Laws against underage sex need to have more realistic exemptions.

[Psykhronic]

I think it's odd that they're trying to charge her for battery. This is a case of statutory rape, not a violent criminal act.

Rape is often considered a violent crime, but battery is still a bullshit charge.

[Praetorian]

Rape is often considered a violent crime, but battery is still a bullshit charge.

Legally, they have a case for statutory rape, which is just rape by technicality. Being under 18, since you're not legally an adult, it's rape by lack of the ability to consent.

It's not aggravated, forced sexual contact, and it's not drug or alcohol induced, unless they have evidence of that. They don't have a case for battery. I'm surprised they can even hold her for it.

[Violet]

[Gilgamesh]

because the law says no.

'Kay, and why do the laws say no? I want reasoning.

[cratehorus]

[Gilgamesh]

because a bunch of people got together one day and said should the limit be 12 months?... and one person said "no that's too short".... another person stood up and said 36 months .....and someone else said no that's too far apart.... so they settled on 24.....it's called lawmaking and there is a lengthy decision process involved.... c'mon fellas ....the supreme court just legalized sodomy in the US in 2003 can we atleast take baby steps before have official court judges deciding who truly "loves eachother" and who doesn't??

So it's just subjective, then. A group of people made a law based on their opinions - and this law effects everyone in the country. Huh, just as I thought.

Is there any objective reason why a 15 year-old can't have sex with a 19 year-old in ALL cases? If not, the law needs changing, obviously.

By the way, your presence in this thread has gone thusly:

"These laws make no sense. They need to be changed."
You: "No, the scenario that this law deems crime is bad and so the law deems it crime, justly so"
"Why is the scenario bad?"
You: "Because the law says so."

... Serious, brah.

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)

Why is what is (or what chance something has to be) law relevant? It's not. I want to argue what's objectively right or wrong. Once we've decided if something is right or not, then the question of whether or not it should be law is a pretty simple one to answer.

[Praetorian]

Cultural subjectivity is a murky subject. I'll go ahead and say that a cleric marrying a 9 year old is wrong. I could say it's wrong because she hasn't even hit puberty yet...

But the Koran says that a girl should have her first period in the house of her husband. Since this is the law in places like Saudi Arabia, does that make them justified in doing so? I'd say no, but I'd be hard pressed to give you a solid qualifier for when it is ok.

It's legal, in my state, to get married at 14 with parental consent. So if you're 50 and can convince a girl's parents to sign off on it, it's perfectly legal. I don't think that's ok, but this is the American southwest, and we have some laws that harken back to the frontier days.

Unfortunately, there is no magical sign that shows up on your forehead that says, "I'm ready for sex." when you're finally ready for it. It's a complex and deeply personal issue that probably shouldn't be handled in a courtroom unless signs of coercion or intoxication exist.

[Aractus]

[Tiberius]

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.

[Minimalist]

I see your point, Divi Tiberio, I just think you are giving law waaaayyy too much credit to handle nuance.