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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Shaoken:

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).

1) To be fair to the other side of this, it is the parents of the perpetrator of a crime literally making excuses for why their daughter isn't *really* as bad as the accusation sounds. You can find that in plenty of other cases, and if said perpetrator has some clear and potentially relevant trait prejudice against that trait is a common choice. There's literally nothing other than the claims of the perpetrator's parents (who are inherently biased in her favor) to suggest this is the case, and it's not like these cases don't happen with heterosexual couples (it's just magically less wrong then). Hell, this would have happened to *me* when I was that age if the freshman I started dating as a high school senior didn't break it off before I turned 18 (I didn't turn 18 until my freshman year of college because I skipped a grade -- a result of learning to read really early [I was reading while I was still sorting that whole 'walking' mess out]). They were itching for the opportunity to punish me for being with their daughter, above and beyond the veiled threats from her father.

2) I'm not going to argue with you about the sex laws being relatively fucked up in a lot of different ways, and the sex offender registry in particular being abused in more ways that you can count.

Shaoken:

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).

How is it a decision made about someone else's child? It's a decision made to charge a legal adult for doing something illegal with their child.

AgedGrunt:

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.

Everything I've heard, including 3 opinion pieces on it, say it was 17 and 15, and was 3 months away from being 18 and 16. The psycho parents just got a window of opportunity when it was 18 and 15. Which is a load of BS. I've set it in this thread, I'll say it again. If the 18 year old was a boy, the parents would not have filed charges, especially with how long the relationship lasted when they were 17 and 15.

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.

If you don't like a law, you have the right to bitch, moan, complain, lobby, and yell to anyone who will listen to change said law. It does NOT, however, give you the right to break the law.

Now, if you feel that a law is immoral and want to break it and accept the consequences, I can respect that. But that does not make you above the law because you feel that the law should not apply to you. No one is above the law (well, in theory. In practice those with money/lawyers can muddy those waters).

I do not agree with ruining this girl's life (or anyone's life in a situation similar to this), but she does deserve to be punished as she did break the law. A misdemeanor or restraining order is more than enough though in my eyes.

Ryotknife:

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.

If you don't like a law, you have the right to bitch, moan, complain, lobby, and yell to anyone who will listen to change said law. It does NOT, however, give you the right to break the law.

Now, if you feel that a law is immoral and want to break it and accept the consequences, I can respect that. But that does not make you above the law because you feel that the law should not apply to you. No one is above the law (well, in theory. In practice those with money/lawyers can muddy those waters).

I do not agree with ruining this girl's life (or anyone's life in a situation similar to this), but she does deserve to be punished as she did break the law. A misdemeanor or restraining order is more than enough though in my eyes.

Do you think that people who are homosexual in places like Saudi Arabia deserve to be killed?

Ryotknife:

Now, if you feel that a law is immoral and want to break it and accept the consequences, I can respect that. But that does not make you above the law because you feel that the law should not apply to you.

I doubt this girl was in a relationship "because she felt the law should not apply to her". I'll bet she was in said relationship because she liked the other girl, and the law didn't really enter into her head, because it doesn't enter into most 17-year-olds' heads when they think they might be in love with somebody around their own age.

The only reason somebody has to obey a law they don't agree with is fear of punishment. Let's not pretend the law has some kind of inherent, mystical connection to justice or right.

Do you think that people who are homosexual in places like Saudi Arabia deserve to be killed?

What one deserves is irrelevant in a discussion about whether someone broke the law or not. It was their choice to break the law, if they are unwilling to suffer the consequences, then they shouldn't break t. They should either try to get it changed or flee. I have made my stance known on what I believe she deserves (a slap on the wrist) as this is basically a domestic dispute.

On the flip side, do you think being a homosexual makes you above the law?

Silvanus:

Ryotknife:

Now, if you feel that a law is immoral and want to break it and accept the consequences, I can respect that. But that does not make you above the law because you feel that the law should not apply to you.

