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

Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

[Protagoras]

LOL, me grow up. That's rich. You come on this thread calling names from the first post like a childish imbecile. The "liberalitarian" thing you keep spouting is 7th grade stuff as is your moronic logic.

You either are 16 yrs old or mentally challenged.

You haven't made one single rational point. The only thing anyone can take from your goofy posts is that you have a pathological hatred of Libertarians. Which is off topic and boring.

If you have children, I pity the country. Goof

[Clint N. Suhks]

Which question dopey?

Don’t you love the universal answer (ad hominem) from Liberaltarians-Liberals who can’t defend their position? Hypocrites Unite! Either remove the 10th through amendment or just SHUT UP!

[MistrX]

Why not? The gubmint has non-consensual sex with me every payday.

[Protagoras]

I love when goofy kids like you come on to a thread and start flinging mindless attacks from the first post and then cry about ad hominems. Anyone who has been reading this thread from the beginning knows what happened here.

Really c'mon now, fess up, your 16 and taking a break from music videos.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You haven't made one single rational point.

You haven't made ONE point in your notion that consent isn't the criterion for regualtion.

I knew you didn't have children and your logic comes from the liberal blather you learned in "college."

[MattAMiller]

Do you honestly think they're even close to being the same thing? At worst sodomy is something that a lot of people find icky. Child molestation destroys lives.

[autoresponder]

I believe Justice O'Connor and Justice Breyer have an opinion on all of those questions that will appeal to NAMBLA, GLAD, the ACLU, Janet Reno, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Dean.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Still can't defend your position, huh?

[Kevin Curry]

Would the answer embarrass you? Is that why you avoid giving one?

You're already an embarrassment. So bark freely.

[Protagoras]

Which question? Ask one and I'll answer.

You aren't an embarrassment, you're the pride and joy of the taliban kids.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You aren't an embarrassment, you're the pride and joy of the taliban kids.

Yee Haw! You got the Liberaltarian on the run…nothing but the usual name-calling to defend their indefeasible social experiment.

[Protagoras]

Believe what you wish. I don't make judgements on concepts by seeing which perverts like it.

The point is simple if you know what it is. But if you get lost in hatred for fruitcakes you won't get it.

[Protagoras]

Hey kid,,you sure it's indefeasible ? What does that mean anyway? Is that like liberalitarian?

[MattAMiller]

If you read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion you will very seriously think they might do just that. He makes it very clear that history, religion, tradition or majority opinion are not grounds for prohibiting what most consider abnormal and immoral behavior.

I certainly don't base my opinion of pedophilia on history, tradition, religion, or majority opinion. I base my opinion on the harm it does.

Within 24hrs. of the Lawrence case a Kansas court struck down the decision against an 18 year old boy who had sex with a 15 year old boy.

They struck down the sentence, not the conviction, because the sentencing laws differentiated between homosexual and heterosexual conduct. If the 18-year-old had had sex with a 14-year-old girl he would have at most served 15 months rather than the three years he did serve, and certainly not the 16 years he was sentenced to.

[jwalsh07]

They struck down the sentence, not the conviction, because the sentencing laws differentiated between homosexual and heterosexual conduct. If the 18-year-old had had sex with a 14-year-old girl he would have at most served 15 months rather than the three years he did serve, and certainly not the 16 years he was sentenced to.

And it's your opinion that there exists no rational basis for harsher laws for homosexual rape than for heterosexual rape?

Try this experiment:

o down to your local high school and ask the young fellows there which would be more traumatic for them, to be raped by a woman or a man. Then get back to me on rational basis.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Hey kid,,you sure it's indefeasible ?

OK punk, (ad hominem for your sake) Lawrence is practically “undone” in its statute, thanks for your Liberaltarian contribution.

[weegee]

Since that time, AOC has been rising steadily. It is now 18 in many states.

A look at this chart shows 43 states which have an AOC UNDER 18 (at least with parental consent).

about.com age of consent

36 clearly under 18, 7 more that permit sex below age 18 with parental consent, and another 8 with an aoc ONLY 18 and above (DC is noted separately).

This chart could be out of date but I would expect it to date from at least the 1990s (when it would have been put online).

[MattAMiller]

Go down to your local high school and ask the young fellows there which would be more traumatic for them, to be raped by a woman or a man. Then get back to me on rational basis.

Would girls like the idea of being raped any better?

This case was not rape. It was consensual sex between two people where one was below the age of consent and one was an adult who less than four years older than the younger teen. This is covered by a specific law in Kansas and is considered less severe than a much older person having sex with a 14-year-old.

[wai-ming]

My 22 year old son said years ago that first they get us to accept homosexual sex, then necrophilia, beastiality, and pedophilia.

It started long before that. When they got us to accept pre-marital sex, cohabitation, adultery, abortion, etc, etc.

If you outlaw one, you might as well outlaw them all. Keep sex within the bounds of marriage, where it belongs.

[Protagoras]

So what does indefeasible mean?