NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This article makes my head spin! Has the entire State of Kansas taken total leave of its senses? Are there no rational people left in this Sate?

Shame on all you over-sexed teenagers, with your evil French-kissing and wicked thoughts! :rolleyes:


Trial Opens in Challenge to Law Over Teenage Sex (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/national/31sex.html?th&emc=th)


By JODI RUDOREN
Published: January 31, 2006
WICHITA, Kan., Jan. 30 — A federal trial opened here Monday over whether a Kansas law prohibiting virtually all sexual activity by people under age 16 means health care professionals and educators must report such behavior to state authorities, which some say would stop many teenagers from seeking contraception or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

The class-action lawsuit stems from a 2003 opinion by the Kansas attorney general, Phill Kline, a conservative Republican who has developed a national reputation for fighting abortion and whose pursuit of abortion clinic records is also being challenged in court.

Mr. Kline's interpretation of the law focused mainly on the reporting duty of abortion providers, arguing that any pregnant, unmarried minor had by definition been the victim of rape or abuse. But it included a broad mandate for reporting whenever "compelling evidence of sexual interaction is present."

Bonnie Scott Jones, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, which is representing the plaintiffs, said in her opening statement that Mr. Kline's "dragnet approach" to amassing information on under-age sex violated minors' privacy rights and the Constitution's equal protection clause, and that it "seriously endangers the health and well-being of adolescents."

"Sexual abuse is not synonymous with consensual sexual activity," Ms. Jones said to the judge deciding the case, J. Thomas Marten of Federal District Court. "Consensual sexual activity is not inherently injurious. It is a normal part of adolescent development."

Steve Alexander, an assistant attorney general defending the suit, said the Kansas statute meant that those younger than 16 could not consent to sex, and that those violating the law forfeited any privacy rights.

"Illegal sexual activity by minors can lead to S.T.D.'s, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, depression, mental illness," Mr. Alexander said. "To pretend otherwise is foolish." He said the case was in essence a challenge to the law barring consensual sex between young people of a similar age, which he called "a policy argument that plaintiffs would be better served making in the Legislature."

Kansas is one of 12 states where sex under a certain age — 16, 17 or 18 — is illegal regardless of the age difference between partners, according to a 2004 report prepared by the Lewin Group, a consulting firm, for the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Laws on reporting child sexual abuse also vary, but a third of states require reporting only when statutory rape involves a parent or guardian, the report found.

Dr. Robert W. Blum, a Johns Hopkins University professor and an expert in pediatrics and adolescent medicine, who was the plaintiffs' lead witness, testified Monday that only one state, California, had previously tried to require reporting of all under-age sex, and that it reversed course after a year in the early 1990's because the authorities were flooded with "irrelevant and obstructive" reports.

Among the plaintiffs' arguments is that blanket reporting of sexual activity would be futile because the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services has a policy against investigating cases of consensual teenage sex.

Pressed on cross-examination, Dr. Blum said he did consider all sex by children 12 or younger to be "problematic" and worthy of reporting, but he said, "That's distinctly different than a 14-, 15- or 16-year-old in a romantic relationship."

Nationally, studies suggest that about 30 percent of teenagers under 16 have had intercourse, and an additional 20 percent have experimented with oral sex or genital fondling.

A federal appeals court on Friday overturned a temporary injunction blocking enactment of Mr. Kline's ruling but provided a two-week window, approximately the expected length of the trial, before the reporting would be required.

Among the issues debated Monday was the very definition of sexual activity. Anal and vaginal intercourse and oral sex are mentioned in the law, as is "lewd fondling or touching" done with "the intent to arouse," which Ms. Jones said could cover even intense French kissing. [ ROFLMAO! You nassy lil teenieboppers! TSK! ]

Mr. Kline, who is expected to testify Friday, declined to discuss the case. In an e-mail statement, he avoided the central controversy over consensual sex between teenagers of a similar age.

"Plaintiffs are arguing that the constitution does not allow the state to require people to report child rape," the statement said. "We differ. Prosecuting and investigating child rapists depends on such laws, and if the plaintiffs believe that adult-child sex should be legal they need to take that debate to the Legislature rather than initiate litigation."

Similarly, Mr. Kline said last year that prosecuting rapists was his goal in seeking access to the medical files of women and girls who had had late-term abortions, which led to a separate lawsuit awaiting a decision by the State Supreme Court.

Mr. Kline, elected in 2002, also serves as chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association and has fought against abortion throughout his career. He filed a lawsuit, recently dismissed, to challenge the state's use of Medicaid funds for abortions, and he submitted a brief in a federal case arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Last year, Mr. Kline successfully lobbied the Legislature to require that abortion providers collect fetal tissue from patients younger than 14 and turn it over to law enforcement.

"He's certainly on a crusade to limit or eliminate abortion in Kansas," said Peter Brownlie, chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. "That's been a clear agenda for a long time." Mr. Brownlie said Mr. Kline had helped make Kansas a national battlefront in the abortion debate.

But the doctors, nurses, counselors and educators suing over Mr. Kline's interpretation of the reporting law say it goes far beyond abortion to include every teenager who requests birth control pills or H.I.V. testing, or who in a group therapy session even discusses "heavy petting" with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

"If they know what they tell me is reported, they simply won't talk," said Beth McGilley, a Wichita therapist who is among the plaintiffs, referring to both teenage clients and adults who often consult her about their children's sexual exploration.

"To me, it's violating what, quite essentially, therapy is couched in: confidentiality," Ms. McGilley said. "You have two 15-year-olds mashing in the back seat of the car — who's the criminal here? Do we really need Big Brother to decide whether or not that needs to be judiciously pursued?" [ Answer: not only "no," but "hell no!" ]

Wow, just wow... That is really overboard.

I mean, geez, most teenagers aren't that stupid and even if they were, having such asinine laws in place only compounds the problem.

Wow, just wow... That is really overboard.

I mean, geez, most teenagers aren't that stupid and even if they were, having such asinine laws in place only compounds the problem.
No shit. But remember, this was brought to you by the same people who tried to mandate teaching "creationism" in public schools. Wadda buncha dweebs! Groan!

Ah yes, the sex-phobia is reaching a crescendo. It was the natural step considering that their efforts to cripple their children's education has failed. If you can't use ignorance to keep people in line, use shame and fear.

No shit. But remember, this was brought to you by the same people who tried to mandate teaching "creationism" in public schools. Wadda buncha dweebs! Groan!
They really want to rival those Mid East countries when it comes to backward thinking.

Ah yes, the sex-phobia is reaching a crescendo. It was the natural step considering that their efforts to cripple their children's education has failed. If you can't use ignorance to keep people in line, use shame and fear.
Sigh! I realize that Kansas doesn't have an awful lot going for it, having been stationed at Fort Riley for awhile, but after thiis and the "creationism" idiocy, they're not even going to have sex to fall back on! Heh!

They really want to rival those Mid East countries when it comes to backward thinking.
Religious fundamentalism knows no boundaries it seems. Arrgh! :headbang:

Religious fundamentalism knows no boundaries it seems. Arrgh! :headbang:
Which is why all those who follow such ways of 'thinking' need to be rounded up and reeducated, tags and be released back into society and carefully monitored for any regressions.

Dr. Robert W. Blum, a Johns Hopkins University professor and an expert in pediatrics and adolescent medicine, who was the plaintiffs' lead witness, testified Monday that only one state, California, had previously tried to require reporting of all under-age sex, and that it reversed course after a year in the early 1990's because the authorities were flooded with "irrelevant and obstructive" reports.
This clearly shows how to approach the matter. Flood them with "irrelevant and obstructive" reports. Heck, if all the adolescents of Kansas get together, they could massively report some kissing or heavy petting every single day. It'd be next century before they've muddled through all those reports.

This clearly shows how to approach the matter. Flood them with "irrelevant and obstructive" reports. Heck, if all the adolescents of Kansas get together, they could massively report some kissing or heavy petting every single day. It'd be next century before they've muddled through all those reports.
ROFLMAO! "F**k for civil rights!" Hmm. Has a nice ring to it! :D

This clearly shows how to approach the matter. Flood them with "irrelevant and obstructive" reports. Heck, if all the adolescents of Kansas get together, they could massively report some kissing or heavy petting every single day. It'd be next century before they've muddled through all those reports.
But...but...but... but then it'd clog up the bureaucratic system, result in nothing being done, them having to hire and train more people to deal with the backlog, but then no work would be done because there'd be ore reports...

Heeeeyyy... that's not a bad idea.

But...but...but... but then it'd clog up the bureaucratic system, result in nothing being done, them having to hire and train more people to deal with the backlog, but then no work would be done because there'd be ore reports...

Heeeeyyy... that's not a bad idea.
True, plus I love the slogan! :D

hah! like that's going to happen. how the hell do they get away with it?

education > ignorance

kansas, congratulations! you are on the cutting edge of what makes the rest of the world think we're crazy!

w00t! :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

hah! like that's going to happen. how the hell do they get away with it?

education > ignorance

kansas, congratulations! you are on the cutting edge of what makes the rest of the world think we're crazy!

w00t! :rolleyes:

/sarcasm
SIGH! Keep them ignorant, feed them bulshit, and whatever you do ... never, ever let them have sex! :eek:

True, plus I love the slogan! :D
Thanks. It's something that was the result of a goooood toke.

hah! like that's going to happen. how the hell do they get away with it?

education > ignorance

kansas, congratulations! you are on the cutting edge of what makes the rest of the world think we're crazy!

w00t! :rolleyes:

/sarcasm
Well, there is always one deiviant in the pack. BEing normal doesn't help and being liberal doesn't help, so there's being ultra conservative. That's one way of getting attention. :D

SIGH! Keep them ignorant, feed them bulshit, and whatever you do ... never, ever let them have sex! :eek:
Honestly, it's getting to the point where any parent who chooses to rear their children in Kansas should be charged with child endangerment.

