RE: Sexual Orientation
July 29, 2014 at 8:42 pm
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2014 at 8:43 pm by StealthySkeptic.)
The kind of harm that can be caused by a broken homosexual relationship is different than criminal harm, where an injury is recognized that can be and should be punished. Emotional hurt because your gay boyfriend dumped you is not a crime, whereas abuse is simply because that kind of hurt can cause devastating consequences.
"Law and reality are neither one and the same, nor are law and the morals of those bound by law..."
Law in general is concerned with creating two things: the broadest possible protections for everyone within the boundaries of a country over which the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, and a minimum standard for living in a society that applies to everyone so that everyone can get along. If we were to try and create law based solely on the moral inclinations of mere individuals, that would be a nightmare.
Criminal law, and specifically criminal punishment, has five possible objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Punishing people for touching young kids indefinitely accomplishes all of those objectives with the possible exception of rehabilitation because a pedophile will always remain a pedophile no matter what. Registering sex offenders, on the other hand, is a civil law punishment that focuses on victim compensation by ensuring that these people are never anywhere near areas where children are known to congregate, thus making up for the harm that they have done as a pedophile. Lifetime sex offender registration is also not an unconstitutional ex post facto law nor a cruel and unusual punishment for this reason. SEE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut...ety_v._Doe
Again, it is well established in psychology that children in general do not have a developed sense of executive function, which is important in establishing and prioritizing activities, nor do they have a developed sense of consequences. This is mainly because the frontal lobe, which is responsible for those areas of cognition, is not even close to done growing when a person is a child. With the exception (again) of age closeness, the law has the age of consent line right where it is to establish a firm and universally applicable standard.
It is for that reason that I, as a parent, would firmly tell my child who wants to have sex with an adult that under no circumstances would they be permitted to. Certainly not with a relative such as an aunt, uncle, or sibling either, because of the power disparity and because of the irreparable damage that it can do to a child's psyche and to a strictly familial relationship. I exclude cousin marriages in such places as Texas because legally that is NOT the definition of incest. I would still not encourage it and do not approve of it however.
"Law and reality are neither one and the same, nor are law and the morals of those bound by law..."
Law in general is concerned with creating two things: the broadest possible protections for everyone within the boundaries of a country over which the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, and a minimum standard for living in a society that applies to everyone so that everyone can get along. If we were to try and create law based solely on the moral inclinations of mere individuals, that would be a nightmare.
Criminal law, and specifically criminal punishment, has five possible objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Punishing people for touching young kids indefinitely accomplishes all of those objectives with the possible exception of rehabilitation because a pedophile will always remain a pedophile no matter what. Registering sex offenders, on the other hand, is a civil law punishment that focuses on victim compensation by ensuring that these people are never anywhere near areas where children are known to congregate, thus making up for the harm that they have done as a pedophile. Lifetime sex offender registration is also not an unconstitutional ex post facto law nor a cruel and unusual punishment for this reason. SEE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut...ety_v._Doe
Again, it is well established in psychology that children in general do not have a developed sense of executive function, which is important in establishing and prioritizing activities, nor do they have a developed sense of consequences. This is mainly because the frontal lobe, which is responsible for those areas of cognition, is not even close to done growing when a person is a child. With the exception (again) of age closeness, the law has the age of consent line right where it is to establish a firm and universally applicable standard.
It is for that reason that I, as a parent, would firmly tell my child who wants to have sex with an adult that under no circumstances would they be permitted to. Certainly not with a relative such as an aunt, uncle, or sibling either, because of the power disparity and because of the irreparable damage that it can do to a child's psyche and to a strictly familial relationship. I exclude cousin marriages in such places as Texas because legally that is NOT the definition of incest. I would still not encourage it and do not approve of it however.
Luke: You don't believe in the Force, do you?
Han Solo: Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.
Han Solo: Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.