Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elementary Teacher Charged with Sex With 12 Year Old Boy
WOAI ^ | 8/1/10 | Jim Forsyth

Posted on 08/02/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by laotzu

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
To: wagglebee

I miss him very much.


151 posted on 08/03/2010 12:50:49 PM PDT by Durus (The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; metmom; BykrBayb; trisham; Abathar; manc; Responsibility2nd
You posted: “You are actually suggesting that letting childred be BEATEN, RAPED AND KILLED is preferable to the government having laws to prevent it.”

I posted no such thing.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what you posted in post #122. Here, let me refresh your memory:

Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse

The libertarian solution ALWAYS seems to be to look for an excuse to remove laws and your rationalization is among the sickest.

There are some things which government can’t do. Preventing evil seems to be one such thing. Preventing child abuse by government taking custody of the abused child has been tried - and those programs produced more abuse.

~snip~

The sad fact is that state custodial care is filled with violent, and/or sexually predatory “clients” who then beat or rape other “clients”.

Sorry, but government has proven that it can not prevent it.

So, you want to take a single extreme incident and remove all laws protecting children. Typical libertarian anarchist.

152 posted on 08/03/2010 12:53:27 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Durus

“Defending this particular act is what has put you in the indefensible position as being a female pedophile apologist.”

Sorry, but again you confuse questioning the factual basis of the “damage” with my being a female pedophile apologist.

Given that I live near Miami, home territory of one Janet Reno, who was filmed in bed with a 15 year old female, and that said film was known to many in the law field and the rest of the community, and given my rejection of just about all Reno believed or did, to try to call me a female pedophile apologist crosses the line from the subtle to the ridiculous.

My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?

I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.

Liberalism effectively made the father responsible for the child but usurped his authority.

By the way, “deemed legal” sounds rather like “deemed passed”.

My question remains unanswered: Should the parents have the final deciding authority as to the age of first intercourse, and with whom said intercourse occurs - or should the state?

Since we agree that the present system leaves much to be desired, what should be? Note I asked what should be, not waht is presently legal.

That, to me, is important. ‘Specially in a post Obama period.


153 posted on 08/03/2010 1:00:55 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Since liber(al)tarians also want prostitution legal, I wonder if your position holds that money can change hands when these 12 year olds have sex with 30 year olds.”

Arf, Arf, ARF! I think I hear the sounds of straw dogs baying.

;-)

If we can stick to the subject, specifically, “Who should decide?”


154 posted on 08/03/2010 1:06:04 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Libertarians are ruining this website.
 
I've long called on Jim Robinson to take a bugzapper stand and clean it up He won't. I guess the donations from the libs are more important than conservative values.

155 posted on 08/03/2010 1:08:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Wait until next year when the libertarians are once again pushing Ron Paul for president.


156 posted on 08/03/2010 1:10:43 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; little jeremiah; metmom; BykrBayb; trisham; Abathar; manc; Responsibility2nd
Arf, Arf, ARF! I think I hear the sounds of straw dogs baying.

You're joking right? You acknowledged that under your the policy you prefer "some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed," but you accuse someone of making a strawman by asking about child prostitution?

Are you saying that you OPPOSE laws against prostitution?

157 posted on 08/03/2010 1:16:17 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I am trying to maintain some humor, a tad difficult after some of the erroneous attacks, the argumentium ad homenium replies, ad nauseam.

Not owning a whore house, not even a “ho” house, I never really considered the issue. I would assume the legality of prostitution to be a matter for the local community, as clearly the Constitution says nothing about it.

Once again, very slowly (yes, I am trying to inject a bit of humor) - “Given that government has proven that it can not reduce child abuse by passing laws, what next?”


158 posted on 08/03/2010 1:30:49 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Durus

I just realized the faulty premise in your “In case you are otherwise unclear if one advocates overturning consent laws that protect children from pedophiles then you are supporting pedophilia. It is really that simple.”

There are lots of laws regarding pedophilia, but Chester the Molester still exists.

What does this tell us about the efficacy of those laws?

My question regarding what should comes after the present failure mode set of laws is hardly a red herring.

The present system is in failure mode. What next?


159 posted on 08/03/2010 1:37:53 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; little jeremiah; metmom; BykrBayb; trisham; Abathar; manc; Responsibility2nd
I am trying to maintain some humor,

There's really nothing funny about opposing laws that protect children.

a tad difficult after some of the erroneous attacks, the argumentium ad homenium replies, ad nauseam.

What exactly do you expect on a conservative forum when you are advocating a policy where "some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed"?

Not owning a whore house, not even a “ho” house, I never really considered the issue. I would assume the legality of prostitution to be a matter for the local community, as clearly the Constitution says nothing about it.

So, communities should be allowed to outlaw prostitution, but "government intervention is worse" than laws which protect children from being molested and murdered?

Once again, very slowly (yes, I am trying to inject a bit of humor) - “Given that government has proven that it can not reduce child abuse by passing laws, what next?”

I can assure you that ANY SOLUTION that involves liberals and libertarians will be a disaster.

160 posted on 08/03/2010 1:39:18 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

It’s not a straw man. I’m just wondering.

Since liber(al)tarians want prostituion legal (supposedly local communities can pass laws against it, but usually liber(al)tarians do not mention that part), and you apparently want all age of consent laws either abolished or enforcable at the whim of the parent, my query is perfectly legitimate and germane to the conversation.

You think you are more clever than you are.


161 posted on 08/03/2010 1:42:08 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Sorry, but again you confuse questioning the factual basis of the “damage” with my being a female pedophile apologist.

No. What I have said repeatedly is that damage does not have to be determined before agreeing with the concept of informed consent. That without informed consent laws pedophiles are given cover for their actions. If you advocate getting rid of age of consent laws then you are supporting pedophiles. That you think Janet Reno should have been prosecuted simply means that you are a hypocritical female pedophile apologist. If there were no age of consent laws and a parent discovered a 50 year old having sex with their 8 year old child what would their recourse be? It's not like they could call the police as the person wouldn't be breaking the law. A child being molested by their parent? If laws of consent are on the chopping block why not incest laws? Who are you to say what is right and wrong. Isn't that the parents decision?

"My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?

Parents should never be able to determine with whom their child will have sex. Only adults (as determined by your individual state) can legally have sex as only they are able to make informed decisions. There are exceptions made for parents to be able to allow their children to marry at a younger age then the age of consent typically. This is the only legal way that "children" (but still above a legally mandated age) could have sex. In your state children could be married at 16. This provides the exemption for parents that you claimed was the only thing you wanted.

I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.

I disagree with your claim. Children were never considered slave or property but a grave responsibility.

In your answer to what should be done is that child molestation should be made a capital crime.

162 posted on 08/03/2010 1:43:40 PM PDT by Durus (The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Er...why did you ping me on this?


163 posted on 08/03/2010 1:44:20 PM PDT by NucSubs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Only abusers justify their actions by insisting that no harm is done to the victim, that the victims actually enjoy it or want it, that it’s not really wrong because it happens somewhere else in the world or in history, yada, yada, yada.....

We’ve heard arguments like that before from pedophiles.

Talk like a pedophile and you’ll be labeled as one.”

Regardless of how nasty you make false claims about someone whom you know nothing about, the question I posed remains unaddressed, let alone answered: Since the present system has failed in its intervention, and since the present system also fails to prevent such abuse - what next?

Please remember that redoubling ones efforts in the fact of failure is a working description of fanaticism.

I really must correct some of your presumptions. I did not write that the teacher/student sex was right, what I asked, numerous times was quantification of damages. No real data was presented, so that ended that inquiry.

I suspect you have a significant emotional investment in the present system’laws. Given that, and your increasing anger and projection, I suggest accepting that we disagree on the need for showing damages in the instant case.