I doubt this girl was in a relationship "because she felt the law should not apply to her". I'll bet she was in said relationship because she liked the other girl, and the law didn't really enter into her head, because it doesn't enter into most 17-year-olds' heads when they think they might be in love with somebody around their own age.

The only reason somebody has to obey a law they don't agree with is fear of punishment. Let's not pretend the law has some kind of inherent, mystical connection to justice or right.

I also doubt people who commit tax fraud do it to specifically break the law.

Sorry, but in the US "ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law" (at least in general, there are a few exceptions). Even I knew about the risks when I was her age, and I didn't really pay any attention to that kind of stuff.

I do not like the precedent of homosexuals being above an impartial law (a law that applies to everyone mind you) simply because they are homosexuals. I do hope the girl gets leniency as the punishment for her crime is absurd.

Granted, the punishment for crimes is another hot button US topic. To whit, in NYS, if you have a gun with a 10 round clip, that suffers a worse punishment than molesting a child

Ryotknife:

I also doubt people who commit tax fraud do it to specifically break the law.

But it would be on their mind. Committing fraud takes a concerted effort. Falling in love at seventeen, and then forgetting about the (somewhat minimal) age difference for a matter of days after your birthday, doesn't.

Ryotknife:
Sorry, but in the US "ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law" (at least in general, there are a few exceptions). Even I knew about the risks when I was her age, and I didn't really pay any attention to that kind of stuff.

No need to apologise, you didn't make the law.

Ryotknife:
I do not like the precedent of homosexuals being above an impartial law (a law that applies to everyone mind you) simply because they are homosexuals. I do hope the girl gets leniency as the punishment for her crime is absurd.

You'll notice, that I did not bring up the girl's sexuality; in the context of our discussion, you did.

Silvanus:

Ryotknife:

I also doubt people who commit tax fraud do it to specifically break the law.

But it would be on their mind. Committing fraud takes a concerted effort. Falling in love at seventeen, and then forgetting about the (somewhat minimal) age difference for a matter of days after your birthday, doesn't.

Ryotknife:
Sorry, but in the US "ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law" (at least in general, there are a few exceptions). Even I knew about the risks when I was her age, and I didn't really pay any attention to that kind of stuff.

No need to apologise, you didn't make the law.

Ryotknife:
I do not like the precedent of homosexuals being above an impartial law (a law that applies to everyone mind you) simply because they are homosexuals. I do hope the girl gets leniency as the punishment for her crime is absurd.

You'll notice, that I did not bring up the girl's sexuality; in the context of our discussion, you did.

just a small nitpick, but you did bring up her sexuality.

I doubt this girl was in a relationship "because she felt the law should not apply to her". I'll bet she was in said relationship because she liked the other girl, and the law didn't really enter into her head, because it doesn't enter into most 17-year-olds' heads when they think they might be in love with somebody around their own age.

You didn't mention homosexual specifically, but you did out her sexuality.

Ryotknife:

You didn't mention homosexual specifically, but you did out her sexuality.

There was no other way, really, to describe the situation. I meant, you made an issue of it, not me.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

AgedGrunt:

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.

Everything I've heard, including 3 opinion pieces on it, say it was 17 and 15, and was 3 months away from being 18 and 16. The psycho parents just got a window of opportunity when it was 18 and 15. Which is a load of BS. I've set it in this thread, I'll say it again. If the 18 year old was a boy, the parents would not have filed charges, especially with how long the relationship lasted when they were 17 and 15.

You're kidding, right? This sort of thing happens to young men all the time, you just won't hear about it in the news because there isn't a political angle to using statutory rape laws on a straight male. From what the story says, the parents had made their disapproval of the relationship quite clear prior to involving the law. The older girl was just enough of a dumb-ass to flaunt it in their faces during a window where she was open to being charged, rather than doing what many high-schoolers do when placed in a situation like this, which is to keep it in their pants for a couple of months until the law has no bearing on it.

lowhat:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

AgedGrunt:

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.

