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

Toogood Reports ^ | July 8 | Lowell Phillips

[Protagoras]

BWAHAHAHAAAA….

Don't cry. The cutoff has to come somewhere. What age do you suggest?

[tdadams]

It is a moral stance to stay that harming another is wrong.

It's a moral stance to share your toys with the other kindergardeners. It's a moral stance to say ignoring the homeless is wrong. Harming someone is a matter for the law.

[drjoe]

""My 22 year old son said years ago that first they get us to accept homosexual sex, then necrophilia, beastiality, and pedophilia.""

... beastiality ...


er ... ... what about bestiality

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[GSWarrior]

I think the key word is informed consent.

[Clint N. Suhks]

What age do you suggest?

If the issue is capacity to consent then through hypocritical Liberaltarian substantive due process concepts there should be no age of consent laws, only proof of capacity.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I think the key word is informed consent.

"informed" consent is ONLY for medical opperations NOT for sex.

[Protagoras]

If the issue is capacity to consent then through hypocritical Liberaltarian substantive due process concepts there should be no age of consent laws, only proof of capacity.

All childish bs aside, you didn't answer the question. What age do you suggest?

[Clint N. Suhks]

All childish bs aside, you didn't answer the question. What age do you suggest?

I said there should be NO AoC if we believe in the great Liberaltarian social experiment.

Zero, zip, nada (sp?)

[Protagoras]

I think consent in this case is based on the ability of people to understand complex concepts and consequences. Children cannot do this, thus they cannot give consent. Thus it is a violation of rights.

Same as anyone of diminished capacity. The insane, the senile or otherwise demented, the unconscious, etc.

[Protagoras]

So you are a Libertarian?

[Clint N. Suhks]

I think consent in this case is based on the ability of people to understand complex concepts and consequences. Children cannot do this, thus they cannot give consent.

Nonsense, why do you think that?

[Paloma_55]

At the same time, I will not be surprised to see a successful effort to legalize all manner of multi-partner marriage arrangements.

My cut on why polygamy will NOT happen soon.

Corporations won't want to pick up the health insurance costs for multiple "spouses".

Right now, my employer picks up the cost to cover a homosexual partner, or a wife, or a live-in partner, but if I were to have my brother and his family move in... they would refuse.

Funny thing... If my brother and I were homos and lived together, they would reject my claim for him as a domestic partner because we are related. Some sort of moral objection to being related...

[af_vet_rr]

If the SC can say it is ok to have SODOMY, then why is it a stretch to say it is ok to have sex with a 12 year old?

I think a better example to attack the homosexual agenda can be found, better than the whole child/adult sex spiel. I don't like being put in a position to defend homosexuals, but trying to compare two adult males or females having sex, to an adult having sex with a 12 year old is a lousy example.

A ruling concerning whether two males can do something morally repugnant has nothing to do with how the legal system views the maturity of a child.

If the courts ruled that having sex with a child is legal, then they would in effect be saying that children are mature and responsible enough to deal with a sexual relationship.

If the courts said a child is that mature and responsible, then they would have to say that a twelve year old should be able to drink, quit school, smoke, drive, buy firearms, enter into legal contracts, see R-Rated movies, etc. because sex requires just as much maturity and responsibility, if not more, than the above-mentioned actions.

I don't think any court in the country would argue that a twelve year old can handle all of the above, so your children are safe.

Not taking a poke at anyone in particular, but people should teach their children to wait until marriage to have sex. They wouldn't have to be worried about their children running off and having sex with an adults, and if an adult did attempt to have sex with their child, there are already laws on the books dealing with rape (and if your like I am and somebody tried to have sex with your child, they would have a few extra holes to breath out of, if they were still breathing).

[Clint N. Suhks]

Of course not.

[af_vet_rr]

I would look for lots of "age of consent" lawsuits in the near future.

If that happened, and children were judged mature enough to handle a sexual relationship, then look for all of the age-related laws to be tossed. I don't think the government/judicial branch is in a hurry to throw those away.

[af_vet_rr]

Children can consent, what makes you think they can’t, because the legislature says so? LOL So if the legislature made the age of consent 12 like it is in the Nederlands you think the USSC is going to intervene?

Any politician that supports dropping the age of consent to 12 is going to lose their job. That goes against the #1 priority of any politician, and that is keeping their job/power.

If the lowered age of consent were to make its way through a legislature, next election (if there wasn't a recall) would see plenty of new faces who would be more than happy to overturn that.

[cinFLA]

Irrational off topic screed against a political party.

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

[Clint N. Suhks]

Any politician that supports dropping the age of consent to 12 is going to lose their job.

That's what they said about homosexuality in the 50's. Many children have the capasity to consent and the courts are reconizing this more and more.

[cinFLA]

Same as anyone of diminished capacity. The insane, the senile or otherwise demented, the unconscious, etc.

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