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

To: DariusBane
The nanny State is alive and well at Free Republic. A bunch of sour puss, meddlesome, feckless weak-kneed, hand wringing sad pussed fearfull little chicken littles.

On the other hand are those who believe that minor children ought to have the right to express their sexuality by enjoying unrestricted sexual freedom. Is it nanny-statism to deny them that? I've no doubt it would be if we were dealing with adults. But minors require a certain degree of protection from society, including protections against being exploited by adults, or putting themselves (or being suffered to put themselves) into positions which may be harmful to those of their limited experience. I know there's a lot of debate as to what might constitute such positions, but if getting into a small boat and trying to sail unaccompanied around the world isn't one of them, then literally nothing is, and we might as well lower the age of majority to fourteen, or whatever we can agree upon. Of course at that point some valiant thirteen-year-old will come along pushing the envelope, and we'll be right back where we started.

118 posted on 06/12/2010 11:29:40 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Ramsbotham
If you are unwilling to accept the consequences of bad choices by others then you are unwilling to be free.

Your sexuality of thirteen year olds argument??? Whatever.

The State does not own the people who live within it's jurisdiction. If you want to be free to make choices then you have to be free to make bad choices.

133 posted on 06/12/2010 12:05:09 PM PDT by DariusBane (Even the Rocks shall cry out "Hobamma to the Highest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | 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