Age of Consent

[Nuc]

It IS sorta weird for the State to be telling folks how old they have to be before they have sex-----how about just making it legal when the parent says it's ok? Then the parent can decide whether to press charges or not?

How do you verify whether the parent said it's OK? And do you mean parents say it's OK for the kid to start having sex period, or "it's OK to have sex with Billy, but not with Timmy"? How situational would it have to be?

 

[dilloduck]

How do you verify whether the parent said it's OK? And do you mean parents say it's OK for the kid to start having sex period, or "it's OK to have sex with Billy, but not with Timmy"? How situational would it have to be?

You ask em--

 

[Semper Fi]

You ask em--

Actually thats not a bad idea. The teens would be too embarassed to ask for permission so they wouldnt do it.

 

[dilloduck]

Actually thats not a bad idea. The teens would be too embarassed to ask for permission so they wouldnt do it.

I was serious as a heart attack. If the boy, girl and both parents give permission I say allow it !

 

[no1tovote4]

I was serious as a heart attack. If the boy, girl and both parents give permission I say allow it !

If it worked this way my daughter would never have sex.

 

[dilloduck]

If it worked this way my daughter would never have sex.

LOL I bet she could punish you SO severely that you would give into anything!!!

 

[Trigg]

Personnally if a 22 yr old came sniffing around my 14 yr old daughter my husband would probably attempt to cut his d##k off. Now if the boy were closer to her age (16) I don't see how the boy can be prosecuted for having sex, since it would probably be consentual.

Teenage boys (under 18) having sex with teenage girls (under 18) shouldn't have to worry about statutory rape and age of consent. I don't think girls should even be thinking about having sex until they're 17 or so anyway, but it does happen.

My daughter will not be dating before 16.

 

[Hobbit]

Your lack of experience does not constitute an argument.

You think sex is only acceptable after marriage. In case you are not reading the thread - 14 year olds can get married. So this is either acceptable to you or it is not.

The problem I have with you is, you are claiming to be unqualified to answer and also that God has the answer - virginity until marriage. God does not have the answer on this one. You will have to think for yourself. God is the guiding light to men from Utah who are marrying 14 year olds, too. Having God in your life does make you virtuous. Taking a stand would be a good start though.

I agree that just setting an age is arbitrary, but it has to be done to stop people from marrying 12 year olds just to have sex with them.

By the way - according to you if you marry her the time of day would not matter. Your argument stinks. Here is your stupid argument another way:

You don't have enough knowledge of what happens as a result of having sex "when you are not Christian enough" to know how heathen 'not Christian enough' is. Let's say you have a 14 year old girlfriend and you're gonna marry her tomorrow. You could go to hell for having sex with her today. If you make sexual contact before the ceremony, it's sin. After, it's considered a perfectly religious act between consenting Christians. You guess you're just saying that marriage seems rather subjective.

You're being argumentative. All you're doing is trying to provoke a reaction that you're not going to get. Either that or you're trying to make me look stupid, a move that only makes you look stupid to everyone who matters.

Anyway, I'll humor you with further clarification. First off, marriage is not subjective. Between 11:59 pm, age 17 and 12:00 am, age 18, all that happens is another minute passes. Between pre-wedding and post-wedding, something significant happens...a wedding. At a wedding, there's a ceremony where you promise to be with this one person and only this one person for the rest of your life, along with a pledge to love, honor, and cherish. After you've made that promise, you can have sex. As far as age goes, I think that as long as you're listed as a dependant on somebody else's tax form, you're not ready to get married. Until your parents cut you loose, you're not ready to provide for a family. No government's going to accept that, though, so how about requiring parental permission before that. You asked me what I think is proper. I've told you, inside marriage, of your own free will, when you can support the family is what's proper. However, with governments the way they are, that's not going to happen, and if a parent lets their 14 year old daughter marry a 40 year old man, shame on them, but what am I supposed to do about it.

My point is now crystal clear. If you continue to twist my words to make you feel self-righteous, you can expect me to ignore all future posts you make. I've been more than patient with you and you've been far less than civil.

 

[no1tovote4]

Sex should be illegal until you are mentally, physically, emontionally, and economically prepared to take care of the resulting offspring. There is no form of birth control that is perfect, sex is taking a chance at offspring and if you are unprepared to take care of that offspring it is immoral to risk it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

It IS sorta weird for the State to be telling folks how old they have to be before they have sex-----how about just making it legal when the parent says it's ok? Then the parent can decide whether to press charges or not?

Interesting thought. But What do we do about irresponsible parents? Alcoholics, etc.? In their messed up state, they may give permission long before a young girl has any business having sex.

The state is trying tp protect young people from their own lack of judgment. I think it's a good thing. Prosecutors generally pursue older guys who exert strong influence over younger girls, not young teenaged boys experimenting with their girlfriends.

 

[elephant]

You asked me what I think is proper. I've told you, inside marriage, of your own free will, when you can support the family is what's proper. However, with governments the way they are, that's not going to happen, and if a parent lets their 14 year old daughter marry a 40 year old man, shame on them, but what am I supposed to do about it.

As I stated before, "Get a spine." You do understand that 40 year old men PAY to get permission from the parents and WE, as a society, need to stop this type of sick behaviour. This will require LAWS - not you saying "I'm following God's word, but I cannot help anyone else."

My point is now crystal clear. If you continue to twist my words to make you feel self-righteous, you can expect me to ignore all future posts you make. I've been more than patient with you and you've been far less than civil.

For the record you are the self-righteous one here. Please read what you write - it is like thinking before you speak, but with extra time in there for slow people. You have made clear that YOU are following God's word, but you cannot help anyone else because actually doing something would be too hard. So once again you quit the debate when you cannot keep up.

 

[Hobbit]

As I stated before, "Get a spine." You do understand that 40 year old men PAY to get permission from the parents and WE, as a society, need to stop this type of sick behaviour. This will require LAWS - not you saying "I'm following God's word, but I cannot help anyone else."



For the record you are the self-righteous one here. Please read what you write - it is like thinking before you speak, but with extra time in there for slow people. You have made clear that YOU are following God's word, but you cannot help anyone else because actually doing something would be too hard. So once again you quit the debate when you cannot keep up.

Ok, for the last time, I'm not trying to debate any point. I'm not qualified to set an age of concent. I don't have enough information. Would you rather I just voice what I think the government should force on everybody based on blind speculation with no fact? I'd rather not. All I've said is what I think is best for everybody. If you really want what I think the standard should be, I think age of consent should be as soon as you're no longer a dependant on your parents' taxes. Once you're really free from your parents, then you can have sex. That's what I think, but once again, I don't expect my opinion to carry much weight, because I'm not well informed on the subject. I have a spine, I just have the brains to know when to use it and when to know when my opinion isn't really worth much. Also, try to read my WHOLE post. Everything I've said here is old information.

As far as age goes, I think that as long as you're listed as a dependant on somebody else's tax form, you're not ready to get married.

Would it make you happier if I put, "or have sex" at the end? Would that constitute presence of a spine in the almighty judger of men, elephant?

Also, I fail to see what's self-righteous about saying, "This is what I do, but I don't think I'm qualified to dictate to everyone else." You've done nothing but twist my words and pick fights since this thread started. I'm giving you one last chance to respond to what I actually post before I simply start ignoring you, because you're obviously ignoring me, or at least everything but the parts that can make me look bad if taken out of context.

EDIT: Just saw the subject line of your post and it's off base. You have to start before you can quit.

 

[elephant]

Also, I fail to see what's self-righteous about saying, "This is what I do, but I don't think I'm qualified to dictate to everyone else."

It makes you a moral relativist, a democrat, a liberal. And well that is wrong.

Sometimes WE, the morally righteous, must stand up and dictate to the weak. It is not acceptable to stand on the sidelines and say "well if they believe it, it is real faith for them and that counts, too." It is just weak and sad and will lead to the end of what little moral fiber this country still has.

You've done nothing but twist my words and pick fights since this thread started.

Yes, you are correct. I am a fight picker, but you cannot help yourself, can you? It is so fun to respond.

I am not a word twister, though. I have already addressed this with you.

EDIT: Just saw the subject line of your post and it's off base. You have to start before you can quit.

And thankfully you have not quit debating - so you are not a quitter. But I now think your threats to quit debating with are hollow. This makes you seem even weaker.

 

[elephant]

Ok, for the last time, I'm not trying to debate any point. I'm not qualified to set an age of concent. I don't have enough information. Would you rather I just voice what I think the government should force on everybody based on blind speculation with no fact?

Blind FAITH - sometimes you have to go with it. And there are plenty of facts. Men who want to bed 14 years are sick. 16 year olds are not very responsible. The few that are will have to suffer with the idiot masses - sorry. If I have to choose between unqualified you and the mass unqualification of the state senate - I pick... this is a tough one... well I'd flip a coin. No one is qualified. That is the purpose of the thread I thought. We share possible answers and through debate figure out a solution.

And yes, I would like you to say something like:

1) At the age of 10 everyone should take an IQ test. When your score plus your age = 190 you are allowed to have sex. If they score less than 100 they should be spayed, neutered, de-sexed, whatever, as they will likely never reach the magical 190. Heck, I will give you two tries at the test.

2) Since voting age is 18 and that should be the most important change in life for one who lives in a democracy, I suggest we make the legal age of voting, driving, drinking, joining the military and age of consent 18. Adulthood will start all at once. If you are allowed to vote and screw up my life, can really stop you from screwing up your own life?

I think I could make #1 work with a few modifications, but it is a good start. SERIOUSLY, I would have a test. And it would be hard.

FOR THE RECORD:

I know I did not respond to your whole post, only the fun parts.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, now we're talking. You're right, I really didn't want to stop, but I was getting irritated, a bad state.

What you stated sounds reasonable (number 2, about being 18, not the test thing), which is why I'm willing to step aside and let people like you throw out age of consent suggestions. I, personally, don't really know what to think. I could come out and say, "You shouldn't be allowed to have sex until you're married and you shouldn't be allowed to marry until you're no longer a dependant on your parents' taxes." However, as a bill before congress, it would never pass. If it did, there'd be enough of a voter outcry to get it overturned by Congress...if the Supreme Court didn't beat them to it. Now, I have my own ideas on when you should have sex, but I have no idea what kind of thing would both work to some degree of success *and* pass voter and judicial scrutiny. I'd have to show up with all kinds of data saying when people mature and what their capacity to make decisions is, and I don't have that information. In fact, it seems to vary from person to person. That being the case, I must settle for letting those more informed than I make the decision, unless I think they're full of crap or going too far the other way, in which case I'll vote them down.

However, the test idea seems a bit...off. I'm pretty sure it was a stab at humor, as a person with an IQ of 150, well above average, would not be allowed to procreate until 40, at about the end of ideal child-rearing age, which I believe to be in about the 30s, when you've been around long enough to know what's what, but you're still young enough to keep up with a toddler.