NE to Parents: We're Better at Raising Your Kids

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:48 pm

So why is it legal for a 12 year old girl to get married in Kansas, with parental consent?

Cos they aren't observant enough to discount the men who fuck livestock?

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:48 pm

I've been backed into a corner of having to defend sex with 12 year old girls in order to defend parental rights from the state. What the hell.

DoctorChaos · Post by **DoctorChaos** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:58 pm

Consider it a challenge. If you can do it successfully then you have mojo jojo and we'll stop picking on you...

Would you settle on us not picking on you as much?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:59 pm

So, could my 13 yr old step-sister have gotten pregnant? Sure, maybe, but she sure as hell wouldn't have gotten married afterwards. She would have gone to a private, all-girl school, had the child, and had help raising it from her parents. She would have never again seen the boy.

I think this is a horrible way to handle the supposed situation. Have you ever been directly involved in something like that?

Edited By Malcolm on 1123099165

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:03 pm

I'll say this:

I wouldn't personally choose to sex up 12 year old girls.

I wouldn't want my 12 year old daughter getting sexed up.

But god damn it, it's still common enough for an entire U.S. state to make it legal with parental consent, and if I give my consent, for whatever reason, I don't want the god damn government stepping in. None of their fucking business as long as I'm paying my taxes and keeping my mouth shut.

Yeah, looks like he banged her at 13, before they were married. Seems to me after they are legally man and wife, then that "statutory rape" ship has sailed. Should have caught them before it was legal, I guess.

But hey... the prosecutor in Nebraska is up for reelection next year. Don't want the voting public to forget that he's hard on girl-fuckers.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:05 pm

I've been backed into a corner of having to defend sex with 12 year old girls in order to defend parental rights from the state. What the hell.

Just for your edification, there's a possible chink in your argument.

If the parents are always better at making decisions than the gov't regarding their children, this implies parents know more about that particular matter.

But damn, man, I know you've met or read about or seen fuckers that never should've'd kids.

On the flip side, if the parents are alright w\ this & the kids're willing seriously to own up to this shit, then the gov't should back da fuck off.

Hell, what if she had the kid aborted, what then?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:07 pm

Btw, since I can't edit shyte, the last couple posts were mainly directed at mbilderback.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:07 pm

So, could my 13 yr old step-sister have gotten pregnant? Sure, maybe, but she sure as hell wouldn't have gotten married afterwards. She would have gone to a private, all-girl school, had the child, and had help raising it from her parents. She would have never again seen the boy.

I think this is a horrible way to handle the supposed situation. Have you ever been directly involved in something like that?

I know you weren't addressing me, but I have seen a situation like this.

I advocated that the police be called, as the girl was 15 or 16, and the man was 19 or 20. The mother, who would otherwise argue that the man AND parents should be put in jail, just brushed the entire legal aspect off. She apparently felt she knew what was good for her daughter better than the state did.

Edited By GORDON on 1123099699

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:14 pm

I've been backed into a corner of having to defend sex with 12 year old girls in order to defend parental rights from the state. What the hell.
Just for your edification, there's a possible chink in your argument.

If the parents are always better at making decisions than the gov't regarding their children, this implies parents know more about that particular matter.

But damn, man, I know you've met or read about or seen fuckers that never should've'd kids.

On the flip side, if the parents are alright w\ this & the kids're willing seriously to own up to this shit, then the gov't should back da fuck off.

Hell, what if she had the kid aborted, what then?

If the parents are always better at making decisions than the gov't regarding their children, this implies parents know more about that particular matter.

But damn, man, I know you've met or read about or seen fuckers that never should've'd kids.

I hear you, brother. But like the old saying goes, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free before one innocent man gets the death sentence. I apply the same philosophy in this case. A LOT of people shouldn't be having kids (IN MY OPINION), even if they are 30 or 40. But when laws go on the books, they affect everybody, including normal people like me, and, maybe, you.

On the flip side, if the parents are alright w\ this & the kids're willing seriously to own up to this shit, then the gov't should back da fuck off.

