Idaho Republicans block ban on child marriage

[Purgatio]

Are you kididng me, that is female genital mutilation, what the he*l! The two aren't distinct!

No, it's different actually. There's different stages of circumcision in terms of fgc/m. Galloism talked about this before, lemme see if I can find it:

Depends. Most (by volume) is less invasive than circumcision and has lesser effects. Some versions are more horrific and have worse effects. Here's the list:

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/t ... erview/en/

Type 4 is the most common, with type 3 slightly behind it. Type 2 and Type 1 are the rarest, but have horrific effects. They're also the ones you hear about.

Great, so we're talking about one terrible egregious violation of a young girl's basic bodily integrity and a really really terrible egregious violation of a young girl's basic bodily integrity. Wonderful.

[Ifreann]

The thread about justifying sex with minors now upgraded to female genital mutilation apologetics.

Very normal day on a very normal website.

[Hurdergaryp]

The thread about justifying sex with minors now upgraded to female genital mutilation apologetics.

Very normal day on a very normal website.

It is all very mundane.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yeah no that's not what I said. I said a lot more in addition to that.

Your argument this whole time has been that we should legalise child marriage because children are mentally capable of consenting to marriage

False. This is what I said:

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

The whole debate exists because we are trying to determine if consent under the circumstances is valid. A 10-year-old kid saying "yes" to sex with a 40-year-old teacher is meaningless if the 10-year-old does not actually understand the nature and implication of what she is saying "yes" to. It requires a comprehensive examination of mental capacity and competency, the results of which are not predictable in advance in individual cases. Hence, we draw a hard, rigid, brightline rule (14, or 16, or 18, depending on your country) so people can predict the outcome of the case in advance.

You're right, I left that part out. You still don't need a rigidline tho. Just ask "do you know what sex is and what is means for both parties involved?" If they say "yes", go to question number 2: "did you consent to have sex with this person?". If they say "yes" then everything's alright.

How many 12 year olds do you think are out there who fully understand the implications, consequences and rammifications of marriage and possess the maturity and understanding to make a reasoned decision on the matter, after rationally weighing the pros and cons? No really, like, ballpark figure? Because I'd be very very surprised if the number is more than, idk, 4 or 5 in the entire US.

Hence why I said "what if".

I never said that all children are mentally capable of consenting to sex or marriage, I said that some are.

The thread about justifying sex with minors now upgraded to female genital mutilation apologetics.

Very normal day on a very normal website.

No one's talking about fgm. But that is a threadjack tho, my apologies for doing that.

[Purgatio]

Your argument this whole time has been that we should legalise child marriage because children are mentally capable of consenting to marriage

False. This is what I said:

Just ask if the couple in question consented. If both say "yes" then everything's alright.

You're right, I left that part out. You still don't need a rigidline tho. Just ask "do you know what sex is and what is means for both parties involved?" If they say "yes", go to question number 2: "did you consent to have sex with this person?". If they say "yes" then everything's alright.

Hence why I said "what if".

I never said that all children are mentally capable of consenting to sex or marriage, I said that some are.

The thread about justifying sex with minors now upgraded to female genital mutilation apologetics.

Very normal day on a very normal website.

No one's talking about fgm. But that is a threadjack tho, my apologies for doing that.

Fine, I'll rephrase - since you think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child marriage, do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?

[Shofercia]

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fuc*ing. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fu*king. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fu*k three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

Was this hypothetucal couple married in this time period?

They were not married, but they were also not dating anyone else. If their parents allowed them to live together, this would be a common law marriage, (but the parents didn't,) and the guy and girl agreed that if she was pregnant, he'd marry her before she gave birth.

When the original speed limit was set, it depended on car performance back in the day. As cars got better, and the speed limit stayed the same, the people started to complain. Regarding statutory rape, there should be certain exceptions. For instance: guy's 16, girl's 17, they've been dating for over a decade, hormones kick in, and they start fucking. Totally consensual. Guy turns 17, they keep fucking. Totally consensual. Girl turns 18, they fuck three times on three different days - statutory rape! That's the kind of stupidity I'm trying to avoid.

I'm all for bright line rules, but there need to be exceptions as well, considering the case that I just described.

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

I live in California, and drive on the freeway. Let me tell you a secret: almost everyone here breaks the speed limit rules. Instead, we have our own rules - drive safely. I'm not going to go into all of the aspects that it entails, but they all have mini rules, like tailgating. The general rule is you keep a one car distance for every ten miles of speed. If you're going 70 mph - 7 car distance from the car in front of you. There are many rules like this, which is why we're not accident crazy, unless it rains, and all of the safety rules break down. Californians haven't quite figured out how to drive in the rain yet, but on a sunny day, our modified speed limit rules work quite well.

