If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
State v. Family Values
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
State v. Family Values
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
State v. Family Values
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Family values | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | July 21st 04 12:00 AM |
Beheading Our Values | something here | Child Support | 0 | May 23rd 04 04:30 AM |
MO state law gives preference to Family-not being done | Ron | Twins & Triplets | 0 | June 30th 03 05:48 AM |