Posted on 05/21/2013 8:41:38 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
So you are admitting that it would be different if it were your underage daughter?
Your underage daughter who legally cannot consent?
Your underage daughter who initiated the relationship because that would make it different somehow?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3022080/posts?page=53#53
“Yes, legally, but it’s not immaterial here on FR where we like to judge people.”
You are saying it’s immaterial.
“If the guy is 17 years 364 days old, it’s okay. If the guy is 17 years old and 365 days, it’s rape.”
Translation: If ONE is 17 years 364 days old, it’s okay. If ANOTHER ONE 17 years old and 365 days, it’s rape.
These kind of “letter of the law” interpretations are like “zero tolerance” policies; no one is allowed to make a reasoned judgement that puts an incident in context.
Full disclosure here - I am not talking about sexual assault, only mutually concensual sex.
Who knows how homosexual even the 18 yr. old really is either. Schools and popular culture push trying homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice” on anyone who’s remotely attracted to it.
An acquaintance of mine from church was called in to his son’s school guidance counselor. His 9 yr. old was wrestling with other boys, you know, what normal boys of that age do. The guidance counselor told my acquaintance that he believed the son was gay and that the parents should help him explore that.
I agree with you too that statutory rape laws can be a bit silly when it’s a match-up like 18 and 15.
May I assume that in your mind nothing untoward happened here? Just a case of pent-up meanies out to punish kids for being kids, eh?
“There’s a world of difference between a 15 year old girl and an 18 year old girl.”
That’s a gross over-generalization and the reality can vary widely.
Girls in the last century were better read and more educated at age 16 than most college graduates today.
Moreover, girls aged 16 in the last century weren’t considering “marriage” to other women.
And if the legal age of consent was 16 and if the girl’s birthday was one day after the boy’s, the parents would have had a one-day window in which to “get” the boy. Is that what the law was intended to do?
But it’s OK to judge people that they are judging people.
How hypocritical for scr to judge others for judging.
But it’s OK to judge people that they are judging people.
How hypocritical for scr to judge others for judging.
Yeah, you like that too?
Usually those that decry “judging” people have a known sin in their lives that they love so much they don’t want to give it up.
And, yes, there is an objective definition of what sin is. It’s given by the “Big 10”, and clarified by Jesus.
It doesn't really matter if the elder youth/person was 18 or 45 if the other was under the age of consent.
There are plenty of girls out there that have been ‘hooking’ for several years before they turn 16. That doesn't matter to the law.
FR is the only place on earth where people judge others.
Maybe you should realign your priorities so that you spend more time at the internet communities you frequent where judging people is assiduously avoided.
It’s not what those who wanted the law intended, but as the letter of the law goes that’s how the law reads and how it is enforced WHEN - and this is usually the case - THE PARENTS of the “younger” party lodge a complaint, and, this is usually the case, NOT because the “younger” party wanted to complain, felt preyed on or felt abused.
Yes, teens are immature human beings and teens are generally not physically, mentally, emotionally or intellectually mature enough to handle all the implications of having sexual relations.
And so, when they do parents need to be and often are rightly concerned. And if one is the victim of abuse ALL should be VERY concerned.
But staturatory rape and similar age-speficic zero tolerance laws and regulations, in their insistence of needing to paint one party, the older party, as always the guilty party, with no reasoning or judgement concerned with the actual context of either the relationship or the incident are not really about true right or wrong or true guilt or “innocence” but mere following of the letter of the law, blindly, because we will be charged with neglecting the innocence of our youth if we don’t.
I would give judges some room for their due consideration of all facts in any “statuatory rape” case - if they don’t already have it their state.
What would be different? I agreed with it being immaterial legally who started it, not that the situation is immaterial.
If you do the crime, you better be willing to do the time..all of our actions have consequences...be they good or bad...if the 18 yr old had been a boy...it would have been just as bad...if it had been a teacher...it would still be a crime...if you make mistakes,you will have to live with the consequences of your actions; don’t whine after the fact..
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Where would you draw it?
“The fact that there may be an immature 25 year old that finds a mature 14 year old a match, doesn’t mean we scrap a law that works in virtually every case”
Marriage, with parental consent, is allowed in this case. The PARENTS are given the authority to determine whether this is a love relationship or an exploitative relationship.
“A guy who is 18 dating a 16 year old girl for example. And then if he gets convicted he has to register as a sex offender”
Why is “dating” and “having sex” equivalent now?
I’d let my daughter date an 18 year old. But she sure as anything may not be having sex with him.
No one is advocating that an 18 year old can’t like or date someone younger than himself. Just that they can’t do it.
We are constantly indulging in situational ethics here, it’s one of the things that draw people here.
No, you may not assume that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.