BergenGuy

18 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

Also this law seems to possibly conflict with the age of consent from the state that the young man was/is resident in.

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.

On 6/24/2025 at 8:35 PM, brnbk said:

The fact that Mr. Wolf has consistently met men for sex, almost at the rate or twice a day for the past twenty years , shows how committed and loving he is. Perhaps as a sex performer, he just loves to  give, and make people sexually happy. Could this young angel have heard of the reputation of Austin and taken advantage of it? 

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."

Quote

May I ask, why did this young angel travel to another state to have sex with an Adult? Did he know that he would be breaking the law and put his sexual partner - the older guy- at substantial risk. Did he understand what he was fantasizing about and did, was a crime under the eyes of the law. I believe anyone who breaks the law willingly needs to face the consequences of it. If Austin is to been punished for breaking the law, so should this young angel— and be tried as a juvenile criminal. 

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.

On 5/9/2025 at 3:06 PM, ellentonboy said:

Time will tell, but you don't think he will bring gay marriage to the attention of the Supreme Court? I truly think it is on his radar.

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."

15 hours ago, BarebackedBear said:

It's been a little bit of "this is for discordant couples, wink wink, be careful out there."

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."

On 4/19/2025 at 11:04 AM, Poz50something said:

First of all, it’s a bit telling:  this schmoe thinksPREP that post seroconversion, it’s a quick descent from Poz to AIDS….in this day and age, there’s absolutely no excuse for a gay man to be ignorant of the HIV and its progression.  Secondly, PREP is PRE exposure….besides, with such ignorance, I’d bet he would not be aware DoxyPrep  even exists. 

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." 

On 4/24/2025 at 7:09 AM, BarebackedBear said:

I'm not sure where you're located, but those PrEP rules are insane. Unless your physical safety is at risk by requesting PrEP, either from government agencies or your family, just sign the papers and get the pill.

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).

25 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

As I said many instances & I did include areas such as education & religion.

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.  

9 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

With that being said, I just want to see if I understand what you are saying......If I was married at my county courthouse, by a justice of the peace, will this marriage be considered valid and afford me all the benefits of a heterosexual marriages such as death benefits and pensions?

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.

On 3/24/2025 at 2:49 AM, Erik62 said:

In Australia, we have had many instances of costly legal battles because, eg: a gay student wants to attend a discriminatory school, employees & organisations also. Why would anybody want to school or work in an antagonistic environment.

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?

5 hours ago, Erik62 said:

There are those in the LGB++++ community & many other groups who will take a church (religion), schools, workplaces, organisations etc into expensive & long drawn court actions in order to achieve their desires.

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.

14 hours ago, Erik62 said:

There are people who are not happy with such practicalities. Those believe EVERY church should be forced to accept gay marriage.

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).  

6 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

If we had separated the religious concept of marriage from the legal concept of a domestic partnership, it would then be up to the religious institutions whether or not they should be recognized as a marriage or not.

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.

12 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

Is that's  right, what does that do to the status of say Clarence Thomas and his wife?

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!

7 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Did you intend an "out" after the "with"? 

Yes, I did.  That should have been "without".  Thanks for catching that.

5 hours ago, Tempusfuget said:

Good start! Hope there is more.

The "more" is in the story "In sickness - A poz love story" that's referenced right above your post.

4 minutes ago, 757neg4poz said:

you will see more and more democrats eventually approve or try to outflank trump's economic positions. they will be more muted on gun, abortion, and lgbt policy.

Abortion is one area that the polls indicate that the Republicans are out of step with the electorate, except in the most very, very red places.  Democrats would be foolish to cede ground on that issue.

17 hours ago, 757neg4poz said:

... the democrats just don't have any teeth to go on the offensive.

I'm hoping that when the Republicans try to pass actual legislation the Democrats will finally show some gumption.  The Republican majority margin in the House is so thin that they will find it difficult to pass anything with some Democratic votes and the filibuster will help slow things down in the Senate, unless the Republicans foolishly abolish it.

But, in the meantime, there's no reason for Democrats to be so silent.  How about a media campaign that highlights that of all the things that Trump has done, he hasn't done a damn thing about food prices (yes, I know that is mostly out of his power, but he PROMISED!)?  And, he promised to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours.  The campaign to retake the House and Senate in two years should've started yesterday.

17 hours ago, PrisonbaiT said:

What will Trump do when there is a new aids pandemic to the lack of information?

How will we know that there's a new AIDS pandemic (or a bird flu pandemic)?  It is likely that the information will be withheld by the CDC.  Just as I feel that unemployment, CPI and other economic information is likely to be withheld or manipulated.  Inflation?  What inflation?

2 hours ago, insatiableholeinTO said:

All he wants is that all vaccines should be put through the normal trial phases to test for safety and efficacy.

He is also associated with a group that is suing the FDA because a new version of the polio vaccine was not placebo tested!  That's despite the fact that such a trial would be unethical and it is standard practice to trial against an existing vaccine when one exists.  Kennedy isn't interested in safety.  He's out to eliminate vaccines.

Of course, at this point, the COVID vaccines have received far more testing than they ever would undergo in a conventional trial.  So, he should just shut up instead of trying to deny everyone else lifesaving vaccines.

I've always loved this story.  I wish that it had been finished.

1 hour ago, focoslut said:

and two days ago they introduced a bill to increase it to three terms. I've seen articles saying this isn't possible to do and that the bill won't pass, but how many times have we heard that only to watch them do the thing anyways without any consequences.

 

A law isn't sufficient to allow a third term.  It would require a Constitutional amendment and there's no way such an amendment would get enough a 2/3 vote in Congress and a 3/4 vote of the states.  As the Constitution is written, a president doesn't have to "leave" the White House.  His presidency ends at noon EST on January 20, 2029.  It doesn't matter if a successor has been elected and certified.  The term of office is over.  Hopefully, by that time, a Democrat will be the speaker of the House.

7 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

It does not appear that the Florida legislature has specifically addressed the question of pornography production, apart from a "revenge porn" law similar to those in many other states.

Since adult, consensual pornography is not inherently illegal, I think that there would be serious First Amendment issues in trying to ban its production.  Porn is a form of expression.

The story is hot, but it would be much easier to read if it had some paragraph breaks.  A massive block of text is just daunting.

On 11/28/2024 at 12:57 PM, AirmaxUK said:

I don't want to unfollow the individuals, but equally logging into 100+ notifications and only three or four are useful is somewhat annoying.

Excellent point.  I've also had to unfollow some prolific pic commenters even though I like reading what they have to say when they're responding to full-fledged posts on important issues.  I'm curious whether other people think that there's any value in being allowed to comment on library images?