No, I just advocate personal responsibility and liberty.
Even for adults who want to **** preschoolers?
So you would let your child have sex with an adult if there was no law forbidding it?
No, but by your original post you implied that there ought to be no law against it. I'm trying to clarify.
Yes that's right, because it is a law that punishes sexually responsible underagers. Incidentally, the law does nothing to prevent the incredible amount of pedophilia in government and corporate institutions so is in fact useless. There are methods in which we could avoid abhorrent behaviours without punishing the responsible people, who are in the majority.
Getting rid of a law is not the same as advocacy. I think a lot of people on this forum could learn that.
I think we might be talking about two different things. Are you talking about ephebophilia or pedophilia? By saying you want to do away with age of consent as a blanket statement you're implying that even pedophilia (i.e. sex with preadolescent children) shouldn't be a crime. I hope you don't think there's such a thing as a sexually responsible eight-year-old.
There are responsible parents. And I can tell you, the law had nothing to do with my parents warning me about the dangers of strangers. It's immoral and horrible, sure, but since I don't believe in the state I cannot support any kind of 'law' in that manner. There are common law solutions, and even without any kind of law, these people would be outcasts. I believe the ultimate punishment for criminals like that is not the time in prison, but the stigma and public humiliation.
Sure. He permanently damaged an innocent child, enjoyed it carnally, got off scott-free, and statistically is almost guaranteed to do the exact same thing again in the near future, but at least he's embarrassed. That'll teach him.
Unless they live in a very small town, "stigma and public humiliation" is not going to prevent pedophiles from taking more victims.
Additionally, child molesters come in several different types. Some use positions of authority to "groom" their victims, while others are opportunistic. The former type might be devastated by stigma and public humiliation, but the latter usually already are outcasts and attack children partly as a result of that status, so in some cases stigma and public humiliation could actually increase the number of attacks.
We don't need age of consent laws to define our morals. We need then to offer us legal recourse if some sicko f***s our preschooler. What exactly are you proposing we do instead - just go to the guy's house and shoot him? Tempting as it would be, vigilante justice is not famous for its justness.
Man, lord knows that the only reason I don't have sex with minors is because it's illegal.
The SECOND that law gets revoked, I'm gonna have myself a good ol' fashioned ...
"I think laws should be relaxed" is NOT the same thing as endorsing such behavior.
Understand this, young grasshopper, and you will realize much.
Perhaps, but in this case it turned out that innersmiff actually meant flat-out decriminalizing child molestation, so my reaction, while preemptive, turned out to be justified. No one was more disappointed than me.
The "it doesn't mean I endorse it" rationale might be relevant for things people do to themselves, but not for harming someone else, and especially not a child. If you don't favor punishing an act like that you're basically saying you give child molesters permission to run rampant.
No they shouldn't.
Because even though some young people are more mature than others, the fact is that age is the only criteria that's universally available and realistic to use as a balance scale.
I agree with kerryg's statement, "We don't need age of consent laws to define our morals".
We need age of consent laws to protect minors from predators and from making immature decisions that could harm them in the long run.
by talfonso5 years ago
I live in Tampa Bay, and recently, I heard about the news about one area teenager holding up a sign that said, "I did 4 questions on my FCAT and said I wasn’t going to do it…GPA 1.22…honk if I need (an)...
by Justin Earick4 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex,...
by TMMason6 years ago
You should know ahead of time that the ad you’re about to see won an award. That might seem all well and good, until you see it, and then read that it’s being charged with promoting pedophilia.The ad, for car...
by realtalk2472 years ago
Msn New reported:"Legislation passed by California's state Senate in May and coming before the Assembly this month would require all schools that receive public funds for student financial assistance to set a...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
Hah! Do you think John Adams meant this as "written in stone?"Do you think he intended it in the vein of a "Zero Tolerance" position?I don't! I think it should be our Golden Rule, and like gold I...
by Steven Escareno2 years ago
According to various news sources, a barber found out his son has been acting up in school lately, so he punishes him by giving the kid a "Benjamin Button" style haircut aka an old man hair cut. Here's a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.