it's the same as what the UN is doing, is it not "Republicans Make a Case for Child Marriage" https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-make-case-child-marriage-1786476 "Senator in 2010 Deposition: 13-Year-Olds Can Consent to Sex" https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...10-deposition-13-year-olds-can-consent-to-sex "Iowa Republicans pass law to allow child labor in all-night session" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...wa-republicans-child-labour-law-b2322286.html "The rest of the GOP caucus voted to support the bill, which allows children as young as 14 to work six-hour night shifts, as young as 15 to work in plants on assembly lines, and as young as 16 to serve alcohol, even though children that young cannot legally drink themselves."
This is about a bill which ended child marriages, which passed. What is your point exactly? It's unclear if he means that they can consent to sex with other under age people, or even with adults, because of the case that his answer to a question from a layer relates to, which is a 15 year old boy having sex with a 13 year old girl. The article also refers to this incident as an "attack" which is weird, as it initially described it as "a 15-year-old boy who was alleged to have had sex with her." Not alleged to have had raped her.
same as the UN? I know in my republican state until recently an 80-year-old could have sex with a 14-year-old legally, thankfully they change the rules to 16 with a 5 year buffer now
Why did you refer to this article about the ending of child marriage in West Virginia? Can you support that claim that this used to be the case?
I tried to search, but could not find it, I know about 20 years ago was 14, now is 16 with 5 year buffer, so change sometime between then and now
I tried that. No success. It's weird that you can't just simply tell me. This is a discussion forum after all.
I do not want to say where I live, but you can either believe it or not, your choice I remember learning that when my children were younger and being upset about it, but maybe I misunderstood back then
I made no mention of 9 year olds or those under 16 tears of age other than to point out the article says nothing about them. I didnt make up what you have imagined.
How does this means that the article was "BS?" The article did not claim that the report was exclusively discussing legal issues relating to child sex.
The article is not the point. The below statement from the report is. "Sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law..."
Since you don't see that this is a true statement, I do not want to get into a long, fruitless battle over semantics, with you. I will offer one quick demonstration, and I am done. In some states, the legal age is 16. If you have sex with a 16 year old, in one of them, she is legally considered old enough to have given her consent. Let's say you have a relationship with this person, and eventually take them on a weekend getaway. But in the state you are visiting, the age of consent is 18. If you have sex, then, the girl (let's say) cannot legally consent. But if the two of you go ahead and have sex anyway-- are you saying that, though the hundred times before this, the sex had been consensual, time #101 would not still be consensual-- in fact, if not in law-- just because you two had crossed a border into a state with a different legal age of consent?
AND "Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances."
No. The 'news' article expressly implied that the UN document advocated for the right of adults to have sex with children. Which it doesn't do and ignored any discussion points in it which contradicted that allegation i.e. the section cautioning against lax child marriage laws which could be used to get around the age of consent laws by allowing adults to 'marry' children.
That is the problem that happens when people stop thinking for themselves, and bothering to do things like actually read and process things for themselves. And that is happening more and more these days. People simply can't be bothered by actually having to get facts, and simply believe anything they are told by the sources of their choice.
it most certainly does. "Sexual conduct involving PERSONS below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent" not one person below but both persons.
Okay, so then they have contradictory positions. So we are left wondering whether or not they are saying that minors can consent to sex, or whether they are not saying that.
In summery the report says some minors may (and do in fact ) engage in consensual sex with each other. That being the case when this occurs the fact that it is consensual should be taken into account when prosecution is being considered. This is opposed to situations where an adult engages in sex with a minor. The point being failing to so do so may result in one or both parties being prosecuted for their actions which on balance may not be in the best interest of either party. Furthermore nowhere does the report explicitly approve of such conduct. It just draws attention to the fact that they are 1) minors and 2) that since the sex was consensual. So albeit some the degree of criminality may be involved this is outweighed by the harm prosecution/court proceedings may cause. In addition and as far as I am aware nowhere in the report does it make a blanket claim on this subject about ALL incidents involving sex between minors.