Repealing age limits for sexual relationships.

I'm well aware of that. My issue is in light of the acceptance of the interpretation of the 14th amendment that the homosexuals used to get gay marriage, the consent argument won't hold water.

If what the homosexuals argued is true, that ALL people in the US are covered under the 14th, then on what grounds can you argue that it's constitutional to deny someone his/her equal rights in regards to having sex based on age limits that are arbitrary and inconsistent from state to state?

 

And for the record I'm not arguing for that. I personally don't accept the argument the homosexuals made in regards to the 14th so my position is still consistent and logical.

However for those who DO accept the homosexuals argument then they have no cogent defense against the acceptance of other perversions.

 

Because consent laws are in no way related to marriage? You really think the law goes from gay marriage -->> Five year olds can buy a car?

 

Uhhh no. Because buying a car is a privilege not a right like the SCOTUS has declared sex to be. And of course age of consent is related to marriage. Why can't an 8 year old get married? Because he can't consent.

I'm not saying it's morally or ethically right. I'm saying that constitutionally you have NO grounds upon which to logically defend your position anymore because you have accepted the idea that ALL Americans are covered under the 14th.

I mean unless of course you reject the homosexuals argument that they're covered under the 14th. Which I highly doubt.

 

Here let me show you part of the problem.

What is the age of consent for sex?

 

The issue is in your own statement. A person cannot provide "informed consent" until they reach the "age of majority" that's typically 18 based upon a general consensus under the law. For a person to be under the "age of majority" they cannot provide "informed consent" because they've not developed the knowledge and mental processes to the point necessary to take important information into consideration. This allows a person past the age of majority the ability to nefariously deceive the person that is younger than the age of majority. The child, under 18, is at a distinct disadvantage because they don't have the knowledge and ability to provide informed consent when they're dealing with someone significantly older that can take advantage of them.

It is for this same reason that a child, prior to the age of majority, cannot enter into a legal contract. They're not mentally developed enough to avoid being taken advantage of by an older person that seeks to nefariously take advantage of them.

This disadvantage does not exist between children of the same basic age and development which is why the laws do allow consensual sex between children within a few years of each other in age.

Often, but not always, those that put forward the proposition that the age limits, imposed to protect the child that is incapable of providing full informed consent, are little more than closet pedophiles that want to be able to nefariously convince children to have sex with them. Guess what, have sex with adults and leave the children alone. If they're physically mature enough to have sex, and they want to have sex, they can generally have sex with each other under the law in all 50 states.

 

I think you are confused. Sex is a biological function. SCOTUS never made any such ruling. If you legit believe that it's going to be legal to rape 5 year olds one day, then you and I really don't need to discuss any further.

 

The age of consent is literally the legal age for consensual sex and not for marriage. Marriage laws are based upon their own criteria as are laws that allow a person to consent to a contract. It does become a bit confusing which is why I refer to the "age of majority" which is the legal age when a person is no longer considered to be dependent child and becomes an independent adult.

There isn't a denial of equal protection if an adult is prohibited from having sex with a child because the prohibition applies to all adults. The child is not denied equal protection because they're not being denied anything.

 

Be cautious because closet pedophiles attempt to rationalize legalizing sex with children just like Christians seek to rationalize discrimination based upon their religious opinion.

 

That's patently absurd. According to your post then it is constitutionally acceptable if we ban sex between two men or two women because it's not a right for them to have sex.

And you do realize that your last statement is VERBATIM what people used to say about homosexuals right? "If you actually think it will be legal for two men to Have sex with each other and get married, then I really don't need to discuss this further."

By the way, other than sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala I'm not listening because it will never happen!!1!1!!" You have produced exactly zero cogent defenses for your position.

 

Lol so please explain how it's constitutional for a 15 year old to get married in one state but not another.

Fine since you want to play little semantic games then lets be specific. I'm not asking you to DEFINE age of consent or age of majority. I'm asking you to put a concrete number on it that's not arbitrary and is not inconsistent throughout the states.

What number is the age of consent and what number is the age of majority?

What if the 13 year old wants to have sex? You ARE denying them something. Furthermore the argument you just made is EXACTLY the argument that homosexuals and their supporters rejected. That it wasn't discrimination against homosexuals becaus NO man could marry another man homosexual or heterosexual and no woman could marry another woman whether they were homosexual or heterosexual. Yet any man could marry any woman. So it wasn't discrimination.

But you folks rejected that argument. Now you want to use it when we are talking about something YOU find abhorrent? You can't reject the argument for homosexuals and then accept the EXACT same argument against other groups. That's preposterous.

 

I do not appreciate the insinuation that I'm a pedophile. I have made it VERY clear that I think this behavior is gross, disgusting, perverted and every other descriptor for abhorrent I can come up with.

My POINT is that if you accept the argument for one group, you cannot then come back and reject the EXACT same argument for another group simply because you didn't consider the first behavior abhorrent but you do consider this one to be.

That is hypocrisy at its finest.

 

Never talked about that.

 

Gays used to not be able to give consent by law too.

 

Many who are young are easy to manipulate especially if the manipulator is charismatic and persuasive. Because of this I think the older and mature should not be allowed to have sex with those under age.

 

Sex is emotional for a lot of (maybe even most) people. Sex prior to emotional maturity causes emotional (and thus behavioral) deviancy (deviation from the norm) which is often permanant. The purpose of sex-age laws is to prevent (as much as possible) those who are not emotionally mature enough for *healthy* sex while not repressing the sexually mature (repression also increases deviancy). An ideal situation would be a professional, scientific, ongoing, psychological examination of every physically sexually mature adolescent until they are 'fit' for emotionally healthy sexual relationships. But that would be prohibitively expensive on the social scale and require a draconian invasion of privacy- its completely unrealistic.

Sex-age laws are the next best thing. There are things we could do to make them a bit better, but overall, they are both necessary and effective.

 

I do not deny morals, I deny those moral rules which are non-practical, dangerous and has no real meaning.

 

Does that mean adult cannot hug a child or be hugged by a child because child cannot give informed consent on that? What's the difference between hug and sex?

 

So you believe you should be able to have sex with a baby?

 

Does that also mean that sex between adults of different IQ and education level must be forbidden? Because smarter people clearly can have advantage over not so smart.

 

Well......societal morays are not decided by a single individual. Your denial of certain morals may or may not be in concert with widely accepted and understood rules but, you have the right to do as you please within certain well understood moral boundaries.

 

It's like all people have a right to walk on their two lags, whether they are healthy or with disability. It's not discrimination to forbid use wheelchair because healthy persons forbidden too.

 

What is the difference between sex and kiss except difference in public moral attitudes?

 

Hug is emotional too.

Let's change norms.

 

I don't want to have sex with a baby.