California Passes Pro Pedophile Bill.

It might have something to do with the fact that, when homosexuality was being normalized, some of us, myself included, pointed to the arguments to defend homosexuality are the very same arguments that, if you accept the homosexuals premise, can be used to defend pedophilia. Examples include the “born that way argument” and “what’s it your business what two people who love each other do in their bedrooms” among others.

The defense used against that position is, but homosexuals consent and children cannot. That argument is spurious at best and completely indefensible when looked at logically. So when that defense falls, WHICH IT WILL, what other defense do you have?

 

I'm not a physiologist, but according to them, girls end puberty between 15-17, and boys between 16-17.

 

And what of the girl or boy who ends puberty at 12?

Can he or she consent?

 

12 is the beginning phase of puberty, so no. I imagine there are rare cases as you speak of, but being extraordinary, should be treated as other 12 year olds.

16 seems to be the reasonable age, based on normal development, and 16 is the age of consent in 31 states. Only 11 states put it at 18.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/states

 

So you think that pedophilia is defenseable?

And BTW, the argument is that ADULTS can consent regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

Stay classy Cali

 

No kidding. I'm looking for the cannibal clause in the law. It must cover that as well. The Democrats are a secret cabal of baby-eating pedophiles. Amazing what people will believe. Nobody supports pedophiles. That's not what this law is about, of course.

 

But you’re basing it upon an arbitrary and subjective concept. Not to mention a concept that doesn’t even fit your own definition.

You say it’s about sexual maturity but when pointed out there are young children who are technically sexually mature, you balk and don’t want them counted. If you base your definition of consent on sexual maturity then on what grounds can you deny a sexually mature 12 or 13 year old from having consensual sex?

 

I'm giving you the biology. Again, it's based on normal development. We don't base law on the rare exceptions. I find that reasonable, without the need to micro-analyze every possible case.

It would be convenient if we matured sexually on our 18th birthday, but we don't. The reality of modern society is that we procreate before we're capable of success in that society. Agricultural societies benefit from early childbirth and big families. Starting a family at 16 is the norm in such economies.

Age of consent laws are attempts to mitigate the differences between these two opposing forces: The drive and ability to procreate, and the responsibilities of adulthood. They're not perfect.

 

Not labeling a sex offender as a sex offender is a pretty nice NON punishment.

 

Sorry. I respond to your posts in order, so I may not see your flip flops.
So post 19 was just wrong. Okay. At least we cleared that up.

 

What you just argued is that the age of consent is subjective. Right?

 

There would still be a conviction and a sentence.
Judges have discretion in a lot of things. This is no big deal.

 

Because that is what the law already says. "Staff Member".

So you think that if an 18 year old has sex with a 17 year old they should automatically be put on a predator list?

Is it too much to expect a staff member to read a thread and understand what they are talking about before going all soapbox on a thread? Am I asking too much?

 

And folks marvel over why people accuse the leftist of trying to "normalize" pedos....this bill is a great example.

 

Let me explain it.
The law as it is:
* any adult having sex with anyone 17 and under is illegal. Lone exception: an 18 year old who is still in hs and the minor is 16 or 17.
* Any adult having sex with a minor under 14 is automatically on the sex registry.
* Any adult 10 years older than a minor is automatically on the sex registry.
* If an adult is less than 10 years older and the minor is 14 and over, the act is still illegal, but the registry is at a judges discretion if the sex is vaginal.
* If an adult is less than 10 years older and the minor is 14 and over, the act is still illegal, and the registry is automatic if the sex is oral or anal.

All the new law changes is to make oral and anal sex the same as vaginal sex.

The current law discriminates because right now if an 18 year old and a 17 year old have sex it is still illegal (which is absurd) but the judge doesn't have to throw the 18 year old on the registry automatically just because they had oral or anal sex instead of vaginal sex.

Sorry for the earlier snark. I am happy that you came back with a serious question. Just wish you led off with that.

PS: Don't ask about handjobs. This has been enough of a deep dive for the day.

 

I agree. Why would a law be passed that even made it optional that they wouldn't have to register? It makes me question what the motives are from whoever would even propose something like this.

 

I'm asking you. Can't I trust you?

 

I’ve given the answer several times, with links. Look at post 113.

 

The Great Gay Hero Mathew Sheppard, murdered by his fellow homosexual drug dealers over a dope deal, had a juvenile arrest record at age 16 involving two 8 year old boys, so what should the law be in his case? The main reason his parents didn't ask for the death penalty for his fellow homosexuals who murdered him over a dope deal was because in death penalty cases a 'victims' previous juvenile record can be un-sealed as part of the sentencing hearings. If that had happened, then no Mathew Sheppard Foundation and no ridiculous play making the rounds still peddling the myth he was murdered by Xian Fundies N Stuff.

 

I am sure that 99.9% of the time it will result in appearing on the registry. I would rather have them extend the Romeo and Juliet rule out like most other states so you don't criminalize an 18 or 19 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old.

 

I'm glad you aren't either: