Underage Gay Sex Worse than Underage Straight Sex in Kansas - Until Now

Remove all ads!

The Kansas Supreme Court ruled today that a convicted sex offender be resentenced with a more lenient term.

The offender was 18 and performed an illegal sex act with a 14 year old boy. Kansas law has the consent age at 16, meaning it was illegal. The typical penalty for such a crime - if heterosexual in nature is 15 MONTHS. However, because it was homosexual in nature, the guy was sentenced to 17 YEARS.

You can read the whole thing here

 

The article I read was citing a "Romeo and Juliet" law that made the sentencing 15 months for normal sex. Who would have thought they needed to draft a "Romeo and Romeo" law.

The truly horrifying part of the entire case is that one of the participants is retarded and the other is only a little bit better. Not exactly the poster case for gay priviledges.

 

Kansas really is an embarrassing state. If you are from Kansas, I am sorry, but do try to speak some modernity into your neighbors. As a member of the rest of the nation, I must say our necks are getting tired from shaking our heads at you.

 

They DO realize we live in the year 2005, don't they ?

 

Why is year so relevant?

I believe gay sex is worse than hetero sex and also the extent of corruption of a minor is greater in a homosexual account of statutory rape than a heterosexual one, although 17 years seems quite extreme. In Poland, you couldn't get that for murder.

 

Eventually you will grow up Chev.

 

You couldn't get 17 years in Holland for frigging genocide (of course, a gross exaggeration, but underage thieves get a slap on the wrists while those who roughly apprehend them get a prison sentence )

The original sentence is way off chart, especially since the raper was retarded, what is the use of a prison sentence if the criminal doesn't completely understand what he did wrong?

I don't get this:
1. If this raper is to be made an example, why not publically execute him to make the full statement?
2. Rapers act on impulsive lust (I have not studied psychology, but I worked as a cleaner at a publisher and I always took some extra psychology magazines home, so correct me if I am wrong,), what the government will do to you is hardly a thing you consider just before doing the deed, and if you do consider it, the thought will get steamrolled over, especially if the is-to-be raper is a retard.

 

That is why you are the cleaner, and not the prosecutor.

 

First of all, it was consensual sex, and second of all, c'mon!, those hats with the tiny propellers are damn sexy!

 

Please remember that everything is worse in Kansas.

 

The fact that the victim was developmentally disabled, and that the offender was capable of knowing right from wrong may have lead to the difference in sentencing. Had that relationship been heterosexual, and the girl bein developmentally disabled, then they could have been justified in a more serious charge, and a stiffer penalty.

Was that really necessary? Just because we aren't fans of immorality doesn't mean that we are immature. Quite the opposite--it takes incredible restraint to refrain from flaming some people who say stupid stuff like that to the point where the mods throw us out!


[Good point. Thanks Gnarff, I missed that my first time through the thread. Someone else's morality does that does not equate to yours does not mean that they are more or less mature, just different. Let's all keep that in mind.] -dmc

[ October 22, 2005, 08:59: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Good point? I dont think so. And I absolutely resent your implying that people who are not anti-gay are, of course, fans of immorality! If that isnt an offensive post I dont know what is.

[I implied nothing of the sort. The point is that just because someone has a different morality than you does not mean that they are immature -- the "Chev, grow up" comment was aimed at Chev because he stated his beliefs as to the morality of homosexual sex. That I completely disagree with him does not mean that he is less mature than me or that I am less moral than him, especially considering that the relative morality of two people is rather difficult to rate as there is no absolute standard.] -dmc

Frankly, I prefer Pac man's blunt way to this underhanded fashion of insulting others any day. Talk about restraint and how I am "mature" enough to adhere to the forum rules.

[ October 22, 2005, 20:49: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Guys, easy there or we're going to start bickering over which one of us is the least mature.

Doesn't the gay lib movement rely on questioning or even negating morality as irrelevant in politics and people's liberties?

 

I am, and you all know it.

Short answer: NO.
Long answer: It questions prejudice, not morality. (Unless, of course, you think your religion has a monopoly on morals. )

 

It questions morality, calling it prejudice, then. It's very easy to call prejudice a moral norm that prohibits something you (or people you sympathise with) enjoy doing. Gay lib movement calls prejudice the norms that regard homosexual intercourse as aberration. Paedophiles oppose the age of consent norms. There are also zoophiles and necrophiles and fetishists and sadomasochists, all opposing morals they find inconvenient. Why should we consider the gay cause privileged over the remaining ones.?

 

Because it's not a matter of consent (usually). Children cannot give consent due to lack of understanding of ... just about everything, and animals and dead bodies cannot give consent due to the language barrier. But gay adults can.

In this very rare case of gay and underage, though, I think there ought to be a little bit extra time for the additional damage done to the child. An extra 1300% is a bit much, but 20% or more might be reasonable for the extra damage done to the child's sexual psyche.

 

Kids can materially give consent; age of consent is a legal construct based on the limitations of legal validity of a contract entered into by a minor. A minor can physically and mentally give consent to sex with an adult as much as with another minor and the premise of the statutory rape laws is that adults are expected to trick minors by default. Dead bodies can be given to others as sex toys in people's wills. Animals can be slaughtered, eaten, whatever, why not shagged -- a zoophile could ask.

Besides, if homosexual sexual cohabitation isn't bad, why not polygamy? Or groups of people of both genders all entering into one matrimony? Why the incest ban?

 

Again, kids do not understand what sex is, so any 'contract' would be nullified by them not understanding what exactly it is that they're agreeing to. Dead bodies given as sex toys, while sickening to you and me, would be perfectly fine. And as for owning animals, you'd have to speak to PETA.

Let's see, what's next...
Polygamy: whatever floats your boat
Group marriage: ever heard of orgies? (see Polygamy)
Incest: The sole exception because inbreeding has been proven to increase the chance of genetic defects.

 

Oh boy... If you start throwing around accusations that the liberal movement will sooner or later start advocating zoophilia, incest, polygamy etc. then I should probably accuse the religious right of rolling back the women's rights, reinstating the inquisition and slavery, cutting rights of black people etc. But I won't, because the notion is so completely absurd that I'm not sure if you even believe in it yourself or are you just trying to find a conveniet excuse to enforcing your moral and religious view on others.

The issue is gay sex, not zoophilia, not incest, not polygamy. If you wish to discuss those then go ahead and start a thread about it, the fact is though that none of those have such a wide support as gay marriage and very likely never will have. The fact is that quite a large part of the population is either homosexual or bisexual the amount of people interested in polygamy, zoophilia, incest etc. are a whole lot less. The entire point of democracy is satsifying the needs of its population, now you can't allways satisfy the needs of every existing group but if these groups are large enough they start having power in their claims and they need to be recognized by the democratic government or the government is ignoring its democratic responsibilities.

Now to the topic itself. I don't have enough information to make a judgement, needless to say the fact that heterosexual sex with a minor is better than homosexual sex is in my opinion travesty of justice and complete bs. Under normal circumstances when a 18 year old has sex with a 14 year old I'd say that it should not be criminal. Having it be criminal is just stupid. The young mature in a very different way and most girls have the full capability of having sex at the age of 14, in some boys the development might take a bit longer but if I don't remember it all incorrectly most boys should also be biologically mature at that point. Now the real question is about responsibility, which comes through education, which is why I think that at the age of 14 children should allready know the basics of sex and preventation so they know what they are doing.

Now there is the point of one or both of the boys being mildly retarded which could count a lot to make the sexual relationship criminal, but the article does not exactly say a lot about it so I can't really judge the case.