Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp

[Origanalist]

Is every male who goes to a bar and wants to have sex with a woman a sexual predator?

What the hell are you talking about? Try to focus on the subject at hand.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Is every male who goes to a bar and wants to have sex with a woman a sexual predator?

How many under-18 minors are hanging out in bars?

Like I give a fuck about a law in California?

Oh, I'm sure you do. I bet you wouldn't openly flaunt committing statutory rape. So that would mean you do, in fact, give a f*ck.

 

[dannno]

The term is sexual predator. They do exist, despite all your protests.

Although there is one other option I will outline in a moment, a sexual predator is somebody who forces somebody to have sex, or has sex with a child who is unable to comprehend what is happening. By the time you are 16, most have been sexually active in their minds or otherwise for at least 3 years. They comprehend what is happening. So to be a sexual predator of a 16 year old you would either have to force them to have sex or put them in an extremely vulnerable position on purpose for the express purpose of having sex with them. This isn't, or shouldn't really be illegal, although if they are underage like this kid was then a case could be made.. and it could potentially be judged as immoral and an act of sexual predation. So this COULD have been what this guy was attempting, and I assume that is why you are protesting, but I still don't know that for a fact as I've not yet heard the whole story and I don't know the guy personally.

I wasn't around back in the 60s and 70s but I always get the feeling that a lot of the people in more progressive urban areas thought some big cultural change or revolution was in the process of happening, which it was, but you still had all of these people stuck in the suburbs who were still stuck in the 50s.. So I see what a lot of these people were doing was recruiting to get more kids who were unhappy with their 'square' and 'conforming' lifestyles to come out to California and be apart of it. If they were in their 20s and hadn't gone on their own yet then they probably weren't interested so they recruited younger kids as well. Not everybody sees sex as some evil horrible thing, especially back then before the AIDS epidemic. It was seen as something positive and beautiful. I still see it that way despite the AIDS epidemic, so naturally I will have different views on some of these types of situations than many others who view sex outside marriage as some sort of evil sin. So while there may have been some other motivations to get this physically disabled kid out there, there may have also been some other motivations like he actually thought the kid would have a better life out in California. I would still need a lot more information.

 

[dannno]

How many under-18 minors are hanging out in bars?

That doesn't apply to my argument. If a 16 year old can have consensual sex with another 16 year old, I see no logical reason why they can't have sex with a 25 year old if they want to. I won't continue to bring up that argument as the age goes much below 16 because you start getting close to that gray area where some kids that age are not sexually mature enough to understand it yet.

Oh, I'm sure you do. I bet you wouldn't openly flaunt committing statutory rape. So that would mean you do, in fact, give a f*ck.

Hypothetically correct, but I also smoked weed illegally before I got my prescription and while I gave a fuck about not getting arrested, weed being illegal did not at all play into the decision whether I would smoke it or not, or whether it was 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[green73]

 

[dannno]

What the hell are you talking about? Try to focus on the subject at hand.

I don't think a 33 year old attempting to have consensual sex with a 16 year old is necessarily a 'predator'.

The fact that one of these kids he was trying to get to come out was disabled plays in your favor, and I admit it is possible that he was.. but it's still just one small piece of information and doesn't tell the whole story.

Are there any cases where this guy had non-consensual sex, or drugged somebody to have sex with them? Or had sex with somebody under 16?

 

[Origanalist]

Although there is one other option I will outline in a moment, a sexual predator is somebody who forces somebody to have sex, or has sex with a child who is unable to comprehend what is happening. By the time you are 16, most have been sexually active in their minds or otherwise for at least 3 years. They comprehend what is happening. So to be a sexual predator of a 16 year old you would either have to force them to have sex or put them in an extremely vulnerable position on purpose for the express purpose of having sex with them. This isn't, or shouldn't really be illegal but it could potentially be judged as immoral and an act of sexual predation. So this COULD have been what this guy was attempting, and I assume that is why you are protesting, but I still don't know that for a fact as I've not yet heard the whole story and I don't know the guy personally.

I wasn't around back in the 60s and 70s but I always get the feeling that a lot of the people in more progressive urban areas thought some big cultural change or revolution was in the process of happening, which it was, but you still had all of these people stuck in the suburbs who were still stuck in the 50s.. So I see what a lot of these people were doing was recruiting to get more kids who were unhappy with their 'square' and 'conforming' lifestyles to come out to California and be apart of it. If they were in their 20s and hadn't gone on their own yet then they probably weren't interested so they recruited younger kids as well. Not everybody sees sex as some evil horrible thing, especially back then before the AIDS epidemic. It was seen as something positive and beautiful. I still see it that way despite the AIDS epidemic, so naturally I will have different views on some of these types of situations than many others who view sex outside marriage as some sort of evil sin. So while there may have been some other motivations to get this physically disabled kid out there, there may have also been some other motivations like he actually thought the kid would have a better life out in California. I would still need a lot more information.

dannno, thanks for making some sense. I was around in the 60's and 70's. And obviously there was a huge cultural shift going on. And yes there were predators taking advantage of it, I had a few run ins with them myself growing up. But that is hardly a new thing. The point about this guy is he repeatedly went after vulnerable young men, living on the street etc. It was a easily identified pattern.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I thought everybody was on a stamp these days.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It doesn't sound like he raped anybody.

There are so many places in the world where 16 is the age of consent, some have it even lower.

