“The real division in this thread—and on this forum, for that matter—is between those who think morals matter and those who figure that sexual desires of whatever type need to satisfied ASAP.”
I’d say the real division concerns what moral standards (and whose) should be enforced by law, and which should be left to the freely made decisions of the individuals involved.
I’d say the real division concerns what moral standards (and whose) should be enforced by law, and which should be left to the freely made decisions of the individuals involved.
In addition, there's a divide between those who think the law should be enforced uniformly v. those who believe exceptions should be made when (in their opinion) vigilante justice is appropriate.
I’d say the real division concerns what moral standards (and whose) should be enforced by law, and which should be left to the freely made decisions of the individuals involved.
Good observation. One complication is that our lives have become increasingly interdependent. Too often others have to endure the consequences of our "freely made decisions." I would note that the decisions of each of the parties in the article (father, daughter, and boyfriend) impacted the lives of each other.
Some would be tempted to say, "it was just sex." Others would say that the difference between 15 and 17 is sufficient that the daughter could not have given informed consent. This is why statutory rape laws exist. The legislatures that enact these laws need to balance the rights of all involved, and the judiciary provides one check to see that they do.
The pro-"choice" crowd comes out again.