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

I understand you can purchase 'suicide kits' from New Zealand. This bypasses Australian laws. At least,
this was the situation about 10-15 years ago. So if you are a depressed teen you could order yourself a
kit. Maybe this could be tested in court - you could 'demand' your 'rights' to euthanasia.

 

He got his pay do doubt, but about 50k was removed from the university's budget in protest.
Georgia BTW, was one of the earliest states to water down child porn rules - the rule used to
be that to have porn on your hard drive was an offense, but now you have to prove someone
was accessing that porn.

 

Uh.. "biblical times" covers a vast period of time, from the Bronze Age to the middle Roman era.
And the bible covers most the known world. And even within Israel itself the bible covers all sorts
of behavior it did not approve of.

 

Yeah, we've been doing that for almost as long as this country has been around. It was right to be subject to England, until we turned that into a wrong. It was wrong for blacks and women to vote until we turned that into a right.

First there is a difference between a gendered language in the general populations and gendered language in the law. Can you name one thing within the law that needs to distinguish between genders or sexes?

You have my sympathies for the sheltered life you live.

 

Given the viruses and hacking that can go on out there, this is not an unreasonable standard. Are you saying that if I managed to hack your computer and put child porn on it you should be treated as a child molester?

 

Are they illegal in Australia?

 

Why do you mention the child porn law change?

 

So am I wrong to say that the move was promoted by Hollywood?

 

The simple fact is that you blame Trump for a policy which Obama had for over 7 years!

 

When I asked if the law LEGALLY had to be changed, I meant whether or not a court forced states into changing their law, as in the case of Obergefel v Hodges, although, I note that it didn't actually force states to change their marriage law, but rather forced them to not deny same sex couples a marriage license. I think that I remember reading that many states still have the old definitions of marriage in their books.

You're missing my point. What the law says 'murder' is defined as, we can all agree that it should exist.

 

So why did you specifically mention hermaphrodites people?

 

No action was taken by the state. No matter what is written in their law books, if it denies anyone a legal marriage status based upon sex or gender, then that law is null and void, and it was done legally. I would say that, sure, the states were forced to change their laws, but they didn't have to do anything to change them. If a law is challenged in the courts and the courts find that law invalid, no action is required by the legislature in order to make the change.

No, not necessarily. Granted you can get a sampling size or a population size that you might have all agree on the definition of murder, but it is still subjective. Remember at one point abortion was considered murder, and not everyone agreed with it. If there are radical Muslims in a given area, they might not agree with the legal definition of murder because then they can't kill infidels, legally at least. There are actually people out there who want killing in self defense, especially if it's by a gun, to be murder, so they don't agree with the legal definition either, or at least don't agree completely.

Well you are not wrong to say that the movie was promoted by Sony. Whether that can be interpreted as Hollywood as a whole promoting it, can be debated. However, that doesn't automatically mean that Sony or Hollywood is promoting pederasty, at least in a positive light. That claim becomes even more muddied given that the boy was 17, IIRC, and the WIDE varity of laws and mores world wide as to what is appropriate age gaps and age of consent. Hell, there is even a question of if pederasty is a positive, negative or a neutral.

 

Yeah well. Things change. Some people thought it was genius to slave people around, until they lost a war over it.

Nope. And it sounds like you don't get it.

You apparently weren't stopped for DWB and all that....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_while_black#Nationwide

 

cos it's got a grainy relevance - the slow subtle shift of society rules that this professor wrote
of was taking place under the noses of the very legislators who condemn him for saying that
attitudes shift.

 

So are you saying that non-binary people have indeed been married in the US?

You still misunderstand. Two options:

1) Keep the murder laws which we have,

2) Scrap the murder laws so that any type of murder becomes legal.

We all share enough objective values that we can say that number 1 is the better option.

I'm also not wrong to say that one of the production companies is Water's End Productions, an LA company. I assume that you acknowledged that, but just forgot to mention it above.

Well what would the case have to be in order for it to not be debated? 100% US production?

The pederastic relationship in the film was nothing BUT positive. It was very much portrayed as beautiful.

Well even if the age of consent is 17 or younger, 17 is still a non-adult in the West.

You make that sound VERY general! I do hope you mean exclusively when the boy is above the minimum age of consent. Even then it's dicey!

 

You dishonestly pretended it was done in the last 5 minutes, repeatedly....
To now think there is no difference between Obama ending something, an Donald reinstalling something.
You really know how to push the far right conservative theme of lies here.

 

Not a big deal if he was simply going back to what Obama's policy was during 7 years in office!

 

The original law was a death sentence, so to speak, if someone found porn on your
hard drive. This wasn't reasonable and Georgia, New York and another state moved
to change this at the time.

 

Ok. The first post made it seem like you felt that it was a problem that the laws went more lack by stepping away from possession to proof of use.

 

As much as homosexual people got married, by lying about their status. But what you are failing to realize is that most people don't want to engage in such deceptions. They want to be engaged in the law as they are; cis, trans or non-binary. Hell we're not even saying that right now non-binaries are having all that much of a problem. We're pointing out that if the law is not genderless, then it can be used against them. Are you trying to argue that we should not try to head off that problem?

False Dilemma Fallacy. It's not either or. It never has been. We have throughout history, changed what is and isn't considered murder by the law. Abortion was added as a form of murder back in the 1860's, and now has been removed as such. Also, #2 should read, "...any type of homicide becomes legal."

I got lost, and probably shouldn't have fallen in on this line, but what does this have to do with the topic?

 

I'm just trying to figure out why OvH didn't force states into allowing people to choose no gender on the form. It seems that your claim that OvH had 'gender' implications, doesn't hold any water.

Doesn't change the fact that nobody would choose to scrap the murder laws.

I just made the point that pederasty was promoted by Hollywood through that movie.

 

It's a big deal since there was put an end to it. The honors go to Obama who did it!
And now it has to be put an end to it again for the sake to get people equal opportunities to defend their own country.
And Donald was against equal opportunities. And you're defending his position by arguing it was all "simply going back".
The honors for being against equal opportunity go to Donald and you. Bravo.

And I note, you lied about when Obama did this.

 

Then so was Obama. For seven long years!