US Teenager expelled, arrested for underage relationship, Homophobia alledged motivation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:

The court had this to say: " 19 The State, however, applies Utah Code section 76-5-404.1 in an unprecedented manner.   By filing delinquency petitions for child sex abuse against both participants for sexually touching one another, the State treats both children as perpetrators of the same act.   In this situation, there is no discernible victim that the law seeks to protect, only culpable participants that the State seeks to punish.8  We know of no other instance in which the State has attempted to apply any sexual assault crime to produce such an effect.9"

For 13 and under. As I said, it's a different set of circumstances.

Texas's penal code: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm (Specifically section 22.011, subsection E). An age gap of three years or less is a mitigating factor and neither party will have to register as a sex offender, but it's still a crime for as many parties were penetrated with any object at all. (Note: For most sex offenses, penetration is necessary. This is why it's very rare for a woman to be convicted of raping a man).

Edit: WHELP. After re-reading this, I realized why it's so rare for both parties to get charged, because of the aforementioned penetration rule.

Shaoken:

Well if the parents were homophobic then to be perfectly honest, fuck their wishes.

Shaoken:

If someone is a bigot they deserve no respect period end of line.

Oh, the irony.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

Although obviously it's absurd, since "bigot" is just one of those words that a more secular society chooses to use in place of "witch" or "heretic".

lowhat:

Oh, the irony.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

By your definition, the term is reserved for those utterly intolerant. Not just prejudiced or opposed or against, but utterly intolerant. That limits things.

lowhat:
Oh, the irony.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

Although obviously it's absurd, since "bigot" is just one of those words that a more secular society chooses to use in place of "witch" or "heretic".

There's a difference between having a belief and acting on it. The problem isn't that the parents of the second girl are homophobic, the problem is they're willing to have the first girl put on the sex offender list just to break off her relationship with their daughter.

lowhat:

Shaoken:

Well if the parents were homophobic then to be perfectly honest, fuck their wishes.

Shaoken:

If someone is a bigot they deserve no respect period end of line.

Oh, the irony.

I know. It still amazes me how many people don't get what irony is.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

Errr, not really. I'm bigoted against bigots. I live by the philosphy that every man and woman should have the right to live their lives freely so long as it doesn't stop someone else from doing the same.

Although obviously it's absurd, since "bigot" is just one of those words that a more secular society chooses to use in place of "witch" or "heretic".

Please. There is a difference between people who have a different opinion to you but otherwise have no impact on your day to day life and those who go out of their way to have an influence on your life. I hope you can tell the difference.

Vivi22:

Magenera:
Why of bother? Seems to me like they saw homosexual couple being "oppressed" and is going with that angle, I mean look at the title of the thread. We are meant to see one thing, but if looking at it with out bias, it would seem that the law is just and fair.

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the arguments many of us have made in this thread. Most of us aren't going "oh won't someone please think of the poor homosexual couple." We're arguing that the law itself, despite being applied correctly, is itself immoral and unjust, and I can not support the upholding of such silly and unjust laws.

Let's get real here, in no way is this girl a sex offender because she dated and may have had sex with this girl who is underage. They're both teenagers, they both go to the same school, and they both have the same social circle. This law is not protecting the younger girl from being exploited by a sexual predator, and is punishing a girl who is actually completely innocent of the crime she's being punished for if you stop and think for two seconds about what the law is meant to accomplish rather than how it is being applied presently.

But if you'd like to continue to argue against strawmen you can feel free. The rest of us will just ignore you from now on.

She broke the law, she was more than likely worn that this would happen to her if she didn't end the relationship. Hell my brothers have been worn of this situation. I am supposed to show sympathy because of a goddamn sob story? What happen to equality under the law?

Magenera:

Vivi22:

Magenera:
Why of bother? Seems to me like they saw homosexual couple being "oppressed" and is going with that angle, I mean look at the title of the thread. We are meant to see one thing, but if looking at it with out bias, it would seem that the law is just and fair.

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the arguments many of us have made in this thread. Most of us aren't going "oh won't someone please think of the poor homosexual couple." We're arguing that the law itself, despite being applied correctly, is itself immoral and unjust, and I can not support the upholding of such silly and unjust laws.

Let's get real here, in no way is this girl a sex offender because she dated and may have had sex with this girl who is underage. They're both teenagers, they both go to the same school, and they both have the same social circle. This law is not protecting the younger girl from being exploited by a sexual predator, and is punishing a girl who is actually completely innocent of the crime she's being punished for if you stop and think for two seconds about what the law is meant to accomplish rather than how it is being applied presently.

But if you'd like to continue to argue against strawmen you can feel free. The rest of us will just ignore you from now on.

She broke the law, she was more than likely worn that this would happen to her if she didn't end the relationship. Hell my brothers have been worn of this situation. I am supposed to show sympathy because of a goddamn sob story? What happen to equality under the law?

Well let's review the (tentative) facts:

* At no point did the younger girl's parents even talk to the older girl's about the relationship, so it's not likely she was "warned."
* She was arrested a few days after her 18th Birthday over a phone call which could be talking about events prior to her 18th birthday while she was still a minor
* Across three out of four sources the younger girl's parents were the ones pressing the issue to get her charged, and in all of them they were the ones seeking to have her expelled from the school
* The younger girl's parents were heard saying "Our daughter will NOT be gay."

So yeah, less about the law, more about probable homophobic assholes using the law out of spite.

We're not arguing the law shouldn't be equal, we're arguing the law is stupid and unjust. If this was any other combination of circumstances with the ages the same I'd still say this is a bullshit decision because it is a bullshit decision.

Shaoken:
So yeah, less about the law, more about probable homophobic assholes using the law out of spite.

I thought you conceded that point...


But hey, don't let the fact that there's absolutely zero proof of the parent's alleged homophobia deter you from building up that strawman argument.

A judge with their head screwed on right would throw it out, just like the first two judges did. Unfortunately, since they're a lesbian couple, there's a very good chance that they'll find a judge with a bias against their relationship and use that against her.

And I'm going to go out on a limb and that 99% chance that the parents would not have prosecuted if it were a heterosexual relationship. I see the parents blaming their kid's same-sex partner for turning them gay all the time, and I've seen physically violent attempts to end relationships because of that before. While there are some prudes out there who would prosecute regardless of whether the relationship was heterosexual or homosexual, they are oh so very easily overwhelmed by the amount of parents who would only if it were a homosexual relationship.

Shaoken:

Magenera:

Vivi22:

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the arguments many of us have made in this thread. Most of us aren't going "oh won't someone please think of the poor homosexual couple." We're arguing that the law itself, despite being applied correctly, is itself immoral and unjust, and I can not support the upholding of such silly and unjust laws.

Let's get real here, in no way is this girl a sex offender because she dated and may have had sex with this girl who is underage. They're both teenagers, they both go to the same school, and they both have the same social circle. This law is not protecting the younger girl from being exploited by a sexual predator, and is punishing a girl who is actually completely innocent of the crime she's being punished for if you stop and think for two seconds about what the law is meant to accomplish rather than how it is being applied presently.

But if you'd like to continue to argue against strawmen you can feel free. The rest of us will just ignore you from now on.

She broke the law, she was more than likely worn that this would happen to her if she didn't end the relationship. Hell my brothers have been worn of this situation. I am supposed to show sympathy because of a goddamn sob story? What happen to equality under the law?

Well let's review the (tentative) facts:

* At no point did the younger girl's parents even talk to the older girl's about the relationship, so it's not likely she was "warned."
* She was arrested a few days after her 18th Birthday over a phone call which could be talking about events prior to her 18th birthday while she was still a minor
* Across three out of four sources the younger girl's parents were the ones pressing the issue to get her charged, and in all of them they were the ones seeking to have her expelled from the school
* The younger girl's parents were heard saying "Our daughter will NOT be gay."

So yeah, less about the law, more about probable homophobic assholes using the law out of spite.

We're not arguing the law shouldn't be equal, we're arguing the law is stupid and unjust. If this was any other combination of circumstances with the ages the same I'd still say this is a bullshit decision because it is a bullshit decision.

?

according to the article that you linked in the first post:

-the first parents were against the relationship from the start
-she was arrested 3 months after her 18th birthday

Shaoken:

Kopikatsu:

Shaoken:
and being physical with someone in a consenual relationship (which holds no real tangible risk).

Would you like me to go over all of the real, tangible risks of sex? Because there are a lot of them

Except by definetion of this law you're guilty if you so much a grope someone. And like thal said there are plenty of ways to mitgate dangers of sex, which you can't do for drunk driving.

So you're really just committing the appeal to authority fallacy right here; you're saying that it's wrong to break the law but don't even entertain the notion that just because something is the law doesn't make it right. Or that there are plenty of exceptions to said law just for this specific set of circumstances.

I don't know if this was answered, but you clearly don't know Kopi. Kopi herself didn't answer, but I've seen enough of her to know what her train of thinking is like. I'm not going to say her train of thinking is wrong, though. She's right to think however she wants. This'll be as non-biased as I can be because I do enjoy reading her viewpoint on things sometime, even if I don't always agree with them.

If I understand correctly, Kopi believes that as long as something is the law, it is utterly right and should be followed no matter what. She admits that laws can be changed, but so long as it is a law, it should be followed to its absolute fullest if you are to be considered a good citizen. To her, there is no ifs, ands, or buts. You follow the law, and that's that.

