Alabama Says: Guns are Ok, but Sex Toys are illegal

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Ok maybe I missed something, but nowhere in this thread did I see anyone atacking Christianity.

And as to your second comment... Oh Please... You want us to feel sorry for Christians because they are SUCH a laregely persecuted group in the world right? Sorry, not buying it.

Perhaps you should read the post above yours if you think this isn't
seen as another example of christian excess.

You are either ignorant of the state of religious persecution in the
world or you are just ignorant.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps you should read the post above yours if you think this isn't
seen as another example of christian excess.

You are either ignorant of the state of religious persecution in the
world or you are just ignorant.

Its not Christianity itself that's being bashed, its the goverment leaders that are Christian that try to impose their Christian values onto everyone else that people have a problem with.

And ignorant? I'm not ignorant of the fact that religious persecution exists in the world. But I sure do take exception when you single out Christianity itself as being persecuted. There are plenty of other religions that have done far less persecuting and been persecuted a lot more themselves than Christianity.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

It is of great concern that the freedoms of people are being restricted in a civilized, industrialized, western country, and some would say the country that leads the free world.

The reason Christianity is being attacked is that the people who make these laws are Christians. That is plain and simple. The US government is religious, and their religion is primarily Christianity.

Whether or not, in your view, Christians disapprove of sex toys is of little concern, because the Christians in power in Alabama... do disapprove of sex toys.

The lawmakers in Alabama who are Christian disapprove of sex toys. The lawmakers in the States bordering Alabama are no doubt Christian as well and yet have created no such law. That tells me this is a stance that is particular to Alabama. A group of people have the right to make laws that reflect their cultural morality.

Although my view of sex toys are of little concern the fact that the
Baptist view of sex toys is more liberal then Alabama's again suggests
that their view is motivated by culture rather than religion. Look at the perdominate religion in Alabama. It is Baptist through and through.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The lawmakers in Alabama who are Christian disapprove of sex toys. The lawmakers in the States bordering Alabama are no doubt Christian as well and yet have created no such law. That tells me this is a stance that is particular to Alabama. A group of people have the right to make laws that reflect their cultural morality.

Although my view of sex toys are of little concern the fact that the
Baptist view of sex toys is more liberal then Alabama's again suggests
that their view is motivated by culture rather than religion. Look at the perdominate religion in Alabama. It is Baptist through and through.

Really? So in Afganistan, where the cultural morality involved the degredation of women, it os okay to make laws that give women little or no powers, because it is part of their culture?

And this is more about religious conviction than it is culture. Even if it was about culture, in a country that is dubbed "The Land of the Free,' it is inherinty wrong to impose your views onto everyone else.

[photon]

My Point is that we live in a glass house. I bet the laws in Alabama have a higher percentage of support from the people who live under them. They express their particular sense of morality.

EVERYONE lives in a glass house. My point is it's fine to throw rocks even if one's house is glass as long as one realizes that; it helps to find the flaws in your own house, it help to exercise the mind, to think about things.

And the percentage of people that support something doesn't necessarily mean that thing is right. The majority of people used to support slavary. The question here is is that law right?

This whole thread is just an excuse to attack Christianity. There is no biblical law that forbids sexual toys and all of the baptist material I've ever read on sexual behavior see objects/devises as fine as long as it is consensual. Alabama has a culture older than Canada's. Although they
have a strong Christian history/presence it is not the only factor that motivates their moral standards. Obviously this same standard isn't reflected throughout the rest of the bible belt.

So if there's no biblical law against sex toys, how in the world can this be an attack on Christianity? Wouldn't it be an attack on Alabamans?

Don't presume to tell me why I posted a thread. I think the law goes too far in controlling the choices of the people. Some freedoms should be allowed regardless of the people's "culture".

What if the law was a law to restrict access to the Bible because the majority of the state residents thought it shouldn't be allowed because it goes against their culture?

Why not a thread on one of the several nations that have laws that
limit religious freedom. There are Christians who are being imprisoned
and/or killed for having a prayer meeting or singing hymns. Yet the right
to purchase a dildo at Walmart is of greater concern to this board.

Why not a thread on nations that limit religious freedoms instead of a thread about posting desktops? Or instead of a thread about useless videos. Should we take all the possible topics, sort them in order of global importance, and then start discussing them in order??

I can assure you, the thought process was not "Hm, should I post about the opression of Christians world wide, or sex toys in Alabama? Those are the only two possible choices. I'll pick the sex toys so that awareness about religious rights worldwide isn't raised."

