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

[Cathoholic]

Victoria33.

It sounds like something that party might support.

Mark Dice use to have a video where he would approach leftists. Ask them their principles of sexual morality.

Then after they expounded it, asked the leftists about incest.

Surprisingly they admitted that they thought that it was OK! (And there ya have it!)

Dices interview video with the leftists was up for a long time
but as the election approached, YouTube censored it.

Incest Embraced by Liberals as Sexual Diversity - ‘Nothing Wrong With It’ Say SJWs

I did a search for it but it was all linked to Youtube’s censored link (like this one was) . . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But it raised eyebrows that’s for sure (like here) . . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

.

It MAY show up on Dice’s Bitchute channel in the future.

Mark Dice

But bitchute’s search function is poor.

I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if Youtube even allows it back up (sexual deviancy doesn’t seem to be the kind thing Youtube cares too much about. But they DO CARE about manipulating you and I) . . . . (but only) AFTER the election.

It was unreal how they SUPPORTED incest (as long as they were “consenting adults” most of them would say.)

So this kind of sexual deviancy by them can be of no surprise anymore.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t think there is a tendency towards people supporting paedophilia. If anything the opposite is true, and the domain of childhood is being extended to people in their late teens and maybe even early 20s. On Twitter recently there was a lot of drama over liberals saying that it would be inappropriate for someone in their 30s to date someone in their early 20s. You can see this taking place in universities particularly, where new arrivals (who are 18 at the youngest) are coddled extensively and treated as children.

I do agree that more and more people are willing to accept incest, but to believe this is just a gradual process of “degeneracy” becoming more and more accepted is to misunderstand the actual tendency developing here. Paedophiles attempted to gain legitimacy during the sexual revolution of the 1960s, marching with the homosexuals, and they failed. Nowadays children are older and more protected than ever, so I think they missed their chance.

 

[signit]

And now that we’ve heard the scare stories and misinformation, let’s look at the facts:

article

Sex With A Minor Remains Illegal, In All Cases, Under SB 145

Some of the claims on social media say the bill protects rapists or lessens penalties for statutory rape. That’s not the case.

Nothing in the legislation would change penalties for statutory rape, which prosecutors in California can charge as either a misdemeanor or felony. It is illegal under current law for any adult to have any type of sex with a minor and that remains illegal under SB 145.

Also, the bill does not apply to any sex offenders convicted of forcible rape.

The legislation is supported by the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault and by law enforcement groups such as the California Police Chiefs Association and the California District Attorney’s Association.

Claim About A 21-Year-Old Having Sex With An 11-Year-Old

The second part of the Facebook post that we fact-checked claims, “Now a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old, and not be listed on the sex registry as a sex offender.” That’s also wrong.

SB 145 only applies to young people ages 14, 15, 16 or 17 and any offender within a 10 year age range. “The vast, vast majority of cases where a judge may decide NOT to put someone on the registry will be cases where the age range is close,” the bill’s fact sheet estimates. “At the end of the day, a judge will have full discretion to place someone on the registry, and a prosecutor can seek it.”

. . .

A widely-shared Facebook post claimed California had legalized “pedophilia,” and that “Now a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old, and not be listed on the sex registry as a sex offender.”

That post and many like it are simply wrong.

They grossly distort the proposals in state SB 145, which aims to eliminate a disparity in how LGBTQ young people are treated on California’s sex offender registry.

The legislation would eliminate automatic sex offender registration for young adults who are convicted of having voluntary anal or oral sex with a minor and are within 10 years of age of the victim. Instead, a judge would make that decision, just as existing law allows judges to decide whether to place offenders in cases involving vaginal intercourse on the registry.

The bill would not, in any fashion, make it legal for any adult to have any type of sex with a minor. The only change involves giving a judge discretion over whether to list an offender on the sex registry for certain sex acts.

 

[Cathoholic]

signit attempting to give “fact” based reassurance concerning the sexual deviants and their harm of sodomizing children in California and new more sexually permissive legislation (now the mandatory sexual predator listing will be made optional based upon a judges whim) . . .

.

let’s look at the facts . .

Sex With A Minor Remains Illegal, In All Cases, Under SB 145

Fact:

Under this new legislation, 24 year-olds can now sodomize 14 year old children, and may be exempt from being a registered sex-offender, whereas before that was not the case.

.

signit . . .

Also, the bill does not apply to any sex offenders convicted of forcible rape.

Fact: You are missing the point.
ALL such sodomizing minors etc. is in a sense “forcible” due to the immaturity of the children they are
carrying out their sexual deviancy and predation against.

.

Signit . . . .

Nothing in the legislation would change penalties for statutory rape, which prosecutors in California can charge as either a misdemeanor or felony.

That is the fallacy of equivocation. The problem remains that they are now potentially exempted from being placed on a sex-offender registry (at a judges discretion) freer to inflict MORE HARM upon MORE CHILDREN.

.

signit attempting to reassure readers here, by “estimating” California will stick to (its own bizarre) sexual norms. We can now trust the judiciary signit thinks
(or for that matter we could conceivably now trust the California legislature to not make this sexual-deviant-favoring law even MORE RELAXED in the future).

signit . . .

the bill’s fact sheet estimates. . . .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Ha ha.

 

[Cathoholic]

Regular_Atheist . . .

I don’t think there is a tendency towards people supporting paedophilia.

Thank you for that tidbit Regular_Atheist.

I am now very reassured.

 

[signit]

Quick response:

Under this new legislation, 24 year-olds can now sodomize 14 year old children, and may be exempt from being a registered sex-offender, whereas before that was not the case.

For maybe the seventh time, this is misleading. They still can’t do it; it would still be a crime subject to punishment.

The registration as a sex offender is just one part of the punishment.

Also, the bill does not apply to any sex offenders convicted of forcible rape.
Fact: You are missing the point.
ALL such sodomizing minors etc. is in a sense “forcible” due to the immaturity of the children they are
carrying out their sexual deviancy and predation against.

No.

“Forcible” and “nonconsensual” are slightly different.

All such activity with minors is deemed to be nonconsensual, and as such would continue to be illegal and subject to punishment.

As bad as “nonconsensual” is, “forcible” is even worse and would still be subject to going on the registry for life.

That is the fallacy of equivocation. The problem remains that they are now potentially exempted from being placed on a sex-offender registry (at a judges discretion) freer to inflict MORE HARM upon MORE CHILDREN.

It’s possible that one 18-year old gay man who does something with a 16-year-old might, after his fine and imprisonment, have a greater opportunity to commit a similar act as a 50-year-old because he’s not on the registry and his neighbors aren’t warned about him.

But, as I said in an earlier post, under some circumstances people should get a second chance.

To be consistent, maybe you think that if Ron does something with Susan on prom night when he’s 18, it should stay with him until he’s 60 or 80 years old and prevent him from getting a job or an apartment? I don’t, necessarily, and I’d apply the same to gays.

Ha ha.

What do they do now, with opposite-sex offenders?

Are the cases where they put the offender on the registry almost always the cases where there’s a big age difference (like ages 24 and 14)?

If so, I’d think they’d do the same with gays.

 

[Cathoholic]

signit on sexual predators . . .

They still can’t do it; it would still be a crime subject to punishment.

What are you serious?

The sexual deviants DO do this despite laws against sodomizing children.

Now there will just be one less legal ramification against the sodomizer if a judges whim OK’s it.
Before that was not the case. Now it is.

.

What do they do now, with opposite-sex offenders?

This is NOT a good reason to support laxing laws against homosexual predators signit.
This is a good opportunity to tighten laws against heterosexual predators.

(Didn’t you read my post on that?)

. . . . “Pediatricians (ACPeds) . . . demanding that lawmakers strengthen existing laws instead of weakening them.”​

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

Also, the bill does not apply to any sex offenders convicted of forcible rape.
Fact: You are missing the point.
ALL such sodomizing minors etc. is in a sense “forcible” due to the immaturity of the children they are
carrying out their sexual deviancy and predation against.

signit . . .

No.

“Forcible” and “nonconsensual” are slightly different.

You are missing the point then.

Would you make that distinction with a sexual deviant against a three year old too?
Hopefully not.

Well if you carry out the psychological immaturity of a child, you have at least some of the same issues.

So the distinction may be true, but that does not mean the consequences of being placed on a sexual offender registry should not.

Look. I think there are better causes for you to get behind signit than easing up punishment
(going from mandatory placing these sexual offenders on a registry
vrs. the new approach, that is,
optionally placing these sexual offenders on a registry)
against homosexuals sodomizing children.

NOT ONE of your arguments convinces me that we should ease up the penalties against sodomizing children (in this case, potentially REMOVING the requirement to be placed on a sexual offender registry list).

 

[_Ruby]

Fact:

Under this new legislation, 24 year-olds can now sodomize 14 year old children, and may be exempt from being a registered sex-offender, whereas before that was not the case.

But that was the case anyway for a heterosexual male sodomising a 14 year old girl before this legislation changed?

 

[signit]

Cathoholic:

Fact:

Under this new legislation, 24 year-olds can now sodomize 14 year old children, and may be exempt from being a registered sex-offender, whereas before that was not the case.