Sigh! I realize that Kansas doesn't have an awful lot going for it, having been stationed at Fort Riley for awhile, but after thiis and the "creationism" idiocy, they're not even going to have sex to fall back on! Heh!

Seconded...I was also at Ft Riley for about a year and a half. So let me get this straight...two 14 year olds have sex and they're BOTH child rapists? I'm sure I say this way too often, but stupidity should be a capital offense.

Honestly, it's getting to the point where any parent who chooses to rear their children in Kansas should be charged with child endangerment.
LOL! Sadly, there's a bit of truth to that.

Honestly, it's getting to the point where any parent who chooses to rear their children in Kansas should be charged with child endangerment.
Shouldn't that be, who choose to send their children to school and date in Kansas?

Seconded...I was also at Ft Riley for about a year and a half. So let me get this straight...two 14 year olds have sex and they're BOTH child rapists? I'm sure I say this way too often, but stupidity should be a capital offense.
LOL! Yup. That's in essence what the law says. And I can only fantasize about a world ( or even a State! ) where stupidity was punished in any manner.

LOL! Yup. That's in essence what the law says. And I can only fantasize about a world ( or even a State! ) where stupidity was punished in any manner.

Just think about what would happen to the population! There goes most of our problems right there.

LOL! Yup. That's in essence what the law says. And I can only fantasize about a world ( or even a State! ) where stupidity was punished in any manner.
Hmn... that gives me an II idea...

You might think that what with all the "OMG! Teh Hispanics br33d lik chihuahuas" that the religious nuts want to encourage their youth to rut like hells. Stupid suckers, the lot of them...

Hmn... that gives me an II idea...
Ut oh! Heh! [ hides ] :p

You might think that what with all the "OMG! Teh Hispanics br33d lik chihuahuas" that the religious nuts want to encourage their youth to rut like hells. Stupid suckers, the lot of them...
The depth of their ignorance is exceeded only by the bankruptcy of their ideas.

In other news Kansas has banned dancing, luckily the following events are likely to take place.

When teenager Ren (Kevin Bacon) and his family move from big-city Chicago to a small town in the West, he's in for a real case of culture shock. Though he tries hard to fit in, the streetwise Ren can't quite believe he's living in a place where rock music and dancing are illegal. There is one small pleasure, however: Ariel (Lori Singer), a troubled but lovely blonde with a jealous boyfriend. and a Bible-thumping minister, who is responsible for keeping the town dance-free. Ren and his classmates want to do away with this ordinance, especially since the senior prom is around the corner, but only Ren has the courage to initiate a battle to abolish the outmoded ban and revitalize the spirit of the repressed townspeople.

In other news Kansas has banned dancing, luckily the following events are likely to take place.

When teenager Ren (Kevin Bacon) and his family move from big-city Chicago to a small town in the West, he's in for a real case of culture shock. Though he tries hard to fit in, the streetwise Ren can't quite believe he's living in a place where rock music and dancing are illegal. There is one small pleasure, however: Ariel (Lori Singer), a troubled but lovely blonde with a jealous boyfriend. and a Bible-thumping minister, who is responsible for keeping the town dance-free. Ren and his classmates want to do away with this ordinance, especially since the senior prom is around the corner, but only Ren has the courage to initiate a battle to abolish the outmoded ban and revitalize the spirit of the repressed townspeople.
Footloose? :p

so how would they go about enforcing this... a chasity belt that releases when one turns 18 (or whatever the Age of Consent)

so how would they go about enforcing this... a chasity belt that releases when one turns 18 (or whatever the Age of Consent)

We put all the kids in jail of course. Have them under 24 hour watch to ensure that they don't do anything "scandalous" until they're 18. The problem that arises is that nobody actually grows up, and you have a bunch of adult children running around.

so how would they go about enforcing this... a chasity belt that releases when one turns 18 (or whatever the Age of Consent)
How utterly barbaric! :p

How utterly barbaric! :p
Yeah, but not totally beyond the dweebs running things in Kansas, apparently! :(

We put all the kids in jail of course. Have them under 24 hour watch to ensure that they don't do anything "scandalous" until they're 18. The problem that arises is that nobody actually grows up, and you have a bunch of adult children running around.
Uh ... and that would be different from what they have right now how??

