PDA

View Full Version : Gay TV star: I was assaulted for being associated with Ann Coulter



Rockntractor
11-12-2011, 10:47 PM
A cast member of the gay reality TV show “A-List Dallas” tells The Daily Caller that he was punched to the ground and bloodied Friday night by someone vandalizing his car because he’s a gay conservative associated with commentator Ann Coulter.

Taylor Garrett, a Republican consultant in Texas who stars in the reality series on the channel LOGO TV, said in an interview that he was attacked outside a birthday party in Dallas after finding a vandal scratching “F–k Coulter” on the side of his car.

Garrett said the incident reflects a troubling mindset.

“The Democrats want me to live on their plantation as their slave, because I’m a gay person,” he said. “And I refuse to do that.”

Photos provided by Garrett to TheDC show the phrase about Coulter keyed in large letters across his car. Other photos show Garrett with a bloody ear and blood covering his white shirt.

“I was at a party and one of my friends arrived and I had a present for him, so I went back to my car to get the present,” he recalled. “When I walked out to my car, I saw someone squatting next to my car.”

After asking the vandal what he was doing, Garrett said the large man stood up and decked him in his left eye. Garrett fell to the ground. He also scraped up his body by falling into some glass that was next to his car, Garrett said. The attacker got away.

Garrett, who has done work with groups run by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, says he has been subject to harassment and threats for being a gay conservative since news broke that he was having lunch with Coulter in Los Angeles for his show.

Garrett found a rock, with a threatening note attached that was anti-conservative, last month thrown through his living room window, he said.

On Friday night after the incident with the vandal, Garrett said his friends called an ambulance, but paramedics did not take him to the hospital.

Garrett said he begged the police not to put his name on the police report, because “I didn’t want to be in the press again about this,” but his friends convinced him otherwise.

The show “A-List Dallas” is a reality show following several gay men navigating life in Texas. Garrett said he wasn’t filming for the show when the Friday night incident occurred.

He also said he’s disgusted by those in the gay community and media who doubt him and accuse him of trying to gin up publicity for himself by going public with these stories.

Garrett said he decided to join the show because he wanted to show that there are gay “conservative, Republican, Christians” out there. But he said he has been “destroyed by the gay community” for his views and he’s doubtful he’ll return for another season after this.

“I would’ve thought people would have been a little more tolerant considering that our community advocates for tolerance, but it has been nothing but mean spirited attacks, especially after the Ann Coulter scene,” he said.

The point of having lunch with Coulter, he said, is to show people that “just because you don’t support gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot, doesn’t mean you hate gay people, it just means you disagree on gay issues.”

Coulter did not immediately return a request for comment.

“The left has turned on anyone that might not agree with gay marriage, they have demonized them,” he said.http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/12/gay-tv-star-claims-he-was-assaulted-bloodied-for-being-a-conservative-associated-with-ann-coulter/#ixzz1dWw3gQN0

Novaheart
11-13-2011, 02:07 AM
Whores get attacked on the street every day.

Odysseus
11-13-2011, 02:16 AM
Whores get attacked on the street every day.

Perhaps you should stay indoors, then.

Snark aside, you've just proven the man's point:


Garrett said the incident reflects a troubling mindset.

“The Democrats want me to live on their plantation as their slave, because I’m a gay person,” he said. “And I refuse to do that.”

But then, you'd be the last person to advocate intolerance, right?


“I would’ve thought people would have been a little more tolerant considering that our community advocates for tolerance, but it has been nothing but mean spirited attacks, especially after the Ann Coulter scene,” he said.

The point of having lunch with Coulter, he said, is to show people that “just because you don’t support gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot, doesn’t mean you hate gay people, it just means you disagree on gay issues.”

Rockntractor
11-13-2011, 02:19 AM
Whores get attacked on the street every day.

I really am surprised by your response, any respect I had for you was ill placed .

AmPat
11-13-2011, 10:42 AM
Whores get attacked on the street every day.

I wonder what faux outrage you would have feigned had it been a large Conservative who attacked a filthy, liberal gay man?:rolleyes::cool:

Tipsycatlover
11-13-2011, 11:07 AM
Gays like blacks can't leave the plantation.

Rockntractor
11-13-2011, 11:14 AM
Gays like blacks can't leave the plantation.

I really do believe their is a vast gulf of difference between the two groups, one is a behavior and the other is a race.

Tipsycatlover
11-13-2011, 11:33 AM
They way they wish to be treated is pretty much the same. There isn't much difference between the way liberals treat gays and blacks.

txradioguy
11-13-2011, 11:33 AM
Gays like blacks can't leave the plantation.

Yup and Nova just pored that point perfectly.

Rockntractor
11-13-2011, 12:31 PM
They way they wish to be treated is pretty much the same. There isn't much difference between the way liberals treat gays and blacks.

Liberals use groups rather than individuals, this is one of the things that separate us ideologically.

CueSi
11-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Gays like blacks can't leave the plantation.

Leave the plantation for what? Some of you guys don't have the best opinion of gay people.

I left the plantation, but some days. . . I come close to regretting it.

~QC

txradioguy
11-13-2011, 02:22 PM
Leave the plantation for what? Some of you guys don't have the best opinion of gay people.

OUr reaction is mainly to the militant types. Wed'd have the same reaction to militant hetero's insisting on putting their sex lives in our faces constantly.


I left the plantation, but some days. . . I come close to regretting it.

~QC

You regret being able to think for yourself and not being told that the only way you'll ever get anything is via the Federal Government?:confused:

Zathras
11-13-2011, 02:47 PM
I really am surprised by your response, any respect I had for you was ill placed .

I'm not...it's what I expect from Nova and he didn't dissapoint.

Elspeth
11-13-2011, 04:34 PM
Gays like blacks can't leave the plantation.

What about the Log Cabin Republicans, a longstanding gay group within the GOP?

Many gay men I know, especially older gay men, are Republicans. They have financial assets that they don't want going to the government.

Odysseus
11-13-2011, 08:21 PM
Leave the plantation for what? Some of you guys don't have the best opinion of gay people.

I left the plantation, but some days. . . I come close to regretting it.

~QC
I get the same thing, to a lesser degree, from my family. Jews are supposed to be good little Democratic voters, no matter how badly we are treated by the Dems. A buddy of mine called the Jews who were voting for Dinkins as the cattlecar vote.

What about the Log Cabin Republicans, a longstanding gay group within the GOP?

Many gay men I know, especially older gay men, are Republicans. They have financial assets that they don't want going to the government.

The Log Cabin gets a lot of grief from the mainstream of the party. There is a lot of pressure on candidates not to take their endorsement or contributions.

Elspeth
11-13-2011, 09:59 PM
I get the same thing, to a lesser degree, from my family. Jews are supposed to be good little Democratic voters, no matter how badly we are treated by the Dems. A buddy of mine called the Jews who were voting for Dinkins as the cattlecar vote.

There's still that kind of pressure? Even with Irving and Bill Kristol being the trailblazers of modern conservatism and with Milton Friedman the economist-god of the movement?



The Log Cabin gets a lot of grief from the mainstream of the party. There is a lot of pressure on candidates not to take their endorsement or contributions.

That's a damned shame...and stupid of the GOP.

hai
11-13-2011, 10:37 PM
I really am surprised by your response, any respect I had for you was ill placed .

Wishes there was a huge "This" button the size of Alaska.

NJCardFan
11-13-2011, 11:59 PM
I really am surprised by your response, any respect I had for you was ill placed .

I lost any respect I had for him when he said that female teacher to male student sex was OK.

CueSi
11-14-2011, 12:33 AM
I lost any respect I had for him when he said that female to male student sex was OK.

Where did he say that?

~QC

txradioguy
11-14-2011, 03:06 AM
What about the Log Cabin Republicans, a longstanding gay group within the GOP?

Ask your fellow Libtards what you they think of them?

