YES they are kids. I know they can't buy a drink or smoke but it's ok for them to be shagged by old farts
What a sad world we live in
So what age should people be allowed to have sex? And what are you actually objecting to? I was in a relationship at 17 with another guy who was also 17 and we were ready to have sex so we did.
Should that have been a criminal act even though we were both ready and knew what we wanted? And if so why?
So what age should people be allowed to have sex? And what are you actually objecting to? I was in a relationship at 17 with another guy who was also 17 and we were ready to have sex so we did.
Should that have been a criminal act even though we were both ready and knew what we wanted? And if so why?
Someone who was say 50 and took advantage of you. I am glad your first time was good for you and I wish you the very best.
Someone who was say 50 and took advantage of you. I am glad your first time was good for you and I wish you the very best.
I think I see what you're getting at but it's not easy to say when someone is being taken advantage of or not. A 16 year old is capable of being taken advantage of but is equally as capable of consenting to sex with a 50 year old willingly.
In some US states they have ages of consent at 18 but no crime is committed if those under 18 but over 14 or 16 depending on which state you're in are not prosecuted so long as the person they're having sex with isn't over 18 either. Would you be happy with a situation like that?
Someone who was say 50 and took advantage of you. I am glad your first time was good for you and I wish you the very best.
Look, if an older man is lecherous and has sexual contact with a minor, they are going to do that, or at least keep attempting to, no matter what happens re gay marriage.
Conflating the two things isn't helpful though; I'm sure you see that?
:rolleyes: I believe in god and I am certainly not brainwashed! :mad: I happen to believe that there is a god and that this earth was not created by some stupid big bang! :rolleyes:
What the problem is too, is that there will almost certainly be numerous attempts to force religions to conduct gay marriage ceremonies and not only will real believers not do it but I really think it will cause a whole lot of unnecessary trouble.
Therer are a lot of people out there who think that they can re-write the religion to suit themselves, but they can't. Either they follow the instructions of religion or they don't but the only person who can change the religions is god.
you are brainwashed if you believe that the instructions of any relgion were dictated by god
The problem as Nigal Farage explains is that if gay marriage is allowed, it is a matter of time before the European Court of Human Rights forces religious bodies to carry them out, Catholic churches, muslim mosques, jewish synagogs etc. are in danger of breaking the law if they don't. Now I don't see that as homophobic.
Personally I see marriage as a civil partnership anyway, it is the civil part of the ceremony that makes the marriage legal. I have gay friends who have had civil partnerships, we all referred to the wedding and the marriage, so why is every one splitting hairs over the term. It is long overdue that same sex couples had the same legal rights as hetro couples, but the issue over the conflict between the rights of people being able to observe their religious beliefs and gay rights is one which is difficult to resolve, not helped by the pair that took that couple to court over not being able to share a room.
If only both sides could come together and work out a solution built on mutual respect and compromise it would be better than getting politicians involved.
The problem as Nigal Farage explains is that if gay marriage is allowed, it is a matter of time before the European Court of Human Rights forces religious bodies to carry them out, Catholic churches, muslim mosques, jewish synagogs etc. are in danger of breaking the law if they don't. Now I don't see that as homophobic.
Personally I see marriage as a civil partnership anyway, it is the civil part of the ceremony that makes the marriage legal. I have gay friends who have had civil partnerships, we all referred to the wedding and the marriage, so why is every one splitting hairs over the term. It is long overdue that same sex couples had the same legal rights as hetro couples, but the issue over the conflict between the rights of people being able to observe their religious beliefs and gay rights is one which is difficult to resolve, not helped by the pair that took that couple to court over not being able to share a room.
If only both sides could come together and work out a solution built on mutual respect and compromise it would be better than getting politicians involved.
What kind of compromise would you suggest. Aside from the fact that thereis no real 'sides' of gay and religious, many are both.
How about religious institutions being legally protected and allowed to both discriminate, and call themselves a state institution over represented in politics and with the charity tax rate, and gay people are allowed to get married in non-bigoted churches and registry offices.
What further compromise would you like gay people to make.
The problem as Nigal Farage explains is that if gay marriage is allowed, it is a matter of time before the European Court of Human Rights forces religious bodies to carry them out, Catholic churches, muslim mosques, jewish synagogs etc. are in danger of breaking the law if they don't. Now I don't see that as homophobic.
Nigel Farage is fully aware that the ECHR has ALWAYS ruled in favour of the independence of religious organisations to set their own policies. However, he's also aware that by distancing himself from David Cameron on this and blaming Europe for his stance there are votes to pick up from the right of the Tory Party.
It is long overdue that same sex couples had the same legal rights as hetro couples, but the issue over the conflict between the rights of people being able to observe their religious beliefs and gay rights is one which is difficult to resolve, not helped by the pair that took that couple to court over not being able to share a room.
The only people at fault there were the B&B owners who refused to treat a same-sex couple the same way they would an opposite-sex one.
If only both sides could come together and work out a solution built on mutual respect and compromise it would be better than getting politicians involved.
What you're ignoring is the international aspect of all this. A CP is useless outside of the UK, and every other country going through this process is extending marriage to same sex couples. Therefore the likelihood of UK CPs being recognised as equal to marriage elsewhere is lessening as time goes by. Why should a British same-sex couple emigrating to the Algarve have to divorce here, obtain the relevant paperwork from the Foreign Office, then get re-married under Portuguese law in order to have their relationship protected, when British opposite-sex couples get that automatically? More importantly why should they have to do it when Spanish, Dutch, or Swedish same-sex couples ALSO get that automatically? The two-tier system no longer fits the requirement, which is why now is the time for the UK governments to extend marriage to all.
