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

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...
Doesnt follow. Firstly rape in law is by a man, the scenario doesnt specify the sex of the 15 year olds.
And the point is how can someone who cant consent be raped then? Rape by definition mrans they havent given consent.
 
Not necessarily.

Not if two minors and even if it is they would have to prosecute. They can always opt out of prosecuting.

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.

Prove it and what offence?
Good grief! Are you really so naive that you think that no offence has been committed if you are not prosecuted?
 
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.
So if not both, for what reason could one end up on the sex offenders register ?
 
Gaslighter sez^^^^


When I exposed atheists for false hoods, the odds of them lying about my credentials or accusing me of lying go up over 800%.
The odds of anyone lying about your medical credentials are zero, since nobody is dumb enough to claim that you have any.
 
Good grief! Are you really so naive that you think that no offence has been committed if you are not prosecuted?
If they are under both under age and cant give consent how is it an offense?

Why is sex under 16 a criminal offense? What is the reason?
 
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?
If a fifteen-year-old-raped a nineteen-year-old, the former would be charged.
I don't see why that should change if the latter were also fifteen years old.
 
Good grief! Are you really so naive that you think that no offence has been committed if you are not prosecuted?
Not exactly what i wrote. I did not write no offence committed. I did write.

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.

The murder of unarmed 5'2" 110 lb Ashli Babbitt was, in effect, legal. Even if there were armed cops in front and behind. They even shielded the killer for seven months on an Air Force base. Prosecutors do not have to enforce. They can decline for political reasons and in this case the murder of Babbitt was legal because Ashli Babbitt was a Trump supporter. Babbitt, a threat to no one, was shot to death without warning. The killer, Michael Bird was portrayed as both a hero and a victim.
 
I’m trying to understand the logic. How can a person who is not mature enough to even be able to consent to sex be held responsible for……having sex? What sense does that make?
"Not mature enough for sex" =/= "not mature enough to understand that it is a crime for them to have sex".
 
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...

I am still struggling with the logic here (obviously!). If a person isn’t mature enough (i.e., their brains aren’t developed, their emotions aren’t developed, etc.) to even be able to consent to sex, what makes us think that they are mature enough to be held accountable for….having sex? Two 15 year olds having “consensual” sex…I mean, to the 15 year old, the partner is like, heck yeah, let’s do this…and this 15 year old is supposed to be mature enough to be able to say, uh no, we can’t do this because you’re not mature enough to make that call (neither am I, by the way). Seems to me anyone who can actually think that out is plenty mature enough to say YES to sex.

Remember, we aren’t talking about a 15 year old raping a 14 year old who is saying NO, DON’T DO THIS. We’re talking about two young teenagers engaging in consensual sex - even though neither is mature enough to actually consent.

Convince me that this isn’t bizarre “logic”.
 
"Not mature enough for sex" =/= "not mature enough to understand that it is a crime for them to have sex".

As I just posted to someone else…any 15 year old who can fully understand the implications of having sex, and why that might be criminal, and therefor is mature enough to back off and NOT have sex even when their 15 year old partner is raring to go, is someone mature enough to actually consent to having sex. How can it be otherwise?
 
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.

Yeah, I mean, I think you guys are smarter than me because to me (as I’ve just said in my previous two posts above), any 14 or 15 year old that’s mature enough to sift through all this and say no to another 14 or 15 year old, when both of them are dying to have sex with each other, because he understands that neither of them is mature enough to consent to sex and therefore it’s a crime….is someone mature enough to say YES to sex. This is someone mature enough to handle that kind of decision-making.

But whatever, it’s ok that I’m confused on this. I just don’t see the logic in it is all. But it’s really a long sidebar to the main topic in this thread. We can leave this here; I’ll just bask in my own confusion. LOL
 
Not exactly what i wrote. I did not write no offence committed. I did write.

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.

The murder of unarmed 5'2" 110 lb Ashli Babbitt was, in effect, legal. Even if there were armed cops in front and behind. They even shielded the killer for seven months on an Air Force base. Prosecutors do not have to enforce. They can decline for political reasons and in this case the murder of Babbitt was legal because Ashli Babbitt was a Trump supporter. Babbitt, a threat to no one, was shot to death without warning. The killer, Michael Bird was portrayed as both a hero and a victim.
You people need to stop defending Ashli Babbitt, the violent traitor, who was shot in the act of attacking elected officials during what has up to this point been the American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.

