twacowfca Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's a generally good law intended to cover the situation when a pubescent girl gets pregnant by an older teenager or even by an adult. Willing or not, this is statutory rape with possibly years of jail time. However, if the parents approve, and the usually young lovers are allowed to marry, there is no crime. Even without throwing homosexuality into the pot, there are abuses. In one of these, a thirty something year old female teacher took a 13 year old boy student in her class as her lover. She was kept in jail because she wouldn't stop seeing the boy, but she got out before the trial. Then, she married the boy with his parents premission the day he turned 14, immediately before the trial was scheduled to begin. Case dismissed. That's just crazy. Why not just not charge the woman? I'm 39 now and my wife is 36, but when we started seeing each other I was 18 and she had just turned 15. I could have been charged with a crime. Luckily I wasn't, but if I had been, a good solution wouldn't have been forcing us to get married before we were ready. We did get married 6 years later when we were ready. Why not just admit that it's "statutory rape" laws that are the problem in the first place. The government passes one law that causes a problem then workarounds need to be found. Just like with gay marriage. Why is marriage a government thing to begin with? Why are people treated differently depending on who they have sex with? The world marriage shouldn't be in law anywhere. If you want person X to inherit your belongings that is what a will is for. If you want to get "married" that is a contract or a religious commitment between you and (one or more) other people, it should have nothing to do with the government or with law. Other than maybe contract law. --Eric These are good questions. But think about the most basic question. If there were no statutory rape laws, or other laws to the same effect, adults performing sex acts with children would be perfectly legal. Children are easily led or commanded. They have limited ability to fight off a predator or even identify a possible predator. Children have limited capacity or no capacity for informed consent. In my opinion, they are deserving of the protection of the law. Without this protection, we might revert to a revenge system of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent A small number of Italian and German states introduced an age of consent in the 16th century, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.[5] Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.[6] In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 "It is hate though. It's bigotry, it's intolerance. Perhaps it is codified in his religion, wouldn't surprise me." -As evidenced by your wikipedia selection for age of consent, all of these marriage laws have evolved over time. Your categorizing the position that most religions (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam) think homosexuals should not be united in marriage as hateful shows YOUR INTOLERANCE. Santorum has made some stupid comments about his personal beliefs, but I never heard him calling for the banning of contraception, except maybe the morning-after pill (if he did, just one more reason not to vote for him). He has DEFINITELY said tax-payers should NOT pay for other peoples contraceptives (like Ms Fluke's), especially people who don't believe in contraception/abortion. Their sexual habits should be their own problem. Ms Fluke, by the way, also thinks tax-payers/insurance companies (by mandate) should cover sex-change operations. Talk about FREEDOM! The First Amendment is being trampled on by the Federal Government of the United States, basic religious rights, and people are bringing up banning pornography. It is more likely that Obama will mandate that the Catholic Church pay for all Section 8 housing participants to receive subscriptions to the Red Shoe Diaries than for pornography to be banned! As an aside, I could support the government getting out of the marriage business, and let people do what they will. Of course, I won't be shocked when certain things happen, which is why the laws were passed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Your categorizing the position that most religions (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam) think homosexuals should not be united in marriage as hateful shows YOUR INTOLERANCE. LOL! I am intolerant of the intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 As far as "age of consent" goes, this is similar to the question of when someone becomes an adult, can enter into contracts and be fully responsible for their own actions. When someone lives on their own and supports themselves, regardless of age they are unquestionably an adult. Before that it should be up to the parents. If someone decides to declare themselves to be an adult at age 13, move out, get married or support themselves, then they are an adult. If someone decides to do none of those things and they are 28 years old, then he or she is still a child under the care of the parents. People mature at different rates (and some people never do). Putting an age to it and drawing a hard line is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 "It is hate though. It's bigotry, it's intolerance. Perhaps it is codified in his religion, wouldn't surprise me." -As evidenced by your wikipedia selection for age of consent, all of these marriage laws have evolved over time. Your categorizing the position that most religions (Catholicism, Judaism, Islam) think homosexuals should not be united in marriage as hateful shows YOUR INTOLERANCE. Santorum has made some stupid comments about his personal beliefs, but I never heard him calling for the banning of contraception, except maybe the morning-after pill (if he did, just one more reason not to vote for him). He has DEFINITELY said tax-payers should NOT pay for other peoples contraceptives (like Ms Fluke's), especially people who don't believe in contraception/abortion. Their sexual habits should be their own problem. Ms Fluke, by the way, also thinks tax-payers/insurance companies (by mandate) should cover sex-change operations. Talk about FREEDOM! The First Amendment is being trampled on by the Federal Government of the United States, basic religious rights, and people are bringing up banning pornography. It is more likely that Obama will mandate that the Catholic Church pay for all Section 8 housing participants to receive subscriptions to the Red Shoe Diaries than for pornography to be banned! As an aside, I could support the government getting out of the marriage business, and let people do what they will. Of course, I won't be shocked when certain things happen, which is why the laws were passed