Laws against underage sex need to have more realistic exemptions.

[Tiberius]

Update: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5...rney-says/

Charges won't be dropped. Looks like she'll have to accept the plea deal (two years house arrest plus a year of probation, and she may have to register as a sex offender) or fight it in court.

[cratehorus]

On (2), the fact of the matter is, a parent could quite easily do this at any time. If a 17 year old dates a 16 year old, and the 17 year old turns 18, what is to stop the parents from filing charges of lewd behaviour against the 18 year old? The fact that there were in a relationship seems to become irrelevant to the law, which it shouldn't be.

no they wouldn't face charges.... that's my entire point

[Tiberius]

no they wouldn't face charges.... that's my entire point

It would depend on the age of consent. I was assuming it was 18.

[cratehorus]

no they wouldn't face charges.... that's my entire point

It would depend on the age of consent. I was assuming it was 18.

no....... their birthdays would be less than 24 months apart in that scenario....therefore if one is 18 and another is a minor the courts could only get involved if the minor was more than 24 months younger......

if they at some point in their lives were 16 while the other was 17 it's safe too assume that their birthdays are less than 24 months apart....right?

[Tiberius]

Ok, gotcha now. Slight misunderstanding with what the law said. Changing the age limit would help, then, yes. Perhaps to 4 years, if the couple are peers at school or were peers at school when the relationship began.

[Violet]

because baby fucking isn't cool buddy....its not cool at all

Okay... *WHY* isn't it cool? What are (get this) THE UNDERLYING REASONS that baby-fucking isn't cool?

they do? you can't accuse someone of rape without a medical examination...statutory rape is different which can just be a confession or evidence of a sexual act

You can accuse anyone of anything, regardless of whether you have evidence or not. The purpose of the court is to then ask 'what evidence do you have?', and if no evidence is provided: the case should be dismissed.

But: what should happen, and what does happen... they are not always one and the same.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...state.html

And sometimes the evidence indicates something happened which did not happen, which is to say: everyone who's ever been Shawshanked... which can happen in rape allegations.

"Statutory rape" isn't rape if it isn't rape, no matter what finagling you do to make it sound like it is rape. Honestly: it should be done away with entirely.

no they shouldn't without changing the laws first

Yes they should, but the law(s) should also be changed, yes.

yes this argument from authority....in this case it means i win.... this is not an lgbt issue anymore than nambla or preist fucking

Or really, it means that we can dismiss your argument as illogical, and instead talk about bananas (an infinitely more interesting subject matter than an argument from authority). You're saying this thread is now about bananas? Excellent.

How the hell would it matter if it is an LGBT issue? What the fuck are you on about?

if you guys all want to legalize 70 year old men marrying 6 year old girls that's your opinion........ but good luck getting that passed in any modern court....plenty of countries where this realtionship is perfectly legal....(although since it is a homosexual relationship there might also be some problems with those countries involving decapitation and such)

Or... maybe you could do away with age-laws completely as being nonsense?

---

if you guys all want to legalize 70 year old men marrying 6 year old girls that's your opinion

None of us are arguing that; you are creating a strawman.

You seem to think that laws should be absolute, that there are never any exceptions to the law. I disagree. I think that a young couple should not have to be punished if one of the couple suddenly becomes an adult.

Y'know... even if we WERE arguing that, wouldn't you like to at least see WHY he's against it?

---

It would depend on the age of consent. I was assuming it was 18.

Two year olds seem to believe the age of consent is 2, given how expressive they are about that which they will not consent to.

Funny that they're then forced to do that which they will not consent to

---

Ok, gotcha now. Slight misunderstanding with what the law said. Changing the age limit would help, then, yes. Perhaps to 4 years, if the couple are peers at school or were peers at school when the relationship began.

How about changing age-limits to a measure of that-which-age-is-assumed-to-provide limits instead?

The day someone here takes the plunge and hashes out exactly which characteristics are involved in determining that which enables one person to consent when another person is not enabled to consent... that'll be a great day

Maybe I should do it myself... but then I might as well just talk to myself.

[cratehorus]

Ok, gotcha now. Slight misunderstanding with what the law said. Changing the age limit would help, then, yes. Perhaps to 4 years, if the couple are peers at school or were peers at school when the relationship began.

cheers

Okay... *WHY* isn't it cool? What are (get this) THE UNDERLYING REASONS that baby-fucking isn't cool?

are you seriously asking me to expain why old men shouldn't fuck lil babies?

You can accuse anyone of anything, regardless of whether you have evidence or not. The purpose of the court is to then ask 'what evidence do you have?', and if no evidence is provided: the case should be dismissed.

when a rape victim accuses someone of rape she/he must submit to a medical examination....that examination would provide said evidence .......with statutory rape there would be no evidence of violence since the sex was consentual...... therefore age limits and proof of intercourse such as a used condom would be sufficient evidence

"Statutory rape" isn't rape if it isn't rape, no matter what finagling you do to make it sound like it is rape. Honestly: it should be done away with entirely.

what about child molestation? if i rape a baby.... and make them think my cock is a lollipop..... the child consents

Or really, it means that we can dismiss your argument as illogical, and instead talk about bananas (an infinitely more interesting subject matter than an argument from authority). You're saying this thread is now about bananas? Excellent.

yes and bananas should be made legal

How the hell would it matter if it is an LGBT issue? What the fuck are you on about?

you lgbt assholes are always stealing every fucking issue and making it your own.....if someone attacks someone and screams fag it's a hate crime regardless if the victim is homosexual or not..... but if somoene screams pussy no feminist group starts accusing the attacker of being biased against women........ why is that?

[Violet]

are you seriously asking me to expain why old men shouldn't fuck lil babies?

Yes, I am.

Christ... you don't know, do you?

when a rape victim accuses someone of rape she/he must submit to a medical examination....that examination would provide said evidence .......with statutory rape there would be no evidence of violence since the sex was consentual...... therefore age limits and proof of intercourse such as a used condom would be sufficient evidence

Well then, no rape conviction is possible if the person is given a bath by the rapist afterwards, is it?

I'll have to keep that in mind next time I rape someone. And I'll make sure I throw the condom away, maybe burn it in a wood stove

Would you like to explain to me why a lesbian couple is using a condom? Indeed... how do you prove that sex is occurring? Is there a video of it? But then... why even ask this: what are the reasons that "statutory rape" is branded as such in the first place?

what about child molestation? if i rape a baby.... and make them think my cock is a lollipop..... the child consents

Babies want for more than milk? Interesting.

And children can consent to many things... what's special about consenting to sex (of whatever form)? How is it any different to consenting to anything else? If a child knows what a lollipop is, they'll realize pretty quickly that it's like no lollipop they've ever tasted, and whether they enjoy it or do not will be the reason they continue at lapping at it or not. Unless it's an abuse case, eh?

Usually, lying to the ignorant would be considered abuse.

yes and bananas should be made legal

You kidding me? That's worse than human trafficking being made legal.

you lgbt assholes are always stealing every fucking issue and making it your own.....if someone attacks someone and screams fag it's a hate crime regardless if the victim is homosexual or not..... but if somoene screams pussy no feminist group starts accusing the attacker of being biased against women........ why is that?

What the fuck are you talking about? Thanks for the entertainment, I guess.