In closing, given the paucity of data supporting damages to the male student’s sexual event, does the possibility of “damage” justify a 20 or 30 year jail bill to the citizenry? Especially, as such sentences clearly have not deterred such offenders?


164 posted on 08/03/2010 1:52:07 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: NucSubs

I pinged everyone on the Moral Absolutes and Homosexual Agenda ping lists.


165 posted on 08/03/2010 1:53:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
I posted no such thing.

You sure did post any such thing. Here's your comment from post 122.Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse - perhaps we must rely on family and neighbors, and church members.

166 posted on 08/03/2010 1:54:01 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

“What exactly do you expect on a conservative forum when you are advocating a policy where “some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed”?”

Do realize I am not advocating such a government policy, I am questioning it?

Note carefully, I described a state wide program which was in failure mode. Then I asked “What should be done?”

That is hardly advocating or support of such a failed program. Ditto for the laws under discussion.

Regarding your opinion of Liberals, I concur. Libertarians I don’t know about.

The previous poster was misinformed by a soi dissant “Libertarian” on the subject of marriage. In the Western world, laws give advantage to marriage, and restrict it to male/female couples because such marriages most reliably produce the best acculturated next generation.

Any other coupling does not deserve societal advantage, as it does not benefit society.


167 posted on 08/03/2010 2:06:33 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: metmom

You took that totally out of context and then claimed I said that which is no where in what I wrote.

You posted: “Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse - perhaps we must rely on family and neighbors, and church members.”

Government programs result in more child abuse. Undeniable.

Perhaps I should have been more specific as in: “But, given that government intervention results in inflicting more of the abuse it was supposed to alleviate - perhaps we must rely more on family and neighbors and church members”


168 posted on 08/03/2010 2:12:12 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Excellent post, wagglebee.
169 posted on 08/03/2010 2:14:19 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Got ideas?

Just what are your ideas, GG? You don't want laws or a government to enforce them regarding child abuse? Huh? All because you have an alleged incident that perhaps was wrongly enforced with unintended consequences? Huh? What are your ideas about child sex abuse and how children can be protected from evil? No laws, no rules, leave it up to citizens? Huh?

170 posted on 08/03/2010 2:18:17 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“What exactly do you expect on a conservative forum when you are advocating a policy where “some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed”?”

Do realize I am not advocating such a government policy, I am questioning it?

Note carefully, I described a state wide program which was in failure mode. Then I asked “What should be done?”

That is hardly advocating or support of such a failed program. Ditto for the laws under discussion.

Regarding your opinion of Liberals, I concur. Libertarians I don’t know about.

The previous poster was misinformed by a soi dissant “Libertarian” on the subject of marriage. In the Western world, laws give advantage to marriage, and restrict it to male/female couples because such marriages most reliably produce the best acculturated next generation.

Any other coupling does not deserve societal advantage, as it does not benefit society.


171 posted on 08/03/2010 2:45:56 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom

Until the mid 1800’s there were no age of consent laws. They came in as part of a legal response to the factory abuses of child workers in an industrializing society.

As for what I’d like, I would like each child to have two parents who cared about the child and carefully educated their child.

I am not sure how government can participate in child raising. So far, its efforts have been prohibitively expensive and generally counter-productive.

You raised a central question regarding protecting children from evil. Florida (and probably other states) have tried government and it has been an expensive, intrusive failure.

Evil, like liberty must be dealt with with eternal vigilance. Be on the lookout for evil, and be eternally suspicious of all who are your public servants, as it is the nature of servants to steal.

I posed these question because America has a child abuse industry which produces more abuse than it prevents, laws regarding children which clearly do not protect the children the laws were supposed to protect or deter abusers.

In case I didn’t make my self clear, the entire Florida Child Protection System was found to have more abuse being visited upon the children in state custody than when they were not in said state custody.

The failure is systemic and seemingly unfixable. Perhaps we must accept the reality that parents are the only viable option, and accept the possibility that some parents are horrid, destructive people who do horrid and destructive things to children.

