A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Have Sex With Children, Too?

Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

[Clint N. Suhks]

So answer the question, what age do you suggest?

What ever age the legislature wants as long as you respect their right to make sodomy laws. What I want is irrelevant; my representative makes that decision, you make up any age you want to argue your point.

[Protagoras]

You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it. The question is about the legitimate role of government in a free society. The SCOTUS has decided that it is not legitimate to concern itself with non-rights violating consensual sexual activity among adults in privacy. They were correct, for a change.

[Protagoras]

So you laughed at the legislature making the law, and now you embrace it. Odd, very odd.

And your idea that what you want is irrelevant in a republican form of government is also odd. Actually, beyond odd.

[ArGee]

The ancient Greeks, for one, had never heard of the God of Abraham, but somehow managed to come up with the same ideas.

You would have to clarify whom you mean when you say "Ancient Greeks." I believe the Spartans had no compunction against murdering a child if the child were deemed to be of no value to the city-state.

Either there is an absolute moral law, or there is not. All you have done is said that someone in history agreed with you, therefore what you have found is a univerally recognized moral law.

Shalom.

[Clint N. Suhks]

So you laughed at the legislature making the law, and now you embrace it. Odd, very odd.

Not really, pointing out your flawed hypocritical logic of “consent” as the defining criterion for law was the exercise. That was the whooshing sound you heard over your head.

And your idea that what you want is irrelevant in a republican form of government is also odd. Actually, beyond odd.

Hyperbole becomes you. I make my decision at the ballot box for age of consent laws and so do you.

[weegee]

Minors cannot give consent.

Then why are some states age of consent laws under 18? On top of that, why do some states have a "Romeo & Juliet" clause that permits adult/minor and minor/minor relationships as long as the 2 partners are within 4 years of each other?

Age of consent laws are not consistent in this country (seems to be a state right to determine this, how arbitrary and "moral").

[Protagoras]

Not really, pointing out your flawed hypocritical logic of “consent” as the defining criterion for law was the exercise.

The exercise was one of futility. As for hypocritical, please explain if you can. You start with a flawed premise and expect a flawless conclusion. The only whooshing sound is the wind through your ears.

You still haven't said what age a person needs to be before he/she can give sexual consent. You attack others, (irrelevant uninvolved others) but duck every time you have to say something substantive.

[ArGee]

Does anybody here seriously think that the SC would allow sex with children, if it somehow made it all the way there. Seriously, the speculation is a bit silly.

30 years ago you could have read, "Does anybody here seriously think that the SC would allow homosexual sex, if it somehow made it all the way there. Seriously, the speculation is a bit silly."

Never understimate the power of sin to corrupt. Never.

Shalom.

[Protagoras]

Legislatures have attempted to establish an age of consent. Multiple legislatures mean multiple ages. It's not an exact decision which can be made. They do the best they can. Flawed decisions are the norm. But it has to made somewhere.

Society has always maintained that the rights of the disadvantaged be protected. This includes children who have not matured enough to make these kinds of decisions.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Do we dare say the proper "rearing" children in these hair raising, interesting times?

CPS will be down on us faster than a Democrat's intern.

[ArGee]

And, -- I've been saying ~this~ for years:

With the key difference that what Clint is saying makes sense.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

What am I doing in this handcart?

And why is it so hot?

Shalom.

[Protagoras]

30 years ago you could have read, "Does anybody here seriously think that the SC would allow homosexual sex, if it somehow made it all the way there. Seriously, the speculation is a bit silly."

Any thoughtful person can and did question the legitimate role of government in a free society 30 years ago, and throughout history.

The SC has not "allowed" homosexual sex, they have said it's none of their business one way or the other in a free society.

[Protagoras]

Never understimate the power of sin to corrupt. Never.

Sin will corrupt. Corruptors will sin. Some sins are crimes. Other sins are not. Not all sins concern other human beings.

[ArGee]

Thanks for trying. You're only further confirming my point.

What, that you think the way you think is normal and everyone subscribes to reality as you do?

You have to have a little imagination. You can bring up your "moral position vs. actual harm" when they are legitimizing necrophilia. Note - no actual herm there, eh?

Shalom.

[tdadams]

30 years ago you could have read, "Does anybody here seriously think that the SC would allow homosexual sex, if it somehow made it all the way there.

And 60 years ago you could have read "Does anybody here seriously think that the SC would allow blacks to use the same washroom and drink from the same fountains as whites, if it somehow made it all the way there."

[Clint N. Suhks]

As for hypocritical, please explain if you can.

Ummm…from the Office for the Department of Redundancy and Short Attention Spans, YOU supporting the legislature’s right to make Age of Consent laws and not sodomy laws using the criterion of consent. Get it yet or are you going to ask the same another 10 times?

You still haven't said what age a person needs to be before he/she can give sexual consent.

I said you can state that for me to make your point and I wouldn’t care. OK? You want a number let’s try 35.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What am I doing in this handcart? And why is it so hot?

Hehehe...

[weegee]

Society has been chipping away at those rules. That's why "18" doesn't mean that they can't have sex with minors any more. "Wouldn't want to force a young adult to register as a sex offender for a small transgression".

The law should be firm and prosecute those who violate it. Statutory rape laws are a joke now. It is only an attempt to legislate morality (from the state level no less).

Way inconsistant with the Supreme Court ruling.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Society has always maintained that the rights of the disadvantaged be protected.This includes children who have not matured enough to make these kinds of decisions.

But you've not proven "disadvantaged" yet. Garbage in garbage out.