Everything I've heard, including 3 opinion pieces on it, say it was 17 and 15, and was 3 months away from being 18 and 16. The psycho parents just got a window of opportunity when it was 18 and 15. Which is a load of BS. I've set it in this thread, I'll say it again. If the 18 year old was a boy, the parents would not have filed charges, especially with how long the relationship lasted when they were 17 and 15.

You're kidding, right? This sort of thing happens to young men all the time, you just won't hear about it in the news because there isn't a political angle to using statutory rape laws on a straight male. From what the story says, the parents had made their disapproval of the relationship quite clear prior to involving the law. The older girl was just enough of a dumb-ass to flaunt it in their faces during a window where she was open to being charged, rather than doing what many high-schoolers do when placed in a situation like this, which is to keep it in their pants for a couple of months until the law has no bearing on it.

The issue is that their disapproval and subsequent involvement of the law was not based on any safety reasons, and more based in homophobia. That is the crux of the issue: Had this been a heterosexual relationship, would the parents involved the law. Signs currently point to no.

Ryotknife:

Silvanus:

Ryotknife:

Now, if you feel that a law is immoral and want to break it and accept the consequences, I can respect that. But that does not make you above the law because you feel that the law should not apply to you.

I doubt this girl was in a relationship "because she felt the law should not apply to her". I'll bet she was in said relationship because she liked the other girl, and the law didn't really enter into her head, because it doesn't enter into most 17-year-olds' heads when they think they might be in love with somebody around their own age.

The only reason somebody has to obey a law they don't agree with is fear of punishment. Let's not pretend the law has some kind of inherent, mystical connection to justice or right.

I also doubt people who commit tax fraud do it to specifically break the law.

Sorry, but in the US "ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law" (at least in general, there are a few exceptions). Even I knew about the risks when I was her age, and I didn't really pay any attention to that kind of stuff.

I do not like the precedent of homosexuals being above an impartial law (a law that applies to everyone mind you) simply because they are homosexuals. I do hope the girl gets leniency as the punishment for her crime is absurd.

Granted, the punishment for crimes is another hot button US topic. To whit, in NYS, if you have a gun with a 10 round clip, that suffers a worse punishment than molesting a child

In the state of Washington (my state), it is illegal to have sex with a virgin. In Hawaii, it is illegal to put pennies in your ear. In Wisconsin, it is illegal to celebrate your orgasm by firing a shotgun into the air. Those are all real laws, and have not been removed from the ledger.

There is using a law for its intended purpose (the safety of people, property, and liberties) and using it as a bludgeoning tool for personal gain. This case is in the latter category. The parents couldn't stop their kid from being gay, so they threw a temper tantrum and abused the letter of the law.

lowhat:
The older girl was just enough of a dumb-ass to flaunt it in their faces during a window where she was open to being charged, rather than doing what many high-schoolers do when placed in a situation like this, which is to keep it in their pants for a couple of months until the law has no bearing on it.

Which means the most logical course of action is to put her on the sex offender list so that for the rest of her life she's in the same basket as child molesters and serial rapists?

Lilani:

lowhat:
The older girl was just enough of a dumb-ass to flaunt it in their faces during a window where she was open to being charged, rather than doing what many high-schoolers do when placed in a situation like this, which is to keep it in their pants for a couple of months until the law has no bearing on it.

Which means the most logical course of action is to put her on the sex offender list so that for the rest of her life she's in the same basket as child molesters and serial rapists?

Obviously.

That'll teach her for being a lesbian who ISN'T a porn star. We all know those are just as bad as teh gheys.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

In the state of Washington (my state), it is illegal to have sex with a virgin. In Hawaii, it is illegal to put pennies in your ear. In Wisconsin, it is illegal to celebrate your orgasm by firing a shotgun into the air. Those are all real laws, and have not been removed from the ledger.

There is using a law for its intended purpose (the safety of people, property, and liberties) and using it as a bludgeoning tool for personal gain. This case is in the latter category. The parents couldn't stop their kid from being gay, so they threw a temper tantrum and abused the letter of the law.

subjective.

