Thursday, May 23, 2013

Father claims 15 year old girl is capable of consent in Lesbian Rape Case

Father claims 15 year old girl from another family is capable of consent:

I'm beginning to really like the change in Florida's government.  First they stop handing out welfare checks to junkies.  Now they are treating Lesbians under the same rules as Heterosexuals, gasp, what a concept!  Don't sign this petition unless you are FOR statutory rape of younger girls by predatory lesbians.

How many 18 year old boys have been prosecuted for having sex with 16 year old women under "minors can't give consent"?    Special treatment for lesbians?  Please, no.

47 comments:

Bill S said...

Ted,

You're a true blue, dyed in the wool, bonified gay basher and hater. You actually enjoy seeing this girl's life ruined, don't you. It really shows a sinister dark side masquerading as religion.

Theodore Seeber said...

I thought you wanted *equality* for gays, not *special rules* for gays. What this girl did is no different than an 18 year old boy convincing a 15 year old girl to have sex with him a year after they started dating.

I've been against this irrational definition of consent since I was a 15 year old myself, but as long as we have it, we can't go making exceptions for lesbians merely because they are lesbians.

For you to label that as hatred, just shows that it is YOU who have been drinking the heterophobic Kool Aid.

Theodore Seeber said...

Updated, I found a better link that explains the case in a less biased fashion.

Basically, the issue is this. If a heterosexual girl at age 15 can't consent, why can a lesbian girl at 15 consent?

Bill S said...

Your fascination with this case shows that you are definitely a hater. You don't care that this girl is being railroaded and that her life could be ruined. It really shows the ugly side of hardcore Catholics.

Theodore Seeber said...

"Fascination"? I've spent *one* throwaway blog posting on it that was originally generated with the "Blog This" Chrome plugin. I updated it because of YOUR posting a comment, otherwise I wouldn't have touched it again.

Interested- sure. I was once accused of statutory rape in similar circumstances, and in high school I was almost the victim of predatory gays (No need for cops in my case, a well placed groin shot did the trick).

It is ridiculous to claim on one hand that homosexuals need equality in civil unions with heterosexuals (as I still do- I want Oregon's current marriage laws to be changed to no state recognition of marriage at all, and civil unions open to everybody) and then turn around and demand that homosexuals need inequality in rape laws.

I would point out that if this girl was an 18 year old seminary student, you'd be screaming to high heaven to get him removed from seminary and sentenced to some deep dark dungeon (as would I).

Bill S said...

I was 19 and had a 15 year old girlfriend and it didn't seem like such a big deal. I didn't even know it was illegal at the time. I guess if that's the law, then it does have to be applied equally to all. Seems like a harsh law, though.

Theodore Seeber said...

It is possible in your state it was not; age of consent laws vary from 12 to 17 for girls and 15 to 21 for boys, with marriage license. Without, it is 13 to 18 for girls, and 16 to 21 for boys.

In my state, this is considered child abuse, and I have many heterosexual friends who ran afoul of it and are now lifelong registered sex offenders because of it. Only boys can be charged in Oregon however, the law does not recognize female aggression heterosexual or homosexual.

My generation was warned. I remember, at age 16, a school assembly on the topic. Did about as much good as those Church youth group lectures, sadly.

I have had many internet discussions on the topic since, including one who claimed he "pretty much lost interest" after age 18. I wish I could go back and show him a picture of my son's friend, who just celebrated her 11th birthday and is more developed physically than most 17 year olds I know.

There is a reason girls under the age of 18 are called "jailbait" in porn circles. The interesting part of this case, which I would celebrate, is treating homosexuals equally under the law. I do not believe I have heard of any state doing so before.

Bill S said...

"The interesting part of this case, which I would celebrate, is treating homosexuals equally under the law."

Yes. This makes you happy. Try not to gloat.

Thanks for the legal information. It was probably legal in Massachusetts (what isn't).

Theodore Seeber said...

It should make you happy too. This young girl's life may be ruined, but it is a necessary step to federal equal treatment under marriage laws.

I thought you were against discrimination of gays. BTW, if I were you, I would find out what the laws are in your state now. Anderson Cooper has made a series of Dateline episodes entrapping older men on Statutory Rape laws by inviting them to come party with the teenagers over the Internet- usually getting them to come to a house where state troopers are waiting to arrest them.

There is such a thing as companion Romeo and Juliet Laws, but they are usually limited to a three month spread in age, not several years or several decades.

Theodore Seeber said...

Just looked it up, Mass. is wierd on this subject.

You may be a rapist because she was under 18, but only if she was "Chaste" before she met you. Apparently Massachusetts rape laws were written by the same idiots who write secular abstinence sex ed books- if a girl is not a virgin it is ok to rape her.

Bill S said...

" BTW, if I were you, I would find out what the laws are in your state now."

I don't need to be concerned about such matters. Just because I am an atheist that doesn't mean I lack morals. Yes, they happen to have been instilled in me by Catholics but I would probably have similar values had they not.

