willy1094
Regular Member
I'm clear it's against the law (isn't it legal in some areas if work the loopholes?). My point is, it was deemed immoral my lawmakers just as homosexual marriage was and thus outlawed. Why is this where we draw the line?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
SCOTUS makes a good call for once!
- Thread starter DrakeZ07
- Start date
- Status
I'm clear it's against the law (isn't it legal in some areas if work the loopholes?). My point is, it was deemed immoral my lawmakers just as homosexual marriage was and thus outlawed. Why is this where we draw the line?
Bold below is mine
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19767
This is the most official site I know of that lists the KRS. Sites such as those you posted also like to claim you are allowed to ride in the back of of pickup truck in Kentucky. I posted as a question because I do not know all case law in Kentucky. I also posted it as a question to perhaps start a discussion as to what might be done to make the written law reflect the new decision. What tarnish have I brought to ANYONE? If you are saying I should have known already, then I guess any forum on the web should just shut down. No reason for someone to go to a forum and ask a question that someone else might already have an answer to. After all, they can just go look it up themselves.No misinformation here. It's in black and white from a reputable source. Sorry I didn't just google something and spout it as fact.
willy, sure you do...sure you do...i will reiterate...DO YOUR HOMEWORK..1992 KY supreme court decision [Kentucky v. Wasson (842 S.W.2d 487)] the crime was decriminalized! http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/kentucky/commonwealth-v-wasson
noticed with interest you used critical thinking skills not to include 510.70, .80, or .90 in your post...so perhaps you are right, you asked a question!! if you would have googled the subject you would have found out quicker than it took to type your original query and after you looked up the KY statutes, reviewed what didn't apply and found an appropriate answer...you got called on it, so quit getting your nickers into a pinch when the misinformation spew by you has been corrected w/appropriate cite!! see you learned sumthg about the act in the process.
ipse
willy1094
Regular Member
With your approach I doubt I'd ever really LEARN anything from you. The fact of the matter is that .070 .080 and .090 did not apply in ANY why as I did read all those KRS as well. Since they apply to forced sodomy and or inability to give consent I didn't think they had any bearing on my question. Again, and still, you are assuming I came here with some intent to may some sort of statement. Mine was only a question as to how long NOW obsolete laws would remain on the books. You didn't catch me in anything, sorry to burst your bubble. Google wasn't the fastest method for me because I actually go through the KRS often and in fact have the above linked site bookmarked on my personal computer as well as all the computers I use at work. So actually it was easier for me to simply go the KRS to locate a law that I though I had read at one point or another. You can continue to spew your accusation all you want. I would much rather spend time reading and answering someone's questions than read posts from someone that touts themselves as a better than thou type.
If I had known the answer to my own question, why would I need to ask it? If no one can ask a question here, as you say we would do our own homework, how useful is this site? You know how man questions are asked here daily that could be easily researched. Not everyone knows every aspect of every situation. The only thing I put out there as fact is that Kentucky has a KRS that says sodomy is illegal no mater who is doing it. That is still fact. What I didn't know what the case law. Now now my question still stands, and now it is even more alarming, as to why an obsolete statue would remain. It is confusing to anyone that actually uses official law listings. I admit that case law is not a strong point and if often where I need to most help.
I'm not sure why you are offended. However, as a member that has been on this forum for a while now, it can be easily researched that I do not come here to poke fun or to simply cause issues in a round about way. If I disagree with something and want to make it know that I disagree, I do it. I don't beat around the bush. I believe this is what you are accusing me of. You hypersensitivity is clouding your judgement. At least as far as the intent of my post. With me, you are barking up the wrong tree. If I didn't know this forum was full of people that actually are helpful (if I was a new guy) I'd move on and never come back. I personally have not use for people that jump to accusation and then ignore it if the person tells them they are doing so. If you ask me, that is the worst disservice this forum could receive.
Last edited:
marriage in what term? the reality is I was trying to confer two separate arguments into one.
marriage in the sense a man and a woman live together for the rest of their lives and do the whole child rearing thing? then yes it pre-dates all religion, but it was still a personal choi9ce to be self involved to that point, it had nothing to do with state, or religion. as it would also pre-date government.
either way, the original definition and intention of "marriage" was union for the purpose of survival, procreation, and child rearing, LGBT's cannot procreate on their own, therefore child rearing isn't a self produced responsibility. they can adopt nowadays, but we are talking way back then.
and back then LGBT crowd would go extinct.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
I think there may be a rule here about calling someone ai liar, particularly without evidence to support the accusation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
humm...perhaps i misread your original query, let's see now...quote: How many states still hold laws again sodomy? The KRS (KY) is 510.100 unquote; and you now post your query was really about...quote: Mine was only a question as to how long NOW obsolete laws would remain on the books. unquote
so willy, a question: did you or did you not get an answer to your original question, not the changed original question you just posted here which is actually a second question in the scheme of things? (answer yes you did! 9 states ~ KY NOT being one of them!!)
me offended, nawllll...
ipse
addendum...willy since it appears this is not your first case of 'misunderstanding' and then 'discussing' the circular issue...i bid you adieu knowing from your perspective everything is a fairy tale comprised of....
