the law to retreat?
Law follow social attitudes - we don't execute people for adultery anymore.

I personally say that Polygamy IS a moral issue. Just as cohabitation, adultery,
sex-with-minors, homosexuality, marijuana, heroin etc are moral issues. We have
a society which denies the moral foundation of things - be careful what you wish
for.

2001-2020 Gallop figures on approval rates for moral issues in USA:
Gay lesbian 40 to 72%. Baby outside marriage 45 to 66%. Casual sex 53 to 72%.
Divorce 59 to 77%. Polygamy 7 to 20%. Doctor suicide 49 to 51%.
Personal suicide 13 to 18%. Gambling 63 to 71%. Abortion 42 to 44%.
Married men having affairs 7 to 9%.

 

In the context of Pooh's post that I quoted, I was saying that I agree with the possibility that pedophilia would be normalized in the future. I said "in principle" because I'm not certain of the possibility. I just view it as a valid concern.

 

Children do have rights, although some are superceded by the rights of a parent.

It's a moral issue for certain people.

Personally, I'm not against legalizing polygamy, but I think it should be strongly discouraged by society. Polygamous societies tend to have serious problems with large numbers of men that are unable to find a woman. When you have a significant population of single men that are sexually and emotionally frustrated, that leads to rape and terrorism issues (hence what we see in certain Islamic societies).

 

OK, no sense in delving any further for me into your boogie man nonsense.

You can claim all the moral issues you like. The fact is, many of your moral issues were common place in biblical times.
The world does not need morals according to poohbear.

There's nothing to convince you that the age of legal consent has been going up for hundreds of years. Believe what you want.

 

Sure, but the context of this thread on children's rights have been sexual in context.

I know, some religious view is as moral. But that only pertains to them. Morals are determined by society for the most part.

I care less about polygamy. It will never affect me. And it is a legal conundrum also. So, it will be a long long time before laws allow it. How would insurance, inheritance, and other marriage rights and legalities be sorted out. That is what will determine if and when and what it will look like.

 

Then we have no problem... just refuse to carry a weapon and spend some time in those poor, underserved havens of innocence. Let us know how that works out for you, yeah?

 

You appear to have never heard of this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5726616/?ref_=nm_knf_i2

 

Are you sure that you intended to direct this post to @dairyair?

 

No, I haven't. It's not a Hollywood movie.
And that is all it is, a movie.

So your proof of a claim is now some movie? And not even from Hollywood. Desperate much?

 

Actually no not you specifically. I was using your post as the springboard/reference for my question. Sorry for the confusion.

 

What makes you say that?

So then ANYTHING is acceptable on screen?

 

Given that it IS possible, don't you have to be "certain of the possibility?"

 

So they didn't pay an employee?

 

How could euthanasia lead to random suicide?

 

What if it is my subjective view that I should be able to kill whoever I want?

 

Is this any different to people who are born either as male or female, but then later in life identify as 'non-binary?'

 

Yes, but they CAN get married, so nobody would say "you can't get married." All it would take is for them to select either male or female,
even if they believe that they're neither. Again, it would only be for LEGAL purposes.

 

Oh sure! No question! I mean, one point in history's normal society, is another point in history's IMMORAL HELLHOLE! Isn't it funny how that works!

 

@Serfin' USA said, "a 4 year gap with 14 as the minimum age seems like a logical system for taking into account that high school kids get intimate." So I assumed that the rule being proposed was only get around the 'high school problem', and would therefore only apply to kids as old as the average age which people leave high school, which I guess would be 18. Therefore, in a state where 18 is the age of consent, someone who is one day away from turning 18 would not be able to give consent to someone who turned 19 on the same day as the sexual activity but a 14 year old could give consent to an 18 year old. I originally said that the almost 18 year old would not be able to give consent to someone who turned 18, but I meant to say 19.

 

What I mean is, if intersex people aren't being denied the ability to legally identify as either male or female, then I don't see how they could be prevented from getting married.

 

Why should I know this "exactly"
Biden overturned Donald's demand that transgender people may not serve their country.
Good enough for me.

 

This STILL has nothing to do with systemic racism and gendered language in the US which we were discussing.
You're just derailing the thread with the dumb off topic questions.

 

Wasn't it the same policy under Obama until the last 5 minutes of his presidency?

 

yep, some might try to twist the laws not to apply to them if the laws are genderized, you're getting it now