Dear Di,

I was merely placing this useless dabate into context.

If society is prepared to promote certain laws/causes/activities devoid of the historical basis of existing statutes then a dis-service is rendered to all.

The law has two purposes, one of which is to set guidelines/ standards , the other relates to punitive measures for transgressing these standards.

Like adultery, gay sex is not the subject of many judicial processes, however, marital fidelity, along with responsible sexual activity (it's not a sport or recreational activity afterall??!!) is surely something we, as a society should value or aim for?

Should we legally recognise gay relationships (irrespective of age)? I say not, but, reducing or rationalising matters pertaining to marriage to cater for other causes is not the way forward.

Undermining wider legal rights, privilages and beliefs/values is not the way to win supporters. Providing a viable alternative that can get the support of the community / legislature may be a better way forward.

Reality Check

Where's Pete the Pedant when you need him? Not only does Reality Check make an incoherent argument (are you saying that sex outside of marriage shouldn't exist, therefore it should require no legislation...are you on drugs?), his/her spelling sucks.

Dear Rose,

sorry about the two spelling mistakes (privileges, and debate, mind you, you comments really transform this from Ali G 'dabate' to "derr-bate!)

I will type this slowly so that I don't make any typo's and so you may have a better chance of understanding the points I made.

What I was noting was that legislation sets standards & penalties and these are not currently being enforced. The reason these laws exist is no longer appreciated, so the debate about 'underage' sexual partners is moot unless you are a person in authority (eg. school teacher, minister of religion) as they are the only ones likely to be targeted by public opinion or lobby groups with an axe to grind.

Ideally and traditionally, sex should be in a monogamous, heterosexual union. This is clearly not the practice in many sexual encounters, arguably, more so in recent times. Therefore, the legal situation has limited application in value or practice.

(Typing extra slowly now...) To re-affirm the purpose & intent of the law & use it punitively is (sad to say?) not going to happen, so even if the age is raised, lowered or abandoned, unless it is going to be enforced and its context (marriage/families) and its didactic purpose (fidelity is good for you, your partner, children & the community, your health etc) is understood & accepted by the community, moaning about it makes no difference and it may as well be removed from the statutes.

Now, as to whether I want it to remain law & be enforced...another time perhaps.

Reality Check - love the irony of your moniker.

Now, human beings have always engaged in sexual encounters - not always in a marriage.

There have always been homosexuals - there always will be - homosexuality is common amongst other mammals as well as humans.

There are people who like to use sex to control others - unfortunately they will always exist. Therefore, we attempt to protect our young people from these predators by establishing an age of consent.

It is true that some people mature more quickly than others - there will never be a perfect age of consent however we need to draw the line somewhere and 16 is usually considered a reasonably mature age.

If you really believe that human beings everywhere will suddenly live in monogamous, hereosexual marriages without exception then, perhaps you should consider changing your name to "out of touch with reality".
Thank you

Dear Ringtail (now is there something more to your moniker?) you all keep missing the point. The question I keep posing is that as the age of consent only makes sense, legally & historically, in the context of marriage you cannot regulate illicit sexual activity (or give legal credence to gay sex, beastiality etc )under this law.

Now if you want to introduce new laws against child sexual abuse upon or between minors, animals etc then you are welcome to do so, but, don't water down existing laws, or if you must, then get rid of them & start again.

RealityCheck's attempts to use anal humour to divert our attention from his too clear hard line against both same-sex sexuality and extra-marital sex are pathetic. More important though is the very clear fact that legislation regarding age of consent has absolutely NOTHING to do with any legislation regarding marriage.

Age of consent is contained in each state's Criminal Code. That Code makes no reference to marriage - or to extra-marital sex for that matter.

RealityCheck must believe that repetition is a constant form of change, however repeating one narrow and bigotted viewpoint does not enhance this forum's discussion.