stupid laws/codes

[Vort]

Think what you will, Anatess. The decision may be up to the judge but it shouldnt be an option at all. In the situation you mention the question was if he had the right to force the ex-gf to carry the baby to term. It was not about rapists rights.

Did you even read her post, anne?

"No, even the boy's parents (the paternal grandparents of the child) are not allowed visitation rights."

[annewandering]

By having consensual sex with same-aged and younger boys.

No, you didn't, at least not anywhere that anyone can read your responses. But I welcome you to do so.

lol how do you come up with the sex with same aged boys? That was not in the original scenario. My responses, Vort, are that I disagree with all but the ones I specified in my last post. Why do you want me to repost each one and say 'I disagree with this one too." Its redundant and a waste of time.

[Vort]

lol how do you come up with the sex with same aged boys? That was not in the original scenario.

How did you come up with the sex with adult men? That was not in the original scenario, either, only that she was "experienced" and that she seduced her 18-year-old boyfriend. You invented the rest.

My responses, Vort, are that I disagree with all but the ones I specified in my last post. Why do you want me to repost each one and say 'I disagree with this one too." Its redundant and a waste of time.

It also shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Roughly half of what I wrote was not opinion, but factual statements. You are freely admitting that you disagree with me in making factual statements. I keep giving you a chance either to justify that statement or retract it, but you seem to want to stand by the statement without qualification. Okay, fine, when I speak the factual truth, you disagree. Your opinion does not have much to do with reality. If that's how you want it to remain, okay.

[Guest]

Think what you will, Anatess. The decision may be up to the judge but it shouldnt be an option at all. In the situation you mention the question was if he had the right to force the ex-gf to carry the baby to term. It was not about rapists rights.

He did get his way in that. Since he took it to court it should have been obvious to his lawyer that he was open to a statutory rape charge.

I am not in favor of abortion. He was 18 and boys do know that at that age it is statutory rape. He was legally in the wrong.

What exactly is goopla? Things you dont agree with?

Think what you will, Anne. He did not force anything - they negotiated. Yes, he got his way in that - that the baby was born. That is not all that he wanted. He is the father of the baby and has a vested interest in the care of the child. It is his child too and his religious beliefs come into play.

He took the custody issue to court after the baby was born and after all the statutory rape hearings were completed. The father of the girl took him to court for statutory rape while the girl was still pregnant. He couldn't fight both things at the same time.

Yes, it is statutory rape. So, you would rather have a father lose his child because, like many other 18-year-olds, he was not able to stop his libido at the magic number of having an 18th bday? So he is legally in the wrong - what does that have to do with his ability to raise a child? Especially since the contention was between him and the girl's father and not him and the girl. The girl consented to the sex and he was more than willing to marry her before the girl's father made his life a living hell.

Yes, this was not about rapists rights - because like I said - there is no such thing in Florida. So, like I said - there is no such thing as rapists rights in the 31 states that do not have a law that prevents a rapist from gaining parental custody of the child. At least not in Florida.

Goopla - properly spelled as hoopla - definition: unnecessary fuss.

Edited August 23, 2012 by anatess

[RipplecutBuddha]

.....um, anyway, to get the thread close to where it started, we managed to drain the fuel tank, get it out from under the car, and I rebuilt the fuel pump assembly myself. The tank is ready to go back into the car tomorrow and hopefully I'll have my old wheels again. Not that I don't like driving my brother's truck, but it's a fuel hog compared to my old Town Car.

Oh, and the wood pile has been dealt with, photos have been sent to the city. So hopefully that's the end of that little drama as well.

[talisyn]

I'm glad your vehicle is working, RB. IDK how this thread went into real rape vs. fake rape, I think we all agree letting rapists have rights to children conceived in rape is a really stupid idea.

In Idaho it is illegal to fish from a camel, and from a giraffe. I would really like to know who thought there was a need for this...

[talisyn]

Idaho - Dumb Laws - Strange Laws

Remote control hunting using the internet is illegal. So is betting on the outcome of elections ^^

Oh and I forgot, here in the city you can now keep chickens, but you can't keep rabbits. Not that that's going to stop ppl

Edited August 24, 2012 by talisyn

[talisyn]

Kbear 101 Idaho's Only Real Rock Station Weird Idaho Laws

" Ille*gal for a man to give his sweet*heart a box of candy weigh*ing less than fifty pounds. "

[Guest]

You can't have a pet snake in NYC.

And also in NYC, there was a plan to ban large sugared drinks. It didn't pass.

[RMGuy]

One question and one word of advice.