But that was the case anyway for a heterosexual male sodomising a 14 year old girl before this legislation changed?

Yes, before the legislation changed, a heterosexual male “sodomising” a 14-year-old girl may or may not be exempt from being a registered offender, but with the asterisk that in practice, with that kind of an age difference the prosecutor would seek that the offender be put on the registry and the judge would do it.

And I personally agree that a 10-year age difference might be too much.

That’s the whole point of the legislation, that the previous law discriminated against LGBT. If you have an 18-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl who are a high school dating couple, I get it, it’s “wrong,” but the offender didn’t get his name on a registry of “predators” for life. Whereas if it were an LGBT situation. he would. And there’s something about a 60-year-old man being put on a registry for life for something he did when he was 18 when he’s no threat to anyone.

 

[_Ruby]

Yes that was my understanding of the issue too. The outrage over ‘allowing sodomy’ of minors seems rather silly when the current rules already ‘allow’ for it if you are heterosexual.

I personally don’t get the 10 year allowance thing, but I am from the U.K. where the age of consent is a hard line. Once you are 16 here, you can have sex with anyone older than you are, so that is a legal background I am used to.

 

[signit]

Yes that was my understanding of the issue too. The outrage over ‘allowing sodomy’ of minors seems rather silly when the current rules already ‘allow’ for it if you are heterosexual.

And, as I said earlier in the thread, the rules didn’t “allow” it before in either case and don’t now after the change. That was just scare stories and misinformation.

 

[_Ruby]

Yes, I meant ‘allow’ in the sense that for heterosexuals some element of judicial discretion could be given rather than the automatic sex registration homosexuals would have.

I agree that it should be made equally applicable

 

[Cathoholic]

signit . . .

a heterosexual male “sodomising” a 14-year-old girl may or may not be exempt . . .

That was my whole point here (and here) . . .

. . . . “Pediatricians (ACPeds) . . . demanding that lawmakers strengthen existing laws instead of weakening them.”​

Close that heterosexual sexual predator loophole.

Don’t open another loophole (which is what this does) for homosexual and bisexual predators.

 

[Cathoholic]

_Ruby

I agree that it should be made equally applicable

OK. Make it “equally applicable”.

Put all three groups of sexual-deviant child predators (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual) on the sexual predator registry (or whatever they want to call it).

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Do you think that 18 year olds should be put on the sex offender registry for sleeping with 17 year olds?

Even outside of morality it’s just inconvenient because it means you’re going to create a load of young people who have no job prospects and need to be constantly policed, for very little reason.

 

[signit]

OK. Make it “equally applicable”.

Put all three groups of sexual-deviant child predators (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual) on the sexual predator registry (or whatever they want to call it).

Okay . . .

Do you think that 18 year olds should be put on the sex offender registry for sleeping with 17 year olds?

Even outside of morality it’s just inconvenient because it means you’re going to create a load of young people who have no job prospects and need to be constantly policed, for very little reason.

Great, that was my whole point.

I never said in this thread that I support “predators” or that I want them to do it or don’t think they should be punished. I just don’t think, in every case, they they should be punished for life.

And I’d suggest that the 18-year-old with a 17-year-old victim isn’t a “predator” in the same sense as some others. What he did was wrong and he should be punished, but he’s still attracted to women/girls about his own age; you can’t conclude from that that someday he’ll be a 50-year-old looking for teenage girls.

Now, if you believe that an 18-year-old with a 17-year-old victim should be put on a predators’ list for life, regardless of the circumstances, that’s fine, and we can agree to disagree on that part of it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And I’d suggest that the 18-year-old with a 17-year-old victim isn’t a “predator” in the same sense as some others. What he did was wrong and he should be punished, but he’s still attracted to women/girls about his own age; you can’t conclude from that that someday he’ll be a 50-year-old looking for teenage girls.

May be worth considering that that 17-18 year old couple could have also at some time been a 17-17 year old couple.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Put all three groups of sexual-deviant child predators (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual) on the sexual predator registry (or whatever they want to call it).

So 18 year old guy has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, he goes on the sex offender registry for life? No discretion for the judge?

I mean, if that’s what you believe, fine. At least it’s consistent. But it seems crazy for me to believe that person belongs on the same list with 40 year olds molesting six year olds.

 

[Cathoholic]

RolandThompsonGunner . . .

So 18 year old guy has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, he goes on the sex offender registry for life?

You could ask the same thing about jail time.

What were the laws BEFORE this new modification?

Do we want to be serious about stopping sexual predation against our children?