You can have age limit for consent, and have exceptions, like "high school sweethearts" or when the duo's age is within a few years of each other, and defining that few would depend on the circumstance. A 15 year old and a 21 year old is bad, but a 17 year old and a 21 year old is understandable. You see what works, and what doesn't. Obviously a 50 year old and a 15 year old is rape, no matter how you slice it. But the beauty of common law is that it allows the law to adapt to individual cases.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

False. This is what I said:



I never said that all children are mentally capable of consenting to sex or marriage, I said that some are.

No one's talking about fgm. But that is a threadjack tho, my apologies for doing that.

Fine, I'll rephrase - since you think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child marriage, do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?

Yes.

Was this hypothetucal couple married in this time period?

They were not married

Then they shouldn't've been having sex.

Obviously a 50 year old and a 15 year old is rape, no matter how you slice it.

Not necessarily...

[Andsed]

Yes.

Uh no. That is complete utter bullshits. Kids cannot consent to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography as they are not mentally capable of doing so.

Then they shouldn't've been having sex.

Says who. If both are legal adults why should they not be having sex before marriage?

Not necessarily

Yes if your 50 and dating a 15 year old your a scumbag and are exploiting them and are a pedo and deserve to rot.

[Purgatio]

Was this hypothetucal couple married in this time period?

They were not married, but they were also not dating anyone else. If their parents allowed them to live together, this would be a common law marriage, (but the parents didn't,) and the guy and girl agreed that if she was pregnant, he'd marry her before she gave birth.

The fear of course is that exceptions could be interpreted and applied broadly by judges in a way that undermines the protective and deterrent purpose behind the brightline rule in the first place. To return to the speeding example, if I created an exception for drivers over the speed limit who were "nevertheless safe, prudent and competent drivers", judges are gonna have to interpret and apply that exception using their own subjective interpretation of the exception. If it is applied too liberally the deterrent purpose of the speed limit (you MUST not drive above X speed) is totally undermined.

Likewise, a statutory age limit for consent to sex is intended to deter older individuals from having sex with people below Age X because a majority of people under that age lack mental competency to autonomously consent to sex. Creating an exception like "unless the victim was mentally competent to consent under all the circumstances" might rescue defendants like in the example you brought up, but it would be ambiguous and applied by judges unpredictably in individual cases, undermining the deterrent effect of statutory rape laws in the first place. Yes, it creates arbitrary effects, but as I said we accept a little arbitrariness and irrational borderline cases in the law in the name of creating a stable and predictable legal order for everyone.

I live in California, and drive on the freeway. Let me tell you a secret: almost everyone here breaks the speed limit rules. Instead, we have our own rules - drive safely. I'm not going to go into all of the aspects that it entails, but they all have mini rules, like tailgating. The general rule is you keep a one car distance for every ten miles of speed. If you're going 70 mph - 7 car distance from the car in front of you. There are many rules like this, which is why we're not accident crazy, unless it rains, and all of the safety rules break down. Californians haven't quite figured out how to drive in the rain yet, but on a sunny day, our modified speed limit rules work quite well.

You can have age limit for consent, and have exceptions, like "high school sweethearts" or when the duo's age is within a few years of each other, and defining that few would depend on the circumstance. A 15 year old and a 21 year old is bad, but a 17 year old and a 21 year old is understandable. You see what works, and what doesn't. Obviously a 50 year old and a 15 year old is rape, no matter how you slice it. But the beauty of common law is that it allows the law to adapt to individual cases.

Ironically, this flexibility and unpredictability of common law is precisely why Parliament imposes a strict age of consent under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, derogating from the flexibility otherwise afforded by common law (since common law principles cannot derogate from expressly-worded statutory language, as is the hierarchy of legal norms in England and Wales and all common law jurisdictions). Precisely because of a desire for certainty and predictability as opposed to the instability of having to guess how a judge will subjectively determined, based on his own inclinations and preferences, whether a particular relationship is consensual or non-consensual by examining the minor's mental state.

The fact that lots of people break the speed limit also really isn't the point. Yes, prosecutorial discretion exists and no prosecutor is going to waste public money by locking up every speeding individual, but someone in that position is reliant on the common sense and discretion of the prosecutor to not do what the law entitles him to do, which is prosecute the speeder. The rule of law, however, demands certainty and predictability in a person's legal standing, so he can predict in advance his legal position. Essentially, if a person wants to be 100% certain that he won't fall afoul of the law and open himself to the vulnerable position of being open to prosecution (even if the prosecutor exercises his discretion not to, as is often the case for speeding and jaywalking), he should be able to tell, in advance, what he must do to remain in that position. Bright-line speeding laws, bright-line health regulations, bright-line limitation periods and bright-line ages of consent exist for precisely this purpose, and derogations and vaguely-worded exceptions to them would do nothing more than introduce instability and unpredictability into an area of law where the legislature expressly intended to provide certainty and predictability.

[Purgatio]

Fine, I'll rephrase - since you think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child marriage, do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?

