[MineralMan]

"I hope you are kidding.
"

No, I'm not kidding at all. Locking some 18-year-old up for 17 years for oral sex with another kid just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Nobody was coerced. Nobody was violently injured. In fact, it sounds like they both wanted it.

Whether or not you see such behavior as a crime, this sentence was way excessive. Remember, had this boy been performing oral sex on a girl, he would have gotten probation or a short sentence.

No, I'm not kidding. I'm also not gay, in case you thought I was.

[cksharks]

So if I had sex with your 14yo daughter if you had one you would be ok with it. HMMMMMM

[aristeides]

Certainly the penalty seems excessive. But what makes it unconstitutional? And, to be more precise, what in the reasoning of Lawrence justifies finding it unconstitutional? If it isn't that the Supreme Court thinks that denying this boy the right to have sex with a 14-year-old boy intrudes into his personal and private life in such a way as to deny him the liberty to indulge in a homosexual lifestyle, I don't know what it could be.

[El Gato]

Whether or not you see such behavior as a crime, this sentence was way excessive. Remember, had this boy been performing oral sex on a girl, he would have gotten probation or a short sentence.

There is a vast difference in maturity between a 14 year old male and an 18 year old one. The maturity differences between a 14 year old girl and an 18 year old guy are not nearly so large, and between a 18 year old and 14 year old females slightly smaller yet. The 14 year old male could not consent. It's rape. One state laws, regarding marriage and other things, recognized this difference in ages of maturity between boys and girls, I don't know if any still do or not.