The issue is whether or not certain laws are justified. A woman is sentenced to over 20 years for having sex with a 17 year old. Prostitution is illegal but if I film the act and post it on the internet then it's OK. Only fifteen years ago the age of consent in Hawaii was 13.
Sure. Plenty of laws are stupid. Nobody's arguing against that. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be followed. There's a process through which laws are changed.
But the law is the law. Whatever it says is carved in stone and don't you dare think for yourself or question. Say that to the Same Sex marriage proponents.
I'm quite happy to debate whether the law should be different. But that doesn't change the fact that the law is what it currently is and that the boy in question could not legally consent.
It's sheep like you that allowed the goliathon government that wants to control literally every aspect of our lives to thrive.
That's a funny think to say to someone who's extremely libertarian.
The
Don't waste my time.
Dismissed.
I had pubes at 12 and would have agreed, i.e., consented (regardless of what the law says) to brutally bang my 6th grade teacher appropriately called a lay teacher because she taught at a Catholic school but wasn't a nun.
And, yes, I was perfectly able to make those decisions for myself at 12 just like the law now allows 11 year olds to get birth control pills and abortions without parental consent.
Let's assume that you, at 12, were able to consent because... well... pubes. What are you trying to suggest? That the law should decide consent based on whether one has pubes? Here's the simple fact: the crux of your argument is that "erection = consent" and that is bullshit. If someone has priapism does that mean that a woman can jump on and ride him with abandom and the sex is consensual? What about someone who is severely mentally retarded? What about chemically or artificially induced erections? What about someone who gets an erection while asleep? Are you
seriously suggesting that erection = consent?
