[Tim in real life]

Source: https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/02/22/ca-d...-children/

Quote:

CA Democrats Introduce LGBTQ Bill that would Protect Pedophiles who Rape Children

BY CHERIE VANDERMILLEN · PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 22, 2019 · UPDATED FEBRUARY 22, 2019

Editor’s Note: It’s becoming more apparent with each passing day that another kind of purported sexual orientation is being pushed as normative, Pedophilia. Last year, Mirjam Heine, a German medical student gave a TEDxTalk “Why perception of pedophilia has to change.” Included in her basic premise, “pedophilia is an unchangeable sexual orientation just like, for example, heterosexuality. No one chooses to be a pedophile, no one can cease being one.” To assert that it’s not only like “heterosexuality,” but also “unchangeable” is deeply disturbing.

As you’ll find in the following article, one aim to normalize it is to begin with “LBGTQ” youth with an attempt to stop the registration of sex offenders if they’re found guilty of “specified” sex crimes and if the “offender is no more than ten years older than of the minor.”

Slowly and methodically, those who want to decriminalize the predatory sexual abuse committed by pedophiles are tacitly doing so one state government bill at a time.

[TWP Editor | The Washington Pundit] State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”

However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.

Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.

Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”

“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.

Proposition 35 was created and passed to protect children from sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. Victims of sex trafficking are often vulnerable children, “afraid for their lives and abused—sexually, physically, and mentally,” the Proposition said.

What Does SB 145 Also Do?

Legislators Wiener and Eggman say they are trying to shield LGBT young people from having to automatically register as sex offenders for specified sex crimes. But their bill does much more.

SB 145 would allow a sex offender who lures a minor with the intent to commit a felony (i.e. a sex act) the ability to escape registering as a sex offender as long as the offender is within 10 years of age of the minor.  No specification is made as to whether the sexual offender is straight or LGBT.

SB 145 would add a section to the state’s penal code (Section 290.55) stipulating that as long as the offender is “not more than 10 years older than the minor,” they are not automatically mandated to register as a sex offender. There is no age limit or range specified, except for existing law which already excludes lewd acts with childrenunder 14.

SB 145 appears to allow adults to victimize minors by luring them with the intent to have sex, and then shields the predator from being automatically registered as a sex offender, as in the case of a 25 year old luring a 15 year old for sex, or a 22 year old luring a 12 year old.

SB 145, as currently written, appears to allow certain sexual predators to live among the population without anyone being aware.

Why is this bill needed?

Here is the text from SB 145:

This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor.

Digest Key – Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: NO   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: NO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 290.55 is added to the Penal Code, immediately following Section 290.5, to read:

290.55. (a) A person convicted of an offense specified in subdivision (b) may, by writ of mandate, seek discretionary relief from the duty, imposed as a result of that conviction, to register pursuant to the act if, at the time of the offense, the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor, as measured from the minor’s date of birth to the person’s date of birth.

Too bad the full article got 404'd, but thankfully, I found the bill page.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces...20200SB145

I already am disgusted beyond belief.

[The Beast1]

It sounds like it's modifying the age of consent to a sliding 10 year scale for minors under 18.

So a 17 year old can legally have sex with someone 27 and younger.

Or a 14 year old can legally have sex with someone else 24 and younger.

I don't think this is as bad as the article makes it out to be. This could be an issue in hick places where older guys get hitched to high school girls all of the time. It's not like it's legalizing sex with a 6 year old.

[Donfitz007]

If that is the case then I say 16-17 up.

The only reason I somewhat agree with this is that i know growing up and being a teenager the girls would brag about going to college parties and getting olde guys. Also Alot of you know my story about my friend's club.

[Horus]

This bill doesn't legalise anything. It just means that if the owner is convicted of sexual contact with a minor and the age difference is less than ten years, the owner won't need to register as a sex offender.

[Mage]

(02-24-2019 03:08 AM)Horus Wrote:  

This bill doesn't legalise anything. It just means that if the owner is convicted of sexual contact with a minor and the age difference is less than ten years, the owner won't need to register as a sex offender.

If this is so then it is way overdue. It sucks when a 19 year old guys life gets ruined for sex with a 17 year old.

Since girls often get sexually active from about 15 years and many, if not most, lose virginity before 18, this bill is just and removes power form jailbait girls.

18 years is an arbitrary number society imposed on young people, because that is the number corresponding with years of mandatory education in western world. Gotta keep them girls in school instead of starting making children early. Biologically women are ready for sex from about 14 or 15 years and many seek it out aggressively often predotorily. Society should recognize that 15-18 year old girls are de facto sexual beings, actually hypersexual beings, and not children playing with dolls anymore.

Some people argue that, before 18 years of age, girls are too young to make a good decision about with whom to sleep with and under what conditions. This argument falls apart however, because, as everyone who has taken the red pill knows, that without good fatherly or church guidance and protection - all women of all ages are unable to make a good decision about with whom to sleep and under what conditions.

[CynicalContrarian]

Testing the waters?
Slippery slope...?

[Leonard D Neubache]

CA Democrats.

Regardless of what people make of the nuts and bolts of it, it's the next step down the luciferian path or these people wouldn't be pushing it.

If these people push a bill saying "the sky is blue" then look for the fine print. If there's none there then assume a last second alteration to the bill before it's passed. These things are often engineered so that they only have to tweak a couple of words to utterly alter the outcome it will provide.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(02-24-2019 04:08 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 03:08 AM)Horus Wrote:  

This bill doesn't legalise anything. It just means that if the owner is convicted of sexual contact with a minor and the age difference is less than ten years, the owner won't need to register as a sex offender.

