Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

California is legalizing pedophilia

#11
Magical Realist Online
Quote: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.

No..they did not say that acccepting gay people leads to accepting pedophilia. You said it and evidently have no basis for claiming such. So much for that.
Reply
#12
Yazata Offline
I find myself agreeing with SS in this thread. The subject line is misleading. California hasn't legalized pedophilia.
Reply
#13
Syne Offline
(Oct 8, 2020 08:36 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote: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.

No..they did not say that acccepting gay people leads to accepting pedophilia. You said it and evidently have no basis for claiming such. So much for that.
I never claimed that LGBT activists said accepting gays leads to accepting pedophilia. I was talking about the supposed slippery slope argument. The LGBT activists claimed that one would never lead to the other. And this law, partially decriminalizing gay sex acts with minors, would not exist if gays were not accepted. The activists literally justified it because gay sex with minors needs to be equal to straight sex with minors. Hence more forms of pedophilia (hebephilia) because people have accepted the false equivalence between straight and gay sex. It's a very simple line of cause and effect.


(Oct 8, 2020 08:40 PM)Yazata Wrote: I find myself agreeing with SS in this thread. The subject line is misleading. California hasn't legalized pedophilia.
As explained in the OP, they've partially decriminalized pedophilia. I would think my misleading title should be the very least objectionable thing about this story.
Reply
#14
Magical Realist Online
Quote:I never claimed that LGBT activists said accepting gays leads to accepting pedophilia

You just claimed that is what they are saying.

Quote: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.

And you said it yourself:

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

Don't make claims you can't defend.
Reply
#15
Secular Sanity Offline
(Oct 8, 2020 08:15 PM)Syne Wrote: 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.

That came from Penal Code 286c(1)

Any person who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

A provision law states that in cases where a sexual partner is over the age of 15 and their partner is within 10 years of their age, the partner over the age of 18 will not automatically be placed on the registry.

"Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, "sexual intercourse" (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion."—Scott Wiener (Egads, not a good name for this subject, eh?)  Confused  

In California the age of consent and the minimum age of the victim is 18 years of age. We’re better than most states in that regard. It looks to me like you can have sex with a fourteen-year-old in Hawaii if you’re 19 years old or younger. In fact, in most states you can have consensual sex with a 16-year-old.

SOURCE
Reply
#16
Ben the Donkey Offline
Tricky subject, isn't it. Hard to delve into in any depth, given the nuances, without writing a paper on it.

The terms being used are emotive to begin with. Seems to be this is more in tune with Ephebophilia, with Hebephilia coming into play down the lower end of the scale. But even there, one runs into difficulty due to the varying ages among individuals at which physical sexual maturity is approached, and mental maturity (with the two often not in sync) . Legal definitions have always had this issue - when faced with such a variation, the only recourse is to universally arbitrate to it... and then "discretionary" powers come into play, successfully or otherwise, as a means of fine tuning.
Regardless, there are good reasons for the variation in terminology, both biological and social. However you look at it, Pedophilia doesn't enter into the frame in this case, other than as hyperbole.

That being said, I'm finding myself in agreement with SS on this as well.
It's just an alignment with existing same-sex laws, and involves judicial discretion in placing offenders on a registry, not conviction or permission.
If you're in support of Article 7 of the UDHR, you really don't have an argument.
Reply
#17
Syne Offline
(Oct 8, 2020 09:17 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:I never claimed that LGBT activists said accepting gays leads to accepting pedophilia

You just claimed that is what they are saying.

Quote: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.

And you said it yourself:

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

Don't make claims you can't defend.
I have trouble believing you are so thoroughly incapable of following a simple conversation. Do I really have to recap the whole thing for you?

(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.
Didn't say anyone said this, only that the actions proved it.

(Oct 8, 2020 06:32 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: What does accepting gay people have to do with accepting pedophilia? Why would the former lead to the latter?

And then responding specifically to you asking "Why would the former lead to the latter?":
(Oct 8, 2020 06:55 AM)Syne Wrote: 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.
I literally quoted the justification in the cited article. If decreasing the penalties for gay sex acts with minors is "to end discrimination against LGBTQ people", that literally means that one led to the other. The notion of sexual orientation/gender identity as a protected class (acceptance) was a necessary prerequisite to supposedly ending discrimination against that class by reducing the penalties for sex acts with minors.

You asked what sex with minors has to do with gays, and according to the LGBT activists, it's discriminatory to automatically put gays who have sex with minors on the sex offender registry. It has everything to do with gays who have sex with minors.


If you still can't keep up, I can only assume you'll never be up to the task.




(Oct 9, 2020 01:20 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2020 08:15 PM)Syne Wrote: 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.

That came from Penal Code 286c(1)

Any person who participates in an act of sodomy with another person who is under 14 years of age and more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.

A provision law states that in cases where a sexual partner is over the age of 15 and their partner is within 10 years of their age, the partner over the age of 18 will not automatically be placed on the registry.

"Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, "sexual intercourse" (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion."—Scott Wiener (Egads, not a good name for this subject, eh?)  Confused  

In California the age of consent and the minimum age of the victim is 18 years of age. We’re better than most states in that regard. It looks to me like you can have sex with a fourteen-year-old in Hawaii if you’re 19 years old or younger. In fact, in most states you can have consensual sex with a 16-year-old.

SOURCE
And? Where have I disputed any of that? In your imagination?

And you didn't answer the question. Do you think it's okay for a 24 year old to have sex with a 14 year old and not become a registered sex offender? In some states, you can end up a registered sex offender for urinating in public. California Penal Code 314(1)-(2), 290

(Oct 9, 2020 05:59 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: If you're in support of Article 7 of the UDHR, you really don't have an argument.
People are equal, acts are not. If all acts were equal, theft would be as legal as speech.
Reply
#18
Ben the Donkey Offline
California has liberal laws regarding homosexuality, generally speaking. The age of consent is equal for male and female (gay or otherwise), homosexual acts are legal in the eyes of Californian law, and therefore subject to the same anti-discriminatory action as normy sex is.

Under that context, your moral stance on the subject is irrelevant.
Reply
#19
C C Offline
(Oct 9, 2020 01:20 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [...] In California the age of consent and the minimum age of the victim is 18 years of age. We’re better than most states in that regard. It looks to me like you can have sex with a fourteen-year-old in Hawaii if you’re 19 years old or younger. In fact, in most states you can have consensual sex with a 16-year-old.

SOURCE


Count the blessings, I guess -- in the Philippines the age of consent is twelve. A wonder it's not the pedo capital of the world (it may well be, actually) rather than Thailand or Mumbai or whatever the case. With respect to the latter, the British had to raise the age from ten to twelve back in 1891 (India as a whole has it at 18 now, but many want to want to lower it to 16). Children are kidnapped and trafficked in Mumbai for more than just deeply underage prostitution and pornography -- it includes harvesting transplant organs from them along with traditional activities like indentured commercial labor, domestic servitude, service as spies, etc (similar with the Philippines).
Reply
#20
Ben the Donkey Offline
Do you think the darker or seedier side of sexuality should impact the age of consent, though, ladies?
Legality has a tendency to assume the worst, and guard against that. But in the process, it can lose sight of humanity itself.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The crackdown on speaking out against pedophilia? (Survival Lilly) C C 1 106 Sep 17, 2023 02:08 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)