Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hypocrisy or Discrimination??

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:31:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Gay rights advocates constantly lambaste the Catholic Church for it's handling of pedophiles, and I think all people are right to be concerned about pedophiles. However, I find it troubling that those in favor of gay rights seem to think that those laws against sex with children shouldn't apply to gays, and are screaming discrimination, in this case.

I'm confounded by the reaction to the charges filed against this woman for sex with a 14 year old. How is this case any different than what the priests did, am I missing something??
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:35:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:31:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Gay rights advocates constantly lambaste the Catholic Church for it's handling of pedophiles, and I think all people are right to be concerned about pedophiles. However, I find it troubling that those in favor of gay rights seem to think that those laws against sex with children shouldn't apply to gays, and are screaming discrimination, in this case.

I'm confounded by the reaction to the charges filed against this woman for sex with a 14 year old. How is this case any different than what the priests did, am I missing something??

"Kaitlyn Hunt is a bright young girl who was involved in a consensual, same-sex relationship while both she and her partner were minors". She got charged as soon as she turned 18. The relationship began when they were both under 18. In contrast, the priests started abusing kids knowing fully well that they the priests were above legal age and the kids were minors.

Try again.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:04:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If a child is under the legal age of consent in that state, then consent is not a defense. That clearly is the case here, the girl is still a child and does not have the legal right to consent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:12:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:35:49 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:31:39 AM, medic0506 wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Gay rights advocates constantly lambaste the Catholic Church for it's handling of pedophiles, and I think all people are right to be concerned about pedophiles. However, I find it troubling that those in favor of gay rights seem to think that those laws against sex with children shouldn't apply to gays, and are screaming discrimination, in this case.

I'm confounded by the reaction to the charges filed against this woman for sex with a 14 year old. How is this case any different than what the priests did, am I missing something??

"Kaitlyn Hunt is a bright young girl who was involved in a consensual, same-sex relationship while both she and her partner were minors". She got charged as soon as she turned 18. The relationship began when they were both under 18. In contrast, the priests started abusing kids knowing fully well that they the priests were above legal age and the kids were minors.

Try again.

I'm not at all disagreeing with you about the priests, I agree that they should be charged and jailed, just like anybody else should be. But I disagree that exceptions to the law should be made for gay adults who commit the same crime with minors who are under the age of consent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:23:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.

No, Kaitlyn didn't get charged until she had TURNED 18. Before that, it was a simple case of two minors in a relationship.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:10:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:23:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.

No, Kaitlyn didn't get charged until she had TURNED 18. Before that, it was a simple case of two minors in a relationship.

It's still someone over the age of consent having sex with a child who is under the age of consent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:23:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.

No, Kaitlyn didn't get charged until she had TURNED 18. Before that, it was a simple case of two minors in a relationship.

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 12:32:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well the case is different, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be legal ramifications.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:17:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:04:43 AM, medic0506 wrote:
If a child is under the legal age of consent in that state, then consent is not a defense. That clearly is the case here, the girl is still a child and does not have the legal right to consent.

Except that legal stipulations which impose uniform measures of when someone can consent rarely apply across the board.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:20:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.

(1) They were both originally minors. One of the girls was just a bit older so turned 18 before her partner. The level of relational characteristics necessary for consent (whatever they are) didn't change.

(2) There obviously is a difference considering the fact that one scenario has to do with two people within a high age proximity whereas the other involves a fully grown man and a child (who would most likely not be considered able to consent even under relevant [non-legal, universal] criterion).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:35:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:23:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.

No, Kaitlyn didn't get charged until she had TURNED 18. Before that, it was a simple case of two minors in a relationship.

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

What changed in their relationship exactly that made it perfectly acceptable a day before but deserving legal ramifications after? I mean in actuality, as to the relational constitution of their relationship.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?

No, it was immoral and should also have been illegal from the very beginning.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:26:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:25:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?

No, it was immoral and should also have been illegal from the very beginning.

So all relationships before the age of 18 are immoral? Seriously?
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:28:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:25:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?

No, it was immoral and should also have been illegal from the very beginning.

Why? They were both minors at the time the relationship started. There are relationships like that between minors all the time.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:35:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:28:17 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/22/2013 3:25:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?

No, it was immoral and should also have been illegal from the very beginning.

Why? They were both minors at the time the relationship started. There are relationships like that between minors all the time.

The real issue seems to be that the other child's parents got super angry that their child was in a gay relationship and then sought to ruin Kaitlyn's life. But she is not a predator. Making a comparison between her and the priests is just flat out wrong and offensive.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:40:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Both sides are blowing it out of proportion.

First this clearly falls under Romeo and Juliet laws. Some areas it's consent at 15 & 16 but no more than 5 years older. It varies all over the place, but these kinds of laws usually cover this.

Second it's not uncommon for parents to do this to a guy who's dating their daughter. If you're turning 18 and are dating someone younger, even by a day or two. You might want to be familure with the local laws and make sure that your significant others parents don't have it out for you.