AngelOfBlueRoses:

If I understand correctly, Kopi believes that as long as something is the law, it is utterly right and should be followed no matter what. She admits that laws can be changed, but so long as it is a law, it should be followed to its absolute fullest if you are to be considered a good citizen. To her, there is no ifs, ands, or buts. You follow the law, and that's that.

The reasoning given for that belief is that the State has far greater force than you do, and 'Might makes right'. This is also why successful revolutions are justified despite opposing the law but failed revolutions are admonished. 'History is written by the victors' and all that.

Ideals are nice and all, but if they aren't enforced through arms, then they're nothing but idle chatter. This is a concept that has driven humanity since it's conception. It's why city-states became a thing, and so on and so forth. You follow laws that you don't agree with because if you break them, you will be punished- with force, if necessary. Some still break the laws regardless, but then they're punished for those transgressions.

tl;dr, if you're not physically powerful enough (whether individually or as part of a collective) to overcome the government, then you have no right to break any law at all. And will be rightfully punished for doing so. But the social contract and such also play a role in it. By breaking the law, you damage the infrastructure that society relies on to function. If you rely on the benefits of society in order to live (such as being able to buy food because you can't produce it for yourself), then you should abide by the regulations set by the State, because the only reason that you can survive is because of said State. Biting the hand that feeds you and all that.

Wait was sex involved or not? That kind of plays a big part, and if it was a girl, and boy some parents would do the same thing, seeing how parents are.

Kopikatsu:
SNIPPITY

What about people who get away with breaking the law? Everything you've written is, after all, very practical-- so presumably, good on those who get away with it, amiright?

Y'know, I hadn't before considered the possibility that a Russian journalist, finding himself herded into a train to Siberia, is the immoral one for writing an expose. Nor had I considered that a gay fella might be in the wrong if he had the poor luck to be born in Iran, or the past. In cases like these I'd tended to look at the law as the boogieman. Now I know, it's the gay fella's fault! He was born in the wrong!

CAPTCHA: Lunch time. No it's not, Captcha, it's ten to two in the morning.

Kopikatsu:
snip

I assume you do not believe in any sort of morality then, as the implication of your post is that you would support any law that was legally passed, whether it be about statutory rape or mandating that all Jews be sent to gas chambers. Apologies for the Godwin but your reasoning leads to the inevitable conclusion that you would see your government doing anything as right as long as they had the power to do it, however harmful or destructive. An interesting viewpoint no doubt but it does make a discussion of the right or wrongness of an act somewhat aimless if one sees right and wrong as simply the opinion of the man with the largest club.

Shaoken:

lowhat:

Shaoken:

Well if the parents were homophobic then to be perfectly honest, fuck their wishes.

Shaoken:

If someone is a bigot they deserve no respect period end of line.

Oh, the irony.

I know. It still amazes me how many people don't get what irony is.

You're right, clearly you don't. A conceited bigot claiming that bigots deserve no respect is textbook irony.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

Errr, not really. I'm bigoted against bigots. I live by the philosphy that every man and woman should have the right to live their lives freely so long as it doesn't stop someone else from doing the same.

Although obviously it's absurd, since "bigot" is just one of those words that a more secular society chooses to use in place of "witch" or "heretic".

Please. There is a difference between people who have a different opinion to you but otherwise have no impact on your day to day life and those who go out of their way to have an influence on your life. I hope you can tell the difference.

None of this has any bearing on your bigotry, nor does it have much to do with the article in question. Parents have the legal standing to make decisions for their children, if the woman in question didn't want to do the time, she shouldn't have done the crime.

JoJo:

Kopikatsu:
snip

I assume you do not believe in any sort of morality then, as the implication of your post is that you would support any law that was legally passed, whether it be about statutory rape or mandating that all Jews be sent to gas chambers. Apologies for the Godwin but your reasoning leads to the inevitable conclusion that you would see your government doing anything as right as long as they had the power to do it, however harmful or destructive. An interesting viewpoint no doubt but it does make a discussion of the right or wrongness of an act somewhat aimless if one sees right and wrong as simply the opinion of the man with the largest club.

That's right, I'm a moral nihilist. But here's the thing- if the government was too powerful for anyone to stop, then what is stopping it from simply doing as it wished? If any attempt at resistance were guaranteed to fail- then what motivation does it have to listen to the people that exist outside of it?

My family is Jewish, but I couldn't call Hitler an 'evil' man. He was doing what he felt was right in the best way he knew how. He was even democratically voted into office, and made good on most (if not all) of the promises that he made to get there. Any argument made against his methods would be based on your subjective opinion of what is 'right' and 'wrong'- but it's just that. Subjective. A product of your environment. Had Germany won WW2, it's likely that we'd all be talking German and praising Hitler by this point. But he didn't, and so we aren't. Because he failed in his trial by arms. I won't call Hitler 'evil', but I will admonish his actions because he lost.

