A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Have Sex With Children, Too?

Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

[E Rocc]

The Constitution does not forbid age-related restrictions. Indeed, it contains several.

-Eric

[Protagoras]

Ok, then answer the question for yourself and stop changing the topic to some political party which has nothing to do with the question.

[tdadams]

Many children have the capasity to consent

Many adults don't have the capacity to spell.

[cinFLA]

The Constitution does not forbid age-related restrictions. Indeed, it contains several.

Name one that puts restrictions on consent or citizenship.

[Protagoras]

So you propose that the insane and demented do not enjoy full citizenship.

Their rights are not dependant on citizenship. I suggest that they cannot give consent. Their rights are intact. Unlike your intellect.

[redangus]

If you read Justice Kennedy's majority opinion you will very seriously think they might do just that. He makes it very clear that history, religion, tradition or majority opinion are not grounds for prohibiting what most consider abnormal and immoral behavior. Within 24hrs. of the Lawrence case a Kansas court struck down the decision against an 18 year old boy who had sex with a 15 year old boy. It seems to me that it is now just a matter of age. If 18 is all right how about 21 or 25. And if 15 is all right then why not 13 or 10. After all age is such a relative thing. Based on Kennedy's opinion what are the grounds for ruling against pedophilia. I fully expect NAMBLA to start a case through the courts in the not too distant future. You may not want to think of such things, but hoping they won't come to pass won't stop them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

YOu can't use logic with these people, they are too used to Democratic scare-tactics to achieve their menas to stop now.

Not only is a child not allowed to consent, an adult is not allowed to accept the consent of a child.

[Protagoras]

Perhaps you should consult your dictionary before using "big words" like screed.

Perhaps your should consult your head doctor before posting.

[Enterprise]

See my Post #8. But if I was going to try to second guess the legal minds of the day I would think these fine minds would reason as follows: "Well, what the hell. If we can kill animals and eat them, we might as well have fun and screw 'em first."

[ArGee]

The next preversion to go before this decaying group will be even more evil, and will once again this group will set themselves up to invent new rules they feel are just.

I'm not making a prediction, mind you, but if I were you I would get to know the undertakers in your area and find one that you can trust when your wife or daughter dies.

That's all I'm gonna say about that.

Shalom.

[tdadams]

I fully expect NAMBLA to start a case through the courts in the not too distant future.

Better not hold your breath.

[Clint N. Suhks]

stop changing the topic

I’m not. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of Liberaltarians arguing against the legislature using the 10th to make sodomy laws and not when it comes to AoC laws using the homosexual propaganda “capacity to consent”. Apparently that point flew over your head from the git-go.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Many adults don't have the capacity to spell.

You are pinging me on spelling you lowlife hypocrite.

[Protagoras]

The word screed is defined as a long, monotonous harangue. Precisely what you have done here for years. Ever since your obsession took over.

[attiladhun2]

what kind of a perverted individual are you? just because an act is commited behind closed doors does not mke it morally right. that it involves consenting adults is also not very compelling either. a society makes a statement about itself by what it prohibits and allows (whether in privacy or not). The dead should be sanctified and not used as sexual objects (a thoroughly disgusting idea). animals are not to be abused because they are property. a stroke of the judicial pen could make juveniles "consenting adults" also. things are wrong because they are wrong inherently. just because liberal perverts and their aclu allies have an act declared legal by fiat does not sanction it morally.

[Clint N. Suhks]

That's all I'm gonna say about that.

OK Forest. LOL

[Protagoras]

No point flew over my head. I don't know anything about "liberaltarians" or any other tired worn out childish labels you kids throw around in lieu of thoughtful commentary.

The question in the court's decision has to do with the rightful role of government in a free society. But that apparently flew over your head.

So answer the question, what age do you suggest?

[attiladhun2]

i think 75% of the people in this modern day and age are nuts, immature, and just plain eaten up with dumba$$. so laws against sodomy, prostitution, etc. are still valid.

[Enterprise]

LOL! I agree with everything you posted. I strongly condemn pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. My postings are tongue in cheek, and not to be taken as an endorsement of these vile things.