Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Teens And Sex **

inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 8:46:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now this story is about a young lady, in her teens, and is being charged with a crime of having sex with a minor. Now here is the deal.............The person she had the sexual relationship with is not a boy. But it is a girl, so surprise. Should she be punished for this, or not. You be the judge. More on this later you guys. But the rest of the story is on the link posted below.
Thank you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
sakicnut
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 8:47:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not going to lie, i rubbed one out after reading that article. Let the lesbo's having their vagina fun.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 8:52:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 8:47:51 AM, sakicnut wrote:
Not going to lie, i rubbed one out after reading that article. Let the lesbo's having their vagina fun.

So are you saying that even though her sexual partner was a female, let the ignorance of the law banner be thrown.
Okay, I agree too. It is a complete waste of time.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.


Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:25:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.

My point is that the age that magically turns a "teen" into an "adult" is arbitrary. I didn't say anything about 18 year olds being allowed to drink.


Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.

Not in this case. And I challenge you to state a case.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:29:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:25:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.

My point is that the age that magically turns a "teen" into an "adult" is arbitrary. I didn't say anything about 18 year olds being allowed to drink.


Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.

Not in this case. And I challenge you to state a case.

So why is it wrong for an 18 year old to sleep with a 17 year old.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:24:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

So why would it be legal for a 16 year old to sleep with a 17 year old, but it would be illegal the following year? Age of consent laws should be replaced with something along the lines of "both parties are over 18 OR are within x years of each other's age".
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:30:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
first problem i have with that article. the picture /video says gay teen. girls cannot be gay. i will continue reading and see what else makes my insides twist
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:33:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
those parents of the 15 year-old just piss me off
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 7:44:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 8:46:07 AM, inferno wrote:
Now this story is about a young lady, in her teens, and is being charged with a crime of having sex with a minor. Now here is the deal.............The person she had the sexual relationship with is not a boy. But it is a girl, so surprise. Should she be punished for this, or not. You be the judge. More on this later you guys. But the rest of the story is on the link posted below.
Thank you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Florida's Romeo laws are a bit odd, but essentially at least the 18 year old has a way not to be put on a sex offender registry. It seems that prosecutorial discretion is no more than a fantasy. To be clear, I'm not saying that the age of consent should be any less than 18 -but rather that two years is an acceptable range for people under the age of 21 (such that an 18 and a 16 year old should be able to date, a 19 and 17 year old, etc.).

http://www.flsenate.gov...

Ethically, I see a problem with prosecuting high school age students for having sexual intercourse with other high school aged students -but I equally see a problem with a senior in high school "hooking up" with a freshman or a sophomore.

As a legal matter, though, making an issue of this is a magnificent exercise in stupidity. It's a family issue, that ought to be resolved by parents -that has no place in the judicial system. Moreover, the line that suggests that "this would have been prosecuted the same way if it were a hetero relationship" is patent bullsh!t. Were it not a lesbian or gay couple, this would have been dealt with out of courts.

In any case, here we see a brilliant example of when stupid politicians make stupid laws which are enforced by equally stupid people. Reason is lost at every step along the way... and at the expense of both of these girls' lives and wellbeing. Utterly disgraceful.
Tsar of DDO
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:08:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:25:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.

My point is that the age that magically turns a "teen" into an "adult" is arbitrary. I didn't say anything about 18 year olds being allowed to drink.

Refer to bolded.



Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.

Not in this case. And I challenge you to state a case.

In the case of Liparota v. United States, Liparota was found not guilty for reason of ignorance of the law. United States v. Wetzenhoff is another good example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 6:11:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Aren't there laws that make these type of situations easier to resolve if both partners are in a similar age category? Also, I think it's ludicrous that their relationship was legal one day and illegal the next.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 7:17:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 6:11:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Aren't there laws that make these type of situations easier to resolve if both partners are in a similar age category?

In Florida, such provisions do not apply to anyone aged 15 or under. I know in Manitoba, where I'm from, the law is, colloquially, known as the 4 year rule. It doesn't matter how old either of you are, if at least one of you is under 18, you have to be within 4 years of age.

Also, I think it's ludicrous that their relationship was legal one day and illegal the next.

As does any reasonable person.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 8:50:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 8:46:07 AM, inferno wrote:
Now this story is about a young lady, in her teens, and is being charged with a crime of having sex with a minor. Now here is the deal.............The person she had the sexual relationship with is not a boy. But it is a girl, so surprise. Should she be punished for this, or not. You be the judge. More on this later you guys. But the rest of the story is on the link posted below.
Thank you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I just want to know why the parents pressed the charges when "that their "mutual consenting relationship" had been known to both parents for months prior to the arrest." Something must have gone wrong...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 9:04:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 3:24:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

So why would it be legal for a 16 year old to sleep with a 17 year old, but it would be illegal the following year? Age of consent laws should be replaced with something along the lines of "both parties are over 18 OR are within x years of each other's age".

A lot of states have rules like this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 9:21:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:29:55 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:25:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.

