General Discussion

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)

35. I read the article at the link, I still don't get it.

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 03:30 AM

Apr 2013

The boys were the same age how did they decide which one to prosecute? How did they figure out that at 17 it's against the laws of nature, but it would be natural if they had both been 18? Where does a DA find the time to pursue cases like this, but somehow they manage to not be able to take real rape perps to trial? It's 2013 not 1113 right?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

17 yr old boy prosecuted for having consensual sex with 17 yr old boy [View all] medeak Apr 2013 OP

Well they need a judgment on the constitutionality of the law. dkf Apr 2013 #1

SCOTUS already ruled such laws are unconstitutional BainsBane Apr 2013 #16

But was the other 17-year-old boy prosecuted for having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy? Comrade Grumpy Apr 2013 #2

This was no crime. LuvNewcastle Apr 2013 #3

Disgusting cvoogt Apr 2013 #4

This is why we can't have nice things. Gravitycollapse Apr 2013 #5

Disgusting that this is even an issue. alittlelark Apr 2013 #6

the other one pleaded guilty ? and it's because they are the same sex ? JI7 Apr 2013 #7

Yes, it is because they are of the same sex. Behind the Aegis Apr 2013 #10

How is this even possible? etherealtruth Apr 2013 #40

In all honesty... Behind the Aegis Apr 2013 #41

The guilty plea was almost certainly to avert some threatened, hugely ridiculous punishment Posteritatis Apr 2013 #42

How was this not dumped after the Lawerence v. Texas SCOTUS decision? Rhythm Apr 2013 #8

That's what I want to know. Lunacee_2013 Apr 2013 #36

I'm thinking for the same reasons red states are working to ban abortion BainsBane Apr 2013 #37

Homophobia in action. Behind the Aegis Apr 2013 #9

Post removed Post removed Apr 2013 #11

Yeah no, both were over the age of consent. Kurska Apr 2013 #13

Technically, no. Because in Nevada, unbelievably, pnwmom Apr 2013 #23

Yeah, but that is apparently "Welcome to equality" n/t Kurska Apr 2013 #26

Oh do they now? Behind the Aegis Apr 2013 #14

He is being prosecuted for violating the "laws of nature" BainsBane Apr 2013 #18

But even that charge applies only because his partner is under 18. pnwmom Apr 2013 #24

that can't be constitutional either BainsBane Apr 2013 #27

Hell no. NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #28

right, but even under this court BainsBane Apr 2013 #29

Yes, that was my point. NutmegYankee Apr 2013 #31

That's why the ACLU took this case. But as long as it's on the books, pnwmom Apr 2013 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author MNBrewer Apr 2013 #19

I'm thinking he didn't read carefully BainsBane Apr 2013 #30

I think you're right. n/t pnwmom Apr 2013 #34

bullshit Marrah_G Apr 2013 #20

This is the OPPOSITE of equality. The age of consent for straight couples is 16. pnwmom Apr 2013 #22

WTF? That DA should be ashamed. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #12

That DA should be disbarred. opiate69 Apr 2013 #32

WTF how is this even possible azurnoir Apr 2013 #15

When I was 17... DissidentVoice Apr 2013 #17

Here's another article about the ACLU lawsuit. pnwmom Apr 2013 #21

thank you! medeak Apr 2013 #45

17 ? Seventeen? defacto7 Apr 2013 #25

I read the article at the link, I still don't get it. Kalidurga Apr 2013 #35

K&R don't even know what to say. WTF? idwiyo Apr 2013 #38

There's an entire human interest side of the story missing. Trillo Apr 2013 #39

These young men are Helen Reddy Apr 2013 #43

other 17 yr old was Mormon medeak Apr 2013 #44

consensual sex bypasses Elko's brothel industry markiv Apr 2013 #46

LOL! medeak Apr 2013 #47