Statutory Rape if Straight – Okay If Gay?

Statutory rape is legally defined as:

“The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Minors and physically and mentally incapacitated persons are deemed incapable of consenting to sex under rape statutes in all states. These persons are considered deserving of special protection because they are especially vulnerable due to their youth or condition.”

If you are a male, say age 18 and you have sex with a 14 year old girl, in most states that constitutes statutory rape.  In all but three states, the age of consent is 18.  That’s where the slang expression ‘jail bait’ came from when referring to a girl under the legal age.

Technically, the same should hold true if both participants are of the same sex, with one being under the legal age of consent.  However, in keeping with the tradition of homosexuals demanding preferential treatment, a lesbian in Florida insists her actions were legal.

The defendant in this case is Kaitlyn Hunt.  She has been charged with a felony, lewd and lascivious battery on a child for having sexual relations with her 14 year old girlfriend.  She claims that the sex was consensual and therefore no crime was committed.  Hunt argues that if they were a straight couple, no charges would have been filed, but because they are gay, she was charged with the crime.

Yet, I hear on the news from time to time about a teenage boy being arrested and charged with statutory rape or some other wording of the same crime, for having sex with his underage girlfriend, especially here in Kentucky.  If you ask me, that kind of blows Hunt’s argument out of the water.

But she’s not done.  Her attorney has also filed a motion to have Circuit Judge Robert Pegg remove himself from the case.  Why?  It’s because Pegg is not gay.  Hunt and her attorney believe that a straight judge will not rule fairly on her case.  But what they are really after is to get a gay judge who will rule in her favor.  She doesn’t want equal treatment under the law, she wants privileged treatment because she is a homosexual.

I truly hope they find her guilty not because she is a lesbian, but because that is the rule of law.


Comments

comments

  • James White, M.D.

    When words and imagination fail me, as to the possible depths of American depravity, I have only to look at headlines, and be enlightened that "yes, further depravity is daily brought into being." This article is a real "trifecta:" sodomite perversion, legal perversion, and perversion of the underage."

    May ye not forget your coins, ye minions of Satan: the journey across the River Styx has a toll.

    • Bobseeks

      Excellent quote!!

  • Bobseeks

    This clearly illustrates the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the gay movement. They claim to want to be treated like anyone else, but then they demand special treatment. This is clearly the exploitation of a young and foolish girl by a sexual predator. The predator should go to jail for statutory rape.

    • beowulf32

      Same sex perverts are all pedophiles and seek to have sex with as many children they can. And they should never have any rights we do, for anything in life. And if caught having sex with a child they should be Banished from America, or have there Genitals surgically removed to stay in are country.

      • smilee

        Statistics show there is a higher percentage of pedophiles who are straight than are gay.

  • mechmorph

    From what I've read about this case, Kaitlyn was 17 when the relationship started. It only became a statutory case on the day she woke up and was 18 and the other girl's parents could file a criminal complaint against her. I don't think that is the intention of statutory rape laws, that existing couples should be broken up because one of them has a birthday. If it is the intent, then it's an unjust law, gay or straight having nothing to do with it.

    • Bobseeks

      If the older girl was 17, then the younger girl may have been 13. That is wrong in any kind of relationship - straight or perverted.

      • mechmorph

        She was 14 when they met and is 15 now. We all know there have never, ever been senior-freshman couples in all the history of high school, but I can't help but wonder if the real objection here isn't just because it's two girls rather than a heterosexual couple.

        • Guest

          Go cry elsewhere. Plenty of boys have had charges against them for sleeping with minors. Where have you been? It is not exactly uncommon. This girl broke the freaking law, and if boys have to suffer for it, princess can too.

        • mechmorph

          Other people have been mistreated under color of the law, so you should be too? There's an argument.

        • Guest

          What does that even mean? You asked if it was about her being gay and I give you examples of straight males who been through
          the same , thing?
          Admit it you want special treatment for this girl.

        • Bobseeks

          Something tells me that you should not be allowed to be around young children.

        • smilee

          I would not want you around my child weather your gay or straight as you seem to have very negative outlook on sex.

        • Bobseeks

          It sounds like you are all for sex with children.

        • smilee

          Nothing I said should have led you to such a stupid conclusion as I never said or indicated anything like that. Shame, Shame on you!!!

        • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

          That circumstance by @mechmorph:disqus isn't as ridiculous as it sounds though---mechmorph is trying to hit on another controversial topic that is somewhat related to this: the idea of a female discount in actual sentences meted out on sex offense sentences where only the male is underage (but the female isn't). This would test that concept in a same-sex relationship.

        • smilee

          I suspect that is why she is charged

        • smilee

          Would we be having this conversation if the younger person had been male????

      • smilee

        I get the feeling your against sex period!!!

        • Bobseeks

          I get the feeling that you are a pervert.

        • smilee

          Nothing I said should have led you to such a stupid conclusion as I never said or indicated anything like that. Shame on you!!!

