-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions
- Thread starter ArcadiaGP
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Why? Minority groups brought Homosexuality. Why won't they bring Pedophilia? Or the many other things that INGO so gracefully takes my crown of thorns to speak of...
You can say this thing that you say, but you will never know until it happens. Sir, Denny347, I'd love to have a beer with you (and MrJarrell), then meet you again 50 years from now to recap this thread.
Maybe even become friends until then.
That offer is open to everyone.
I suppose I'm a pessimist.
You and your grandmother must be older...much, much older than I would have imagined.
LOL...meh, I just wanted to chime in.
Although, the big 5-0 is looming in exactly five months.
LOL...meh, I just wanted to chime in.
Although, the big 5-0 is looming in exactly five months.
Kid.
It's all down hill from there...
Never knew you were born in Rhode Island. (FWIW, I researched ages of consent in various states in the mid to late 1990s, for an online game I was an admin on (called a MUCK, to be precise.) The MUCK was billed as being particularly kid-friendly because all of the admin staff, but particularly two of us worked to make it that way. It being the internet, though, we recognized that there would be adult discussions, and we wanted to make ways for people to know that those in the area when those discussions occurred were or were not all adults, or at least of the age of consent. My jaw hit the floor when I saw that RI was set at 12 when most states were 16, 17, or 18.
Of note, at the time, and maybe still, even discussing the topic of homosexuality was, in some countries around the world, punishable by death. )
I don't know that this has received any judicial attention, however, I believe that you're mistaken about the underlined part. I've written this before, but I'll type it out again rather than look for the post where I did so.
The 9A makes clear that not all rights are enumerated, and that those not so enumerated are retained.
The 10A delineates that the Fedgov's powers are specifically enumerated, and that those powers not belonging to the fed are reserved to the states or (presumably if denied to the states as well) to the people.
The 1A specifies that "Congress shall make no law..." which restricts the five subjects that Amendment protects.
At the same time, the 2A is far less specific, in that the RKBA simply "shall not be infringed". Thus, the RKBA is an enumerated right of the people, the fed is categorically forbidden, as the power is not only not granted but explicitly denied, but further, the states would be included in the text of "shall not be infringed" (implicitly, "by anyone", considering that the Constitution was intended to restrain government, not the People.)
Therefore, the RKBA is protected by the Constitution from any governmental assault. Considering the viewpoints of the Founders, that individual rights were paramount, that gov't was a beast to be kept tightly leashed, and that man's rights were a gift from his Creator, this is the only view that seems intellectually honest and historically defensible.
Some initially did not want a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, fearing that it would become the checklist by which other rights would be denied, hence the 9A and 10A, and further, it was deemed unnecessary as the power to infringe on the rights the first 10 amendments protect was not explicitly granted, and thus, obviously non-existent.
All of that said, I agree with you that gov't has no business telling any two consenting adults who they may marry and who they may not.
Look at it this way: If Bruce would be able to go and get a marriage license to marry Linda or Debbie or Susan, why can he not do so if the partner he lists is Steve, Adam, or Blake?
Finally, there is a story that illustrates the history of this issue quite well:
A cage is set up and populated with five chimpanzees. In one corner of the cage, hanging from the ceiling, above a "mound" was a bunch of bananas. However, anytime one of the chimps would begin to ascend the mound to reach the fruit, all five of them were sprayed with water under pressure. As a result, soon, anytime any of them approached the mound, all four of the others attacked it. Once this was seen, the water sprayed no more.
Soon, one of the chimps was removed and replaced with a new one. In due time, the new chimp saw the bananas and of course, went toward them for a treat. It was attacked, as they'd learned to do, by all four of the others. One by one, each of the original five chimps was replaced with a new one, and yet, any time a new one came in and went for the bananas, the others all attacked it, even though none of the chimps in the cage had ever been sprayed by the water..... "because that's the way it's always been."
We're possessed of the ability to reason better than chimpanzees, no offense to JetGirl. There is no reason we should succumb to "the way it's always been", when there is ample reason not to do so.
People should be able to marry, or not, whomever they choose. Get gov't the hell out of the peoples' way.
Blessings,
Bill
Downhill as in it gets easier, or as in...well, downhill?
In your 30's your hair starts to go, in your 40's your eye sight starts to go, in your 50's your mem....ummm....oh look, a squirrel!
While I did live in Rhode Island as a child, my birthplace was much farther South in warmer climes. Mississippi, to be exact. Didn't know RI was also that low. It's a good bit higher now, I'd guess, as most states are.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
GodFearinGunTotin said:
I really would like an answer to this, since you are one of a few who have posed this argument:
Been that way since 1833 where the Supreme Court expressly held the individual liberties in the Bill of Rights are a restriction of federal action. Barron v. Mayor and City of Baltimore 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833). "The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their government, and not for the government of the individual states." It's really a moot point almost because they have since been incorporated, but still, it's a subtle but important difference.
Sex with minors is not more restricted than ever before. There are stories all the time about people having sex with minors. Laws do not prohibit people from doing behaviors a society determines should be illegal. There are many people that see nothing wrong with this behavior, obviously. (Even many of the minors).
In any line of behaviors, people will typically will rank order certain ones less serious, less odd, less repugnant, or what have you than others. When a less serious abnormal behavior becomes to be viewed as normal, the next one seems less abnormal. The evolution isn't always linear or constant or even assured. Just because there is no mainstream, public acceptance visible on the horizon now, does not mean it can't happen.
Look to history. As many like to do, look back at the times or the cultures where homosexual sex, multiple marriages, or whatever were accepted as normal. Well, there were times and cultures where it was sex with what we now refer to minors was viewed as a normal part of life. If it happened before, there's nothing but some new enlightenment of society to permit it to happen again. The status quo is always changing. You find it repugnant as do I. But what's to keep future generations from seeing the world as you and I do any more than our grandparents probably saw it the way we do now?
steveh_131
Grandmaster
We're not discussing whether or not it happens. We are discussing regulation. Your assertion was that legally legitimizing gay marriage will cause us to legally legitimize sex with children.
If society is becoming so accepting of it, then why is it so popular to legally prohibit it? It is popular because our society is not accepting of it. Even the gay activist groups condemn it.
I won't say that it can't happen or that it will never happen. I am saying that the legal and societal acceptance of homosexuality seems to have no bearing on it. And if you insist on connecting the two, you have to acknowledge that they appear to be inversely correlated. Gay marriage is becoming increasingly legitimized while pedophilia is becoming increasingly restricted.
You and I would probably agree that our society is in a state of moral decay, and worse is yet to come. And we probably agree on the one person who can stop it, and he is certainly not a part of our government.
LOL! I can assure you that the memory has already boarded the train outta town!
I'm good with this.
Effectively changing the culture happens long before it gets to the ballot box. By the time it gets to a judge, you've probably lost the argument.
LOL! I can assure you that the memory has already boarded the train outta town!
Good thing is...you just don't remember about what you were worrying about so much.
HeadlessRoland
Shooter
"When the looter-State collapses - deprived of the best of its slaves - and falls to a level of impotent chaos and dissolves into starving robber-gangs fighting to rob one another; when the advocates of the morality of sacrifice perish with their final ideal; then, and on that day, we will return." - John Galt
Last edited:
