California Legislature Passes Bill That Will Soften Penalty For LGBT Adults Who Have Sex With Underage Teens

[RolandThompsonGunner]

No it is not another ball of wax, age of consent is the issue.

It’s not the issue in the article you posted or the proposed law being discussed. It’s just not. If you want to talk about age of consent laws in general knock yourself out. Multiple people have tried to explain this to you but you seem determined to misunderstand.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

No it is not another ball of wax, age of consent is the issue.

It’s not the issue in the article you posted or the proposed law being discussed. It’s just not. If you want to talk about age of consent laws in general knock yourself out. Multiple people have tried to explain this to you but you seem determined to misunderstand.

It is an issue. The laws for age of consent vary by state

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/statutory-rape-guide-state-laws-and-reporting-requirements-summary-current-state-laws/sexual-intercourse-minors

This new laws that California has passed does nothing to address the real issue and that is girls. This idea that a male who is 24 can “date” a 14 year old girl has to be address. The law does not only apply to homosexual relationships, it applies to heterosexual relationships and what is acceptable.

It is morally wrong to allow a 24 year old male to 'date" a 14 year old girl.

Why would California even allow such a thing? I guess I was unaware how liberal the laws have become.

This new law just add more to the confusion. It is more moral decline. As I said there was a great deal of outrage over 26 year old priests with underage minors but I guess by the standards of this new law that would have been fine.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

It is an issue. The laws for age of consent vary by state

I know. What does that have to do with what we’re talking about?

It is morally wrong to allow a 24 year old male to 'date" a 14 year old girl.

No one is arguing it’s morally okay. It’s against the law and no one is trying to change that.

I gotta bow out of this one. You’re just misunderstanding the law on a very basic level.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

It is an issue. The laws for age of consent vary by state

I know. What does that have to do with what we’re talking about?

If the issue is that there is concern for males who are put on a sexual offenders list because they are 19 and with a 16 year old girls, then it does become something people have to look at. What is the age of consent?

gam197:

t is morally wrong to allow a 24 year old male to 'date" a 14 year old girl.

No one is arguing it’s morally okay. It’s against the law and no one is trying to change that.

I gotta bow out of this one. You’re just misunderstanding the law on a very basic level

If you are not arguing it is morally ok, then what it is the argument? If the original law is corrupt and allows a 24-year-old male to date a 14-year-old girl, we now need a new law that makes it ok for the male homosexual relationship as well .

This is the law.

Th> e bill — SB 145 — was introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D), an openly gay man, and seeks to prevent gay adults who *************l sex with underage teenagers from being automatically assigned to California’s sex offender registry.

The legislation calls for a judge to use discretion on assigning an individual to the sex offender registry if their victim was between the ages of 14 to 17 and the age difference between the offender and the victim is less than 10 years.

I would argue that this law should not be passed. No equal but morally wrong laws.

 

[gam197]

Here is another article.

Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.

State Senator Scott Wiener, who presented the bill, said the existing law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse."

19 Black families buy 96 acres to create ‘safe haven’

So if the male is not listed on the sexual offender’s list in the case of heterosexual acts, what happens to the male, is he prosecuted to the full extent of the law or not? I have yet to read anything about this in the news article. Maybe that would help clear up misinformation.

 

[signit]

Here is another article.

Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.

The proposal:

SB 145

The proposed legislation pertains exclusively to placement on the sex offender registry.

It doesn’t mean the offender wouldn’t face any other penalty.

And, by the way, in California placement on the registry is permanent.

 

[gam197]

The proposal:

SB 145

The proposed legislation pertains exclusively to placement on the sex offender registry.

It doesn’t mean the offender wouldn’t face any other penalty.

And, by the way, in California placement on the registry is permanent.

Yes I understand that but still we need information on what happened to the hetosexual male in a relationship with an underage girl. Are they prosecured to the fullest extent of the law for such conduct? We are now asked to base a new law on an older law that may or may not be corrupt. We are not given any details on what the old law allows.

Are 24 year old men in prison for “dating” 14 years old girls or not. Remember this is a judges decision. According to state law these male offenders should be in prison. They may not be placed on a permanent sex offender’s list but should get jail time. Are they then felons?

 

[signit]

Yes I understand that but still we need information on what happened to the hetosexual male in a relationship with an underage girl. Are they prosecured to the fullest extent of the law for such conduct? We are now asked to base a new law on an older law that may or may not be corrupt. We are not given any details on what the old law allows.

Are 24 year old men in prison for “dating” 14 years old girls or not. Remember this is a judges decision. According to state law these male offenders should be in prison. They may not be placed on a permanent sex offender’s list but should get jail time. Are they then felons?

article

According to the article, it’s a crime, and whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony depends on the ages of the people involved.

The California Penal Code states when it’s a misdemeanor or a felony, and what the penalties are:

California Penal Code

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No an 18 year old girl should leave a 13 year old boy alone .

Then, thus far, it appears that there has been no disagreement that the sexes of the participants in such interactions isn’t of much relevance.

If you are not arguing it is morally ok, then what it is the argument?

I’ve got to agree with @RolandThompsonGunner. It appears that you don’t understand the law that was updated here on a foundational level.

 

[gam197]

article

According to the article, it’s a crime, and whether it’s a misdemeanor or a felony depends on the ages of the people involved.