That's been my argument from the beginning, or at least I've tried to keep it my argument. There are indeed fucked up situations, but god damn it, the parents legally consented. If they had chosen they could have easily had the guy locked up for rape, but they chose to not go that rout. Enter the do-gooding DA in nebraska.

Hell, what if she had the kid aborted, what then?

I dunno. What then? The entire situation changes. I haven't put any thought into that scenario.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:18 pm

So, could my 13 yr old step-sister have gotten pregnant? Sure, maybe, but she sure as hell wouldn't have gotten married afterwards. She would have gone to a private, all-girl school, had the child, and had help raising it from her parents. She would have never again seen the boy.
I think this is a horrible way to handle the supposed situation. Have you ever been directly involved in something like that?

Luckily neither of the two children that I helped raise got pregnant or got someone else pregnant so it wasn't an issue. I'm of course speculating and figure that situations vary enough for that to be a general idea, not a given. But, we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether it's a good way to handle it or not, luckily that's our right.

As for the

Yeah, looks like he banged her at 13, before they were married. Seems to me after they are legally man and wife, then that "statutory rape" ship has sailed. Should have caught them before it was legal, I guess.

crap, that's complete bullshit. There are statute of limitations on crimes for a reason. This crime, and no matter which way you spin it, it's a crime, was committed and the government found sufficient evidence to prosecute within the statute of limitations. No matter what he did AFTER HE F---ED A 13 yr old girl, he still did it. They were not married.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:20 pm

As for the
Yeah, looks like he banged her at 13, before they were married. Seems to me after they are legally man and wife, then that "statutory rape" ship has sailed. Should have caught them before it was legal, I guess.
crap, that's complete bullshit. There are statute of limitations on crimes for a reason. This crime, and no matter which way you spin it, it's a crime, was committed and the government found sufficient evidence to prosecute within the statute of limitations. No matter what he did AFTER HE F---ED A 13 yr old girl, he still did it. They were not married.

And the girl's parents decided not to prosecute, which they could have easily done. So, what we have here is YOU and the state claiming to know what's best for the girl.

All I'm saying.

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:58 pm

I've been backed into a corner of having to defend sex with 12 year old girls in order to defend parental rights from the state. What the hell.

Actually, you're supporting marriage with 12-yo's... we all know what happens to sex after marriage :p

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:04 pm

So, could my 13 yr old step-sister have gotten pregnant? Sure, maybe, but she sure as hell wouldn't have gotten married afterwards. She would have gone to a private, all-girl school, had the child, and had help raising it from her parents. She would have never again seen the boy.
I think this is a horrible way to handle the supposed situation. Have you ever been directly involved in something like that?
Luckily neither of the two children that I helped raise got pregnant or got someone else pregnant so it wasn't an issue. I'm of course speculating and figure that situations vary enough for that to be a general idea, not a given. But, we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether it's a good way to handle it or not, luckily that's our right.

As for the
Yeah, looks like he banged her at 13, before they were married. Seems to me after they are legally man and wife, then that "statutory rape" ship has sailed. Should have caught them before it was legal, I guess.
crap, that's complete bullshit. There are statute of limitations on crimes for a reason. This crime, and no matter which way you spin it, it's a crime, was committed and the government found sufficient evidence to prosecute within the statute of limitations. No matter what he did AFTER HE F---ED A 13 yr old girl, he still did it. They were not married.

Yes, he screwed a young girl. Yes, it was illegal.

But the law is dumb. It's a lowest common demoniator catch-all designed to discourage some activities, and not others. It's not nuanced, it's not "situation-specific" There are some very good reasons why it's not.

However, sometimes, exceptions should be made. Given the circumstances of this situation in particular, why bother charging him with a crime? Why? The law is designed to protect the younger people. But the parents have already decided to "un-protect" their daughter by having the two people get married.

At this point, the law is irrelevant. No good can come from enforcement, and only more harm can be done than good.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:08 pm

But this isn't about what's best for anybody, it's about blind adherance to the law.

Hell, it's not even about that, it's about getting votes.

