Free Kate

[dogluva]

Oh, she does because it's the law. But who would want their otherwise good child to be slapped with the stigma and title of sex offender for, potentially, the rest of his/her life?

What she did was not good. Also, she was obviously held back if she turned 18 in August. She is, technically, college age at least where I live. I would not want my Freshman high scooper dating a college freshman and you could look at it like this.

 

[chobie]

Why are they "idiots"? They are responding to how this case is presented. These aren't some "idiots" as you refer to them. You say you support gay rights, and these people are doing that. That's not being true to what you say in my book. So I don't get where you are coming from at all.

I will agree to disagree with you. You believe what you want, and I will do the same. That's the great thing about our country.

FTR, I hope Kate and the girl overcome this. I do believe the law should be applied as it would to any 18 year old in a relationship with a 14 year old. I didn't introduce the orientation. As I stated, it was already there.

Any idiot can see she is not being prosecuted for being gay and this is not a gay rights issue.

 

[dogluva]

Yes, thinking two high school students in a consensual relationship is the same as an adult raping a prepubescent child. You're being hyperbolic.

I know 20 year olds in high school. They are also high school students but should not be dating 14 year old high schoolers either. My son was 13 when he started high school-just because he is in high school did not make me okay with him dating 18 high school students.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Any idiot can see she is not being prosecuted for being gay and this is not a gay rights issue.

But you would join the "idiots" if the gay rights groups took it on? Okay got it.

I still think for this to be considered a gay rights cause, I would want the gay rights groups to be taking it on. Who knows why these idiots on the Internet signed it?

This has been a fascinating thread!

 

[Gumbo4x4]

What she did was not good. Also, she was obviously held back if she turned 18 in August. She is, technically, college age at least where I live. I would not want my Freshman high scooper dating a college freshman and you could look at it like this.

In Missouri, HS seniors turn 18 after July 31st. It was September 30th when I was in school.

 

[chobie]

But you would join the "idiots" if the gay rights groups took it on? Okay got it.

This has been a fascinating thread!

No I would not. You don't get it. If gay rights groups take it on then I suppose it would be a gay rights "cause," but I would be disappointed in them and would not support them on this issue. It would not be my cause.

To me being true to a cause means not just blindly supporting anyone who tries to claim something should be part of that particular cause but evaluating each issue on its merits,. In this case if gay rights groups would take this on I would still support gay rights but not those groups. I support gay rights and this is not a gay rights issue IMO. Got it?

 

[dogluva]

In Missouri, HS seniors turn 18 after July 31st. It was September 30th when I was in school.

My son as born in November and the cut off was December 31. He started high school at 13. Now is that too young to have a relationship with an 18 year old? Where do you draw the line? I mea they are both in high school.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I still think for this to be considered a gay rights cause, I would want the gay rights groups to be taking it on. Who knows why these idiots on the Internet signed it?

No I would not. You don't get it. If gay rights groups take it on I would be disappointed in them and would not support them on this issue.

To me being true to a cause means not just blindly supporting anyone who tries to claim something should be part of that particular cause but evaluating each issue on its merits,

You are right about one thing. I don't get it. Your second statement doesn't support your first. Why would you want gay rights groups to be taking it on to be considered a gay rights cause if you would not support them? It does not compute.

The funny thing is I don't think it's a gay rights issue either. But I'm not calling the people "idiots" that do.

 

[chobie]

You are right about one thing. I don't get it. Your second statement doesn't support your first. Why would you want gay rights groups to be taking it on to be considered a gay rights cause if you would not support them? It does not compute.

The funny thing is I don't think it's a gay rights issue either. But I'm not calling the people "idiots" that do.

Well, that's big of you. But I think this would be an idiotic mistake for gay rights groups to take this on.

I'm saying this is not a gay rights issue unless gay rights groups decide to make it one. But I won't support those groups because I don't see this as a gay rights issue but I will still support gay rights but not those groups who would see this as an issue.

I'm just not an extremist who blindly supports any one group or cause 100%.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Well, that's big of you. But I think this would be an idiotic mistake for gay rights groups to take this on.

Then why would you want gay rights groups to take it on in order for it to be considered a gay rights issue? You did state that and it reverberates against you thinking it would be making a mistake.

One does not go with the other.

 

[chobie]

Then why would you want gay rights groups to take it on in order for it to be considered a gay rights issue? You did state that and it reverberates against you thinking it would be being a mistake.

One does not go with the other.

Not really, this is just a nuanced topic which is hard for me to communicate with my iPhone.

You say this is a gay rights issue because the parents labeled it so and people signed their on-line petition. To me, that doesn't make it a gay rights cause but it would become a gay rights cause if gay rights groups took this issue on en masse. And I would think they would be idiotic to do so because its quite clear she is not being prosecuted for being gay.

Gay marriage is a gay rights "cause" that I support. One person being prosecuted for sex with a minor who is the same sex does not a gay rights issue make, IMO.

 

[chobie]

Not really, this is just a nuanced topic which is hard for me to communicate with my iPhone.

You say this is a gay rights issue because the parents labeled it so and people signed their on-line petition. To me, that doesn't make it a gay rights cause but it would become a gay rights cause if gay rights groups took this issue on en masse. And I would think they would be idiotic to do so because its quite clear she is not being prosecuted for being gay.

