The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > To consent or not to consent - Is age the question? > Comments

To consent or not to consent - Is age the question? : Comments

By Rose Cooper, published 7/3/2005

Rose Cooper discusses the question of the age of consent and poses more questions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Now reality check gets to the point. Regardless of the fact that you are typing much slower, it still doesn't make your points any more succint. Beastiality? The age of consent between zebras is much lower than an elephant. Wot? Sex isn't recreation? or sport? I'd hardly call it housework myself. By the way, legislation doesn't "set" guidelines, it sets paramater outside of which we can all be accused of breaking the law.

Regarding your historical (hysterical?) viewpoint on marriage. You are either talking biblical or monarchial law, (in western society) which means a (historically/biblical female) being a chattel to the spouse and ultimately to the monarch. Interestingly, sex as a sport was always popular with monarchs and the religious hierarchy. so maybe you shouldn't push that barrow too far.

Gay sex, like adultery, is thankfully not the subject of too many judicial processes. Thank the lord. The days of stoning your very own Mary Magdalene are over in this society.

Your comment about legally recognising gay marriages (irrespective of age) reveals how little of the article you have taken in. Like Rose, I can only opine on the points that you actually articulate in a coherent sense. Lose the moniker RC.
Posted by Di, Tuesday, 15 March 2005 8:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Realty Chook - typo's are virtually unavoidable.

OK...call me thick! I finally get what you have been saying. Well, with due respect - you can stick your 'context' and 'didactic purpose' where the sun don't shine. It has no place in this debate. If you've just tuned in, my article was about the age of consent - ie: The Law AGAINST ADULTS HAVING SEX WITH MINORS UNDER 16 - that's all. Your right wing agenda nullifies your viewpoint so as to make it completely irrelevant and nonsensical - hence my confusion. If this law were ONLY relevant to marriage and fidelity (16's awfully young to be married dontcha think?), then our children would be left well and truly up the creek without a legislation. Stick to the facts, not the hypotheticals. Surely someone with your impressive grasp of legalese can wrap their frontal lobes around that. The goal is child protection - not marital conformity.
Posted by Rose C, Thursday, 17 March 2005 9:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear "Equality Bigots"

- EB is the new label I am coining given you people are so quick to apply "GB" and rightwing to anyone that doesn't agree with your worldview -

Bravo! Despite your erroneous assumptions, your commentaries start to reflect that the age of consent was introduced to protect young women from premature marriage (ownership!) & sex. Well done.

As I stated earlier, if you wish to address other issues, draft new laws, or, as has happened, let them be removed from the statutes (sodomy laws) or remain inactive (through lack of enforcement).

In regard to my ideas being shoved where the sun don't shine, it would appear that such orifices are already too pre-occupied with anger & unjustified hatred, sports induced or otherwise.
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 17 March 2005 12:55:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reality Checkout - do you or don't you want children protected from sexual predators?
And don't waffle on about marriage and removing sodomy laws, just answer this one question, please.
Posted by Ringtail, Thursday, 17 March 2005 4:07:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ringer,

I believe that children are afforded the same rights under rape law as any person forced into sex without consent.

Raping someone closer to your age (or of the same sex) makes no difference and is no more or less repulsive.

Children are protected, but, unfortunately, are often exploited.
Posted by Reality Check, Thursday, 17 March 2005 5:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we could all agree in this debate than Reality in Denial (methinks RID for short) needs some frontal lobe lubrication. Interesting how rape comes into a gay debate about CONSENT. Good diatribe Rose and Ringtail. RID, I suggest you start undertaking a law degree. Surfing the net and getting "Reality bites" about different laws does not make a lawyer (not that i am one by the way). But it would seem, everyone in cyberspace is an expert. But not you so far.
Posted by Di, Thursday, 17 March 2005 10:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy