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

Skip to comments.

A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Have Sex With Children, Too?
Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

Posted on 07/08/2003 7:08:39 AM PDT by F_Cohen

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-340 last
To: weegee
Are they as large a group as (but maybe less outspoken than) homosexuals?

I have no data on that. I suspect they are much much smaller. The vast majority of people who are attracted to their own sex aren't even remotely interested in pedophila. But the paranoia runs high.

Off topic comment by me, but I am always amazed that homosexuality draws as much attention as it does while our hetrosexual children have been assaulted from every angle by people who have legitimized premarital sexual activity in thier minds.

Homosexuality is disgusting, but not worse than other sexual sin, and not nearly as dangerous to society. Most people will never ever be attracted to their own sex, but huge numbers are happy to embrace sexual licence so they can satisfy themselves.

321 posted on 07/09/2003 11:46:44 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
In case you haven't noticed, you have lost any chance of exchange with me. It's the under 16 intellectual age rule. Go play some video games or better yet, clean your room.
322 posted on 07/09/2003 11:49:33 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
No, I interepreted it exactly as I saw it. I believe I interpreted it correctly in the context. To whit, when discussing whether there should be a hard and fast age of consent, you stated that it was nonsense to make something a crime if an 18-year-one-month old had sex with a 17-year-twelve-month old. If you did not mean to suggest an age of consent is a bad idea, please elaborate.

You know, I have been trying to figure this out. I have never known law enforcement to consider age by way of fractions, or rounding off.

As far as I can tell, from a legal standpoint, a 17-year-old remains 17 until their 18th birthday. Why anyone would be debating this is both pointless and silly.

323 posted on 07/09/2003 11:52:07 AM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Well maybe someone with a pair can defend your position for you, is that OK Susan?
324 posted on 07/09/2003 11:53:18 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras; All
Children are incompetant to make decisions about whether to have sex.

Can anyone defend this?

325 posted on 07/09/2003 11:55:46 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Government cannot legitimize any conduct in the minds of right thinking people.

I strongly disagree, or at least I disagree with your definition of right thinking people. Good gracious, man, Michael Jordan or James Carville or even Harry Potter can legitimize conduct in the minds of much of our populace. Maybe you wouldn't call them "right thinking people" but they have a huge impact on your and my futures.

Jeff Jacoby pointed out that once Vermont created homosexual unions, 2,000 married men from Massachusetts got divorced and went across the border to "marry" their homosexual lover. While it is likely that a large number of them would have divorced for their "lover" anyway, we can't discount a number of them (5%, 10%, 2%) who decided it must be OK if it's legal. That's somewhere between 40 and 200 families ruined because government legitimized homosexual unions.

It is true that you and I will recognize it as wrong regardless, but most people don't think like you and I.

And I guess that's a good thing.

Shalom.

326 posted on 07/09/2003 11:56:24 AM PDT by ArGee (Hey, how did I get in this handcart? And why is it so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
For the record, these deviates are a tiny group and I don't believe society will ever embrace their criminality.

I would not bet on that. It took the homosexuals 30 years to get where they are now. And it started by and large with the removal of homosexuality from mental health textbooks. The fact they are even discussing doing the same with pedophilia should all by itself be enough to scare the hell out of you.

327 posted on 07/09/2003 12:04:42 PM PDT by Houmatt (If it is about what goes on in the bedroom, why doesn't it stay there? And leave our kids alone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Good gracious, man, Michael Jordan or James Carville or even Harry Potter can legitimize conduct in the minds of much of our populace

As all through history. None of this affected my family. I can't do anything about what others think other than speak my mind. I do not advocate violence or the threat thereof to attempt to do so.

My grown children never thought anything was OK because someone else said so. Whether or not they were pop figures or government employees. If they started down that road, we disabused them of the idea. They have turned out fine. And I am confident their children will also.

328 posted on 07/09/2003 12:05:58 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
I'm not scared. I'll leave that to others. Contrary to reports, the sky is not falling. At least not on this topic. I am far more concerned about the constant erosion of our rights. And I think that you should be scared as hell about that. Oh well, we all have our own fears.
329 posted on 07/09/2003 12:09:45 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
On the marrige topic which you brought up; I don't think government has any business being involved in it one way or the other.

Government don't make people married, promises before God do. People of the same sex cannot be married, despite what they call it.

330 posted on 07/09/2003 12:12:55 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
None of this affected my family.

No man is an island. What you tolerate has an impact on you, or your children, or your children's children's children. You may not have connected the dots on how, for example, free love has impacted your family, but it is there.

Government's purpose (as stated by the Bible, not by the DoI) is to restrain evil. If it can not do that (and I'll agree with you that many have perpetrated evil) then it can not protect rights.

Shalom.

331 posted on 07/09/2003 12:22:47 PM PDT by ArGee (Hey, how did I get in this handcart? And why is it so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
What you tolerate has an impact on you, or your children, or your children's children's children.

I don't tolerate it, you may have misinterpreted that.

You may not have connected the dots on how, for example, free love has impacted your family, but it is there.

I understand how things affect other things, which is precisely why I head the trouble off instead of hiding my head in the sand or advocating violence to do what cannot be done.

Government's purpose (as stated by the Bible, not by the DoI) is to restrain evil.

DoI?

In anycase, I disagree if you mean that everyone must conform to your or my bible's definition of evil.

I'll settle for saying it is evil to violate the rights of others. God can and will sort it out when the time comes, in the mean time putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.

332 posted on 07/09/2003 12:34:42 PM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Statutory rape was codified into English law more than 700 years ago, when it became illegal "to ravish," with or without her consent, a "maiden" under the age of 12. In 1576, the age of consent was lowered to 10.7

Colonial American laws were based upon English law. Statutory rape laws became part of the American legal system through English common law. As in England, early lawmakers in this country adopted 10 as the age of consent. (It was age 7 in Delaware). However, during the 19th century, states gradually raised the age of consent largely through the efforts of the Women's Christian Tempernace Movement, and over the strenous objections of most lawmakers of the day.

It is you who should do more research.
333 posted on 07/09/2003 2:19:51 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
If adults don't want to have sex with persons under 18 (or 16) then why do so many cases of this keep coming up?

They don't even catch all of the people who are engaging in this (let alone those who would like to but have not).

The arrest records (not convictions or plea bargains) would be an underrepresented count of those who are for this.

It would not justify lowering the age of consent in any way, I'm just pointing out that just because they are a deviant minority who's actions are outlawed, the same argument held against homosexuality for a long time. I am referring to all people who pursue minors too, not just homosexuals or heterosexuals.

I was just asking which practice (homosexuality or pedophilia) had more followers.

I've been arguing on this thread that the states do no favors by endorsing teen sex (with romeo & juliet laws, free condoms in schools, and nurses who take girls to the abortionist). Since the states do condone such behavior ("we might as well acknowledge that kids are going to have sex and make the best of the situation") they open the door for the age of consent to continue to creep downward. After all, an adult male can better provide for a young pregnant girl than a high school aged boy. Doesn't justify adult child relations but it makes as much sense as encouring kids to have sex with each other.

334 posted on 07/09/2003 2:34:27 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: weegee
There is also support for putting teens on birth control (one company even ran ads that their medication reduced zits).

These work through hormone supression. When these kids are in high school their bodies are just beginning to undergo hormonal changes. Supressing those hormones (through the use of birth control devices) does not sound healthy.

335 posted on 07/09/2003 2:37:27 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: weegee
http://www.mafamily.org/Statutory%20Rape%20Report.pdf

Age if consents are not creeping downward, they are creeping upward. A good part of the reason for that is a new trend in mandatory reporting of statuatory rape in cases of teen pregancy. States are coming to the conclusion that many of the problems associated with teen pregnancy (poverty, fatherlessness, welfare) are a result of statuatory rape of young teens girls by adult men. Attempts to mitigate this growing problem are pushing the AOC upward in many states, and stiffening penalties in statuatory rape cases.
336 posted on 07/09/2003 3:38:39 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Not to mention such programs are discriminatory to females, as is underage abortion.
337 posted on 07/09/2003 3:40:20 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Not to mention such programs are discriminatory to females, as is underage abortion.

Define "underage abortion". Under 18? It's legal.

Planned Parenthood has even put up challenges to attempts to require parental notification when minors seek abortions.

Minors cannot consent to any medical procedure (except this one).

Planned Parenthood is also not happy with attempts to make them report underage sexual molestation like all other professionals are required.

338 posted on 07/09/2003 5:36:40 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
If there remains a Romeo & Juliet loophole, then statutory rape is still legal (same age or adult/minor).
339 posted on 07/09/2003 5:38:35 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
EXACTLY... SUPPORT HJR 56....

List of CO-Sponsors GROWING - Call YOUR Congressman.

340 posted on 07/18/2003 11:05:46 AM PDT by davidosborne (www.davidosborne.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320321-340 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