Closet Culture - Page 2

Ibby · 10-11-2006, 07:20 AM

Yeah, and thats why I wanna move BEFORE theyre old and saggy!

morethanpretty · 10-11-2006, 12:45 PM

In Texas you are legally allowed to have sex with any age (no more than 3 or 4yrs your junior) at the age of 17. I think you are allowed to have sex w/ parental consent between 13 to 16, and its illegal under 13.

Clodfobble · 10-12-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

In Texas you are legally allowed to have sex with any age (no more than 3 or 4yrs your junior) at the age of 17. I think you are allowed to have sex w/ parental consent between 13 to 16, and its illegal under 13.

Not quite. Your parents can consent to your marriage, and then you may have sex with (only) your spouse even if you are underage, but they cannot consent to an illegal act.

www.ageofconsent.com will tell you the exact law in every state and country.

9th Engineer · 10-13-2006, 02:12 PM

Didn't something regarding this come up in the news recently? Something about how some parents wanted to press charges on a 19yo girl for having sex with their 15yo son or something along those lines. The state refused to press charges even though they pointed out that the act was illegal under the written law even if no one really calls people on it. The idea of 'the spirit of the law' is BS in my opinion. There is what the law says, and what it does not say, both of which can be determined from what is written in the book and nowhere else. None of this "well that's not what it says, but it's what it means" crap. Or "but it wasn't intended to cover cases like that", well guess someone should've written a claus in there huh? If the law doesn't actually say what it's supposed to do then we have some incompetant politicians/lawers who need their names published.

Griff · 10-13-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

If the law doesn't actually say what it's supposed to do then we have some incompetant politicians/lawers who need their names published.

right on.

glatt · 10-13-2006, 02:22 PM

There's a thing called "legislative history" that goes along with a law. When there is room for interpretation in a law, you can go look up what was discussed about the law by the lawmakers as it was being passed. You get their intent from that. The court should look at the legislative history if there is ever any ambiguity about how a law should be applied. A good lawyer will use that too.

9th Engineer · 10-13-2006, 03:11 PM

My point is that there isn't that room for interpretation involved. If the law says something then that's what you have to go by, if the law is poorly written and doesn't cover all the bases then you need to change the law on the books. None of this precident crap, if people think a law has become outdated or doesn't include circumstances that are relevant now then you need to rewrite the law. Otherwise you open the entire thing to corruption from 'interpretations' and 'extrapolations' that really arn't appropriate.

glatt · 10-13-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

My point is that there isn't that room for interpretation involved. If the law says something then that's what you have to go by, if the law is poorly written and doesn't cover all the bases then you need to change the law on the books. None of this precident crap, if people think a law has become outdated or doesn't include circumstances that are relevant now then you need to rewrite the law. Otherwise you open the entire thing to corruption from 'interpretations' and 'extrapolations' that really arn't appropriate.

Sure, in theory that's a good idea, but in reality, it's very difficult to write a law so that it applies to all situations the way you want it to. That's why there is the concept of case law (precidential court decisions related to your situation) and legislative history when there are ambiguities in the actual law and case law.

Look at the RICO laws that were passed to fight the mafia. They are being stretched by aggressive prosecutors to cover things like the hiring practices of recruiting agencies.

The law is very messy.

Flint · 10-13-2006, 04:11 PM

The goal of a just society should not be to hurt people by imposing stiff definitions.

9th Engineer · 10-13-2006, 08:24 PM

You don't seriously think that's the way the legal system works do you?

Our courts have about as much to do with truth and justice as my choice in bagels this morning had to do with the congressional debates.

headsplice · 10-17-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

You don't seriously think that's the way the legal system works do you?

Our courts have about as much to do with truth and justice as my choice in bagels this morning had to do with the congressional debates.

Mmmm...congressional bagels...

Flint · 10-26-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Our courts have about as much to do with truth and justice as my choice in bagels this morning had to do with the congressional debates.

Notwithstanding this being the case, shouldn't we even try to do a good job?
A system is initially designed to do something, other than trudge ahead, mechanically.

