The only endorsements from the right and left for under age sex have been republican right

There is a misconception among some people that the democrats and then left endorse or support policies which undermine or violate the age restrictions the state's have on the age a person can give sexual consent. This simply is not true. The only are where the age of consent is challenged is with the radical religious community and supposed protections for underage sex as allowed by marriage or religion under the protection for religious practices. This does not often stand up in a court of law, but there are some areas where people are allowed to have children with girls under the age of consent as long as they are married. These ideas are found in the Christian and Muslim communities and perhaps even in the Abraham's faiths though I know of no Abraham's sects that allow for children to be considered married for the sake of legalizing reproductive intercourse.

When people point to the left on accepting under age sexual activity they refer to individuals who may have had relations with under age children against the law. The right cannot be said to endorse under age sex merely because some people on the right have been guilty of the behavior. They have to have a stated defense and positive endorsement of the practice as part of their political ideology.

Some may refer to Harvey milk who was in gay relations with a sixteen year old man as opposed to someone like Roy Moore who was engaged in sexual activities with a thirteen year old girl. Neither of them were convicted of crimes regarding under age sex, but both have admitted to relationships with people that age.

I must first point out there is a difference in attraction to a person of thirteen as opposed to a person of sixteen years. Children's n of the lower teens and below have not yet gained they lost puberty sexual development in full. The attraction to people of that age is the attraction to a child who has not yet fully reached puberty and has developed their adult sexual characteristics. A person attracted to people in herniated teens is attracted to a body that is physically adult though we may argue the mental capacity to consent has not yet been realized. So there is a difference in having relations with a sixteen year old and a thirteen year old. Sixteen year olds are on the border of legal consenting age. Below that is a perverse attraction to a underdeveloped human body which does not have adult sexual development. Arguably the damage done to a younger person who's body is not ready for sexual activity is physically abusive on top of mentally abusive. The case of sex with a developed teen is only arguably mentally abusive so already Roy Moore is most certainly more sexually perverse in his activities.

On top of that Harvey milk argued for the legalization and recognition of adult homosexual relationships. Though he may have an argument as to when a person becomes mentally able to consent by law, he never argued that age should be before puberty nor was he attracted to pre pubescent individuals. His arguments were for the expulsion of sodomy laws restricting sexual relations between adults of the same gender and did not include any relations with under age people. Like him then left and democrats recognize there should be an age of consent for sexual activity that is post puberty and no person under that age is able to give legal consent to sexual activity. There for there is no claim of mental condition that would give any adult the legal status to have sexual relationships with those under the age of consent even if that attraction were to be considered something you were born with and could not change like homosexuality or being transgender. Furthermore since we at no time say sexual relations between children who are under the age of consent is acceptable behavior, though we may punish children less for these offenses, it cannot be said then left ever endorses sexual activity with children even if they were to recognize someone had the mind of a child. If a person were adult in years but had the mind of a child they would have to be cared for and supervised as a child for their own protection and the law as per the left would remove their adult ability to consent as they would legally be incapable of the mental capacity to consent. So in no way ever does the left endorse these activities.

However, there is endorsement for sexual activity with pre pubescent teens by right wing candidates who have argued they were not wrong because marriage or the bible gave them religious permission for these activities. Roy Moore argued that in the case where he was sexually active with a thirteen year old girl that her parents were able to consent for her as her guardians and that it was religious practice. Furthermore he has contended that biblical law is the law of the land that he imposed as a judge and would impose as a representative of the state and republican party. The republican party and religious right wing organizations allowed Roy Moore to endorse these ideas under their banner without separating themselves from these ideas or removing their backing. The right has often embraced evangelical ideas which include marriage should make sexual relations with children deemed legally to young to consent to be appropriate as long as it is done as part of religious tradition or under a religious marriage.

 

Nonsense. No one on the Republican right defends sex with minors except those who have sex with minors. The same can't be said for those on the Democratic left, who will defend and whitewash their own no matter what their crimes.

