Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spunkets
They were both minors in a nuthouse and there was an absence of force

This is what you said. It is a fallacious statement. And minors are not legally able to give consent so you are wrong there as well.

Actually I agree that 17 years is too long a sentence if the 18 year old was developmentally impaired. But that's not the issue.

The issue is can homosexual rape be deserving of a more severe penalty than heterosexual rape. My opinion is yes because while rape is a crime deserving a major penalty, I believe that homosexual rape is one level above heterosexual rape in consequence to the victim.

217 posted on 06/27/2003 5:40:17 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07
... I believe that homosexual rape is one level above heterosexual rape in consequence to the victim ...

Wow ... I'd be interested in the response you'd get from your mother, your sister, your wife or girlfriend, any woman you work with or know from church, if you ever brought this up for a general discussion with them.

Please, let us know how it goes.

219 posted on 06/27/2003 6:04:10 PM PDT by Camber-G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

To: jwalsh07
"It is a fallacious statement.

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.

222 posted on 06/27/2003 6:16:13 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

To: jwalsh07
The issue is can homosexual rape be deserving of a more severe penalty than heterosexual rape. My opinion is yes because while rape is a crime deserving a major penalty, I believe that homosexual rape is one level above heterosexual rape in consequence to the victim.

How do you determine "consequence to the victim" legally?

I really don't understand your reasoning here.

229 posted on 06/27/2003 6:51:29 PM PDT by sinkspur (Don't break your hand patting yourself on the back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson