18 Year Old Girl Facing Felony for Dating 15 Year Old Girl

[Grave_n_idle]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

He's plagiarizing Bill Clinton and saying that it's not sex because there is no penetration by a penis.

Remember that scene in "Chasing Amy" where she counters the suggestion that lesbian sex is not sex because there's no penetration, by miming a comical rendition of fisting?

Yeah... my definition of 'sex' doesn't rely on a penis penetrating anything, because there are lots of other things you can do that are sexual, without ever sticking your dick in anything.

But regardless - even if we took the bizarre view that it was only 'sex' if there was a penis in something... that doesn't mean lesbians are asexual. That's just not what it means.

[Dakini]

Its not because they're lesbians that we're supporting this. We're supporting this because the charges are a waste of the state's time and resources, and taxpayer money (I thought you Republican types were supposed to be against that), only serves to oppress two people, who are peers in a consensual relationship.

It's Statutory Rape. She is an adult having sex with a girl who is below the age of consent (and Romeo and Juliet laws don't apply here. She was BARELY outside of the limit. The parents hit the perfect window of opportunity). That is a felony.

No, Romeo and Juliet laws apply if you have sex with someone between 14 and 17 and are less than 4 years apart in age. Also, it doesn't prevent felony charges, it just prevents sex offender registry (really, I think it should prevent both because... seriously?).

[Cosara]

It's Statutory Rape. She is an adult having sex with a girl who is below the age of consent (and Romeo and Juliet laws don't apply here. She was BARELY outside of the limit. The parents hit the perfect window of opportunity). That is a felony.

No, Romeo and Juliet laws apply if you have sex with someone between 14 and 17 and are less than 4 years apart in age. Also, it doesn't prevent felony charges, it just prevents sex offender registry (really, I think it should prevent both because... seriously?).

She can still get 15 years and probation, however.

[Zokoria]

This is completely horrible in my opinion.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Ill settle for individual pics of them!

I will sign the petition or what ever, if I see nude pictures of each of them together or each of them seperatley.

You realize that you're saying you want to see child pornography in the case of the 15 year old, right?

Maybe, just maybe, he believes that THIS law is fine but the one about punishing gay sex by death is not?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you get caught for being Gay in a country in which being gay is not allowed, you still broke a law. I don't agree with the stoning of gays, however. I agree with the law in question.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" is another example of you not paying any attention to Christian Ethics. It also implies that you would, by omission of objection, approve of the death penalty for homosexuals.

Then you say, if I'm reading this right, that if jurisdiction X has a law prohibiting homosexuality and making it punishable by death by stoning, you don't agree with stoning, but you agree with the law (which law includes a penalty of death by stoning -- so you're contradicting yourself, and possibly saying you agree with the death penalty for homosexuality in jurisdiction X if it is done by some means other than stoning).

Your posts may just cause my wetware to crash due to the logical errors you have consistently committed.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can consent to absolutely anything at any possible age.

No, you can't.

You have to be, at the very least, able to be 'informed' about the specifics of a thing, and it's possible consequences, before you can be argued to give consent.

That's why you can only consent to medical treatment, for example, if you speak the language, or have someone translate it for you - understanding is considered the minimum requirement for consent.

Similarly, being impaired (drunk, drugged, mentally impaired) may be an obstacle in ascertaining informed consent.

Similarly, being below the age of consent.

You might not like it - but that's how it is.

[Ifreann]

No, Romeo and Juliet laws apply if you have sex with someone between 14 and 17 and are less than 4 years apart in age. Also, it doesn't prevent felony charges, it just prevents sex offender registry (really, I think it should prevent both because... seriously?).

She can still get 15 years and probation, however.

I can't imagine she'll get anything close to the maximum penalty.

[SatrapyofChloe]

So much unemployment bemoaned in so many countries, but no one allows children the right to work.

Children should be in schools.

Schools should be in jail. Or in the graveyard along with your ancient maniac ideas of "what should be".

Children don't belong in schools. Only geniuses should be in school, to become intellectuals.

Most people don't give a fuck about your intellectualist pretentions, or your needs to force "education" upon innocent children.

Children are already in a school. The School of Life. And in most cases, the School of Sex.

[Dusk_Kittens]

You think you could please stop wording your posts in ways that assume everyone under a certain age is a fucking idiot who can't handle more than one thing in their life?

You'd be asking me to change my personality and my entire worldview then, I see humanity in general as mentally inept.

So, just to be clear here, do you therefore believe that even nobody over the age of majority should engage in sexual activity?

[Dakini]

No, Romeo and Juliet laws apply if you have sex with someone between 14 and 17 and are less than 4 years apart in age. Also, it doesn't prevent felony charges, it just prevents sex offender registry (really, I think it should prevent both because... seriously?).

She can still get 15 years and probation, however.

Which is fucking ridiculous, though probably unlikely. The 15 years plus probation bit is probably mostly reserved for the most heinous offenses.

Granted, since this is a felony, this young women is prohibited from voting iirc, since Florida does that kind of bullshit.

[Neutraligon]

Marriage is between a man and a women period.

This has what to do with the topic?

[Grave_n_idle]

Marriage is between a man and a women period.

That's an interesting, if entirely off-topic, position.

[Vitaphone Racing]

She can still get 15 years and probation, however.

Which is fucking ridiculous, though probably unlikely. The 15 years plus probation bit is probably mostly reserved for the most heinous offenses.

Granted, since this is a felony, this young women is prohibited from voting iirc, since Florida does that kind of bullshit.

Hasn't there been cases where the felony was dropped for a misdemenour before?

[Dusk_Kittens]

Aw, how cute. You paid attention to my correction of your grammar while ignoring the correction of phrasing. See, the point was not about your grammar; that was merely incidental. The point was about "consent" vs "consent according to the law."