Bill S said...

I've never had sex with a "chaste" woman of any age. Blame it on the sexual revolution. Interesting law. I would think it would be very difficult to prosecute anyone in a consentual relationship. Non-consentual could still be enforced.

Theodore Seeber said...

I am going to put these two together with two other stories that came out recently, and call it The Sexual Revolution Jumps The Shark, and post it under my alter ego on slashdot, Marxist Hacker 42

Theodore Seeber said...

The Sexual Revolution Jumps the Shark in which comment box people try to convince me that gays haven't vandalized churches and that 15 year olds are emotionally mature and capable of consent.

Bill S said...

People vandalize churches because they are hoodlums. They deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. If they do it to get back at the Church for its opposition to gays they are not doing gays any favors. Gays should not be stereotyped because of it. Catholics don't need to look for reasons to hate gays. They believe in a god who cares about such matters. If their god is against homosexuality, then they have to be too. The fact that there is no such being would never cross their minds.

Theodore Seeber said...

The Catholic God is against homosexual *acts*, not homosexual *people*. We need to be *very strong* about making that distinction. The fact that these hoodlums attack Churches should NOT sway us away from supporting homosexuals where we can to the full extent of Church teaching- including running AIDS hospices, promoting Courage chapters, and working for the separation of Church and State in the area of marriage laws (Civil Unions for Heterosexuals!). I was once asked if I'd accept an openly homosexual man into the Knights of Columbus- and I said yes I would.

Bill S said...

It's good that you accept the person if not the act. But, what is really needed is for people to also accept the act and stop treating homosexuals as sinners who need our love. That is patronizing and condescending.

Theodore Seeber said...

I can no more accept violence against children because a homosexual does it than I can condone violence because a consenting heterosexual couple wants to experiment with selling the woman into sex slavery. Consent is just an excuse.

Bill S said...

The word "violence" has no place in this conversation. There is nothing violent about lesbian lovemaking. You're just being an extremist.

Theodore Seeber said...

It has every place, there is plenty of violence in all non-procreative so-called "lovemaking". peer pressure alone is a form of violence, and can cause PTSD and other mental disorders.

Theodore Seeber said...

not to mention the violence of vandalism done against people they imagine are against them.

Bill S said...

"there is plenty of violence in all non-procreative so-called "lovemaking". "

Sure there is, Ted. Sure there is. Why don't you see if you can get pagansister to participate. She'd get a kick out of that statement.

Theodore Seeber said...

I did not even get that one from the Church, I got it from Andrea Dworkin, in her 1983 feminist study rejecting the sexual revolution as being no more than yet another way for the powerful to oppress the weak.

Bill S said...

For you to stereotype gays as violent vandals shows rampant bigotry and hate toward them.

Theodore Seeber said...

You sure are teaching me how to use Android Chrome today. I got this from a left wing feminist,Andrea Dworkin's 1983 book Right Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females, where she argued that the sexual revolution turned out to be more oppressive than traditional family life.

Theodore Seeber said...

Heterophobia is indeed an interesting disease, causing people to label tough love as hate and tolerance of destructive behavior as good.

Bill S said...

Heterophobia? I don't think so. You just don't believe in the benefits of living in a tolerant society.

Theodore Seeber said...

The "benefits" of living in a tolerant society are spreading STDs, encouraging rape and child abuse, and the genocide of 55 million.

Bill S said...

If you want an intolerant society then don't expect to be tolerated, yourself. Catholicism is one of the worldviews that is tolerated by others. The less Catholics tolerate others, the less they are going to be tolerated. I would think that you would want a tolerant society seeing that you yourself must be tolerated.

Theodore Seeber said...

What good has being tolerated done me? Wasted half my life going in the wrong direction, ended up borderline fertile because people did not want to tell me when I was doing wrong.

There is no love in a tolerant society, only entrapment.

Bill S said...

I don't think you understand the beauty of freedom. You seem to want to be controlled.

Theodore Seeber said...

Freedom is only beautiful when it is the freedom to do what is right. Freedom becomes a very ugly thing indeed when it becomes the license to do evil with no consequences. Toleration is withholding natural consequences for bad behavior.

Bill S said...

"Freedom is only beautiful when it is the freedom to do what is right."

And most people try to do what is right. Yes. Some people abuse freedom. But, overall, it is a wonderful thing and should be enjoyed not stifled.

Theodore Seeber said...

If there is no universal objective good, then the people can try all they like, all they will be able to achieve is evil. Like voting. 99% vote for "the lesser evil". How is good supposed to ever come out of a system where people deliberately choose evil?

Yes, they are free, but far more harm comes from the abuse of freedom than good. The homelessness caused by the freedom of the right to abuse through usury, the genocide caused by freedom on the left, is overwhelming. Let people be free, and both JP Morgan Chase and Kermit Gosnell become inevitable.

The last 40 years especially have proven that mankind is incapable of using freedom responsibly.