Mommy Dearest · Post by **Mommy Dearest** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 9:49 pm

So, could my 13 yr old step-sister have gotten pregnant? Sure, maybe, but she sure as hell wouldn't have gotten married afterwards. She would have gone to a private, all-girl school, had the child, and had help raising it from her parents. She would have never again seen the boy.
I think this is a horrible way to handle the supposed situation. Have you ever been directly involved in something like that?
I know you weren't addressing me, but I have seen a situation like this.

I advocated that the police be called, as the girl was 15 or 16, and the man was 19 or 20. The mother, who would otherwise argue that the man AND parents should be put in jail, just brushed the entire legal aspect off. She apparently felt she knew what was good for her daughter better than the state did.

You don't have the ages quite right and obviously don't know that the legality of the matter was looked into. It was legal.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:01 pm

When I brought it up, I was blown off.

Post by **Vince** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:18 pm

You mean the state w\ the porn czar?
No where the 50 and 60 year old men take 12 and 13 year olds as wives. Against the law but the govt turns their heads. Sorry but I think the young ones do deserve the law to protect them.
It's up to their parents to "protect" them, not the law.

So there should be no statutory rape laws?

Post by **Vince** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:36 pm

Another thing that has to be considered as a possibility. Keep in mind that this is a "could be" scenario.

If in NE, their laws are set up in such a way that sex with an underaged girl to whom you are legally married are geared towards their own state laws concerning such a union, they may have no other choice but to press charges in order to keep their laws on statutory rape from being challenged.

For example: NE has a law saying that a 15 year old girl can marry a male of 18 years or older with the consent of the girl's parents, and in that statute it says that sex between the couple in this union is not subject to statutory sex offenses of the state. Now if this is the only place in NE laws that it addresses when it is acceptable for acceptable for an adult to have sex with a minor then law enforcement and prosecutors have a problem. If they don't go after this guy, then a 35 year old that is up on charges for having consentual sex with a 10 year old can hold up the case of this husband and wife and state that there is not an equal application of the state's laws. And if there isn't, then the courts there will have no choice but to throw out the charges against the 35 year old and throw the law out.

Where it gets really ugly is that any new law on statutory rape can then be challenged if the wording is not far enough removed from the wording of current laws which are overturned, siting the case of the 35 year old as the precident (or however it's spelled).

MommyDearest · Post by **MommyDearest** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:47 am

OK So I went back and reread the entire article. We have so many assumptions and I think we are divided something like this.

Those of us that have raised or been around girls of this age are indignate. I truly believe that the girl has been and is being railroaded. She was not of the age of consent legally, and I have a very hard time believing that she understood the consequences in such a way as to have been emotionaly ready to make this decision.

Those of us that are upset at the government interferance are concerned with big brother. I absolutely agree with this also.

Believe it or not I had an experience at 12 years old eerily mirroring what this situation seems to be. A young man (appearing to be in is 20's) came to our home with a classmate of mine. She had always been bacward and lived in a very trashy place, that although within bicycling distance I would not have imagined going near. The young man actually asked my Father to pose as the girls father, and sign for them to marry. In retrospect I suppose he may have wanted to give the classmate of mine a better life and take her away from the trash, been I am pretty sure that she did not want to be there or anywhere near this man. When my Father refused he did go to her parents and were soon married. They actually approved heartily. They thus had one less mouth to feed. Where do you suppose the benefit was to the girl? OK he fed her. She lived in just as trashy a house. Cooked every meal for him. He had access to unlimited sex. And she had several children before she was 18. She consequently committed suicide in her mid 20's.

I guess my point is that everyone in the scenario made out great except the young girl.

I believe that is why we make laws protecting the innocent. As long as possible. It's kind of like the way I tried to raise my children, whether it worked or not.

There is enough out there in the world for them to take on. Give them time to be children.

mbilderback · Post by **mbilderback** » Thu Aug 04, 2005 10:05 am

And, yes, I do see your point and agree that big-brother is an issue, but this is something that should have happened.

I'm damn sure there are more ludicrous uses of big-brother that could be highlighted for damnation.