Oh wait we know...they just beat the shit out of what would be considered a Log Cabin Republican for having lunch with *gasp* Ann Coulter! :eek:


Many gay men I know, especially older gay men, are Republicans. They have financial assets that they don't want going to the government.

We're not the ones castigating them either. That's your fellow Democrat Party members.

noonwitch
11-14-2011, 10:09 AM
Nobody deserves to be treated that way, except maybe those who covered up for Jerry Sandusky.

AmPat
11-14-2011, 11:40 AM
Leave the plantation for what? Some of you guys don't have the best opinion of gay people.

I left the plantation, but some days. . . I come close to regretting it.

~QC

You have a brain and clear logical thinking. Your sexual orientation does not matter to me. I dislike the agenda of ANY group that feels they need to shove their orientation in my face. :cool:

NJCardFan
11-14-2011, 12:39 PM
Where did he say that?

~QC

Months ago in a thread about a female teacher having sex with her students. He tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children.

Odysseus
11-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Months ago in a thread about a female teacher having sex with her students. He tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children.

Apparently, he's never tried to hold a conversation with one.

Novaheart
11-14-2011, 03:14 PM
Perhaps you should stay indoors, then.

Snark aside, you've just proven the man's point:


Garrett said the incident reflects a troubling mindset.

“The Democrats want me to live on their plantation as their slave, because I’m a gay person,” he said. “And I refuse to do that.”

But then, you'd be the last person to advocate intolerance, right?


“I would’ve thought people would have been a little more tolerant considering that our community advocates for tolerance, but it has been nothing but mean spirited attacks, especially after the Ann Coulter scene,” he said.

The point of having lunch with Coulter, he said, is to show people that “just because you don’t support gay marriage doesn’t make you a bigot, doesn’t mean you hate gay people, it just means you disagree on gay issues.”


To be charitable, let's call him young and naive. Opposition to gay marriage is simply part of the last stand of anti-gay bigotry. Those who oppose marriage equality and bitch about DADT going the way of other dinosaurs are the same people, by and large (note the qualification there) who thought it was OK to purge gay people from federal jobs, to deny gay people security clearances, to prohibit gay people from teaching school, to discriminate against gay people in housing, to prosecute gay people for going to gay bars or having relations in their homes, who claimed that the Lawrence decision was the end of the world, who think that the BSA should be able to discriminate against gay kids and leaders while still getting sweetheart deals on the use of public facilities, who think that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's deal to keep the boardwalk free of taxes by making the pavilion available to the public had an exception for use by gay residents of Ocean Grove.... and so on.

Novaheart
11-14-2011, 03:17 PM
I really do believe their is a vast gulf of difference between the two groups, one is a behavior and the other is a race.

To some degree that's a distinction without a difference.

Novaheart
11-14-2011, 03:20 PM
OUr reaction is mainly to the militant types. Wed'd have the same reaction to militant hetero's insisting on putting their sex lives in our faces constantly.

I don't think that you do. Heterosexual couples, especially married ones have many habits and behaviors which publicly declare their sexual relationship. They refer to each other as husband and wife. They often sit together with their bodies touching. They hold hands in the mall and kiss goodbye at the train station.

Novaheart
11-14-2011, 03:22 PM
I lost any respect I had for him when he said that female teacher to male student sex was OK.

You are a liar.

txradioguy
11-14-2011, 03:24 PM
I don't think that you do. Heterosexual couples, especially married ones have many habits and behaviors which publicly declare their sexual relationship.

And I've seen gay couples do the same thing. And it's equally offensive to see a hetero couple shove their tongue down each others throats and drop body parts in public as a gay couple.




They refer to each other as husband and wife.

And therein lies YOUR personal problem with the whole thing.



They often sit together with their bodies touching. They hold hands in the mall and kiss goodbye at the train station.

I've seen gay couples do the same thing in public back in the states.

Your point?

Novaheart
11-14-2011, 03:27 PM
Months ago in a thread about a female teacher having sex with her students. He tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children.

You are a liar.

Novaheart
11-14-2011, 03:28 PM
And I've seen gay couples do the same thing. And it's equally offensive to see a hetero couple shove their tongue down each others throats and drop body parts in public as a gay couple.





And therein lies YOUR personal problem with the whole thing.




I've seen gay couples do the same thing in public back in the states.

Your point?

Well then , what were you referring to?

Bailey
11-14-2011, 05:29 PM
You are a liar.

No he is not.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 12:11 AM
Months ago in a thread about a female teacher having sex with her students. He tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children.

I'd like to see what he exactly said, please.

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 12:16 AM
I'd like to see what he exactly said, please.

~QC

Go read the thread, can't find it, do a search.

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 12:27 AM
I'd like to see what he exactly said, please.

~QC

I can't recall which specific post he's referring to, but I know that I said that mammals are biologically an infant or an adult. I also said that when Debra Lafave was on trial, that straight guys were complaining that there weren't teachers like that when they were in 8th grade.

The only question is whether NJCArdfan is stupid or deliberate.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 12:32 AM
I can't recall which specific post he's referring to, but I know that I said that mammals are biologically an infant or an adult. I also said that when Debra Lafave was on trial, that straight guys were complaining that there weren't teachers like that when they were in 8th grade.

The only question is whether NJCArdfan is stupid or deliberate.

You or he are free to battle it out in the thunderdome if you like, you can even invite Salami to defend you if you like!:D

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 12:33 AM
I'd like to see what he exactly said, please.

~QC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingersnap
Why ARE so many female teachers having affairs with their teenage students?


Novaheart: Statistically, I doubt it's a blip. We're hearing about it more, and the Baby Boomer parents who never cease to amaze us are not of a single mind on the subject.

Also our laws are schizophrenic in this area. Nicole could have banged that young man daily if she had had his parents' consent.

The law is at odds with nature and nature always wins by longevity.

Originally Posted by Rockntractor
So you are pro, adult child sex?


Novaheart: The state of Illinois and other states permit a 16 year old to have sex with a person aged 16 to 100 as long as the 16 year old has the permission of his parents or a judge to be married.

At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?

Articulate_Ape
Senior Ape




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NJ, Exit Only
Posts: 6,636


A more important question is, where the hell were these teachers when I was a kid?
__________________

AS I said.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 12:36 AM
Go read the thread, can't find it, do a search.

He made the charge that Novaheart said it was OKAY, it's up to him to defend it, yes?

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 12:45 AM
He made the charge that Novaheart said it was OKAY, it's up to him to defend it, yes?

~QC

You brought this same issue up two weeks ago pertaining to the same thread and were given an answer then.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 12:48 AM
You brought this same issue up two weeks ago pertaining to the same thread and were given an answer then.

It was more than two weeks ago, and NJCard didn't answer it then. :p

~QC

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 12:51 AM
You or he are free to battle it out in the thunderdome if you like, you can even invite Salami to defend you if you like!:D

What good would that do? He'll just wait a few weeks or a year, and repeat it as if he hadn't been corrected. Sorry, but life is too short to indulge such a person.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 12:53 AM
It was more than two weeks ago, and NJCard didn't answer it then. :p

~QC

In the original thread you also posted 11 replies so you should remember the thread I would think.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 12:54 AM
What good would that do? He'll just wait a few weeks or a year, and repeat it as if he hadn't been corrected. Sorry, but life is too short to indulge such a person.

Somethings are best ignored.

NJCardFan
11-15-2011, 01:21 AM
I can't recall which specific post he's referring to, but I know that I said that mammals are biologically an infant or an adult. I also said that when Debra Lafave was on trial, that straight guys were complaining that there weren't teachers like that when they were in 8th grade.

The only question is whether NJCArdfan is stupid or deliberate.

Dude, you are still excusing it here. So I'm not the stupid one here. The discussion of the time was that it was someone in a position of power using that power to A) get what she wanted and B) knowing that seducing a teen male is like shooting fish in a barrel. You, on the other hand, didn't think it was a big deal and tried to say that it's different from a male teacher/female student. Your words guy, not mine.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 01:21 AM
In the original thread you also posted 11 replies so you should remember the thread I would think.

