cawacko
Well-known member
what he said. you've posted here long enough that it's pretty transparent when you do it Jarod.
Teen Sex...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
what he said. you've posted here long enough that it's pretty transparent when you do it Jarod.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Five slams in a row by five different people. How do you feel being an epic failure, Jarod?
cawacko
Well-known member
Your question asked about teen sex and now you are saying unmarried sex. I would hope you are aware there are some teens who get married and there are unmarried people in their 20's and older.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well then you should be able to provide an example of ONE of them stating that. My guess is you are going to have a very hard time finding ONE.... let alone 'plenty'.
Virginia and Six Other States Still Classify Cohabitation as Illegal
Laws: Couples living together outside marriage can be cited for "lewd, lascivious" conduct and rejected for certain jobs.
August 20, 2001 by Robin Fields
The question lurked toward the bottom of a six-page affidavit, part of her application to become a juvenile probation officer in Phoenix. "Are you living in open and notorious cohabitation?" it asked, adding that doing so was a misdemeanor sex offense that would disqualify her for employment.
"I thought, well, I keep the blinds closed," said Debbie Deem of her then eight-year live-in relationship with her male partner. "This is none of the state's business." At a time when new census data show that more American couples than ever are living together outside marriage, seven states still ban such arrangements. Arizona is no longer one of them, having repealed its law in May.
But in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, "lewd and lascivious" male-female cohabitation remains illegal, a reminder that in parts of the nation, the conservative past still rubs up against the more liberal present.
Most such laws date from the 19th century; several lump cohabitation in with prohibitions against adultery and fornication. Typically, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a short prison term or a fine of up to $500. The statutes are rarely enforced, but they still can have dramatic effects, even if violators are never directly charged.
The state of Virginia, for example, has threatened not to renew the home day-care license of a Norfolk woman because a state inspector categorized her live-in partner of 17 years as her companion, rather than as a boarder, as previous inspectors had done. The ACLU has taken up her case. "I was really upset," said Darlene Davis, adding that she had never misrepresented her relationship to state regulators. "This is how I make my living. Why now, after all these years?"
In Charlotte, N.C., U.S. Magistrate Carl Horn habitually asks defendants, regardless of why they are before him, if their living arrangements violate the state's no-cohabitation law. If so, he refuses to release them unless they agree to marry, move or get their partner to relocate.
Dozens of people have been moved to marry, and at least one has proposed right in the courtroom. In states where private citizens can file misdemeanor criminal charges without triggering police investigations, people sometimes pursue cohabitation complaints against former spouses, often to gain leverage in divorce or custody disputes, attorneys said.
The laws do not appear to provide much of a deterrent to cohabitation, however. In the decade of the '90s, the number of unmarried-partner households nearly doubled from about 500,000 to more than 930,000 in the seven states that still ban cohabitation. By comparison, the nation overall experienced a 15% increase in the number of such households.
Gay-rights and singles-rights groups have joined forces to lobby against the measures still lingering on the books. "It's out of sync with reality," said Thomas Coleman, executive director of the American Assn. for Single People. Debbie Deem had a different solution. Sick of feeling like an outcast in Arizona, she moved to California several years ago, settling in Camarillo. "After a certain point, I just said, 'Get me out of here,' " she said. "If I'm considered a sex offender . . . it's time to go."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/7_states.htm
Laws: Couples living together outside marriage can be cited for "lewd, lascivious" conduct and rejected for certain jobs.
August 20, 2001 by Robin Fields
The question lurked toward the bottom of a six-page affidavit, part of her application to become a juvenile probation officer in Phoenix. "Are you living in open and notorious cohabitation?" it asked, adding that doing so was a misdemeanor sex offense that would disqualify her for employment.
"I thought, well, I keep the blinds closed," said Debbie Deem of her then eight-year live-in relationship with her male partner. "This is none of the state's business." At a time when new census data show that more American couples than ever are living together outside marriage, seven states still ban such arrangements. Arizona is no longer one of them, having repealed its law in May.
But in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, "lewd and lascivious" male-female cohabitation remains illegal, a reminder that in parts of the nation, the conservative past still rubs up against the more liberal present.
Most such laws date from the 19th century; several lump cohabitation in with prohibitions against adultery and fornication. Typically, the offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a short prison term or a fine of up to $500. The statutes are rarely enforced, but they still can have dramatic effects, even if violators are never directly charged.
The state of Virginia, for example, has threatened not to renew the home day-care license of a Norfolk woman because a state inspector categorized her live-in partner of 17 years as her companion, rather than as a boarder, as previous inspectors had done. The ACLU has taken up her case. "I was really upset," said Darlene Davis, adding that she had never misrepresented her relationship to state regulators. "This is how I make my living. Why now, after all these years?"
In Charlotte, N.C., U.S. Magistrate Carl Horn habitually asks defendants, regardless of why they are before him, if their living arrangements violate the state's no-cohabitation law. If so, he refuses to release them unless they agree to marry, move or get their partner to relocate.
Dozens of people have been moved to marry, and at least one has proposed right in the courtroom. In states where private citizens can file misdemeanor criminal charges without triggering police investigations, people sometimes pursue cohabitation complaints against former spouses, often to gain leverage in divorce or custody disputes, attorneys said.
The laws do not appear to provide much of a deterrent to cohabitation, however. In the decade of the '90s, the number of unmarried-partner households nearly doubled from about 500,000 to more than 930,000 in the seven states that still ban cohabitation. By comparison, the nation overall experienced a 15% increase in the number of such households.
Gay-rights and singles-rights groups have joined forces to lobby against the measures still lingering on the books. "It's out of sync with reality," said Thomas Coleman, executive director of the American Assn. for Single People. Debbie Deem had a different solution. Sick of feeling like an outcast in Arizona, she moved to California several years ago, settling in Camarillo. "After a certain point, I just said, 'Get me out of here,' " she said. "If I'm considered a sex offender . . . it's time to go."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/7_states.htm
I am asking about a variety of subjects.
cawacko
Well-known member
So now you are just all over the board just throwing out sh*t. Good lord.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Such is the beauty of a federalist system. If people don't like the laws in their state, then they can choose to live in another. That's exactly what we conservatives are saying about heath care legislation.
Topspin
Verified User
Or you, so I don't feel so bad. LOL
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i'm calling bullshit....name one person who wants that
you don't want discussion, you just want to bash conservatives, so why not just be honest and cut the bull and stop acting like you really want discussion
Ill admit it, I was wrong about some of you...
I feel better about the state of cons in American than I did prior to this post, if you really do not belive in the government getting into people's private lives.
What about drug laws? Should drugs be illegal?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Conservatives believe that people should police themselves. That's why we tout "personal responsibility". These folks can fuck their brains up with drugs all day long, just ask me to pay for the consequences of their actions.
So what is your opinion or Reagan's war on Drugs?
Quayle never suggested making it illegal, just that it was a poor example.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It was a waste of time. Laws on the books should be enforced. If not, repeal them.
The War on Drugs has been going on for well over 40 years, not just 20 or so... Eisenhower created it as an all out effort to stamp out narcotics in 1954, Nixon first coined the phrase "war on drugs" in 1973...
Why would you say it was "Reagan's War on Drugs?" Are you always historically inaccurate or only when you believe it is something negative and want to desperately associate it to one person without regard to the other ten Presidents who have waged it?
And if you pretend you don't know my opinion on the "War on Drugs" then you really do actually ignore what people have said over years so that you can continue in whatever your assumption of the day is.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Most folks sense of history goes along with what they have personally witnessed. Nancy Reagan popularized "Just say no" and that's what most folks think of when the talk about "war on drugs".