I hereby officially boycott the State of Kansas and demand the United States remove its star from the flag. Oh ... and Florida too while you're at it.

Yeah, but not totally beyond the dweebs running things in Kansas, apparently! :(
True, it seems like their cup of tea.

Uh ... and that would be different from what they have right now how??

Simple...people would stop having "illegal" life experience until they turn 18. Then you have people who are technically adults....you know what...you're right. We already have a bunch of "adults" with no grasp of reality.

I hereby officially boycott the State of Kansas and demand the United States remove its star from the flag. Oh ... and Florida too while you're at it.
LMAO! :p

Simple...people would stop having "illegal" life experience until they turn 18. Then you have people who are technically adults....you know what...you're right. We already have a bunch of "adults" with no grasp of reality.
Here ... have a cookie! :D

That sucks. Here in Ontario, the age of legal consent is 14. If people actually abide by this law, (which they won't) you're going to have a state full of teens wound so tight that they will start paying attention in school.

That sucks. Here in Ontario, the age of legal consent is 14. If people actually abide by this law, (which they won't) you're going to have a state full of teens wound so tight that they will start paying attention in school.
And 16 is when a person can be legally married with parental consent.

Congratulations, Kansas! It's hard to imagine a "police state" system of control in a state where most of the buildings only have one floor.

Thankfully, not all Kansans are as backwards as their state government makes them out to be. A very dear friend of mine hails from that state (and in fact turned 17 today).

Thankfully, not all Kansans are as backwards as their state government makes them out to be. A very dear friend of mine hails from that state (and in fact turned 17 today).
The exception who proves the rule? :)

Thankfully, not all Kansans are as backwards as their state government makes them out to be. A very dear friend of mine hails from that state (and in fact turned 17 today).
Ah, a little deviant, eh? I guess he needs another year under the holy wisdom of the Kansas state education system to get him good and ready for his life and ready to show the rest of America that Kansas has the conformity system mastered. ;)

Damn, that's a stupid law. Remind me never to go within a 100 kilometers of Kansas.

this from the state that gave us westboro baptist church. i am not suprised.

jeez!

What is wrong with Kansas!
Bunch of Idiots. Using capitals. They are the country's new official Idiots.
so whenever you talk about Kansas, just say the Idiots.

jeez!

What is wrong with Kansas!
Bunch of Idiots. Using capitals. They are the country's new official Idiots.
so whenever you talk about Kansas, just say the Idiots.
LOL! :D

this from the state that gave us westboro baptist church. i am not suprised.
Huh? Is that the rev'rund Phelps' church, by any chance???

Damn, that's a stupid law. Remind me never to go within a 100 kilometers of Kansas.
Hey, Letila? Don't go within 100 kilometers of Kansas, ok? :D

Huh? Is that the rev'rund Phelps' church, by any chance???

why, yes, yes it is.

godhatezfagzzzzzz!dotcom.

why, yes, yes it is.

godhatezfagzzzzzz!dotcom.
SIGH! People can be so frakkin' STOOPID sometimes that I worry about the future of the entire human race! God save us all from people who claim to act in His name! :(

"And on that day, Pot gathered his weapons and headed to Kansas."

SIGH! People can be so frakkin' STOOPID sometimes that I worry about the future of the entire human race! God save us all from people who claim to act in His name! :(

There was an interesting thread awhile back about an atheist and a born again Christian standing at the gates of heaven. I can just see everyone standing around at Judgement Day...God says "You know what? I'm going to let all the atheists in and a whole lot of you people I'm not. Want to know why? They at least didn't do all this stupid shit 'in my name'"

SIGH! People can be so frakkin' STOOPID sometimes that I worry about the future of the entire human race! God save us all from people who claim to act in His name! :(

Given the prevalence of stupid people in the world I'm assuming that stupidity is a survival trait at some level.

So either:

1. Stupid people are more likely to survive. nope
2. The stupid gene is linked into a positive gene, i.e. fertility unlikely
3. Stupid people are sexually attractive. the only remaining option, it also explains bimbos

Therefore, I conclude that if you find somebody attractive you should on no account have sex with them as this will pollute the gene pool. Only have sex with the people who you find completely unatractive.

*nods sagely*

Given the prevalence of stupid people in the world I'm assuming that stupidity is a survival trait at some level.

So either:

1. Stupid people are more likely to survive. nope
2. The stupid gene is linked into a positive gene, i.e. fertility unlikely
3. Stupid people are sexually attractive. the only remaining option, it also explains bimbos

Therefore, I conclude that if you find somebody attractive you should on no account have sex with them as this will pollute the gene pool. Only have sex with the people who you find completely unatractive.

*nods sagely*

You are neglecting the people who know they can't support a family and have 15 kids anyway. I think stupidity could indeed be linked to fertility.

