I'm not sure this is a corner case at all, as much as just an uncommon one, with extra hot buttons. From the parent's perspective of the younger child, (removing the fact that both are female or that it is homosexual), it seems perfectly reasonable that they should have the full right to protect their daughter legally. Arguing that because it's a gay relationship goes a long way to show that the younger individual is regardless of her age, mature and competent enough to make a choice for herself, which then leads to well why would she then not be if the partner where a male? People might say that they don't think it would matter, but the past evidence of very similar cases (just switching up the genders) has shown pretty strongly that they (as a general community) simply do not.
Agreed.
what would be the difference if the other partner was male? That's basically what it comes down to, how is this any different than if an older male had been having sexual relations with an underage/younger female, and in what way should the remove the parents (of the younger girl's) rights to legally defend their child, (whom they are legally accountable for)? The law either applies equally, regardless of gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation, etc. . ., or it doesn't. It's not about getting all the perks but none of the responsibility, which is exactly what arguing that "because they where gay it's ok" is doing.
Agreed.
It is the opinion of this Revolutionary Tribunal that sodomy is an imaginary crime, and that laws against high schoolers boinking each other, whether they be straight or gay, is the acme of stupidity. We find the defendant NOT GUILTY!
I think a lot of people are also jumping on the assumption that the parent's primary (or only) motivation is because they have an issue with their daughter being homosexual and are using this as an excuse to break that up. But the truth is that parent's of children are at least equally if not more concerned with their daughters having heterosexual relationships than they are with homosexual one, its very common that they disallow (or attempt to) their daughters from dating until they are _____ years old, period.
From what little I have read, the parents of the younger girl never complained while 17-year-old Kate was boinking their daughter and went and filed charges when she turned 18. These are unconfirmed accusations, as far as this Revolutionary Tribunal is concerned, but, if true, the offending parents shall be sentenced to a Fun-Timey Reeducation Through Labor Supercenter to produce vibrators and Massengill for the lesbian masses until they admit they harbor counterrevolutionary attitudes.
My understanding is that it was primarily oral relations, which again means
Ahem.
Is also seems that the younger girl's parents didn't forbid them to date or raise any strong objections until she turned 18 and could use the courts.
If true, that seems like a horrible way to handle it.
This Revolutionary Tribunal agrees, Citoyen Jeff.
|
I wish I could go back and edit that post. I'd put in a "'That's it!' I cried, slamming on the brakes, kicked her out of the car...", a bunch of musical and cinemacal links, and a better punch line:
"All the girls looked like Anita...and they were all laughing at me!"
I'm honestly astounded that you would have the fortitude to endure up to even that point in your "dream" date.
Being that I place a lot of value on personality and attitude in the women I find attractive, I gotta say she is probably one of the most repulsive and unattractive women I can think of personally. Occasionally I get linked to one of her videos without realizing it, and just the first couple of minutes is enough to sour the day, not to mention the inability to correct her, respond, or even thumb's down her points of view.
PS Death Knights stomp Goblins doing it in the street.
I'm honestly astounded that you would have the fortitude to endure up to even that point in your "dream" date.
Being that I place a lot of value on personality and attitude in the women I find attractive, I gotta say she is probably one of the most repulsive and unattractive women I can think of personally. Occasionally I get linked to one of her videos without realizing it, and just the first couple of minutes is enough to sour the day, not to mention the inability to correct her, respond, or even thumb's down her points of view.
PS Death Knights stomp Goblins doing it in the street.
[Slaps Beckett across the face with his mailed gauntlet]
Shut your trap, sirrah! Durst thou speaketh shiznit about milady?!? Fill your hand, varlet!
|
|
I'm not sure about others, but I've called it a corner or edge case not because of their genders, but because of the relative ages.
As I said, in many states this would be legal, though a slightly greater age difference would not. If Florida, it was legal, then Kaitlyn turned 18 and it wasn't, eventually the younger girl will turn 16 and it will be again. Weird for a moral issue.
Ah, I didn't see that as what had been meant. I agree, but it's also something that male/female heterosexual partners have been dealing with for some time, particularly in cases where one states laws are different than another's in this regard. It's led to more than a few couples being legally married in one state and not legally married, but also sexual criminals in another, with a variety of different results n courts.
