I didn't say it should be legal, and I didn't say it is covered under the Romeo and Juliet act. In fact, I said it doesn't fall under it in my last post.

We have the same problem.

"A pastor screwing his charges is an ethical a moral transgression and a violation of his duty of care for the young minds in his charge"

Its a moral transgression, yes. A violation of duty. Yes. So is, say, quitting a job with no notice. Or, say, leaving a job for some one else to do because you are too lazy. Or, in computers, making things so insanely complicated no one can take over your job in the future. Should these things be illegal?

Note again, I'm not saying it should be legal. Or illegal. I'm just saying, being amoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. Laws should back what is so dangerous to society we need protection from it, and as such, is amoral. Its a question of HOW BAD is fucking your 16 year old students when you are 37... Pretty bad.

But its just not not black and white. What if the charge is older then him? Shouldn't there be some leniency if its obvious it was a matter of 'love' (which in such a case is probably just horniness with justifications piled on top). Or, on the flip side of that coin, shouldn't coercion have to be proven to some extent? It might be hard to 'prove', but its pretty easy to see when intent is in question, and when some one is clearly taken advantage of. My problem with these laws is their senseless nature. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YOU CANNOT CONSENT. Or 16 or 15. Or what ever. This is just dumb... These girls are refered to as children at 17 and women at 18? Please...

Its just scary when ever people blindy, passionately, follow any law. Even murder, we should question its legitimacy as a law. EVERY THING. I mean, obviously murder is harmful to society. But with out analyzing it, how ever shallowly, you are following it blindly (taking it on faith).

So... Do I think what this man did should be illegal? In this case, were I a judge, I would have no choice but to convict him. There are no other outlets to prevent it from happening again. Should it be a felony, that carries prison and carries sex offender registration? Hell no. He should have an offense that can easily be found in a background check, but one that could be expunged with time, and that wouldn't ruin his life completely. Maybe there should be a list similar to the sex offender list that places who work with kids only have access to. You just go to the court house and get access. I don't know. But how it is now does not work, and does more harm.

See.. this is the main difference. Violent and child oriented offenders never change. These girls were close to adults. They look like adults. When I was 20 I found some 16 year olds attractive. I've met some girls that are 16 or 17 even now that I notice, but as soon as words spew out of their pubecent mouths, any presumption changes. I would be hard pressed to be attracted to any one who talks as such.

CHILDREN are not close to adults. They look like children. Some people like to get flogged with spatuals while they do it, some people like kids. They cant help it or change it. The ones who like kids, I feel bad for, sure, but we need to protect OUR children from them. They are a danger and should be monitored for the rest of their lives. The damage they do is irreverable and will cause them to have problems forever. But even in these cases, we need to find a way to deal with these people. Sex offender registries and socitial ignorance just seem to be making things worse. Many are going off the grid and just going down in flames because they cant function in society.

Saying some one who abuses their power is a child molester gives me the rage face, so much. Any one who trys to defend this position is a SICK FUCK!

Law =/= morality.

Generally, laws back what is moral, but not always. For instance, laws that ban the growth and sales of Hemp in the united states.

Not to mention, its rape under the law if a male and female have sex, and both are legally intoxicated. Federal law says that the male is the aggressor and is taking advantage of the female, even if both are drunk (even if they are married, etc).

Furthermore, look up the Romeo and Juliet acts. I'm not implying that this falls under that act, but its an example of some thing that was 'rape' under the law, literally last month, and is now not illegal.

As an ardent atheist, you should understand that popular opinion is not always right.

I'm an atheist, and I still don't think its RAPE. It think its a terrible choice, and reprehensible, but its hardly rape. Many states have age of consent laws that are lower then 16.

I'm 27 and 16 year old girls look like children to me, but I'm not around them all day either. Its easy to throw around labels like rape and use strong language to back up emotional responses to some thing we don't like, but its not always right. Its not that black and white.

I could say 'EVERY SOLDIER IN IRAQ IS A MURDER'. Would that be the same? Its true, killing is murder. Some times its not that simple.

Saying 'ANY ONE who tries to justify (x) is a sick bastard' is far more of a christian statement...

I KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE. ANY ONE WHO QUESTIONS IT IS JUST SICK IN THE HEAD!