> good...@rock.com wrote in news:60d63222-8697-4d9c-a445-
> 639a59ca4...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>

>> California should pass a law lowering the age of consent to 14 for
>> people 18 and over.  No marriage until 18 unless pregnant, and with

>
>         You might want to think about rephrasing that assertion because
>         as written it makes no sense since it requires that the persons
>         involved be 18 before the age of consent applies.
>
>         I assume you mean that 14 year olds should be allowed to have sex
>         with persons over 18?
>         I also assume you don't have children.
>

>> court review.  Ease by parents of obtaining a restraining against
>> anyone over 18 from seeing minor.  Recommendation that minors use two
>> forms of birth control when copulating.

>

>> The age of consent is 16 in 25 states and 14 in Canada. ...

>
>
>I'm not with "NAMBLA" and take offense to your slanderous statement.
>As far as the American public enabling anything, I was only suggesting
>the age of consent be lowered to 14 to protect the innocent, and
>seeing as how the age of consent is 16 in 25 states, and 14 in Canada,
>it seems a possibility. The age of consent was 10 in Britain for 300
>years, until the 1900's. The age of consent is 12 in Mexico City. By
>age 14, teenagers are quite sexual, and it is an appropriate age to
>begin having sex, but it is all the more important for them to use two
>forms of birth control such as condoms and the pill or condoms and the
>pull out method, or condoms and the sponge, if it's on the market,
>thus lowering the risk of pregnancy to nearly zero and below that of a
>vasectomy so they don't get pregnant. And no one need get married
>anywhere in the world until they're at least 18 unless they're
>pregnant, and it has been ascertained by a third party such as a judge
>that they are making a free, informed, and competent and sound choice
>(just as a 16 year olds can become emancipated from their parents).
>As for NAMBLA, rape is still rape at any age, even if all age of ...

> gooddad staggered up to the microphone and slurred:
>

>> On Jan 5, 7:02 pm, Ian MacLure svpal.org> wrote:

>>> good...@rock.com wrote in news:60d63222-8697-4d9c-a445-
>>> 639a59ca4...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

>

>>>> California should pass a law lowering the age of consent to 14

>
> No, California should pass a law instituting the death penalty for child
> rape.  Fucking little kids isn't a human right, it's a crime.
>
>
>

>> I'm not with "NAMBLA" and take offense to your slanderous statement.

>
> Writing that you're a pedophile isn't slander, nor is it libel, pedoboi.

>On Jan 10, 1:20 am, Chad Stone 127.0.0.1> wrote:

>> gooddad staggered up to the microphone and slurred:
>>

>>> On Jan 5, 7:02 pm, Ian MacLure svpal.org> wrote:

>>>> good...@rock.com...

> I'm not with "NAMBLA"

> and take offense to your slanderous statement.

> On Jan 15, 1:13�am, good...@rock.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jan 13, 12:15 pm, Brandon D Cartwright example.net> wrote:

>

>>> They forget one thing: Pedophiles are seen with disdain
>>> and disgust, not because they are different, but because
>>> they cause harm to other human beings.

>

>> You're in confusion. �Black people cause harm to human beings. �White
>> people cause harm to human beings. �Some pedophiles cause harm to
>> human beings, but unless you can determine with 100%% certainty that
>> consent is impossible between a minor and an adult, then you must
>> admit the possibility that it is possible for a pedophile to do what
>> he wants without causing harm to human beings. �In fact, you should ...

>On Jan 15, 10:16 am, California Poppy aol.com>
>wrote:

>> On Jan 15, 1:13?am, good...@rock.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Jan 13, 12:15 pm, Brandon D Cartwright example.net...

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:00:04 -0800 (PST), good...@rock.com wrote:

>>On Jan 15, 10:16 am, California Poppy aol.com>
>>wrote:

>>> On Jan 15, 1:13?am, good...@rock.com wrote:

>

>>>> On Jan 13, 12:15 pm, Brandon D Cartwright example.net> wrote:

>

>>>>> They forget one thing: Pedophiles are seen with disdain
>>>>> and disgust, not because they are different, but because
>>>>> they cause harm to other human beings.

>

>>>> You're in confusion. ?Black people cause harm to human beings. ?White
>>>> people cause harm to human beings. ?Some pedophiles cause harm to
>>>> human beings, but unless you can determine with 100%% certainty that
>>>> consent is impossible between a minor and an adult, then you must
>>>> admit the possibility that it is possible for a pedophile to do what
>>>> he wants without causing harm to human beings. ?In fact, you should
>>>> focus on outlawing the harm, and not the unharmful actions, to steer
>>>> the pedophiles towards ?right action of sex with consenting children ...

> Start boring crap -----------
>
> Ok, going to make this quick as I really don't want to go into a
> documented description of how laws in the majority of the world come
> about. The USA system differs slightly from that in England, Canada,
> Australia, NZ etc (the commonwealth countries) but has a basis in the
> same principles. The majority of laws are not written down but exist
> due to decisions made by previous courts, called precedence. These
> decisions are usually based on public opinion at the time, meaning
> that yes, what was once illegal at one point may become acceptable
> over time (one notable area is the increasing amount of freedom, at
> least in some countries, that the courts give to people who are
> protesting the government). The separation between the three branches
> of government (the legislature, executive and the judicial) means that
> the courts will often stand opposed to any laws which the legislature
> introduce, even in countries where freedom is just a memory such as
> Zimbabwe the courts are frequently finding against the government in
> cases where the government has overstepped their power. In the USA the
> supreme court can actually disallow any law it disagrees strongly ...