Montana GOP: Homosexuality is a crime

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm definitely not arguing the bold, but beyond using age limits its very much a grey area to determine who or what can make an "informed" decision on sex. We have already stepped over the line in my opinion when protecting young adults in the 16-18 group in the US. I think that most 16 year olds can make informed decisions about sex...obviously big brother disagrees.

Regarding your last paragraph, many women think that way. Think of the woman who dates a guy and ends up sleeping with him where he never calls again afterward. His end goal was sex. He was preying on the woman to get sex. IMO that's technically a predatory relationship. Want to throw him in prison? Is the woman not emotionally harmed? (Obviously in the 21st century this happens in reverse as well.)

Where the age of consent should be determined? It's safer to have it higher than lower, simply in order to protect those who are slower in growing into sexual maturity and erring on the side of caution should not be considered a bad thing, I think it is very hard to argue that a16 year old can compete on an equal footing with a much older adult in emotional and sexual relationships. As to say, a sixteen year old having a sexual relationship with a 19 year old, or something of that sort, yes, that is problematic and I do not believe sexual relationships with such close age differences should be treated in the same way as relationships with much older adults unless there is another predatory indicator and it might perhaps be time to reflect that in the law if that is possible without giving a loop hole to the genuinely nasty predatory relationships.

No, I don't think that is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to view a one night stand in and of itself as a predatory sexual encounter, merely misunderstanding the nature of the transaction to have sex is definitely not enough to indicate abuse. Sure a man can lie about his intentions, but simply lying about the possible duration of the sexual relationship or indeed the seriousness with with one of the participants views the relationship does not make it abusive or predatory. If the woman is mature enough to understand the implications of sexual encounters then she is mature enough to impose guidelines as to when and how she is comfortable with engaging in a sexual encounter and she will be completely aware that some men's goal is sex only and know how to recognize those men. A women who requires an emotional commitment from a man before agreeing to sex is hardly serious in looking for that in a casual sexual encounter; that is an unrealistic expectation.

A woman can determine the exact circumstances within which she will entertain sex; indeed being aware of, and determining the circumstances when a person will engage in sexual activity is a feature of sexual maturity. Once one has attained adulthood one is far less likely to be influenced by superficial motives of the 'if I don't have sex he/she will not like me' variety that plague the teenager. If an adult then chooses to have sex under circumstances that one can't reasonably expect more than a superficial relationship then it is the person who requires more who is making the mistake and not the person who is not offering anything more. That is not to say that a relationship can't be abusive amongst adults, clearly it can and just as clearly laws exist to assist those who suffer from abuse, and that is as it should be, in my opinion.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Where the age of consent should be determined? It's safer to have it higher than lower, simply in order to protect those who are slower in growing into sexual maturity and erring on the side of caution should not be considered a bad thing, I think it is very hard to argue that a16 year old can compete on an equal footing with a much older adult in emotional and sexual relationships. As to say, a sixteen year old having a sexual relationship with a 19 year old, or something of that sort, yes, that is problematic and I do not believe sexual relationships with such close age differences should be treated in the same way as relationships with much older adults unless there is another predatory indicator and it might perhaps be time to reflect that in the law if that is possible without giving a loop hole to the genuinely nasty predatory relationships.

No, I don't think that is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination to view a one night stand in and of itself as a predatory sexual encounter, merely misunderstanding the nature of the transaction to have sex is definitely not enough to indicate abuse. Sure a man can lie about his intentions, but simply lying about the possible duration of the sexual relationship or indeed the seriousness with with one of the participants views the relationship does not make it abusive or predatory. If the woman is mature enough to understand the implications of sexual encounters then she is mature enough to impose guidelines as to when and how she is comfortable with engaging in a sexual encounter and she will be completely aware that some men's goal is sex only and know how to recognize those men. A women who requires an emotional commitment from a man before agreeing to sex is hardly serious in looking for that in a casual sexual encounter; that is an unrealistic expectation.

A woman can determine the exact circumstances within which she will entertain sex; indeed being aware of, and determining the circumstances when a person will engage in sexual activity is a feature of sexual maturity. Once one has attained adulthood one is far less likely to be influenced by superficial motives of the 'if I don't have sex he/she will not like me' variety that plague the teenager. If an adult then chooses to have sex under circumstances that one can't reasonably expect more than a superficial relationship then it is the person who requires more who is making the mistake and not the person who is not offering anything more. That is not to say that a relationship can't be abusive amongst adults, clearly it can and just as clearly laws exist to assist those who suffer from abuse, and that is as it should be, in my opinion.

And if adults are aware of their actions, the same applies to homosexual or incestuous relationships.

[Peikko 1,575]

And if adults are aware of their actions, the same applies to homosexual or incestuous relationships.

Homosexual relationships? Of course; I can't see how a homosexual relationship should be viewed as any different to heterosexual relationship in that regard. Incestuous relationships are however problematic in my opinion, because family dynamics do not create relationships that are based on equality. indeed, even when one reaches adulthood we do not really expect even an adult child to treat a parent as an exact equal, we are always our parents children and parents always have an authoritative influence, even when we fundamentally disagree with their opinions, we respect them because they are our parents and we love them as parents, not because of sexual attraction. The same can be said of siblings although it is not necessarily an authoritative dynamic, although it well could be.

As to whether step children who have never shared a family home should be allowed to engage in sexual relationships, I have no real objection to it from a legal stand point. It is the growing up in a particular and shared environment that I believe makes incest predatory, not the shared genes.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Homosexual relationships? Of course; I can't see how a homosexual relationship should be viewed as any different to heterosexual relationship in that regard. Incestuous relationships are however problematic in my opinion, because family dynamics do not create relationships that are based on equality. indeed, even when one reaches adulthood we do not really expect even an adult child to treat a parent as an exact equal, we are always our parents children and parents always have an authoritative influence even when we fundamentally disagree with their opinions, we respect them because they are our parents and we love them as parents, not because of sexual attraction. The same can be said of siblings although it is not necessarily an authoritative dynamic, although it well could be.

As to whether step children who have never shared a family home should be allowed to engage in sexual relationships, I have no real objection to it from a legal stand point. It is the growing up in a particular and shared environment that I believe makes incest predatory, not the shared genes.

Just like any other relationship it depends on the individuals, for instance many of these relationships form because of family separation and so there is no previous influence. I wouldn't paint the entire group based on a few.

I'm personally against incest, but I don't think the government should be involved. Ironically its not illegal in all states.

You do bring up another element. Many of the laws on the books include "family" who are not related by blood including in laws. Why should the government regulate such relationships? Why should a government regulate any relationship beyond legal ones?

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sousuke

[evli1966 88]

I'm definitely not arguing the bold, but beyond using age limits its very much a grey area to determine who or what can make an "informed" decision on sex. We have already stepped over the line in my opinion when protecting young adults in the 16-18 group in the US. I think that most 16 year olds can make informed decisions about sex...obviously big brother disagrees.

Regarding your last paragraph, many women think that way. Think of the woman who dates a guy and ends up sleeping with him where he never calls again afterward. His end goal was sex. He was preying on the woman to get sex. IMO that's technically a predatory relationship. Want to throw him in prison? Is the woman not emotionally harmed? (Obviously in the 21st century this happens in reverse as well.)

Jo preys on me every chance she gets!

[Peikko 1,575]

Just like any other relationship it depends on the individuals, for instance many of these relationships form because of family separation and so there is no previous influence. I wouldn't paint the entire group based on a few.

I'm personally against incest, but I don't think the government should be involved. Ironically its not illegal in all states.

You do bring up another element. Many of the laws on the books include "family" who are not related by blood including in laws. Why should the government regulate such relationships? Why should a government regulate any relationship beyond legal ones?

Yes, yes of course it depends on the individuals, but if no sexual relationship were illegal those who are abused sexually would have no recourse and that is not something that I personally would advocate at all would you?

I think most people are also well aware that the majority of statutory rape involves family members or other situations where the predatory adult is in an authoritative position over the child. This is not incidental, it is a product of the specifics of a dynamic where adults are in a position of authority but have a perverted understanding of how far that authoritative position extends. Adults should never want to or engage in sex with a child over whom they have authority that is necessarily perverse - or at least that is how it appears to me. The authority of an adult should be protective, not sexual. Statutory rape that involves an adult preying on a stranger is relatively rare but it can be just as devastating - children see all adults as authoritative to some degree, and indeed they are not only physically, but emotionally authoritative. I personally can't see any attraction in such a lop sided relationship - I don't think it is normal to want to have sex with someone who is incapable of making the decision to have sex within a framework of adult understanding.

As to your question regarding extended family members if those family members have no authority over the family member in question, I don't see a problem with it and it should not be illegal in my opinion, even if currently it is.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes, yes of course it depends on the individuals, but if no sexual relationship were illegal those who are abused sexually would have no recourse and that is not something that I personally would advocate at all would you?

I think most people are also well aware that the majority of statutory rape involves family members or other situations where the predatory adult is in an authoritative position over the child. This is not incidental, it is a product of the specifics of a dynamic where adults are in a position of authority but have a perverted understanding of how far that authoritative position extends. Adults should never want to or engage in sex with a child over whom they have authority that is necessarily perverse - or at least that is how it appears to me. The authority of an adult should be protective, not sexual. Statutory rape that involves an adult preying on a stranger is relatively rare but it can be just as devastating - children see all adults as authoritative to some degree, and indeed they are not only physically, but emotionally. I personally can't see any attraction in such a lop sided relationship - I don't think it is normal to want to have sex with someone who is incapable of making the decision to have sex within a framework of adult understanding.

As to your question regarding extended family members if those family members have no authority over the family member in question, I don't see a problem with it and it should not be illegal in my opinion, even if currently it is.

Its not an issue of incest, its an issue of abuse. Not all incestuous relations are abusive and therefore they should be legal. All abusive relationships should be illegal.

Now do you see what I'm getting at?

[Peikko 1,575]

Its not an issue of incest, its an issue of abuse. Not all incestuous relations are abusive and therefore they should be legal. All abusive relationships should be illegal.

Now do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, I do but I am not sure how you would successfully frame that legally. We determine that sex with minors is statutory rape in order to be able to prosecute those who breach the trust of the adult and child relationship. How could one frame a law that would encapsulate that but also enable 16 year olds to have sex with 19 year olds? Insisting that such cases were prosecuted on the basis of abuse would place the onus on the prosecutor to prove that the child did not consent to the sexual act - if one doesn't assume that a child can't consent, how often do you think that would be successfully prosecuted? Not to mention the terrible courtroom ordeal that a child would have to endure in order to make an accusation stick. Imperfect as it is, I currently prefer sex with minors to be statutory rape, not determined rape.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Yes, I do but I am not sure how you would successfully frame that legally. We determine that sex with minors is statutory rape in order to be able to prosecute those who breach the trust of the adult and child relationship. How could one frame a law that would encapsulate that but also enable 16 year olds to have sex with 19 year olds? Insisting that such cases were prosecuted on the basis of abuse would place the onus on the prosecutor to prove that the child did not consent to the sexual act - if one doesn't assume that a child can't consent, how often do you think that would be successfully prosecuted? Not to mention the terrible courtroom ordeal that a child would have to endure in order to make an accusation stick. Imperfect as it is, I currently prefer sex with minors to be statutory rape, not determined rape.

I would prefer the latter, we so busy worrying about the 16 year old we are willing to ruin the life of the 19 year old by automatically assuming the 16 year old can't make his/her own decisions.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Sousuke

[Peikko 1,575]

I would prefer the latter, we so busy worrying about the 16 year old we are willing to ruin the life of the 19 year old.

You seriously think it is fair and right to require a child to take the stand in order to prove that they have been raped? Knowing as you must surely do that adult rape cases are rarely proven and that the victim is always traumatized by rape trials? You are aware of how rare a rape case is proven aren't you? It is not a happy statistic. What would be better is to allow for more leniency in cases where a 19 year old is having sexual relations with a 16 year old and certainly such a case should not inevitably lead to the 19 year old appearing on the sex register. That is an area where the law really should be updated, absolutely. However, I really do think that the removal of statutory rape from the statute books would be an extremely retrograde step.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You seriously think it is fair and right to require a child to take the stand in order to prove that they have been raped? Knowing as you must surely do that adult rape cases are rarely proven and that the victim is always traumatized by rape trials? You are aware of how rare a rape case is proven aren't you? It is not a happy statistic. What would be better is to allow for more leniency in cases where a 19 year old is having sexual relations with a 16 year old and certainly such a case should not inevitably lead to the 19 year old appearing on the sex register. That is an area where the law really should be updated, absolutely. However, I really do think that the removal of statutory rape from the statute books would be an extremely retrograde step.

I was working with the choices you gave me. Make a young woman take the stand (she wouldn't most likely anyway and the charges would be dropped) or have a young man live under a bridge for 10 years and never have a chance in life. I chose the lesser evil.

In reality, I would lower the age of consent to 16 (like in the UK). I would also make it impossible for someone under 18 to be charged by the very laws meant to protect minors. In addition I would like to see the proximity laws for sex offenders changed.

[Peikko 1,575]

I was working with the choices you gave me. Make a young woman take the stand (she wouldn't most likely anyway and the charges would be dropped) or have a young man live under a bridge for 10 years and never have a chance in life. I chose the lesser evil.

In reality, I would lower the age of consent to 16 (like in the UK). I would also make it impossible for someone under 18 to be charged by the very laws meant to protect minors. In addition I would like to see the proximity laws for sex offenders changed.

Fair enough. I can agree with all those points you have made. I also do not think that the sex offender list should include any but the most dangerous offenders and that those offenders should and could be more closely monitored if the list were substantially reduced. It might not work perfectly, but if all sex offenders were required to undergo a psychiatric determination of the nature of their sexual perversion and likelihood of committing violent offenses or offenses against minors then I would have thought that would result in more effective monitoring. It doesn't make much sense to me to have people on the sex offender list who urinate in public or some such misdemeanor and who can be realistically be assessed as posing nothing more than a very minor threat to the public - seeing someone urinate may be offensive but it isn't exactly dangerous.

[mawilson 2,133]

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats except which portion of our lives they want to have absolute control over. Democrats want to control what happens in your refrigerator, garage, doctors office (except your reproductive organs). Republicans want to control what happens in your bedroom, your reproductive organs (but otherwise they have no interest in medical care) They BOTH want to restrict your freedom of speech and Religion. Democrats would gladly stamp out Christianity while Republicans would stamp out everything but Baptists (Southern Convention) Democrats want to exploit illegal aliens for votes, Republicans want to exploit them for money...Democrats exploit LEGAL immigrants and citizens for money, they need NON taxpayers to vote for them.

Democrats want minimum wage, workers comp, health insurance, OSHA, Family and Medical leave...but only for white people. Otherwise do not check anyone's ID so they can be denied these things by business. Repub;licans just want all compensation to be minimal and profits maximized.

Repubicans are "pro-life" unless your "life" happens to be homosexual, Muslim (or other religion besides Baptist). Democrats are "Pro-choice" unless you want to choose what car you drive, school your kids you didn't abort go to, whether you want to own a gun, or listen to Rush Limbaugh.

They are all phoney-baloney politicians out for whatever they can get and speak to whoever is most likely to give it to them.

In Montana, that means making homosexuals criminals to get contributions. When we all stop paying for this nonsense, it will go away.

That's exactly right, which is why I will never vote for any Republican-Democrat regimer ever again.

I will vote for any candidate who is not a Republican or Democrat, no matter how schizophrenic, Tea Party included.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You know they say, sometimes when you are not getting through to someone...... another way to reach them is to whisper your point, somehow that changes the dynamics and they actually listen.

(Whispering)- Gary, I have never suggested my morals have anything to do with this topic, I have only spoke of common or community morals.

What I found interesting is your "consenting adult" phrase.... as if you get to determine what age that might be. Who left you boss over the sex lives of minors anyway.... or are you using a common moral guide?

So if the common morals of a state are to ban assualt rifles...that is OK right? Or to allow slavery maybe? Maybe we should allow the common morals to decide what we can read? Watch? Maybe cities can ban handguns if it is the common morals...oops, NO, they can't... but they were able to until just a few weeks ago. Or were they ever? Really? I mean, unless we changed the constitution in that regard, then Chicago's ban on handguns was ALWAYS un-constitutional and they never had any basis to enforce it.

States have the ability to make laws within the restrictions of our rights. They CANNOT make laws that infringe on OUR RIGHTS whether the majority is for it or against it. I contend that the 4th amendment right to privacy would certainly apply to what consenting adults do within their bedroom. You, apparently, do not. You think that the "common morals" of a majority of the legislature of a given state can decide to put your wife in prison if she puts your ####### in her mouth. They can (and do in some states) call it "sodomy" or "deviant sexual intercourse" and state she is guilty of a felony for doing so. That means she can go to prison, have her green card revoked, lose her right to own a gun, etc., because she put her mouth on a part of your body that a majority of the legislature of that state said was "bad". You are OK with that?

Your attempts to derail the facts or muddy the water with arguments about animals or children do not change the fact that YOU think other people should be able to decide what YOU and your wife do in your bedroom.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[Danno 1,228]

So if the common morals of a state are to ban assualt rifles...that is OK right? Or to allow slavery maybe? Maybe we should allow the common morals to decide what we can read? Watch? Maybe cities can ban handguns if it is the common morals...oops, NO, they can't... but they were able to until just a few weeks ago. Or were they ever? Really? I mean, unless we changed the constitution in that regard, then Chicago's ban on handguns was ALWAYS un-constitutional and they never had any basis to enforce it.

States have the ability to make laws within the restrictions of our rights. They CANNOT make laws that infringe on OUR RIGHTS whether the majority is for it or against it. I contend that the 4th amendment right to privacy would certainly apply to what consenting adults do within their bedroom. You, apparently, do not. You think that the "common morals" of a majority of the legislature of a given state can decide to put your wife in prison if she puts your ####### in her mouth. They can (and do in some states) call it "sodomy" or "deviant sexual intercourse" and state she is guilty of a felony for doing so. That means she can go to prison, have her green card revoked, lose her right to own a gun, etc., because she put her mouth on a part of your body that a majority of the legislature of that state said was "bad". You are OK with that?

Your attempts to derail the facts or muddy the water with arguments about animals or children do not change the fact that YOU think other people should be able to decide what YOU and your wife do in your bedroom.

THe facts of the case are... these laws have always existed and still do today.

If people truly had some Constitutional Right to have sex with anyone they Choose, laws Concerning Adultery and a boat load of others, would have never been on the books at the founding of this Country and Government ( and still today).

You carry on like I am proposing some new change or some new legal concept, I am simply stating what exists now and historically.

If any type of Deviant sex were a Constitutional Right ... we would never have had these laws.

Can you find one instance where one Founder Objected to laws you seem to object to?

Even if you could find one.. that still is no comparison to the Framers as a whole.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Danno