9th Engineer · 10-26-2006, 06:20 PM

It was designed to deliver justice according to the people it served. Now it serves a population that understands little to nothing about what goes on around them and cares about that deficiency even less. One of my favorite quotes is "Democracy ensures that people will be governed no better then they deserve", and it retains its meaning if you change it to "Our laws ensure that society will receive the justice it deserves". Only problem is that we have been taught that what we deserve is not dependent on our abilities.

Flint · 10-26-2006, 06:32 PM

Dude...okay that's great. Now, back to the topic: should laws be unreasonably inflexible, to the point of failing to apply to reality?

JayMcGee · 10-26-2006, 07:25 PM

or, to put it another way, if the majority of the population do it and want it, should it be illegal?

10-11-2006, 07:20 AM	#1
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Yeah, and thats why I wanna move BEFORE theyre old and saggy! __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-11-2006, 12:45 PM	#2
morethanpretty Thats "Miss Zipper Neck" to you. Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: little town (but not the littlest) in texas Posts: 2,957	In Texas you are legally allowed to have sex with any age (no more than 3 or 4yrs your junior) at the age of 17. I think you are allowed to have sex w/ parental consent between 13 to 16, and its illegal under 13. __________________ Addicts may suck dick for coke, but love came up with the idea to put a dick in there to begin with. -Jack O'Brien

10-13-2006, 02:12 PM	#4
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Didn't something regarding this come up in the news recently? Something about how some parents wanted to press charges on a 19yo girl for having sex with their 15yo son or something along those lines. The state refused to press charges even though they pointed out that the act was illegal under the written law even if no one really calls people on it. The idea of 'the spirit of the law' is BS in my opinion. There is what the law says, and what it does not say, both of which can be determined from what is written in the book and nowhere else. None of this "well that's not what it says, but it's what it means" crap. Or "but it wasn't intended to cover cases like that", well guess someone should've written a claus in there huh? If the law doesn't actually say what it's supposed to do then we have some incompetant politicians/lawers who need their names published. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

10-13-2006, 03:11 PM	#7
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	My point is that there isn't that room for interpretation involved. If the law says something then that's what you have to go by, if the law is poorly written and doesn't cover all the bases then you need to change the law on the books. None of this precident crap, if people think a law has become outdated or doesn't include circumstances that are relevant now then you need to rewrite the law. Otherwise you open the entire thing to corruption from 'interpretations' and 'extrapolations' that really arn't appropriate. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

10-13-2006, 04:11 PM	#9
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	The goal of a just society should not be to hurt people by imposing stiff definitions. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-13-2006, 02:22 PM	#6
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	There's a thing called "legislative history" that goes along with a law. When there is room for interpretation in a law, you can go look up what was discussed about the law by the lawmakers as it was being passed. You get their intent from that. The court should look at the legislative history if there is ever any ambiguity about how a law should be applied. A good lawyer will use that too.

10-13-2006, 08:24 PM	#10
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	You don't seriously think that's the way the legal system works do you? Our courts have about as much to do with truth and justice as my choice in bagels this morning had to do with the congressional debates. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

10-26-2006, 06:20 PM	#13
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	It was designed to deliver justice according to the people it served. Now it serves a population that understands little to nothing about what goes on around them and cares about that deficiency even less. One of my favorite quotes is "Democracy ensures that people will be governed no better then they deserve", and it retains its meaning if you change it to "Our laws ensure that society will receive the justice it deserves". Only problem is that we have been taught that what we deserve is not dependent on our abilities. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

10-26-2006, 06:32 PM	#14
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Dude...okay that's great. Now, back to the topic: should laws be unreasonably inflexible, to the point of failing to apply to reality? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

10-26-2006, 07:25 PM	#15
JayMcGee Cardigan-wearing man Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Much Binding In The Marsh Posts: 1,082	or, to put it another way, if the majority of the population do it and want it, should it be illegal? __________________ I like wearing cardigans...... my current favourite is an orange cable-knit with real leatherette buttons.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)