California democrats introduce bill to protect pedophiles who lure & sexually abuse innocent childre

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

[

Just wow: California Dems author bill to PROTECT adults who lure, then sexually abuse, minors

We know your pretty stupid YOGA


Too bad, I can't watch you open your pathetic mouth and shove that foot down your own throat.... lol

Oh, I didn't realize a far right wing Web site was making the claim. Clearly it's 100% accurate and true in that case. Never mind the statement of the Senator who actually introduced the legislation explaining precisely what its purpose is. What the hell does he know? He only wrote it.

So you agree that I’m right. Glad we settled that

 

[WillowTree]

The headline and included link seem very slanted and misleading. Apparently, present California law does not automatically require those who engage in vaginal intercourse, but requires automatic registration of those who engage in other forms of sexual activity, and the bill was introduced to remedy this inequality in the treatment of pedophiles.

Senator Wiener Introduces Legislation to End Discrimination Against LGBT People Regarding Sex Offender Registration

Are you okay with pedophilles?

 

[Lysistrata]

The headline and included link seem very slanted and misleading. Apparently, present California law does not automatically require those who engage in vaginal intercourse, but requires automatic registration of those who engage in other forms of sexual activity, and the bill was introduced to remedy this inequality in the treatment of pedophiles.

Senator Wiener Introduces Legislation to End Discrimination Against LGBT People Regarding Sex Offender Registration

Are you okay with pedophilles?

Of course not. What a stupid question. However, all pedophiles must be treated the same under the law. Simple.

From the link that I posted:

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.
​

BTW: you are wrong in your perception, in your statement in post No. 40, that no one under 18 can give consent. The age of consent varies state by state, and it's under 18. It's been quite revealing that it has been those politicians who describe themselves as "conservative" who have opposed raising the statutory ages of consent, including marriage. It has been "conservatives" who defend pedos like moore in Alabama. He trolled kids who were way under 18.

​

 

[WillowTree]

The headline and included link seem very slanted and misleading. Apparently, present California law does not automatically require those who engage in vaginal intercourse, but requires automatic registration of those who engage in other forms of sexual activity, and the bill was introduced to remedy this inequality in the treatment of pedophiles.

Senator Wiener Introduces Legislation to End Discrimination Against LGBT People Regarding Sex Offender Registration

Are you okay with pedophilles?

Of course not. What a stupid question. However, all pedophiles must be treated the same under the law. Simple.

From the link that I posted:

This distinction in the law — which is irrational, at best — disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse. For example, if an 18 year old straight man has vaginal intercourse with his 17 year old girlfriend, he is guilty of a crime, but he is not automatically required to register as a sex offender; instead, the judge will decide based on the facts of the case whether registration is warranted. By contrast, if an 18 year old gay man has sex with his 17 year old boyfriend, the judge *must* place him on the sex offender registry, no matter what the circumstances.
​

BTW: you are wrong in your perception, in your statement in post No. 40, that no one under 18 can give consent. The age of consent varies state by state, and it's under 18. It's been quite revealing that it has been those politicians who describe themselves as "conservative" who have opposed raising the statutory ages of consent, including marriage. It has been "conservatives" who defend pedos like moore in Alabama. He trolled kids who were way under 18.

​

But you didn’t want Moore to have equal rights.

And, you are right about the age of consent.

United States Age of Consent Laws By State

And, Roy Moore according to Wiki was accused of having sex with 18 to 16 year olds. The age of consent in Alabama is 16. So why are you calling him a pedophile?

Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia