Three Men Marry (each other) in Colombia

ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
glassjester said:
So then it has nothing to do with consent or the animal's rights - because the same act could be performed on the animal (the animal "suffers" the same "injustice"), and all that determines the legality of the action is the emotional state of the human.

I don't think that's a tenable explanation.
Click to expand...



which is why he tends to pitch a hissy and stalk off in these situations
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
doser presents a calm, rational statement:
ok doser said:
Just to be clear, my interest in (discussing) the concept of consent is rooted in my belief that societally acceptable pedophilia is inevitable, a belief that is waved aside by artie and (others) by their reliance on "consent"

I don't find the concept of consent persuasive for many reasons, not the least of which being that it's so poorly applied wrt beastiality
Click to expand...

[MENTION=10403]Arthur Brain[/MENTION] replies with an emotion laden tirade and asks for an "argument with concrete backup":
Arthur Brain said:
It's 'waved aside' because it's ridiculous and only the incredibly ignorant, flat out dumb or paranoid would even pose such a stupid 'slippery slope' fallacy as inevitable. The fact is that laws have become increasingly stringent where it comes to safeguarding children from abuse, be that sexual or otherwise. Care to dispute that? If so, bring something to the table and by 'something' I mean an argument with concrete backup...
Click to expand...

doser provides a concrete example:
ok doser said:
For example, did you know that in New York State (and in many other states) a post-pubescent girl of any age can consent?

Hint: this only applies in one specific circumstance
Click to expand...

faced with a concrete example, artie pulls a vanishing act :sigh:

glassjester said:
So then it has nothing to do with consent or the animal's rights - because the same act could be performed on the animal (the animal "suffers" the same "injustice"), and all that determines the legality of the action is the emotional state of the human.

I don't think that's a tenable explanation.
Click to expand...

wanted to include you in this [MENTION=6445]glassjester[/MENTION] - this came to my attention this morning:

CA Democrats Author Bill to Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors


State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”

However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.

Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.

Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age...

https://californiaglobe.com/legisla...ill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/
Click to expand...

the rest of the article is as odious as you might imagine, but i stopped it at the red part to point out that 15 year olds are legally recognized as being able to give consent

and so, we have "consensual yet illegal sexual relations" - on what basis are they illegal if not inability to give consent?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top