It’s like you don’t realize you are the bad guys.
 
If a fifteen-year-old-raped a nineteen-year-old, the former would be charged.
I don't see why that should change if the latter were also fifteen years old.

Even little children can understand that if someone says NO, you don’t do the thing you were going to do. It’s MUCH tougher to navigate a the “wrongness” of a situation when someone is asking you to do the thing that you also want to do.

So the two scenarios are different in that the 15 year old can only rape a 19 year old if the 19 year old was not consenting. So the 15 year old would have to be forcing something on the 19 year old against their will. But two 15 year olds both wanting to have sex with each other, both “consenting”…how is a 15 year old WHO IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH TO CONSENT TO SEX supposed to be mature enough to understand that the 15 year old that wants to have sex with them isn’t really mature enough to consent, and therefore having voluntary (on both parties) sex actually constitutes rape?

It’s WAY more high-level thinking and moral understanding, and anyone who can accurately sift through THAT and choose, against everything their raging hormones are telling them to do - especially when the other 15 year old is wanting the very thing YOU are wanting - to say NO to sex…. that person is mature enough to say YES to sex, don’t you think? Logically speaking, anyway. (Not talking about legally)
 
Yeah, I mean, I think you guys are smarter than me because to me (as I’ve just said in my previous two posts above), any 14 or 15 year old that’s mature enough to sift through all this and say no to another 14 or 15 year old, when both of them are dying to have sex with each other, because he understands that neither of them is mature enough to consent to sex and therefore it’s a crime….is someone mature enough to say YES to sex. This is someone mature enough to handle that kind of decision-making.

But whatever, it’s ok that I’m confused on this. I just don’t see the logic in it is all. But it’s really a long sidebar to the main topic in this thread. We can leave this here; I’ll just bask in my own confusion. LOL
Wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. They don't have to know anything about the laws on sex, though of they attend school they will do, or indeed they will get the gist from their mates. A fourteen year old can be charged with rape. Sex with someone under sixteen is rape QED. The age of the offender is irrelevant, as long as they can be shown to understand right from wrong.

Whether two such individuals are actually prosecuted is another matter, but there's no doubt that offences have been committed. It's likely that one or both would be added to the sex offenders register, whatever other action is taken.

I admit that I have difficulty understanding your confusion it's possible that the law is more confused where you live. It seems pretty obvious to me, and to those fourteen year olds who I used to teach. As you say, probably best left there. I have already been dragged into another irrelevant Babbitt hole, by someone more confused than you.
 
Wrong. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. They don't have to know anything about the laws on sex, though of they attend school they will do, or indeed they will get the gist from their mates. A fourteen year old can be charged with rape. Sex with someone under sixteen is rape QED. The age of the offender is irrelevant, as long as they can be shown to understand right from wrong.

I agree that you can be charged with a crime even if you’re unaware you did anything wrong. I have gotten a speeding ticket even when I thought I wasn’t speeding. So I’m not talking about the law here. I’m talking about MATURITY here.

So technically, if two 15 year olds have consensual sex, the law says that both of them are actually raping each other.

Now if that is true, shouldn’t THAT be a huge part of our sex ed curriculum? I mean, hey high school kiddo…if you have sex with your classmate….you’re actually RAPING them, even if they want to have sex with you. And you technically COULD be put in jail for rape, because you’re actually committing a crime.

Why isn’t THAT in our sex ed curriculum? Maybe that’s a question for vibise, since she is all in favor of sex ed, yet I’ve never ever ever ever seen her mention this piece of it. Seems like a prettttttttty big piece.

Whether two such individuals are actually prosecuted is another matter, but there's no doubt that offences have been committed. It's likely that one or both would be added to the sex offenders register, whatever other action is taken.

I admit that I have difficulty understanding your confusion it's possible that the law is more confused where you live. It seems pretty obvious to me, and to those fourteen year olds who I used to teach. As you say, probably best left there. I have already been dragged into another irrelevant Babbitt hole, by someone more confused than you.

