Cadiz, the points you make are obviously very compelling, in as much as no reasonalbe person could defend the kind of sexual abuse that you describe. You seem to be missing the two main points of the article however:

1) That while it is important to protect young people from sexual predation or abuse, it is not helpful to create (and in some cases enforce) legislation that will outloaw the kind of sexual experimentation that young teenagers have always dabbled in. This sort of experimentation carries its own risks, obviously, but the law is hardly the appropriate mechanism for addressing these risks. Laws such as those in Victoria and the ACT attempt to take this concern into account, and the author praises that effort.

2) For the emotional well-being of homosexual young people, it is important that differences in the age of consent for straight and gay sexual practices be abolished. As long as sensible laws regarding the age of consent, sexual predation, and abuse are correctly enforced, one cannot argue that laws regarding the homosexual age of consent will put young people at risk. The only remaining reason for such laws stems from religious or personal moral beliefs, and these cannot be the sole basis of legislation.

This is a most distressing article because it represents the complete medicalization of sexual ethics. Health and safety are deemed to be the only issues involved apart from protecting the weak against the strong. Any hint that a morality based on a religious tradition may have something to say is dismissed out of hand. The writer isolates sexual behaviour from the complex issues of courtship and the establishment of life-long, family rearing relationships and from any transcendent purpose in life other than to be able to do what is safe. Sex education will not fill the void that is left.

What is the "age of consent" supposed to be about - I would suggest it is that moment in time when a person is deemed sufficiently mature to make complex decisions for themselves. In this matter I would suggest age of consent could, on the basis of rational and mature cognitive development range from anywhere between 12 and 30, depending on the gender and attitude of the individual. Thus we have then the question of where do we draw the line for the "age of consent".
If we are to draw a line (and I feel we must) I find consistency demands we apply that standard universally, thus homosexual "age of consent" be the same as hetro-sexual "age of consent". Anything else is plain "silly".

I further consider the ability to exercise a decision to imbibe in alchohol a rational decision in which some are capable exercising proper attitudes from the age of 12 and other, incapable of moderation at any age.

Likewise smoking - stupid at any age - yet consent at 18 years.

Voting - this is an important one - should the age of consent maybe coincide with the age of majority ?

Such a notion embraces "sense" to me, empowering someone with sovereignty over themselves and "release" from "parential authority" should sort out plainly, who can decide for themselves and who needs protecting from their own bad choices - which is what the age of consent should really be about -
The protection of juveniles, not only from the predatory advances and influences of adults but from the dangers of their own immaturity.

Well done Melissa a very clear well presented article. Sell's don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes. That is the whole point of the separation of church and state. If you whish to teach your children that sex before marriage is bad then go for it but you should not expect to be able to force your moral codes on other people. Government should only be concerned about the health aspects of this issue.

Kenny, I am not imposing anything on anyone, I am just expressing what I think is a well foundered opinion in the spirit of democracy. Mellissa has expressed her opinion from a medical point of view, should we insist on a separation of medicine and state so that her opinion is inadmissable as you think mine should be? Surely you must admit that there are various positions from which we can come at this question, Melissa has expressed an opinion from a medical point of view which is valid, it is just not as comprehensive as she seems to assume.

Melissa,

Wrong. Sorry. Kids, like us, need the security of 'life/road rules'They do not need to feel they are exactly as current society portrays them - commodities with a really short use-by date. They need to understand just how unique and special and spiritually great they are. They need to understand how to make their present family, friend, community, relationships work. Ideally this is passed on to them by role-modelling from parents and 'significant others' - mainly through mutual respect, mutual admiration, mutual giving and taking. I'm not talking about 'la la land' in strongly recommending a push by 'adults' for greater role modelling of more effective ways to conduct themselves in society and in their own communities. Currently the lore of the jungle sprouts loudly and clearly, get what you can , when you can , and don't give a @@@@ about anyone else or the consequences. This 'me me me' approach encourages a selfish, consumerist mentality to living - relationships with people, and our environment. Devastation has been the result.

But hey Melissa what does it matter - go ahead and promote a 'free for all - if you have an itch - scratch it' approach to life. Tonight's news revealed the cost to the Government for domestic violence on women aged from 15 yrs to 44 yrs , at approximately $4billion annually. Something isn't working in the current relationship behaviour patterns. Yet you advocate more of the same - more selfishness - more free for all.

Kids do need guidance Melissa - boundaries - knowledge and understanding of what it takes to make relationships work - they're hard Melissa - they take time - love - selflessness - give and take. Flitting from one 'person' to another is not the answer.

Deep contentment from loving relationships takes effort and time. Don't trivialise relationship building Melissa. Families are the engine of society. Children are suffering so much because of 'consumerist' approaches to relationships. Multiple 'dads' and 'mums' really cuts them up. Families need a lot of support and time and love.

J. Sheehan