You are neglecting the people who know they can't support a family and have 15 kids anyway. I think stupidity could indeed be linked to fertility.

Or it could be that the stupid people find each other so attractive that they can't stop reproducing! [/bends logic and evidence to support pet theory]

As H.L. Mencken put it:

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

It's amazing how much these people care about such divinely-inspired documents like the Constitution in their rush to save souls by breaking spirits.

"intent to arouse" as a legal term. Shit!

No shit. But remember, this was brought to you by the same people who tried to mandate teaching "creationism" in public schools. Wadda buncha dweebs! Groan!

You voted for them, there's your bed. Now enjoy a looong nap.

I hereby officially boycott the State of Kansas and demand the United States remove its star from the flag. Oh ... and Florida too while you're at it.

I've long argued for the expulsion of Florida and Ohio from the Union. I guess I'll be adding Kansas to my list. By the time I'm done the US will probably have 3 states at most in it :D

So, how long do we think it will be before research shows that, for some strange reason that we'll have to study, the population of Kansas is 80% single parents under 18, with criminal records, and infected with STDs?

I bet 2 years.

You voted for them, there's your bed. Now enjoy a looong nap.

Actually, he probably didn't vote for them. Eut lives in North Carolina IIRC, not Kansas.

So, how long do we think it will be before research shows that, for some strange reason that we'll have to study, the population of Kansas is 80% single parents under 18, with criminal records, and infected with STDs?

I bet 2 years.

You're being twice as generous. Name a Fundie Red State that isn't a nest of teenage pregnancies and VD.

Where do you think we get wheat from?

And tornadoes.


Aww... Kansas IS teh suck....:rolleyes:

I've long argued for the expulsion of Florida and Ohio from the Union. I guess I'll be adding Kansas to my list. By the time I'm done the US will probably have 3 states at most in it :D
I say just slice off everything south of the Mason-Dixon line and call it a day.

I'm quite surprised that there is so much vehement anger about this. It seems to me that the law itself isn't a bad law, as when it applies to 10 and 12 year olds, it not only seems reasonable but prudent. It fails only when we begin to talk about older teenagers, perhaps the law shouldn't be applied to them, in which case it's the age of consent that is at fault not the law that mandates that sexually active children be reported so that government agencies can verify that there isn't child molestation going on by pedophiles who try to brainwash their victims into thinking of it as 'consensual so it's not wrong,' or otherwise convince them to try and ‘hide’ the event from other adults etc.

A twelve year old getting an abortion or asking for contraceptives or revealing their abuse to a counselor needs to be reported for their own protection. It might be a family member, a neighbor, someone with authority over them, etc., and if it's simply another twelve year old, then their guardians will find out and figure out a way to put a stop to it because they ARE too young to make those choices, regardless of the ridicule the people in this thread are trying to heap on the law.

You're being twice as generous. Name a Fundie Red State that isn't a nest of teenage pregnancies and VD.
I was just trying to figure out how long before outside researchers got numbers into publication -- splitting the difference between the 2 weeks it'll take for it to happen and the 2 centuries it'll take for the Kansas government to admit it.

I'm quite surprised that there is so much vehement anger about this. It seems to me that the law itself isn't a bad law, as when it applies to 10 and 12 year olds, it not only seems reasonable but prudent. It fails only when we begin to talk about older teenagers, perhaps the law shouldn't be applied to them, in which case it's the age of consent that is at fault not the law that mandates that sexually active children be reported so that government agencies can verify that there isn't child molestation going on by pedophiles who try to brainwash their victims into thinking of it as 'consensual so it's not wrong,' or otherwise convince them to try and ‘hide’ the event from other adults etc.

A twelve year old getting an abortion or asking for contraceptives or revealing their abuse to a counselor needs to be reported for their own protection. It might be a family member, a neighbor, someone with authority over them, etc., and if it's simply another twelve year old, then their guardians will find out and figure out a way to put a stop to it because they ARE too young to make those choices, regardless of the ridicule the people in this thread are trying to heap on the law.
And this explains why this idiotic law exists. A 12 year old "needs to be reported for their own protection"? Yeah, that kind of talk is going to have the 12 year olds lining up for "help."

And I hate to break it to you, but teenage is when human beings are supposed to start having sex -- preferably after they turn 16. That's why puberty happens then. Once puberty is complete, you're good to go -- and go you do, preferably with other newbies. That's why it's not statutory rape if two teens get it on.

It's one thing for a law to make it illegal for an adult to have sex with a person below a certain age. It's quite another if a law would make it illegal for teenagers to have consensual sex -- that's just unnatural!!

And I suppose that's why they feel they have to have the law, forcing people to report it or they themselves will be held criminally liable for their neglect.