Yes.

At least I finally got on the record what was obvious from the beginning, that you somehow hold the shocking position that, in some cases, child pornography or child prostitution is non-abusive. I feel that the very fact that you can take this very position should end this debate right here.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yes.

At least I finally got on the record what was obvious from the beginning, that you somehow hold the shocking position that, in some cases, child pornography or child prostitution is non-abusive.

Here you go again with putting words in my mouth. And asking questions you never asked.

[Sovaal]

Well I can say that this thread didn’t disappoint at least.

[Conserative Morality]

"It's an Idaho thing, not a Republican thing!"

>> bill is not blocked by Dems but by Republicans
>> Idaho is not the only state to see shit like this happen
>> Republican talking points are used to block the bill

:thonk:

[El-Amin Caliphate]

When doing so let's them pretend republicans are pro pedophilia? Yeah.

Roy Moore.

[Des-Bal]

Being married doesn't mean you can necessarily consent to sex,

It does not, but it does mean that your spouse cannot be prosecuted for statutorily raping you. Or impersonating someone else and you convincing you to have sex with them by subterfuge.

[Klorgia1]

This honestly seemed so insane I looked it up again to make sure it was real.

https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/p ... e#stream/0 Extra source.

This is horrific.

[The South Falls]

This honestly seemed so insane I looked it up again to make sure it was real.

https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/p ... e#stream/0 Extra source.

This is horrific.

And it's all because why?

[Liriena]

Well, Republican politicians constantly obstruct attempts to end child marriages so it's not really my fault, is it?

Yes, it is. You know what you're doing. Extrapolating this to Republicans broadly is dishonest and you know it.

Again: Republican politicians across various states have constantly obstructed attempts to end child marriages. Ergo, me saying...

Every time Republicans do shit like this, I become more of a tankie.

Isn't an unfair generalization. Hell, it's not even a generalization in the first place. You just felt it was.

I said "every time Republicans do shit like this" because Republican politicians have repeatedly done shit like this. I'm not saying "all Republicans are pedophiles" (although it sure would be nice to see more Republicans acknowledge Dennis Hastert).

[Des-Bal]

And it's all because why?

Because it would require a court order for 16 and 17 year olds to marry, it would make marriage more restrictive than abortion, other largely unimportant moral concerns.

[Liriena]

When doing so let's them pretend republicans are pro pedophilia? Yeah.

As opposed to Democrats flirting with infanticide?

Truly paragons of moral perfection.

That's not a thing.

Two states with Democratic governors had bills that legalized late-term abortions for specific cases, cases in which either not performing an abortion would seriously endanger the mother's life or in which the unborn is either already dead or suffering from a complication that would make its survival impossible.

But because facts are the enemies of right-wing moralism, the Republicans have spent months pretending that Democrats just looooooove killing newborns en masse for no reason.

[Liriena]

The thread about justifying sex with minors now upgraded to female genital mutilation apologetics.

Very normal day on a very normal website.

This free marketplace of ideas sucks. Who the hell QA tested it?

[Purgatio]

At least I finally got on the record what was obvious from the beginning, that you somehow hold the shocking position that, in some cases, child pornography or child prostitution is non-abusive.

Here you go again with putting words in my mouth. And asking questions you never asked.

You literally answered 'yes' to the question "do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?"

Fairly sure that's not putting words into your mouth, that's an exact quote of my question and your answer was one word, "yes". Your meaning was 100% abundantly clear.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Here you go again with putting words in my mouth. And asking questions you never asked.

You literally answered 'yes' to the question "do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?"

Fairly sure that's not putting words into your mouth, that's an exact quote of my question and your answer was one word, "yes". Your meaning was 100% abundantly clear.

Exactly, we were talking about children (which btw you never specified how old these hypothetical children are) being mentally capable of consent. You said nothing about abuse.

[Purgatio]

You literally answered 'yes' to the question "do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?"

Fairly sure that's not putting words into your mouth, that's an exact quote of my question and your answer was one word, "yes". Your meaning was 100% abundantly clear.

Exactly, we were talking about children (which btw you never specified how old these hypothetical children are) being mentally capable of consent. You said nothing about abuse.

If a child not mentally-competent to actually consent to sex/marriage/prostitution/pornography enters into those same activities, that is by definition abusive because a non-consenting child is literally being raped.

[Andsed]

You literally answered 'yes' to the question "do you also think some children are mentally capable of consenting to child labour, child prostitution and child pornography?"

Fairly sure that's not putting words into your mouth, that's an exact quote of my question and your answer was one word, "yes". Your meaning was 100% abundantly clear.

Exactly, we were talking about children (which btw you never specified how old these hypothetical children are) being mentally capable of consent. You said nothing about abuse.

You said children are capable to consent to prostitution pornography. (which is utter bullshit but I digress) Child prostitution and child pornography is abuse period.