I am sorry if I am the bearer of bad news about a failed system, but that is just what is.

Hopefully, the FR community may be able to come up with some ideas. Waiting for government to deal with this issue is like waiting for Godot.

And, I didn’t bring lunch.

At least, I hope the question of what to do about our failed child protection services will grow legs and produce some viable answers.


172 posted on 08/03/2010 3:02:52 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
According to your new principle any law that does not result in 100% compliance should result in the laws being overturned and news laws being put in their place. Laws are not created to remove the evil from people hearts but to punish those that refuse obey the law. There is no need to replace any laws in this particular case but to start applying the law.
173 posted on 08/03/2010 3:20:29 PM PDT by Durus (The People have abdicated our duties and anxiously hopes for just two things, "Bread and Circuses")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom; GladesGuru
What are your ideas about child sex abuse and how children can be protected from evil? No laws, no rules, leave it up to citizens? Huh?

Read post 122 and be prepared to lose your lunch. This is what he thinks......As madison said, there is NO Constitutional authority for government to do charity. That means, government should keep its hands off the family.

Yes, some children will be beaten, seduced, raped, even killed. But, given that government intervention is worse - perhaps we must rely on family and neighbors, and church members.

Some people think it's better that some children's lives are destroyed that for the government to be able to do anything about it.

174 posted on 08/03/2010 3:45:56 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: metmom; GladesGuru; wagglebee; little jeremiah
So some actually believe in a free for all and no governmental protection for the innocent -- young or old?

Crazy libertarian opinions are dangerous for society and especially for the most vulnerable. If one reads my FR homepage, the distinction between government intervention and its authority and non-profit and church preferences become quite evident.

But, let's be clear, there there is no substitute for governmental authority for criminal prosecutions against those who would harm innocents. Those who think otherwise are either stupid, naive, or certifiable.

And anecdotal examples (and there are plenty) do not suffice to overturn this authority. Government accountability is always necessary, and yes, it would be better if good prevailed with primarily social services provided by non-profits and churches -- but that alone is not sufficient, and to believe otherwise is simply wrong-headed.

175 posted on 08/03/2010 4:06:49 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: metmom; vox_freedom; GladesGuru

Post 122 is among the most disturbing posts I’ve ever read.


176 posted on 08/03/2010 4:20:33 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Had you read what I posted, rather than what you want to see, you would have know I said that government intervention in the family caused more of the evils it was originally supposed to alleviate.

Got that - government custody of children causes more abuse than it cures and that is from the government’s own data.

Rather than blaming be for the agency failure, consider trying to find a more effective or workable solution.

Madison was correct - note that when he disregarded his advice and allowed agencies to take children, we wound up with agencies that Exacerbate, rather than Alleviate, the problem said agencies were created to deal with.


177 posted on 08/03/2010 4:49:57 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Had you read what I posted, rather than what you want to see, you would have know I said that government intervention in the family caused more of the evils it was originally supposed to alleviate.

Got that - government custody of children causes more abuse than it cures and that is from the government’s own data.

Rather than blaming be for the agency failure, consider trying to find a more effective or workable solution.

Madison was correct - note that when he disregarded his advice and allowed agencies to take children, we wound up with agencies that Exacerbate, rather than Alleviate, the problem said agencies were created to deal with.


178 posted on 08/03/2010 4:50:27 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: laotzu

Guilty...

Draw and quarter her!


179 posted on 08/03/2010 4:51:17 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Some people think it’s better that some children’s lives are destroyed that for the government to be able to do anything about it.”

Discussing this with you is like talking to a Liberal.

Please understand I gave you data indicating government tried to do something about the children at risk - and failed.

I did not say this failure was a good thing, I said this failure was probably unavoidable, and part of attempts to have government do the things it was not allowed to do by the Constitution.

Your supoort for the present agencies/laws is clear. Also clear is the failure of same.

Now - got any answers to my question of “What next?”


