Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statutory Rape if Straight Okay If Gay?
Godfather Politics ^ | June 22, 2013 | Dave Jolly

Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Statutory rape is legally defined as:

“The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.”

If you are a male, say age 18 and you have sex with a 14 year old girl, in most states that constitutes statutory rape. In all but three states, the age of consent is 18. That’s where the slang expression ‘jail bait’ came from when referring to a girl under the legal age.

Technically, the same should hold true if both participants are of the same sex, with one being under the legal age of consent. However, in keeping with the tradition of homosexuals demanding preferential treatment, a lesbian in Florida insists her actions were legal.

The defendant in this case is Kaitlyn Hunt. She has been charged with a felony, lewd and lascivious battery on a child for having sexual relations with her 14 year old girlfriend. She claims that the sex was consensual and therefore no crime was committed. Hunt argues that if they were a straight couple, no charges would have been filed, but because they are gay, she was charged with the crime.

Yet, I hear on the news from time to time about a teenage boy being arrested and charged with statutory rape or some other wording of the same crime, for having sex with his underage girlfriend, especially here in Kentucky. If you ask me, that kind of blows Hunt’s argument out of the water.

But she’s not done. Her attorney has also filed a motion to have Circuit Judge Robert Pegg remove himself from the case. Why? It’s because Pegg is not gay. Hunt and her attorney believe that a straight judge will not rule fairly on her case. But what they are really after is to get a gay judge who will rule in her favor. She doesn’t want equal treatment under the law, she wants privileged treatment because she is a homosexual.

I truly hope they find her guilty not because she is a lesbian, but because that is the rule of law.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: ageofconsent; ageofconsentlaws; celebrateperversity; comeforyourchildren; doublestandard; floriduh; homosexualagenda; judgeshopping; kaitlynhunt; lgbt; pc; pederasty; pedophilia; privileges; sexpositiveagenda; sexualizingchildren; specialrights; statutoryrape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If they aren’t allowed to molest kids then there won’t be any gays in the future.


2 posted on 06/22/2013 1:04:10 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
she wants privileged treatment because she is a homosexual.

Yup.

That, and the right to kill children -- these are the two cornerstones of modern Liberal thinking. It's a culture of death.

3 posted on 06/22/2013 1:05:21 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
From the Bed of the Moslem brotherhood and al Qaeda:

"What difference does it make?"


4 posted on 06/22/2013 1:07:43 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Is this what Todd Aiken was referring to when he used the words “Legitimate Rape”?


5 posted on 06/22/2013 1:07:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
My great-grandfather married my great-grandmother when she was 13. He was 32. My grandmother sprang forth from that union when my great-grandmother was 15.

If not for that, I would not be here.

I know that a lot of you would celebrate that, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

6 posted on 06/22/2013 1:23:37 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

When considering this story, start from the premise that there is no such thing as ‘gay’…… there is normal and there perverted.


7 posted on 06/22/2013 1:24:30 PM PDT by hecticskeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I have always believed that Jerry Sandusky’s homosexuality served as a shield protecting his pedophilia for so many years. If he liked girls, he’d have been exposed decades ago. Bob


8 posted on 06/22/2013 1:26:40 PM PDT by alstewartfan ("You have the most appealing surface I have seen. Bring it over here. Lay it down by me." Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: elkfersupper

Personally, I think the age of consent should be 16. Some people are just gonna do it.


10 posted on 06/22/2013 1:58:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Drag Me From Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

On the assumption that lesbians are capable of sexually penetrating someone (which could be read as strictly male-female genital sex), is there any evidence that she did in fact perform those specific acts which could constitute penetration in her circumstances? That seems like a better angle for the defense to use, to me.


11 posted on 06/22/2013 2:04:05 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Personally, I think the age of consent should be 16.

Well, then my great-grandfather and I are both still screwed, unless there is an application of a statute of limitations.