If you're a councilor and a sixth grade twelve year old tells you she's having consensual intercourse with her seventeen year old neighbor, you should be held liable for negligent damages if you don't report it to somebody. To think that some counselor somewhere will be walking around telling themselves, "ah, it's just kids being kids," nothing to get upset about? I don't think so. They are not the child's guardian, they don't have the right to make the choice if it's 'okay' or not. And the law here takes it all the way to the authorities to catch even the inter-family/incestuous pedophiles I fail to see how it deserves ridicule.

And I suppose that's why they feel they have to have the law, forcing people to report it or they themselves will be held criminally liable for their neglect.

If you're a councilor and a sixth grade twelve year old tells you she's having consensual intercourse with her seventeen year old neighbor, you should be held liable for negligent damages if you don't report it to somebody. To think that some counselor somewhere will be walking around telling themselves, "ah, it's just kids being kids," nothing to get upset about? I don't think so. They are not the child's guardian, they don't have the right to make the choice if it's 'okay' or not. And the law here takes it all the way to the authorities to catch even the inter-family/incestuous pedophiles I fail to see how it deserves ridicule.
It deserves ridicule for its total disconnection from reality.

It deserve opposition for its obvious unfairness. It creates a standard by which even innocent or beneficial behavior is forbidden.

It goes beyond protecting children and teens from exploitation and instead would make criminals of teenagers for following the dictates of nature (that they become sexual beings) and society (that they start practicing for being adults). Rather than take the difficult route of telling teenager what they may do, it takes the cheap, lazy, authoritarian route of telling them everything they might do is bad.

It also puts an unfair burden on adults. It turns every single adult any child or teenager may deal with into an ersatz parent with full legal responsibility but no legal authority and regardless of whether they know anything at all about the teenager or his or her circumstances. Most states already require teachers, nurses and others who have temporary authority over minors to report suspected abuse, but this law requires non-family members to control the morals of someone else's family -- and to do so, frankly, according to yet another party's religious rules.

Kansas is about to get a whole lot more tax payers.

And I suppose that's why they feel they have to have the law, forcing people to report it or they themselves will be held criminally liable for their neglect.

If you're a councilor and a sixth grade twelve year old tells you she's having consensual intercourse with her seventeen year old neighbor, you should be held liable for negligent damages if you don't report it to somebody. To think that some counselor somewhere will be walking around telling themselves, "ah, it's just kids being kids," nothing to get upset about? I don't think so. They are not the child's guardian, they don't have the right to make the choice if it's 'okay' or not. And the law here takes it all the way to the authorities to catch even the inter-family/incestuous pedophiles I fail to see how it deserves ridicule.
See, this is where you are conveniently missing the point. The 17-year-old having sex with a 12-year-old is committing a crime. If he were having consensual sex with another 17-year-old that should be perfectly okay -- only this law would criminalize it.

Sounds to me like Mr. Kline is in serious need of a good lay. :D

This clearly shows how to approach the matter. Flood them with "irrelevant and obstructive" reports. Heck, if all the adolescents of Kansas get together, they could massively report some kissing or heavy petting every single day. It'd be next century before they've muddled through all those reports.
I would love to contribute to the report in spirit

If only it would not get an old man like me (23) put into jail lol

They really want to rival those Mid East countries when it comes to backward thinking.

Whoever christened the moniker "American Taliban" was seriously on the right track...

Ah, the only state more backwards than Oklahoma.

BTW, the reason I looked up this thread today is because the public library computer I was on yesterday wouldn't let me on it. I'm in Oklahoma. Apparently the subject matter is a little too racy for an adult to read about.:headbang:

I find same-sex marriage different from all the other stereotypes that you apply to what you refer as "fundamentalists". Homosexuality is expressly forbid in the Bible, and though some people treat it like it's worse than murder, the act is still fordbidden regardless.

I wanted so badly to actually get involved in this discussion, but having been a life-long Kansan, I'm pretty sure that you guys not only won't listen to, but you'll also entirely try to convince me of the converse of my opinion. Which happens to be the opinion of my peers. Which happens to be the largest voting group in the state. And I'm pretty sure none of us want our younger siblings to be charged with this kind of shit.

Besides.....the old folk are pretty liberal, the pissed off young people aren't going to stand for it, and there's enough of a liberal standing in almost every single county that this shouldn't really be an issue.

But thank you for reminding me what a dick Kline is. I thought, just once, I'd have a day without thinking of him. No. Not at all. (Jerks)

And for the record, THE GODDAMN AGE OF CONSENT IS 16, NOT 18providing the other partner is at least 16 and no more than two years your senior. Just like every other state that has the age of consent laws.

A twelve year old getting an abortion or asking for contraceptives or revealing their abuse to a counselor needs to be reported for their own protection.