180 posted on 08/03/2010 4:55:13 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; vox_freedom; little jeremiah; metmom; BykrBayb; trisham; Abathar; manc; ...
Until the mid 1800’s there were no age of consent laws.

Actually age of consent laws were first codified in England in the 13th century, they have been part of English Common Law ever since and were the law in the American colonies.

Age of Consent Laws

You raised a central question regarding protecting children from evil. Florida (and probably other states) have tried government and it has been an expensive, intrusive failure.

That's like saying the laws against murder are failures because people are still murdered.

I posed these question because America has a child abuse industry which produces more abuse than it prevents,

And your proof of this is what exactly?

Hopefully, the FR community may be able to come up with some ideas.

Perhaps getting rid of anarchists.

181 posted on 08/03/2010 4:57:14 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom

“to believe otherwise is simply wrong-headed.”

Belief is fine in matters of faith, but in matters of government, accountability matter. When a major government effort such as child protection becomes a failure which compounds rather than cures the problem, mere belief in the necessity of government intervention in that area is counter-intuitive, illogical, and irrational.

We have to face the hard fact that some things government can’t deal with, regardless of funding level or authority.

Look at the Florida situation. Is it better to support a swarm of intervenors knowing their efforts result in even more abuse?

I would say no. But, I have an admitted lack of belief that government can do such things.

PS I liked your home page. We just disagree when to pull the funding on failed government programs.


182 posted on 08/03/2010 5:01:45 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Perhaps looking at this site and the bibliraphy may shed some light where heat had so far prevailed.

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html

Note the fifth paragraph.

So much for history. Now for reading before posting

“You raised a central question regarding protecting children from evil. Florida (and probably other states) have tried government and it has been an expensive, intrusive failure.

That’s like saying the laws against murder are failures because people are still murdered.”

You posted a classic non sequetor.

I raised the issue of what to do with a failed government approach to a problem Were a law regarding murder, and the agencies enforcing it, shown to be increasing the murder rate, I am sure you would want that law and the agencies gone forthwith.

“Getting rid of anarchists”

Anarchists are in the agencies? Or have unusually large numbers of child sex freaks amongst them?

I never knew.


183 posted on 08/03/2010 5:14:38 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom; GladesGuru; wagglebee; little jeremiah; trisham; BykrBayb; Durus; Responsibility2nd

I have read the posts of banned FReepers on other forums who were bragging that they managed to support homosexual marriage on FR for years under the guise of *Government should stay out of the business of defining marriage*.

Claiming the non-government interference route is nothing but a smoke screen to promote immorality and come out looking like the hero. It’s the same vapid argument used to stealth support abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, pornography, you name the immorality.

It’s a lie and nobody on this forum is being fooled by it.


184 posted on 08/03/2010 5:19:14 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Durus

“If laws of consent are on the chopping block why not incest laws?”

Has it occurred to you that there are genetic reason for incest laws? Regardless of any religious or cultural beliefs, incest does produce inferior offspring.

Long ago, this was known, and the incest taboo was created because of that realization. Incest is bad for the gene poll of the community. Hard fact, one could even call it “hard data”, too - assuming the use of those terms doesn’t cause more hyperventilation.


185 posted on 08/03/2010 5:21:43 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru; vox_freedom; little jeremiah; metmom; BykrBayb; trisham; Abathar; manc; ...

Perhaps looking at this site and the bibliraphy may shed some light where heat had so far prevailed.

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html

Note the fifth paragraph.

So much for history. Now for reading before posting

Your original premise was that age of consent laws didn't exist before the 19th century, now you post a link saying that the Romans had them.

It seems to me that you simply oppose these laws under any circumstances.

I raised the issue of what to do with a failed government approach to a problem Were a law regarding murder, and the agencies enforcing it, shown to be increasing the murder rate, I am sure you would want that law and the agencies gone forthwith.

No, the LOGICAL reaction is to demand better ENFORCEMENT, it's only people like YOU who want to scrap the laws.

