It’s unfortunate the law allows law enforcement officials to indulge a couple of malicious, anti-gay parents.

I want to comment on the story of Kaitlyn Hunt.  She was, up until recently, a senior at a high school in Sebastian, FL.  She was dating another girl at the high school, a freshman.  The two girls are about 3.5 years apart, with Kaitlyn being 18 and her younger girlfriend having just turned 15.  When the younger girl’s parents discovered the relationship in September, shortly after Kaitlyn’s 18th birthday, they did not inform Kaitlyn’s parents and talk about their displeasure, but they instead secretly recorded a phone conversation between the two girls and took it to the police.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A judge ruled twice that Kaitlyn, who is an honor student, was permitted to stay in school, but the school board overruled the judge and elected to expel her.

According to Kaitlyn’s mother, the parents of the younger girl blame Kaitlyn for turning their daughter gay.  In a region of Florida where Mitt Romney brought in 60% of the vote, this is unsurprising.

The police say this has nothing to do with Kaitlyn’s sexual orientation:

Indian River County Sheriff Deryl Loar said the relationship began when the victim was 14 and progressed to sexual acts after Hunt was 18, of which he said she has confessed.

Loar said the age of consent is 16 in Florida, and they have investigated and prosecuted many other similar incidents, including same-sex relationships.

“That has nothing to do with it,” Loar said at a news conference earlier this week. “If this was an 18-year-old male and that was a 14-year-old girl, it would have been prosecuted the same way.”

State attorney Bruce Colton said the arrest has nothing to do with Hunt’s sexual preference. He said the law is designed to protect younger children from people who are older and can be more aggressive in forming a relationship.

If the law is designed to protect children from older people who could coerce them into a relationship, then to prosecute here is clearly not in the spirit of the law as this is clearly not a child-predator relationship.  These were two student in a high school relationship that was entirely consensual.  Didn’t we all go to high school?  Didn’t we all see seniors dating freshmen?  How many of them faced felony charges that could mean 15 years in prison and being forced to register as a sex offender for it?

The ACLU is also calling bullshit:

“This is a life sentence for behavior by teenagers that is all too common, whether they are male or female, gay or straight,” the statement said. “High-school relationships may be fleeting, but felony convictions are not.”

It is for situations like this that Romeo-Juliet laws (in this case, Juliet-Juliet laws) were established in the first place.  There is even such a law in place in Florida that could save Kaitlyn from having to register as a sex offender since the two were less than four years apart in age.

The internet activist group Anonymous has also gotten involved:

In the letter released by Anonymous, the group claims the Indian River County State Attorney’s Office has “lost perspective” and vows to put together a petition with 200,000 signatures on it calling for the resignation of the officials involved.

“The truth is, Kaitlyn Hunt is a bright young girl who was involved in a consensual, same-sex relationship while both she and her partner were minors. She has a big future ahead of her and there are people, thousands of people in fact, that have no intention of allowing you to ruin it with your rotten selective enforcement.”

Even the sheriff admitted he would not have arrested Kaitlyn had the parents of the 15 year old not filed a complaint.  However, the state attorney had this to say:

Hunt has until Friday to accept a plea deal offered by prosecutors that would allow her to avoid registering as a sex offender if she pleads guilty to lesser charges of child abuse. State Attorney Bruce Colton said he would recommend two years of house arrest followed by one year probation if she takes the deal.

If she is found guilty, it’s also possible that Hunt could apply to not have to register as a sex offender under a “Romeo and Juliet” law because the girls were no more than four years apart in age, Colton said.

Colton said the victim’s family is not pushing for prison but wants Kaitlyn Hunt to be held responsible in some way. However, the Hunt family said they would accept a plea deal only if the charges are dropped to a misdemeanor.

The younger girl’s parents want her held responsible in some way…and that way is apparently the full destruction of Kaitlyn’s future.  Being expelled from school after three years of being an honor student apparently wasn’t enough.  “Held responsible” sure makes the efforts to crush a young woman’s life sound a lot less overt and malicious though.