(As an aside, didn't you just suggest that the law was a result of Alabaman's culture and shouldn't be attacked? But a law restricting Christianity in a country where the culture wants it restricted isn't ok?)

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Its not Christianity itself that's being bashed, its the goverment leaders that are Christian that try to impose their Christian values onto everyone else that people have a problem with.

And ignorant? I'm not ignorant of the fact that religious persecution exists in the world. But I sure do take exception when you single out Christianity itself as being persecuted. There are plenty of other religions that have done far less persecuting and been persecuted a lot more themselves than Christianity.

It's not Christian values. It's Alabama values. They might be wrapping them in a Christian flag but, none the less they are not Christian/Baptist
values.

So you see a Baptist being killed and his family imprisioned in China as
less important then free access to blow-up dolls because some Catholics killed anabaptists and Muslims a few centuries ago?

Well I guess Alabama has it's own set of values and you have yours.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It's not Christian values. It's Alabama values. They might be wrapping them in a Christian flag but, none the less they are not Christian/Baptist
values.

So you see a Baptist being killed and his family imprisioned in China as
less important then free access to blow-up dolls because some Catholics killed anabaptists and Muslims a few centuries ago?

Well I guess Alabama has it's own set of values and you have yours.

Please do not make up arguements and do not put words in my mouth. If you want to argue, do so on merit and not in fiction. Nowhere did I say that Baptists getting killed in China is less important that access to blow up dolls. It is however no more important than Muslims being persecuted, Buddhists, or even Jews, who have suffered through their fair share of persecution. As I said, the thing I take expection to is you singling out Christians as if they were the only ones to be persecuted on this planet, or that they have somehow suffered more than any other religious group.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

So if there's no biblical law against sex toys, how in the world can this be an attack on Christianity? Wouldn't it be an attack on Alabamans?

It is a general concensus with the liberal types who post here that everything wrong with America is caused by the influence of Christianity. It is an on going theme. An Arab can blow himself up in a crowded market
and leave a note saying he did it in the name of Allah and his culture or him being oppressed is given as the cause. But if a bad law is passed in Alabama it will be pointed out that it is a Christian State with Christian politicians.

Originally Posted by photon

Don't presume to tell me why I posted a thread. I think the law goes too far in controlling the choices of the people. Some freedoms should be allowed regardless of the people's "culture".

Yes freedoms should be allowed. But dildos are not a fundamental
right anymore than cocaine is. Our Canadian society sees nothing
wrong with the one for personal use but does outlaw the other. In
Alabama they see both as harmful. In Canadian society I can seduce
a 14 year old girl and be on the right side of the law. Someone from
Alabama might find that disturbing. Point being: both we and Alabama
legistate particular personal freedoms. Being culturally a Canadian I
see a law prohibiting sex toys as intrusive. I also see our Canadian
gun control laws as intrusive but, I chose to live here.

Originally Posted by photon

What if the law was a law to restrict access to the Bible because the majority of the state residents thought it shouldn't be allowed because it goes against their culture?

Now your talking about a fundamental right( a limited right to exercise our religious conscience). Can't you see the difference between the two?

Originally Posted by photon

Why not a thread on nations that limit religious freedoms instead of a thread about posting desktops? Or instead of a thread about useless videos. Should we take all the possible topics, sort them in order of global importance, and then start discussing them in order??

My point was the contrast between the two. This silly law in Alabama
isn't very important in the larger scheme of things.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Please do not make up arguements and do not put words in my mouth. If you want to argue, do so on merit and not in fiction. Nowhere did I say that Baptists getting killed in China is less important that access to blow up dolls. It is however no more important than Muslims being persecuted, Buddhists, or even Jews, who have suffered through their fair share of persecution. As I said, the thing I take expection to is you singling out Christians as if they were the only ones to be persecuted on this planet, or that they have somehow suffered more than any other religious group.

I didn't imply Christians were the only ones being persecuted. I was giving you an example. It happened to be a Christian. There's nothing wrong with
the example. Your reaction was to point out that christians have persecuted other groups. What relevance is that to this conversation?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

Really? So in Afganistan, where the cultural morality involved the degredation of women, it os okay to make laws that give women little or no powers, because it is part of their culture?

And this is more about religious conviction than it is culture. Even if it was about culture, in a country that is dubbed "The Land of the Free,' it is inherinty wrong to impose your views onto everyone else.