However, the parents and police will have a problem if sexual contact hadn't been made after she turned 18. They'll run the risk of an ex post facto argument. Oh and they'd run the risk of convicting their own daughter since she was guilty of having sex with a minor as well.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:40:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The consent required for sexual relationships is based on the same principles as minors not being tried as adults. If they had been criminally liable when the relationship first started, they would also have been able to give consent and no crime would have been committed. You can't have it both ways just because you're scared of gayness.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 3:54:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This example has nothing to do with homosexuality. Even the example were wrong, it would be so due to AGE and not sexual orientation. A heterosexual couple in exactly the same circumstance would be just as wrong.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 4:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:20:24 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:18:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:55:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
There's a bit of a difference between two minors being in an actual relationship and a 40-something priest fondling an alter boy.

One girl is an adult and the other is a minor, under the age of consent. There is no difference, nor should the law allow exceptions to that rule.

(1) They were both originally minors. One of the girls was just a bit older so turned 18 before her partner. The level of relational characteristics necessary for consent (whatever they are) didn't change.

(2) There obviously is a difference considering the fact that one scenario has to do with two people within a high age proximity whereas the other involves a fully grown man and a child (who would most likely not be considered able to consent even under relevant criterion).

There you're applying the inability of a minor to consent, in the correct way. Why would you not apply it the same way to this girl?? If the child is too young to consent then everything else is irrelevant.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 4:23:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:26:51 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 3:25:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?

No, it was immoral and should also have been illegal from the very beginning.

So all relationships before the age of 18 are immoral? Seriously?

No, just the ones involving sexual contact with a child.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 4:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:28:17 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 5/22/2013 3:25:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 12:35:56 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/22/2013 11:11:45 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Did she end the relationship when she turned 18??

Did it magically become immoral when she went from being 1 second less than 18 to being 18?

No, it was immoral and should also have been illegal from the very beginning.

Why? They were both minors at the time the relationship started. There are relationships like that between minors all the time.

The older teen should have known better. If she's mature enough to be having sex then she's mature enough to be held responsible for knowing the age laws.

I agree that those relationships are frequent, but that doesn't make it ok. It's still sex with a child who isn't old enough to give consent. If parents find out and report it then the older girl should indeed be charged.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 4:45:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Both are unlawful practices. I said unlawful. That doesn't mean I think the law is correct.

Some of the youth (teens) of today are utterly **********. A lot of them have a lot sex and druggyness and laziness and shyttiness when they are young.

The case here is is that the law states a minor cannot have sex with a non-minor, but minors can have sex with minors. So their sex actually turned less lawful when they both got older. A case of ridiculousness.

The difference between the cases is this: one involves a large age discrepancy, 40-14, and the child was likely unconsenting, while the other involves 2 people of similar age, 18-16, and it was obviously consentual.

And please don't say it's because they are gay. Gay marriage is split 50/50. It's not statistically possible for a majority of people to discriminate against anti-gays. It's just not.
0x5f3759df
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 4:51:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:54:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
This example has nothing to do with homosexuality. Even the example were wrong, it would be so due to AGE and not sexual orientation. A heterosexual couple in exactly the same circumstance would be just as wrong.

Just to clarify (given I've put it in a clumsy way), the judgement of whether this relationship is wrong has nothing to do with homosexuality. It's an age of consent issue.

The only way this would be a sexual orientation issue would be if there was different treatment of homosexual and heterosexual relationships of identical circumstance.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 5:21:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 4:51:51 PM, unitedandy wrote:


The only way this would be a sexual orientation issue would be if there was different treatment of homosexual and heterosexual relationships of identical circumstance.

Well, that's the issue here, I believe, because as a general rule boys aren't prosecuted for felony sexual crimes for having consensual (in the colloquial, not legal since the partner was on the other side of 18) sex with their significant other.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 5:22:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 3:54:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
This example has nothing to do with homosexuality. Even the example were wrong, it would be so due to AGE and not sexual orientation. A heterosexual couple in exactly the same circumstance would be just as wrong.

I agree 110%. What I don't get is why gay rights advocates are standing up for this girl, who obviously commited the crime of sex with a minor.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 5:25:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 4:45:24 PM, Bullish wrote:
Both are unlawful practices. I said unlawful. That doesn't mean I think the law is correct.

Some of the youth (teens) of today are utterly **********. A lot of them have a lot sex and druggyness and laziness and shyttiness when they are young.

The case here is is that the law states a minor cannot have sex with a non-minor, but minors can have sex with minors. So their sex actually turned less lawful when they both got older. A case of ridiculousness.

The difference between the cases is this: one involves a large age discrepancy, 40-14, and the child was likely unconsenting, while the other involves 2 people of similar age, 18-16, and it was obviously consentual.

The younger girl was 14, below the age of consent.

And please don't say it's because they are gay. Gay marriage is split 50/50. It's not statistically possible for a majority of people to discriminate against anti-gays. It's just not.
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 5:43:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 5:25:10 PM, medic0506 wrote:

The younger girl was 14, below the age of consent.


And I agreed with you. It's not legal. Like it said at the end of the article. The people are mad because this happens very often without any legal action, but this one was reported, and the public thinks its because the girls were gay.
0x5f3759df