This law is COMMONLY used this way even against heterosexual couples as a way to enforce the parent's will. The parent's get to decide what is right for their child (unless it endangers the child) so unless you want to strip parents of all of their power over their child (and to be honest lately I would be sympathetic to that), your point is moot.

This is not some conspiracy against homosexuals, this is what NORMALLY happens if you mess with someone's kid against the parent's will. If you think this is bad? This is just the tip of the dang iceberg. Talk to an elementary school teacher sometime. Granted, usually the punishment isn't anywhere near this severe which is why I advocate for extreme leniency.

Also, even the older girl's parents realize that she committed a crime, that is why they are asking for a misdemeanor (which if the DA has a soul s/he will give her)

EDIT: Firing a shotgun in the air sounds like a bad idea in general, unless you are trying to scare someone off. Ive heard of reports of people being injured by firearms being shot into the air and hurt as the bullets fall back to earth. So I agree with that law.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
snip

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that this was due to homophobia when there is no evidence to suggest such thing. Also, I am quite confident that if it were straight then the result would be the same.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Everything I've heard, including 3 opinion pieces on it, say it was 17 and 15, and was 3 months away from being 18 and 16. The psycho parents just got a window of opportunity when it was 18 and 15. Which is a load of BS. I've set it in this thread, I'll say it again. If the 18 year old was a boy, the parents would not have filed charges, especially with how long the relationship lasted when they were 17 and 15.

Color me skeptical, but I don't easily trust opinion pieces. Unlike the source I found, the link in the OP (Yahoo news, AU) makes no mention of sexual activity, only that a relationship existed (and contradicts the local news report's account of the parties ages).

Yahoo AU also included prominent photos, one at the very top with a caption: "[She was] voted the student with 'Most School Spirit' by her peers", following with a list of her school credentials, giving a stellar portrayal of the student before we even read the story. Well that's a little cognitive bias, isn't it?

Including the local news source pieces I linked, I've only seen quotes from the family of the accused, and the mother alleges the motive of the accuser. I've not seen anything from the parents that filed charges.

Like I said, I don't agree to these charges, as others point out that it would ruin these girls, but then I don't accept one-sided stories like this, either.

It's very suspicious that they deliberately chose to wait for the age window of the two girls that would allow them to do the most damage.

Silvanus:

The issue is that their disapproval and subsequent involvement of the law was not based on any safety reasons, and more based in homophobia. That is the crux of the issue: Had this been a heterosexual relationship, would the parents involved the law. Signs currently point to no.

Oh you are so funny. This shit is common with 18 year old males dating girls younger than them. If this was a straight couple, no one would care, the couple in question is gay, so trying to make it a LGBT moment is the name of the game.

Schadrach:

Shaoken:

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).

1) To be fair to the other side of this, it is the parents of the perpetrator of a crime literally making excuses for why their daughter isn't *really* as bad as the accusation sounds. You can find that in plenty of other cases, and if said perpetrator has some clear and potentially relevant trait prejudice against that trait is a common choice. There's literally nothing other than the claims of the perpetrator's parents (who are inherently biased in her favor) to suggest this is the case, and it's not like these cases don't happen with heterosexual couples (it's just magically less wrong then). Hell, this would have happened to *me* when I was that age if the freshman I started dating as a high school senior didn't break it off before I turned 18 (I didn't turn 18 until my freshman year of college because I skipped a grade -- a result of learning to read really early [I was reading while I was still sorting that whole 'walking' mess out]). They were itching for the opportunity to punish me for being with their daughter, above and beyond the veiled threats from her father.

And I've said many times I think it's bullshit period with any combination of genders. Anyway I'm admitting that we only have one side's words, but them going so far as to claim that the school heard what the second girl's parents said pushes this into believable territory. By bringing them into this they can't stick with "he said she said" since the school would be called in to testify on the issue and it would come up. Granted, could be wrong with that and they really are that desperate to make up such an easily disprovable lie.

2) I'm not going to argue with you about the sex laws being relatively fucked up in a lot of different ways, and the sex offender registry in particular being abused in more ways that you can count.

