Posted on 07/08/2003 7:08:39 AM PDT by F_Cohen
No such thing. Governments don't have rights, they have powers. people have rights.
to make Age of Consent laws
Correct. It is entirely correct for legislatures to make hard calls like this when it comes to defending rights and determining who needs protection. they have made logical determinations. They protect those who cannot protect themselves. they have done it time and again on myriad different subjects.
and not sodomy laws using the criterion of consent.
Sodomy laws for those who do not need protection are a violation of rights. The rightful role of government in a free society is to defend rights, not regulate non-rights violating behavior.
Get it yet or are you going to ask the same another 10 times?
I'll continue to ask questions as long as you continue to avoid them.
I said you can state that for me to make your point and I wouldn’t care. OK?
I can make all your decisions for you and state your opinions? LOL, you are a scream.
You want a number let’s try 35.
Is that YOUR final answer?
Lets start with 1 hour old and work forward. Are people 1 hr. old disadvantaged when it comes decisions about many things, sex included? See how silly these things are when taken to their logical conclusion?
I reject your solution. Under that scenerio someone 18 yrs and one day would be imprisoned for having consenual sex with a girlfriend/wife of 17 yrs 11 months.
These kind of things require some thoughtful concideration, not one size fits all "solutions".
If a community permits a 17 year old to get married you can damn well be sure that the age of consent in that community is 17 or under. I'd also wager that a couple getting married that young these days has already had sex (and possibly a pregnancy) before the marriage date.
Are silly semantic games the best you got? The concept of state’s rights comes from the 10th amendment.
It is entirely correct for legislatures to make hard calls like this when it comes to defending rights and determining who needs protection. they have made logical determinations.
Yes and if the legislature wants to protect social culture it has that power too.
They protect those who cannot protect themselves. they have done it time and again on myriad different subjects.
But you can’t prove why some citizens need protecting and others don’t except through arbitrary law. The rights of some children are being discriminated against.
Sodomy laws for those who do not need protection are a violation of rights.
So are age of consent laws.
The rightful role of government in a free society is to defend rights, not regulate non-rights violating behavior.
Only if you’re a hypocrite.
I’m sticking with age 35, have at it.
The ages on all things you mentioned are different. Go figure.
The question really is; is there an age that should be set for when someone is incompetant to make sexual decisions? Is it the same for other decisions?
Not really, if a 1 hour old has the capasity to consent then it's not disadvantaged is it. But I don't know any 1 hour olds that can do that do you?
That's a pretty deep point, IMO. As an example, California Police Officers spend a lot of time, manpower, and resources suppressing prostitution, entrapping customers, and towing or seizing their vehicles. The neighboring State of Nevada simply allows some counties to legalize prostitution. Some states punish sin, others profit from it. If there is one other consensual adult crime which the court is likely to strike down, it will be in this area.
LOL! Is it me or is it hot in here?
Incorrect, it deals with powers delegated. And it's not semantics.
Yes and if the legislature wants to protect social culture it has that power too
Incorrect again. It is to protect rights, not "social culture", whatever the hell that means to whomever.
I'm not a hypocrite, But you are obtuse.
And now you can go about selling your idea to the rest of the forum that people over thirty five can do whatever they want sexually but anyone 34 yrs and 11 months or younger needs the consent of government.
You need a life preserver.
I'm outta here for the day, have fun with the forum on that premise.
Correct. It is entirely correct for legislatures to make hard calls like this when it comes to defending rights and determining who needs protection. they have made logical determinations. They protect those who cannot protect themselves. they have done it time and again on myriad different subjects.
Age of consent laws vary from as low as 14 to as high as 18 in the United States. Anyone over the age of consent (including 14 year olds in some states) may have sex with an adult over the age of 18. These same states will prosecute a person in such a relationship from photographing any person under 18 nude (especially if they are engaged in a LEGAL sex act).
The law is a ass my friend. Photographing the act carries a stiffer penalty than the act itself.
Are the legislatures in some states not as conserned with the morals of their youths as some other states or do they believe that their youths are somehow more mature (mentally and legally) than those in other states?
With the Lawrence v. Texas decision, there is no ability to even set a different age of consent for homosexual activities than heterosexual. A court in Kansas sent a man who had been convicted at age 18 of performing oral sex on a 14 year old at a center where both were seeking guidance for being mentally disabled; he was to be resentenced under the more leniant Romeo & Juliet (Romeo & Romero?) law.
You don't believe that the courts will allow more sexual predators to find their targets but I say that you are wrong.
Yeah sure, you go girl. But congratulations, you join the long line of Liberaltarians who can’t prove consent is the mitigating criterion for not regulating behavior. Your Liberaltarian social experiment doesn't pass the test of common logic unless you’re a hypocrite.
Pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia or whatever your favorite philia is will not be made legal as a result of the Lawrence decision.
I did not say that. The push for the "normalization" of the sexual abuse of children is happening; in spite of Lawrence, not because of it.
Need a little proof?
Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered
Harmful To Minors
Considering your prior statement, "And I'm willing to put my money on it," which makes one think of the proverb, "A fool and his money are soon parted," perhaps you can take said money and donate it to Free Republic, hmm?
I guess I'm talking about you, who just provided a fine example of someone who can't discern between a moral objection and incidents of actual harm (such as murder and theft).
Are you suggesting a belief anyone can do as they please as long as nobody gets hurt?
That sounds more like moral relativism than moral objection, don't you think?
What is your point by asking this? Do you also think morality is relative?
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.