Silvanus:

Kopikatsu:
SNIPPITY

What about people who get away with breaking the law? Everything you've written is, after all, very practical-- so presumably, good on those who get away with it, amiright?

Y'know, I hadn't before considered the possibility that a Russian journalist, finding himself herded into a train to Siberia, is the immoral one for writing an expose. Nor had I considered that a gay fella might be in the wrong if he had the poor luck to be born in Iran, or the past. In cases like these I'd tended to look at the law as the boogieman. Now I know, it's the gay fella's fault! He was born in the wrong!

CAPTCHA: Lunch time. No it's not, Captcha, it's ten to two in the morning.

The people who break the law and get away with it are the worst of the bunch. That being said, no system is flawless and it's foolish to expect anything to work perfectly.

As for the sarcasm bit, you're imposing your own sense of justice and morality in a reality where neither thing exists as an objective truth. Attempting to extend marriage to homosexuals is just as 'righteous' a cause as those who wish to restrict women's rights further.

To keep this on topic- the argument isn't whether or not a crime has been committed. The girl has committed two felonies. As such, she will (rightfully) be punished for it, whether she takes the plea bargain or not. Regardless of whether or not you personally believe it is justified, or how arbitrary the law may seem, she will still receive punishment.

Kopikatsu:

JoJo:

Kopikatsu:
snip

I assume you do not believe in any sort of morality then, as the implication of your post is that you would support any law that was legally passed, whether it be about statutory rape or mandating that all Jews be sent to gas chambers. Apologies for the Godwin but your reasoning leads to the inevitable conclusion that you would see your government doing anything as right as long as they had the power to do it, however harmful or destructive. An interesting viewpoint no doubt but it does make a discussion of the right or wrongness of an act somewhat aimless if one sees right and wrong as simply the opinion of the man with the largest club.

That's right, I'm a moral nihilist. But here's the thing- if the government was too powerful for anyone to stop, then what is stopping it from simply doing as it wished? If any attempt at resistance were guaranteed to fail- then what motivation does it have to listen to the people that exist outside of it?

My family is Jewish, but I couldn't call Hitler an 'evil' man. He was doing what he felt was right in the best way he knew how. He was even democratically voted into office, and made good on most (if not all) of the promises that he made to get there. Any argument made against his methods would be based on your subjective opinion of what is 'right' and 'wrong'- but it's just that. Subjective. A product of your environment. Had Germany won WW2, it's likely that we'd all be talking German and praising Hitler by this point. But he didn't, and so we aren't. Because he failed in his trial by arms. I won't call Hitler 'evil', but I will admonish his actions because he lost.

Silvanus:

Kopikatsu:
SNIPPITY

What about people who get away with breaking the law? Everything you've written is, after all, very practical-- so presumably, good on those who get away with it, amiright?

Y'know, I hadn't before considered the possibility that a Russian journalist, finding himself herded into a train to Siberia, is the immoral one for writing an expose. Nor had I considered that a gay fella might be in the wrong if he had the poor luck to be born in Iran, or the past. In cases like these I'd tended to look at the law as the boogieman. Now I know, it's the gay fella's fault! He was born in the wrong!

CAPTCHA: Lunch time. No it's not, Captcha, it's ten to two in the morning.

The people who break the law and get away with it are the worst of the bunch. That being said, no system is flawless and it's foolish to expect anything to work perfectly.

As for the sarcasm bit, you're imposing your own sense of justice and morality in a reality where neither thing exists as an objective truth. Attempting to extend marriage to homosexuals is just as 'righteous' a cause as those who wish to restrict women's rights further.

To keep this on topic- the argument isn't whether or not a crime has been committed. The girl has committed two felonies. As such, she will (rightfully) be punished for it, whether she takes the plea bargain or not. Regardless of whether or not you personally believe it is justified, or how arbitrary the law may seem, she will still receive punishment.

Hitler was not democratically appointed, he never garnered more than ~37% of the vote(which was in a runoff election, it makes more sense to use the ~30% from the general election) and never won any election. He was appointed to the chancellorship by von Hindenburg and seized power from there.

Sorry to go OT like that, just a pet peeve about how historical revisionism has attempted to tar the German people as a whole with Hitler's rise, when in fact he never achieved any significant degree of approval from the German electorate.

lowhat:

Shaoken:

lowhat:

Oh, the irony.

I know. It still amazes me how many people don't get what irony is.