Naw. Why? <shrug>

~QC

Odysseus
11-15-2011, 10:59 AM
To be charitable, let's call him young and naive. Opposition to gay marriage is simply part of the last stand of anti-gay bigotry. Those who oppose marriage equality and bitch about DADT going the way of other dinosaurs are the same people, by and large (note the qualification there) who thought it was OK to purge gay people from federal jobs, to deny gay people security clearances, to prohibit gay people from teaching school, to discriminate against gay people in housing, to prosecute gay people for going to gay bars or having relations in their homes, who claimed that the Lawrence decision was the end of the world, who think that the BSA should be able to discriminate against gay kids and leaders while still getting sweetheart deals on the use of public facilities, who think that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's deal to keep the boardwalk free of taxes by making the pavilion available to the public had an exception for use by gay residents of Ocean Grove.... and so on.
Or, we could say that he is wise beyond his years. After all, opposition to gay marriage is not simply bigotry, but a belief that marriage is more than a contract between two adults to exclusively share their genitals, that gay sexual practices are incompatible with military service, that the boy scouts have the right to select their members without input from Perez Hilton, etc. It's not bigotry if the differences cited for a policy are legitmate. The BSA and the Catholic Church were both confronted with people who demanded that gays be included in the leadership. The BSA refused and the Church acquiesed. Today, the Church is under attack for a massive wave of homosexual attacks by gay priests, while the BSA hasn't had any scandals. I'd say that the scouts' wisdom has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond an unreasonable one.

Months ago in a thread about a female teacher having sex with her students. He tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children.


You are a liar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingersnap
Why ARE so many female teachers having affairs with their teenage students?


Novaheart: Statistically, I doubt it's a blip. We're hearing about it more, and the Baby Boomer parents who never cease to amaze us are not of a single mind on the subject.

Also our laws are schizophrenic in this area. Nicole could have banged that young man daily if she had had his parents' consent.

The law is at odds with nature and nature always wins by longevity.

Originally Posted by Rockntractor
So you are pro, adult child sex?


Novaheart: The state of Illinois and other states permit a 16 year old to have sex with a person aged 16 to 100 as long as the 16 year old has the permission of his parents or a judge to be married.

At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?

Articulate_Ape
Senior Ape




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NJ, Exit Only
Posts: 6,636


A more important question is, where the hell were these teachers when I was a kid?
__________________

AS I said.
Let me see if I understand this: NJ said that you stated that "[you] tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children". You call him a liar and then, as proof, quote your post in which you said "The state of Illinois and other states permit a 16 year old to have sex with a person aged 16 to 100 as long as the 16 year old has the permission of his parents or a judge to be married.

At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?"

Allow me to congratulate you on refuting your own argument. You should apologize to NJ ASAP.

Dude, you are still excusing it here. So I'm not the stupid one here. The discussion of the time was that it was someone in a position of power using that power to A) get what she wanted and B) knowing that seducing a teen male is like shooting fish in a barrel. You, on the other hand, didn't think it was a big deal and tried to say that it's different from a male teacher/female student. Your words guy, not mine.

And yet, when he is called on it, he simply resorts to calling NJ a liar. WTF?

Bailey
11-15-2011, 11:29 AM
[QUOTE=Odysseus;463763]Or, we could say that he is wise beyond his years. After all, opposition to gay marriage is not simply bigotry, but a belief that marriage is more than a contract between two adults to exclusively share their genitals, that gay sexual practices are incompatible with military service, that the boy scouts have the right to select their members without input from Perez Hilton, etc. It's not bigotry if the differences cited for a policy are legitmate. The BSA and the Catholic Church were both confronted with people who demanded that gays be included in the leadership. The BSA refused and the Church acquiesed. Today, the Church is under attack for a massive wave of homosexual attacks by gay priests, while the BSA hasn't had any scandals. I'd say that the scouts' wisdom has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond an unreasonable one.





Let me see if I understand this: NJ said that you stated that "[you] tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children". You call him a liar and then, as proof, quote your post in which you said "The state of Illinois and other states permit a 16 year old to have sex with a person aged 16 to 100 as long as the 16 year old has the permission of his parents or a judge to be married.

At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?"

Allow me to congratulate you on refuting your own argument. You should apologize to NJ ASAP.


And yet, when he is called on it, he simply resorts to calling NJ a liar. WTF?[/QUOTE


I love it when nova gets owned lol Keep it up nova!!!

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 11:59 AM
Allow me to congratulate you on refuting your own argument. You should apologize to NJ ASAP.


And yet, when he is called on it, he simply resorts to calling NJ a liar. WTF?

NJ is a liar. Nowhere in there did I "try to justify it". I made observations about biology, law, culture, and the public response to the Debra LeFave case.

Are you denying the science?
Are you denying the inconsistency in the laws?
Are you denying that there are those who pat a sixteen year old male on the back for landing a MILF or a Cougar?

None of that is justification for a teacher having sex with a student, or an attempt to justify it. NJ is a liar, it stands.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 12:17 PM
NJ is a liar. Nowhere in there did I "try to justify it". I made observations about biology, law, culture, and the public response to the Debra LeFave case.

Are you denying the science?
Are you denying the inconsistency in the laws?
Are you denying that there are those who pat a sixteen year old male on the back for landing a MILF or a Cougar?

None of that is justification for a teacher having sex with a student, or an attempt to justify it. NJ is a liar, it stands.
is is

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 12:21 PM
is is

Yeah, and I already had ten doses of your malevolence when we went through this on 5/31 and again on 6/1, hence my assessment that thunderdoming Snookie would do no good whatsoever because he'd simply regurgitate his shared stupidity at a later date.

Odysseus
11-15-2011, 02:16 PM
NJ is a liar. Nowhere in there did I "try to justify it". I made observations about biology, law, culture, and the public response to the Debra LeFave case.

Are you denying the science?
Are you denying the inconsistency in the laws?
Are you denying that there are those who pat a sixteen year old male on the back for landing a MILF or a Cougar?

None of that is justification for a teacher having sex with a student, or an attempt to justify it. NJ is a liar, it stands.

You are jumping on the science and the laws, but you are using that as a basis to argue that a 16-year-old is not a child (you explicitly state this) and for you to make those points in the context of the discussion clearly amounts to justifying isexual contact between a sixteen year-old and an adult. NJ called it.

Bailey
11-15-2011, 02:19 PM
Why are you trying so hard to make it sound that its ok for adults to sleep with 16 year old boys?

AmPat
11-15-2011, 02:48 PM
Why are you trying so hard to make it sound that its ok for adults to sleep with 16 year old boys?Once he and his sympathizers get us to concede that 16 is ok, they'll present the same argument that 12 is ok for girls only since they develop about that time. Once we get 12 year old girls on the approved list, they can begin assaulting the age of males. Why not a 10 year old boy? He has as much right to sex as his female counterpart.

This argument needs to be shut down before it takes root.:mad:

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 02:53 PM
You are jumping on the science and the laws, but you are using that as a basis to argue that a 16-year-old is not a child (you explicitly state this) and for you to make those points in the context of the discussion clearly amounts to justifying isexual contact between a sixteen year-old and an adult. NJ called it.

I'm sure most people would understand his responses that way , but like so many liberals he keeps redefining terms, today we have a question as to his definition of justify, if words no longer have their given meaning any argument with him ends in frustration. We end up with what your definition of is is.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 03:00 PM
justify
Popularity

jus·ti·fy
verb \ˈjəs-tə-ˌfī\
jus·ti·fiedjus·ti·fy·ing
Definition of JUSTIFY
transitive verb
1
a : to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
2
a archaic : to administer justice to b archaic : absolve c : to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
3
a : to space (as lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin b : to make even by justifying <justified margins>
intransitive verb
1
a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
2
: to justify lines of text

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 03:03 PM
You are jumping on the science and the laws, but you are using that as a basis to argue that a 16-year-old is not a child (you explicitly state this) and for you to make those points in the context of the discussion clearly amounts to justifying isexual contact between a sixteen year-old and an adult. NJ called it.