If you choose to live within a society you will find pressure to comform
to that societies norms. You lose freedoms. Hopefully the benefits of the society your in out-weigh the losses. The women of Afganistan have experienced a disproportionate loss of freedom. They were obviously on the losing end. The dildo lovers in Alabama can protest, fight it in court,
attempt to vote the offending law makers out of office, practice civil
disobedience or move.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In Canadian society I can seduce a 14 year old girl and be on the right side of the law.

I knew this didn't sound right:

Bill C-2 provides increased protection against exploitative sexual activity. It creates a new offence against the sexual exploitation of youth under 18 years where the relationship is exploitative of the young person, as evidenced by the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In Canadian society I can seduce
a 14 year old girl and be on the right side of the law. Someone from
Alabama might find that disturbing.

because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex.

This guy got ten years in jail for receiving oral sex. If that isn't disturbing, I don't know what is.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It is a general concensus with the liberal types who post here that everything wrong with America is caused by the influence of Christianity. It is an on going theme. An Arab can blow himself up in a crowded market and leave a note saying he did it in the name of Allah and his culture or him being oppressed is given as the cause. But if a bad law is passed in Alabama it will be pointed out that it is a Christian State with Christian politicians.

Just because it's an ongoing theme doesn't mean this thread was started with that intent. It's an ongoing theme because more of the people here hold those ideas; it's the culture, if you will. Plus what happens in the US more directly affects us, so it's worth discussing.

Yes freedoms should be allowed. But dildos are not a fundamental
right anymore than cocaine is. Our Canadian society sees nothing
wrong with the one for personal use but does outlaw the other.

So one is limited but the other not in our culture only because of our culture?? There's no other difference? Like, for example, one being negative to our society and the other not?

In Alabama they see both as harmful. In Canadian society I can seduce a 14 year old girl and be on the right side of the law. Someone from
Alabama might find that disturbing. Point being: both we and Alabama
legistate particular personal freedoms. Being culturally a Canadian I
see a law prohibiting sex toys as intrusive. I also see our Canadian
gun control laws as intrusive but, I chose to live here.

Though the law says 14, I would like to see an example of a case where an adult had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, was prosecuted, and won based on that law. In practice the age of consent isn't 14.

But I agree, all governments restrict freedoms for the benifit of society, and the things limited should be negative things that harm society.

Now your talking about a fundamental right( a limited right to exercise our religious conscience). Can't you see the difference between the two?

Why is the right to express our religious conscience a fundamental right, but the right to express our sexual conscience not? I don't think the classifaction of something as a fundamental right is a black and white thing, it's a scale of gray.. some rights are obvious once our concousness has been raised to them (the right to self determination), other rights are less clear, and some rights obviously need to be restricted. The right to sell a sex toy, if its going to be restricted, has to be shown to be more harmful to society than the harm caused by limiting basic freedoms. In my opinion this causes more harm to society by eroding people's basic freedom than it prevents.

My point was the contrast between the two. This silly law in Alabama isn't very important in the larger scheme of things.

And neither is this thread, or most of the other threads on this board. It's an interesting point of discussion. We're not saving the world here.

Mind you it wouldn't be a silly law to someone arrested and convicted for the sale of sex toys and put in jail.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

My point was the contrast between the two. This silly law in Alabama
isn't very important in the larger scheme of things.

It is if you have a horrible sex life and live in Alabama.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Though the law says 14, I would like to see an example of a case where an adult had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, was prosecuted, and won based on that law. In practice the age of consent isn't 14.

In fact, that's not what the law says at all. Effectively, the age of consent is only 14 if your partner is also young. Otherwise it's considered an "exploitative" relationship under the law. So an adult cannot have sex with a person under the age of 18, under Canadian law.

I think it's time to introduce Calgaryborn to a valuable research tool:
http://www.google.com

Trust me--it's SO much better than just making stuff up.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by photon

Though the law says 14, I would like to see an example of a case where an adult had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, was prosecuted, and won based on that law. In practice the age of consent isn't 14.

.

Sorry for jumping into your guys debate here but this statement is wrong. This has been discussed in another thread a while back and let me tell you that MANY and I mean MANY adult men have sex with a 14 year old without any consequence. As to the law Iowa stated, that is used usually when the adult is in a controling power or such things as child prostitution.

That is why the conservatives need to enact this new law making the legal age 16.

The reason there is hardly any cases where someone is charges, is because it is really not against the law.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Sorry for jumping into your guys debate here but this statement is wrong. This has been discussed in another thread a while back and let me tell you that MANY and I mean MANY adult men have sex with a 14 year old without any consequence. As to the law Iowa stated, that is used usually when the adult is in a controling power or such things as child prostitution.

