Allow sex at 13, says lawyer, and end 'witch-hunt’ of old men
- Thread starter zone
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Please can you quote me where I said that Paedophile rings are no big deal.
If you read my posts properly you will see that I stated lowering the age of consent is no big deal and explained at length as to why. Lowering age of consent will not mean that a 14 year old is now open to abuse, far from it, as I previously mentioned, there are plenty of laws which will protect the 14 year old and with which to bring abusers to justice.
If you read my posts properly you will see that I stated lowering the age of consent is no big deal and explained at length as to why. Lowering age of consent will not mean that a 14 year old is now open to abuse, far from it, as I previously mentioned, there are plenty of laws which will protect the 14 year old and with which to bring abusers to justice.
A
kids shouldn't be having sex at 13 or 14.
if they can't support the baby they could possible make, they shouldn't be having sex.
Old men should not be having sex with young girls and teachers should not be having sex and marrying their students.
Its a perverted and twisted world where you think its ok and want others to accept it as ok as well.
in times past most people didn't live to be 40 so marrying young made sense in that society. that has changed and marriage should be for life and not rushed into before the people can even learn how to support themselves.
if they can't support the baby they could possible make, they shouldn't be having sex.
Old men should not be having sex with young girls and teachers should not be having sex and marrying their students.
Its a perverted and twisted world where you think its ok and want others to accept it as ok as well.
in times past most people didn't live to be 40 so marrying young made sense in that society. that has changed and marriage should be for life and not rushed into before the people can even learn how to support themselves.
Lowering age of consent does not give Paedos legal access to abuse, that is a myth and unfounded.
Just for the record, we incorrectly use the word PAEDOPHILE as a generic word to mean anyone who has commited a sex crime against someone under the age of consent. Paedophiles are people who go for pre-pubecent kids, where as a lot of these celebrities being looked at have done things to older teenagers, the term we use for that is Ephebophilia.
What you have to remember, is that up until the early 70s, 14 year olds left school and home and got jobs, of course this is where a lot of the problems started and what is being investigated.
Even if the age of consent was 13 back then, we would still have all these arrests taking place, as the females invovled obviously did not give consent anyway, which also makes a mockery of the Lawyers comments, in some cases there are females making complaints of historic sex abuse which they experienced as adults.
It is clear there are plenty of laws in place , at least in UK there are, which would protect teenagers from abuse, If I sexually abused a 19 year old, I would still be arrested if she made a complaint, just as a 14 year old would if age of consent was 13.
There are a number of laws which protect young and vunerable still in place as well, so even if an abuser and victim claim they consent, authorities can still step in and remove that person as being "at risk", regardless of age of consent.
AS I pointed out this, is not a very well thought out statement from an individual, for reasons which should now be obvious if you have really read all my posts through and applied a less of knee jerk reaction and more of a logical analysis of the whole thing. THis are comments of an individual not thinking things through properly, yet everyone treats it as its law and has happened, so put your pitchfork away, calm down and sleep peacfully.
Just for the record, we incorrectly use the word PAEDOPHILE as a generic word to mean anyone who has commited a sex crime against someone under the age of consent. Paedophiles are people who go for pre-pubecent kids, where as a lot of these celebrities being looked at have done things to older teenagers, the term we use for that is Ephebophilia.
What you have to remember, is that up until the early 70s, 14 year olds left school and home and got jobs, of course this is where a lot of the problems started and what is being investigated.
Even if the age of consent was 13 back then, we would still have all these arrests taking place, as the females invovled obviously did not give consent anyway, which also makes a mockery of the Lawyers comments, in some cases there are females making complaints of historic sex abuse which they experienced as adults.
It is clear there are plenty of laws in place , at least in UK there are, which would protect teenagers from abuse, If I sexually abused a 19 year old, I would still be arrested if she made a complaint, just as a 14 year old would if age of consent was 13.
There are a number of laws which protect young and vunerable still in place as well, so even if an abuser and victim claim they consent, authorities can still step in and remove that person as being "at risk", regardless of age of consent.
AS I pointed out this, is not a very well thought out statement from an individual, for reasons which should now be obvious if you have really read all my posts through and applied a less of knee jerk reaction and more of a logical analysis of the whole thing. THis are comments of an individual not thinking things through properly, yet everyone treats it as its law and has happened, so put your pitchfork away, calm down and sleep peacfully.
Why does this surprise anyone?
It has been an ~agenda~ for forty years of the homosexuals.
From theThe 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay
Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
STATE LEVEL - Item #7
Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
It has been an ~agenda~ for forty years of the homosexuals.
From theThe 1972 Gay Rights Platform Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay
Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972
STATE LEVEL - Item #7
Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
A
most raped victims are too ashamed and scared to complain about abuse, especially if it is done by an older man who is related to them.
lowering the age of consent is like telling kids its OK to have sex when it is NOT.
if they don't have jobs (which most 13 or 14 year olds DO NOT any more) then they should NOT be having sex and possibly making babies they do not have the means and resources and MATURITY to raise.
OLDER MEN or WOMEN marrying young children is WRONG because most 13-14 have not matured enough to know what they want in life concerning sex and marriage. they are being manipulated and taken advantage of. most will not get a higher education or pursue their dreams but will be abused and controlled by their elder "spouses"
if protecting our young people is a "knee jerk" reaction, then don't come too close because i'm likely to kick. \
calm down and sleep peacefully when people are trying to make it ok for them to manipulate 13 year olds into having sex with them?
its perverted and perverse.
especially since some girls haven't even had their periods yet at that age.
lowering the age of consent is like telling kids its OK to have sex when it is NOT.
if they don't have jobs (which most 13 or 14 year olds DO NOT any more) then they should NOT be having sex and possibly making babies they do not have the means and resources and MATURITY to raise.
OLDER MEN or WOMEN marrying young children is WRONG because most 13-14 have not matured enough to know what they want in life concerning sex and marriage. they are being manipulated and taken advantage of. most will not get a higher education or pursue their dreams but will be abused and controlled by their elder "spouses"
if protecting our young people is a "knee jerk" reaction, then don't come too close because i'm likely to kick. \
calm down and sleep peacefully when people are trying to make it ok for them to manipulate 13 year olds into having sex with them?
its perverted and perverse.
especially since some girls haven't even had their periods yet at that age.
if you think a 13 or 14 or even an 18 year old has the ability to make good decisions; or to say no...don't know what to say.
for every one that comes forward there are a million who don't - why? they think they are responsible, because Uncle So-and-So was nice and said this and that...then said don't tell.
so Uncle So-and-So's word at the end of the day is what will matter - "it was consentual"...and the Law says that's okay.
also, even though she was NINE she told me she was 13...ad nauseum.
this thread isn't about people falsely accusing people of rape or anything else.
i don't care about the fine line distinction you make.
..........
it's about filthy old perverts who apparently need a personal visit from the neighborhood fathers...and an escort to the border (like it used to be).
...since some other old perverts are apparently holding the gavel checking for Mason-in-Distress signals.
i have a daughter (thankfully grown now).
i have had to make such a visit myself - after getting no help from the local Popo....being warned by them, in fact, not to take the "Law" into my own hands.....YA RIGHT!
for every one that comes forward there are a million who don't - why? they think they are responsible, because Uncle So-and-So was nice and said this and that...then said don't tell.
so Uncle So-and-So's word at the end of the day is what will matter - "it was consentual"...and the Law says that's okay.
also, even though she was NINE she told me she was 13...ad nauseum.
this thread isn't about people falsely accusing people of rape or anything else.
i don't care about the fine line distinction you make.
..........
it's about filthy old perverts who apparently need a personal visit from the neighborhood fathers...and an escort to the border (like it used to be).
...since some other old perverts are apparently holding the gavel checking for Mason-in-Distress signals.
i have a daughter (thankfully grown now).
i have had to make such a visit myself - after getting no help from the local Popo....being warned by them, in fact, not to take the "Law" into my own hands.....YA RIGHT!
By Rob Bleaney
Oxford paedophile ring: Seven guilty of sexually exploiting girls as young as 11
14 May 2013 18:57
The vulnerable schoolgirls were plucked from the streets and care homes to be drugged, raped and sold into prostitution
The admissions of failure from the authorities came as it became apparent that police missed several chances to catch gang members before they were finally arrested.
Oxford paedophile ring: Seven guilty of sexually exploiting girls as young as 11 - Mirror Online < click
same old same old.
more surveillance stuff than anywhere on the planet, but no....they can't get these guys.
missed several chances? what does that mean?
Oxford paedophile ring: Seven guilty of sexually exploiting girls as young as 11
14 May 2013 18:57
The vulnerable schoolgirls were plucked from the streets and care homes to be drugged, raped and sold into prostitution
The admissions of failure from the authorities came as it became apparent that police missed several chances to catch gang members before they were finally arrested.
Oxford paedophile ring: Seven guilty of sexually exploiting girls as young as 11 - Mirror Online < click
same old same old.
more surveillance stuff than anywhere on the planet, but no....they can't get these guys.
missed several chances? what does that mean?
F
I think the lawyer who put forward this proposal is hopelessly out of touch with public opinion and this is an agenda which will run into the sand. The exploitation of children by unscrupulous sexual predators is repugnant to the overwhelming majority of the population. People quite rightly see no connection between this issue and equality for gay couples.
Age of consent manifestations (UK) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click
they're not going anywhere.
they're not going anywhere.