No, No, No, No!
Gotta protect those pedophiles. They are by and large liberals, don’tcha know!
Libs are so smart! And helpful, too! /S!
Hard to believe how insane we’ve become, or maybe it’s just me. When you think you’re the only rational one, maybe you’re irrational.
NAMBLA™ making it’s move.
No, No, No, No!
Clinton’s appointee to the USSC Ruth Bader Ginsburg once wrote a paper supporting lowering the age of consent to 11 or 12 if memory serves me correct.
The homosexual agenda has always served as the battering ram to society’s laws and mores to open the floodgates for the whole pornicopia. The sex positive agenda seeks to end all moral judgments over sexual pairings of ANY kind regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
“Conversely, having sex with a 12-year-old, when you’re 20, is scummy. But it doesn’t necessarily make you the kind of predator who has to be locked up” said the liberal.
This decriminalizes teen on teen sex, while still protecting them from adult predators.
Perhaps that rule could be codified into an actual law?
Well Amanda Hess, it did not take long for you and Slate too long. There are some who saw you and your filth coming a mile away. As I stated on this board before, “there coming for the children”.
And right after the unconstitutional legislation-from-the-bench, Poof, you show up and start talking about your crotch desires.
This paves the way for homosexuals to more effectively ‘groom’ their young and vulnerable prey.
Hey, if a six year-old was good enough for mohammid, it should be good enough for us here in the States!
With affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, and political correctness, the public schools will be hiring more and more of the homos. Just a thought for Mom and Dad.
There age of consent should remain 18, but also an age “window” (4 year?) that prevents stupid prosecutions. An 18 year old should not get into trouble for having relations with a 16 year old. However, a 21 year old having sex with a 16 year old is a problem.
In 1875, parliament raised the age of consent to 13; Life expectancy was about 40 as in in 1885.
Given our life expectancy, we should be RAISING the age of consent. Either that or my wife's cooking magazines are right and the hormone/antibotitic/genetic crap we are eating are making our kids mature earlier.
If you can have sex at 13, why should you be a dependent on a parent’s health insurance at 26?
Is sex with pre-pubescent children a part of Sharia Law or just a social convention among the muslim invaders of once-great Britain?
This is about Rotherham, not ‘protecting children’.
I said, in a couple posts that, man/boy is next.
As well as your Constitutionally protected right to public sex. I know its not in the USC but neither is queer marriage.
If there is no God or absolutes than anything goes.
You have to think like they do. That is “what really offends Christian, hetrosexual, honest working, people’s sensibilities”. Celebrating pedophiles and homosexuals as heros.
At some point the “state” will take over the church. They will talk of love, equality, and unity but no God.
The so called elite do not care what happens outside their gates as long as they are safe and secure.
You just know that when the first sentence in an article is oxymoronic, it isn't going anywhere useful.
Lower it to zero. Make all the Muslim men happy and protect the sheep at the same time.
How would that protect teenagers? They have no intention of protecting teenagers. They want free unrestricted sex of all kinds. The goal is to destroy all ideas of right and wrong acquired from parents and church.
The word “teenager” is overly broad. It is based on a specific peculiarlity of English numbers. It includes 13 and 18 year olds. Due to rapid development, there is little similarity.