re: Californians want LGBT Pedophiles exempt from the sex offender rolls

At the end it says it is how the state treats straight interactions....so do not really have an issue with it.

Think of it this way.

You go on Tinder. A girl says she is 19. You meet, have sex. Turns out she is 15 and you find out by cops arresting you.

Is that the same as a guy lurking out a kid online or in a park? No. So ability to separate certain cases isn't necessarily a bad thing. It should be rare to exclude an individual, but possible based on the situation(like the one I listed above).

sick

Why did I even read this thread?

Boy you set that shiny hook up correctly because a lot of people bit.

There is a lot of people i disagree with and that is okay, but jeez the amount of you who read a headline and go straight into outrage mode with doing research is scary.

Big ups to posters I've argued and disagreed with before that made the effort to actually read the bill. You the real heroes.

Fake news.

Right now under California law, according to this Fox News LINK :

quote:

---

The current law states that while consensual sex between a 15- to 17-year-old and a partner within 10 years of age is illegal, if the pair is having vaginal intercourse, a judge will decide if the accused has to register as a sex offender. Other forms of sex automatically require someone to register as a sex offender.

---

It’s a no-brainer.

The bill sets the same standard for all sex crimes involving certain minors, regardless of the sexual orientation of the offender.

The entire premise of your thread is false, and you should feel badly about yourself.

Yeah your article is trash.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I read a follow-up article that said the 10 year exemption from mandatory registering is already the law for vaginal intercourse. This new bill would make it the law for everyone who is convicted of one of the sex offense crimes.

If that's the case, which makes much more sense, this article is fake news trash.

---

with 14 year old girls?

clown

---

As usual, you completely miss the point.

If this article and thread were addressing the 10-year differential (with regard to either hetero- or homosexual activity) I think that most people would actually agree with you. That is not the topic of either the proposed legislation or the thread.

Pathetic attempt at something by someone without the skills to pull it off.

quote:

---

If that's the case, which makes much more sense, this article is fake news trash.

---

It is.

I clicked on the site and looked at the header and could tell from that alone that it was trash. I decided to read the article and then the bill, and it was pretty clear.

Yall have to get better about this. This site is very clearly a trash news website from first glance, yet some of yall actually read it. Don't.