Last edited:
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Procreation is not the basis for marriage. If it was, childless couples would not be able to wed. In biblical times, a Jewish marriage was not binding until the couple had a child (or were pregnant). The mistranslation about this is how we end up with a virgin birth story (plus magic.)
At one point in our history, communities reared children together. Pair bonding was necessary only when people did not live communally. Then at some point men wanted ownership and control of a woman (or multiple women), probably because without these strictures women could leave a man who became lazy and mean. These dynamics all play a role in who and how of marriage. Modern marriage in the U.S. still has elements of ownership and control, but times are achangin'.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Love: nature's way of trick'g folk into reproducing!!!
noname...i know a lot of females have tried the immaculate conception story to their caregivers, but alas it has already been done with much fanfare...
ipse
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
That's a pretty simplistic summary of my opinions.
Sort of like me saying how sad it is you wholeheartedly support the government's fascist oppression of some groups by stealing their income while supporting other groups with exemptions.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Wow a ridiculous strawman. I said nothing about gays having the right to attack christians. What's happening in Oregon is nauseatingly evil.
I said it's appalling to try to use government force to make being gay illegal.
BTW when you compare distasteful actions between consenting adults like polygamy or homosexuality to sexual assault on children you lose any credibility you may have had.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
LOL.....yes because LGBT are not created by heteros........so they would have gone extinct.....
I think you nee to rethink this post it is very amusing.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Who's asking you to impose your standard of morality? If allowing gays to marry has thrown your moral compass so out of wack that you equate homosexuality with molesting children perhaps it's time to stop relying on it.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Is MSNBC more to your liking?
One man's morality, or perhaps the lack of, does not reflect upon your own morality.
If the gays have no right to marry, then neither do people that marry outside their race; or religion; or even hair color. Two gays three houses down tying the knot does not make me a bad person, nor does refusing them the same human rights as other humans make me any better than I already was.
Instead of chastising and ridiculing others over this, we should be using it to our advantage. If SCOTUS says the states cannot prohibit gay marriage, well, that moves the fight for RKBA in our favor one notch. Remember how many states made guns illegal? Taxing ammo? If you guys are so dense that it has to be spelled out for you slowly then maybe you shouldn't have a gun?
If the gays have no right to marry, then neither do people that marry outside their race; or religion; or even hair color. Two gays three houses down tying the knot does not make me a bad person, nor does refusing them the same human rights as other humans make me any better than I already was.
Instead of chastising and ridiculing others over this, we should be using it to our advantage. If SCOTUS says the states cannot prohibit gay marriage, well, that moves the fight for RKBA in our favor one notch. Remember how many states made guns illegal? Taxing ammo? If you guys are so dense that it has to be spelled out for you slowly then maybe you shouldn't have a gun?
OC for ME
Regular Member
This gay marriage "issue" is not about marriage, it is about liberals using the power of the state to punish those who peaceably decline to participate upon demand.
Some folks have no qualms about the state being used to peaceable punish non-participators while simultaneously decrying that the state has no business punishing peaceable non-participators.
Liberty is diminished for all, except liberals, even liberals with a gun, they again get what they want, expanded government power. The OP wants congratulations...not from me, the OP needs to render us all a apology.
Some folks have no qualms about the state being used to peaceable punish non-participators while simultaneously decrying that the state has no business punishing peaceable non-participators.
Liberty is diminished for all, except liberals, even liberals with a gun, they again get what they want, expanded government power. The OP wants congratulations...not from me, the OP needs to render us all a apology.
OC Freedom
Regular Member
Again, people are missing the whole scheme of things.
You say a business owner has the right to say no to making a cake for a gay wedding, right? If so, then the business owner also has the right to say no to open OR concealed carry of handguns or long guns. They can refuse service to anyone, right?
But if you feel that all businesses must be forced to allowed RKBA in their establishment, that also means you support forcing them to patronize a homosexual couple & their desire for a gay cake.
You say a business owner has the right to say no to making a cake for a gay wedding, right? If so, then the business owner also has the right to say no to open OR concealed carry of handguns or long guns. They can refuse service to anyone, right?
But if you feel that all businesses must be forced to allowed RKBA in their establishment, that also means you support forcing them to patronize a homosexual couple & their desire for a gay cake.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Permission slips/licenses from the government gives the government power over the individual via a quasi contract... Example, you own a business however you must acquire a license to operate said business..
You now refuse to bake a cake for a black person or white person or gay couple, said rejected parties report you to some quasi government agency, the government agency then revokes your license, hence you go out of business... Acquiring the license gives the government jurisdiction over your business and the way you operate said business...
My .02
CCJ
You now refuse to bake a cake for a black person or white person or gay couple, said rejected parties report you to some quasi government agency, the government agency then revokes your license, hence you go out of business... Acquiring the license gives the government jurisdiction over your business and the way you operate said business...
My .02
CCJ
- Status