Gay marriage is a gay rights "cause" that I support. One person being prosecuted for sex with a minor who is the same sex does not a gay rights issue make, IMO.

So, I'll concede you are right that this is a "cause" of sorts, but I don't see it as a gay rights cause and I predict we won't see gay rights groups taking this on.

But if they did, and if these groups made it a cause like equal rights to marry, then I would part ways with these groups on this issue.

And I don't think any of those people who signed the petition are going to organize and/ or take any other action in furtherance of this "cause."

 

[moon]

Just read the comments on sites where this has been published. People who think Kate did wrong -not necesarily that they want her put in jail, just think she did wrong- are being berated, called "Homophobes" and "haters".

Kaitlyn's parents have made it a gay issue, I guess is the only angle they could play.

I wish they admitted she acted wrongly, and pleaded on the fact that she is still very young and acted recklessly. But their dishonestly, and their portrayal of their daughter as "a wonderful girl" who has done nothing wrong, who is "just in love" and is an innocent victim in trouble only because she's being discriminated due to sexual orientation is a turn-off (at least to me).

 

[LisaR]

I just had seven teenagers over:

17 y/o gay male (will turn 18 this year)
19 y/o gay female (just turned 19 this month)
3 -18 y/o females
2 - 18 y/o males
And yes, I pointed out that two are gay to show that there is some diversity.

I asked them if they would consider dating someone who was 14 or 15 y/o. The look of complete horror that crossed all of their faces was priceless. They simply couldn't imagine being attracted to someone that young. Of course, that lead into the Free Kate discussion and all seven of them were well aware of the fact that an 18 y/o can get in trouble for having sex with a minor. They didn't know the exact age of consent, but they all agreed that the gross factor is eliminated around the age of 16. Anything younger than that was "disgusting and illegal" in their eyes.

It boggles my mind that Kate's parents would allow and encourage her to date a 14 y/o.

 

[chobie]

Just read the comments on sites where this has been published. People who think Kate did wrong -not necesarily that they want her put in jail, just think she did wrong- are being berated, called "Homophobes" and "haters".

Kaitlyn's parents have made it a gay issue, I guess is the only angle they could play.

I wish they admitted she acted wrongly, and pleaded on the fact that she is still very young and acted recklessly. But their dishonestly, and their portrayal of their daughter as "a wonderful girl" who has done nothing wrong, who is "just in love" and is an innocent victim in trouble only because she's being discriminated due to sexual orientation is a turn-off (at least to me).

And these people are idiots in my opinion. Even if it was the same sex issue that caused the girls parents to call the police, that doesn't change the fact a law was broken and the State Attorney's office didn't file charged based on the gender of the parties.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Not really, this is just a nuanced topic which is hard for me to communicate with my iPhone.

You say this is a gay rights issue because the parents labeled it so and people signed their on-line petition. To me, that doesn't make it a gay rights cause but it would become a gay rights cause if gay rights groups took this issue on en masse. And I would think they would be idiotic to do so because its quite clear she is not being prosecuted for being gay.

The case has clear margins to me.

It's not clear to a lot of people (more than 2) that it isn't a gay rights issue. I predict gay rights groups will take it on. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Time will tell.

To me it's an issue of the law. The rest is extraneous. But as you and other posters have mentioned the parents are doing everything they can to help their child. I don't think it's helpful to try to circumvent the law. Kate should have taken the plea deal. That would have helped her. It's a crap shoot now.

 

[chobie]

The case has clear margins to me.

It's not clear to a lot of people (more than 2) that it isn't a gay rights issue. I predict gay rights groups will take it on. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Time will tell.

To me it's an issue of the law. The rest is extraneous. But as you and other posters have mentioned the parents are doing everything they can to help their child. I don't think it's helpful to try to circumvent the law. Kate should have taken the plea deal. That would have helped her. It's a crap shoot now.

I agree with you on everything except whether gay rights groups will take this on. Thank you for letting me explain myself, sorry it took so many posts.

I think the defendant may be able to get this reduced further to perhaps misdemeanors. But her parents should stop vilifying the victm's parents. I think that's hurting not helping.

 

[punkin]

I think there must be a NAMBLA corollary to Godwin's Law. You lose all credibility in your argument when you bring NAMBLA into it.

You think it is somehow inappropriate to bring NAMBLA into a discussion about adults having sex with children? I mean, where would you draw the line? If 18 and 14 are OK, is 18 and 13? How about 18 and 12? Oops, now we really are in NAMBLA territory. Its really not so far fetched. Both of my DDs started HS at 13 and there were20 yo seniors there at the time. Do you really believe 20 and 13 are peers even if they are schoolmates?

 

[dogluva]

You think it is somehow inappropriate to bring NAMBLA into a discussion about adults having sex with children? I mean, where would you draw the line? If 18 and 14 are OK, is 18 and 13? How about 18 and 12? Oops, now we really are in NAMBLA territory. Its really not so far fetched. Both of my DDs started HS at 13 and there were20 yo seniors there at the time. Do you really believe 20 and 13 are peers even if they are schoolmates?

I agree, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[chobie]

I agree, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

No one saying it shouldn't be drawn. But I just don't see an 18 year old high school student in a relationship with a 14 year old freshman in the same light as someone who commits sex acts upon prepubescent children. One I see as a person who made a bad choice and committed a crime and should have some legal consequences, albeit relatively minor consequences. The other I see as a monster, a danger to the community, who needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.