Just because it was against the law where he was at the time doesn't mean anything except that he could have been punished under the law.

The point, I think, is that he wasn't punished under the law like mundanes who do that.

Also, Danke makes a good point. What if they were girls?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... yet Bunny Lebowski as an 18 year old runaway from Minnesota can legally marry an 80 year old Korean War vet?

Wasn't that in a movie? Either way--that's awesome.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Meh, if gay people want to celebrate the first openly gay elected representative or whatever then I say go for it.

As far as if he deserves to be on a stamp, I really don't care, but they should probably give people options if they are going to have photos on there.

This "celebration" of the first openly gay elected representative affects everyone. It's not just gay people celebrating. Everyone celebrates this by default just because public officials chose to make it part of the hallmark of their population, even though the population doesn't agree. What happened to celebrating privately? This tactic is nothing more than propaganda. These people are honored because some people want them and people like them to be seen as honorable.

When the football team wins a game, their trophy doesn't get displayed in the opposing school's trophy cabinet. "Public" life is a joke and people need to stop being honored on behalf of everyone just because some people want them to be honored.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

Same principle. It's the principle that needs to be argued for after all. Whenever you see the public honoring someone, you can be assured there is a reason they are being honored. It's because somebody wanted that person to serve as a role model for the general population.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Let's see, a runaway male 16 year old from Minnesota can't be with a 33 year old consensually by law, yet Bunny Lebowski as an 18 year old runaway from Minnesota can legally marry an 80 year old Korean War vet?

Even ignoring the fact that homosexuals are sexual perverts by definition, any 33 or 80 year old that wants to be with a teenager is a sexual pervert.

Not saying either one is "rape" but I don't see anything worth honoring about it. At best, California is honoring grievous sin that should be legal. It still shouldn't be honored.

Then again, I guess its no worse than honoring the military or the police.

Americans are stupid.

 

[Slutter McGee]

Screw everybody. Screw the Dems who want to ignore these actions because a guy happens to share much of their political views. Screw the Republicans who want to demonize an entire class of people and imply that gay rights mean nothing because this guy liked underage boys. Screw the government who decided what underage means. Screw libertarians who think a grown adult can not take advantage of somebody who is underage.

Yeah, I become more of a cynic every day.

Slutter McGee

 

[Slutter McGee]

Even ignoring the fact that homosexuals are sexual perverts by definition.

Wow freedomfanatic has something incredibly stupid to say. I am so surprised.

Slutter McGee

 

[Christian Liberty]

Pfft... big whoop. War criminals get bloody great marble monuments in the fashion of legendary gods built to them in Washington D.C.

Stamps are amateur hour.

I'm no fan of honoring the wicked, whether they be murderers or perverts.

The point, I think, is that he wasn't punished under the law like mundanes who do that.

Also, Danke makes a good point. What if they were girls?​

Nobody'd be honoring them, that's for sure. For me, the only difference would be that we'd be honoring a semi-pedophile who isn't a homosexual rather than one who is. One form of perversion instead of two. So what?​

 

[Christian Liberty]

Screw everybody. Screw the Dems who want to ignore these actions because a guy happens to share much of their political views. Screw the Republicans who want to demonize an entire class of people and imply that gay rights mean nothing because this guy liked underage boys. Screw the government who decided what underage means. Screw libertarians who think a grown adult can not take advantage of somebody who is underage.

Yeah, I become more of a cynic every day.

Slutter McGee

Wow freedomfanatic has something incredibly stupid to say. I am so surprised.

Slutter McGee

For the record, my reasons for thinking homosexuality is perverted have nothing to do with the fact that this particular guy did this particular thing. I am also in no way denying their right to do as they see fit, although "gay rights" means so many things these days, some good, some bad.

 

[Slutter McGee]

For the record, my reasons for thinking homosexuality is perverted have nothing to do with the fact that this particular guy did this particular thing. I am also in no way denying their right to do as they see fit, although "gay rights" means so many things these days, some good, some bad.

I am all for no state recognition of marriage, straight or gay. So you are right, sometimes "gay rights" means different things. But I do believe that if the government recognizes straight marriage, they should recognize gay marriage...and there are benefits that do come with marriage.

Slutter McGee

 

[Christian Liberty]

I am all for no state recognition of marriage, straight or gay. So you are right, sometimes "gay rights" means different things. But I do believe that if the government recognizes straight marriage, they should recognize gay marriage...and there are benefits that do come with marriage.

Slutter McGee

I agree with you on no state-recognition. If there's going to be any recognition at all (which there shouldn't be) I believe the states should decide and not the Federal government. So, if Massachusettes wants to "legalize" (really codeword for "recognize") gay marriage, and South Carolina doesn't want to, that's fine with me.

Personally, at the state level? I wouldn't vote for "gay marriage" but I wouldn't vote for constitutional amendments that make "gay marriage" illegal either. But ultimately, I think this is just an issue that is used to divide where it shouldn't be. I believe homosexual contact is seriously immoral, but I respect their rights to do what they want. As long as no force is involved, no force should be used to prevent it There are also way more important issues at hand for any reasonable person, including war, the Fed, crippling tax rates (Funny that so many of those [not accusing you here, just to be clear] who say gay couples "deserve" tax cuts also want to raise taxes on everybody, homosexual or not) the war on drugs where people are actually being IMPRISONED for their personal choices, etc.