Replies

As you statet YOURSELF, acquiescence is legal consent, and no, you are still wrong. A MINOR can NOT LEGALLY consent. It changes from state to state, but If someone has sex with a minor, then that is against the law because the law says that they can not consent because they are a minor. I know that is redundant, but this is why parents tell their children what to do instead of vice versa. They don't know what to do. As far as the law goes, how do you plan on enforcing all of your beliefs. Magic and voodoo. No, you will use the law. Don't use the law when it suits you and throw it away when it doesn't.

Umm…you’re missing the point of the exercise, but OK let’s go with this. Then what you’re saying is only if the LAW says a minor can’t consent they CAN’T? So if the LAW said they can, like in the Netherlands, then it’s OK, right?

As far as personal form, I believe we can find many direct tacks from you against me, so thanks for proving my point about them. That was not a personal attacke because YOU said you do not see how molesting a child is harmful and I do feel sorry for anyone who does not understand that.

No, you made the statement “The fact that it hurts someone” and I asked “How?” not that I “do not see how.” I simply wanted you to explain your statement, and you’re still welcome to, not me, I already know my views on the subject. Next time try and quote me more accurately.

Let me tell you why incestual consent is not possible. Because the scientific community said that children coming from the possible procreation of the two have substantially higher possibilities of problems. However, this law may be changing somewhat because they have recent'y found that sex with cousins will not result in this. So, to keep with what I have been saying, YES. It does hurt someone and that would be the child that would be born retarded, mlformed, etc. . .

Actually you are more likely to have genetic malnormalities from parents, the CDC says it’s 95% likelihood, from parents who have an existing genetic defect. So as not to be hypocritical, you would endorse sanction for people who have cystic fibrosis, Downs, spinal bifida, et al, having sex because they cannot give consent either? Or are you saying you just don’t trust adults to use safe-sex/birth-control methods, and I can always play the abortion card but I won’t because you must be pro-life, are causing “harm” some where? I smell a double standard here. But for the sake of argument I’ll concede your point, what if the mother has had a hysterectomy or the adult son has had a vasectomy, then can there be consent?

The consent thing. You are saying that you think a child can consent. So your kid can go buy a house, a car, a gun, a tattoo, have sex with a 3 year old (because he asked the little girl if he could and she said "OK.") Do you just not understand while children can not consent. That is why sex is always wrong with a child.

Well yes and no. Obviously you’re not very well prepared for this discussion so let me help you out here. I guess you missed the “lack of consent talking points memo”, you’re suppose to say children don’t have “mental capacity,” which is also included in the legal definition of consent. Indeed most children don’t have the capacity for consent, but many do. I can confidently say no 3 year olds have capacity but many children dohave legal mental capacity, not legal age, to consent.

Now, as you can see, you were once again wrong on EVERY thing that you wrote. So, try again. P.S. Try actually reading what I write too, then I won't have to explain things to you over and over and over.

Oh please… now you’re making me laugh.

I said molesting a child was harmful, all you have to do is actually read what I wrote. Read the last paragraph of post #83 where I explicitly say that it is not only harmful but people like you are not listening to me when I do say it. Thank you for proving me right. As far as explaing the statement, I can't. That is because you misconstrued it into the opposite of what I said because you have your belief on who I am and what I think, so you obviously think that you don't need to read what I write.

The legal thing. Good job and good point. I used the legal view of a minor because you said "legal consent is aquiescence." I was just telling you that if you were referring to a minor, then you were wrong, which you are because legal consent is not aquiescence when dealing with a minor. Look it up. Law aside, my view is that a minor can not consent no matter where they are. They are too stupid and naive. Guess what, so was I and so were you.

I don't see what being pro-life has to do with gay people, but explain that one to me. And yes, just so you know I am pro-life because I belive all people are entitled to the 3 basic rights America gives to EVERYONE, including unborn children.

Now some other minors do have the ability to consent. We agree on that. Unfortunately, the United States doesn't have the benefit of hiring you and 1000 of your clones to go around to each and every case involving a child to do an extensive background check on said child so you can deem them mentally mature enough. We must draw an arbitrary line on where this is. Understand?

Your piont on the CDC is a good one as well. Now you are in a spot where I don't know where I stand, so I can not argue that point.