No, it doesn't.

One more time: a sixteen year old is not a child, he is a young adult. That doesn't justify a teacher having sex with him. Snookie is a liar.

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 03:13 PM
Once he and his sympathizers get us to concede that 16 is ok, they'll present the same argument that 12 is ok for girls only since they develop about that time. Once we get 12 year old girls on the approved list, they can begin assaulting the age of males. Why not a 10 year old boy? He has as much right to sex as his female counterpart.

This argument needs to be shut down before it takes root.:mad:

I realize that it's unreasonable to expect you to do your homework, but the marriageable age in the US ranges from no minimum upward. It used to be 7 years old in some state. That was exclusively for heterosexuals, so you can't lay that one on gay people however you might see gay people.

Alabama: 18, 16 with parental consent.[81]
Alaska: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Arizona: 18, 16 with parental consent, no minimum with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent.[82]
Arkansas: 18, 16 for females and 17 for males with parental consent.[80]
California: no statutory minimum, those under 18 must receive approval of a superior court judge, or parental consent.
Colorado: 18, 16 with parental consent, no minimum with judicial approval.[80][83][84]
Connecticut: 18, 16 with parental consent;[85] Under 16 w/ judicial & parental consent.[86]
District of Columbia: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Delaware: 18, 16 for females with parental consent, 17 for males with parental consent.[80]
Florida: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Georgia: 18, 15 with parental consent, 16 without parental consent if pregnant.[80]
Hawaii: 18, 15 with parental consent.[80]
Idaho: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Illinois: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Indiana: 18, 17 with parental consent, 15 in the case of pregnancy with both parental and judicial consent.[87]
Iowa: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Kansas: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Kentucky: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Louisiana: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Maine: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Massachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with parental and judicial consent.[80]
Maryland: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Michigan: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 and under with parental consent and probate judge approval.
Minnesota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Mississippi: 21, no minimum with parental and judicial consent, but in practice the limit is 17 for men and 15 for women with parental consent.[88]
Missouri: 18, 15 with parental consent.[80]
Montana: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Nebraska: 19, 17 with parental consent.[80]
Nevada: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special cause" with parental consent and court permission.
New Jersey: 18, 16 with parental consent and in the case of pregnancy.
New Mexico: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
New York: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 with parental and judicial consent.[89]
North Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent, unlimited in case of pregnancy or birth of child with parental consent.
North Dakota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Ohio: 18 generally as age of majority, but 16 for females with parental consent [90]
Oklahoma: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Oregon: 18, 17 with parental consent. The consenting parent or guardian must accompany the applicant when applying for the marriage license.
Pennsylvania: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 in case of pregnancy and with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court.
Rhode Island: 18, 16 for females with parental consent.[80]
South Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
South Dakota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Tennessee: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Texas: 18, 14 with parental or judicial consent [91]
Utah: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 with court approval.[92]
Vermont: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent.[93]
Washington: 18, 17 with parental consent.[80] May be waived by superior court judge.[94]
West Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent, under 16 (unspecified limit) with parental and judicial consent[80][95]
Wisconsin: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Wyoming: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 03:19 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify

But to Snookie apparently, if a person merely states the facts or addresses something objectively, then he is necessarily justifying it. SO maybe Snookie isn't a liar, maybe he's just of limited intellect.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 03:29 PM
But to Snookie apparently, if a person merely states the facts or addresses something objectively, then he is necessarily justifying it. SO maybe Snookie isn't a liar, maybe he's just of limited intellect.

You were making the case that it was somehow reasonably or acceptable, you weren't necessarily saying it was acceptable to you. It is kind of like these people that say they think abortion is morally wrong for them personally but they don't care if someone else has one.

Bailey
11-15-2011, 03:31 PM
Once he and his sympathizers get us to concede that 16 is ok, they'll present the same argument that 12 is ok for girls only since they develop about that time. Once we get 12 year old girls on the approved list, they can begin assaulting the age of males. Why not a 10 year old boy? He has as much right to sex as his female counterpart.

This argument needs to be shut down before it takes root.:mad:

Its him and like minded people in the Nambla movement that are going to keep trying to get the laws changed just like they did with gay marriage. :(

AmPat
11-15-2011, 03:54 PM
I realize that it's unreasonable to expect you to do your homework, but the marriageable age in the US ranges from no minimum upward. It used to be 7 years old in some state. That was exclusively for heterosexuals, so you can't lay that one on gay people however you might see gay people.



Oh? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I reported to you. Silly me. Now just what "homework" did you ASSign?:rolleyes:

CueSi
11-15-2011, 04:00 PM
You are jumping on the science and the laws, but you are using that as a basis to argue that a 16-year-old is not a child (you explicitly state this) and for you to make those points in the context of the discussion clearly amounts to justifying isexual contact between a sixteen year-old and an adult. NJ called it.

No, NJ didn't. I'm waiting to see where Nova explicitly said these things were okay, which was his original charge. So far, I haven't seen it and NJ hasn't come back to defend his lie.

Ody, for someone who believes in dispassionate debate, I'm getting more disappointed in you by every post.

~QC

Odysseus
11-15-2011, 04:59 PM
No, it doesn't.

One more time: a sixteen year old is not a child, he is a young adult. That doesn't justify a teacher having sex with him. Snookie is a liar.
Young adult is not a legal term. One is either a minor (i.e., child) or an adult in the eyes of the law. This is why in almost every state's laws that you've cited, there is a requirement for parental or judicial consent below the age of consent. Claiming that the law permits a parent to consent to marriage or sexual contact for a 16-year-old doesn't mean that in the eyes of the law, the 16-year-old is an adult. Regardless of how adult you personally felt at 16 (my 7-year-old also claims to be old enough to make her own decisions, BTW), an adult who had relations with you would have been guilty of statutory rape.

You are claiming that you don't approve of sexual relations between a student and teacher, but then go to great lengths to argue that a 16-year-old boy is, historically and socially, prepared for sexual relationships. Are you saying that you don't approve of a teacher having a sexual relationship with a high school student because of the age of the student, or because of the student/teacher relationship and the conflicts of interest? Would you object to a prof having a sexual relationship with an undergrad in one of his courses who was otherwise a legal adult? If that were the case, then NJ is correct on the critical point, which is that you are justifying sexual conduct between teens and adults where no other conflict exists.


But to Snookie apparently, if a person merely states the facts or addresses something objectively, then he is necessarily justifying it. SO maybe Snookie isn't a liar, maybe he's just of limited intellect.


No, NJ didn't. I'm waiting to see where Nova explicitly said these things were okay, which was his original charge. So far, I haven't seen it and NJ hasn't come back to defend his lie.

Ody, for someone who believes in dispassionate debate, I'm getting more disappointed in you by every post.

~QC

Seriously?

NJ said that you stated that "[Nova] tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children".

Nova provided the actual quote, where he said, "At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?"

Now, perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Nova's statement strongly implies approval of sexual consent by 16-year-old males.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 06:11 PM
Young adult is not a legal term. One is either a minor (i.e., child) or an adult in the eyes of the law. This is why in almost every state's laws that you've cited, there is a requirement for parental or judicial consent below the age of consent. Claiming that the law permits a parent to consent to marriage or sexual contact for a 16-year-old doesn't mean that in the eyes of the law, the 16-year-old is an adult. Regardless of how adult you personally felt at 16 (my 7-year-old also claims to be old enough to make her own decisions, BTW), an adult who had relations with you would have been guilty of statutory rape.

