California Passes Pro Pedophile Bill.

Or a ten YO with a 19 YO....sick as hell.

 

In the progressive mind, they're just "playing around".

(Remember: extreme sexual liberation, free sex with no consequences, can just abort any inconvenient pregnancy away...)


That being said, I'm willing to recognise that "true love" might exist in 1% of these cases. Of course, rules should not necessarily be based on rare exceptions.

 

What a damn sickness, the world is going insane. Revelations are coming to pass. Religious or not.

 

Don't forget Whoopi Goldberg defending Roman Polanski, on live TV on The View.

Might give a little insight into what goes on inside Hollywood.

 

That doesn’t apply at all.

 

That is the law now.

 

10 year difference?

Ya, that's reasonable /s

 

Anyone who seeks to defend, excuse or minimize this, do me a favor and dont speak to me anymore.

 

Stop lying about it.

 

I've noticed a repeat pattern in the past. They'll deny deny deny, until gradually but surely it becomes normalized.

At which point they'll respond with "So what?"

This covers multiple political/social issues over the decades.

 

I guess I will actually use the "ignore" function for the first time ever.

 

I've observed in past threads that many of them will raise far more of an objection to a 12-year-old getting married than to a 12-year-old having casual sex.

As if the former is shockingly barbaric, but the latter "isn't really so bad".

 

The "slippery slope" more than just gun issues. It's a sick mentality. #Progressive issues

 

This would not prevent that predator from going on the sex offender registry. That would Even be the default result. The judge would have the discretion not to place that person on the registry. Discretion.

As I understand it, that discretion already exists if that same male had vaginal sex with a 14 year old.

 

Here is The Progressive fawning over NAMBLA advocate Harry Hay:


https://progressive.org/magazine/meet-pioneer-gay-rights-harry-hay/

Notice anything missing in good ole Harry's bio there? Yes, they deliberately leave out the fact that NAMBLA was a charter member of the ILGA, and good ole Harry was their best friend in the 'Movement'; so yes, the 'slippery slope' argument is a valid one. Salon has run several pedo-friendly articles in its magazine, and like abortion for the crime of 'Inconvenience', that slope is now being stretched out to allow the killing of two year old babies; it's 'science n stuff' after all. Sexual deviancy and neo-paganism resemble left wing obsessions with mass murders as solutions' to problems go together very well, since both are based in materialist psychoses.

 

Apparently this is called the 'Roy Moore law', so GOPers should be fine with it.

 

If the only way you can discuss a bill is to lie about it... you might want to reevaluate your reasoning. (Not saying you are but numerous on this thread definitely are misrepresenting the bill)

This bill does not blanket allow a 23 year old and a 13 year old — it allows judges to not automatically register people as sex offenders for consensual sex as currently there is no variance in CA law.
Two 17 year olds go from consensual sex to committing a life altering felony the second one turns 18.

I agree that 10 years is too large of a number but again this isn’t a blanket ruling — it allows judges to rule the ages and circumstances.

 

in my state the legal age of consent was 14 until dems changed it to 16 with a 5 year buffer, meaning Republicans thought it was ok for a 14 year old to consent to a rich 80-year-old.... sick.... but at least the laws are changing - but I agree with you, 10 year is too big of a buffer

but I have to ask, why is there a sex offender registry, if these people are so dangerous they need to be on a list, why ever release them into the public in the first place?

 

yep, they believe Joseph and Mary did it, so they believe it's their Christian right to do it

"Alabama state official defends Roy Moore, citing Joseph and Mary: ‘They became parents of Jesus’"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...joseph-and-mary-they-became-parents-of-jesus/

 

exactly, that was the way it was in my state growing up, but I am glad to see the laws closing that gap

 

.....that would be America.

Children as young as 10 get married in America, and if you think this is all down to 'outside' cultures then you are lying to yourself. In fact, this is disproportionately a phenomonon of the rural 'heartland'. Children have been getting married in America (usually to adults) since before America existed. Sadly laws in many states are still stuck in the past.

 

No. It would still be illegal. It would just make it the judge's option if it put you on the registry.

 

NO THEY SHOULDN'T
now lets take away your spin (so obvious and sad) and ask the REAL question
1) Should an 23 year old girl who has vaginally sex with a 13 year old boy be automatically placed on the sex registry for life?
2) Should an 23 year old girl who performs oral sex on a 13 year old boy be automatically placed on the sex registry for life?

 

Good. Because right now the girl in scenario 2 would be automatically put on the sex registry. SB 145 would make that the judge's discretion, just like scenario 1.

Yes and yes. And SB145 doesn't change that. Both will be placed on the sex registry automatically.

Thank you for replying. As you see, you were deceived by the OP and this ridiculous thread. There is a reason why the OP broke the rules and never used a news article and just posted his ill informed opinion to post to the wrong forum.