.PNG.86c267ba976426fdcec79e8cc26aa5f9.PNG)
BergenGuy
-
Posts
189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
7,469 profile views
BergenGuy's Achievements
-
It doesn't really matter what the age of consent is in NJ, if the sex occurred in NY. And, for federal offenses, the age of consent in any particular state doesn't matter because the federal definition will take priority.
-
I'm sure that Mr. Wolf has turned down many men who wanted sex with him during his lifetime. He is not incapable of saying "no." We don't know where the young man lived, but crossing state lines into NYC can be as simple taking a short train or subway ride. The metro area is so integrated that it might not have occurred to him that he was crossing states lines or that it mattered. Fifteen year-olds typically are not well-versed in federal law. As for punishing the young man, I don't know that it is illegal for a minor to have sex with an adult, only that it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor. It can be argued that this young man was mature and more than willing to have sex with Mr. Wolf, and that 18 is an arbitrary number for age of consent. Perhaps. But, an objective number is the only way the law can work. Trying to base things on whether the young person involved is mature enough to make these decisions would make the law too unpredictable for everyone involved, especially the adult.
-
.thumb.PNG.84c8c0ebb33e7229ab3a014e793b6d92.PNG)
Joe Biden was an absolute freaking *disaster* for gay ppl
BergenGuy replied to harrysmith25's topic in LGBT Politics
The Court only acts on cases (or disputes) that are in front of it. It can't, just out of the blue, one day decide to overturn Obergefell on a whim. Since marriage is a state-level issue, to get something to the Court will require a state to do something regarding marriage equality that results in a court case beginning to bubble up several appeals levels. I'm sure that there are several states that have legislatures that would love to somehow prevent same-sex marriage if they thought that the political climate was right. But, they'd need to find a unique angle because they'd probably lose right off the bat at the District Court level if they tried a frontal assault. Rather than trying to outright ban same-sex marriage, maybe they'd try to restrict its privileges only to heterosexual couples or something like that, perhaps? Or, they create a more privileged form of marriage, like "covenant marriage." -
How stupid is to propose taking a HIV test before sex?
BergenGuy replied to soki's topic in Making The Decision To Bareback
When I switched to a gay doctor, he made no pretense of following the prescribing guidelines. His attitude was "you're a gay male, you should be on PrEP." -
How stupid is to propose taking a HIV test before sex?
BergenGuy replied to soki's topic in Making The Decision To Bareback
I've lost track of the number of postings on Grindr/Scruff/other platforms where the guy says that his sexual health strategy is PrEP and "Treatment as Prevention." -
How stupid is to propose taking a HIV test before sex?
BergenGuy replied to soki's topic in Making The Decision To Bareback
When I first started on PrEP years ago, the FDA-approved prescribing guidelines basically required one to either be an reckless slut, an intravenous drug addict or to be in a sero-discordant relationship. In the US, doctors are not bound by prescribing guidelines but most follow them. I had a straight doctor at the time and I just lied and said that I had a HIV+ partner. I switched to a gay doctor, so I don't know if straight doctors still follow those guidelines (or even if those guidelines are still in place). -
I specifically asked about legal attempts to force a church to change its theology. The situation is probably different in Australia, but I know of no attempts in the US, and you haven't cited any such actions in Australia or the US. In the US there have been suits that allege employment discrimination by church-affiliated schools or church-affiliated adoption agencies with public contracts, but that falls into the area of commerce (which is regulated), not theology.
-
Well, if you are married at the courthouse by a Justice of the Peace, you DO have all the benefits of heterosexual marriages. What I was posting was my opinion that ALL marriages should be civil marriages. If a couple wants a religious ceremony, fine. But, it would be superfluous. The only thing that would legally matter would be the civil marriage. In my view, Alabama does it the right way, albeit for the wrong reasons. In Alabama, a couple completes a form and both signatures are notarized. They submit the form to a probate court with the appropriate fee, and they're married. No marriage license, officiant or ceremony needed. If the couple wants a ceremony, religious or otherwise, they can do so but it is legally irrelevant.
-
Hmm ... we could also ask why, in the US, Blacks sued companies that practiced discrimination? After all, who would want to work in such an antagonistic environment? But, there is no social change without brave pioneers, people willing to take unpopular actions. The examples that you gave were all commerce or employment. Do you have examples of where people sued to force a religion to take a different theological position regarding same-sex marriage?
-
Do you have a link where a church has been taken to court to force it to recognize same-sex marriages? I don't mean a suit against a church in its capacity as an employer, but as a religion? No lawsuit trying to set theological policy for a church would be successful in the US. Workplaces and other business organizations are subject to anti-discrimination laws.
-
I've never met anyone who feels that the law should force churches to recognize same-sex marriage, anymore than they are required to recognize interracial marriages or any other marriage. There are people within the religion to advocate strongly for recognition of same-sex marriages by that faith, but that's an internal matter. That religion either works it out, or it splits apart (as in the case of US Methodists).
-
We need to do away with the idea that a member of the clergy can legally marry a couple. Every marriage should be registered with civil authorities and ONLY those marriages are legally valid. If the couple wants to go on to have a religious ceremony, they can do so but it would have no force of law. The civil recognition would need to be called "marriage" to avoid problems when couples visit other countries that don't recognize "civil unions." Religions can call the ceremony whatever they want.
-
Nothing. As far as I know, all states have repealed laws against interracial marriage. So, the court would feel safe in overturning Loving v. Virginia secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't affect interracial marriages (existing or future) anywhere. We should watch these attempts to overturn marriage equality with concern, but not panic about them. Some state legislator in one state or another is always trying to do hateful things. It doesn't mean that the legislation will pass, or that the courts would allow it to take effect. The fact that Schriver is spouting religious rhetoric is hurting his own case.
-
nymidtowneast never disappoints!
-
Yes, I did. That should have been "without". Thanks for catching that.