When the parents of the girl whose death brought about these registrys say that they're going too far you know you've fucked up somewhere.

How is it a decision made about someone else's child? It's a decision made to charge a legal adult for doing something illegal with their child.

Well (and again assuming that the article is correct because someone in this thread keeps saying "you have no proof" like a religious mantra) seeing as they never even tried to talk to the older girl's parents while she was still legally a minor it would lend crediblity to the argument that this is about punishing the girl for "turning" their daughter gay. Disclaimer: Assuming the first girl's parents are being 100% truthful which is the basis of this thread unless proven otherwise.

Ryotknife:

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.

If you don't like a law, you have the right to bitch, moan, complain, lobby, and yell to anyone who will listen to change said law. It does NOT, however, give you the right to break the law.

Now, if you feel that a law is immoral and want to break it and accept the consequences, I can respect that. But that does not make you above the law because you feel that the law should not apply to you. No one is above the law (well, in theory. In practice those with money/lawyers can muddy those waters).

I do not agree with ruining this girl's life (or anyone's life in a situation similar to this), but she does deserve to be punished as she did break the law. A misdemeanor or restraining order is more than enough though in my eyes.

It's funny because literally every major civil rights victory came from breaking the law and appealing it all the way to the SC.

Magenera:

Silvanus:

The issue is that their disapproval and subsequent involvement of the law was not based on any safety reasons, and more based in homophobia. That is the crux of the issue: Had this been a heterosexual relationship, would the parents involved the law. Signs currently point to no.

Oh you are so funny. This shit is common with 18 year old males dating girls younger than them. If this was a straight couple, no one would care, the couple in question is gay, so trying to make it a LGBT moment is the name of the game.

You really need to re-read the thread. Just about everyone who says the law is unjust in this instance speified that it'd still be unjust if it was a hetro couple involved.

In this case people are questioning wehter this specific set of parents would have pressed the charges if it was a man of the same age in a consentual relationship. If the older girl's parents are telling the truth and the younger girl's parents point-blank told the school "Our daughter will NOT be gay" (I have no idea what the capitalisation of the not is supposed to mean in this instance) then it's most probable this is purely homophobically based, although granted they might very well have done the exact same thing if it was a man and their homophobia was just icing on the cake.

You have a point the lack of media coverage for this happening to 18 year old boys, but that doesn't mean nobody cares. That just means that the media, as usual, are dicks when it comes to what stories they cover.

Olrod:
It's very suspicious that they deliberately chose to wait for the age window of the two girls that would allow them to do the most damage.

To play devil's advocate, what could they do before that age window? Besides go to hte older girl's parents (which said parent's claim never once happened)? They apparantly told the school their daughter wouldn't be gay, but really until that magic window appeared anything they tried would be met with "suck it up."

I suppose the biggest questions here would be:

* What's on that phone recording and does it refer to an event that happened before the girl became an adult? I would think the police would check such a detail out before laying charges but I know for a fact that sometimes police forces do make such basic fuck-ups.
* What is the age window between the two girl's? Because that does make a big difference.
* And finally, is their truth to the homophobia claims?

Captcha: He loves her. Um...wrong topic dude.

Magenera:

Oh you are so funny. This shit is common with 18 year old males dating girls younger than them. If this was a straight couple, no one would care.

I would, the law is not just, not practical and does not reflect the human condition at all.
And others ignored the whole "gay" thing and argued about the law itself as well.
It seems to me, and this is highly subjective off course, but it seems to me the only people bringing up the gay thing are people who agree with that law anyway. Weird.

There is a lot of argument that if the couple was straight, no one would care.

If the fact that they are homosexual draws attention to the issue and thus causes the law to be changed, preventing innocent young men from being convicted during a window of opportunity by stupid parents, shouldn't you be happy? After all, it is getting people to consider the unfairness of extremely rigid consent laws.

Unless you don't actually give a shit about people being wrongfully charged, and just want to complain about how everyone supposedly caters to oppressed minorities. They think they're so great just because they encounter vicious negative sentiment and violence to an inflated degree. They're just so entitled.