So the reason you chose to (hypocritically) play the grammar card is...?

Hell, I thought it would be plain obvious to anybody following the conversation what I meant, without having to qualify my statement with "according to the law". Excuse me for not politely thanking you for an utterly pointless nitpick.

I merely offered you an incidental free of charge. If you choose to see that as me "playing the grammar card," that's your perception, not my intention.

But since I have been following the conversation (from page 1 onward), I'm aware that the issue of "consent" vs. "consent according to the law'" has been a part of the discussion for quite a while, and I'm one of those who believes in accuracy in communication of ideas and avoidance of the fallacy of ambiguity.

[SatrapyofChloe]

No. The parents turned her in for bigoted reasons, then the state did an investigation and decided to press charges. There had to have been a supposed crime committed for the state to press charges. The crime is statutory rape of her 15 year old "Girlfriend".

If saying lewd words or lusting for women counts as rape, then arrest 45% of males alive for saying something disgusting to complete female strangers, or to females they knew.

But a bigot like you isn't gonna do that, are you, misogynist?

[Cosara]

This is completely horrible in my opinion.

Yes, because holding a Lesbian accountable for Statutory Rape is horrible!

[Cosara]

No. The parents turned her in for bigoted reasons, then the state did an investigation and decided to press charges. There had to have been a supposed crime committed for the state to press charges. The crime is statutory rape of her 15 year old "Girlfriend".

If saying lewd words or lusting for women counts as rape, then arrest 45% of males alive for saying something disgusting to complete female strangers, or to females they knew.

But a bigot like you isn't gonna do that, are you, misogynist?

I'm not a misogynist.

[Grave_n_idle]

No. The parents turned her in for bigoted reasons, then the state did an investigation and decided to press charges. There had to have been a supposed crime committed for the state to press charges. The crime is statutory rape of her 15 year old "Girlfriend".

If saying lewd words or lusting for women counts as rape, then arrest 45% of males alive for saying something disgusting to complete female strangers, or to females they knew.

Even if we accepted that "saying lewd words or lusting for women" could count as rape, it would only count as rape if it were without consent.

If the female you're saying lewd words to consents, there's no problem.

You should do a workplace harassment course - they go through this.

[Immoren]

Children should be in schools.

Schools should be in jail. Or in the graveyard along with your ancient maniac ideas of "what should be".

Children don't belong in schools. Only geniuses should be in school, to become intellectuals.

Most people don't give a fuck about your intellectualist pretentions, or your needs to force "education" upon innocent children.

Children are already in a school. The School of Life. And in most cases, the School of Sex.

At least I don't want to deprive kids of their rights. And better intellectual than troglodyte.

[Dakini]

Which is fucking ridiculous, though probably unlikely. The 15 years plus probation bit is probably mostly reserved for the most heinous offenses.

Granted, since this is a felony, this young women is prohibited from voting iirc, since Florida does that kind of bullshit.

Hasn't there been cases where the felony was dropped for a misdemenour before?

I imagine there would have to be a misdemeanor charge they could drop to (I don't know if this is the case here).

I mean, it's still pretty much ruins this woman's life because a lot of places tend to care if you have a criminal record. She might be able to get a pardon eventually, if Florida pardons felons.

[Risottia]

She can still get 15 years and probation, however.

I can't imagine she'll get anything close to the maximum penalty.

I hope so.
Still, it's Florida.

[Eastfield Lodge]

No. The parents turned her in for bigoted reasons, then the state did an investigation and decided to press charges. There had to have been a supposed crime committed for the state to press charges. The crime is statutory rape of her 15 year old "Girlfriend".

If saying lewd words or lusting for women counts as rape, then arrest 45% of males alive for saying something disgusting to complete female strangers, or to females they knew.

But a bigot like you isn't gonna do that, are you, misogynist?

Only 45%? Lusting for women? More like 80% of males alive.

[Vitaphone Racing]

So the reason you chose to (hypocritically) play the grammar card is...?

Hell, I thought it would be plain obvious to anybody following the conversation what I meant, without having to qualify my statement with "according to the law". Excuse me for not politely thanking you for an utterly pointless nitpick.

I merely offered you an incidental free of charge. If you choose to see that as me "playing the grammar card," that's your perception, not my intention.

But since I have been following the conversation (from page 1 onward), I'm aware that the issue of "consent" vs. "consent according to the law'" has been a part of the discussion for quite a while, and I'm one of those who believes in accuracy in communication of ideas and avoidance of the fallacy of ambiguity.

See, if you asked me to clarify or even clarified it yourself without bothering to nitpick at extremely minor grammatical errors which had no impact at all on clarity of expression, I almost certainly would have been more perceptive. But I have little patience for people who are seemingly on the prowl to make themselves feel knowledgeable and important, and that's generally the train of thought that follows people who nitpick minor details. Not only that, it's annoying and time wasting. If that wasn't your intention, please take my perceptions on board for further consideration.

[Dusk_Kittens]

The thing is, Cosara refuses to state his personal moral opinion on the law, just repeatedly stating what the law itself is.

The law is just. That is my opinion on it.

So, in your view, is the law just simply because it's the law? This is a question several have tried to get you to address more than a few times.

[Cosara]

Hasn't there been cases where the felony was dropped for a misdemenour before?

I imagine there would have to be a misdemeanor charge they could drop to (I don't know if this is the case here).

I mean, it's still pretty much ruins this woman's life because a lot of places tend to care if you have a criminal record. She might be able to get a pardon eventually, if Florida pardons felons.

Rick Scott is an Evangelical Republican (and I hear, corrupt), so I don't think he'll pardon her, and Obama doesn't pardon anyone, so I don't see an Executive Pardon happening.