That is why the conservatives need to enact this new law making the legal age 16.

The reason there is hardly any cases where someone is charges, is because it is really not against the law.

Well, I'm no legal expert--but one of the criteria for controlling power is age differential under the law. Which is, when you think about it, quite logical. It's very different for a 16 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, than for a 45 year old man to do it.

I'm interested to see who these guys are who are getting away with it. If I were a judge, I'd consider it to be illegal according to the letter of the law. It effectively makes the age of consent 18 if one of the partners is an adult.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, I'm no legal expert--but one of the criteria for controlling power is age differential under the law. Which is, when you think about it, quite logical. It's very different for a 16 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, than for a 45 year old man to do it.

I'm interested to see who these guys are who are getting away with it. If I were a judge, I'd consider it to be illegal according to the letter of the law. It effectively makes the age of consent 18 if one of the partners is an adult.

IFF if the intent of the law was to stop a man or women from having
sex with a 14 year old it would have named a specific age. Obviously
a prosecuter must have more than a difference of age going for his
case to meet the criteria of the law.

I know of three girls myself who had relationships with men in their mid
to late 20s before they were 15. My sister-in-law started dating a 25 year old when she was 13. Once she was 14 he was home free.

I do believe Harper wants to raise the age of consent if he survives the
next election. Right now the opposition is trying to force an election on
the global warming issue.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

IFF if the intent of the law was to stop a man or women from having
sex with a 14 year old it would have named a specific age. Obviously
a prosecuter must have more than a difference of age going for his
case to meet the criteria of the law.

I know of three girls myself who had relationships with men in their mid
to late 20s before they were 15. My sister-in-law started dating a 25 year old when she was 13. Once she was 14 he was home free.

I do believe Harper wants to raise the age of consent if he survives the
next election. Right now the opposition is trying to force an election on
the global warming issue.

Once again, I'm no legal expert. But Justice Canada's website addresses this particular issue.

How will Bill C-2 better protect young persons from sexual predators?
Bill C-2’s new offence against the sexual exploitation of youth under 18 years age recognizes that sexual predators - whether they are much older or close in age - seek to exploit the particular circumstances or vulnerabilities of young persons. Bill C-2 recognizes that the age of a person can be an indicator of vulnerability; however, Bill C-2 also recognizes that there are other indicators, including:

• age difference: is the other person much older than the young person?
• evolution of the relationship: how did the relationship develop? For example, did it develop quickly and secretly over the Internet?
• control or influence over the young person: what degree of control or influence did the other person have over the young person?

Under Bill C-2, all of these factors are relevant with the result that all youth under 18 will be better protected against those who seek to prey on their vulnerability.

In each case, context is important: but it sounds to me like the spirit of the law is to attempt to prevent exactly what you describe.

And I have to ask--what's the alternative? If you raise the age of consent to 18, you effectively criminalize 16 year olds having sex. That's not a productive strategy. Teenagers have been having sex since time immemorial, and they'll continue to do it regardless of what laws are passed. We need laws that protect teenagers from sexual predators--it sounds like that's actually what we have.

What you say about the three girls that you personally know makes me sad. These people are in all likelihood victims of abuse--but if they're not being protected by this law it's a problem of enforcement--the letter of the law is intended to protect them from exploitation.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Once again, I'm no legal expert. But Justice Canada's website addresses this particular issue.


In each case, context is important: but it sounds to me like the spirit of the law is to attempt to prevent exactly what you describe.

And I have to ask--what's the alternative? If you raise the age of consent to 18, you effectively criminalize 16 year olds having sex. That's not a productive strategy. Teenagers have been having sex since time immemorial, and they'll continue to do it regardless of what laws are passed. We need laws that protect teenagers from sexual predators--it sounds like that's actually what we have.

What you say about the three girls that you personally know makes me sad. These people are in all likelihood victims of abuse--but if they're not being protected by this law it's a problem of enforcement--the letter of the law is intended to protect them from exploitation.

Well perhaps this law is new and will provide a greater degree of protection. I think the answer is to raise the age of consent with the exception given for close proximity of age. Right now a 14 year old can legally have sex with a twelve year old in Canada. That seems young to me. An 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old or maybe a 16 year old having sex with 14 year old although unwise probably shouldn't be illegal.

Of the three girls I'm talking about I know two were abused by family members. Two of them grew up without their Dad being in the home
as well.