Bashfluff:
Do you think that people who are homosexual in places like Saudi Arabia deserve to be killed?

I'll bite! No, it's certainly wrong the of the Saudis to summarily execute homosexuals. I won't try to argue otherwise. Even so, just because it might be wrong on multiple levels doesn't mean I'm going to encourage guys in the Middle East to walk around Riyadh belting out a round of It's Raining Men.

However what is happening to this woman really isn't any kind of comparison to gays being killed in The Middle East. Two adult Saudi men making the beast with two backs is a consentual act between two adults. The other is an adult alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with a minor who, by law, is incapable of giving consent. It's apples and oranges.

I've said it multiple times in this thread that I find this woman's actions to be largely selfish and and incredibly disrespectful. She was aware from the onset this young girl's parents were wholly opposed to their relationship. Even so, she thumbed her nose at them for multiple months and continued on with her relationship with this girl who was barely a teenager when their relationship started.

I don't see how she can be the least bit surprised that things have turned out the way they have. Before she turned 18 her acts were just incredibly disrespectful even if they were legal. However once she turned 18 those same acts became illegal and the parents were doing what any good parent would do when their children are being sexually courted by an adult they disapprove of, they called the authorities.

Actions have consequences and this woman is finding that out the hard way it seems. She didn't give two solitary fucks that this minor's parents didn't want their daughter involved in a relationship with her. Had she respected their wishes she would likely be graduating with the rest of her class and in a couple years she could have looked to legally have a relationship with the younger girl once she too became an adult. However, she selfishly and foolishly chose to proceed down the path she did and has nobody to blame but herself for where she has ended up.

Magenera:

Silvanus:

The issue is that their disapproval and subsequent involvement of the law was not based on any safety reasons, and more based in homophobia. That is the crux of the issue: Had this been a heterosexual relationship, would the parents involved the law. Signs currently point to no.

Oh you are so funny. This shit is common with 18 year old males dating girls younger than them. If this was a straight couple, no one would care, the couple in question is gay, so trying to make it a LGBT moment is the name of the game.

Y'got the wrong man quoted above. I, in fact, aren't certain about whether homophobia was a decisive factor; I don't think we know enough to say for certain.

Super Not Cosmo:
Two adult Saudi men making the beast with two backs is a consentual act between two adults.

Not sure how 'the beast with two backs' could be formed by two men. Are you sure you know the basics of how it works...? Perhaps a diagram is in order.

Found a document linked on another forum with some specific details about the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted

Interesting points to note:

  • The younger girl was 14, not 15 as reported in the article that the OP linked
  • The actual offences were the older girl placing her finger in the younger girl's vagina, performing oral sex on each other and the use of vibrators
  • Lilani:

    lowhat:
    The older girl was just enough of a dumb-ass to flaunt it in their faces during a window where she was open to being charged, rather than doing what many high-schoolers do when placed in a situation like this, which is to keep it in their pants for a couple of months until the law has no bearing on it.

    Which means the most logical course of action is to put her on the sex offender list so that for the rest of her life she's in the same basket as child molesters and serial rapists?

    The most logical course of action is to subject her to the same degree of benefit of the doubt and same potential punishment as any 18 year old man accused of statutory rape with a girl in her mid-teens.

    Olrod:
    It's very suspicious that they deliberately chose to wait for the age window of the two girls that would allow them to do the most damage.

    Before that window, all they could do was tell their daughter not to. After that window, all they could do was tell their daughter not to. They "deliberatly chose to wait" for the only window in which they could do more than ask insistently.

    manic_depressive13:
    There is a lot of argument that if the couple was straight, no one would care.

    More specifically that if the perpetrator were male and the "victim" female, this probably wouldn't have made *local* news, though he still would have had a ride through the legal system (this happens all the time). If the perpetrator were female and the "victim" male, not even that would have happened.

    manic_depressive13:
    If the fact that they are homosexual draws attention to the issue and thus causes the law to be changed, preventing innocent young men from being convicted during a window of opportunity by stupid parents, shouldn't you be happy? After all, it is getting people to consider the unfairness of extremely rigid consent laws.

    Could happen, and would be awesome if it did. More than likely, it won't though, because too many people who see a problem with this case won't see it as a problem with consent laws, but rather solely a matter of homophobia. That seems to be the dominant way the topic is being discussed.

    manic_depressive13:
    Unless you don't actually give a shit about people being wrongfully charged, and just want to complain about how everyone supposedly caters to oppressed minorities. They think they're so great just because they encounter vicious negative sentiment and violence to an inflated degree. They're just so entitled.

    Who is being wrongfully charged? She's being charged for violating the law as it is. You can argue that the law should be changed, but that doesn't make her being charged with the existing law "wrongful."

    manic_depressive13:
    There is a lot of argument that if the couple was straight, no one would care.

    If the fact that they are homosexual draws attention to the issue and thus causes the law to be changed, preventing innocent young men from being convicted during a window of opportunity by stupid parents, shouldn't you be happy? After all, it is getting people to consider the unfairness of extremely rigid consent laws.

    Unless you don't actually give a shit about people being wrongfully charged, and just want to complain about how everyone supposedly caters to oppressed minorities. They think they're so great just because they encounter vicious negative sentiment and violence to an inflated degree. They're just so entitled.

    No, we shouldn't be happy that it takes stuff like this for people to pay attention and actually care about an issue. There are many examples of this in history. Unfortunately for this case, many people are only seeing a human rights issue against religious intolerance, so they don't really care about the law.

    I don't care they were gay - she was two years older than her and her partner was a minor. Under Australian laws, and I'm assuming American laws, that is illegal. And wrong. I don't think 15 year olds should be having sex - straight or gay. And they shouldn't be having it with people older than they are who should know better.

    I have nothing against gay people - they should feel free to love whoever they feel attracted to (provided it is consensual). However, laws against child sex (it doesn't matter if it is straight or gay) are there for a good reason. This girl was 17 - adult laws apply to her. Her "partner" was 15 - under the age of 16, considered a minor in every respect. We put 17 year old men and women in jail for having straight sex with people under the age of 16 (at least we do that in Australia). I don't think gay people should be treated any differently.

    Korolev:
    I don't care they were gay - she was two years older than her and her partner was a minor. Under Australian laws, and I'm assuming American laws, that is illegal. And wrong. I don't think 15 year olds should be having sex - straight or gay. And they shouldn't be having it with people older than they are who should know better.

    I have nothing against gay people - they should feel free to love whoever they feel attracted to (provided it is consensual). However, laws against child sex (it doesn't matter if it is straight or gay) are there for a good reason. This girl was 17 - adult laws apply to her. Her "partner" was 15 - under the age of 16, considered a minor in every respect. We put 17 year old men and women in jail for having straight sex with people under the age of 16 (at least we do that in Australia). I don't think gay people should be treated any differently.

    It's a 2-year age gap, it's not like one was 50 and the other one was 12.

    In several months time they'll be 16 & 18, why will it suddenly stop being a problem then if it's such a horrific crime now?

    JoJo:
    Found a document linked on another forum with some specific details about the case:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted

    Interesting points to note:

  • The younger girl was 14, not 15 as reported in the article that the OP linked
  • The actual offences were the older girl placing her finger in the younger girl's vagina, performing oral sex on each other and the use of vibrators
  • The first point is odd, because I've seen four sources put it as 15. Examiner and think Progress I could buy not doing the research, and Yahoo copied Examiner, but news.com.au being another cog in the Murdoch empire should have at least double checked such a basic feature.

    I'm hesitant to believe that this is actually a legitimate affidavit though, if only because one would think that, in a case such as this, police wouldn't let such an important legal document out as it would prejudce hypotherical jurors. ANd if this was legit you would think the mainstream media would jump on it?

    Granted, I have a very low opinion of American institutions so I can see them fucking up something as basic as "don't release affidavit's to the public", but if this is true then the older girl is an idiot.