You're right, clearly you don't. A conceited bigot claiming that bigots deserve no respect is textbook irony.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

Errr, not really. I'm bigoted against bigots. I live by the philosphy that every man and woman should have the right to live their lives freely so long as it doesn't stop someone else from doing the same.

Although obviously it's absurd, since "bigot" is just one of those words that a more secular society chooses to use in place of "witch" or "heretic".

Please. There is a difference between people who have a different opinion to you but otherwise have no impact on your day to day life and those who go out of their way to have an influence on your life. I hope you can tell the difference.

None of this has any bearing on your bigotry, nor does it have much to do with the article in question. Parents have the legal standing to make decisions for their children, if the woman in question didn't want to do the time, she shouldn't have done the crime.

Her crime was having a loving relationship with another consenting human being for almost a year, only to have two butthurt religious psychos call BS for "contaminating" their child.

lowhat:

Shaoken:

lowhat:

Oh, the irony.

I know. It still amazes me how many people don't get what irony is.

You're right, clearly you don't. A conceited bigot claiming that bigots deserve no respect is textbook irony.

bigot-a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Considering that pretty much every person is bigoted against something or other, your position would have an interesting impact on human interactions.

Errr, not really. I'm bigoted against bigots. I live by the philosphy that every man and woman should have the right to live their lives freely so long as it doesn't stop someone else from doing the same.

Although obviously it's absurd, since "bigot" is just one of those words that a more secular society chooses to use in place of "witch" or "heretic".

Please. There is a difference between people who have a different opinion to you but otherwise have no impact on your day to day life and those who go out of their way to have an influence on your life. I hope you can tell the difference.

None of this has any bearing on your bigotry, nor does it have much to do with the article in question. Parents have the legal standing to make decisions for their children, if the woman in question didn't want to do the time, she shouldn't have done the crime.

You know sometimes it's good to be intolerant of those who are intolerant of others. Being "bigoted" against those who are bigots themselves is often a good approach to have, otherwise we'd be accepting of everyone from the Westboro Baptists to child molesters.

You may not like it, but there IS an objective sensibility that those who treat others unjustly don't deserve justice themselves.

Everyone else has covered the injustice of this, so I won't belabor the point other than to point out to those who think it's just and compare this situation to a 21 year old and a 15 year old (or even worse, a middle-aged adult and a 15 year old) that there is an huge developmental difference between an older adult and a teenager, that's just simple science ffs. These are two kids who are in the same high school, have the same circle of friends, and play on the same team. They are *peers* by any sensible definition of the term.

What gets me about this whole thing is the incredible stupidity of the complaining parents. They torpedoed their child's girlfriend's life with a charge that may be on her record, affecting her employment and living conditions, for the *rest of her life*. If that article is true, they are determined that their child "will not" be gay. They are fucking up not only the girl who has been arrested, but their own daughter. If they wanted to hurt their child and put a giant wedge into their relationship with her (for quite probably a very long time), they succeeded admirably. And for what? Kids experiment, kids feel out their sexual selves-- who knows if this girl is lesbian4lyfe because she had a girlfriend when she was fifteen? The lack of trust they have in their own kid, not to mention in their own parenting, is stunning.

madwarper:

Shaoken:
So yeah, less about the law, more about probable homophobic assholes using the law out of spite.

I thought you conceded that point...


But hey, don't let the fact that there's absolutely zero proof of the parent's alleged homophobia deter you from building up that strawman argument.

Oh not this bullshit again.

I already stated that it's purely one side saying that the other is homophobic.

I also stated that, as the basis for any discussion on the matter, we have to assume what we've been told is true, otherwise the whole house of cards falls apart; you're saying "the parent's are grasping at straws" with no proof of that, but considering the bold claims they are making (namely that the parents told the school "Our daughter will NOT be gay") them lying opens up a massive Libel/Slander lawsuit since the school can easily back up the second parents. Given just how serious that claim is, and how easily it could be disproved, and there's no proof that the parents are desperate enough to tell such a bold lie.

So basically, until you prove otherwise, I'm going to assume that the first girl's parents are being truthful in the matter because right now, what we have been presented lends itself to the homophobia angle and you have yet to actually bring up a counterpoint beyond "what if we're being lied to" which, while within the realm of possiblity, can be used against half the discussions on this board period and does not lend itself to having a conversation about a topic.

I mean hell you could say "how do you know that the whole article isn't a lie" and have the exact same argument; nobody in this topic is actually involved with the case so it could just as easily be the exact opposite (ie the first girl's parents disapproving of the relationship and calling the police on her after her 18th and blaming the younger girl's parents, who are media shy but really supportive of their daughter and her sexuality).

Ryotknife:

?

according to the article that you linked in the first post:

-the first parents were against the relationship from the start

Um, read again. The older girl's parents have publically stated they have no issue with the relationship, it's the younger girl's parents who had the problem. I may have fucked up and mixed around "first" and "second" at some point.