This is why I have grave doubts about going 4th degree, in a system guaranteed to produce evil no matter what we do, how can I be patriotic?

Bill S said...

"The last 40 years especially have proven that mankind is incapable of using freedom responsibly."

You really are seeing the glass as half empty. I am awed at how far the human race has advanced since I graduated from college. Overall, freedom has been a good thing, not a bad thing. Look at events like the Olympics and the Boston Marathon and how the forces of oppression can never overcome the human spirit.

And you would really enjoy the fourth degree. Without giving too much of it away, it has more to do with the contribution of Catholics to this country than how great this country is. I went to an exemplefication last weekend and I thought it was more for people like you than for me. It would be a good thing for you to commit to because it is all about this country needing to put God first. One nation under God.

Theodore Seeber said...

Maybe you are right that the 4th Degree is what I need. I keep saying- God Bless America, because it sure as shootin' ain't being blessed by anybody else.

I look at the Boston Marathon Bombing and the anger of the Islamic Fundamentalists against, well, the entire rest of the world as being *caused* by freedom. Hidden in their anger are very just causes- far too many European and American countries have tried to "liberate" the Middle East over the last 300 years; is it any wonder that they are a bit suspicious of our brand of freedom? The sad thing is that they seem to be as irrational as the vision of Allah that they worship- if your primary methodology is the suicide attack, then like Japan in 1943, you're going to quickly run out of competent soldiers. But nothing is more free than the Sola Jihad of the Muwahiddun- just one man and his vision of God, changing the world, or at least the families of everybody he can blow up.

Theodore Seeber said...

Ha!!! A discussion of this topic has come up in my year's reading of the Catechism:
http://www.catholiccrossreference.com/catechism/#!/search/1734-1737

Theodore Seeber said...

THAT version of freedom- one which includes the responsibility and duty to inform our consciences and do good- is one I can live with. The libertine free for all that I see on both the left (sexually) and the right (fiscally), I'm not sure I can live with.

But one nation under God, that's an interesting idea.

Bill S said...

"I look at the Boston Marathon Bombing and the anger of the Islamic Fundamentalists against, well, the entire rest of the world as being *caused* by freedom."

Yes. I believe you are right. They hate seeing us enjoy our lives while they live their delusion. But they have no chance of defeating us. Freedom will prevail.

The thing that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against is Freedom.

Theodore Seeber said...

You don't understand. They don't "hate our freedom", the old Republican trope. They hate what we have used our freedom to do: corrupt their governments, pay them a pittance for their oil, cause poverty and injustice in their lands, and since 1992, pollute their lands with dangerous depleted uranium dirty nuclear weapons.

Pope John Paul II warned W that invading Iraq was an unjust war that would just cause more violence. Invading Afghanistan has also been an unjust war.

I still think we could have done better skipping the invasions and dropping millions of MREs and propaganda instead. Kills nobody, feeds the hungry, and is more in keeping with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness- for all, not just for the elite.

Bill S said...

As an atheist observing the behavior of Muslims, I find it hard to feel bad about anything that happens to them. I lack compassion for religious fanatics and I find all Muslims, no matter how harmless they may be, to be religious fanatics. Now I am being a bigot.

Theodore Seeber said...

Oh, I don't feel too bad about them- I just acknowledge our own sin in their motivation.

You lack compassion for certain groups; due to the autism I lack empathy for everybody.

I was away today- our yearly trip up the Columbia Gorge to family gravesites in Hood River and Lyle.

Bill S said...

I have been learning more about this Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt case. I wonder if Rebecca will bring it up when she gets back to posting again. In terms of compassion, I am having a hard time mustering up any for her. She seems to welcome bring her case to the public square and doesn't even admit to doing anything wrong.

On one hand, I feel she should not be punished to such an extreme as the law calls for. On the other hand, I think she is being defiant and trying to be a test case. Why would she or her girlfriend tell anyone the details of what they did in the girls bathroom? Wouldn't she want to keep what was done in private private?

I think expulsion is a more appropriate punishment along with probation. Felony charges seem a bit extreme for two girls experimenting with sex.

Theodore Seeber said...

I would not want her to get any worse punishment than any other modern statutory rapist. Norm is registration as a sex offender and probation.

This generation is far more open about their experimenting than yours or mine, a consequence of the death of privacy is indeed the dramatization of private affairs.

Got a link? I have not been paying any attention to the case.

Bill S said...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3023148/posts

I couldn't find the TV12 news footage again. It's somewhere on Google.

I was ok with the offer for plea bargain that she turned down. She will likely benefit from the publicity.

Theodore Seeber said...

If an 18 year old BOY had cornered a 14 year old girl in a restroom stall, my argument would still be the same.

The Steubenville Rapists did deserve the full brunt of the law. They got off lightly. I don't see why Kate shouldn't be the same.

Bill S said...

She will probably get probation and be required to register which she will wear like a badge of honor. She is set for life. This will be the best thing that ever happened to her.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.