186 posted on 08/03/2010 5:25:28 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Durus

“I asked this question in this form because under western law, from Moses through Jesus time, including the Roman period, the child was legally the chattel of the father.

I disagree with your claim. Children were never considered slave or property but a grave responsibility.”

Verify what I posted with any good lawyer familiar with those three legal systems.

Next, we come to:
“ “My previous question remains unanswered. Should the parents or the state be the final authority as to when a child is to have sex, and with whom?

Parents should never be able to determine with whom their child will have sex.”

Before trying to defend that one, consider what Lot told the riotous crowd wanting him to turn over some strangers.

Consider that until recently, parents did arrange marriages throughout most of the world. In many places they still do. However, given that I support American Exceptionalism, American practices seem to me to be the most important to this discussion.

Perhaps the confusion comes from my not having used a negative as the example. When a parent can not approve of a marriage, that parent exercises a negative choice over the child’s sex life and choice of partner.

In an earlier post, I gave a site with dealing with records of early American age of consent, marriage, and divorce among those 14 and younger.

But, again, may I suggest more effort be devoted to finding an alternative to the failed child protective system we now have in place?


187 posted on 08/03/2010 5:34:42 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
PS I liked your home page. We just disagree when to pull the funding on failed government programs.

Please give specifics. Do you want laws against child sex abuse repealed?
Come on, you said they were a failure, so do you want them on the books in Florida and elsewhere, and enforced, or pulled?

A yes or no would suffice, since it appears you have difficulty in focusing on answers.

188 posted on 08/03/2010 5:41:47 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

PS I liked your home page. We just disagree when to pull the funding on failed government programs.

The above was your quote to me...

189 posted on 08/03/2010 5:43:02 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Those justifying a law which is counter to the general experience of man should be willing to justify their position. And, it has been the general experience of man that post puberty boys are mostly equipped with an overly active sex drive and a grossly underdeveloped sexual morality.

So long as social mores and potential partner standards inhibit the exercise of those physical capabilities until the maturity of the individual has increased, the boys will spend more time talking about it than doing it.

Before condoms were given away in schools, many guys had one in their wallet by high school and it wore out there.

Being 14 in 1820 vs 1920 vs 1960 vs 1990 vs 2010 may have some physical similarities, but the ability of an individual to provide for and support a family (the social structure around them, the expectations of society--partly culturally based), and the sheer capability of the individual to survive and provide has changed, at 14, and we are talking about a very large (maturationally speaking) two year gap between twelve and fourteen.

Considering that most 12 year-olds today are hardly equipped to support offspring, I think the standard which makes most sense is one in which the generally culturally accepted age for coitus is one at which the parent is capable of supporting the child, all mores aside.

It is no coincidence that that general age usually is consistent with the age an individual is considered 'mature' enough to be a parent.

That age varies from individual to individual. I know people in their 40s who are still not mature enough to raise children, although one could make the argument that had they had children they might have matured more, out of necessity.

That, I believe to be a result of a culture in which maturation and responsibility have been grossly undervalued.

The reason it is difficult to quantify the 'damage' done to a young individual when an adult steps outside the accepted social moral envelope and engages in relations with someone far their junior is that it is difficult to ascertain how much of that damage lingers--it all depends on the individual.

Now, I'm no sociologist, no psychologist, and all I have to go on are the observations of watching generations grow and (sometimes) mature (I'm a great-grandfather), but I'd say there is damage done when anyone in a position of trust, in a supervisory or mentoring role becomes personally (sexually) engaged with someone in any circumstance which implies or develops expectations of an ongoing relationship and fails to deliver.

That happens at any age, but 'first loves' become the standard by which all others will be measured, and the deepest wounds come from the first betrayals. It is not until later that people develop the mechanisms to defend themselves from rejection or betrayal, but even those mechanisms will taint the relationships they have in the future.

Needless to say, most grade schoolers are still pretty vulnerable (12=sixth grade in most places).