-she was arrested 3 months after her 18th birthday

That's a fuck up on my part, thanks for pointing it out.

Gergar12:
Wait was sex involved or not? That kind of plays a big part, and if it was a girl, and boy some parents would do the same thing, seeing how parents are.

On the sex front: the law she's being charged with only requires gropping, and nobody is likely to tell us what the recorded phone message actually was about, so the answer is "fucked if we know."

And yes, some parents would do the same if it was a hetro relationship, the two points at issue are:

1) THe older girl's parents claiming this is based out of homophobia. Like madwarper has been religiously repeating throughout this entire thread, we only have their word on the matter, but since they have gone so far as to claim that the second parent's point-blank told the school that their daughter "will NOT be gay," which if false the school would testify to in court, lends some crediblity to such a statement, if only because of how bold it is.
2) The actual morality beyond the law in regards to this set of circumstances (ie two teens of similar age exploring their sexuality in a consensual environment, with one of them having their entire lives at risk of being ruined due to how stupid the sex offender laws have become because they weren't thought through enough back when they were created).

So really you could split this into two seperate topics, but in this case both are equally relevant.

lowhat:
You're right, clearly you don't. A conceited bigot claiming that bigots deserve no respect is textbook irony.

You just love those logical fallacies and circular logic.

None of this has any bearing on your bigotry, nor does it have much to do with the article in question. Parents have the legal standing to make decisions for their children, if the woman in question didn't want to do the time, she shouldn't have done the crime.

Well first off, the first half of your argument is bullshit since the law has already put limits on what Parents can and can't make decisions for in relation to their children, and this is not a decision made about their own child but made about someone else's child, based purely out of homophobia (assuming the article is correct Madwarper).

And finally:

Kopikatsu:
The reasoning given for that belief is that the State has far greater force than you do, and 'Might makes right'. This is also why successful revolutions are justified despite opposing the law but failed revolutions are admonished. 'History is written by the victors' and all that.

Outdated notions falling to the wayside in this information age. The US has more Might than most of the planet, but

Ideals are nice and all, but if they aren't enforced through arms, then they're nothing but idle chatter. This is a concept that has driven humanity since it's conception. It's why city-states became a thing, and so on and so forth. You follow laws that you don't agree with because if you break them, you will be punished- with force, if necessary. Some still break the laws regardless, but then they're punished for those transgressions.

Yet such an ideal flies in the face of the Justice system, which was changed during the Middle Ages specifically to regonise that just because something was written down as a law didn't make it the be-all and end all of Justice. That's the reason why courts have judges and/or juries and aren't simple checklists.

Hell look at the Civil Rights movement; some of the greatest victories came from breaking the law to illustrate how unjust it was. Fuck in the last century more laws were overturned or struck down via people breaking them and arguing against it in court than Congress legislating it.

But at least you're consistant with your point of view, I'll give you that.

Shaoken:
I already stated that it's purely one side saying that the other is homophobic.

And, you keep repeating it as fact... Which you have still ZERO proof of.

If you want to discuss the law, that the 18 year old clearly violated, that's one discussion, but it is clear that all you want to do is rile up the community by repeating the same unsubstantiated allegation of homophobia that has fuck all to do with the facts at hand. This is not "less about the law", it's only about the law. And, as long as you keep trying to play the "Discrimination card" to distract and stifle the conversation, I'll keep calling it out as the bullshit it is.

As always, age specific laws are weird, unjust and incapable of reflecting real life.
So, the age of the older girl suddenly, magically, changed and now she is a criminal, while only a few minutes before this mysterious number got attached to her she was fine?

Yeah, that's what we should talk about, in my opinion. Bigots be bigots, but laws can be changed to reflect the complexity of human life much better.

ShipofFools:
As always, age specific laws are weird, unjust and incapable of reflecting real life.
So, the age of the older girl suddenly, magically, changed and now she is a criminal, while only a few minutes before this mysterious number got attached to her she was fine?

I'd argue that the law uses such arbitrary numbers as a means of fairness by blindly applying to all without prejudice.
You can't obtain a Learner's Permit until 16[1]. You can't smoke until 18. You can't drink alcohol until 21. etc.

At the age of 15, you are a minor (and in Florida, not able to give consent).
At the age of 18, you are an adult.
An adult having sexual relations with a minor is illegal.

[1] Varies by state

madwarper:

ShipofFools:
As always, age specific laws are weird, unjust and incapable of reflecting real life.
So, the age of the older girl suddenly, magically, changed and now she is a criminal, while only a few minutes before this mysterious number got attached to her she was fine?