Is it just me or did the sex scandals of old have more going for them than the sex scandals of today? These days we get Anthony Weiner sending text pics of his wiener, when in the old days, we had segregationist and party switcher Strom Thurmond admitting to fathering a child with a black woman. Now THAT's a sex scandal.

 

Ok, then explain Roy Moore. He had the endorsement of the republican party he explained his relations with a thirteen year old as being approved by her parents and religion, and he says he feels his religion is the law of the land. This is a view that has caused him to be removed from the bench twice. The second time he was elected back to the supreme court after they removed him because he felt Christian law was the law of the land. They ran him over and over knowing that is his view. That is the same view he used to tell us it was ok to have relations with a thirteen year old girl. That is as big an endorsement as you can get. Even the state of Alabama who is notably republican could not elect that guy, but there were a lot of people who voted for him knowing he said these things.

Anthony wiener sedated with an adult woman. That is legal, and the left removed him repeatedly from his position. They did not put him back on the ticket like the republicans did with Roy Moore. The republicans skipped over a candidate who fought him on the very issue of his immoral activities with children and put Roy Moore in as their representative when they could have put another person with a better reputation in there.

 

Your thread premise is absurd, and in all the meandering wall of crap in the OP, there is not one shred of evidence of any "endorsement from the Republican Right" of under aged sex. It is also a lie of omission to use Roy Moore as an example outside of the necessary context that his supposed wrongdoing took place several decades ago, is shoddily evidenced, and curiously only emerged during the Senate campaign. There is lots of room for general skepticism of such ancient claims during a political campaign, and such skepticism in itself is not condoning underage sex.

Get honest. Fail all around.

 

I understand you don't like what I say, but the arguments that religious traditions should be protected, and the clear association of marriage under God involving children shows you are clearly wrong. You can say it is not so, but you have not separated the religious right and their endorsement of religious traditions that should be protected from government interference.

Try again.

 

Wrong. I don't like that you made an absurd claim without evidencing it in the least, and that you omitted necessary context with respect to the Roy Moore issue. It's you who needs to try again, but don't bother, you won't be able to salvage the moronic claim you made in the thread title no matter how hard you try.

 

Yes, I said you did not like what I said, but I did clearly explain myself. If this is all you have got I am fine with you making your false claims and having others recognise you had nothing to say. However, I would want to establish my point much better than you have, which is why I clearly have.

 

You made a claim in the OP that the Republican Right has endorsed underage sex. That claim is a falsehood, and nothing you have posted contradicts that it is a falsehood. Moreover, nothing you will be able to post will contradict that it is a falsehood because it is categorically, objectively false. I don't need to say anything other than that, listing statutory rape conviction and imprisonment statistics in conservatively Republican governed states for example, because you never founded your claim... you can't. Keep rationalizing in a failed attempt to avoid that, though, it's funny.

 

In Indiana, the age of consent is 16,

But we have certain exemtions.

1; We have a close age exemption, also known as a Romeo & Juliet Law. This means anyone age 13 or above may have sex with anyone who is no more than 4 years older than they are. This law is to prevent teenagers from being arrested for having consentual sex with other teenagers. Before this law was passed, there were cases where two 14 year olds were both charged with rape because they had sex with each other.

2; Anyone age 14 or older may get married with parental consent, and with parental consent to marry comes the right to have sex, but only with the person you are legally married to, and both parties in the marriage must be within the age range of the close age exemption. So, a 14 year old, with parental consent can marry someone who is 14-18 years old, but they can't be forced to marry a 40 year old like the Mormon offshoots do.

 

If you are going to ignore what I have clearly stated and pretend I did not say it we have little left to discuss.

 

70% of Republicans still voted for Ray Moore after it came out that he was a child rapist.

 

Dealt with prior, unresponsive.

 

I'm not interested in "discussing" anything with you, nor is anyone who makes a thread such as this based on a plain falsehood interested in "discussing" anything either.

 

I quite agree you are not interested in discussing things.

 

I think you mean well, Tererun, but I'm guessing the predators are pretty well/evenly spread out among all demographics, include the political spectrum.

 

The Republican party distanced itself from Roy Moore from beginning to end, based mostly on his religious views. It was the Republican rank and file who voted for him. That doesn't mean anyone in the Republican party endorses underage sex. To suggest it does would be to suggest everyone who voted for Barney Frank endorses homosexual prostitution or that everyone who voted for Richard Nixon endorsed spying on the Democratic party. As for Weiner, you lie. He pleaded guilty to sexting a 15 year old girl. And the Dems did nothing but wait for him to go away. That he was still married to the political advisor (Huma Abedin) of the most powerful woman in politics (Hillary) and could still prove to be an embarrassment seems to have escaped notice.

https://nypost.com/2017/05/19/anthony-weiner-will-plead-guilty-to-sexting-with-a-15-year-old-girl/

 

Anthony wiener was long gone and resigned when that came around. No one in the democrat party said that was ok. Not even the voters wanted him around.

I will say you are wrong about Roy Moore. Here is why. First Roy Moore was not unknown and new. Roy Moore was elected and served on the Alabama supreme court. He was re elected and endorsed for that seat while being banned from a local mall for being pervy with the kids. His people also brought him the children he had relations with. These are his political backers and supporters. This is all known and not denied. The republican party first chose him to run for Senate and did not bar him from doing so despite knowing all of this about him. These were not shocking new allegations. I lived in Alabama and these were well known facts about Roy Moore. It was excused by Alabama republicans because religion said it was good. This was an honorable way to bring up and raise their daughters according to the religious right in Alabama. This is neither a surprise to them or outside of their beliefs.

After the Fed's said enough with Roy Moore claiming biblical law was above the law of the land, and that included saying relations between him and thirteen year old girls was perfectly fine because the bible, he was elected back to the state supreme court. He was suspended again for declaring religious law above the laws of the land, and that includes having relations with thirteen year old girls. He clearly says the bible is his book of laws, not the constitution. Even after all of that the republicans of Alabama still put him above an opponent who argued he was unfit for the Senate for his relations with under age girls. It was not the democrat who exposed this. This was exposed and admitted to in the republican primary where the republican party allowed him to continue and the voters endorsed him while he was saying he would make biblical law the law of the land and that includes having relations with thirteen year old girls.

The other republican candidate was against gay marriage and as conservative as they come and Roy Moore was selected above him showing a clear endorsement of a candidate who thinks that sexual relations with thirteen year old girls is ok as long as it is heterosexual and approved by the parents and god. There is no ambiguity there. There was no mystery there. Even on a national level Roy Moore was already known to be that man. He was not some young guy who lied and fooled everyone. This was an old school politician who was vetted and believed in these things.

 

On a completely separate note the NY post is a horrible right wing lying rag. It is a terrible source on the level of papers that have Elvis sightings and Bigfoot having alien babies. When I lived in NYC we used to play a game where we tried to find the real news story the post was trying to report on. Sometimes the lies and absurdities the post put into stories made it unrecognizable. People who believe the post are considered ignorant and easily fooled because it is so bad ad getting things right.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ted-15-year-old-girl-report-article-1.2800788

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...test-sexting-scandal-involves-15-year-old-min

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-outfits-pressing-engage-rape-fantasies.html

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...-go-to-jail-for-sexting-a-15-year-old-w441525

https://lynx.media/2017/09/08/teen-girl-anthony-weiner-sexted-reveals-face-first-time/

Feel better now?

 

those that supported Moore should be ashamed of themselves, especially those that defended him by saying things like Joseph and Mary did it, so the bible supports Moore

 

I'm not defending Moore, but we don't have to go back nearly that far... Edgar Allan Poe, Elvis Presley, and Jerry Lee Lewis all did it.

 

Yes, if you want me to take you seriously using the post as a source is not doing you any favors. You should probably not let people know you read that thing. It is just a sign.

 

That may be true, but they did not run for government on making those ideas the law of the land.

 

just because people did it in the past or even the present, doesn't mean we should give a pass to someone running for Congress

 

The Weiner and Strom are of the same family of Turds swimming in the same cesspool together but apart. The only distinction between The Weiner and Storm is that the Wiener is a pervert and Strom was a hypocrit. The equalizing factor is that they are/were both scum.