It's a strange issue, and it reminds me of a debate my class had back when I was taking criminal justice and politics about how back in the day, a middle eastern diplomat had come to the use for some sort of diplomatic council and brought his wife. Without realizing why, the US arrested him as he entered the country because his wife happened to be 13, (even though they hadn't had sex, and more importantly hadn't had sex in the US), sent her home (now without her guardian and legal protector and now with no where to go) while they tried to figure out what the heck to do with him.
|
|
From the story linked earlier:
In statements posted to a Facebook group supporting the accused teen, Hunt's parents allege that their daughter's relationship with her girlfriend, who was 14 when they began dating, was known to the other girl's parents. They implied that the other girl's parents waited until Hunt turned 18 to press charges."These people never came to us as parents, never tried to speak to us ... and tell us they had a problem with the girls dating," Kaitlyn Hunt's mother, Kelley Hunt-Smith, wrote. "They were out to destroy my daughter. [They] feel like my daughter 'made' their daughter gay."With that in mind, if it also pretty possible that they discovered that the two where having sex around the same time she turned 18? It still seems like it's tailored so that people jump t the assumption that the parents had an issue with them being gay, but it also states that they clearly knew about it prior to that. So which is it? I mean wouldn't a parent concerned that their child is gay want to tackle that issue at the beginning rather than years (?) later.
It's a strange issue, and it reminds me of a debate my class had back when I was taking criminal justice and politics about how back in the day, a middle eastern diplomat had come to the use for some sort of diplomatic council and brought his wife. Without realizing why, the US arrested him as he entered the country because his wife happened to be 13, (even though they hadn't had sex, and more importantly hadn't had sex in the US), sent her home (now without her guardian and legal protector and now with no where to go) while they tried to figure out what the heck to do with him.
How strange. In New Hampshire, I believe, the law still says girls can get married at the age of 13 as long as they have their parents' permission.
He should have flown into MHT.
Should be a line drawn hard and clear none of this sometimes adult, sometimes not but ok to cross the line BS
Agreed, Citoyen R. A line should be drawn hard and clear that laws against high school students boinking each other are stupid.
|
|
PS Death Knights stomp Goblins doing it in the street.
[Slaps Beckett across the face with his mailed gauntlet]
Shut your trap, sirrah! Durst thou speaketh shiznit about milady?!? Fill your hand, varlet!
You have the absolutely most interesting understanding of what it is to ignore someone that I have ever witness. I'm particularly intrigued how my personal opinion can be of such an offending "shiznit" about an individual that would likely goblin-astrate you for forcing her to be the damsel in distress, part 3, I believe.
Hands off until both are 18, not that damn hard to understand. Should be a line drawn hard and clear none of this sometimes adult, sometimes not but ok to cross the line BS
No. You wouldn't put up with the government telling you you can't have sex for a year so why should a 17 year old?
Hands off until both are 18, not that damn hard to understand. Should be a line drawn hard and clear none of this sometimes adult, sometimes not but ok to cross the line BS
Unfortunately this is an area with a great deal of variance from state to state, not the least because of attempts to mimic what is thought of as local mores. Read your local statutes boys and girls!
|
|
Hands off until both are 18, not that damn hard to understand. Should be a line drawn hard and clear none of this sometimes adult, sometimes not but ok to cross the line BSNo. You wouldn't put up with the government telling you you can't have sex for a year so why should a 17 year old?
Um, they already do. The point isn't about if the law exists, it's that it is pure BS to say that it is ok for them because it's with another girl, when it isn't ok for anyone else.
Um, they already do. The point isn't about if the law exists, it's that it is pure BS to say that it is ok for them because it's with another girl, when it isn't ok for anyone else.Hands off until both are 18, not that damn hard to understand. Should be a line drawn hard and clear none of this sometimes adult, sometimes not but ok to cross the line BSNo. You wouldn't put up with the government telling you you can't have sex for a year so why should a 17 year old?
Except for the fact that this is a fairly standard HS relationship that is rarely prosecuted, and in this case is likely only being prosecuted because of their sexual orientation.
|
|
I don't agree that it is rarely prosecuted among HS (heterosexual ?) relationships, nor do I agree that the fact that they are either female or gay is actually an issue. Like I pointed out above, if it was, then wouldn't the parents have then had an issue with it much earlier. Apparently, (from the words of the other girl and her parents) they didn't until something changed.
I also really don't think anyone would be discussing this if it was just another male/female sexual thing with youth. It's pretty much just that it's two women and that it's gay (hot buttons) that makes this any different, or tries too.
Um, they already do. The point isn't about if the law exists, it's that it is pure BS to say that it is ok for them because it's with another girl, when it isn't ok for anyone else.
Within a certain age difference its ok for anyone (or at least not a prosecutable offense), or at least not one they bother to prosecute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree that it is rarely prosecuted among HS (heterosexual ?) relationships, nor do I agree that the fact that they are either female or gay is actually an issue. Like I pointed out above, if it was, then wouldn't the parents have then had an issue with it much earlier. Apparently, (from the words of the other girl and her parents) they didn't until something changed.
I also really don't think anyone would be discussing this if it was just another male/female sexual thing with youth. It's pretty much just that it's two women and that it's gay (hot buttons) that makes this any different, or tries too.
I've had discussions about legal cases similar to this one involving heterosexual couples. I'm not a lawyer or anything either. Go find a case, start a thread about it and I'll comment on it.