I'd argue that the law uses such arbitrary numbers as a means of fairness by blindly applying to all without prejudice.
You can't obtain a Learner's Permit until 16[1]. You can't smoke until 18. You can't drink alcohol until 21. etc.

At the age of 15, you are a minor (and in Florida, not able to give consent).
At the age of 18, you are an adult.
An adult having sexual relations with a minor is illegal.

But that is just a law, it's not "real".
In my country, you can smoke and drink when you are 16, get a driver's licence, drink spirits and use soft drugs when you are 18. It's all very subjective, and does not reflect the complexity of reality.

[1] Varies by state

ShipofFools:
But that is just a law, it's not "real".
In my country, you can smoke and drink when you are 16, get a driver's licence, drink spirits and use soft drugs when you are 18. It's all very subjective, and does not reflect the complexity of reality.

While your country use different numbers, they use arbitrary numbers as barriers none the less.

And, I agree that they don't always reflect the subjectivity of reality, but it is necessary that the law remain objective in order to be applied fairly.
It's not to say a 15 year old, in your country, couldn't hold their drink (due to genetics, BMI, etc.) better than 17+ year old, but that they shouldn't be drinking at all because they're not 16.

madwarper:

ShipofFools:
But that is just a law, it's not "real".
In my country, you can smoke and drink when you are 16, get a driver's licence, drink spirits and use soft drugs when you are 18. It's all very subjective, and does not reflect the complexity of reality.

While your country use different numbers, they use arbitrary numbers as barriers none the less.

And, I agree that they don't always reflect the subjectivity of reality, but it is necessary that the law remain objective in order to be applied fairly.
It's not to say a 15 year old, in your country, couldn't hold their drink (due to genetics, BMI, etc.) better than 17+ year old, but that they shouldn't be drinking at all because they're not 16.

But it just does not make one lick of sense. The law is in fact very subjective, if you ask me, when it comes to these matters. The fact that two neighbouring countries can have radically different age related laws proves this.
The thing here is, two people are in love, and whatever they did in the privacy of their bedrooms was perfectly legal when they first met each other, but suddenly, without any significant change on their part, the rules changed and things that were not just legal but also perfectly natural became illegal.

Now, you can just say "Oh that's the law, and the law is the law". Or you can acknowledge that the law has utterly failed to deal with this situation, and should be changed to reflect the reality of the world better.

Even the Laws of Nature will end one day, why are we so arrogant to believe our own made-up laws are written in stone? If a system does not work as it should, then it must be changed lest it causes pointless suffering, as it does in this case.

Here's my two cents, although I am not a lawyer, politician or perform any of those dirty professions, I think the solution in this case is quite simple: If a relationship started before either partner reached adult hood, it should be allowed to continue once one does reach whatever arbitrary number applies to a nation.

ShipofFools:
But it just does not make one lick of sense. The law is in fact very subjective, if you ask me, when it comes to these matters. The fact that two neighbouring countries can have radically different age related laws proves this.

But, the application of laws within their jurisdictional limits has to be objective.
Else, you'd be opening the Pandora's box and your system would run the risk of appearing to have favoritism toward some and discrimination toward others.

The thing here is, two people are in love,

One adult and one minor.

and whatever they did in the privacy of their bedrooms was perfectly legal when they first met each other, but suddenly, without any significant change on their part, the rules changed and things that were not just legal but also perfectly natural became illegal.

So, you say it shouldn't be illegal because they had done it prior? What if they had just met as an 18 year old just met a 15 year old and began a sexual relationship?

madwarper:
One adult and one minor.

But they were both minors when it started. Do you understand what I mean?

So, you say it shouldn't be illegal because they had done it prior? What if they had just met as an 18 year old just met a 15 year old and began a sexual relationship?

Yes, that is what I am saying. That should be more important then some silly numbers game.

If one was 18 and the other 15 when they first met, then it gets trickier, and I am more inclined to side with the law on that one. But it still sits wrong with me.
It's only 3 years difference. Granted, it's a difference in a person's time when those differences are more pronounced, but on the other hand, it still does not make a whole lot of sense to me, and I would like to see laws become more flexible in this regard.

Right now, two people are suffering due to this silly law, and it's just so pointless. Who is being protected here? And from what?
And if the minor turns 16, (The age of consent in many countries) does this change anything? Can the elder one still be prosecuted for having sex with a minor, even though the minor is not a minor any more? Dig it?
I think these things should be looked at, one individual case at a time.

All I can say is, I am glad I don't understand matters like these very well. The law is the law, but is it truth? Is it justice? I never thought it was, and the latter two seem to me to be more important, especially in cases like this one.

ShipofFools:
All I can say is, I am glad I don't understand matters like these very well. The law is the law, but is it truth? Is it justice? I never thought it was, and the latter two seem to me to be more important, especially in cases like this one.