Question - Where do you live?

Advice - Move

-RM

[MarginOfError]

For help in preparing for your move, please see

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/47481-preparing-my-emergency-survival-kit.html

[Guest]

Florida has a jillion crazy laws.

In Florida, if you park your elephant at a parking meter, you will be fined if you let the meter expire just like if you parked a car.

In Florida, it is specifically stated that it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine.

In Florida, horse theft is penalized by death.

In Florida, it is illegal for men to wear strapless gowns in public and it is illegal for unmarried women to parachute on Sundays.

Okay, so you don't believe me. How about I take one entire section of the State Law and paste it here?

800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.

A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

So yeah, that includes married couples. You can't try to wiggle out of it by saying, "But I was breastfeeding my spouse!".

Florida is a funny state.

Edited August 24, 2012 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, I can understand local code restrictions on the appearance of a front yard - vegetable gardens, stacked lumber, and the like. If a critical mass of neighbors start creating eyesores in their front yards, my own property value is going to suffer.

On the other hand, I'd rather see this kind of thing enforced by local covenants that run with the property--enforceable by a civil lawsuit--rather than by city ordinances that are enforceable by fines and jail.

Incidentally, speaking of micromanaging cities: Did you know that Lehi, Utah, prohibits your back yard fence (or any hedge growing thereon) to be over six feet in height, and dictates exactly how many trees (and what proportion of them must be evergreens) should be planted in a new residential development? There's also a city-mandated scheme for layered shrubbery along fences that separate suburban from rural lots . . .

[Vort]

In Florida, it is specifically stated that it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine.

The need for such a law does not speak well of Floridian IQ.

[Bini]

I agree that, yes, there are some silly city laws and codes enforced. That said, I do appreciate some of these laws and codes. For example, we have several rentals. One of the rentals is located in a transient area, and with a big turnover of people moving in and moving out, there are a lot of unmaintained and unkempt properties. I'm grateful for the ordinances that prohibit (a) vehicles parked on front lawns or sidewalks (b) unused or discarded furniture on front property or by curbside © neglected yards. Really, if everyone did their part in making their neighbourhood a little nicer, the whole community would benefit from it. Whenever a, b, or c is an issue - I call it in. People don't think that these pose problems for others but it does. Parking on front lawns makes the area look trashy. Blocking sidewalks is a public safety issue. Dumping unused or discarded furniture on front property or by curbside is (i) a potential safety hazard and (ii) an eyesore. Yards that have been neglected for months, and sometimes years, the overgrown weeds get around the neighbourhood and infiltrate others yards. In these instances, I'm very grateful for such ordinances, and I'm grateful that they are enforced.

[mnn727]

Time to move to the country. Cities keep getting worse and worse and don't even start me on Homeowners Associations.

[Bini]

Time to move to the country. Cities keep getting worse and worse and don't even start me on Homeowners Associations.

If people don't want to deal with an HOA - don't move into a community that has an HOA.

[Anddenex]

So yeah, that includes married couples. You can't try to wiggle out of it by saying, "But I was breastfeeding my spouse!".

Florida is a funny state.

Unnatural...hmm... I am never moving to Florida.

[Anddenex]

I would be much more sympathetic to this point of view if not for the ever-widening definition of "rape".

We think of rape as meaning that a man pushes a woman into the bushes, forces off her underwear, and forcibly penetrates her as she screams for help and suffers in agony. In actual fact, most "rapes" are nothing of the sort. An adult woman who freely agrees to sex but whose blood alcohol level is 0.08% has by definition been raped. A fifteen-year-old, well-developed, sexually experienced girl who seduces her virginal and naive 18-year-old boyfriend is also a rape "victim", poor thing, while her nasty evil boyfriend is a rapist. In the definition of feminist academicians, any woman who has sex when she doesn't really want to, even if she freely agrees to it, is being raped.

Under such circumstances, with "rape" so ill-defined and used as little more than a political bludgeon, it is only reasonable that so-called "rapists" have parental visitation rights.

Yes, I would agree, and my emphasis (as you already figured) was a woman who is physically forced upon by a man.

These types of men, should have no rights with any child conceived during this type of violent intrusion.

[ClickyClack]

In our neighborhood, calling the city on other neighbors seems to be a sport, it goes around and around and around.

The latest thing that a bunch of us got reported for was having our garbage cans at the top of our driveway, not behind our fence.

Although, the official from the city agreed that it was ridiculous, gave us the written statement, and told us not to worry about it, that he wouldn't do anything over it.