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

[Page]

Oh look, another homophobe stating the tired and silly claim that nobody cares about the stupidity of poorly-designed sex offender laws unless it's [insert minority group here].

One, I am not a fucking homophobe. Two, this kind of shit happens all the time doesn't make the news.

But if the case makes news because it involves a homosexual relationship, and ends up drawing attention to unfair, arbitrary, and destructive laws which harm heterosexuals and homosexuals, isn't that a good thing?

[Frisivisia]

In Romeo and Juliet laws, if one reaches the age of consent while the other hasn't, the one who has reached the age can be charged with statutory rape.

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

RAYPE.

[Bralia]

Actually, that post's not an ad hom since it's not presented as an argument. Sorry.


Your reasons are almost certainly as unimaginative as your internet-warrior use of age-based insults, I'll bet.

Sure, just like your childish liberal pipedreams, right? You're calling me an ITG? You're the one insult my family for supposedly being terrible and saying I have emotional issues.

Keep on topic kid, or stop pestering me. Go do homework or something.

Quiet down the both of you. Leave personal attacks at the door.

[Zweite Alaje]

This isn't about their orientation, it's about them breaking law, a good law at that.

Why is it a good law?

It discourages sick fucks like these two from engaging in premature sexual behaviors.

[Bralia]

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

RAYPE.

Curses, I knew it!

[Resora]

Actually, that post's not an ad hom since it's not presented as an argument. Sorry.


Your reasons are almost certainly as unimaginative as your internet-warrior use of age-based insults, I'll bet.

Sure, just like your childish liberal pipedreams, right? You're calling me an ITG? You're the one insult my family for supposedly being terrible and saying I have emotional issues.

Keep on topic kid, or stop pestering me. Go do homework or something.

I'm no liberal, and few things betray a limited ability to banter than to call someone a "kid". Keep digging that hole.

[Hathradic States]

One, I am not a fucking homophobe. Two, this kind of shit happens all the time doesn't make the news.

But if the case makes news because it involves a homosexual relationship, and ends up drawing attention to unfair, arbitrary, and destructive laws which harm heterosexuals and homosexuals, isn't that a good thing?

I never said it wasn't. However, the only reason it's getting recognition is because it involves a homosexual relationship, which is all I pointed out.

[Cosara]

In Romeo and Juliet laws, if one reaches the age of consent while the other hasn't, the one who has reached the age can be charged with statutory rape.

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

During that month, yes.

[Cosara]

But if the case makes news because it involves a homosexual relationship, and ends up drawing attention to unfair, arbitrary, and destructive laws which harm heterosexuals and homosexuals, isn't that a good thing?

I never said it wasn't. However, the only reason it's getting recognition is because it involves a homosexual relationship, which is all I pointed out.

Exactly.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I think he meant that it shouldn't be considered statutory rape.

Should it be? Yes. There is an age of consent.

Is it? Yes.

My side is this.

I think you don't understand the meaning of one of the quotes in your signature:

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix

[Bralia]

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

During that month, yes.

I don't suppose my accidental mistake of leaving a word out changes anything, aye?

They have a consenting relationship with no observable problems whatsoever.*

[Frisivisia]

Why is it a good law?

It discourages sick fucks like these two from engaging in premature sexual behaviors.

They're not even contributing to industry! Unproductive DUHJENERITS.

[Zweite Alaje]

Sure, just like your childish liberal pipedreams, right? You're calling me an ITG? You're the one insult my family for supposedly being terrible and saying I have emotional issues.

Keep on topic kid, or stop pestering me. Go do homework or something.

I'm no liberal, and few things betray a limited ability to banter than to call someone a "kid". Keep digging that hole.

I could call you something else, but just so happens you're not worth getting DEAT over. Maybe you should stop trying to flame bait me, and get back on topic. How about that?

[Lemanrussland]

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

During that month, yes.

Do you think they should be put in the SO registry, along with rapists and pedophiles?

Do you think it would be prudent to, at the very least, have different levels on the SO registry, with a lower level for trivial bullshit like urinating in public because you're drunk and having sex with someone you're dating while you're a teenager, and a higher level for child rapists? Or should they be tossed into the same boat, with the same sort of restrictions and punishments as one another? Does it make any sense?

[Cosara]

Should it be? Yes. There is an age of consent.

Is it? Yes.

My side is this.

I think you don't understand the meaning of one of the quotes in your signature:

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix

Doesn't mean that you have to give Lesbian Rapists a get out of jail free card.

[Genesis Era]

Curiously enough, the article mentions a same-sex relationship, not a sexual relationship. There is a huge world of difference between being romantically attached and having sex.

I could understand the case for felony if there actually was sex (specifically non-consensual sex) involved, but so far it looks to me that the charges against Kaitlyn are on thin ice.

There was sex and it was Illegal. They have the polar ice caps underneath them.

All I'm saying is, if the charges are for having non-consensual sex, then I'll leave it up to the law and the evidence to decide if Kaitlyn is innocent. If the charges are for her having a romantic relationship with a minor, then I'll leave it to the law and the evidence as well, with the Romeo & Juliet laws in consideration. If, however, the charges were brought forward due to the girlfriend's parents fearing that Kaitlyn "turned" her gay, as per suggested in the original article, then we've a problem.

[Frisivisia]

I'm no liberal, and few things betray a limited ability to banter than to call someone a "kid". Keep digging that hole.

I could call you something else, but just so happens your not worth getting DEAT over. Maybe you should stop trying to flame bait me, and get back on topic. How about that?

Crazy kids.

[Page]

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

During that month, yes.

Would you mind if I asked a broader question: with all the diverse writings and theories on the subject of ethics that have come into existence through thousands of years of civilization and are all instantly available to you as a person with internet access, and with you being a human being who is both sentient and sapient and, I would assume, capable of critical thinking, why do you adopt the most rigid, one-dimensional, and least principled ideology of legalism?

[Dusk_Kittens]

I certainly do. Adult-level maturity is not a prerequisite for sexual activity -- they just have to be old enough to avoid facing any psychological or emotional harm from premature sexual activity (the typical reason for AoC laws in the first place). No fifteen year old suffers from the sex itself with people of comparable maturity.

The law kicks the fuck out of this argument. Until you reach the age of consent, you cannot legally consent.

Still Petitio Principii.

[Zweite Alaje]

I could call you something else, but just so happens your not worth getting DEAT over. Maybe you should stop trying to flame bait me, and get back on topic. How about that?

Crazy kids.

Don't start with me, Fris.

[Sophian]

I'm curious, Cosara, I'd like to put forth a scenario. Two people, regardless of their sexuality were born in the same year. But they were born a month apart. They have a consenting relationship with observable problems whatsoever. The older person turns 18. Do you believe it's justifiable to cry statutory rape against this person?

During that month, yes.

So an 18 year old who has consensual sex with a 17 year old deserves to be locked up in prison with real rapists, gang bangers, murderers and actual criminals? And then that 18 year old should have to register as a sex offender so that people, neighbors, and potential employers think he/she is a pedophile and a rapist the rest of their life?

[Frisivisia]

During that month, yes.

Would you mind if I asked a broader question: with all the diverse writings and theories on the subject of ethics that have come into existence through thousands of years of civilization and are all instantly available to you as a person with internet access, and with you being a human being who is both sentient and sapient and, I would assume, capable of critical thinking, why do you adopt the most rigid, one-dimensional, and least principled ideology of legalism?

Because fuck gay people.

[Resora]

Crazy kids.

Don't start with me, Fris.

Better listen to him, he's go all ITG on your ass if you don't.

[Frisivisia]

Don't start with me, Fris.

Better listen to him, he's go all ITG on your ass if you don't.

I have 800 confirmed kills in combat and special training in gorilla warfare.

[Bralia]

During that month, yes.

I don't suppose my accidental mistake of leaving a word out changes anything, aye?

They have a consenting relationship with no observable problems whatsoever.*

I'll assume I'm correct then . . .

Anyway, peace out, thread, I require sleep . . .