Rose, don't get me wrong, you are not alone in your carelessness with the English language, but this piece had just so many solecisms per square inch, I was forced to grab myself an identity and complain.

"Exactly who are we protecting" - the word is whom.

"what criteria factored into that decision" - criteria don't 'factor in', people do.

"an arbitrary chronological barometer" - are you describing a barometer that is arbitrarily chronological, or a chronological barometer that is arbitrary? Neither way makes any sense.

"irregardless" - no such word.

"By his reckoning, the whole question of consent lay solely in the female’s ability to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, should it occur. Ironically, it never occurred to me to gauge it that way." - there's no irony here. Surprise, perhaps, but no irony.

Sadly, few people care any longer whether they use language correctly or not, with the result that communication becomes merely approximate, near enough being good enough for most. A journalist, to whom words are a critical tool of trade, should surely set higher standards. After all, if you lower the bar too far, any old correspondent to this forum could do your job equally well.

Rose, your "no answers" honesty is really opening the doors to those who think they have all the answers.

I have some different views on aspects of this topic to yours and suspect that almost every reader will do so. I did appreciate reading an article which recognised shades of grey.

I can't mindread for the Liberal party. I do suspect that like many in the community they may struggle with a difference between acceptance of an individuals right to choose a homosexual lifestyle and endorsing that lifestyle as a good thing.

In that context a decision to engage in homosexual sexual activity is easy to see as a decision requiring greater maturity than a decision regarding heterosexual sexual activity.

Maybe in the same way a parent broadens the scope of the decisions a child is allowed to make as they get older. There are things my son cannot choose to do now which he may choose for himself when he is older.

Nonsence if you happen to believe that homosexuality is no different to heterosexuality (other than the obvious).

Pete
Language (or what I love about it) is a dynamic art form, accept that things will change. The writer puts her point across very well-at least she can spell, punctuate and pull a coherent sentance together.
And by the way, why can't people who don't have the archaic grasp of "ye olde Englishe" have a point of view and express it here? It's this form of elitist bigotry that keeps the "average" interested person out of vital debates such as this one.
Schools stopped teaching grammar proper a very long time ago. I suggest that you get over it or start to become more and more frustrated as the current crop of youngsters start to voice their opinions.

Rose, keep telling it like you see it. Maybe part of the answer of the homosexual age difference is that legislators can not see homosexual love as normal, natural and not learned. Maybe it's because they see it as something that is a naturally aberrant behaviour (goes against our so called natural urge to procreate)and will go away if you ignore it? Or can't they bring themselves to picture their own sons having a same sex relationship?
Just a thought.

Nita, yours is the standard response of the "near enough is good enough" mentality, that degrades everything it touches.

There is nothing "Ye Olde" about doing things well, it simply takes more effort than most people seem to be prepared to invest, even in the simplest matters.

I have absolutely no problem with correspondents who haven't had the experience with the language that enables them to get all the rules right or spell everything correctly. My concern was that a journalist, whose tools of trade are words, and whose ability to string them together is an important part of communicating effectively, can produce such a sloppy piece of work.

Language is not in itself an art form. It can be turned into one - literature - by skilled practitioners, but in its natural form it is a scientific instrument. Of course it evolves, but normal evolution involves improvement and expansion, not degradation and contraction.

The "current crop of youngsters" are ill-served by the example set by careless journalists. Pouring scorn on those who believe they will actually benefit from these skills does them a disservice too - they will take your example to mean they don't have to bother, and they won't.

Meanwhile to our north, a quarter of a billion people are taking the trouble to learn English properly. The reason they are making this effort is that they see language skills as an essential part of their competitive positioning. No elitist bigotry there, just hard-headed business acumen.

Rose raises many good points - regardless of any nit-picking in regard to her grammar. It is especially important that she points out that there should be no difference in the protection and support afforded to youth of any gender (male/female/intergender) at the age of consent. Anyone with an honest and open mind and with even a smidgen of life experience must know that same gender attraction is NORMAL. It may not be as commonly expressed as opposite gender attraction, but it is no less innate and natural - and seldom "chosen". The only moral "choice" is whether or not to be honest with family, friends and workmates - instead of pretending to be either sexless or heterosexual.

The term "homosexual lifestyle" is as uselessly definitive as "religious fanatic" - but one certainly makes a choice when embracing extremes of fashion or displaying wanton bigotry.

The legal age of consent should be the benchmark for all youth to have access to all information and support that they might reasonably need in order to protect their sexual health as well as their emotional health. All youth should have equal; support and protection at the same age. In Queensland, however, we have the only Sodomy Law in Australia and that law effectively blocks the delivery of safe sex education for 16 and 17 year olds. The age of consent is 16, but a separate law bans anal intercourse until 18. The Sodomy Law was enacted when sex between men was “decriminalised” in 1990 and was clearly meant to limit sexual activities for male youth (though it is an equally common heterosexual activity).

Attorney General Rod Welford will tell you that the Sodomy Law is not discriminatory, because it applies to all persons, whether they are male or female – but the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commissioner says that it is equally wrong that the law discriminates against 16 and 17 year olds. Unfortunately she cannot force reform of State laws and the Beattie Government seems content to let youth remain at risk while they maintain a vote-winning veneer of Bjelke-Petersen style conservatism

Pete

I will take your criticisms on board - bad spelling is a pet peeve of mine also. Your unsolicited dissertation of my noun usage was indeed a gift of kindness. I think your comments may have been better directed to me personally - I am readily contactable via the links on the page of the article in question - or directed at the editor, who has the arduous job of making my copy fit to print.

I hope you don't mind my pointing out that this section of the website is reserved for comments about the substance of articles, not the writing style. After all, this is "Online Opinion" not "Online Scholar".

For the record, I left school in Year 10. I have no degree, save for a diploma from the school of hard knocks. I don't often refer to myself as a 'journalist' per se. Online Opinion appreciate my candour and unabashed penchant for 'touchy' subjects, as have the many other magazine and newspaper editors who/whom (I'm really not sure which) have published my work in the past 13 years. I share your desire to preserve the English language - but I have not the time, nor the resources to educate myself more thoroughly. I do get by - lucky for me, some people care more about the pictures that I paint, than the frames in which they are mounted. As some clever bloke once said "Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story." Don't get caught up in petty trivialities Pete. Write your own article on English usage and leave the rest of us to our ill-worded opinion forums.

Please, keep fighting your good fight and Godspeed to you. I'll do my best to remain honest and forthright in my approach - and find the best possible manner to express that. Perhaps you might see fit to indulge ignoramuses like me just a little, for the greater good. Don't shoot the messenger - I do mean well, you know.
Best regards
Rose Cooper