You are claiming that you don't approve of sexual relations between a student and teacher, but then go to great lengths to argue that a 16-year-old boy is, historically and socially, prepared for sexual relationships. Are you saying that you don't approve of a teacher having a sexual relationship with a high school student because of the age of the student, or because of the student/teacher relationship and the conflicts of interest? Would you object to a prof having a sexual relationship with an undergrad in one of his courses who was otherwise a legal adult? If that were the case, then NJ is correct on the critical point, which is that you are justifying sexual conduct between teens and adults where no other conflict exists.





Seriously?

NJ said that you stated that "[Nova] tried to justify it by saying it's different because male high school students aren't really children".

Nova provided the actual quote, where he said, "At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?"

Now, perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Nova's statement strongly implies approval of sexual consent by 16-year-old males.

You're ignoring the context of the rest of the statement. . .Childhood/adolescence/teenager as a sociological concept didn't even come into existence till the early part of the last century, am I right?

I mean, would you really consider a 16 year old kid from 1680's or even 1880's Europe a child? By this time that person may be a parent, a warrior, an administrator, in training as a cleric, or a taxpaying worker. It's only recently that a 16 year old wasn't expected to work to contribute to the house hold or be on a serious way to being on their own.

That's the context we're talking about. For good or for ill, we've extended childhood beyond what biology set forward, and the law is reflecting an artificial reality rather than biological reality. It is what it is. Personally, we no longer have to propagate before we drop dead at 40, so these laws are a luxury of civilization, and they are intended for a civilized people, but on a primal, instinct-driven level, they make no sense.

That's what you're missing.

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 06:39 PM
You're ignoring the context of the rest of the statement. . .Childhood/adolescence/teenager as a sociological concept didn't even come into existence till the early part of the last century, am I right?

I mean, would you really consider a 16 year old kid from 1680's or even 1880's Europe a child? By this time that person may be a parent, a warrior, an administrator, in training as a cleric, or a taxpaying worker. It's only recently that a 16 year old wasn't expected to work to contribute to the house hold or be on a serious way to being on their own.

That's the context we're talking about. For good or for ill, we've extended childhood beyond what biology set forward, and the law is reflecting an artificial reality rather than biological reality. It is what it is. Personally, we no longer have to propagate before we drop dead at 40, so these laws are a luxury of civilization, and they are intended for a civilized people, but on a primal, instinct-driven level, they make no sense.

That's what you're missing.

~QC

so you would be for child labor also,
am I right ?

CueSi
11-15-2011, 07:06 PM
so you would be for child labor also,
am I right ?

Also? What do you think I'm for in the first place? And where did I say I was for child labor?

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 07:12 PM
Also? What do you think I'm for in the first place? And where did I say I was for child labor?

~QC

You want us to go back to the 1800s am I right?
I have no idea what you're for, have you taken any aptitude tests?

CueSi
11-15-2011, 07:22 PM
You want us to go back to the 1800s am I right?
I have no idea what you're for, have you taken any aptitude tests?

Did I say I wanted to go back to that time?

No you don't have any idea what I'm for, that's becoming very apparent.

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 07:40 PM
Did I say I wanted to go back to that time?

No you don't have any idea what I'm for, that's becoming very apparent.

~QC

So this was just filibustering.

Originally Posted by CueSi
You're ignoring the context of the rest of the statement. . .Childhood/adolescence/teenager as a sociological concept didn't even come into existence till the early part of the last century, am I right?

I mean, would you really consider a 16 year old kid from 1680's or even 1880's Europe a child? By this time that person may be a parent, a warrior, an administrator, in training as a cleric, or a taxpaying worker. It's only recently that a 16 year old wasn't expected to work to contribute to the house hold or be on a serious way to being on their own.

That's the context we're talking about. For good or for ill, we've extended childhood beyond what biology set forward, and the law is reflecting an artificial reality rather than biological reality. It is what it is. Personally, we no longer have to propagate before we drop dead at 40, so these laws are a luxury of civilization, and they are intended for a civilized people, but on a primal, instinct-driven level, they make no sense.

That's what you're missing.

~QC
Am I right?

CueSi
11-15-2011, 07:43 PM
So this was just filibustering.
Am I right?

No. It was showing the context that Ody and yourself refuse to take into consideration.

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 07:53 PM
No. It was showing the context that Ody and yourself refuse to take into consideration.

~QC

What else does Nova think, please go on!

NJCardFan
11-15-2011, 07:55 PM
No, it doesn't.

One more time: a sixteen year old is not a child, he is a young adult. That doesn't justify a teacher having sex with him. Snookie is a liar.

So you've resorted to childish name calling. Nice. Way to be grown up. So by your definition of an adult(you said that in mammals there are only infants and adults), does that mean Sandusky was only having sex with other adults?

CueSi
11-15-2011, 07:56 PM
What else does Nova think, please go on!


Do you have an actual objection or just an accusation to minimize the points I'm making?

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 08:02 PM
Do you have an actual objection or just an accusation to minimize the points I'm making?

~QC

How about you just go back and read the entire original thread rather than me having to repeat everything.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 08:15 PM
How about you just go back and read the entire original thread rather than me having to repeat everything.

So...you don't have an objection, do you?

Didn't think so.

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 08:26 PM
So...you don't have an objection, do you?

Didn't think so.

~QC

How about you just go back and read the entire original thread rather than me having to repeat everything.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 08:41 PM
I'm not...it's what I expect from Nova and he didn't dissapoint.

Hate to jump on the band wagon, but I agree.....

...he told a member here to suck off his father... Even in jest or joking, honorable people don't say that.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 08:54 PM
No, it doesn't.

One more time: a sixteen year old is not a child, he is a young adult. That doesn't justify a teacher having sex with him. Snookie is a liar.

So if a 16 year old is a young adult and you're okay with sex...are you okay with reproduction? If 16 year olds are grown up to have sex, then they should be old enough to reproduce and have children, and start a family, and start saving up for college...and...etc, etc..

Right?

Nova, people with your line of thinking make me sick.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 08:57 PM
No. It was showing the context that Ody and yourself refuse to take into consideration.

~QC

You and Nova keep making NJ's point for him.

Neither of you see it, but the rest of us do.

CueSi
11-15-2011, 09:27 PM
You and Nova keep making NJ's point for him.

Neither of you see it, but the rest of us do.

NJ doesn't have a point. Nova never said student/teacher sex was okay at ANY point (which was NJ's original accusation), but pointed out that laws are a mark of civilization and not a biological reality. And if you can't see that, your prejudices have truly blinded you. If you aren't allowed to comment dispassionately about the realities of biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult#Biological_adulthood) without accusation, then ignorance has truly triumphed.

And you wonder why few LGBTs wander off the plantation.


~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 09:34 PM
NJ doesn't have a point. Nova never said student/teacher sex was okay at ANY point (which was NJ's original accusation), but pointed out that laws are a mark of civilization and not a biological reality. And if you can't see that, your prejudices have truly blinded you. If you aren't allowed to comment dispassionately about the realities of biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult#Biological_adulthood) without accusation, then ignorance has truly triumphed.

And you wonder why few LGBTs wander off the plantation.


~QC

Shakes head in despair, sits down and opens root beer.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:12 PM
NJ doesn't have a point. Nova never said student/teacher sex was okay at ANY point (which was NJ's original accusation), but pointed out that laws are a mark of civilization and not a biological reality. And if you can't see that, your prejudices have truly blinded you. If you aren't allowed to comment dispassionately about the realities of biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult#Biological_adulthood) without accusation, then ignorance has truly triumphed.

And you wonder why few LGBTs wander off the plantation.


~QC

Humans have progressed since ancient times. Biologically, girls as young as 11 and 12 can have children...but that doesn't mean they should. Nova argued saying since young adults in earlier times in human history were able to wed (have sex),leading to his conclusion that it's not wrong to do so, biologically.

Which part are you missing?

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:12 PM
Shakes head in despair, sits down and opens root beer.

That sounds good, care to share? :D

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 10:16 PM
That sounds good, care to share? :D

I cracked open a 12 pack of Dads, good stuff!:D

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:27 PM
I realize that it's unreasonable to expect you to do your homework, but the marriageable age in the US ranges from no minimum upward. It used to be 7 years old in some state. That was exclusively for heterosexuals, so you can't lay that one on gay people however you might see gay people.