If this is so then it is way overdue. It sucks when a 19 year old guys life gets ruined for sex with a 17 year old.

Since girls often get sexually active from about 15 years and many, if not most, lose virginity before 18, this bill is just and removes power form jailbait girls.

18 years is an arbitrary number society imposed on young people, because that is the number corresponding with years of mandatory education in western world. Gotta keep them girls in school instead of starting making children early. Biologically women are ready for sex from about 14 or 15 years and many seek it out aggressively often predotorily. Society should recognize that 15-18 year old girls are de facto sexual beings, actually hypersexual beings, and not children playing with dolls anymore.

We allow 15/16 year olds to drive cars by themselves. Given how serious the consequences of reckless driving are- death and permanent injury- how can we argue those same people are not responsible enough to decide what happens with their genitals? Especially given that it is completely normal and healthy to want sex at that age?

It is obviously pretty absurd. Consider military enlistment, where women can sign up for something where they can be blown up or sometimes actually raped. Apparently they can decide this is ok for them, at the exact same age as they can decide if they want to have sex. However they are far too immature to know if they can handle drinking, and have to wait an additional 3 years for that privilege.

[Sp5]

A plurality if not a majority of states have an age of consent of 16 anyways.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(02-24-2019 02:22 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

It sounds like it's modifying the age of consent to a sliding 10 year scale for minors under 18.

So a 17 year old can legally have sex with someone 27 and younger.

Or a 14 year old can legally have sex with someone else 24 and younger.

I don't think this is as bad as the article makes it out to be. This could be an issue in hick places where older guys get hitched to high school girls all of the time. It's not like it's legalizing sex with a 6 year old.

Now that I read this, I can see what they're going for.

It's not about correcting some of the Puritanical excesses of American sex laws, it's about making it legal for gays to fuck under age boys.

The record is pretty clear that gays love having sex with underage boys. If this bill was a good faith attempt to have more humane/relaxed sex laws that serve society better, there would be a minimum age (15 or 16 seems reasonable) to have any sex at all with someone over 18.

An 8th grader has zero business deciding whether or not they "consent" to sex with someone who has graduated college.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Does this imply that a 19 year old fucking a 9 year old would not land them on the sex offender list?

[Horus]

(02-24-2019 03:08 AM)Horus Wrote:  

This bill doesn't legalise anything. It just means that if the owner is convicted of sexual contact with a minor and the age difference is less than ten years, the owner won't need to register as a sex offender.

Of course, I meant to write offender, not owner.

[RIslander]

I am generally against the idea of Sex Offender registration. If you do a crime and do the time you should be allowed to return to a normal life and get a job. It is counter productive to create a prohibition on someone after their prison sentence is complete as it nearly guarantees them re-offending due to a lack of other options.

In many states you can be forced to register for skinny dipping or having consensual sex with a person your age on the beach. Having sex with a woman who agreed to it... then she changes her mind after the fact? Sex Offender!

In the case of obvious child predator, adults abusing children who have not completed puberty, there is only one solution: extermination. I agree with the line that says pedophilia is an uncurable issue. Put them down humanly, just as you would a rabid dog.

[DChambers]

I'm a big fan of simply allowing judges to.....well judge.....Decide the punishment on the basis of the crime committed. An 18 year old guy having a 16 year old girlfriend is obviously different from a 50 year old gay dude trying to seduce the local paper boy, or a 60 year old molesting preteen girls at your local YMCA camping trip.

[BortimusPrime]

Sounds like it's designed to decriminalize gay men grooming teenage twinks. What would work better imo is if the allowed age differential expanded with age, to fit with what's generally regarded as creepy. Like at 14 a one year difference is allowed, then two years at 15, four at 16, eight at 17, then unrestricted at 18. Or something like that.

[Aurini]

(02-24-2019 11:21 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  



Does this imply that a 19 year old fucking a 9 year old would not land them on the sex offender list?

That's how I read it as well. A 20 year old and a 10 year old does not a May/November romance make.

I'm also not a fan of the sex offender registries. Either somebody's guilty of a crime - so they should be locked away from society, while we provision them - or they're not. Sex Offenders are in some weird middle ground, where they have to pay their own bills, but they're not allowed to live or work in the majority of place.

Let's put it this way: the people promoting this bill (and opposing the current legal system's harsh attitude towards sex) are doing it to enable pedophilic grooming. The people supporting the current legal regime would be happy seeing most of the people on this forum locked up for being perverts. Neither side is sane, and neither is justice.

[911]

This looks like a typical case of a sinister agenda getting shoehorned through incrementalism in a problem-reaction-solution framework. 18 year olds get arrested for dating 16yo? Unfair, let's solve that problem by normalizing relations between young adults and children as young as 9!

Wiener has a history of promoting the kind of laws that will pave the way for the normalization of pedophilia, such as this one removing the parents' right to consent or reject sex changes for their children:

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/because...r-children



There is a sinister motive and agenda at play here.

[Aurini]

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

Every. Single. Time.

This is the logic of Leviathan. When men are no longer seen as having the light of God in their eyes, they are resources to be regulated. They are slaves to Hegel.

Thesis: no sex until marriage, obey the system.
Antithesis: hypersexualization and porn, rebel against the system.
Synthesis: mandatory pedophilia to kill eros (sexualized children can't pair-bond).

Don't say a damn, just take a gramme!

[brando]

Weiner is the guy who pushed a bill (California SB239) that decriminalized negligent (or pretty much "deliberate" with plausible deniability) transmission of HIV and also removes the requirement for blood donors to disclose their sexual orientation and HIV status. You have politicians being identitarians you're not going to make much headway into economic or social progress.

[CynicalContrarian]

"See you down in Arizona Bay..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xic5LfFNVc