12 posted on 06/22/2013 2:20:01 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Um, I assume he had permission to marry her? Then there’s no crime. I don’t see why you people with this argument can’t differentiate between “legal” and “illegal”. Would you be this excited about the situation if he’d been sleeping with her for while, sneaking around her parents’ backs?


13 posted on 06/22/2013 2:35:29 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Liberalism. Ideas so great they have to be mandatory.-FReeper Osage Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian

The evidence shows that the girl was molested in a school bathroom, and again when she was missing from her parents’ house.


14 posted on 06/22/2013 2:37:23 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Liberalism. Ideas so great they have to be mandatory.-FReeper Osage Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Let me make it easy for the judge.

Performing lewd acts in the restroom of a public school should result in jail time. Same sex or opposite, of legal age or not, student, teacher, parent, black, white, or rainbow colored.

Anyone have a problem with that?

15 posted on 06/22/2013 2:42:05 PM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

Yes, but molestation isn’t necessarily penetration. Groping can be molestation as well.


16 posted on 06/22/2013 2:47:30 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

Yes, but molestation isn’t necessarily penetration. Groping can be molestation as well.


17 posted on 06/22/2013 2:47:39 PM PDT by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

By that standard for getting a judge removed, I’d think the vast majority of the population would be entitled not to have a gay judge sitting for their case.

Ridiculous, of course, in both circumstances.


18 posted on 06/22/2013 2:51:31 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Um, I assume he had permission to marry her?

Um, they had nobody to get permission from. Look up Spanish Flu".

19 posted on 06/22/2013 3:09:08 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Why do you think they created specially-privileged victim groups? So they can do whatever the hell they danmed well please and we have to shut up about it.


20 posted on 06/22/2013 3:27:45 PM PDT by I want the USA back (If I Pi$$ed off just one liberal today my mission has been accomplished.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Back in your great grandpa’s day, the age of consent was 13.


21 posted on 06/22/2013 3:39:51 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What’s the difference? Obama and the Democrats are F*ing America up the A$$ anyway.


22 posted on 06/22/2013 4:03:18 PM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
My great-grandfather married my great-grandmother when she was 13. He was 32.

Where to begin?

First of all, when your great-grandmother was 13, her life expectancy was in her mid 40s. Life expectancies in the US did not break 50 until the early 1900s.

Second, if your 32 year old great-grandfather was taking a 13 year old bride, chances are it was his second or third wife, with the earlier wives dying either during child birth or of one of any of hundreds of now easily treated diseases. If women did not have children when they were in their teens then there was very little chance that they would live long enough to see them grown.

Third, it is probable that your great-grandmother had no say in the matter and her husband was selected for her by her parents. They may have gotten a dowry as compensation for her or they may simply have been happy to get her married off before she died (or became an old maid at 16).

Fourth, I am betting that your great-grandparents were married. There is a big difference between getting married and having sex with your wife and roaming the elementary schools looking for sex partners.

Even now, marriage is an absolute defense to a statutory rape charge, though there are only a couple of states left where a 13 year old can get legally married even with the parents permission. I understand that 13 year old brides are still permitted in many Muslim countries, but so is killing 13 year olds that dishonor the family by getting raped.

Today (outside of Muslim countries) any 32 year old that has sex with a 13 year old would be rightly considered to be a pedophile, regardless of how "willing" the 13 year old may have been. A 13 or 14 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult and any adult that has sex with a 13 or 14 year old should be prosecuted as a sex offender.

23 posted on 06/22/2013 4:05:14 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Look up Spanish Flu

So that puts the marriage around 1918, when women had a life expectancy of 42.

So if her family had all died from the flu pandemic, did great-grandpa select his child bride from an orphanage or off of the streets?

Seriously, if a 32 year old today picked a 13 year old orphan with no family to be his sex partner, you would be ok with that?

24 posted on 06/22/2013 4:14:29 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Only if his name was Elvis. Sorry, couldn’t help it.


25 posted on 06/22/2013 4:20:37 PM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“When government does not protect the public from criminals, or worse, takes the side of the criminals against the public, vigilantism results.”