LOL have fun with that. I don’t know anything about that subject and am happy to not participate in that.
 
I agree that you can be charged with a crime even if you’re unaware you did anything wrong. I have gotten a speeding ticket even when I thought I wasn’t speeding. So I’m not talking about the law here. I’m talking about MATURITY here.

So technically, if two 15 year olds have consensual sex, the law says that both of them are actually raping each other.

Now if that is true, shouldn’t THAT be a huge part of our sex ed curriculum? I mean, hey high school kiddo…if you have sex with your classmate….you’re actually RAPING them, even if they want to have sex with you. And you technically COULD be put in jail for rape, because you’re actually committing a crime.

Why isn’t THAT in our sex ed curriculum? Maybe that’s a question for vibise, since she is all in favor of sex ed, yet I’ve never ever ever ever seen her mention this piece of it. Seems like a prettttttttty big piece.



LOL have fun with that. I don’t know anything about that subject and am happy to not participate in that.
They are mature enough to know right from wrong. I would also argue that they are mature enough to know that sex at a young age is wrong, and why it is wrong, even if they are too young to consent. The legal line is arbitrary. Doubtless there are fifteen year olds mature enough to make the judgement, and nineteen year olds who are not. Do, if you remove the legal dimension, you also remove the conundrum...It is part of the sex ed curriculum. It's an excellent intro into maturity and not being pressured into having sex before you personally feel ready.
 
They are mature enough to know right from wrong. I would also argue that they are mature enough to know that sex at a young age is wrong, and why it is wrong, even if they are too young to consent. The legal line is arbitrary. Doubtless there are fifteen year olds mature enough to make the judgement, and nineteen year olds who are not. Do, if you remove the legal dimension, you also remove the conundrum...It is part of the sex ed curriculum. It's an excellent intro into maturity and not being pressured into having sex before you personally feel ready.

I would argue that a 15 year old that is taught by the school’s education system about sex and how to use protection if they’re going to engage in sex, without any of the “OMG you’re actually committing RAPE” stuff or any of the moral stuff (in the US advocates of sex education generally don’t want morality to come into the conversation, because “omg whose morality will we teach? - just read any comments by vibise on this), is going to have a hard time believing he’s doing something wrong when his cute 15 year old girlfriend is asking him to have sex with her and the two of them go at it. If he knows about the law (which in this country is not likely), he’s likely to think that’s just a stupid law, and of COURSE he isn’t doing anything wrong by having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

And I’d argue that any 15 year old capable of working out all that stuff and concluding that it’s morally wrong for him to have sex with an equally willing 15 year old partner…is personally mature enough to consent to sex. You can’t be personally mature enough to go through all that and say no if you’re not ALSO personally mature enough to say yes.
 
I would argue that a 15 year old that is taught by the school’s education system about sex and how to use protection if they’re going to engage in sex, without any of the “OMG you’re actually committing RAPE” stuff or any of the moral stuff (in the US advocates of sex education generally don’t want morality to come into the conversation, because “omg whose morality will we teach? - just read any comments by vibise on this), is going to have a hard time believing he’s doing something wrong when his cute 15 year old girlfriend is asking him to have sex with her and the two of them go at it. If he knows about the law (which in this country is not likely), he’s likely to think that’s just a stupid law, and of COURSE he isn’t doing anything wrong by having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.

And I’d argue that any 15 year old capable of working out all that stuff and concluding that it’s morally wrong for him to have sex with an equally willing 15 year old partner…is personally mature enough to consent to sex. You can’t be personally mature enough to go through all that and say no if you’re not ALSO personally mature enough to say yes.
So what? What are you proposing? Lowering the age of consent to ten? Making it dependent on some of kind of maturity test? What changes, if any should be made?

I would argue by the way, that any fifteen year old having sex is probably too immature to do so responsibly. They will have ignored all the guidance on relationships, respect contraception etc. They will be pressured into the act by peers wanting video evidence that virginity has been lost. It certainly won't be part of a lasting and sincerely loving relationship. But then, my fifteenth birthday is a long time ago, and I've probably forgotten how mature teens are, though I do know how mature they think they are.
 
Back
Top