Alabama: 18, 16 with parental consent.[81]
Alaska: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Arizona: 18, 16 with parental consent, no minimum with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent.[82]
Arkansas: 18, 16 for females and 17 for males with parental consent.[80]
California: no statutory minimum, those under 18 must receive approval of a superior court judge, or parental consent.
Colorado: 18, 16 with parental consent, no minimum with judicial approval.[80][83][84]
Connecticut: 18, 16 with parental consent;[85] Under 16 w/ judicial & parental consent.[86]
District of Columbia: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Delaware: 18, 16 for females with parental consent, 17 for males with parental consent.[80]
Florida: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Georgia: 18, 15 with parental consent, 16 without parental consent if pregnant.[80]
Hawaii: 18, 15 with parental consent.[80]
Idaho: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Illinois: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Indiana: 18, 17 with parental consent, 15 in the case of pregnancy with both parental and judicial consent.[87]
Iowa: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Kansas: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Kentucky: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Louisiana: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Maine: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Massachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with parental and judicial consent.[80]
Maryland: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Michigan: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 and under with parental consent and probate judge approval.
Minnesota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Mississippi: 21, no minimum with parental and judicial consent, but in practice the limit is 17 for men and 15 for women with parental consent.[88]
Missouri: 18, 15 with parental consent.[80]
Montana: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Nebraska: 19, 17 with parental consent.[80]
Nevada: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special cause" with parental consent and court permission.
New Jersey: 18, 16 with parental consent and in the case of pregnancy.
New Mexico: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
New York: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 with parental and judicial consent.[89]
North Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent, unlimited in case of pregnancy or birth of child with parental consent.
North Dakota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Ohio: 18 generally as age of majority, but 16 for females with parental consent [90]
Oklahoma: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Oregon: 18, 17 with parental consent. The consenting parent or guardian must accompany the applicant when applying for the marriage license.
Pennsylvania: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 in case of pregnancy and with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court.
Rhode Island: 18, 16 for females with parental consent.[80]
South Carolina: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
South Dakota: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Tennessee: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Texas: 18, 14 with parental or judicial consent [91]
Utah: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 with court approval.[92]
Vermont: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent.[93]
Washington: 18, 17 with parental consent.[80] May be waived by superior court judge.[94]
West Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent, under 16 (unspecified limit) with parental and judicial consent[80][95]
Wisconsin: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80]
Wyoming: 18, 16 with parental consent.[80


18 is the legal age for adulthood. Anyone under 18 needs to obtain PARENTAL CONSENT. Therefore; you should conclude that anyone below the age of 18 is legally a MINOR.

BTW....Where does it say no minimum??

on Edit...nevermind, I see it's Mississippi.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
Mississippi: 21, no minimum with parental and judicial consent, but in practice the limit is 17 for men and 15 for women with parental consent

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 10:39 PM
Claiming that the law permits a parent to consent to marriage or sexual contact for a 16-year-old doesn't mean that in the eyes of the law, the 16-year-old is an adult. .

The law does permit it, the law use the term "emancipated minor" which is what that 16 year old would be after she gets married.

EMANCIPATION IN FLORIDA
(Removal of disabilities of nonage of minor F.S. 743)

• Emancipation is the removal of disability of nonage. In other words,
emancipation is the act by which a person gains all the rights and responsibilities
of an adult.

• In Florida, emancipation automatically occurs when a minor reaches 18 years of
age or when they marry. However, a minor cannot get married without parental
consent.

The last part of the selection only applies to minors who have not been married. If Jennifer marries Gary Geezer with parental consent while pregnant at 15 years old, and divorces him on her 16th birthday, she can then remarry without parental consent.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:41 PM
And then we have:

Sudan: Puberty, with requirement for willing consent of both parties.[15]



Now there is a country we should emulate! It freely allows child marriages (possibly arranged, hey! it was done in the old days!)

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:43 PM
The law does permit it, the law use the term "emancipated minor" which is what that 16 year old would be after she gets married.

EMANCIPATION IN FLORIDA
(Removal of disabilities of nonage of minor F.S. 743)

• Emancipation is the removal of disability of nonage. In other words,
emancipation is the act by which a person gains all the rights and responsibilities
of an adult.

• In Florida, emancipation automatically occurs when a minor reaches 18 years of
age or when they marry. However, a minor cannot get married without parental
consent.

The last part of the selection only applies to minors who have not been married. If Jennifer marries Gary Geezer with parental consent while pregnant at 15 years old, and divorces him on her 16th birthday, she can then remarry without parental consent.

We all know what emancipation is you pervert...you won't get any approval here like you do in your Nambla meetings.

fettpett
11-15-2011, 10:49 PM
Humans have progressed since ancient times. Biologically, girls as young as 11 and 12 can have children...but that doesn't mean they should. Nova argued saying since young adults in earlier times in human history were able to wed (have sex),leading to his conclusion that it's not wrong to do so, biologically.

Which part are you missing?

ancient times? 1920's were ancient times?

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 10:50 PM
And then we have:

Sudan: Puberty, with requirement for willing consent of both parties.[15]



Now there is a country we should emulate! It freely allows child marriages (possibly arranged, hey! it was done in the old days!)

Nice place, they probably have all of the wonderful surprises from the nineteenth century our liberals love.

You know it's odd though, why don't our gays brag about how wonderful the homosexuality laws were in the 19th century?
Just more laws that are a luxury of civilization.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:56 PM
ancient times? 1920's were ancient times?

Which part of that post confused you?


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html

Year Males Females
1890 26.1 22.0
1900 25.9 21.9
1910 25.1 21.6
1920 24.6 21.2
1930 24.3 21.3
1940 24.3 21.5
1950 22.8 20.3
1960 22.8 20.3
1970 23.2 20.8
1980 24.7 22.0
1990 26.1 23.9
1993 26.5 24.5
1994 26.7 24.5
1995 26.9 24.5
1996 27.1 24.8
1997 26.8 25.0
1998 26.7 25.0
1999 26.9 25.1
2000 26.8 25.1
2001 26.9 25.1
2002 26.9 25.3
2003 27.1 25.3
2005 27.0 25.5
2006 27.5 25.9
2007 27.71 26.0
2008 27.6 25.9
2009 28.1 25.9
2010 28.2 26.1


In the late 1800's in the USA, average age of marriage has always surpassed the age of 20.

Many centuries ago, it would have been less...to me that is ancient. Sorry if you don't like the word or the facts.:rolleyes:

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 10:58 PM
Nice place, they probably have all of the wonderful surprises from the nineteenth century our liberals love.

You know it's odd though, why don't our gays brag about how wonderful the homosexuality laws were in the 19th century?
Just more laws that are a luxury of civilization.

Those pesky laws that protect minors.....

fettpett
11-15-2011, 11:04 PM
We all know what emancipation is you pervert...you won't get any approval here like you do in your Nambla meetings.

ha, what a joke, and you're trying to hold up the "civilized" portion of the argument? You really think his point is for anyone to have sex with little kids? No, he's pointing out there is a different in biology and laws, and even there there is some similarities in the law matching biology. Your also getting PHYSICAL maturation confused with Mental maturation and the ability to handle those kind of relationships.

Also, in most incidents it's heterosexual males that are the abusers (about 68% of them), not homosexual males (roughly about 8%). NAMBLA is a group of fucked up individuals that belong to that small group, and personally think they should all (including heterosexual male sex abusers) be thrown on to and island with Komodo dragons, stark naked and bleeding.

Nova is not one of those. And it's bullshit that you and others insinuate that he is.

fettpett
11-15-2011, 11:06 PM
Which part of that post confused you?