Look, I’m glad anti-child predator laws exist.  But anybody who thinks that’s what’s going on here is too stupid to fart.  And anybody who thinks that similar relationships, high school seniors dating freshmen, are either uncommon or regularly prosecuted is equally off base.  What’s more, in the rare cases where students in those relationships have been prosecuted, as I understand it there is always a plea bargain down to a misdemeanor…you know, so a high school relationship doesn’t wind up destroying an adult life.  This situation reeks of increased penalty and selective prosecution.  What’s more, if you think that Kaitlyn deserves to be shackled with the same chains as child predators (unless those child predators wear a frock, then they get shielded from prosecution and likely never see a day in court), then you clearly have a perverted sense of justice, if you even have a sense of justice at all.

The whole point here is to teach gay people a lesson, which is far more hideous than two high school students being physical with one another.

A felony conviction for this would ruin Kaitlyn’s life.  The parents of the younger girl do not seem to care.  Why should they?  They were the one’s who sought out this result.  Religion, primarily Christianity, has given society in this country overwhelming and irrational hatred of gay people, regardless of whether or not they’re honor students with no history of bad behavior (like Kaitlyn).  If you were to ask what could convince two adults to so loathe homosexuality that they were willing to destroy a promising young girl’s life over it, I’ll bet I could tell you the answer.  I’ll bet I could tell you precisely what could make two adults so vindictive.

Even though there has been no mention in the press of what religion the younger girl’s parents hold, I’d happily bet every dollar and every possession I have that it’s Christianity – and that their disdain for gay people is plucked straight from scripture.

Think of what a better world it would be if, in the place of passages condemning homosexuals, there were instead passages extolling the virtue of compassion.  How different Christians might be if that were the case.

  • Glodson

    Colton said the victim’s family is not pushing for prison but wants Kaitlyn Hunt to be held responsible in some way.

    Held responsible for what? For turning their daughter gay? If that’s the case, they are fucking assholes who don’t deserve to have a daughter.

    They are seeking to ruin this young woman. They are bullying a young woman for being gay by abusing the spirit of the law, and trying to ignore the letter of another. They are bullying their own daughter for trying to punish a young woman she was in a relationship with.

    This entire story makes me seek. I wish the district attorney would take a look at this case and tell the parents to go fuck themselves.

    Fuck these parents who feel the need to ruin one young woman’s life by outing her, and getting her expelled, because they didn’t approve of their own daughter’s lifestyle.

    And fuck anyone who is going to try and defend this bullshit.

    • Mel

      Also, since when does the justice system depend on what the victim’s family wants? Justice is supposed to be applied by the government in response to laws and circumstances.

      • Glodson

        This isn’t justice. This is abusing the law. The law is meant to protect children form adults, not from counting down the days until the two are technically wrong. The law should not be a bludgeon that parents can wield if they don’t like who their daughter is romantically linked to.

        This isn’t justice. This is spitting in the face of justice, and ignoring what these laws are for. They are meant to protect the future of kids, not ruin the future of a teenager because of a parent’s hang-up.

  • BionicWoman

    JT, you’d be so proud of me! I got my first ever block on Facebook arguing against a woman who said she’d do the same if it was her child the 18 year old was “coming after.” She deleted all her posts sadly so no one can see what she said.

    • Glodson

      I’m sure she’s a lovely person, and a real exemplar of Christ’s love.

  • Matthew Ostergren

    Thanks religion! You’re so great at bringing unnecessary misery to people’s lives.

  • Nate Frein

    These parents need to take a long, hard moment and ask if their daughter is ever going to speak to them again.

    And if they’re willing to live with her cutting off contact completely.