It begins as a non-violent plea and petition to government to do its job, then as a movement to replace the ineffective government. When these fail, government realizes that from its point of view, the still non-violent vigilance movement is a bigger threat to their power than are the criminals. So it tries to stop the vigilantes.

The vigilantes form watches to ward off criminals from lurking or attacking honest citizens, and the government uses its police to stop this. At some point, the government may even join with the criminals to physically attack the vigilantes, definitely to arrest their leaders.

Finally the vigilantes have had enough, and seek to drive the criminals out, even at this point with minimal violence. But if they get resistance from the government or the criminals at this point, the vigilantes may finally become violent, killing those who attack them.

So, do these crimes committed by criminals include crimes against nature? Against children? etc? Most certainly.

Because there is a more powerful law than statutory law. It is called the “social sanction”, and though differing between societies, it is always ruthlessly enforced by most or all citizens.

For instance, if Americans (in a southern city) walk by an alley, and see a boy being attacked by a rapist, they will not meekly summon the authorities, but immediately attack the rapist, perhaps even lethally. At that point, the statutory law is meaningless, compared to the violence of the social sanction.

It will not matter one bit that the attacker is of a protected class, homosexual, or a protected minority, or a protected anything. The social sanction will be enforced.

Nor does it matter one bit that the government has lowered the age of statutory rape to far below that of the social sanction. It does not matter what the government wants.


26 posted on 06/22/2013 4:25:41 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
Only if his name was Elvis.

Elvis started doing Priscilla when he was 24 and she was 14, but her parents wouldn't let him marry her until she was over 18.

When Jerry Lee Lewis was 22, he married a 13 year old and it almost ended his career.

27 posted on 06/22/2013 4:34:12 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Whatever. If they didn’t break the law, they didn’t break the law.


28 posted on 06/22/2013 4:48:39 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Liberalism. Ideas so great they have to be mandatory.-FReeper Osage Orange)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

the quintessential 2016 campaign pic for hildabeast.


29 posted on 06/22/2013 5:25:21 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Or Jerry Lee Lewis.

There must have been something in the water over there at the Sun studios.


30 posted on 06/22/2013 5:33:28 PM PDT by frickin_frackin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
I know that a lot of you would celebrate that, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

What are you trying to say?

31 posted on 06/22/2013 9:31:16 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

What you said. Bravo.


32 posted on 06/23/2013 1:41:00 AM PDT by tuffydoodle (Shut up voices, or I'll poke you with a Q-Tip again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I truly hope they find her guilty not because she is a lesbian, but because that is the rule of law.she is an IDIOT!
33 posted on 06/23/2013 4:02:08 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

The first girl I molested was 4 years old.

But it was consensual. I agreed to show her mine in exchange for seeing hers.

I was 4; too.


34 posted on 06/23/2013 4:06:45 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Mount Carmel Morning Moonshine Lesbian Molester ping...


35 posted on 06/23/2013 5:08:18 AM PDT by Utah Binger (Southern Utah where the world comes to see America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
Back in your great grandpa’s day, the age of consent was 13.

Thanks for pointing out the folly of government involvement in these things.

I doubt that the "age of consent" was a factor when my great-grandparents fell in love, married and proceeded to build a small empire in Eastern New Mexico.

For most of human history, the "age of consent" was the onset of puberty, whenever that happened.

Don't you find it curious that the "age of consent", as established by governments is considerably higher than the age at which any young woman can show up at any pharmacy and, by dictate of government can buy a "morning after" abortion pill?

36 posted on 06/23/2013 8:37:03 AM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Where to begin?

You're right about life expectancies. However, both of them lived until their mid-80's.

My great-grandfather was a lifelong bachelor when he married my great-grandmother. It was both of their first and only marriage until they both died.

Neither of them had any living parents.

Yes, my great-grandparents were married to each other.