They'll get less protection under this law, since a 12-year old that knows what they say will be reported, won't go to a credible place for an abortion, she'll go somewhere shady. He won't reveal abuse or buy contraceptives, because he might get reported.

I find same-sex marriage different from all the other stereotypes that you apply to what you refer as "fundamentalists". Homosexuality is expressly forbid in the Bible, and though some people treat it like it's worse than murder, the act is still fordbidden regardless.

(a) Homosexuality is not an act.

(b) Are you trying to make usury illegal? That is expressly forbidden in the Bible - and much more clearly so than homosexuality.

(c) Are you trying to make working on the Sabbath illegal? That is expressly forbidden in the 10 Commandments.

(d) Are you trying to make divorce illegal, except in cases of adultery, and are you trying to make it so that only a man can ask for a divorce? Christ is quoted in Scripture as stating that a man can only divorce his wife in cases of adultery.

I could go on and on and on. Unless you are in favor of a theocracy and you want to put your entire interpretation of everything in the Bible into law, then "It says X in the Bible," is not a reason to oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

<snip>Unless you are in favor of a theocracy and you want to put your entire interpretation of everything in the Bible into law, then "It says X in the Bible," is not a reason to oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Especially as we have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and a SECULAR SYSTEM OF LAW (emphasis for those who'd rather skip over it). The Bible is irrelevant to US law.

Whoever christened the moniker "American Taliban" was seriously on the right track...
Actually around here we call them Talibaptists. I think Molly Ivins coined that one.

Actually around here we call them Talibaptists. I think Molly Ivins coined that one.
I prefer 'religious wankjobs'... though yours does have a ring to it.

They'll get less protection under this law, since a 12-year old that knows what they say will be reported, won't go to a credible place for an abortion, she'll go somewhere shady. He won't reveal abuse or buy contraceptives, because he might get reported.

...

Nice theory craft. But can you prove it? Can we show that a measured attempt to find and report sexually abused children actually reduces the number of reported abused children?

Because that is what you suggested, that by looking for and mandating the reporting of all abused children that abused children would suddenly become harder to find. I have seen no studies that have actually shown a result of what you hypothesized. It is equally plausible to suggest that there will be more children discovered and helped sooner rather than later and that more pedophiles will be apprehended sooner rather than later as well.

Kansas. What a bloody mess they're making over there. It will surely entice children to have sex day and night.

Nice theory craft. But can you prove it? Can we show that a measured attempt to find and report sexually abused children actually reduces the number of reported abused children?

Because that is what you suggested, that by looking for and mandating the reporting of all abused children that abused children would suddenly become harder to find. I have seen no studies that have actually shown a result of what you hypothesized. It is equally plausible to suggest that there will be more children discovered and helped sooner rather than later and that more pedophiles will be apprehended sooner rather than later as well.

I know human beings, including children. I was a child once. I watched friends who would only go to Planned Parenthood for contraceptives, etc. You know why? Because it was anonymous. Their parents could not be told.

I've seen abused children who would not go to any official counseling for fear that their parents would know they did so.

As for pedophiles, school officials, etc. are already legally required to report any suspected abuse. Only medical clinics are not. You know why? Because people in these situations generally won't go to medical clinics that aren't confidential.

I find same-sex marriage different from all the other stereotypes that you apply to what you refer as "fundamentalists". Homosexuality is expressly forbid in the Bible, and though some people treat it like it's worse than murder, the act is still fordbidden regardless.
And I should care what *your* religious beliefs forbid... because?

Seriously, are we going to ban all non-kosher meat? Should we ban divorce?

Follow your religious beliefs, more power to you. Don't try to codify them into law and force me to abide with something I don't believe in. And please, please don't be arrogant enough to assume everybody agrees with the "homosexuality is forbidden" that your religion teaches.

All the teens there should start having sex outside.

That's what I'd do.

I find same-sex marriage different from all the other stereotypes that you apply to what you refer as "fundamentalists". Homosexuality is expressly forbid in the Bible, and though some people treat it like it's worse than murder, the act is still fordbidden regardless.

You know, I'm going to take it one step farther than the others have. Where? No. Really. Quote the bible passage.

You know, I'm going to take it one step farther than the others have. Where? No. Really. Quote the bible passage.

Thou shall not lie with man as with a woman, for it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22(I think, exact phrasing is probably off too...)

Thou shall not lie with man as with a woman, for it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22(I think, exact phrasing is probably off too...)


That one is almost entirely useless.
Not only is it in a section devoted to regulating the conduct of Levite priests, of which there are very few nowadays, but the same section also bans wearing of clothes of 2 cloths, touching menustrating women, eat shellfish, planting 2 crops in the same field, touching pig skin, getting your hair trimmed, and having bad eyesight.
Oh, and it allows you to possess slaves.
Next?

