Repealing age limits for sexual relationships.

Then let's decide together.

 

What about those who do?

 

If there is not physical damage I don't see any problem in that.

 

Would you have a problem with a stranger doing this to your baby without your knowledge?

 

I cannot image such situation. How it's possible for a person to be around my baby without me knowing him?

 

If you legalize sexual relations with children that then leads right around to child marriage. And we in this country went thorough a lot just to get that eliminated in the first place. Now we want to bring it back??? I don't think so.

 

No! Absolutely no! I'm against marriages even for adults.

 

Typically the state laws that allow for the marriage of a 15 year old require parental (informed) consent or the authorization by a judge that can adjudicate the 15 year old is of exceptional maturity and can provide informed consent.

We (you and I) don't determine "constitutionality" as that responsibility is delegated to the US Supreme Court under Article III of the Constitution. Perhaps the only reason that these laws are Constitutional is because they cause no harm so there's no foundation for challenging them (a lack of standing for a plaintiff to challenge). Always remember something about the "equal protection" clause is that it never required that all people be treated identically. What it did prohibit was the treating of people differently when it causes actual, not hypothetical, harm to the person. Mental circle-jerks of hypothetical harm have no meaning under the Constitution.

Personally I advocate that marriage should be exclusively a matter of contract law where the age of consent to enter a contract has been fundamentally established at 18 although the legal guardian of a minor below the age of 18 can provide informed consent for the minor under certain conditions imposed to protect the minor.

Typically the age of 18 has been established by consensus as the legal age of majority based upon compelling arguments and debate over time. The courts typically have the authority to over-ride this statutory provision on a case-by-case basis. If "real harm" were to result from the statutory age of 18 then the law allows the courts to determine this and to ensure equal protection under the provisions of the Constitution. The "exception" is accommodated making the law Constitutional.

There are no specific laws that prohibit a 13 year old from having sexual relations. What the laws address is the exploitation of children prior to the age of consent. The following provides a general overview of how the laws address children under the age of consent.

http://pandorsetscb.proceduresonline.com/chapters/p_underage_sexual_act.html

Only in cases where it's determined that exploitation of the child has has occurred, that could even include a younger but more mature child having sexual relations with an older but less developed child, are there every any criminal consequences. In cases where it's nothing more than the natural development of sexual interactions between equals the sexual activity is not prohibited.

"You folks?" Is this a reference to those that know what they're talking about because the so-called summary of the legal arguments for same-sex marriage is completely absent from the above summary.

The arguments for same-sex marriage were based upon the discrimination against the family unit (created by adults based upon mutual consent) where child rearing, one of the two key components that didn't exist for the plaintiffs in the Baker v Nelson decision, does exist in about 30% same-sex family units and the financial discrimination related to the financial partnership created by the forming of the family unit by same-sex couples. Virtually all marriage laws, including child custody during dissolution, are laws of property where same-sex couples were being discriminated against, suffering financial harm, under the laws of prohibition.

A few of the major property issues under federal laws where discrimination existed for same-sex couples based upon laws that referenced "marriage" as the criteria included:

The inability to file joint tax returns.
The inability to seek joint bankruptcy protection.
Inheritance rights based upon jointly held property.
Federally funded welfare benefits.

There were over 1,100 federal laws alone where the criteria for eligibility was based upon the word "marriage" that discriminated against same-sex couples that were denied federal protections and benefits because of the prohibitions against same-sex marriage.

State laws that used the criteria of marriage included adoption rights as well as state welfare programs for families raising children.

The overwhelming Constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage were based upon financial discrimination causing harm to same-sex couples that formed the personal/financial partnership that was identical to opposite-sex "marriage" under the law.

 

Sorry but to be opposed to consenting adults forming personal/financial partnerships for mutual support is simply stupid. It's reflective of opposition to the laws of contract.

I can understand opposition to the government establishing discriminatory laws of marriage but marriage under contract law that's nondiscriminatory cannot be argued against.

Of note this isn't the only place were some people oppose the "right of contract" because we also see this in states that have "right to work" laws that invalidate the rights of the union and the enterprise to voluntarily agree to a contract requiring new applicants for employment to join the union as a condition of employment.

This all relates to consenting adults and has nothing to do with underage children that the law establishes are too young to provide informed consent. Once again a child cannot provide informed consent to sexual relations with an adult.

