17 or older and only a 2 year age difference is not a problem in most jurisdictions.

Maybe my emotions are easily manipulated but I thought this was beautiful, and I typically don't even like dance.

And the age difference? The fact that he could be her father? Eureka. Watch it again as a father-daughter relationship, one where the father tries but fails to connect to his wild-child daughter while she's young, one where the daughter realizes too late the mistake of her younger ways when she loses him to death at the end.

What's the age difference between the two (boy and girl)?

As far as punishments go, this seems just fine - statutory rape charges are bullshit if they both were willing, but a spanking like that is fair enough, I guess. Walk it off.

At least he CAN walk it off, instead of being stuck as a sex offender for x years.

>> ^Skeeve:

They are brothers, but not twins. There's a 3 year age difference between them. >> ^Boise_Lib:
Hank Green here and John Green here.



Really? Wow, quite a resemblance.

They are brothers, but not twins. There's a 3 year age difference between them. >> ^Boise_Lib:

Hank Green here and John Green here.

>> ^Deano:

I was prepared for major issues when introducing my new cat but they seemed to click really quickly, within a few seconds with no problems. Super lucky I guess.
I did delay having them meet by obeying various bits of advice on the web i.e separate rooms, gradually introduce via a door etc against the advice of the lady in the shelter who said "just let them get on with it".


Hmmm ... I'm surprised at the advice you got from the shelter. That wouldn't have worked for me since there is such a big age difference between my three cats [16 yrs, 8 yrs and the *baby* just turned 1]. The two older ones would have freaked out for sure at the sudden arrival.

I'm glad that it was such an easy transition for you =o)

Many, if not most, states have exceptions to the concept of "statutory rape" when the age of the people involved are close. For Massachusetts, it appears that if the victim is between 12 and 16, the age difference must be greater than 10 years for it to qualify as statutory.

I don't see how they can make this charge stick...it's far more likely that this is an example of loading up the charges in an attempt to encourage a plea bargain.

In states where 18 is the legal limit if a 19 is with a 17yr old its still statutory no matter how "consented" it is. It seems silly with such a small age difference but the number sticks.

From the sound of it this was a bit more than just bullying, and while I'm not sure about the statutory rape charge either, anything else that gets thrown at this punks the vindictive side of me hopes it fucks up their lives as much as they fucked up hers. Not very enlightened I know but there it is.

Billy just split from his 3rd (?) wife this week. The 33 year age difference was apparently too much to bear.

"but my high morals just wouldnt let me ....."

I really hope she meant the age difference

>> ^quantumushroom:
Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?
That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.
Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?
First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.
Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.
Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.
Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.
The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.
Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?
And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?
Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).
I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"
I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.
I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.

But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.
For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.


Everything you just said is totally wrong. This country has never been more aware of its roots and morality. We've never been more free, the future looks bright with this new president, and I foresee no problems in the next 4 to 8 years. Also, I hate my life and Oprah is hot.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

That's the difference between fake "rights" like the "right" for gays to marry and real rights like the right to a fair trial.

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people?

First of all: "people like you?" I know you'd take offense to that, as do I. And once again, let's try to keep focus on the issue at hand and not make everyone who opposes gay marriage into a nazi.

Segregation versus gay 'rights' is Apples and Oranges. As segregation ended, the right for people of different races to marry became "self-evident". Both those who opposed and supported mixed race marriages knew what marriage meant: a covenant between one man and one woman.

Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

Gay people cannot get married because marriage is legally and culturally defined as between one man and one woman. You're free to drive on the freeway if you're driving a car. You're not free to drive a bicycle on the freeway; if you change the law to make bicycles equal to cars on the freeway, then you have changed the purpose and use of a freeway into something else entirely.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality.

Well, I know you won't like the following arguments, but they're valid. You say two consenting adults is the only criteria? So incest is OK? And why the bias towards human primates? A scientist can't marry his lab monkey?

And what do you say to the polygamists in line right behind you? Don't they have a right to marry who THEY want? Shouldn't the love between THREE people outrank your gay-between-only-TWO people?

Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I know all this, but let me act out the next phase in this phony "rights" game: "But don't you see, age is just an arbitrary and artificial limit set by an evil, heartless society! There are some 10-year-olds with the intelligence of 18-year-olds! And besides, every day you meanies make us wait to get married is a day that either of us could die! We're in love NOW!"

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

I voted for Schwarzenegger because he was replacing an absolute, corrupt turd. But I knew even on Schwarzy's first day unless he had the same endoskeleton as the T-101, he would be eaten alive. He was: he devolved into a useless R.I.N.O. Republican In Name Only. Recently he suggested tax hikes of around 5 billion. He didn't suggest sealing California's border against invaders or ending welfare for illegals the way the citizens of California voted in the 1990s, a vote overturned by a single corrupt activist judge.


But back to the issue of marriage: I'm for civil unions for gays and even binding contracts for polygamists; I think traditional marriage, as one of the foundations for society, should be left alone.

For the record, I think gay marriage will eventually become legal in all 50 states, because the pillars of society as well as the foundation are crumbling. How long the USA remains a free country under the weight of all these made-up 'rights' remains to be seen.

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's no liberal fascism, you say? Then what is mexifornia?
Any time Californians make their voice heard, an activist judge simply throws it out. Why waste people's time voting if you're already a dictatorship?
Blacks were fighting for the same rights as Whites, gays are fighting to redefine the very definition of marriage.
I guess next up it's marriage "rights" for pedophiles. After all, they too, are an "oppressed minority".
Schwarzy is a worthless RINO. Enjoy your new 5 billion in tax hikes to pay for illegals, CA.


QM, I normally just ignore your comments, but you lobbed such a softie at us (and a very common one at that), that I couldn't resist.

Your assertion that the majority vote should always be made into law is ridiculous. What if "Mexifornia" voted to make atheists wear a patch on their sleeves to protect us from "Communists"? Would that be OK to implement even though it conflicts with the Constitution in probably dozens of ways?

Sixty years ago, people like you were saying that blacks were fighting to "redefine the very definition of marriage", i.e., a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. How are gay people not fighting for the same rights as straight people? Straight people can get married, and gay people can't. Gay people want to get married too. It's pretty simple, QM.

The legalization of gay marriage would allow any two consenting adults to get married, which is one step closer to marriage equality. Children cannot enter themselves into legal contracts because minors are only capable of assenting, not consenting. An adult cannot marry a child without the child's guardian(s)' consent, and furthermore the age difference between the two must not be great (e.g., an eighteen-year-old and a seventeen-year-old can usually get married with the consent of the eighteen-year-old, the assent of the seventeen-year-old, and the consent of the seventeen-year-old's guardian(s).

I'm not touching your last point because I don't know what you're talking about.

Mariah Carey may be washed up, but I'd still do her. I'm not a sexist, but I realize that's probably a sexist statement. I still remember when she was young, and though her songs were lame she still had the voice of an angel.

(Long, lame, nostalgic bullshit warning)

It reminds of a girl with whom I used to work. At the time I was 23 and she was 18, and yet at that time I felt our age difference was vast. I thought I was so urbane and sophisticated because I was a whole 5 years older than her. Yeah, I was one of those guys who felt sophisticated at the mature age of 23. Crucifixion deserved.

The fact of the matter is that she was hot enough to relegate my 5+ year seniority to the dumpster because she was also a smart, funny, beautiful person who didn't feel the need to succor the delusions of a twenty-something individual to maintain her sense of self-worth.

So what am I trying to say? God DAMN all you smart and beautiful woman, that's what. And the less smart, less beautiful women too. You all get what you deserve: Never getting my company. So live with it. And you BEST not tell me you're over it already.

Because that would break my heart.

Again.

he he he... this was totally my brother and I growing up, except not such an age difference, and I was older, but he was always bigger, but damn, we never stopped scrappin'