State v. Family Values

Here's my thing! The state can set up ages for a variety of issues
concerning teen, and the parents have to abide by them. First, it is
legal for a 17yr. old to consent to sex with a 21yr old and the law
supports that. Next, age of maturity is 18, which means you can have
sex before you are considered to be mature enough to make decisions
for yourself without your parents consent. Finally, since most teens
are always threatening to move once they reach the magical age of
maturity, as a parent you are still legally held responsible for any
financial necessities until the age 21. Under these laws your child
is not considered emanicipated and it is your income that determines
any financial assistance they qualify for if they choose to go to
school. Colleges do not allow them to apply for aid based on their
income, and must be considered emanicipated (21) before they can
apply.

My take on this is why is the state allowing these teens the right to
do as they wish, without them having yet learned responsibilities.
Furthermore, if the state is so inclined dictate laws that interfere
with the moral and ethical values that most families are trying to
teach, then why don't they take on the responsibility of supporting
these young adults when they choose to move out of their home. What's
your take?

wrote
Here's my thing! The state can set up ages for a variety of issues
concerning teen, and the parents have to abide by them. First, it is
legal for a 17yr. old to consent to sex with a 21yr old and the law
supports that. Next, age of maturity is 18, which means you can have
sex before you are considered to be mature enough to make decisions
for yourself without your parents consent.
==
So...They are mature enough to go to the other side of the earth to fight
wars but they aren't mature enough to decide if they should have sex? It is
fortunate
that in this land, you do not have the right to dictate morality for the
rest of us.
I kinda get the feeling that if you could, you would.

On Aug 6, 6:09?am, wrote:
Here's my thing! The state can set up ages for a variety of issues
concerning teen, and the parents have to abide by them. First, it is
legal for a 17yr. old to consent to sex with a 21yr old and the law
supports that. Next, age of maturity is 18, which means you can have
sex before you are considered to be mature enough to make decisions
for yourself without your parents consent. Finally, since most teens
are always threatening to move once they reach the magical age of
maturity, as a parent you are still legally held responsible for any
financial necessities until the age 21. Under these laws your child
is not considered emanicipated and it is your income that determines
any financial assistance they qualify for if they choose to go to
school. Colleges do not allow them to apply for aid based on their
income, and must be considered emanicipated (21) before they can
apply.

My take on this is why is the state allowing these teens the right to
do as they wish, without them having yet learned responsibilities.
Furthermore, if the state is so inclined dictate laws that interfere
with the moral and ethical values that most families are trying to
teach, then why don't they take on the responsibility of supporting
these young adults when they choose to move out of their home. What's
your take?

21? You are responsible until 18

"Gini" wrote in

So...They are mature enough to go to the other side of the earth to fight
wars but they aren't mature enough to decide if they should have sex? It
is fortunate
that in this land, you do not have the right to dictate morality for the
rest of us.
I kinda get the feeling that if you could, you would.


Don't the Puritans in family court already dictate their sense of morality
on the rest of us, regardless if we are employed or not?

Seems to be a trend that more American families are having their 35 year old
kids still living with them, dare we send the poor darlings off to war.