    • Artor

      No shit! If my parents had ever done anything like this to me or my sisters, (or anyone we had been dating) I would never speak to them again. Fortunately, my parents aren’t ignorant, hateful bigots.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I’m of two minds about this. Yea, this is clearly a stupid prosecution, but it is legal. Romeo and Juliet clauses in laws exist for a reason, and there actually are quite a few predatory senior/freshman relationships, such that I really am uncomfortable with them in general. Some are fine, of course, and this one seems like it was one of those. Nonetheless, the sexual and mental maturity of an average 14-year-old is much lower than that of an average 18-year-old, and I can see the law going either way on the issue (Texas has a 3-year R&J clause, for instance, which still bans 18/14 sexual relationships).

    The law might need to change. The law needs to not be an ass. This young woman is clearly being wrongly prosecuted and the prosecutor should, in Glodsons’ fine turn of phrase, tell the parents to fuck themselves. However, such things have happened and do happen to young men and women in heterosexual relationships on a too-frequent basis also, and I’m uncomfortable with how much of the outrage is due to the religious nature of the parents and the lesbian nature of the relationship rather than just the inflexibility of the law in general. Homosexual relationships are no more or less special than heterosexual ones, so I really don’t like how a lot of people are focusing on the lesbian aspect instead of the 18/14 aspect. If the parents truly are super-Christers, they probably would support prosecuting a man who’d “defiled” their daughter just as much, but the outrage here would be much less.

    • BionicWoman

      Ugh. I tried to reply to this like ten times and was thwarted each time. Now you get the short, less eloquent version, sorry.

      Short answer: I’d be just as outraged. It’s horrible to do this to another human being. I could never imagine doing this to a young man or a young woman. It’s literally destroying a life.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Have a +1 consistency and decency point, then :)

    • Azkyroth

      Yea, this is clearly a stupid prosecution, but it is legal.

      THAT’S THE PROBLEM, STUPID!

      If the law doesn’t uphold justice than WHAT IS IT FOR, you servile scum?!

      UNJUST LAWS ARE ILLEGITIMATE. FULL. FUCKING. STOP.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        I don’t agree that the law is necessarily stupid or unjust. There are a lot of problematic aspects in a lot of 18/14 relationships. This relationship didn’t seem to have them, but as a matter of policy I can’t disagree with banning them. That’s what prosecutorial discretion was created for … to not prosecute in cases where it is not warranted, while still having a law to punish those who are predatory. So while this is a stupid prosecution, I don’t know that changing the law is the right course of action. I’m honestly not sure what is the right course of action.

        • Azkyroth

          Then why not design the law to specifically target abusive or predatory relationships? This is like dealing with abuse of undocumented immigrants by employers, by making it illegal to hire anyone born outside the US and trusting prosecutorial discretion to make sure only business using undocumented immigrants as slave labor are prosecuted. Does It Still Seem Reasonable?

      • Nate Frein

        The law doesn’t do “spectrum” well. Legislation needs to paint an arbitrary line somewhere. That’s where prosecutorial discretion comes in.

        In this situation, yes. The law is unjust and should not be used as a cudgel to enforce backwards views. In situations where the relationship is predatory, then the law should absolutely be used.

      • Jacob Schmidt

        If the law doesn’t uphold justice than WHAT IS IT FOR, you servile scum?!

        Holy fuck, was that ever an over reaction. The law is to stop 18 year olds from taking advantage of 14 year olds. Since, you know, being in highschool doesn’t stop someone from taking advantage of someone younger.
        Yes, the law seems to be misapplied in this case. But an imperfect law can still have good benefits; we need to weed out the bad ones, not dismantle the law entirely.

        • Azkyroth

          Unjust [applications] of laws are illegitimate.

          …Posterior Openings Of the Alimentary Canal

          And “people who feel the need to go ‘but it’s the LAW!’ when a blatant abuse of the legal system is being discussed suck” is a heuristic that has never yet failed me.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Yes, yes they are. And? That does not automatically render the law itself illegitimate. It renders the unjust application of the law illegitimate.

