It's criminal because we think it's disgusting.
Cite? I can assure you "creepy" isn't mentioned anywhere in any child protection laws..
Just like you said, we charge children with adult crimes and we also have Juvenile court. Now, there is legitimacy in the "consent", but as I said, I'm talking about 15 year olds that are already sexually active, not 7 year olds. It would be hard to argue the "child card" with a sexually active 15 year old "not able to consent" with *** just like you would with stealing, fighting or killing.
This is like the friar blaming those slutty alter boys for seducing priests
. Just because a 15 year old is sexually active doesn't mean she's necessarily mature enough emotionally to consent to it. If she and/or her parents can, then I don't have an issue with it though.
I'm not arguing that there aren't 15 year olds that can't be taken advantage of but, I'm stating that this is 2012 where it's common for teenagers to have *** and give birth before graduation. We don't live in a society where *** is taboo anymore. It's open and it's everywhere and teenagers seek it just as much or even more (in some cases) than adults.
Awesome. Now why do you think it should be different if they are ***?
Once again, the ability to be with a white woman was very low on the totem pole. NO ONE CARES (figuratively). People were fighting for the right to vote, to legally be a person, not have substandard schooling, substandard housing, harassed by the police, etc.
The civil rights movement is not even remotely close to the "homosexual struggle". I'm not taking anything away from it, but don't try to compare the two, it's just plain wrong and insulting.
Let's look at Loving v Virginia
, where the Supreme Court struck down the miscegenation laws of the day. Here's why the judge found them guilty of it (because of the laws on the books)
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Religion being the justification, right? It's not a bigoted reason (although he could be using religion as an excuse, but that's purely speculation).
Can you tell me religion isn't the primary justification again *** marriage? We guarantee equal rights for all people, of all races, & sexes, yet are doing the same thing to homosexuals NOW that we did to african americans then. And even more similarly, the argument that since both partners (the black & the white partner), suffered the SAME consequences for intermarrying (before Loving v Virginia) therefore weren't in violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment is the SAME one anti-*** rights folks use to justify "one man one woman" (Gays are free to arry opposite *** partners so its equal protection! /sarcasm off)
You not liking the comparison because you are black & dislike gays is bigotry, dude.
Unless you can demonstrate how a sexual active teen is affected WORSE by an older person, due to their physical age and not a stereotypical personality, then there is no protection, but prejudice.
They're not effected "worse" if they're able to consent. If they aren't able to consent, the older man does more time because he is mature, knows its wrong to take advantage of a child, & chose to do it anyway. A slutty, sexually active 10 year old could throw herself at an 18 year old & I'd argue there's no way in **** she'd ever be emotionally able to consent, even if she was physically mature & "wanted it". The onus is on the 18 year old, being he is "mature" enough to make adult decisions & know right from wrong, to not take her up on it. If he decides to go through with it anyway, he his knowingly & willingly using his advantages as an adult to fu
ck a child. If she throws herself at another 10 year old, he's not mature enough to consent so he bears little responsibility for it.
If you assume that a grown adult hooking up with a teen is a "freak", "perv" or "sicko", simply due to their age difference, then you are indeed prejudging them.
I think those things are likely true,
Maybe yes, maybe no.
but the difference is that I'm man enough to admit to my prejudice.
If you were really man enough, you'd just admit to your homosexual prejudices & be done with it.
In reality, that adult could be the best partner that teen has ever been with.
Anythings possible, dude.