California is legalizing pedophilia

The measure, Senate Bill 145, will amend existing state law that allows judges to decide whether an adult convicted of having vaginal sexual intercourse with a minor should register as a sex offender in cases in which the minor is 14 years or older and the adult is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

Currently, adults who are convicted of having oral or anal sex with a minor under those circumstances are automatically added to the state’s sex offender registry. SB 145 will eliminate automatic sex offender registration in those cases and give judges discretion to make that decision.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...btq-rights

So not only has California allowed what many other states would call vaginal pedophilia (technically hebephilia) since 1944, likely contributing to thousands of Hollywood #MeToo stories, now it similarly condones gay pedophilia. Who in their right mind thinks it's okay for a 24 year old having any kind of sex with a 14 year old not warranting being put on the sex offender registry?

Sounds an awful lot like the supposed slippery slope of "accepting gays will lead to accepting pedophilia" has proven completely true.

Quote:Sounds an awful lot like the supposed slippery slope of "accepting gays will lead to accepting pedophilia" has proven completely true.

What does accepting gay people have to do with accepting pedophilia? Why would the former lead to the latter?

(Oct 8, 2020 06:32 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:Sounds an awful lot like the supposed slippery slope of "accepting gays will lead to accepting pedophilia" has proven completely true.

What does accepting gay people have to do with accepting pedophilia? Why would the former lead to the latter?

You tell me. Why did they change the law in order "to end discrimination against LGBTQ people"? They literally said one has something to do with the other.

Quote:You tell me

You're the one saying one leads to the other. Why would you claim that if you didn't have a reason for it?

Currently, judges have discretion. They can decide if someone should be placed on the sex offender’s registry, if they’ve had consensual sex with someone between the ages of 14-17 and if they themselves are no more than 10 years older than the person. But currently, this discretion only applies to vaginal intercourse. As it stands now, if a 17-year-old is caught having oral or anal sex with a 15-year-old, the judge has to place him/her on the registry. This new bill isn’t designed to change anything other than the type of sex. They’re just tossing on oral and anal.

Is it just me or does a 10 year age gap seem rather a lot? I'd think no discretion with an age gap greater than 5 years at most - if ya know the rules and you break them then that makes you a sex offender - most likely a predatory sex offender.

Is this not redefining statutory rape, non-consensual sexual touching of a minor? Is California just redrawing the boundaries?

(Oct 8, 2020 01:28 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: Is this not redefining statutory rape, non-consensual sexual touching of a minor? Is California just redrawing the boundaries?

No. It doesn't change the current law. You'll still get popped for statuatory rape, ect.

The new bill doesn’t affect the criminal status of sex with minors. It’s still illegal under Penal Code 261.5. to have any sex act with a person under the age of 18 is a crime. Whether it’s a misdemeanor of felony depends on the ages of those involved.

As our laws stand now, the judges are allowed some discretion depending upon the ages of the individuals involved. Realistically, you wouldn’t want to see an 18-year-old face mandatory lifetime sex offender registration for having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend.

However, there are some laws that are currently on the books that require mandatory lifetime registration regardless of the ages, in which, the judges have zero discretion. One being oral copulation, and two, anal sex. Both of which apply to the LGBT community.

All sexual contact carries risks, but vaginal sex is the only one that carries the additional risk of pregnancy. As it stands now, judges are allowed discretion regarding lifetime registration, depending on the ages of the individuals, if it was vaginal sex. Oral? Anal? Nope. No choice. It’s mandatory lifetime sexual offender registration.

---

(Oct 8, 2020 03:21 AM)Syne Wrote: Sounds an awful lot like the supposed slippery slope of "accepting gays will lead to accepting pedophilia" has proven completely true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co...ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_...uliet_laws

Don't let your dislike of Newsom make you easy to fool.

Quote:One being oral copulation, and two, anal sex. Both of which apply to the LGBT community. 

Good grief! They should call it The Port of Entry Law/Amendment. 

More political correctness or whatever it is nowadays?

(Oct 8, 2020 07:35 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

Quote:You tell me

You're the one saying one leads to the other. Why would you claim that if you didn't have a reason for it?

I'm not saying it. It's THE justification for the change in the law, directly from the LGBT activists. Take it up with them.

They're literally saying that LGBT should be able to have sex with minors and not necessarily be labeled sex offenders.

(Oct 8, 2020 12:50 PM)confused2 Wrote: Is it just me or does a 10 year age gap seem rather a lot? I'd think no discretion with an age gap greater than 5 years at most - if ya know the rules and you break them then that makes you a sex offender - most likely a predatory sex offender.

Yeah, a 10 year gap sounds tailor-made for Hollywood people, like Weinstein, to prey on underage actresses. Just part and parcel with the immorality of Hollywood.

(Oct 8, 2020 12:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Currently, judges have discretion. They can decide if someone should be placed on the sex offender’s registry, if they’ve had consensual sex with someone between the ages of 14-17 and if they themselves are no more than 10 years older than the person. But currently, this discretion only applies to vaginal intercourse. As it stands now, if a 17-year-old is caught having oral or anal sex with a 15-year-old, the judge has to place him/her on the registry. This new bill isn’t designed to change anything other than the type of sex. They’re just tossing on oral and anal.

So instead of correcting that very immoral law about vaginal sex, they compound the problem by including oral and anal sex. Equality for the LGBT to get off easy for statutory rape before their victims can legally give consent, rather than simply protecting consent.

(Oct 8, 2020 01:39 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Oct 8, 2020 03:21 AM)Syne Wrote: Sounds an awful lot like the supposed slippery slope of "accepting gays will lead to accepting pedophilia" has proven completely true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_co...ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_...uliet_laws

Don't let your dislike of Newsom make you easy to fool.

I'm well-aware of that, including that many (most?) states have much more moral/reasonable Romeo and Juliet laws, with a smaller gap in ages. Don't let your love of your state/Governor make you defend the indefensible.

Or...do you really think it's okay for a 24 year old to have any kind of sex with a 14 year old? Yes, they will be charged with statutory rape, but without being on the sex offender registry, there's very little to keep them from doing it to another child. That's why we keep tabs on sex offenders.