The California Penal Code states when it’s a misdemeanor or a felony, and what the penalties are:

California Penal Code

So it is a crime but really we get little information on what the crime and penalties are. How many are in prison for this crime. Usually on crimes, we have some numbers and I have yet to see any on this crime so that would be helpful.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

No an 18 year old girl should leave a 13 year old boy alone .

Then, thus far, it appears that there has been no disagreement that the sexes of the participants in such interactions isn’t of much relevance.

Well we do not have much information on the heterosexual population. This new bill is in reference to the heterosexual population so we need more info on the level of this crime by gender and how these offenders are punished.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

If you are not arguing it is morally ok, then what it is the argument?

I’ve got to agree with @RolandThompsonGunner. It appears that you don’t understand the law that was updated here on a foundational level.

We never looked at the foundation level law to begin with. We have no clue as what that law was, when it changed and how the offenders are being prosecuted. We need more news articles with this information.We need statistics on the heterosexual crime for both genders.

Laws and changed to laws affect us all and our children.

 

[Feanor2]

Rubee:

I feel at this point you don’t understand the point I’m raising. First of all, why are you bringing up 13 year olds? This law does not apply to them. Only minors starting age 14 and up. Secondly, this is not about abortion. It’s about sex with minors. Thirdly, this law does not say these people will not be punished. So I don’t know why you make your points as if it says they would be let off easy: They would still be tried for statutory rape. That does not mean they should all be branded sexual predators at such a young age.

It says 14 to 17 so a 14 year old pregnant girl, is that any better? When is the last time any male has been tried for statutory rape? Really when. Abortion clinics are filled with 14 year old girls and you do not see a problem with that.

This legislation has nothing to do with abortion. Why do you keep brining it up?

 

[gam197]

gam197:

Rubee:

I feel at this point you don’t understand the point I’m raising. First of all, why are you bringing up 13 year olds? This law does not apply to them. Only minors starting age 14 and up. Secondly, this is not about abortion. It’s about sex with minors. Thirdly, this law does not say these people will not be punished. So I don’t know why you make your points as if it says they would be let off easy: They would still be tried for statutory rape. That does not mean they should all be branded sexual predators at such a young age.

It says 14 to 17 so a 14 year old pregnant girl, is that any better? When is the last time any male has been tried for statutory rape? Really when. Abortion clinics are filled with 14 year old girls and you do not see a problem with that.

This legislation has nothing to do with abortion. Why do you keep brining it up?

This new law does not but the foundation law for heterosexual certainly entails some responsibility.

According to article…

Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.

 

[Cathoholic]

ThinkingSapien . . .

Call me biased, but when a thread is started with a Breitbart story, I expect such relevant nuance to be missing.

Ok. I will call you biased too.

There is no reference to or from “Breitbart” here . . . That is until you invented it.

.

RolandThompsonGunner to @gam197 . . .

Not surprisingly, Breitbart misled you into thinking this was something it wasn’t.

Actually RolandThompsonGunner, “Breitbart” is not the one doing the “misleading”.

And gam197 is not misled.

 

[Cathoholic]

Feanor2 to @gam197 . . .

This legislation has nothing to do with abortion. Why do you keep brining it up?

Probably because the abortion issue, puts this issue of sexual perverts and miscreants going after children in an undeniable light (yet it still gets denied out in society at least to the extent that it is and the problem that it is).

I can’t speak for gam197 but here seems to be the reason explicitly stated.

. . . older males have been taking young girls for abortion.

 

[signit]

Actually RolandThompsonGunner, “Breitbart” is not the one doing the “misleading”.

And gam197 is not misled.

Okay, “the Blaze,” not Breitbart.

But the original article isn’t misleading?

original article

The headline says “Will Soften Penalties For LGBT Adults Who . . . .”

Someone reading it quickly could conclude that the bill would eliminate penalties, or condone it or legalize it in some way.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Actually RolandThompsonGunner, “Breitbart” is not the one doing the “misleading”.

And gam197 is not misled.

You’re right, I misread Blaze as Breitbart.

And @gam197 is clearly confused about a lot of things here, and misunderstands the proposed law on a fundamental level. Or just wants to talk about something else entirely, I can’t quite tell.

Either way, I and several other people have tried to explain it like four times and it’s just not getting through.

 

[ksb1020]

Remember when they only “just wanted to be able to marry like anyone else”?

Slippery slope is real

 

[gam197]

And @gam197 is clearly confused about a lot of things here, and misunderstands the proposed law on a fundamental level. Or just wants to talk about something else entirely, I can’t quite tell.

Either way, I and several other people have tried to explain it like four times and it’s just not getting through.

I know it pertains to the sexual offender list and whether a gay man gets a permenant listing or not. It is based on the law for male/female relations. No, people don’t want to even address the issue (law)because they themselves do not care about girls in general.

Let’s question what is being done, what penalties for older males in general and then we can better understand the law. If the worse thing that these men get is a time on a sex offenders list, that does not seem appropriate.

Under current law, while it is illegal for an adult to have consensual sex with a teenager between 14 and 17 years old, who cannot legally give consent, vaginal intercourse between the two does not require the offender to be listed on the state’s sex offender registry, as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor. Instead, the judge has the discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether the sex offender registration is warranted.