    Shaoken:

    JoJo:
    Found a document linked on another forum with some specific details about the case:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted

    Interesting points to note:

  • The younger girl was 14, not 15 as reported in the article that the OP linked
  • The actual offences were the older girl placing her finger in the younger girl's vagina, performing oral sex on each other and the use of vibrators
  • The first point is odd, because I've seen four sources put it as 15. Examiner and think Progress I could buy not doing the research, and Yahoo copied Examiner, but news.com.au being another cog in the Murdoch empire should have at least double checked such a basic feature.

    I'm hesitant to believe that this is actually a legitimate affidavit though, if only because one would think that, in a case such as this, police wouldn't let such an important legal document out as it would prejudce hypotherical jurors. ANd if this was legit you would think the mainstream media would jump on it?

    Granted, I have a very low opinion of American institutions so I can see them fucking up something as basic as "don't release affidavit's to the public", but if this is true then the older girl is an idiot.

    There's no way to prove that it's real, so take it as you wish, although I can't really think of a reason someone would fake one. As for the age though, a number of sources are also putting at the age at 14, for example:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57585481-504083/kaitlyn-hunt-update-charges-against-girl-18-in-same-sex-underage-relationship-wont-be-dropped-despite-public-outcry-fla-state-attorney-says/

    JoJo:

    Shaoken:

    JoJo:
    Found a document linked on another forum with some specific details about the case:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/142642135/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Redacted-Affidavit-Redacted

    Interesting points to note:

  • The younger girl was 14, not 15 as reported in the article that the OP linked
  • The actual offences were the older girl placing her finger in the younger girl's vagina, performing oral sex on each other and the use of vibrators
  • The first point is odd, because I've seen four sources put it as 15. Examiner and think Progress I could buy not doing the research, and Yahoo copied Examiner, but news.com.au being another cog in the Murdoch empire should have at least double checked such a basic feature.

    I'm hesitant to believe that this is actually a legitimate affidavit though, if only because one would think that, in a case such as this, police wouldn't let such an important legal document out as it would prejudce hypotherical jurors. ANd if this was legit you would think the mainstream media would jump on it?

    Granted, I have a very low opinion of American institutions so I can see them fucking up something as basic as "don't release affidavit's to the public", but if this is true then the older girl is an idiot.

    There's no way to prove that it's real, so take it as you wish, although I can't really think of a reason someone would fake one. As for the age though, a number of sources are also putting at the age at 14, for example:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57585481-504083/kaitlyn-hunt-update-charges-against-girl-18-in-same-sex-underage-relationship-wont-be-dropped-despite-public-outcry-fla-state-attorney-says/

    Well reading over the article WTSP recieved an affidavit, although they don't specify from where. But since CBS is going with it then it's probably legit, which means every other article has got the ages wrong.

    As for why someone would want to fake an affidavit, really there are people out there who would get off making a fake and convincing people it's the real thing. Don't ask me why (the captcha is ask questions, ignore it), but some people would do it for kicks. I'd give CBS enough credit to assume they'd do their homework before running with such a claim however.

    Age of consent laws are arbitrary, that's why they're different in each state. There is no evidence that consensual sex before a certain age is harmful.

    The age of consent is 14 in Austria, Germany, Italy and Portugal. It's 13 in Spain: these countries don't have more traumatized teens than any other country. If anything a lower age of consent makes teens practice safe sex and have better education.

    If age differences are harmful why is it legal for a 40 year old to have sex with an 18 year old? Is an 18 year old magically immune from exploitation and harm? Why is it legal for an 18 year old to be exploited in pornography?

    There shouldn't be an age of consent. Sex should only be illegal if it's rape or if there is evidence that it harms someone.

    Hm, so it seems we only have one side to this debate, from the defendant. We cannot rightfully past judgement on this situation until we are given both sides and all available evidence.

    However, if this is sexuality motivated, then I can say it's dumb, I've never liked the idea of statutory rape anyway, it always irritated the fuck out of me that mutual consent is irrelevant.

     Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

    Reply to Thread

    This thread is locked