• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California's New Law

Legal. The age difference in CA is 2.5 years.
So if he is 18.5 or 19 he is screwed. Dang, glad I don't live there I am 6 years older than my wife.
 
So if he is 18.5 or 19 he is screwed. Dang, glad I don't live there I am 6 years older than my wife.
It ends at the younger of the two being 18.
 
It ends at the younger of the two being 18.
Oh you meant legal to have sex, different topic, I meant at what point should they be labeled a sexual predator?
 
Can someone explain to me how making it legal for a 14-year-old to have sex with a 24-year-old protects children?

No one has made it legal.
The new law says that a minor is not capable of engaging in what we classically define as "prostitution" because if that person who is currently labeled as a prostitute, the law now says that, in reality, she is actually A VICTIM OF SEX TRAFFICKING.

In other words, there is NO SUCH THING as a fourteen year old prostitute as far as the new law is concerned because prostitution implies some form (no matter how crude or rudimentary) of "business" contract and a minor is not legally capable of contracting for business. California is determined to treat minors AS minors, and in cases like these, as sex trafficking victims, which is really what they are if they are "fourteen".

Does that make sense?
 
No one has made it legal.
The new law says that a minor is not capable of engaging in what we classically define as "prostitution" because if that person who is currently labeled as a prostitute, the law now says that, in reality, she is actually A VICTIM OF SEX TRAFFICKING.

In other words, there is NO SUCH THING as a fourteen year old prostitute as far as the new law is concerned because prostitution implies some form (no matter how crude or rudimentary) of "business" contract and a minor is not legally capable of contracting for business. California is determined to treat minors AS minors, and in cases like these, as sex trafficking victims, which is really what they are if they are "fourteen".

Does that make sense?
This rather sounds like you are talking about a different law....
 
This rather sounds like you are talking about a different law....

If it is, then it's because I am a dips**t according to the OP because we're supposed to be clairvoyant like
Carnac the Magnificent.

Carnac.jpg


This is the law I thought he was referring to:

SB1322

This does not, however, mean that child prostitution is legal in California. It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children in California, and Californians who engage in sexual activities with persons under the age of consent are still subject to being charged with statutory rape (among other crimes). The new law means only that children involved in sex trafficking and prostitution will be treated as victims instead of criminals.

 
If it is, then it's because I am a dips**t according to the OP because we're supposed to be clairvoyant like
Carnac the Magnificent.

Carnac.jpg


This is the law I thought he was referring to:

SB1322

This does not, however, mean that child prostitution is legal in California. It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children in California, and Californians who engage in sexual activities with persons under the age of consent are still subject to being charged with statutory rape (among other crimes). The new law means only that children involved in sex trafficking and prostitution will be treated as victims instead of criminals.

The OP did link to the law later in the thread after we got on him for the lack of link. It's the law that changes oral and anal sex with a minor from an automatic RSO listing, to the judge's option as only PIV was before.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
The OP did link to the law later in the thread after we got on him for the lack of link. It's the law that changes oral and anal sex with a minor from an automatic RSO listing, to the judge's option as only PIV was before.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

Again, avoidable if SOME people didn't act like they were entitled to post a news thread and just spew jabberwocky without links to what they are jabbering about. Pity my clairvoyance failed me when he finally posted a link after being scolded and I was still typing away. Meanwhile, they only posted the link after labeling people as dipsh*ts for asking for one.
 
Only leftists consider chidlren to be as old as 26, because they never mature mentally. Anyone who still lives at home beyond the age of 18 has some very serious mental issues and very defective and obviously incompent parents.
Or they are living at home to save money while they are attending school. Many people attend a community college or a vocational program and live at home to save money for those 2 years.

Did you ever go to college and come back home for the summer to live with mom and dad while you worked and then went back to school in September?

Nobody has done that. Why would you ask such a question?
I personally think a 10 year age differential is too much if one of the parties is only 14. It should be 16 years old and an 8 year spread but teens who are only 14 dont know enough to date someone who is 24. I remember when I was 14 and I was an idiot.

I would have never allowed my 14 year old daughter to date someone who was more than 18, much less 24. That would be an 8th grader taking a Masters or Ph.D candidate. No way in Hades...............
 
Last edited:
Or they are living at home to save money while they are attending school. Many people attend a community college or a vocational program and live at home to save money for those 2 years.

Did you ever go to college and come back home for the summer to live with mom and dad while you worked and then went back to school in September?
I attended the Metropolitan Community College of Omaha for two years, and lived at home with my parents while I was going to school. I was also in Marine Corps boot camp two months after my 18th birthday. I dropped out of high school at age 16, got my GED, and started attending college. I had my AA degree by the time my high school class graduated.

If children are staying at home beyond the age of 18, then it is a clear indication that the parents were failures at raising their children. Children should be able to function in society and pay their own way, preferably before they become an adult, but at the very least by the age of 18. That is the primary job of every parent.
 
Didn't Obama and the Democrats allow CHILDREN up to the age of 26 years old to stay on their parents health insurance? Next they will be trying anyone under 26 years old as a minor. How truly pathetic.
Anyone not collecting SS should be considered a minor. Yes?
 
Anyone not collecting SS should be considered a minor. Yes?
No. Minors can and do receive SS. Since you are completely clueless on the subject I will educate you this one time: A minor is anyone who is under the age of 18 years old.
 
No. Minors can and do receive SS. Since you are completely clueless on the subject I will educate you this one time: A minor is anyone who is under the age of 18 years old.
So then your rant I replied to was pointless. Got it.
 
So then your rant I replied to was pointless. Got it.
Hardly, you are just incapable of grasping the point. Leftist freaks are mentally immature, which is why Obama and the Democrat leadership wanted "children" to be as old as 26 years before they are treated as adults. Leftist are incapable of making it in the real-world because of their mental defects. Even the Democratic Party acknowledged that much.
 
No. Minors can and do receive SS. Since you are completely clueless on the subject I will educate you this one time: A minor is anyone who is under the age of 18 years old.
Actually a minor is anyone who is under the legal age of adulthood, which can and has shifted over time. At one point a minor was anyone under the age of 16, and has been younger. Yes currently the age of majority is 18, but there is no guarantee that it wouldn't go up or down.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Nobody has done that. Why would you ask such a question?
I personally think a 10 year age differential is too much if one of the parties is only 14. It should be 16 years old and an 8 year spread but teens who are only 14 dont know enough to date someone who is 24. I remember when I was 14 and I was an idiot.

I would have never allowed my 14 year old daughter to date someone who was more than 18, much less 24. That would be an 8th grader taking a PhD candidate. No way in Hades...............
Hardly, you are just incapable of grasping the point. Leftist freaks are mentally immature, which is why Obama and the Democrat leadership wanted "children" to be as old as 26 years before they are treated as adults. Leftist are incapable of making it in the real-world because of their mental defects. Even the Democratic Party acknowledged that much.
You love partisan strawmen.

That is not what Obama said. Obama said that they can be allowed to be on their parent's insurance because they are often in college and doing so is a way to save them money. If they were medically or psychologically incapable of providing for themselves them they would be eligible for Medicaid and SSI.

No. Minors can and do receive SS. Since you are completely clueless on the subject I will educate you this one time: A minor is anyone who is under the age of 18 years old.
You missed the point. He was satirically hinting that anyone who was under the age of 62 or 65 would not be an adult in your extremist world.
 
Didn't Obama and the Democrats allow CHILDREN up to the age of 26 years old to stay on their parents health insurance? Next they will be trying anyone under 26 years old as a minor. How truly pathetic.

Says a supporter of the *****-grabber-in-chief. :)
 
Hardly, you are just incapable of grasping the point. Leftist freaks are mentally immature, which is why Obama and the Democrat leadership wanted "children" to be as old as 26 years before they are treated as adults. Leftist are incapable of making it in the real-world because of their mental defects. Even the Democratic Party acknowledged that much.
You mean from the ACA that was the republican plan from the 1990s.

And before the ACA, my insurance company provided health insurance coverage to my kids up to 26 yrs of age. It is not a new concept.

So your rant is pointless.
 
You mean from the ACA that was the republican plan from the 1990s.

And before the ACA, my insurance company provided health insurance coverage to my kids up to 26 yrs of age. It is not a new concept.

So your rant is pointless.
Actually, the Republican plan from the 1990s was Medical Savings Accounts, and they remain in effect today. It is still a good plan because it takes the government out of our healthcare, where they have no business being.
 
I personally think a 10 year age differential is too much if one of the parties is only 14. It should be 16 years old and an 8 year spread but teens who are only 14 dont know enough to date someone who is 24. I remember when I was 14 and I was an idiot.

I would have never allowed my 14 year old daughter to date someone who was more than 18, much less 24. That would be an 8th grader taking a PhD candidate. No way in Hades...............
You love partisan strawmen.

That is not what Obama said. Obama said that they can be allowed to be on their parent's insurance because they are often in college and doing so is a way to save them money. If they were medically or psychologically incapable of providing for themselves them they would be eligible for Medicaid and SSI.


You missed the point. He was satirically hinting that anyone who was under the age of 62 or 65 would not be an adult in your extremist world.

Confession time:
I was a cradle robber then and I am a cradle robber now, too.

I met my second "serious" girlfriend in 1978.
I'd just moved up to Minneapolis to go to college at age nineteen. Diane worked at Snyder's Drugs and I was in there every day for something and couldn't help noticing what a cute little pixie she was.
Before I realized it I was asking her out and then I found out she was only seventeen.
But she'd already been living on her own since age fifteen...no choice in the matter.
We wound up moving in together along with her brother and her best friend who shared the basement bedroom.

I met Karen, my wife, in 1984 when SHE was seventeen. By that point I was now twenty-eight.
But Karen had already enlisted in the Navy and I learned that news on our third date.
Boohoo, poor Jeff...and we both wound up later on in failed marriages, but I carried a little torch for her which lit back up full force after my first marriage fell apart and WE wound up together finally in 1998 and have been together ever since.
But I was chasing her when she was seventeen...I was a goner the second I laid eyes on her back in 1984.
 
Actually, the Republican plan from the 1990s was Medical Savings Accounts, and they remain in effect today. It is still a good plan because it takes the government out of our healthcare, where they have no business being.
When has the gov't not been involved in healthcare?

1900? If the gov't makes laws regarding healthcare, they are involved.
 
When has the gov't not been involved in healthcare?

1900? If the gov't makes laws regarding healthcare, they are involved.
I specifically stated the federal government, and their illegal involvement with out healthcare began in June 1965 with the passage of the unconstitutional MediCare/MedicAid. States have the constitutional authority to involve themselves in our healthcare. The federal government does not.
 
Back
Top Bottom