My point is that the age that magically turns a "teen" into an "adult" is arbitrary. I didn't say anything about 18 year olds being allowed to drink.


Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.

Not in this case. And I challenge you to state a case.

So why is it wrong for an 18 year old to sleep with a 17 year old.

The law's purpose is to provide a clear delineation between the time when an individual can take responsibility for his/her own actions, and when he/she can't. There's no question that both states of being exist, the only question is when is that line crossed.

In most states that line is 18 years old - this coincides with other life events that convey responsibility upon an individual, like voting, selective service (for men), and graduating from high school (i.e. relinquishing 8 hours of free baby-sitting from the government). If an individual can make independent decisions to cope with this new level of freedom and responsibility, then they can sure as hell decide who to fvck and when to fvck, as well as face the consequences for being irresponsible in how they make that decision (i.e. the OP). I think you would agree that it's irresponsible to have sex with a minor, the main issues you seem to have is in figuring out exactly when a person becomes responsible, and exactly what is a minor.

If you can think of an easier and more efficient way to draw this line, I'm sure lawmakers all across the country would be interested in your solution.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
leojm
Posts: 1,825
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 9:42:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
inferno; Sometimes the things you post just really worries me. I'm constantly a tad confused on your points, I don't know if I'm just that blond or what. :/
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:49:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 9:21:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:29:55 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:25:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.

My point is that the age that magically turns a "teen" into an "adult" is arbitrary. I didn't say anything about 18 year olds being allowed to drink.


Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.

Not in this case. And I challenge you to state a case.

So why is it wrong for an 18 year old to sleep with a 17 year old.

The law's purpose is to provide a clear delineation between the time when an individual can take responsibility for his/her own actions, and when he/she can't. There's no question that both states of being exist, the only question is when is that line crossed.

In most states that line is 18 years old - this coincides with other life events that convey responsibility upon an individual, like voting, selective service (for men), and graduating from high school (i.e. relinquishing 8 hours of free baby-sitting from the government). If an individual can make independent decisions to cope with this new level of freedom and responsibility, then they can sure as hell decide who to fvck and when to fvck, as well as face the consequences for being irresponsible in how they make that decision (i.e. the OP). I think you would agree that it's irresponsible to have sex with a minor, the main issues you seem to have is in figuring out exactly when a person becomes responsible, and exactly what is a minor.

If you can think of an easier and more efficient way to draw this line, I'm sure lawmakers all across the country would be interested in your solution.

I've got a solution - hire programmers to make laws , since programmers would be more inclined to actually look at all possible cases, and would want to handle all cases. That way, our laws wouldn't be an ambiguous mess full of loopholes and gray areas.

But on a more serious note, we really do need more clearly defined laws that are written acknowledging all possibilities.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:24:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've got a solution - hire programmers to make laws , since programmers would be more inclined to actually look at all possible cases, and would want to handle all cases. That way, our laws wouldn't be an ambiguous mess full of loopholes and gray areas.

But on a more serious note, we really do need more clearly defined laws that are written acknowledging all possibilities.

It is almost impossible to image all possibilities. Same-sex marriage for example. Framers apparently cannot foresee the force of such social movement even if they want to. Besides, programmers don't consider all possibility. They consider the likelihood. And law is no math. Law is purposely constructed to have some ambiguity in order to include many unforeseeable possibilities.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 10:08:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 9:21:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:29:55 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:25:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:03:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:00:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/28/2013 9:06:04 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/28/2013 8:58:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Medic already made a topic about this where he, predictably, compared it to the pedophile preists.

Pedophile priests. Hmmmmmm. But the relationship was consentual. So I dont know why it is a crime for an 18 year old to sleep with another teen. Its odd if you ask me. This is not the law in other parts of the world.

Teens are minors; in the eyes of the law they are not capable of independent decision-making. That's why they can't vote, can't drive, can't drink, etc. The parents were perfectly justified to press charges if they wanted to do so.

That drinking age in america is 21, and I'm not aware of anywhere that sets the driving age at higher than 17.

My point is that the age that magically turns a "teen" into an "adult" is arbitrary. I didn't say anything about 18 year olds being allowed to drink.


Is the age of 18 arbitrary in determining "adulthood"? Yes. Regardless, it is the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Actually, in some cases, ignorance of the law is a valid excuse, as it should be.

Not in this case. And I challenge you to state a case.

So why is it wrong for an 18 year old to sleep with a 17 year old.

The law's purpose is to provide a clear delineation between the time when an individual can take responsibility for his/her own actions, and when he/she can't. There's no question that both states of being exist, the only question is when is that line crossed.

In most states that line is 18 years old - this coincides with other life events that convey responsibility upon an individual, like voting, selective service (for men), and graduating from high school (i.e. relinquishing 8 hours of free baby-sitting from the government). If an individual can make independent decisions to cope with this new level of freedom and responsibility, then they can sure as hell decide who to fvck and when to fvck, as well as face the consequences for being irresponsible in how they make that decision (i.e. the OP). I think you would agree that it's irresponsible to have sex with a minor, the main issues you seem to have is in figuring out exactly when a person becomes responsible, and exactly what is a minor.