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html

Year Males Females
1890 26.1 22.0
1900 25.9 21.9
1910 25.1 21.6
1920 24.6 21.2
1930 24.3 21.3
1940 24.3 21.5
1950 22.8 20.3
1960 22.8 20.3
1970 23.2 20.8
1980 24.7 22.0
1990 26.1 23.9
1993 26.5 24.5
1994 26.7 24.5
1995 26.9 24.5
1996 27.1 24.8
1997 26.8 25.0
1998 26.7 25.0
1999 26.9 25.1
2000 26.8 25.1
2001 26.9 25.1
2002 26.9 25.3
2003 27.1 25.3
2005 27.0 25.5
2006 27.5 25.9
2007 27.71 26.0
2008 27.6 25.9
2009 28.1 25.9
2010 28.2 26.1


In the late 1800's in the USA, average age of marriage has always surpassed the age of 20.

Many centuries ago, it would have been less...to me that is ancient. Sorry if you don't like the word or the facts.:rolleyes:

Median age isn't the issue here, and not the point. It's been common for girls and boys to get married, legally in the US much younger.

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 11:13 PM
We all know what emancipation is you pervert...you won't get any approval here like you do in your Nambla meetings.

Wow, I can't believe I just wasted any time whatsoever responding to you. Trust me, it won't happen again.

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 11:15 PM
Also, in most incidents it's heterosexual males that are the abusers (about 68% of them), not homosexual males (roughly about 8%).

link

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 11:17 PM
Median age isn't the issue here, and not the point. It's been common for girls and boys to get married, legally in the US much younger.


It is the point. You and NOVA would like us all to believe that it is COMMON to wed or have sex at a young age...but statistically, it is NOT. Many kids who get married below 18 are usually getting married because the girl is pregnant.

Odysseus
11-15-2011, 11:17 PM
Wow, I can't believe I just wasted any time whatsoever responding to you. Trust me, it won't happen again.

Can we all get a piece of that promise?

Now that that's settled, let's get back to the OP, which is that a gay conservative was assaulted for associating with Ann Coulter.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 11:17 PM
Wow, I can't believe I just wasted any time whatsoever responding to you. Trust me, it won't happen again.

Cry me a river.....

Novaheart
11-15-2011, 11:17 PM
Can we all get a piece of that promise?



Water seeks its own level.

Hawkgirl
11-15-2011, 11:23 PM
Nova is not one of those. And it's bullshit that you and others insinuate that he is.

How do you know that? Are you intimate friends with him?

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 11:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZKvuSYIykY

CueSi
11-15-2011, 11:30 PM
Humans have progressed since ancient times. Biologically, girls as young as 11 and 12 can have children...but that doesn't mean they should. Nova argued saying since young adults in earlier times in human history were able to wed (have sex),leading to his conclusion that it's not wrong to do so, biologically.

Which part are you missing?

When did he say it wasn't wrong to do so BIOLOGICALLY?


http://atlumschema.com/atlumschema/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Moving-Goalposts-e1300873393433.jpg

BIOLOGICALLY, that one was hilarious... First it was that Nova said it was totally okay. Then it was that Nova at least may not personally support it, but he was for it if someone else did it. Now he says it's not wrong to do so biologically.

~QC

CueSi
11-15-2011, 11:32 PM
Can we all get a piece of that promise?

Now that that's settled, let's get back to the OP, which is that a gay conservative was assaulted for associating with Ann Coulter.

Yeah... lord knows how long he'd be conservative after reading these boards.

~QC

Rockntractor
11-15-2011, 11:36 PM
When did he say it wasn't wrong to do so BIOLOGICALLY?




BIOLOGICALLY, that one was hilarious...

~QC

OMG caps!!!:eek:

NJCardFan
11-16-2011, 12:25 AM
NJ doesn't have a point. Nova never said student/teacher sex was okay at ANY point (which was NJ's original accusation), but pointed out that laws are a mark of civilization and not a biological reality. And if you can't see that, your prejudices have truly blinded you. If you aren't allowed to comment dispassionately about the realities of biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult#Biological_adulthood) without accusation, then ignorance has truly triumphed.

And you wonder why few LGBTs wander off the plantation.


~QC
What the hell does this have to do with LGBT? And I figured this was going to degenerate into this. Also, you nor Nova aren't going to get off this easy. Nova contended(I hope to find the thread) that female teacher to male student sex isn't as serious as male teacher to female student then went on some cockamamie tangent that in the mammal kingdom there are infants and adults implying that, I dunno, that at some point a human infant becomes an adult but not by legal standards. I could care less the man's sexual orientation, this is wrong thinking. This isn't the 18th century anymore where people had to grow up far earlier than today. Back in the day, yes, you were basically an adult at 16(there's a scene in the movie The Patriot where the 2nd eldest son wanted to follow his brother(Heath Ledger) to join the Colonials in the Revolution and was trying to make the case to his father by saying that some of his friends were already fighting). But today, it's very different. The psychological makeup is much, much different. Just because a female the age of 11 can have children no more makes her an adult than a 16 year old who was taken advantage of by his teacher is an adult.

That said, how come no comment on my Sandusky question? Are the infant/adult correlations different between male and females? Allegedly 1 or 2 of his victims were 13 or 14. Just a couple years off of these 16 year old kids screwing their teachers. Why is it a crime when a man screws teens? In truth, Nova was trying to minimize the seriousness of the crimes of people like Latarneau(sp) or Lefave by giving us this biology bullshit. If he didn't think female teacher/male student sex wasn't a big deal, why bring the biology crap up in the first place?

Also, stop thinking every debate with the guy is some anti-gay crusade. I'd argue the same point if the guy had the reputation of Don Juan.

NJCardFan
11-16-2011, 01:35 AM
CueSi, please peruse this thread: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=40721

Just some highlights:

Statistically, I doubt it's a blip. We're hearing about it more, and the Baby Boomer parents who never cease to amaze us are not of a single mind on the subject.

Also our laws are schizophrenic in this area. Nicole could have banged that young man daily if she had had his parents' consent.

The law is at odds with nature and nature always wins by longevity.

The state of Illinois and other states permit a 16 year old to have sex with a person aged 16 to 100 as long as the 16 year old has the permission of his parents or a judge to be married.

At sixteen I did not consider myself to be a child. Biologically, mammals only come in two speeds: infant and adult. Childhood is a social construct and one which has changed considerably over time, being extended well into adulthood in the last two centuries. Historically, Anglo Saxon people have been known to marry, go to college, ascend to the throne, or go to war at age 16.

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?

This goes on and on and he kept up the same argument. And he was questioned time and again about if he condoned sex between adults and minors and he NEVER answered the question to this day. Not to mention that like this thread, we were being accused of disagreeing with him because he's gay. Well, I guess if you don't have the race card to play, might as well play the gay card. :rolleyes:

We're not talking about children here. I was observing the inconsistency in our law and culture. At sixteen I did not consider myself a child. Did you?
I didn't consider myself a child when I was 10, however, hindsight being what it is, I was a child even at 16, per the law.

Odysseus
11-16-2011, 09:04 AM
How do you know that? Are you intimate friends with him?
Can we keep this at least somewhat civil?

Yeah... lord knows how long he'd be conservative after reading these boards.

~QC

I don't know about that. It was the gay liberal who called him a whore and then accused everyone else here of being liars for quoting him on a completely unrelated topic.

fettpett
11-16-2011, 09:53 AM
link

http://www.yellodyno.com/pdf/Child_Molestation_Prevention_Study.pdf

number 11

I'd copy the whole quote but it wont let me.

fettpett
11-16-2011, 10:14 AM
How do you know that? Are you intimate friends with him?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

AmPat
11-16-2011, 11:19 AM
Yeah... lord knows how long he'd be conservative after reading these boards.

~QC
This is one of the first times I have to disagree with you. It is a false assumption and conclusion you make. This guy has 180 degree opposite sexual viewpoints from most conservatives and he is still on the "plantation." If anything, I'd think he would be driven closer to the Conservative plantation by being beaten by Liberals.