in the first place. Well since 99% of adult females and 98% of adult female catholics have used birth control, it looks like people are already trampling all over their own religious rights. We all have to pay for programs we don't like. That fact doesn't limit anyones right. If you don't like it, form a church so you don't have to pay taxes anymore that could be going towards evil birth control. I'll tell you this, if the right foots the bill for the trillions we've spent on war over the last 10 years, I think the left will be more than happy to pay for the condoms/pills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'll tell you this, if the right foots the bill for the trillions we've spent on war over the last 10 years, I think the left will be more than happy to pay for the condoms/pills. And as an anarchist I'll be delighted to pay for none of it. Unfortunately government doesn't work like that, there is nothing even remotely voluntary about it. You pay your protection money (or else) and they spend it on all those things and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 "Well since 99% of adult females and 98% of adult female catholics have used birth control, it looks like people are already trampling all over their own religious rights." -That is an INDIVIDUALS choice. You don't understand the difference between the individual and the STATE? "We all have to pay for programs we don't like. That fact doesn't limit anyones right. If you don't like it, form a church so you don't have to pay taxes anymore that could be going towards evil birth control." -There is something called the Constitution which gives authority to the Federal Government to do certain things, it gives some things to the states, some things it totally leaves out. If you feel that the Federal Government should be telling its citizens to pay for someone else's birth control, then I should not be surprised that they already tell us how much water should be in our toilet bowls or what kind of lights we can use in our homes. Nevermind the trillions of dollar in debt, Ms Fluke has a date this weekend! I'll tell you this, if the right foots the bill for the trillions we've spent on war over the last 10 years, I think the left will be more than happy to pay for the condoms/pills. -Let me see, the authorization to use force passes the Senate by a vote of 97-3. The bill authorizing the HHS to mandate insurance coverage of contraceptives passes Congress by a vote of....................excuse me, President Obama never submitted a bill for Harry Reid to try to pass??? Kind of like not passing a budget in over a 1000 days! Not only that, you ASSUME my support of how Bush/Obama handled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Libya. Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Childbirth costs a lot more than contraception. You would think the right would be very happy to support it given the complaints about runaway costs of healthcare ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Here are a few exerpts from an excellent article called Contraception Debate Misses a Basic Question. Which is just another way of saying what I've been saying throughout this thread that when politics is involved every opinion and preference suddenly becomes everyone else's business. Imagine if what was stocked at the local grocery store was voted on and determined by the town government instead of through the free market. The debates that would take place over the items in each aisle. Especially the contraceptives, magazines, junk/health food (by a bunch of different definitions of what is junk and healthy), etc. When the market rather than government offers a service these issues simply disappear. You can shop at your local health food store, someone else can shop at Johny's Junk Food Emporium, and still someone else can shop at a market that carries a little bit of both. Nothing run or heavily regulated by government is driven by market intensives like this. Everything is one size fits all and let's fight it out in the political arena. Anyway, I've digressed, here's the quotes from the article: Why is it considered normal for your boss to determine your healthcare options in the first place? Relying on employers for healthcare means the company has more leverage over the worker. If you're out of work then you might be out of luck when it comes to your health. And if the boss decides what kind of healthcare the employee can get - at issue in the current discussion of religiously-affiliated institutions and contraception - this can mean an extension of the boss’s control outside of work hours... Not only could consensual organizations offer more security for the worker who today has an employer health plan, they could also make healthcare more accessible for the worker who does not, reducing incentives to take an otherwise less desirable job for the benefits. Today, however, the tax structure incentivizes employer health coverage while an economy oriented toward business elites and political privilege raises barriers to alternatives. Healthcare, taken out of the people's hands, then becomes a political issue. Politicians aren't good at addressing problems of economic stratification and stagnation - they're typically part of the elite that is struggling to stay on top. What they are good at is making stands in culture war issues, and this is where they want to get attention, regardless of how many backs they stand on behind the podium. When federal funding can be given out or taken away based on which demagogue holds power, personal health becomes a campaign issue.... The surest way to keep bosses from determining your access to healthcare is to get rid of the need for bosses altogether. When you rely on bosses for healthcare your body becomes a campaign issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard. People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Not only that, you ASSUME my support of how Bush/Obama handled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Libya. Nope, you assumed my assuming, when I wasn't. ;D That's why I said "right and left" not "southern Yankee" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard. People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Stop taking away his freedom to take away other people's freedom! This is religous opression! ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ_Value Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Since we're talking about gay people (or as I like to call them, people!!) getting married and religious beliefs, here's my favorite moment in The West Wing show. Now, this is my kind of president ;): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard. People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Stop taking away his freedom to take away other people's freedom! This is religous opression! ;D I can't help myself as I feel a surge of power after taking away his right to teach creation in public schools. There is no stopping me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard. People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Does this mean you would vote in favor of allowing polygamy? If not, why? I don't need an answer I am just noting that your philosophy, if consistent, would have to say yes to polygamy, prostitution, drug legalization, etc. They are all consenting adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 "Nope, you assumed my assuming, when I wasn't. That's why I said "right and left" not "southern Yankee"" -You are correct, my fault there. I still wonder if the fact that there was a vote about the war, but no vote about this contraception issue, makes you think differently on the matter. "People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom." -Your last sentence is the argument I am making, and so is the Catholic Church. Let us offer our policies the way we want to offer them, if you don't like it, you can either look elsewhere for coverage you want, or get a new job! You just agreed with most of the Republican candidates. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PROVING THEM RIGHT! "Childbirth costs a lot more than contraception. You would think the right would be very happy to support it given the complaints about runaway costs of healthcare" -"The Right" are worried about the runaway costs for health due to government mandates, and due to certain groups relying on others to pay it for them. I'll second RKBABANG and call for government to get the heck out of the insurance business, and give INDIVIDUALS the tax advantage, instead of corporations. "Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom." -Had to copy that again! I love it when a person comes around in his thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Does this mean you would vote in favor of allowing polygamy? If not, why? I don't need an answer I am just noting that your philosophy, if consistent, would have to say yes to polygamy, prostitution, drug legalization, etc. They are all consenting adults. Just to be clear. When you say "vote to allow" what you are implying is some right to "vote to disallow". What you are really asking is would you send armed thugs to force someone to do (or not do) X, and to shoot them if it becomes necessary to get them to comply. "There aught to be a law..." simply means "Deadly violence should be used to force people to do/not do ..." I for one would not use violence (nor support the use of violence) to stop consenting adults from having any kind of relationship between themselves that made them happy regardless of the number or gender of the adults involved. Nor would I use violence or support the use of violence to stop adults from buying or selling drugs and/or sex if that is what they want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Ericopoly, Do you have any restrictions on marriage? If you do, by your definition of intolerance, you would be intolerant of anyone who disagree with your restrictions. I wouldn't hold you to such an impossible standard, try not to hold me or other religious people to that same impossible standard. People can believe what they want to. You are free to believe in talking snakes, people rising from the dead, golden tablets ascending to heaven... whatever floats your boat. You can even believe that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Just don't force others into your belief system! That's when you are taking away freedom. Does this mean you would vote in favor of allowing polygamy? If not, why? I don't need an answer I am just noting that your philosophy, if consistent, would have to say yes to polygamy, prostitution, drug legalization, etc. They are all consenting adults. I would vote in favor of legalizing polygamy. I would vote in favor of legalizing prostitution. I would vote to decriminalize drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I would vote in favor of legalizing polygamy. I would vote in favor of legalizing prostitution. I would vote to decriminalize drug use. -Would you vote in favor of allowing people who don't believe in those things to refrain from having their tax money going to people affected by said behavior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 -Would you vote in favor of allowing people who don't believe in those things to refrain from having their tax money going to people affected by said behavior? Taxation is theft. Why should anyone have a say in how money stolen from someone is used? The money shouldn't be stolen to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I would vote in favor of legalizing polygamy. I would vote in favor of legalizing prostitution. I would vote to decriminalize drug use. -Would you vote in favor of allowing people who don't believe in those things to refrain from having their tax money going to people affected by said behavior? Currently you are paying extra taxes to lockup the drug users, the prostitutes, the johns, and there might even be the odd dollar wasted on prosecuting polygamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernYankee Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 "Taxation is theft." -If that is your angle, run with it. That makes you the law unto yourself; you may run into someone who thinks his law is more important than your law, and take everything from you. Will you expect help from anyone, if that happens? "Currently you are paying extra taxes to lockup the drug users, the prostitutes, the johns, and there might even be the odd dollar wasted on prosecuting polygamy." -That is why I asked the question. I struggle with those questions, if prostitution/drug use/polygamy should be against the law. If they are against the law, society has some responsibility to pay for the costs associated. If they are not against the law, then I don't feel I should have to pay for the problems which come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If they are not against the law, then I don't feel I should have to pay for the problems which come up. It's not against the law to drink alcohol so therefore you should get a tax refund every time we prosecute a drunk driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Should I be forced to pay for the problems that come up when someone eats at Mcdonalds every day? Or drinks 10 cokes a day? Or smokes two packs of cigarrettes per day? Are we going to criminilize these activities? No that would be absurd wouldn't it... Yet many illegal drugs, as well as prostitution/polygamy of course, are less harmful and addictive than these activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now