Sexual relations between an adult and a child is never legally consensual because the child, under the law, cannot provide informed consent.

 

I'm opposing marriages itself not it's legal side.

I never denied that children cannot give informed consent, and I asked you, what is the difference between sex and hug, and why you don't need informed consent for a hug?

 

I don't think any tests would ever be very effective either. Every 15-year-old child says they are "mature" and think they are all grown up. Whenever something like this comes up, I just think back to when I was 15 and remember how darn stupid I was and some of the POOR decisions I made!

 

So you want a free for all to do whatever to whomever?

 

Nobody wants some creep getting sexually involved with their children. Got it? If we do away with the laws, then we bring back the shotgun and shoot your azz instead.

 

You would be much better off dealing with the law than dealing with me after you diddled my little kid, effing sickos. I would kill you with my bare hands.

 

Be thankful for the laws that protect you child molesters from us parents.

 

No. What made you think so?

 

I don't think it's a constructive way of thinking and talking. Besides I see it's reasonable to report if you continue to talk with me like this.

 

Part of psychology is understanding a person beyond what they merely thibk or feel or say on the surface and determining the truth that they arent realizing themselves. Granted, it is quite a subjective science, and would still be prone to failure. To be clear, I do not support the scenario I described, but merely provided it as THE alternative to sex-age laws. Sex-age laws are the preferable of the two.

 

People, read my reasons behind all of these. I never said children can decide serious matters, or they are smart enough to give informed consent. It's not about them or they ability. It's about sex itself. What is the difference between sex and hug (child doesn't need informed consent for a hug)? Nothing. There is no difference on physical level, but difference is on the moral level. And morals can be changed. There is nothing wrong or shameful in sex, and that is what we must to teach our children about. We must to teach them to refuse religious and moral superstitions.

 

Well then I think its safe to say that you're alone with this idea.
Im guessing you are someone who enjoys sex purely from the physical standpoint, without the emotional bonding and co-dependency that most people associate with it. If so, I can sympathize- Im the same way.
But most people are not like us. The laws exist to protect those who are, for lack of better phrasing, more fragile, more emotional. And its not purely a 'learned' fragility. There are genetic, and I believe spiritual components to it that differintiate humans from all other life in this sexual-emotional dynamic.
There is a reason that civilizations fall apart (every time) when societies transition to sexual hedonism and abandon the nuclear family. It turns humans back into animals, and all the technology and philosophy and culture wont hold the fabric of society together without the foundation of the family.
What really needs to happen is a greater collective understanding of just how different we all really are from eachother. Sex is perhaps the greatest example of 'whats right for me may not be right for others', and vice versa. We all react in an emotionally different manner to sex, and this makes it easy for us to permanantly damage (and be permanantly damaged by) others emotionally and psychologically without intending to or ever understanding how. I believe this is the origin of the ancient sex laws that we typically view as 'puritanical' now. They were an attempt to protect the sexually/emotionally fragile.
Children should be sheltered from sexualization because they are still deveoping their emotional coping mechanisms. Those children who are genetically (and spiritually) predisposed to being sexually emotional WILL be permanantly damaged by exposure to sex too early in their emotional developement, and its really quite impossible to determine 'which is which' during this developement. This is the purpose of sex-age laws.

 

The sort of filth you can expect to encounter on a board where the moderating philosophy rests on the proposition that all viewpoints and all posters are equally deserving of respect.

 

You wont get anywhere in a debate by disregarding or denegrating opposing positions. If any subject is 'undiscussable' then the whole thing quickly becomes an echo chamber.
If you dont want to talk about it- don't. It doesnt look like you have anything worthwhile to add anyway.
Discussion is the first step in resolution. Everyone should have an opportunity to be persuaded against bad ideas with words before the bad ideas escalate to bad actions.

 

You don't need to be Many in order to be right.

It's one of the most popular lies, promoted by Christianity. For example Rome Empire fell with the spread of Christianity, when people forgo sexual hedonism and become more pious.

Actually there are right things, and there are wrong things and it doesn't matter how you perceive them personally. Moral taboos regarding sex are wrong and dangerous, especially for children. That is why we must to fight them.

These words makes no sense. And I still do not understand what is the difference between sex and hug, both of which are emotional?

 

You got a point. What about a 6-year-old girl?

 

But you said only your selected morals count to you. Taking that back now are we?