The problem as Nigal Farage explains is that if gay marriage is allowed, it is a matter of time before the European Court of Human Rights forces religious bodies to carry them out, Catholic churches, muslim mosques, jewish synagogs etc. are in danger of breaking the law if they don't. Now I don't see that as homophobic.
Personally I see marriage as a civil partnership anyway, it is the civil part of the ceremony that makes the marriage legal. I have gay friends who have had civil partnerships, we all referred to the wedding and the marriage, so why is every one splitting hairs over the term. It is long overdue that same sex couples had the same legal rights as hetro couples, but the issue over the conflict between the rights of people being able to observe their religious beliefs and gay rights is one which is difficult to resolve, not helped by the pair that took that couple to court over not being able to share a room.
If only both sides could come together and work out a solution built on mutual respect and compromise it would be better than getting politicians involved.
UKIP make sense.Civil partnerships is marriage in all respects just with a different name and can save all this conflict, so why not stick with them. Look at the turmoil in the Conservative Party over this issue.
UKIP make sense.Civil partnerships is marriage in all respects just with a different name and can save all this conflict, so why not stick with them.
See what I've already put in post 118. The UK doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's becoming clear that CPs are no longer fit for purpose now, and will become even less fit for purpose as time goes on. Most of Europe and virtually the entire Americas will have marriage equality within a decade if current trends continue. Even parts of Asia will have it. So the CP will continue to put British same-sex couples at a disadvantage, even compared to un-CPd British same-sex couples who wish to get married abroad.
When something becomes a hindrance it's time to update it. That's what Parliament is for, and that's why they (and the Scottish Government) are doing this.
UKIP make sense.Civil partnerships is marriage in all respects just with a different name and can save all this conflict, so why not stick with them. Look at the turmoil in the Conservative Party over this issue.
Civil partnerships are NOT marriage and you know it, you just want to keep the status quo and uphold second class status for same sex relationships to keep them inferior that`s all this is about really.
Why should religious rights go above anyone elses rights?
What kind of compromise would you suggest. Aside from the fact that thereis no real 'sides' of gay and religious, many are both.
How about religious institutions being legally protected and allowed to both discriminate, and call themselves a state institution over represented in politics and with the charity tax rate, and gay people are allowed to get married in non-bigoted churches and registry offices.
What further compromise would you like gay people to make.
They get a charity tax rate because they do charitable work. It has nothing to do with being religious, some churches and religious organisations qualify due to the work they do and some don't.
One day you will be old, assuming your not now and there will be new things you can't accept. People that grew up in a different era with different social constraints and values have a right to stick to what they know.
Comments
Do you have issues with reading comprehension?
Seems like you've got some issues, mate.
That argument can be applied in every way to heterosexuals too.
The 16 y/o age of consent makes it legal for young women to be 'shagged by old farts' as well.
Do you want to change the age for all then?
You aren't being very coherent.
So what age should people be allowed to have sex? And what are you actually objecting to? I was in a relationship at 17 with another guy who was also 17 and we were ready to have sex so we did.
Should that have been a criminal act even though we were both ready and knew what we wanted? And if so why?
I better not say what i think of you.
So I will say bye
Someone who was say 50 and took advantage of you. I am glad your first time was good for you and I wish you the very best.
Not very diplomatic are you? you seem very hostile and refuse to accept other people share different views.
I think I see what you're getting at but it's not easy to say when someone is being taken advantage of or not. A 16 year old is capable of being taken advantage of but is equally as capable of consenting to sex with a 50 year old willingly.
In some US states they have ages of consent at 18 but no crime is committed if those under 18 but over 14 or 16 depending on which state you're in are not prosecuted so long as the person they're having sex with isn't over 18 either. Would you be happy with a situation like that?
can I have some of it
Saucy
Look, if an older man is lecherous and has sexual contact with a minor, they are going to do that, or at least keep attempting to, no matter what happens re gay marriage.
Conflating the two things isn't helpful though; I'm sure you see that?
you are brainwashed if you believe that the instructions of any relgion were dictated by god
Personally I see marriage as a civil partnership anyway, it is the civil part of the ceremony that makes the marriage legal. I have gay friends who have had civil partnerships, we all referred to the wedding and the marriage, so why is every one splitting hairs over the term. It is long overdue that same sex couples had the same legal rights as hetro couples, but the issue over the conflict between the rights of people being able to observe their religious beliefs and gay rights is one which is difficult to resolve, not helped by the pair that took that couple to court over not being able to share a room.
If only both sides could come together and work out a solution built on mutual respect and compromise it would be better than getting politicians involved.
What kind of compromise would you suggest. Aside from the fact that thereis no real 'sides' of gay and religious, many are both.
How about religious institutions being legally protected and allowed to both discriminate, and call themselves a state institution over represented in politics and with the charity tax rate, and gay people are allowed to get married in non-bigoted churches and registry offices.
What further compromise would you like gay people to make.
UKIP make sense.Civil partnerships is marriage in all respects just with a different name and can save all this conflict, so why not stick with them. Look at the turmoil in the Conservative Party over this issue.
That totally invalidates the rest of the post.
When something becomes a hindrance it's time to update it. That's what Parliament is for, and that's why they (and the Scottish Government) are doing this.
Civil partnerships are NOT marriage and you know it, you just want to keep the status quo and uphold second class status for same sex relationships to keep them inferior that`s all this is about really.
Why should religious rights go above anyone elses rights?
They get a charity tax rate because they do charitable work. It has nothing to do with being religious, some churches and religious organisations qualify due to the work they do and some don't.
But a '16 year old female kid' can legally be 'shagged by old farts'
Or is it different rules for gay people?
We care more about the discrimination that we have to endure every day that this isn't yet law.
homophobia is a right?