Novaheart
11-16-2011, 12:38 PM
Nova contended(I hope to find the thread) that female teacher to male student sex isn't as serious as male teacher to female student then went on some cockamamie tangent that in the mammal kingdom there are infants and adults implying that,

I think you are mixing up two different discussions there. I have already linked to the closed thread in which I mentioned the clinical distinction between infant and adult. The statement about female teacher on male student was in another thread which I can't remember enough about to search for.

While I don't remember the thread, I do remember what I said, because I have said it more than once. You, my dear Snookie, have a habit of leaving out words in my posts when you read them and then deciding what they say based on your read. This is dishonest intellectually and otherwise. I feel certain that if you can find that post, you will see that I said that that the impact of female on male is less than male on female and that the consequences for female on male are less than they are for male on female. Those statements were contingent on society's view of the fact that females get penetrated and can get pregnant as well as society's view that young men who get some are lucky whereas young women who get some are dirty. Any value judgement you ascribe to me on that basis was in your own head. So when you repeat your error (and you will), you should qualify your statement with "my take on his post was" rather than "Nova said." Understand?

Hawkgirl
11-16-2011, 01:23 PM
Can we keep this at least somewhat civil?

called him a whore topic.

I asked a legitimate question. How is fettpett sure Nova doesn't have the same line of thinking as Nambla perverts? Especially since he is adamant about making the distinction between legal and biological "adult" status is at odds with each other.

Odysseus
11-16-2011, 01:34 PM
I asked a legitimate question. How is fettpett sure Nova doesn't have the same line of thinking as Nambla perverts? Especially since he is adamant about making the distinction between legal and biological "adult" status is at odds with each other.

The question about intimate friendship implied more than just an inquiry into beliefs.

Hawkgirl
11-16-2011, 01:39 PM
The question about intimate friendship implied more than just an inquiry into beliefs.
Intimate as in knowing Nova on a deeper level or in person, enough to KNOW that he can't possibly be a proponent of Nambla. Are you going to harp on the word DEEPER too?

I didn't mean intimate in a sexual context...just because Nova is gay.

Odysseus
11-16-2011, 03:33 PM
Intimate as in knowing Nova on a deeper level or in person, enough to KNOW that he can't possibly be a proponent of Nambla. Are you going to harp on the word DEEPER too?

I didn't mean intimate in a sexual context...just because Nova is gay.

Yes, but it could be construed that way. Just sayin'.

CueSi
11-16-2011, 05:13 PM
CueSi, please peruse this thread: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=40721

Just some highlights:



This goes on and on and he kept up the same argument. And he was questioned time and again about if he condoned sex between adults and minors and he NEVER answered the question to this day. Not to mention that like this thread, we were being accused of disagreeing with him because he's gay. Well, I guess if you don't have the race card to play, might as well play the gay card. :rolleyes:

I didn't consider myself a child when I was 10, however, hindsight being what it is, I was a child even at 16, per the law.

If he hasn't answered the question , why are you answering it for him and saying he does condone it? I don't see people on this forum going after one another and using the terms, attitude, and language toward him that they feel is okay to use on him. That's why I wonder if it's anti-gay prejudice out loud.

And your last sentence concedes Nova's point. In the eyes of the law, you were a child. But were you one in a physical sense?

~QC

Hawkgirl
11-16-2011, 05:36 PM
When you can't win an argument on merit...you can always use the....


http://i43.tinypic.com/2gtu2w6.jpg


It's almost as popular as the black card.

Novaheart
11-16-2011, 08:45 PM
........And he was questioned time and again about if he condoned sex between adults and minors and he NEVER answered the question to this day. ........

I answered you before and I will answer you again: the law permits sex between minors and legal adults. To condone sex between a sixteen year old or not condone it would first require that it be a universally bad or illegal thing- it simply isn't. I have shown you that repeatedly. Our law and society approve of sex between 16 year olds and those over 18 (and previously those over 21) with some regularity- I have shown you this. Thus, is is not for me to condone or not condone, it is the law.

Now if you want to know whether I condone sex between a high school (or lesser) teacher and a student, then I do not. To get the right answer, you have to ask the right question. Otherwise, I'm bound to think you are being obnoxious and ignore the question.

NJCardFan
11-16-2011, 08:52 PM
So what you're saying is that it's ok for me to waltz over to me local high school, seduce a 16 year old girl, and I can legally bang her like a Salvation Army drum? Also, answer the Sandusky question.

Rockntractor
11-16-2011, 09:28 PM
So what you're saying is that it's ok for me to waltz over to me local high school, seduce a 16 year old girl, and I can legally bang her like a Salvation Army drum? Also, answer the Sandusky question.

With your gut it will never happen!:D

Odysseus
11-17-2011, 02:21 AM
So what you're saying is that it's ok for me to waltz over to me local high school, seduce a 16 year old girl, and I can legally bang her like a Salvation Army drum? Also, answer the Sandusky question.

With your gut it will never happen!:D
If he's banging her like a Salvation Army drum, then he is going to be dressed as Santa. The gut will only help his disguise. :D

I answered you before and I will answer you again: the law permits sex between minors and legal adults. To condone sex between a sixteen year old or not condone it would first require that it be a universally bad or illegal thing- it simply isn't. I have shown you that repeatedly. Our law and society approve of sex between 16 year olds and those over 18 (and previously those over 21) with some regularity- I have shown you this. Thus, is is not for me to condone or not condone, it is the law.
The law permits a parent to decide if their minor child should be allowed to have sex. It does not give a blanket approval to sex between legal adults and minors, nor does society. You are misinterpreting the law.

Now if you want to know whether I condone sex between a high school (or lesser) teacher and a student, then I do not. To get the right answer, you have to ask the right question. Otherwise, I'm bound to think you are being obnoxious and ignore the question.
Since I asked it, several times, how about answering it?


Are you saying that you don't approve of a teacher having a sexual relationship with a high school student because of the age of the student, or because of the student/teacher relationship and the conflicts of interest? Would you object to a prof having a sexual relationship with an undergrad in one of his courses who was otherwise a legal adult? If that were the case, then NJ is correct on the critical point, which is that you are justifying sexual conduct between teens and adults where no other conflict exists.

BTW, I missed this the first time around.


The law does permit it, the law use the term "emancipated minor" which is what that 16 year old would be after she gets married.

EMANCIPATION IN FLORIDA
(Removal of disabilities of nonage of minor F.S. 743)

• Emancipation is the removal of disability of nonage. In other words,
emancipation is the act by which a person gains all the rights and responsibilities
of an adult.

• In Florida, emancipation automatically occurs when a minor reaches 18 years of
age or when they marry. However, a minor cannot get married without parental
consent.

The last part of the selection only applies to minors who have not been married. If Jennifer marries Gary Geezer with parental consent while pregnant at 15 years old, and divorces him on her 16th birthday, she can then remarry without parental consent.
Emancipation presumes that a minor is not an adult until that is recognized through their attaining the age of majority or when their parents have consented to their marriage. I.e., a minor cannot marry without first being given permission by a legal guardian. You are glossing over the fact that, by law, a minor is not recognized as an adult before achieving the age of 18 unless the parents of that minor emancipate him/her. This doesn't support your argument, it obliterates it.

AmPat
11-17-2011, 11:02 AM
Now if you want to know whether I condone sex between a high school (or lesser) teacher and a student, then I do not. To get the right answer, you have to ask the right question. Otherwise, I'm bound to think you are being obnoxious and ignore the question.

Or you could do what most mature adults do; exercise common communication skills such as rephrase the question or seek clarification.:rolleyes:

Odysseus
11-17-2011, 02:21 PM
Or you could do what most mature adults do; exercise common communication skills such as rephrase the question or seek clarification.:rolleyes:

How would he know what mature adults do? :confused:

AmPat
11-17-2011, 02:34 PM
How would he know what mature adults do? :confused:

Shhhh! I'm trying to train a liberal here. ;)