          • Azkyroth

            I’m sure you always post with infinite, perfect precision when both angry and realizing the same idiotic conversation is starting AGAIN.

  • Zinc Avenger

    Selective enforcement of the law is a fine way to use it as a cudgel to beat those you don’t like.

  • Irenist

    Romeo-Juliet (or Juliet-Juliet or Romeo-Romeo) laws are definitely needed. The whole sex offender legal regime in this country destroys a lot of lives, and R-J laws can ameliorate at least some of that.

    As for the younger girl’s parents, I’m at least a somewhat culturally conservative Christian, and even I think they’re being monstrous. If you want to tell your minor child you don’t approve of the person she’s dating and they need to break up, that’s your right as a parent. But to go after the other kid? That’s just bizarre and vindictive.

    As Feminerd says, this is as clear a case for prosecutorial discretion as ever there was. The prosecutor here needs to get some spine and do the right thing. Leave the kid alone.

    • Stev84

      At the very least they should have talked to the other parents first and sorted it out in private. Instead they immediately called the police.

      The way I understand it it wasn’t even the parents who recorded the phone call, but the police.

      It’s so ridiculous that she is treated as an adult in this, yet isn’t an adult when it comes to buying alcohol for example. And don’t get me started on the sex offender registry thing. That may have sounded good, but in practice it’s been a complete disaster.

    • Emmet

      I agree. As a Catholic the reporting of this didn’t sit well with me – seems like a special case is being made of this girl. On the other hand, I’m a teacher, and I know that some 18year olds are mature beyond their years, and predatory with it, and some 14 year olds are easily lead and immature and an easy target for someone older presenting a “loving embrace”.

      And on the other other hand, if it was an 18 year old seminarian and a 14 year old boy, everyone on this blog would be calling for the trainee priest’s head – and rightly so. What’s the difference?

      • Nate Frein

        How is a “special case” being made if any number of hetero relationships with the same age difference fly completely under the radar simply because mom and dad aren’t repulsed by their child’s orientation?

        And on the other other hand, if it was an 18 year old seminarian and a 14 year old boy, everyone on this blog would be calling for the trainee priest’s head – and rightly so. What’s the difference?

        Outright lie. If the seminarian were shuttled to another seminary in order to avoid prosecution, then we would be calling for the head of the man who had him transferred.

      • sunburned

        Point out an 18 your old seminarian who is still in high school and in similar circumstances. Before addressing what the differences are perhaps pointing out the similarities would be a good place to start an analogy.

        • Nate Frein

          He also completely misrepresents where the anger over the RCC’s handling of the priest molestation scandal is directed.

      • Zinc Avenger

        This wasn’t about Catholic child abuse, but you’re so determined to defend the church you bring Catholic child abuse into an unrelated thread.

        But we’re the unfair ones who bang on about Catholic child abuse, right?

      • islandbrewer

        tl;dr Emmet: “Someone dump on the catholic priests so I can call you all anti-catholic bigots!”

  • br410

    Florida is a all-party consent state. The prosecutor should also prosecute the parents who recorded another adult (the older girl) without obtaining her consent – since this is all about upholding the law and all.

  • Keith Erick Fix

    JT, you misrepresnt this case. Others have already done their homework. You ought do yours.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/05/21/the-kaitlyn-hunt-affair-upon-further-review/

    • br410

      Yes – That website looks totally reputable. I think it is the tiled IRS background that really makes me go “this is a reputable source”.

      The argument also appears to hinge on the assertion that because the relationship -may- have started later than stated it changes -everything-. However, he doesn’t address the crux of the assertion made above which is: these girls are less than 3.5 years apart. My wife and I are 5 years apart. Is that weird? Then why is 3.5 years? This is why Romeo&Juliet laws exist.

      • Emmet

        Because, as someone else pointed out, there’s a huge difference between an 18yo and a 14yo. Between a 20yo and a 25yo? Not a big difference at all.

        • Nate Frein

          No, it’s still a pretty big difference in development and life experience.

          • Emmet

            Sure. But not the same as between a pubertal girl-woman and a post-pubertal young woman.

            Puberty is, you know, quite a big “development and life experience”.

          • Nate Frein

            Actually, I’d say it’s about the same. Established young adult with a fully developed brain versus someone who is still in college or just starting a career with a brain still developing.

            What you’re (I suspect deliberately, since you’ve shown yourself to argue most dishonestly) missing is that the power differentials don’t just come from differences in physical (and cognitive) development but in relative power in society. They were both in still students in high school. The gap is honestly not nearly so big as you’re trying to assert.

        • br410

          5 years is 5 years. between 13 and 18 I changed a lot. But between 25 and 30, I also changed a lot. Further, we started dating at 24 and 19 respectively. Should that be illegal? Then why should 23 and 18? What about 22 and 17? 21 and 16? It is idiotic to argue they are all different when the net difference is identical. And to say that the last two are illegal… on what grounds? In -most- states all those are legal as the age of consent is 16 in much of the U.S. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America)

          • Emmet

            Sure. But you were a man at 25 and a man at 30. You were a boy at 14 and a man at 18.

            I wouldn’t want my 14 yo daughter going out with an 18 yo. Would you?
            Why not? Well, I was an 18 yo male once.

          • Nate Frein

            Yeah. Why would we expect a catholic rape-apologist to understand spectrum?

          • Emmet

            Excuse me?

          • Nate Frein

            It’s pretty clear, non?

          • Emmet

            Non.

          • Nate Frein

            And, honestly,

            Well, I was an 18 yo male once.

            Is nonsense. You were not every 18 year old in every possible circumstance ever.

            I graduated high school at 17. Me at 18 with a job and a car has a lot more power than another 18 year old with his/her senior year, maintaining a G.P.A., and college applications to worry about.

            Not to mention the difference between young men and young women raised on today’s purity culture nonsense.

          • br410

            So was I man at 15? 16? 17? 17.5? 17.99? 17.99999? Should I assume there is an asymptote to the boy equation at 18 and that the man equation is undefined for values less than 18?

            Is it illegal if a girl is intimately involved with someone who is 19 at 10am on her 18th birthday if she was born at 10pm? What if it is a leap year? What if it isn’t?

            Why isn’t an 80 year old man with an 18 year old girl so substantially different so as not merit legal consequences? I mean, you can talk in absolute terms (delta of 62 years), relative terms (77.5% difference), developmental terms (a mostly developmentally complete versus young and still developing)… but those metrics pale in comparison to this case (delta of 3.5 years, 21.9%, and both still in a period of development).

            I could go on all night. Ultimately, there is only one fact that needs addressed, should a relationship where the delta in age is 3.5 be illegal?

            And don’t tell me that one is an adult and the other is not. The very definition of adult can change as you cross imaginary boundaries in the world. The world isn’t that black and white and to think it is shows naivety in thought.

        • islandbrewer

          … and so how is JT misrepresenting the relationship?

          Remember:

          JT, you misrepresnt this case. Others have already done their homework. You ought do yours.

          Sorry, let me rephrase: how did JT misrepresnt the case?

          • Emmet

            Wasn’t me who said that.

          • Nate Frein

            No, you just defended it. Well, tried to, anyway.

          • Emmet

            :) No – I was making one point about the age difference. Wasn’t anything to do with the previous comment.
            Take a breath.

          • Nate Frein

            Then write more clearly ;3

          • Emmet

            Roger that. I thought it was clear enough.

          • Nate Frein

            Knowing you, I’m taking that with a (rather large) grain of salt.

          • Emmet

            Ha. Except that, you know, you don’t actually know me.

            Look: I disagreed with the comment and posted a brief statement about it – there was no Catholic content in it, just one brief comment about development and age. That’s all it was. A tangent, a secular digression, from my normal Catholic-is-cool verbiage.

          • Nate Frein

            Ha. Except that, you know, you don’t actually know me.

            No, I’ve just seen you argue enough to draw conclusions about your argument style.

            Look: I disagreed with the comment and posted a brief statement about it – there was no Catholic content in it, just one brief comment about development and age. That’s all it was. A tangent, a secular digression, from my normal Catholic-is-cool verbiage.

            The rest of your rhetoric doesn’t just up and vanish because you aren’t actively defending church coverups or martyrbating in this particular post.

          • Emmet

            I don’t defend Church cover-ups. Abusive priests should be removed from the priesthood and jailed.

            Is that clear enough for you?

            Martyrbating – defintion?

          • Nate Frein

            Oh. Okay. But anyone trying to call them out on it are persecuting catholics?

          • Emmet

            What? You’re not making sense. Give it a rest for Pete’s sake.

        • Stev84

          They were 17 and 14 and that was perfectly ok. Then she turned 18 and she magically became a predator. Because of a mere 3 months she is now in danger of being a sex offender for the rest of her life. What nonsense.

          Also, despite the age difference they had classes together and played on the same sports team. They were social peers.

  • Mel

    I spend a lot of time with students explaining various laws about age of consent. I wish someone in FL had done the same for these girls.

  • Alejandro

    I agree 100% with the author’s point of view. However, I have to point out that the only reason why this story is getting so much attention in the liberal media is because the accused is a woman, a gay one on top of that. If a 18 year old guy was dating a 14 year old girl, pretty much everyone would agree he is a “predator”, “rapist” and is obviously taking advantage of the poor inocent woman. The guy could even go to jail and spend the rest of his life registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life, and everyone would consider it normal since men are always predators and women are always victims in any sexual interaction. But when the same thing happens to a woman? NOW the law is “unfair” and “missapplied”.

    • Glodson

      The genders of the two are not germane. This is a selective prosecution. If it was a senior boy with freshman girl, or boy, this would still not be justice.

      Hell, going for the felony when the Romeo and Juliet laws exist is selective prosecution. If this was a case of boy who just turned 18 years old with a girl about 3.5 years younger, I would still be outraged.

      And note the position of the ACLU as quoted above:

      “This is a life sentence for behavior by teenagers that is all too
      common, whether they are male or female, gay or straight,” the statement
      said. “High-school relationships may be fleeting, but felony
      convictions are not.”

      This is the problem, and it is even more glaring because of the sexuality of the two girls.

    • Ibis3

      So not true. My niece who just turned 17 this spring has been going out with her boyfriend for just about two years. There’s almost a five year difference between them. He’s not a rapist or a predator. She’s very mature for her age (in certain respects) and he’s a good guy–friendly, polite, employed. She’s used to interacting with a boy that age because he’s the same age as her own brother. Seventeen-just-turned-eighteen and fourteen? That’s not a very unusual age gap in high school romances. My first boyfriend was 16 and I was 13 (he was in grade 11 and I was in grade 9, but I’d skipped a grade).

      The point is that the law should make allowances for non-predatory consensual relationships of sexually active teens no matter if they’re gay or straight. We liberals have reason to believe that if this had been a consensual relationship between an older boy and a younger girl of the same ages and maturity as this couple, the authorities would have talked the parents down, not prosecuted him.

    • Gehennah

      Entirely not true. If it was a boy and girl, and the people were in a relationship prior to the older turning 18, then there shouldn’t be an issue with it for me either.

  • Gehennah

    I take a strong stance against pedophiles, but this should fall in the thin grey area. Technically, yes, she is an adult legally, but the circumstances here should be taken into consideration.

    They were in a relationship before she turned 18, and it isn’t really unheard of for people do this little thing called dating while in highschool.

  • Arlene

    Your blog post is full on misinformation.

    Kaitlyn Hunt turned 18 in Aug of 2012 before the school year and the relationship began. The younger girl was 14 until March or April of 2013. The relationship began in the late fall and the sexual activity began in December of 2012. At the time the girls were 18 and 14, as they were at the beginning of their relationship.