    • stratman51

      "...existing couples should be broken up because one of them has a birthday."
      O M G ! You guys can spin A N Y T H I N G !
      A girl of ANY AGE having an affair with any sex person 13 years old is NOT a couple, it's a sick perversion.

      • mechmorph

        From what I've read, the younger girl was 14 when the relationship
        started and is 15 now. The relationship was going on openly for many months when Kaitlyn turned 18. They were in some of the same classes together. I'm sure there has NEVER been a high school couple where one was a senior and the other a freshman or sophomore. Otherwise all those seniors should have gone to jail and been thrown out of school once they turned 18, right?

        • stratman51

          Splitting hairs - maybe not statutory rape in the eyes of the law because the perpetrator isn't 18, but penetration (by "toys", fingers, fists, or whatever) is certainly morally reprehensible (and legally ABUSIVE, complete with jail time) whether the younger one is 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17 regardless of the sex of the parties. You're obviously pushing the gay agenda, or in other words, as long as a so-called "couple" is gay (apparently no matter what age), you'd better not have a problem with it. Let's be real and call it what the law (and GOD) say it is; a criminal abomination. But then, reality is too inconvenient for the gay agenda.

        • stratman51

          Oh, I almost forgot. Three years I served on a jury in our county in a trial that had a 16 year old boy charged with statutory rape against a 14 year old girl - basically consensual sex that the girl's family found out about. We found him guilty.

        • mechmorph

          So let me see if I've got this correct. The law is always correct. The law is the law, and if you break it, too bad. Is that the principle here?

          So when, say, the NSA snoops on your conversations, that's OK because it's been approved by Congress and the FISA court, making it legal?

          Or if you shoot an intruder in your home, but you get arrested because the law says you had too many bullets in your clip, that's OK, too?

          Suppose Obama were to start rounding up all the Christians, but he took care to pass the bill through Congress, dot all the i's, cross all the t's, making it, indeed, the law of the land. Would that then be OK?

          Some laws are unjust or are applied unjustly, and if people have suffered under them in the past, that doesn't make continuing them any less unjust.

          I'm sure no one ever, ever dated in high school, because that would be illegal, right? Is that what you're saying the law is here?

          You can try to put words into my mouth, but what I am suggesting to you is that the intent of statutory rape laws should be to protect a child from an adult seeking a sexual relationship, but it should NOT be to prevent two children who are classmates and only a few years apart in age from continuing to date because one of them went to sleep one night in a legal relationship and woke up the next day being 18 and a felon. That is arbitrary and immoral, therefore, it is unjust.

          Justice isn't the law alone. Justice is the law tempered with mercy and compassion, or else it swiftly becomes tyranny.

        • http://www.blogtalkradio.com/faithwalkamerica Jason Hawes

          You're arguing hypotheticals that aren't even good comparisons to this case. Your examples are more the case of the government abusing the people and their rights with bad laws or bad practices. You're also arguing laws and practices that either are pretty much brand new or not even in effect vs. a concept and a law that's been in effect for a long time that everyone knows about. That's why we have the concept "leave jail bait alone". The thing is, I actually agree with you a little bit that this is a sad situation for Hunt and the potential punishment of 10 years in jail (which she won't get) is probably too severe. But it becomes a much less sad situation for me when the cry wants to be "gay persecution" and "find me a gay/lesbian judge or I won't get a fair trial". Give me a break. If your name was Kevin Hunt and you messed around with your 14 year old girlfriend and the girl's parents wanted to press charges, you'd be in the same situation.

        • mechmorph

          Why is it "splitting hairs" one way (she's not 18 yet), but it's not "splitting hairs" the other way (she turned 18 the other day and now she's a felon)?

        • stratman51

          The first thirteen lines of your long response are irrelevent to the subject matter. Misdirection maybe?
          Your seventh paragraph started out sounding like you got the point of the article (with the exception of putting words in your mouth...what? when?) but then you're off on the irrelevent tangent again.

          Jeeeez...we're not talking about some puppy-love little innocent "dating" relationship here.

          Read the article - it's about the older one and younger one HAVING SEX.

          Your point about the "couple" being same sex got totally lost, didn't it?

          Since your responses never refute my gay agenda argument, I must assume that the real problem you have with this IS the fact that the "couple" was same sex and therefore entitled somehow to special treatment under the law.
          The rest of your points seem to be simply a distraction.

        • Bobseeks

          Misdirection is a prime strategy for liberals because they have nothing to say that makes any sense.

        • stratman51

          Anything BUT truth is their ONLY strategy.

        • smilee

          Is that the reason you make no sense?????????

        • http://www.blogtalkradio.com/faithwalkamerica Jason Hawes

          They can be a couple all they want to and they can go to school all they want to. And if the older one is 18, or even "turns 18" and has sex with an underage child, the parents of the underage child can press charges if they want to. It really isn't that difficult to figure out- unless you keep throwing "but wait", "but this", "but it's not fair" into it.

    • http://www.blogtalkradio.com/faithwalkamerica Jason Hawes

      I don't know "what you've read of the case", because I've read multiple sources, some of which bring up this claim and say nope Kaitlyn was 18 the whole time. Respectfully, I don't think it even really matters how old she was when the relationship started. What matters is how old she was when the sex/sex act occurred.

  • cae973

    Fits right in with what the Russian news said..obama is the weak eyed president of sodom and gormorrhea (spelling?)

    • Just_me_and_God

      Also Sodom and "Gonorrhea" ;-D

  • foxxybey

    Special rights for the way the Kenyan-in-chief and his followers have sex, just dung, as immoral will enjoy the lake of fire with their god Satan.

    • beowulf32

      Obama is just as perverted as the homosexuals, in his past life in the queer bars he was known to like older white gays. And we got this kind of perversion in the white house now. No wonder we don't have any leader ship but from behind.

  • Phillipe Violette

    There should not be special privileges for someone because of their sexual preferences.

  • posthuf

    we didn't have to wait long for this to rear its ugly head, did we.

    And only a politician would be so stupidly blind to not see it coming!

  • Just_me_and_God

    This is another reason they want to pass the "Gay Bill of SPECIAL 'Rights'"

    • fliteking

      Nailed it.

  • DOOM161

    Of course it's okay for homosexuals. Harvey Milk statutorily raped plenty of boys, but California set aside a day to celebrate it every year.

  • Kai

    While it would be unjust and immoral to changed judges, part of me hopes it happens. Because then it would set a precedent that "straight" people could use to say that a homosexual judge would not judge the case fairly for straight people. Gay people can't have it both ways, even though they are trying hard.

    • ynot202

      Love the logic.

    • Picachu1

      That's why some are bi; they want it both ways.

    • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

      "...it would set a precedent that "straight" people could use to say that a homosexual judge would not judge the case fairly for straight people."

      Good observation. Given the opprobrium through which homosexual professionals have to struggle, those who are appointed as judges tend to be even more conscientious about sticking to the guidelines established by both precedent case law and statute law, and remaining absolutely objective with regard to sexual preferences.

      Getting a "gay" judge - male or female - might well be the worst thing that can happen to this lesbian offender.

  • [email protected]

    The author needs to check facts. In about 34 states age of consent is 16 which is majority of states.

    • Picachu1

      Ok, who the ffffff cares!!! What's your point; are you saying that because you found a flaw I. His statement that the whole story is flawed. Get a life demoncrap.

  • Picachu1

    If they really wanted to send a message once she is convicted she should be put in a all male prison; sending her to a women's prison would be a resort for her. This is the same as sending a straight man to a mans prison.

  • Picachu1

    All I can say is the girl is a freak; a super freak.

  • fliteking

    Article: "Statutory Rape if Straight – Okay If Gay?"

    Yes, the actions of the liberals speak for themselves. They seek open access to America's children without recourse.

    • http://cia.americanspecialops.com/air-branch/ NASA

      "As a gay 18-year-old Australian, anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, Peter Tatchell came to the UK in 1971 and set up home with a 16-year-old gay lover in Shepherd’s Bush. The pair despised the law and so defied it."

      The homosexual age of consent in England then was 21, not 16. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. The trend is clear............

      http://www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/peter-tatchell-age-of-sexual-consent.html

      Child sexual abuse is not a laughing matter. Yet, the subject is made light of in Sony Pictures' new film, That’s My Boy.

  • Ray - Jesus is the Son of God.

    "Statutory rape if straight - ok if gay?"

    That's about it.

  • beowulf32

    Same sex perverts are all pedophiles and seek to have sex with as many children they can. And they should never have any rights we do, for anything in life. And if caught having sex with a child they should be Banished from America, or have there Genitals surgically removed to stay in are country.

  • MEL

    It's all about the sickening of America; indeed, of the whole world, for the benefit of these sick monsters. We might need another flood.

  • Twitch

    First we have to explain the concept of the rule of law to the Left as that's something they seem to have forgotten.

  • NoRINO

    Nah, LGBT does not believe in statutory rape...... they promote No Child Left Behind recruiting.

  • Devasahayam

    And with the way the goonda-cult (Muslims -- such as the CAIR thug in WA who raped a girl recently and claimed his victim was "provocatively dressed") shills, even statutory-rape will soon be removed easily (given that it is what their "prophet" -- in reality an unremorseful malefactor, murderer and paedophile -- did)!

  • Vazir_Mukhtar

    This is too ridiculous for words. Let's get the case disposed of ASAP; it's not worth wasting the court's time.

  • LeslieFish

    Hold on. How old was Kaitlyn when the act took place? Also, given the exact wording of the law, she's innocent because *no penetration took place*. That's not how lesbians do it. Change the definition if you will, but Kaitlyn is technically innocent under the present one.