Right. So as long as they're not lying down it's all right, since we are using the bible as an absolute in your little world. Also, please note that it never mention lesbianism. In addition there are many ways that it could be taken. Please note how it is different wording than that God uses to describe incestual sexual relationships.

Ah, the only state more backwards than Oklahoma.

BTW, the reason I looked up this thread today is because the public library computer I was on yesterday wouldn't let me on it. I'm in Oklahoma. Apparently the subject matter is a little too racy for an adult to read about.:headbang:


I'm thinking naming the capital after the state might be linked to backwardsness....

That one is almost entirely useless.
Not only is it in a section devoted to regulating the conduct of Levite priests, of which there are very few nowadays, but the same section also bans wearing of clothes of 2 cloths, touching menustrating women, eat shellfish, planting 2 crops in the same field, touching pig skin, getting your hair trimmed, and having bad eyesight.
Oh, and it allows you to possess slaves.
Next?

It also forbids the sufffering of a witch to live, and lying with a beast as with a man. I gave a relevant passage as to where Homosexuality was banned, as was requested.

It also forbids the sufffering of a witch to live, and lying with a beast as with a man. I gave a relevant passage as to where Homosexuality was banned, as was requested.

Right, so we've got religious intolerance in there too. Nice choice. :rolleyes:

Note: LE-VITE PRIESTS. IT IS A SECTION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR LE-VITE PRIESTS. Since most gays can't even BECOME priests, much less Levite priests, I don't think that section counts.

Besides, I'm sure you're breaking at least 2 of those regulations yourself. All of those are condemned with equal vehemenence. Therefore, you are actually worse off than someone who is merely gay.

Right, so we've got religious intolerance in there to. Nice choice. :rolleyes:

Witches have no religion. Wicca is bullshit, and Witches themselves are bullshit. The point is, I gave a relevant passage.

Witches have no religion. Wicca is bullshit, and Witches themselves are bullshit. The point is, I gave a relevant passage.

And some more religious intolerance ladies and gentleman.

Witches have no religion. Wicca is bullshit, and Witches themselves are bullshit. The point is, I gave a relevant passage.

No, you gave a passage about levite priests.

Witches have no religion. Wicca is bullshit, and Witches themselves are bullshit. The point is, I gave a relevant passage.


Oh, and also, that passage is the subject of debate: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

Mistranslation and misinterpretation, oh my! Maybe it's not as infailiable as you thought?

That one is almost entirely useless.
Not only is it in a section devoted to regulating the conduct of Levite priests, of which there are very few nowadays, but the same section also bans wearing of clothes of 2 cloths, touching menustrating women, eat shellfish, planting 2 crops in the same field, touching pig skin, getting your hair trimmed, and having bad eyesight.
Oh, and it allows you to possess slaves.
Next?

And, if you actually look at the Hebrew, it might mean translate as a prohibition against sleeping in the bed of (or with) a menstruating woman (which rather makes sense, considering you can't touch her).

Thou shall not lie with man as with a woman, for it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22(I think, exact phrasing is probably off too...)
Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

It's also been translated as
"And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination."

In other words, you can lie with men all you like. Just don't do it in a woman's bed.

And some more religious intolerance ladies and gentleman.

Wicca is not a religion. Hinduism, that's a religion, Wicca, not so much. I'd be willing to call Mormonism(which I regard as a non-christian cult) a religion, before I'd call Wicca one.

All right, let's do this.

Merrian-Webster online

Main Entry: Wic·ca
Pronunciation: 'wi-k&
Function: noun
Etymology: probably from Old English wicca wizard -- more at WITCH
: a religion influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices of western Europe that affirms the existence of supernatural power (as magic) and of both male and female deities who inhere in nature, and that emphasizes ritual observance of seasonal and life cycles
- Wiccan /'wi-k&n/ adjective or noun
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Wicca



Wikipedia

Wicca is a Neopagan religion found in many different countries, though most commonly in English-speaking cultures. Wicca was first publicised in 1954 by a British civil servant and Co-Freemason named Gerald Gardner after the British Witchcraft Act was repealed. He claimed that the religion, of which he was an initiate, was a modern survival of an old witch cult, which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian Paganism of Europe. Wicca is thus sometimes referred to as the Old Religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

Dictionary.com

Wic·ca ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wk)
n.
A polytheistic Neo-Pagan nature religion inspired by various pre-Christian western European beliefs, whose central deity is a mother goddess and which includes the use of herbal magic and benign witchcraft.
A group or community of believers or followers of this religion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wicca


Exactly what basis are you using for what is and isn't a religion?

Exactly what basis are you using for what is and isn't a religion?

Does it have relativly few enough people that it wont matter if he pisses them off? The only reason he isn't out denouncing Judaism or something is too many followers most likely.

Ah. What an intelligent and well-thought out choice of criteria he's made.