10 Aug 23
@averagejoe1 said17 year olds are not children and the law is different for vaginal sex i.e. the law is much harsher on adults who give blowjobs to 17 year olds than to adults who impregnate 17 year olds.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/03/california-legislature-passes-bill-reduce-penalties-oral-anal-sex-willing-children/
This just makes the law consistent.
10 Aug 23
@AverageJoe1
Ah, so whatever fault you see in that law means ALL democrats are perverse. Got it.
@averagejoe1 saidYou disgusting creature toying with the horror of child sexual abuse to score a non existent point.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/03/california-legislature-passes-bill-reduce-penalties-oral-anal-sex-willing-children/
If you actually have grandchildren I hope the parents have the sense to keep them away from you and your twisted toxicity.
That being said I hope willing does not include destitute and trafficked youngsters being preyed upon by older folks
10 Aug 23
@kevcvs57 saidHahaha
You disgusting creature toying with the horror of child sexual abuse to score a non existent point.
If you actually have grandchildren I hope the parents have the sense to keep them away from you and your twisted toxicity.
That being said I hope willing does not include destitute and trafficked youngsters being preyed upon by older folks
Your comments exemplify your failure as a debater.
I didn’t say anything.
10 Aug 23
From the link:
"if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim."
That's an important caveat. So it's not going let some 30 yr old get a reduced sentenced.
That said, I don't actually agree with this law. Maybe if it was within 5 years of the child's age, but 10? I don't see why.
@vivify saidJust for the record, I did not read past the headline, I don't know anything except that your 'kind' is now doing anal sex crap and it is getting into the news. I don't know what it said, I just wanted to alert the Forum of the nature of the people we debate with.
From the link:
"if the sex offender is within ten years of the age of the victim."
That's an important caveat. So it's not going let some 30 yr old get a reduced sentenced.
That said, I don't actually agree with this law. Maybe if it was within 5 years of the child's age, but 10? I don't see why.
Seems it like it worked, you fellers defend it.....whatever it is.
"If the sex offender is within 10 years........" Jesus Vivify. You and Shav roomates?
No more comment from me, said my piece.
@averagejoe1 saidOf course not. This, among many other reasons, is why you are severely ignorant.
Just for the record, I did not read past the headline
The law was changed because it was originally made to unfairly punish homosexuals for the crime. It does not equally punish heterosexuals who also have sex with a minor.
That law, according to the statements in your link, was written back when conservatives had control of California. Your "kind" made penalties harsher for gay sex with minors but were more lenient on heteros committing the same crime.
In other words: your "kind" didn't want to punish heterosexual men as harshly for being pedophiles. Your conservative "kind" as always, are hypocrites.
10 Aug 23
@vivify saidThe natural law has been the same for, lets say, 250 years. We all know what is good, and what is bad. Privacy matters are fine. We all agree.
The right solution would've been to simply make vaginal sex with minors also require registration as a sex offender. That would've made much more sense rather than lessening the punishment.
But anything that goes outside of that..?...which needs discussion, is not natural, and put me in the column of people who are astounded that this is a subject of discussion. Would you be comfortable discussing it with a Catholic Nun? No, you would not. So, it it is not naturally discussable, then it is not natural. Some of you are not what I consider natural, like certain Forum profanity, so you go right ahead with making this a deal, any deal at all.
There is no 'this' as far as I am concerned. really sucks. Just more lib crap. Everything just hang out. There is no longer dignity and integrity. I am right about that.
10 Aug 23
@kevcvs57 saidLOL what a tosser 😆
You disgusting creature toying with the horror of child sexual abuse to score a non existent point.
If you actually have grandchildren I hope the parents have the sense to keep them away from you and your twisted toxicity.
That being said I hope willing does not include destitute and trafficked youngsters being preyed upon by older folks
10 Aug 23
@AverageJoe1 said - Jesus Vivify. You and Shav roomates?
-----------------------
🙂 you got me in stitches today, man lol
@earl-of-trumps saidIt is like I said earlier, I do this for entertainment. Note how I seem amazed that Marauder seems no more than a bot, which is EXACTLY 180 degrees from me. So yeah, it is like watching a cartoon. Note that he has NEVER made a clever humorous leaning comment. He is a bot. I would seriously like to read something from him from the heart. You will not see it. I am sure he is a nice fellow, he just relies on poor,, incomplete information.
@AverageJoe1 said - Jesus Vivify. You and Shav roomates?
-----------------------
🙂 you got me in stitches today, man lol
We will subpoena Biden's bank records, which was done against Trump when they siced the hyenas on him. Tit for tat. We will prevail, we will have those records. If he is innocent, why won't he be transparent. Trump did it, then Biden should do it.
Ask Marauder what he thinks about this. Why does he pretend to be all in favor of the obvious? Really strange.
11 Aug 23
@averagejoe1 saidAnything, and I mean ANYthing, to keep the focus away from Trump's indictments. When's he going to jail? I'd like to show up just to laugh in his fat orange face.
It is like I said earlier, I do this for entertainment. Note how I seem amazed that Marauder seems no more than a bot, which is EXACTLY 180 degrees from me. So yeah, it is like watching a cartoon. Note that he has NEVER made a clever humorous leaning comment. He is a bot. I would seriously like to read something from him from the heart. You will not see it. I am sur ...[text shortened]... what he thinks about this. Why does he pretend to be all in favor of the obvious? Really strange.