borrowed this from gab
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
It’s also not completely true. It’s not 11 year olds. It’s 14-17, within a certain range, and was written to include oral, anal, & digital sex, when previously only vaginal sex was covered under the law in this way. It doesn’t okay it. It gives the judge leeway to sentence them as a sex offender for life.
NOT that I’m taking up for it- bc I am not.
But this is written to make us look stupid.
The reason only P-in-V was included the first time was because the original bill was passed so that a FATHER could be spared being on the sex offender list (if he was close in age) and therefore be able to have access to his child. It was purely a parental rights issue. Then the faggot state senator from SF decided he wanted to not get in trouble for diddling kids and used "progressive equality" to push his agenda. Same guy that made it legal to give aids knowingly.
I don’t doubt that at all, though it is extremely disgusting.
My point was this bill does not excuse people having sex with 11, 12, or 13 year olds.
That was my only point- that it was not completely factual. So if anyone wants to use it in an argument- make sure you understand the facts and don’t let yourself get blindsided.
On the exact same note, I am very glad you pointed out what you did. That is important context if the discussion ever comes up
Yes, it does only change to give a judge discretion if someone is added to the registry. At least currently the penalties still stay the same, but a 24 yo could have sex with a 14 yo and not be added to this list now, for any sex when it was previously only normal sex. We also need to remember the slippery slope that this is another step in that direction. It just adds more clutter to the law for predators to hide behind.