    The parents did not find out about the relationship in September as there was not one yet. The parents did not record a phone call in September either as is suggested in your blog. The police recorded the phone call in Feb 2013 with the younger girl in full knowledge.

    The parents of the younger girl have stated they went to the law after they had warned Kaitlyn to stay away, and she did not. They have also made it clear their difficulty is with the almost 4 year age gap, not the sexuality of the girls.

    As more information comes out it becomes clear Kaitlyn has no qualms about flaunting any authority as he has now disregarded court orders to stay away from the younger girl. She also appears to be acting in a bullying manner toward the younger girl telling her in text conversations to lie, to “keep the f**k quiet” . . . “No matter what, if they find out we talked I’m going to jail until trial starts.” . . . “F**k you..you’re stupid. You want me to go in jail…You’re such a messed up person…you snitched on me. God only knows what you’ll do when pressed in court. Bye.”

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/160537961/Kaitlyn-Hunt-Violation

    There is no evidense this is about malicious anti gay parents. I don’t know a single parent that would be OK with an 18 year old, of any sexuality, treating their 14 or 15 year old in this manner.

  • Zinc Avenger

    No. We’re defending a relationship that was perfectly legal, and suddenly became illegal for an arbitrary short period during which the full weight of the law was brought to bear.

  • Glodson

    So now theists are defending the practice of abusing the law because they have a problem with the sexuality of their daughter, and ignoring that this is why we have Romeo and Juliet laws as these two young women are peers.
    Because that is what happened.

    You addressed nothing of what I wrote, or what was written by JT. This is a disgusting example of using the threat of law selectively. This is a young woman who just turned 18 and is having to face being a sex offender for have a relationship with a fellow student.

  • Nate Frein

    Actually, yes. Arbitrary. The 18 year line is an arbitrary line drawn in the middle of a spectrum of growth and development. They’re both highschoolers. They’re both have more or less the same current responsibilities in life.

    They are, in short, peers.

  • islandbrewer

    The relationship was perfectly legal. And then, on Kate’s birthday, it magically became illegal. How can that not be the very epitome of arbitrary?

    Do you actually know what Romeo and Juliet laws are?

  • Nate Frein

    First, fuck you for trying to distract from the issue at hand by dragging something not germane to the topic into the discussion (polyamory).

    They aren’t peers. The girl is only fifteen. And she is facing being a sex offender not for a relationship but because of sex acts with a minor.

    So should it be illegal for a 21 year old and a 25 year old to have sex? That’s a bigger gap than these girls had, and potentially a much bigger power differential.

    What next? Are there any limits? How about man/boy love…after all, one atheist tried to tell me age limitations were arbitary.

    How so? Because we’re advocating that Romeo/Juliet laws be applied in this case, where they are clearly germane?

    News for you, bucko…but that 18 year dividing line is about as arbitary as it gets. As far as cognitive, emotional development, an 18yo still has easily 6-7 more years of growth to go (as in, literal growth. As in, the brain is still developing).

    Further, because in this case the 18yo in question is still in high school, that means she doesn’t have her own place and doesn’t have a full-time job, meaning that the two aspects of freedom that put an “adult” at a massive advantage over a minor simply don’t exist. They are, in fact, peers.

    Get the fuck over yourself.

  • Nate Frein

    To be clear, there is nothing inherently “wrong” with the fact that the line drawn is arbitrary. It’s simply the consequence of trying to efficiently assign responsibilities to organisms that develop on a spectrum (humans) and don’t all develop at quite the same pace. That’s why prosecutorial discretion exists. That’s why Romeo and Juliet laws exist. People don’t fit into neat little boxes no matter how much you try to force them.

  • islandbrewer

    “But, but, but… boxes! Labels! How else can I tie atheists to NAMBLA?”
    /jondrake


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X