When will we ban Homosexuality,Transexulism, and beastiality?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Right. And we admit that children do not have the capacity for informed consent for sex, considering the many other things that may come with it. Like I said, you're getting it!

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

 

[JoeMoma]

Ah...you added the word "informed". You are getting it. Consent and informed consent are not necessarily the same.

So, does a 17 and 364 day year old magically become able to give informed consent the next day?

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

"Actually they do if the age differences are close. "

They do? Okay.... I don't find that hard to believe. Should be 18.

 

[JoeMoma]

No, and that is a legal definition. But we do have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I think an 18 year old is not wise enough. But we expect them to be adults, so we grant them adult responsibility.

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Such lines can be arbitrary and slippery things.

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

 

[JoeMoma]

I would say that one's not so slippery. Unless you think you can get by every single State legislature, Congress, and the SCOTUS with a different idea.

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

 

[JoeMoma]

14 year olds should not be having sex, but many will choose to do so.

 

[JoeMoma]

If animals cannot consent to sex, then they must be raping each other to reproduce.

 

[Slyhunter]

So the answer is you don't think things through ever.

Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted.

Now the government determined if they are married or not. They have to follow governments rules on how to enter the relationship. They have to petition the government when they want to leave the relationship. The government decides how to divide your property. The government decides how long you have to be together before you can separate.

Oh and now because of the court decision, the federal government is interfering in marriage law.

So yeah big government. Giving government power to regulate always increases its size and power.

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

Married people should not get benefits single people don't get.

Okay, not sure I even disagree there, but it's about more than that. Such as, property rights upon death. Such as, when only immediate family is allowed to visit an ill or dying person. Or spousal rights for those in the military. I'm sure we could come up with a long list, if we took the time.

What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?
There should be no spousal privileges within marriage that can't be arranged without marriage.

"What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?"

The law that says hospital security can use force to enforce a hospital's policy, and when the hospital has a policy of "only immediate family" for a set of situations. Which is true of every hospital. yes, before gay people could get married, their partners could and would get turned away.

Hospitals are free to make their own rules. You think Governments should boss everyone around? Shame on you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, for many things the states do have different ideas.

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Before the government recognized same sex marriage the couples could call their relationship whatever they want. They could enter it anyway they wanted. They could end it when they wanted."

That is so dumb. before, the government determined they were all NOT married. The government is not interfering in marriage law, it is interfering less. Stop with this laughable nonsense.

Married people should not get benefits single people don't get.

Okay, not sure I even disagree there, but it's about more than that. Such as, property rights upon death. Such as, when only immediate family is allowed to visit an ill or dying person. Or spousal rights for those in the military. I'm sure we could come up with a long list, if we took the time.

What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?
There should be no spousal privileges within marriage that can't be arranged without marriage.

"What law requires you be a family member to visit an ill or dying person?"

The law that says hospital security can use force to enforce a hospital's policy, and when the hospital has a policy of "only immediate family" for a set of situations. Which is true of every hospital. yes, before gay people could get married, their partners could and would get turned away.

Hospitals are free to make their own rules. You think Governments should boss everyone around? Shame on you.

"Hospitals are free to make their own rules."

And their security is free to enforce them with force, as granted by law. You get that, right?

Are you suggesting hospitals be allowed to deny same-sex spouses access to their spouses? That's a yes/no question.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

To pull a Bill Clinton, it depends on the definition of consent.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sexual consent with adults if you are under 18? No, "actually" they don't.

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun

1. 1.
   permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
   "no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"
   synonyms: agreement, assent, acceptance, approval, approbation; More
   

verb

1. 1.
   give permission for something to happen.
   "he consented to a search by a detective"
   synonyms: agree to, assent to, yield to, give in to, submit to; More
   
   
   By these definitions, yes they can consent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually they do if the age differences are close. But you were not going to scrabble, remember!
Romeo and Juliet Laws - Definition, Examples, Cases

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

To pull a Bill Clinton, it depends on the definition of consent.

I figured you wouldn't answer. I asked you for your yes/no answer, which was intentionally obvious and direct. The fact that you would dodge, while knowing I would know you dodged (given the teed up yes/no question), is telling, and is exactly what I expected. I'm starting to get a feel for your position here, and maybe why you take it.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

To pull a Bill Clinton, it depends on the definition of consent.

I figured you wouldn't answer. I asked you for your yes/no answer, which was intentionally obvious and direct. The fact that you would dodge, while knowing I would know you dodged (given the teed up yes/no question), is telling, and is exactly what I expected. I'm starting to get a feel for your position here, and maybe why you take it.

See post 93.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

To pull a Bill Clinton, it depends on the definition of consent.

I figured you wouldn't answer. I asked you for your yes/no answer, which was intentionally obvious and direct. The fact that you would dodge, while knowing I would know you dodged (given the teed up yes/no question), is telling, and is exactly what I expected. I'm starting to get a feel for your position here, and maybe why you take it.

Legal Definition of consent
1a :compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically :the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding — see also age of consent, informed consent, rape, statutory rape
b :a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)

By the legal definition of consent, Texas is still right, but only because Texas has the law that provides for that.
The legal definition of consent adds "mental capacity", "knowledge" and "understanding". So by the legal definition of consent, I agree with your disagreement.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the link:


Example of Romeo and Juliet Laws in the State of Texas
According to Texas statutes, an individual engaging in sex with a minor will not be charged with statutory rape, nor required to register as a sex offender if:

• The accused was less than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim was at least 14 years old
• The accused was not a registered sex offender at the time of the act
• The act was consensual

But a 14 year old can't consent.....right? Well aparently they can with 17 year olds in Texas.

No, that's not accurate. This is more due to both of them being somewhat ignorant, so who to blame? Yes, the laws are weird. Which ones are your favorites? I would like to know.

I don't have a favorite.

Just pointing out that the state of Texas believes that 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex in some circumstances. So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas.

"So you seem to be disagreeing with the state of Texas."

Indeed I do. I general, that makes me likely correct.

Are you agreeing with the State of Texas? Let me guess: no comment. 'Cause you "have no favorites". Interesting.

To pull a Bill Clinton, it depends on the definition of consent.

I figured you wouldn't answer. I asked you for your yes/no answer, which was intentionally obvious and direct. The fact that you would dodge, while knowing I would know you dodged (given the teed up yes/no question), is telling, and is exactly what I expected. I'm starting to get a feel for your position here, and maybe why you take it.

When there are multiple definitions, a yes/no answer is not obvious and direct.....as I have proven.

 

[Faun]

Are conservatives still wondering about bestiality? It’s still illegal, dopes.

 

[JoeMoma]

Are conservatives still wondering about bestiality? It’s still illegal, dopes.

No shit sherlock!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That question is too fucking stupid to even try to answer. I suppose that you also think that children can consent to sex?? Or maybe that consent is not necessary?? Adult humans have power over both animals and children . I can't believe that anyone is so stupid as to not get that.

Put a 200 lb adult male in a room with a 100 lb adult female. The 200 lb male could in most cases force himself on the female and that would be rape. In other words, the male has the ability to exercise power over the female. However, that does not take away the ability of the female to have sex consentually with the male. The female may even initiate it.

While I agree with it being against the law for adults to have sex with children, if you think that many horny 14 year old boys would not jump at the opportunity of having sex with a hot adult female, you are crazy. So saying that children cannot give consent is more of a legal claim than an actual claim. I know that when I snuck and lusted at my uncle's playboy magazines as a young teen (a child), I was doing so willfully.......with consent.

No, it's an actual claim. Children do not have the tools to make that decision.

Yet the LGBTQ community thinks children have the "tools" to decide their sexual identity and become trainies.

Bullshit. The only people equating gender identity to sexual preference are people trying to build a case that all lgbtq are immoral. And they use this idiotic conflation because they have nothing else. By "they", I mean you.

Then why do we have the LGBT community, not the LGB community? I'm not the one that added the T. (And recently the Q has bee added also).

The answer is much more complicated than you are able to comprehend and probably don't want to anyway.

However, here is a few tidbits for you:

1. Trans people and GLB people have a common bond in that the same bigots despise and fear them all equally

2. Some trans people are also gay or bi

3. Much of the hysteria over trans people arose as a direct reaction to having lost the fight on same sex marriage. It is logical that gays would come to the defense of trans people.

4. It's all about discrimination based and sexual preference nd /or gender identity perpetrated by the religious zealots and the far right.