Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Can I add that rape has nothing to do with age, it's about consent.

Consent has to do with age. If a 20 yr old person has sex with a 17 year old person in the State of California, that is defined as rape; even if both parties are willing participants.

Ken

Hi ken,
I'm from the UK so please forgive my ignorance.
Is it really defined as rape? Is it not sex with a minor below the age of consent?

I am curious to your thoughts on why we have morals at all, if OM don't exist. Surely if we acept that we have morals then it follows there must be objective morals to live up to?

Storyteller wrote: Hi ken,
I'm from the UK so please forgive my ignorance.
Is it really defined as rape? Is it not sex with a minor below the age of consent?

I was referring to the laws in the United States. In the USA, sex with a minor is called “Statutory rape”

Storyteller wrote:I am curious to your thoughts on why we have morals at all, if OM don't exist. Surely if we acept that we have morals then it follows there must be objective morals to live up to?

A lot of people make the mistake that if it isn’t Objective morality, it isn’t morality at all. My claim is it doesn’t matter which category the action is placed under (objective or subjective) it is still a moral issue. The category doesn’t add or take away from the action.
I hope that clears things up

Ken

In a previous post you said that if rape was objective it would be rape regardless of age, it is!
Statuatory rape is considered rape as the law says that they are below the age of consent, so unable to give consent. Therefore rape, same as someone above the age of consent who doesn't consent.

Storyteller wrote:In a previous post you said that if rape was objective it would be rape regardless of age, it is!
Statuatory rape is considered rape as the law says that they are below the age of consent, so unable to give consent. Therefore rape, same as someone above the age of consent who doesn't consent.

There is a difference between giving consent and legally being allowed to give consent. The actions of a 17 vs 18 yr old can be the same; but because of age, one is considered rape and the other is not.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:In a previous post you said that if rape was objective it would be rape regardless of age, it is!
Statuatory rape is considered rape as the law says that they are below the age of consent, so unable to give consent. Therefore rape, same as someone above the age of consent who doesn't consent.

There is a difference between giving consent and legally being allowed to give consent. The actions of a 17 vs 18 yr old can be the same; but because of age, one is considered rape and the other is not.

Ken

It's nothing to do with legally giving consent but rather are they capable of making that consent decision at such a young age without them being manipulated by an older party, or another example is people with a mental handicap, it's not that they legally can't give consent, it's that they don't have the mental capacity to be able to give consent because they can be manipulated by people with a better mental capacity, while yes it is law, it's why the law exists is the actual reason.

There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

jlay wrote:There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

Is there? I consider them both the same. If someone does not have the mental capacity to be able to give consent then isn't the older party really just forcing them through coercion? In our country with older people if a woman says no but the man eventually talks her into it, it is still considered rape if she regrets it after because she was forced through coercion, which I think is the same as statutory rape. Same as when someone is effected by drugs or alcohol.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:In a previous post you said that if rape was objective it would be rape regardless of age, it is!
Statuatory rape is considered rape as the law says that they are below the age of consent, so unable to give consent. Therefore rape, same as someone above the age of consent who doesn't consent.

There is a difference between giving consent and legally being allowed to give consent. The actions of a 17 vs 18 yr old can be the same; but because of age, one is considered rape and the other is not.

Ken

It's nothing to do with legally giving consent but rather are they capable of making that consent decision at such a young age without them being manipulated by an older party, or another example is people with a mental handicap, it's not that they legally can't give consent, it's that they don't have the mental capacity to be able to give consent because they can be manipulated by people with a better mental capacity, while yes it is law, it's why the law exists is the actual reason.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. I used to live in the State of California. It has nothing to do with one’s mental capability. It is a matter of drawing a line in the sand and proclaiming anybody above the age is legal and everyone else is not. Mental evaluations are not done on sexuality active teenagers.

As I said before; there is a big difference between being able to give consent and being legally allowed to give consent

Ken

jlay wrote:There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

I was commenting on your post dated 01/16//15 @ 1:25pm. You said rape; not forcible rape.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:In a previous post you said that if rape was objective it would be rape regardless of age, it is!
Statuatory rape is considered rape as the law says that they are below the age of consent, so unable to give consent. Therefore rape, same as someone above the age of consent who doesn't consent.

There is a difference between giving consent and legally being allowed to give consent. The actions of a 17 vs 18 yr old can be the same; but because of age, one is considered rape and the other is not.

Ken

It's nothing to do with legally giving consent but rather are they capable of making that consent decision at such a young age without them being manipulated by an older party, or another example is people with a mental handicap, it's not that they legally can't give consent, it's that they don't have the mental capacity to be able to give consent because they can be manipulated by people with a better mental capacity, while yes it is law, it's why the law exists is the actual reason.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. I used to live in the State of California. It has nothing to do with one’s mental capability. It is a matter of drawing a line in the sand and proclaiming anybody above the age is legal and everyone else is not. Mental evaluations are not done on sexuality active teenagers.

As I said before; there is a big difference between being able to give consent and being legally allowed to give consent

Ken

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

In statutory rape, overt force or threat is usually not present. Statutory rape laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally handicapped adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Notice it says coercion, they are incapable of making a consent decision in the eye's of the law because biologically their brains and life experience have not fully developed to a point where they are able to make an informed decision. It's not just the law, it is what they are actually capable of, so I am not wrong.

Or Kenny, do you think the law makers just arbitrarily drew a line in the sand.

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

I was commenting on your post dated 01/16//15 @ 1:25pm. You said rape; not forcible rape.

Ken

Coercion is forcible rape, instead of physically forcing you are mentally forcing.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

I was commenting on your post dated 01/16//15 @ 1:25pm. You said rape; not forcible rape.

Ken

Coercion is forcible rape, instead of physically forcing you are mentally forcing.

So what's your point? Are you saying the couple in the scenario; having sex in California is fine, but if they go next door to Nevada the 18 yr old is mental forcing the 17 yr old?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

I was commenting on your post dated 01/16//15 @ 1:25pm. You said rape; not forcible rape.

Ken

Coercion is forcible rape, instead of physically forcing you are mentally forcing.

So what's your point? Are you saying the couple in the scenario; having sex in California is fine, but if they go next door to Nevada the 18 yr old is mental forcing the 17 yr old?

Ken

I think the lines are blurry as to when a person is capable of having the mental capacity, I never said the law was perfect, I was just saying that it's not just a legal matter, it is also a matter of biology and life experience as to when a person is capable of making a decision in regard to sexuality.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:There is a difference between statutory and forcable rape.

I was commenting on your post dated 01/16//15 @ 1:25pm. You said rape; not forcible rape.

Ken

Coercion is forcible rape, instead of physically forcing you are mentally forcing.

So what's your point? Are you saying the couple in the scenario; having sex in California is fine, but if they go next door to Nevada the 18 yr old is mental forcing the 17 yr old?

Ken

I think the lines are blurry as to when a person is capable of having the mental capacity, I never said the law was perfect, I was just saying that it's not just a legal matter, it is also a matter of biology and life experience as to when a person is capable of making a decision in regard to sexuality.

Humm! Lines are blurry... depends upon mental capacity..... considering biology and life experience..... Sounds subjective to me!

Ken

Kenny wrote: Humm! Lines are blurry... depends upon mental capacity..... considering biology and life experience..... Sounds subjective to me!

So you think paedophilia is subjective also, I mean when is a child not a child, 1,3,6,7,8,9,10,13,15,16 ? So in you opinion is paedophilia is only morally wrong subjectively or is it always objectively wrong?

Richard Dawkins seems to think it is ok, these are his comments on his abuse as a child

I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,

“I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”