The "Green Mile" movie actor Doug Hutchison marries 16-year-old

bbgun

Benched
Messages
27,869
Reaction score
6
Cajuncowboy;3977966 said:
Her parents need a beating.
Click to expand...

They're basically whoring their daughter out to advance her so-called career. Nothing "Christian" about that.
 

bbgun

Benched
Messages
27,869
Reaction score
6
BrAinPaiNt;3978108 said:
Can you write and request she do a photo shoot dressed as a nun?

That would be so Hawt!
Click to expand...

No, but I have some Polaroids of WG in a burka.
 

bbgun

Benched
Messages
27,869
Reaction score
6
Hostile;3978139 said:
Are you saying wardrobe could get you out to Church?
Click to expand...

Well, that and wild horses. I would like to hear her confessions, however.
 
joseephuss

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
Let me ask a hypothetical. If people viewed a nude picture of her wouldn't that be considered child porn? And yet it is legal to marry her. Doesn't make either okay especially if you are 51 years old. Just a weird scenario that popped in my head.
 
Stautner

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
joseephuss;3978158 said:
Let me ask a hypothetical. If people viewed a nude picture of her wouldn't that be considered child porn? And yet it is legal to marry her. Doesn't make either okay especially if you are 51 years old. Just a weird scenario that popped in my head.
Click to expand...

"Legal" and "okay" don't always coincide.
 
DFWJC

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
60,207
Reaction score
48,984
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
joseephuss;3978158 said:
Let me ask a hypothetical. If people viewed a nude picture of her wouldn't that be considered child porn? And yet it is legal to marry her. Doesn't make either okay especially if you are 51 years old. Just a weird scenario that popped in my head.
Click to expand...
That's a puzzle for sure. Kind of like a drinking age of 21 but a military servcie age opf 18.
Huge legal disconnect.
 
Stautner

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
DFWJC;3978372 said:
That's a puzzle for sure. Kind of like a drinking age of 21 but a military servcie age opf 18.
Huge legal disconnect.
Click to expand...

The obvious thing is that the law treats marriage as a positive, loving situation, and pornography as an negative, exploitive situation. Ulimately, the law considers it possible for an 18 year old, for example, to be in a genuinely in loving relationship with a 16 year old, and visa versa, and so if the parents agree the law feels it cannot interfere with those that are in the best position to make that call. And, of course, if the law allows that with an 18 year old it is going to apply to all people who have reached majority.

On the other hand, the law considers pornography to be negative and exploitative, and therefore it feels that if a parent would agree to allow their 16 year old to be involved with pornography they cannot be looking toward the best interest of their child. Accordingly the law treats pornography as something a person cannot decide on prior to reaching majority or that the parents can elect to allow before their child reaches majority.
 
ABQCOWBOY

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
Stautner;3978456 said:
The obvious thing is that the law treats marriage as a positive, loving situation, and pornography as an negative, exploitive situation. Ulimately, the law considers it possible for an 18 year old, for example, to be in a genuinely in loving relationship with a 16 year old, and visa versa, and so if the parents agree the law feels it cannot interfere with those that are in the best position to make that call. And, of course, if the law allows that with an 18 year old it is going to apply to all people who have reached majority.

On the other hand, the law considers pornography to be negative and exploitative, and therefore it feels that if a parent would agree to allow their 16 year old to be involved with pornography they cannot be looking toward the best interest of their child. Accordingly the law treats pornography as something a person cannot decide on prior to reaching majority or that the parents can elect to allow before their child reaches majority.
Click to expand...

So...... Kinda like when Harry meet Sally?


:D
 
TNCowboy

TNCowboy

Double Trouble
Messages
10,831
Reaction score
3,384
Stautner;3978456 said:
The obvious thing is that the law treats marriage as a positive, loving situation, and pornography as an negative, exploitive situation. Ulimately, the law considers it possible for an 18 year old, for example, to be in a genuinely in loving relationship with a 16 year old, and visa versa, and so if the parents agree the law feels it cannot interfere with those that are in the best position to make that call. And, of course, if the law allows that with an 18 year old it is going to apply to all people who have reached majority.

On the other hand, the law considers pornography to be negative and exploitative, and therefore it feels that if a parent would agree to allow their 16 year old to be involved with pornography they cannot be looking toward the best interest of their child. Accordingly the law treats pornography as something a person cannot decide on prior to reaching majority or that the parents can elect to allow before their child reaches majority.
Click to expand...
No matter how anyone looks at any of this mess, well said.
 
DFWJC

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
60,207
Reaction score
48,984
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Stautner;3978456 said:
The obvious thing is that the law treats marriage as a positive, loving situation, and pornography as an negative, exploitive situation. Ulimately, the law considers it possible for an 18 year old, for example, to be in a genuinely in loving relationship with a 16 year old, and visa versa, and so if the parents agree the law feels it cannot interfere with those that are in the best position to make that call. And, of course, if the law allows that with an 18 year old it is going to apply to all people who have reached majority.

On the other hand, the law considers pornography to be negative and exploitative, and therefore it feels that if a parent would agree to allow their 16 year old to be involved with pornography they cannot be looking toward the best interest of their child. Accordingly the law treats pornography as something a person cannot decide on prior to reaching majority or that the parents can elect to allow before their child reaches majority.
Click to expand...
No doubt.

I should have clarified that my huge disconnect was more for the dirning age vs military service age laws.

But what you say brings up another twisted question:
If getting married at 16 is ok but a nude photo involving a 16 year old is child porn...will the whacky couple have to wait two years before publsihing a sex tape? :laugh2:
 
Stautner

Stautner

New Member
Messages
10,691
Reaction score
1
ABQCOWBOY;3978467 said:
So...... Kinda like when Harry meet Sally?


:D
Click to expand...

I don't remember enough about that movie to know how that applies. All I recall is Meg Ryan faking an orgasm in a cafe.

DFWJC;3978492 said:
No doubt.

I should have clarified that my huge disconnect was more for the dirning age vs military service age laws.

But what you say brings up another twisted question:
If getting married at 16 is ok but a nude photo involving a 16 year old is child porn...will the whacky couple have to wait two years before publsihing a sex tape? :laugh2:
Click to expand...

I agree completely agree about the military/drinking age question. I have no problem with the drinking age at 21, even though i would have hated it had that been the law in Texas when a kid, but it truly doens't make sense to say a kid is mature enough to fight and die for his country, but not mature enough to choose to have a drink.

As for the sex tape, I don't have a legal analysis for that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top