If you can think of an easier and more efficient way to draw this line, I'm sure lawmakers all across the country would be interested in your solution.

There is a very easy solution. It's called a Romeo clause.
Tsar of DDO
inferno
Posts: 10,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 8:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 9:42:25 AM, leojm wrote:
inferno; Sometimes the things you post just really worries me. I'm constantly a tad confused on your points, I don't know if I'm just that blond or what. :/

More exaggerated theories. My posts, since you may or may not be familliar with them are quite controversial always. Nothing I say here is in sync with the status quo or conventional thinking. Did you get that. =)
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 1:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let YHWH be the judge.

Society asks for it and they get it, disobedience, whoring, incest. YHWH said He will give them over to their own lusts in accordance to their disobedience to Him.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 1:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 8:44:16 AM, inferno wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:42:25 AM, leojm wrote:
inferno; Sometimes the things you post just really worries me. I'm constantly a tad confused on your points, I don't know if I'm just that blond or what. :/

More exaggerated theories. My posts, since you may or may not be familliar with them are quite controversial always. Nothing I say here is in sync with the status quo or conventional thinking. Did you get that. =)

Yahshua could use one who strays from the status quo. Repent and follow Him. He could change your name from inferno to Fire4Ruach (Fire4Spirit) Just a thought.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 6:33:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 10:08:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:21:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The law's purpose is to provide a clear delineation between the time when an individual can take responsibility for his/her own actions, and when he/she can't. There's no question that both states of being exist, the only question is when is that line crossed.

In most states that line is 18 years old - this coincides with other life events that convey responsibility upon an individual, like voting, selective service (for men), and graduating from high school (i.e. relinquishing 8 hours of free baby-sitting from the government). If an individual can make independent decisions to cope with this new level of freedom and responsibility, then they can sure as hell decide who to fvck and when to fvck, as well as face the consequences for being irresponsible in how they make that decision (i.e. the OP). I think you would agree that it's irresponsible to have sex with a minor, the main issues you seem to have is in figuring out exactly when a person becomes responsible, and exactly what is a minor.

If you can think of an easier and more efficient way to draw this line, I'm sure lawmakers all across the country would be interested in your solution.

There is a very easy solution. It's called a Romeo clause.

This brings with it a bunch of other problems. Should two minors that are "irresponsible" be allowed to have sex?

I can see a line being drawn (say, 18 years old) and 2 years over/under wouldn't be criminal, but without that line drawn, I would easily see this causing problems.

Then people will start bitching about 18 year olds sleeping with teens that are 15.999 years old, etc...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 6:54:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 6:33:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/29/2013 10:08:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 9:21:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

The law's purpose is to provide a clear delineation between the time when an individual can take responsibility for his/her own actions, and when he/she can't. There's no question that both states of being exist, the only question is when is that line crossed.

In most states that line is 18 years old - this coincides with other life events that convey responsibility upon an individual, like voting, selective service (for men), and graduating from high school (i.e. relinquishing 8 hours of free baby-sitting from the government). If an individual can make independent decisions to cope with this new level of freedom and responsibility, then they can sure as hell decide who to fvck and when to fvck, as well as face the consequences for being irresponsible in how they make that decision (i.e. the OP). I think you would agree that it's irresponsible to have sex with a minor, the main issues you seem to have is in figuring out exactly when a person becomes responsible, and exactly what is a minor.

If you can think of an easier and more efficient way to draw this line, I'm sure lawmakers all across the country would be interested in your solution.

There is a very easy solution. It's called a Romeo clause.

This brings with it a bunch of other problems. Should two minors that are "irresponsible" be allowed to have sex?

I agree with you that kids (all people under the age of 18) probably shouldn't have sex, but the fact is that they do whether they are told they are allowed to or not. What concerns me is when laws are made that do more harm than good (like defining statutory rape as when an 18 year old has consensual sex with a 16 year old).

I can see a line being drawn (say, 18 years old) and 2 years over/under wouldn't be criminal, but without that line drawn, I would easily see this causing problems.

To the extent that I am aware it's Romeo clauses are usually +/-2 years, but some go to as many as 4. That said, I'm more comfortable with two years and I'd draw the line at 3 years. I'll admit that I don't have a good reason for three and not four years, though.

Then people will start bitching about 18 year olds sleeping with teens that are 15.999 years old, etc...

And that will be a problem, but it's less of a problem than an 18 year old having to register as a sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16 year old.

The whole concept of regulatory legislation with sex just irritates me though. While I understand that lawmakers want to limit kids sexual activity (and with good cause), there is no policy that will stop all teenagers under the age of 18 from having sex. The sex-crazed adolescent thing is a cultural problem, which policy just can't change -and to the extent that it does try to change, it risks doing more harm than good.
Tsar of DDO