190 posted on 08/03/2010 6:02:59 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; GladesGuru

Wow.

First off, as Wagglebee pointed out “I guess you didn’t realize that crimes such as rape and homosexuality were CAPITAL CRIMES when our Founding Fathers were around.”
There is little to zero hope of rehabilitation for a rapists in our system. And child molestors (IIRC) have a KNOWN recitivism rate of 75%.

Glades, while I can clearly relate to a lot of the feelings you are having, I would ask, “What is your solution?” Increasing Government intervention, in my opinion, has done little—to nothing—to curb the acts you are describing, but it probably has raised community awareness.

The problem is, that, if family’s all functioned the way you’d like them to (Meaning socializing children, and caring for them without harming them), then we’d have no difference of opinion, I think. The problem is that families have dropped the ball, and that Government has picked it up, and then some.

I agree with the family picking that ball back up, I think you’re making an argument that is faith based (which i can understand), but which won’t change a lot of minds. Because the fact is, that people will abuse children, but that doesn’t mean we don’t strive to end it. If you mean that the FEDEAL government should keep it’s noses out of the family, I can agree. I think state and local government should be able to make laws with consent of the governed.

We all want government out of our lives, but you forget that are freedom seeking constitution, as Washington said, can only govern a moral people. If people were moral, government intervention wouldn’t be necessary, and this point would be moot.

I don’t have a definitive solution for you (other than the Ideal of everyone living by perfect Christian values, probably not gonna happen), because I’m just an imperfect person myself. But I do think we should come up with ideas of how to implement better standards of government in the home. After all, we have to define SOMEWHERE what we find acceptable. Many cultures teach female circumcision and the like. Are you willing to accept such atrocities based on cultural relativism, if they come to the U.S.? The Kukukuku people of New guinea believe the men have to rape boys in order to get them to grow up. Is that acceptable if they lived in the U.S.? NO, IT IS NOT.

So we have to draw the line somewhere. I draw the line for these types of things at the State level, with State Constitutions. States decide what they’re going to do, but I don’t think the FedGov has any say in this. But to get rid of all Government in this area, as you said, is probably not going to work in a non-perfect world, and it certainly isn’t going to function with a non-moral people we both know exist today. The problem is, that not everyone agrees with you, and we’ll always (probably) be on the other side of a government which is run by amoral people (ie. Homeschooling is abuse, whatever). There will be people on both sides, and they will not agree. I would err on the side of less government indoctrination, but a good Criminal Justice System requires good laws, and moral judges.

If we can agree on the problem, we can work towards a solution. But no government probably won’t work. And I feel we agree about the problem.


191 posted on 08/03/2010 6:04:21 PM PDT by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom

As to Florida age of consent laws, and by extension, those in other states, I agree with age of consent laws because we have fallen far from the self reliant, family oriented people we once were.

However, I suggest a clause be placed in such laws as will allow parents & child to request a court wavier unless the state can prove beyond shadow of a doubt that greater harm would come from the parental/child decision than from the statute.

I would add that such a case should be held in closed court to protect the family’s privacy.

If such a clause were written so as to give preference to the family decision, then I propose this to be a balancing of the obvious need for societal norms with the particular needs/decisions of such families as wish an exception.

Courts balance competing rights. In my proposal, the right/need of the society for norms in this area are balanced against parental rights.

Really, to an extent not really known to me, in Florida this can be done by the child and parent applying for “Emancipated female” status. I don’t know if Florida law allows such a status for males, but I would assume so.

Government has to have the right to rule. But if the parent is to be the final authority in family matters, as was the case for most of history, then some balance must be found. At least until we regain a family based America rather than the Nanny State we presently are growing.

I proposed this rather earlier in this thread, but it seems to have been ignored.


192 posted on 08/03/2010 6:36:05 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
My position is that since the State of Florida has an increased level of sex abuse of children taken into the state custory/system, that the taxpayers are paying for something they find abhorrent - their money is supporting rape rather than perventing it. What can be done is the central question, but supporting a swarm of goobers in gooberment agencies has been tried and failed.

