That's as twisted as someone saying you support murdering millions of preborn children and burning people in hell to suffer for all eternity. Though re the second item it may be the truth, since you chickened out of answering that. And re the first item, you do allow for murder in certain cases. Hmmmm, usually premeditated murder is considered a worse crime than CONSENTUAL "rape", so perhaps you need to get a handle on what you are defending first, and your hypocrisy, before slandering and trying [but failing miserably] to judge others.
The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
What does believing that God will judge the wicked in hell have to do with approving of statutory rape? Your logic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Have you ever taken a basic high school class in debate, rhetoric or argumentation? As you make NO sense.
It's like this. The person supports both of the following:
A. So-called "statutory rape" of a consenting 13 year old teen female hurts her terribly. There are no exceptions. So it' an extremely horrible thing that has been done to her.
B. Billions of humans will suffer in hell's tortures for ever and ever. So they too will be hurt, although the hurt they experience will never end.
So those in item B will obviously be hurt infinitely times more than the above [spoken of in item A].
This shows [1] first of all that it is false that the "two have absolutely nothing to do with one another" and [2] exactly how, in at least one aspect, they are clearly connected.
To use another comparison, it's like a guy opposing a slap on the hand, but supporting the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church's Inquisitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
oops.....my bad
Please accept my apologies to both you and your pal
Your calling me Dim bulb. Who the f are you.
You keep putting words in my mouth, I never defended Sandusky I just won't Judge him. And damn right I support Michael. I'll say it again you dumb ass if you rape young boys it's gonna be proven. Michael was accuitted of being a pedophile. Many of his sucessful associates stood by him. Your a closed minded bitch you don't think its possible that Michael could refrain himself from little boys.
You probably know from experience because I guarantee we all know your a sick hippocrit.
Enter Barman. This tool is as ignorant as one can be. How did this chick ever become a MOD I don't know. We just witnessed first hand what she is all about. Creating fake quotes from posters and responding to them is about as bush as one can get. This broad got shit-canned from her job here and she still keeps coming back. Talk about not reading the writing on the wall.
These same knuckleheads that take issue with teenage girls having consensual sex with older dudes take the opposite stance against older women that fuck teenage boys. They say these boys are lucky and are actually educated from the experience. This makes no sense. It is common knowledge that girls develop and mature faster than boys. Our auto insurance companies even support the fact that females mature faster. That is why a male aged 16-25 pays more for auto insurance than a female aged 16-25.
I am sure if the age of consent across the board was lowered to a post-pubescent age legions of men would be filling up those Twilight: Breaking Dawn theater lines looking to get a little action.
Bottom line in our country to keep the population down we create an age of consent law to a high number while in China they can fuck at age 14 but they have a one child policy.
I am sure if the age of consent across the board was lowered to a post-pubescent age legions of men would be filling up those Twilight: Breaking Dawn theater lines looking to get a little action.
Bottom line in our country to keep the population down we create an age of consent law to a high number while in China they can fuck at age 14 but they have a one child policy.
I still don't understand why a female maturing faster makes it ok for a 19-year-old to rape a 13-year-old. Does the law state somewhere it's not rape because she looks mature for her age?
I'll have to dust off some state statutes to see if I can find that in there. Until then, can you provide some more details so the authorities know the exact circumstances of what took place?
It doesn't. But, then, Romeo didn't rape Juliet, did he? They loved each other and it was consentual. BTW, i'm assuming he was 19.
What i don't understand is why you are still here while 1.5 million babies are murdered yearly in the USA.
The law of what country? At what time of history? Is it rape if it's consentual?
Does the law matter when babies are being murdered in abortuaries in your community? Is the law always right?
Good luck with that, cause you're going to need a ton of it. By the time this thread is done, hosnatcher will never be bothered by you stalkers again, as he'll only need to link to this discussion and let people form their own opinions.
What i find extremely amusing here is that a "minor" of 13-14 years is classified in the same category as people who are retards and vegetables:
"The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states."
Also the notion that 13-14 year old teens males and females are "incapable of consenting to sex" is equally hilarious and frankly, quite insulting.
" The theory of statutory rape is that the girl is incapable of giving consent, although marriage with a parent's consent is possible in many states at ages as low as 14...Increasingly statutory rape is not charged when there is clear consent by the female, particularly when the girl will not cooperate in a prosecution. Controversy continues over what constitutes "resistance" or "consent,"..."
So Uncle Sam says it's not ok to fuck her, but if you marry her it's ok to sleep with her every night, screw her every day, do it without a condom, and make babies/impregnate her. LOL
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statutory+Rape
This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard in here.
So, if someone believes that God has the right to punish someone in hell, ergo
they can't disapprove of anyone else hurting anyone else in any way, because
that hurt pales in comparison to hell.
You could use the same idiotic argument to say that we can't punish murderers
and pedophiles either. Heck using your argument, anyone who believes in hell
needs to just shut their mouth about Jerry Sandusky and his 40+ child rapes.
^<<^
hno:
