- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,899
- Reaction score
- 7,317
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Legal. The age difference in CA is 2.5 years.What about an 18 year old man and a 16 year old girl?
Legal. The age difference in CA is 2.5 years.What about an 18 year old man and a 16 year old girl?
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.Legal. The age difference in CA is 2.5 years.
It ends at the younger of the two being 18.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.
Oh you meant legal to have sex, different topic, I meant at what point should they be labeled a sexual predator?It ends at the younger of the two being 18.
Can someone explain to me how making it legal for a 14-year-old to have sex with a 24-year-old protects children?
California Governor Gavin Newsom signs bill changing sex offender law
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.abc7.com
Here you go dipshit
This rather sounds like you are talking about a different law....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....
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.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.
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.
FACT CHECK: Has Child Prostitution Been Legalized in California?
A rumor that California had legalized prostitution for minors was based on a faulty understanding of a new law.www.snopes.com
California Governor Gavin Newsom signs bill changing sex offender law
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.abc7.com
Here you go dipshit
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
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.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.
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.Nobody has done that. Why would you ask such a question?
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.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?
Anyone not collecting SS should be considered a minor. Yes?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.
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.Anyone not collecting SS should be considered a minor. Yes?
So then your rant I replied to was pointless. Got it.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.
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.So then your rant I replied to was pointless. Got it.
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.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.
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.Nobody has done that. Why would you ask such a question?
You love partisan strawmen.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 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.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.
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.
You mean from the ACA that was the republican plan from the 1990s.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.
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.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.
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.
When has the gov't not been involved in healthcare?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 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.When has the gov't not been involved in healthcare?
1900? If the gov't makes laws regarding healthcare, they are involved.