Today (outside of Muslim countries) any 32 year old that has sex with a 13 year old would be rightly considered to be a pedophile, regardless of how "willing" the 13 year old may have been. A 13 or 14 year old cannot consent to sex with an adult and any adult that has sex with a 13 or 14 year old should be prosecuted as a sex offender.

Add a couple of years to both. In 1957, when I was 15, I was jumped by a 34-year-old neighbor lady; an encounter for which I will be eternally grateful. In your world, she would then be a pedophile and I would be a victim?

37 posted on 06/23/2013 8:51:45 AM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Seriously, if a 32 year old today picked a 13 year old orphan with no family to be his sex partner, you would be ok with that?

I would say that is not a good idea, but government should have no role in that.

38 posted on 06/23/2013 8:54:06 AM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
What are you trying to say?

A lot of people would like me to disappear from this forum because of my libertarian views.

39 posted on 06/23/2013 8:55:35 AM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A high school classmate of mine did 5 years in the bighouse. He was 18 and was banging a 12 or 13 year old. He well deserved his prison sentence.

18 and 14? I don't know if that's worth 5 years, but it ain't right.

40 posted on 06/23/2013 9:03:02 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Abortion - legalized murder for convenience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“In your world, she would then be a pedophile and I would be a victim? “

Yes. Next question.


41 posted on 06/23/2013 9:24:26 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Yes. Next question.

Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

42 posted on 06/23/2013 9:29:16 AM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“I would say that is not a good idea, but government should have no role in that. “

Sure it should. The people have no right to play judge, jury, and executioner. It is why we have laws, to enforce basic rights, and we have judged the basic right of a person under 18 years old to be that of child protected from predatory adults. Maybe Africa would be more to your liking where raping a 7 year old is acceptable?


43 posted on 06/23/2013 12:08:14 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Sure it should. The people have no right to play judge, jury, and executioner. It is why we have laws, to enforce basic rights, and we have judged the basic right of a person under 18 years old to be that of child protected from predatory adults.

Arbitrary, with no reasoning to support it other than some statists' idea of a perfect world. Biology dictates a different scenario and biology has been around a lot longer than government.

44 posted on 06/23/2013 12:20:23 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“statists’ idea of a perfect world. “

So, 8 year olds are OK as long as they like it?

Yeah, it is an arbitrary number based on a number of factors, however, anarchy is nothing but that excuse: “Well, who are YOU to tell ME some arbitrary number??”

That isn’t libertarian, that is anarchy, and frankly I prefer anarchy because I think my might would rule over 99.999% of the rest of you. I have no remorse, I have no mercy. I would smoke you the second you looked at my daughter. Death isn’t arbitrary; it is absolute. See? I don’t think you’d really like anarchy.


45 posted on 06/23/2013 12:37:27 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
So, 8 year olds are OK as long as they like it?

I never said that. I said that for most of human history, the onset of puberty was the age of consent. Nobody had to pass a law to make it so or make it not so. This obsession with government that you have is unhealthy.

46 posted on 06/23/2013 12:45:08 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Well, in WA State, sex with animals is OK at any age, as long as you can’t prove that the animal didn’t enjoy it.

People are different because we are thinking beings and although our bodies may mature at puberty, our brains do not.


47 posted on 06/23/2013 12:48:12 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
By the way, "anarchy" translates to "without a ruler".

Nothing wrong with anarchy. That's sort of what the founding fathers of this country envisioned.

48 posted on 06/23/2013 12:52:35 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Eva
People are different because we are thinking beings and although our bodies may mature at puberty, our brains do not.

My daughter had a mature brain long before puberty. She's now over 30 with advanced degrees in engineering from prestigious universities, works for a major defense contractor and is doing just fine.

She didn't need a government to tell her that her brain was mature.

49 posted on 06/23/2013 12:57:17 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If a teenager can be tried as an adult for crimes like rape and murder then I would think they are adult enough to have sex??

Anyone agree with the above statement? Just curious...

50 posted on 06/23/2013 12:57:44 PM PDT by ColdSteelTalon (Light is fading to shadow, and casting its shroud over all we have known...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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