There was a time not so long ago when the parents and a few adult relatives would have a 'talk' with the offender. How involved the 'talk' was would depend on the offense. Some offenders were never seen in town again after their 'talk'.

Now some here may decry 'frontier justice', which is an institution never to be utilized lightly lest 'witch hunts' prevail, but in the day whispered accounts of the fates of child molestors kept much such behaviour at bay. Fear of the law then was less than fear of the relatives, which may explain in part why so much predation seems to occur upon thoee who lack solid, primary interest (parent or blood relative) family units. While some stepparent considerations can run equally strong, that varies widely, and seem strongest in those with no conflicting child interests.

Now, however, pedophillia is being promoted while the threat of vigilantism which once suppressed it is reviled.

193 posted on 08/03/2010 6:59:55 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
I will give two stories from my own childhood:

When my brother was about 6, a bully ( about 10) in the neighborhood held my brother's thumb to a match and blistered it badly. The next day, my older brother who was then about 18 had a “talk” with the bully. The bully never again even spoke to my brother or me. He left us completely alone. As children, my brother and I never had any problems in the neighborhood or school with bullying ( except for this one incident).

The second story involves my older brother. He worked with my uncle who owned greenhouses. My brother would stand at the entrance to the elevated trains and sell flowers for my uncle. One day he was approached and propositioned by two homosexuals. That afternoon, my uncle and another uncle tracked down the homosexuals and had a “talk” with these two guys. They were never seen in the neighborhood again.

194 posted on 08/03/2010 7:09:43 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: JDW11235

I simply must get back to writing a proposal due all too soon, so this must be more truncated that I would like.

As to Muslim beliefs, Islam Delenda Est - because they will force us to. Likewise for Stone Age belief systems in general, be they New Guinea or the stone age cannibal cult of MesoAmerican Azitlan nutters.

Culture counts, most importantly American culture. America is truly an exception to the sad history of man, and the preservation of the American Republic must be our central duty.

You are totally correct about a moral people being the only people capable of making the American Republic work. However, Liberals have given us a few generations of irresponsible parasites. What now?

My arguments were probably more based upon the writings of the Founders and evolutionarily acquired behavioral predispositions than a particular faith. Judeo-Christianity did however, devise the last six of the Ten Commandments. A more concise societal rule book has yet to be written. Belief in G*d id not essential to observation of these Commandments.

In earlier posts, and very late in this thread, I did suggest a modification to Age of Consent Law which I hope may better balance Rights of all involved.

Thanks for all the interest in this thread, and the issues it raised.

Back to the proposal.


195 posted on 08/03/2010 7:22:04 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

NOTE TO ALL ! !

PLEASE READ POST #193.

Smokin Joe has an historically prove methodology.

Hint: it is family based.

PS It worked, and cost virtually nothing


196 posted on 08/03/2010 7:53:44 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: laotzu

The one on the right, looks like the missing link.


197 posted on 08/03/2010 7:58:04 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

No no no ... Sex within their age is fine. your 23 year old wife has no business with a 40 year old guy.

Within age limits is what I’m saying.


198 posted on 08/03/2010 8:20:19 PM PDT by Celerity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Keep in mind that the anarchist masquerading as a libertarian considers local government to be equally as dangerous as the Federal government. Doubt it? test them.

True libertarian thinkers understand that the Constitution recognizes state and local governments as the proper source for criminal lawmaking.

I have a great disdain for the creep of government, but the law is the law. If you don’t like it, get it changed. If you can’t change it. Run for office and get it changed.


199 posted on 08/03/2010 9:02:13 PM PDT by sayfer bullets ("...and if it stops moving, subsidize it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru

Your question is based on an incorrect assumption—that moral standards are always derived from utilitarianism.

So the implied conclusion is equally false.


200 posted on 08/03/2010 10:52:17 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Rules will never work for radicals because they seek chaos. And don't even know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson