Posted on 06/27/2003 12:59:10 PM PDT by Stingray51
In fact, I never refer to the families of FR members and you swould do well to do the same.
Apparently you ignored the first part of the post but be my guest, go to any high school and poll the young men on whether there would be a difference in the trauma if they were raped by a woman or a man.
Let me know how it turns out.
I wasn't being fallacious. I was simply wrong, because I focused on the 3year+?week? age diff. and skimmed the article anyway. They're still peers. "And minors are not legally able to give consent so you are wrong there as well."
I know full well about the age of consent. Peers don't see it that way, especially youth peers. The adults posing as rational people should know that. That's why this conclusion is good =>"Actually I agree that 17 years is too long a sentence if the 18 year old was developmentally impaired.
The issue is can homosexual rape be deserving of a more severe penalty than heterosexual rape.
Rape is a crime deserving a major penalty and when it's done by an otherwise competent adult I tend to sentences approching infinity. Rape of women is almost always worse, because they are naturally less able to defend themselves. In fact it's not a sexual thing usually, it's a power thing. Rapists don't usually attack men for that reason. If they do it's to someone that makes for what the rapist sees as an easy time. Both are vicious attacks on the person and how close the sentence I give comes to infinity depends on how heinous the particulars were.
I hadn't considered that because I was thinking in terms of men raping young boys, not prison rape, but it's a point to be considered.
Perhaps you were thinking that you were referring to men/boys as victims only but it didn't come out that way. It sounded like you were saying that heterosexual rape (man-on-woman/girl) wasn't as bad as homosexual rape (man-on-man/boy), that the man/boy victim would be more traumatized than the woman/girl.
Thank you for clearing that up in your response.
You discussing your beliefs about rape trauma with anybody was merely rhetorical, you're nothing more than an anonymous writer on a bulletin board ... no one gives a fig about your family or acquaintenaces on here, or mine for that matter ... but your advice is always good for any internet discussions.
In 1948, when a theretofore obscure researcher named Kinsey came out with his findings on sexuality, would you have dismissed people who might have worried that his findings would be grounds for lessening the punishment for sex crimes and bringing on "no fault" divorce? In the 1950s, when Hugh Hefner successfully mass marketed the "Playboy philosophy" and Helen Gurley Brown turned Cosmopolitan into a bully pulpit for promiscuity, would you have ignored those who foresaw the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s? In the early 1960s, when the Supreme Court extended First Amendment protection to pornography (contrary to the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution), would you have laughed at those who foresaw the floodgates opening for magazines (and later video) that would make Playboy seem mild? Later that decade, when both the Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches shut down their Hollywood watchdog offices, would you have been critical of those who predicted that motion pictures (and later television) would be swamped with foul language, graphic violence, and raw sex? In 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association denied that homosexuality was a type of mental disorder, would you have considered those who feared that sodomy would be normalized to be hysterical?
That there is no conspiracy in this matter is true, humanly speaking. However, the advocates of sexual permissiveness and the elimination of the Judeo-Christian moral code have followed the same pattern as have the socialists and secular humanists: slow, steady, and relentless pursuit of their goals. This pattern, once called Fabian Socialism in the governmental and economic fields, has been used to subvert the foundations of American and Western society for over a century. Do not doubt for a moment that the adherents of elimination of all laws regulating sexual conduct are rejoicing.
Our enemies do not consciously conspire on the grand scale, as some think. Yet they are motivated by a clear goal: the overthrow of Western civilization and Christianity, along with the morality, decency, and liberty with which America and the Western democracies have been blessed.
and girls => death by a dragged out beating if they have positive proof.
They may be, but they cannot force YOU to act immorally.
Keeping your head while everyone around you is losing theirs is the sign of a wise man.
Very good. Preoccupation with sex isn't limited to the porno types. It happens with others too. The leftists know that and use it as a diversionary tool to rattle cages. With the porno types they push it as a pacifier to keep 'em dumbed down, preoccupied and annoyed by the ones in the cage.
How do you determine "consequence to the victim" legally?
I really don't understand your reasoning here.
To me, rape is rape. It's about violence, not sex.
However, since you chimed in.
Do you believe that the trauma to a young boy raped by a man or a woman is equal?
Is trauma the right word?
How does one judge that?
So it would seem that the Supreme Court was in fact using a kind of strict or elevated scrutiny, as Scalia complained in Lawrence yesterday. If it's because sodomy is a fundamental right, then that fundamental right appears to include the right to molest a 14-year-old boy. If it's because homosexuals have now become a protected class, it appears that class now includes molesters of 14-year-old boys.
Well, let me ask another question then: does the Kansas legislature have the constitutional right to legislate on the belief that the trauma to the boy is greater if he is raped by a man?
I dunno, how about the hate crimes thing. You know the one where you get more time if you use an epithet while beating the hell out of somebody rather than just beating the hell out of somebody. After all, that's Constitutional, right?
No. I've got puzzlement overload already from this thread.
One question at a time.
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.