Here's one. Based on the limited facts of the article, I think the judge made the right call. Would you like to talk about it some more?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a simple problem. Unless you're just going to pretend that teens are going to stop having sex.I don't think that's how conservatives think though. I believe their line of reasoning is thus: kids shouldn't have sex. So they should stop. The end.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong though :)
You're wrong as to this conservative.....
Ahhhhhhh yeahhhhhhh. (Cue Barry White music).
|
|
Yes, there are variations in age, and there are also exceptions. Usually either along the lines of within a certain age range of the two individuals or with parental consent. However, in their location, none of this applies, (either for hetero or homosexuals) and obviously there was no parental consent (which is something that they need to sign officially, it isn't them just saying it's ok). So I'm really not seeing the logic in your response above. The law said "hands off until your 18", (which is a pretty common knowledge thing), and I just don't see how "well we don't like the gov telling us we can't have sex" has any relavence, (when it's just as, if no moreso strict for everyone else in the exact same circumstances + a penis on one or both of them).
Or are we misunderstand what you meant?
Except the law isn't as cut and dry as "under 18 hands off"
It isn't difficult to grasp, but it does vary by state quite significantly.
Parents can be amazingly, willfully blind when it comes to their children and sex. I've had a case where both sets of parents condoned a 17 year old and 13 year old dating, and somehow were shocked the kids had sex and the young lady became pregnant. The police were called, and charges were filed. The only difference was it came to light sex was involved.
|
|
It's not clear what changed that led the parents to report it, other than it becoming an option because it became a crime.
That's my point. The suggestion that it is due to homosexuality seems to only be an argument from one side, but at the same time is contradicted as likely if the other sides parents knew about it all along. If they did, and it was all about it being a gay thing, then wouldn't the parents have had an issue before that point? IF on the other hand, it was because of some other motivation, maybe that their daughter had had sex at all that they where not comfortable with, maybe they got some indication that the relationship was bad (and I don't mean because it's homosexual, but grades dropped, daughter starts skipping out on school, or something along those lines), that's more likely to be a motivation for why they didn't do anything until that point, even to just forbid the relationship.
Now that doesn't mean it's impossible that the parent's motivation is just antigay, but the evidence just doesn't really support it, in my opinion.
You have the absolutely most interesting understanding of what it is to ignore someone that I have ever witness. I'm particularly intrigued how my personal opinion can be of such an offending "shiznit" about an individual that would likely goblin-astrate you for forcing her to be the damsel in distress, part 3, I believe.
If you read back in the thread, knave, you will see that I have already unignored you, as ignoring one's inferiors is against the Noble Anklebiter Code of Chivalry.
My second will be in touch, sirrah.
Third World Feminist-Intersectional Analysis (and Hawt Chicks): The Musical Interlude
More poor-quality videos of hawt feminists for OHWFA! members:
It's not a simple problem. Unless you're just going to pretend that teens are going to stop having sex.I don't think that's how conservatives think though. I believe their line of reasoning is thus: kids shouldn't have sex. So they should stop. The end.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong though :)
You're wrong as to this conservative.....
Ahhhhhhh yeahhhhhhh. (Cue Barry White music).
If we can ever get everybody to sit in the same room again, I'll have to introduce you to Comrades Thorn and Knife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have the absolutely most interesting understanding of what it is to ignore someone that I have ever witness. I'm particularly intrigued how my personal opinion can be of such an offending "shiznit" about an individual that would likely goblin-astrate you for forcing her to be the damsel in distress, part 3, I believe.
If you read back in the thread, knave, you will see that I have already unignored you, as ignoring one's inferiors is against the Noble Anklebiter Code of Chivalry.
My second will be in touch, sirrah.
*Immediately enters White Knight Doodlebug into the rolls of the Knights of Dice.*
There's a disconnect though, I don't think a conservative would have any problems telling other people what to do or even the government, but when it affects them they're upset about it.
Shhhh... its better if they work the math out themselves.
*Immediately enters White Knight Doodlebug into the rolls of the Knights of Dice.*
Milord, I thank thee for this opportunity to serve Anita Sarkeesian, God and you. (In that order.)
May this poor instrument spend its blood and other fluids in your service.
[Clicks heels, snaps salute and bellows]
Hail Dice!!
that the older girl was 14 when they fist began dating
Epic Freudian slip :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The police were called, and charges were filed. The only difference was it came to light <when> sex was involved.I am not sure why it's surprising that the police got involved when the very clear line was crossed?
Because the time to intervene was when they found out their 12-13 old was dating a 16-17 year old? Instead of being surprised when hormonal teenagers might have sex?
Freud was a sexist pig, Comrade Meatrace.
More than anything, it was his insistence that clitoral orgasms were symptomatic of developmental immaturity and that healthy, normal women subsisted off the more elusive--put still pretty damn satisfying, testifies Sister Greer in The Female Eunuch--vaginal orgasms that earned Dr. Freud his casting off into the dustbin of misogynist history.
....k