Is it Justice? Yes. It is only justice when the law is enforced with impartiality.

That what these teenagers were engaged in, three months prior, wasn't technically illegal should have no barring on what is or isn't currently illegal. They should be treated exactly the same as any other adult engages in a sexual relationship with a minor who cannot legally give consent to be in such a relationship.

When she turned 18, she inherited both the rights and responsibilities of being an adult. It is only when we do not hold her accountable for her actions, as any other adult would, that this stops being Justice.

Kopikatsu:

The people who break the law and get away with it are the worst of the bunch. That being said, no system is flawless and it's foolish to expect anything to work perfectly.

How d'you figure? You said above, it's all about physical strength. Might makes right, apparently. Surely a bank robber, one who can outgun the police and security, is entitled to what he can get, then?

Kopikatsu:

As for the sarcasm bit, you're imposing your own sense of justice and morality in a reality where neither thing exists as an objective truth. Attempting to extend marriage to homosexuals is just as 'righteous' a cause as those who wish to restrict women's rights further.

Who said anything about gay marriage?

Dude, everybody here is making value judgements, including yourself. "Might makes right" is a value judgement, evidently defending the right of the government to do whatever it damn well wants. "Those who break the law and get away with it are the worst of the bunch", that was a value judgement. This whole thread, this whole forum, is discussing subjective matters, what we believe to be right, and defending that as rationally as we can. If you want to discuss "objective truth", go to a wiki.

You said, breaking the law is wrong, unless you have the physical strength to defeat the government. I replied that by that token, a gay person in Iran is therefore born to be in the wrong. Please, don't twist my words; I never mentioned gay marriage. I was pointing out that the law is not inherently right, by right of a baton to the face. The law is often fallacious, simplistic, impractical, immoral, oppressive, misguided, ignorant. Thinking for yourself is the mark of a well-rounded adult.

Yeah... as a second year law student. I can't see anything wrong with this...
I don't know US law. But in Belgium.
If a child is not 18, the child's parents is completely responsible for the child.
If the parents deem it unhealthy for their own child to engage in a sexual relationship
with an adult. It's in their own perfect right.
The only reason this is getting some attention is because the girl is lesbian.
If it were a man and a girl, nobody would even turn their heads.

And for those comments on: who says a relationship is sexual?
There's thing concept called proof. No judge would give any sanctions unless any proof was given
of a sexual relationship, or a possibility of one incurring. Molestation doesn't require actual sex to happen.

And for about: the issue wouldn't even be a problem unless the people went to the police.
In you have to press charges before the police takes action. Especially in a personal crime like this.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Her crime was having a loving relationship with another consenting human being for almost a year, only to have two butthurt religious psychos call BS for "contaminating" their child.

This isn't the story I've read by the local news in Florida (where the story originates), so I can't comment on the prosecution's "motive".

As I understand, police are saying this is an 18 year-old involved with a 14-year old, and that sexual activity happened in school.

Consensual or not, if true that's illegal. Like everyone else, I know this is actually a common thing, but it doesn't make it above the law. If an 18 year-old boy was in a relationship with a 14 year-old girl and the girl's parents wanted it over and charges filed, what would you all say? Is it all fair in consent? Despite what the Internet says, we don't get to prescribe what age we feel consensual sex is legal, there is a law that states that.

If the parents are homophobic, that's truly sad and pathetic that they'd want to "ruin" these girls' lives over it, but let's not ignore the greater knee-jerk reaction to this story almost explicitly because it's a homosexual relationship. The accused put the story out and (this is a quote) within 30-minutes, support rushed in, and the lobbying began.

This is shades of a story that popped up here before, about a girl violating a court order and naming her rapist. She did what she felt was right and was prepared to accept any punishment. I applaud that part. Then the Internet showed up and they weren't having any of it, and swept the case to front pages and pressured until the prosecution gave up the minor fine that would have been imposed.

I'm all for justice being served and don't agree to these charges. I agree with the parent that wanted the families to get involved and hammer out their differences. But these ultra-biased Internet lynch mobs ready to go to war at the drop of a hat, they catch fire on social media and make waves until public pressure forces one side to capitulate. It's seven different levels of insane.

Jindrax:

And for those comments on: who says a relationship is sexual?
There's thing concept called proof. No judge would give any sanctions unless any proof was given
of a sexual relationship, or a possibility of one incurring. Molestation doesn't require actual sex to happen.

I'm curious on this point, if molestation doesn't require actual sex to happen then what exactly does it require? I'm not sure about US or Belgian law but I believe in the UK it requires at-least touching of genitals (or breasts?) with a sexual intention, which seems pretty much like sex to me :-P

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked