Are people born gay or do they choose to be gay?

Temujin said:
Then what you "know" is wrong. Sex with a minor is always a sex offence. It may not be in the public interest to prosecute, but that's another side of the decision. Anyone who has sex with someone underage commits an offence, as long as they are over the age of criminal responsibility, which is 14 in my country. Don't know about yours.
Click to expand...

This is interesting. So if two 15 year olds have sex, who is the criminal and who is the victim?
 
Eightcrackers said:
They are both criminals, and both victims.

Weird as it sounds - it's like asking who is the criminal and who is the victim of a gangland shootout.
Click to expand...

But I mean it’s interesting right… if a 15 year old isn’t mature enough to consent to sex, how can they be mature enough to be held responsible for having sex with a fellow 15 year old? Wouldn’t it mean they weren’t mature enough to consent to the (by definition) non consensual sex?
 
Crazy Ivan said:
But I mean it’s interesting right… if a 15 year old isn’t mature enough to consent to sex, how can they be mature enough to be held responsible for having sex with a fellow 15 year old? Wouldn’t it mean they weren’t mature enough to consent to the (by definition) non consensual sex?
Click to expand...
The alternative would be to do nothing - which I don't consider preferable - but the idea of charging both of them with statutory rape is certainly counter-intuitive.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
This is interesting. So if two 15 year olds have sex, who is the criminal and who is the victim?
Click to expand...
Either or both could end on the sex offenders register. It would depend on the discretion of the police and prosecution. Again, it depends on the particular circumstances.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
But I mean it’s interesting right… if a 15 year old isn’t mature enough to consent to sex, how can they be mature enough to be held responsible for having sex with a fellow 15 year old? Wouldn’t it mean they weren’t mature enough to consent to the (by definition) non consensual sex?
Click to expand...
Because ,duh, the age of criminal responsibility, that's the age by which a person is considered to know right from wrong and act accordingly, is less that the age of consent.
 
Eightcrackers said:
The alternative would be to do nothing - which I don't consider preferable - but the idea of charging both of them with statutory rape is certainly counter-intuitive.
Click to expand...

I’m not asking what to DO. I’m asking another logic question. How can a person who cannot consent to sex be held accountable for having sex with someone who cannot consent to sex?
 
Temujin said:
Then what you "know" is wrong.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
Temujin said:
Sex with a minor is always a sex offence.
Click to expand...
Not if two minors and even if it is they would have to prosecute. They can always opt out of prosecuting.
Temujin said:
It may not be in the public interest to prosecute, but that's another side of the decision.
Click to expand...
If they do not enforce then it is legal for all practical purposes. There are plenty of laws that are not enforced. Like gun laws etc.
Temujin said:
Anyone who has sex with someone underage commits an offence
Click to expand...
Prove it and what offence?
Temujin said:
,
Click to expand...
 
Crazy Ivan said:
I’m not asking what to DO. I’m asking another logic question. How can a person who cannot consent to sex be held accountable for having sex with someone who cannot consent to sex?
Click to expand...
That's apples to oranges; just because a person can't be mature enough to consent to sex doesn't mean they can't be mature enough to rape someone.

Yes, I understand you're exploring the logic of this scenario - but the two aren't analogous. Both involve "consent", but the former doesn't involve a crime on the part of the consentee-in-question; the latter does. The issue is NOT whether people are old enough to consent to crime...
 
Temujin said:
Then what you "know" is wrong. Sex with a minor is always a sex offence. It may not be in the public interest to prosecute, but that's another side of the decision. Anyone who has sex with someone underage commits an offence, as long as they are over the age of criminal responsibility, which is 14 in my country. Don't know about yours.
Click to expand...
Yes but we see more lgbt and transactivists who dont agree with that.
 
Temujin said:
Because ,duh, the age of criminal responsibility, that's the age by which a person is considered to know right from wrong and act accordingly, is less that the age of consent.
Click to expand...
But the example is where neither are mature enough to consent to illegal sex.
The law cant deal with that
 
Crazy Ivan said:
LOL that makes NO sense.
Click to expand...
The protagonists are say fourteen. They are above the age of criminal consent, which means that they legally know right from wrong and can be prosecuted if they commit a crime. They don't have to know why an act is criminal, just that criminal acts are wrong. Having sex with someone under 16 is criminal. Therefore, they know that they are committing a criminal act and that this is wrong. Having committed the crime, they are liable to prosecution. Having committed a sex offence, they will be added to the sex offenders register. The fact that they themselves are under 16 is completely irrelevant to the fact of criminality, though obviously it would be a major factor in mitigation.
There are a small number of ten year olds who have been prosecuted for rape. It's a simple fact that the age of the offender is defined by the age of criminal responsibility. It's the age of the victim that is defined by the age of consent. Try using your much vaunted logic and you will work it out.
Take a different example, a schizophrenic who kills a stranger. They are not let off because they don't know what they are doing. Their sentence will reflect their mental health condition, but they are still guilty.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top