California Passes Pro Pedophile Bill.

By saying “no they shouldn’t”, you are agreeing with the bill.

 

The elephant in the room is ..... when are you "age of consent"? Eighteen? Then you can rape an 8-year-old child, right?

 

Wrong. This bill wouldn’t legalize anything.

In your scenario, the 18 year old would be convicted and would automatically go on the sex offender register.

 

Oh well, nobody else had the cajones to agree with his example. Big difference of people ONE year apart and say, a 19yr old and a 10 yr old. You can pick it apart with your word-fu if you want, I'm not gonna stop you, but there IS a difference

 

I agree. But the OP is misleading.
This bill is not about decriminalizing anything. It is not even about changing ages.

As I understand it, as the law currently stands, the judge has some discretion in whether to put someone on the registry if the age difference is less than 10 years (and I think the younger person has to be at least 16) and the sex act is consensual.
But that discretion only applies if the sex act is penile-vaginal intercourse. The only thing this bill will do is extend that discretion to other kinds of sex acts - e.g. anal or oral.

Personally I think 10 years is a big range, but not so outrageous if the younger person has to be at least 16.

And as I say, it doesn’t legalize anything. Only changes whether certain types of convictions result in someone going on the registry automatically, or if there is some discretion.

Edit - I was wrong it is 14, not 16. But the rest applies.

“Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 14 to 17 and a partner within 10 years of age, “sexual intercourse” (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not mandate that the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge has discretion to decide, based on the facts of the case, whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for all other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

https://www.eqca.org/release-senate-passes-sb-145/

 

It should be required to put someone that is 23 on a sexual deviant registry if they have anal sex with someone that is 14. That's disgusting. Some things judges shouldn't have discretion on. I can't even believe that this is a debatable subject.

 

I already addressed that.

 

Obviously. The OP Title is Blatantly Misleading.

Here is the True Title of the Linked Article:

Fight against Human trafficking and Pedophilia - No on SB 145

True.

And, obviously, anybody who thinks that this bill in anyway "enables pedophiles" shows an egregious misunderstanding of it's effect.

 

You might find it disgusting but a lot of people don’t find oral or anal sex disgusting. So this bill really just levels the field for gay and lesbian people.

 

I flew helicopters in Army. It was a call sign and currently the name of my company. We provide drones to federal law enforcement. And I am not pro Trump, I am anti leftist.

You know like, anti rioting, killing civilians, murdering cops, tearing down statues, blocking interstates, anti BLM, anti Antifa, anti fake news. I would vote for a cat over any Democrat.

I provided a link. Shouldn't be difficult to verify the information.

 

So you think SB 145 doesn't exist? Ooookkkaaayyyy

 

It has nothing to do with anal or oral but your projection is noted. It's about the age difference and that any adult that would have sex sex with a 14 year old should labeled a predator and a pervert. It's telling that I have to explain that to you.

It's simple:

pe·do·phile
/ˈpedəˌfīl/

noun
noun: paedophile; plural noun: paedophiles; noun: pedophile; plural noun: pedophiles

1. a person who is sexually attracted to children.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

Personally I think 23/14 is too big of an age difference. However, that’s the law today - the judge has discretion to put the 23 year old on the registry if the sex act was penile-vaginal intercourse. But if those same two people change a couple of positions, the judge has no discretion.
Again - this bill doesn’t decriminalise anything and doesn’t change any age limits. Just eliminates the distinction for different types of sex acts.
You don’t have to agree with the existing law to recognise that this is not as outrageous as the OP suggested.

 

The law allows a 10 year age difference before requiring the predator to be listed as a sex offender. What kind of human would even consider this to be reasonable?

How is this fighting against human trafficking? Its fighting to allow Pedophiles to stay off the sex offender registry.

 

You keep saying the same thing like it's going to make it less perverted if you keep saying it. 14 is to young to have any kind of sex with an adult. It's ****ing sick. If an adult has sex with a 14 year old they should be on the sexual predator list. I don't think the judge should have any ****ing discretion.

 

Twenty on ten legal where it used to get you 20.

 

It sounds like before SB145, the judge had discretion if the sex act was vaginal Intercourse. So there is zero change to that form of sex.

 

WRONG.

You obviously misunderstand what the bill is intended to do.

 

Yes. Not just yes but Abso- ****ing -lutely , unequivocally YES to both

 

23 yr olds having sex with 13 yr olds is sure as **** pedophilia. There is no justification there. 17 and 18? Yeah. That’s silly. Let the parents deal with that. But this bill would easily allow activist judges to allow grown adults to have sex with minors. It’s completely obvious what the intent is.

Then again. Who is ANYONE to tell anyone else what their age is. If the 49yr old thinks he’s a teenager then he is, right? He shouid he able to have sex with kids because he is a child in his own head. That’s ageism. That’s how messed up Leftists have become entertaining this insanity.

 

So your just lying about the it's legal part?

 

Where is that legal?

 

This bill would not change that. In the 23/13 scenario, the convicted offender would be automatically on the sex offender list. Automatically and with no discretion.

 

This bill would not decriminalize anything.

 

If Dems recalled who they once were as party members and ceased voting for what has since become TYPICAL Dem Party politicians then there would be no pro-pedophile bills being turned into the law of the land. Problem solved.