>>"Sell's don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes."<<

Come again! Did I just read what I thought I read?

Tell me, do you think murder (at least post-natal) is immoral? Do you think rape is immoral? Do you think theft (except by majority vote, of course) is immoral? Do you think assault is immoral?

If government's primary responsibility isn't "enforcing moral codes", then what on earth is it there for?

Is this the calibre of thinking this forum can muster?

Sheenajay
Your post would be the most heartfelt post I have read, but you can feel assured that many of the things that we presently have within our society were not always there, and can be changed, and there are many who are now trying to change these systems.

Men who are interested in sex with children and juveniles do travel in very large numbers to countries that have legalized the activity. Commercial child exploitation is more prevalent in jurisdictions with same age criteria for heterosexual and homosexual experiences.

The 'public sex' lobby in western societies is promoted by advocates who rely upon the NAMBLA philosophy for ideological legitimacy.

Society has to make choices about who it protects and it has to send a clear message to the people who want to harm those warranting protection. These days, men who want to use children for sex, are often publicly active and political.

Paedophilia is typically dressed up (these days) as an exercise in child sexual liberation from the unwanted attentions of sentimental lobbyists repressively imprisoned in the late 19th century. The NAMBLA philosophy seeks to eradicate moral certainty.

Objective standards of morality can be betrayed without much thought for the wider impact.

The gay lobby were the driving engine behind the Prostitution Reform Bill in New Zealand. The NZ Govt. appointed them as the arbitrators of what compromises were possible.

When offered the chance to drive a wedge between the 'Christian' moralists and the secular child protection lobby, the NZ Govt. merely had to concede that the prostitution reform legislation had to allow for

(1) Consent

(2) Prohibition on child exploitation in commercial premises

The consent issue was to the fore because many of the 'prostitutes' in the premises (in NZ) did not speak a word of English and were unable to 'voice' consent.

The NZ govt. did not think that was important. Their position was that they 'gave consent' by being on or in the premises.

Privately the NZ police allowed us to understand that the gay lobby had their hooks into the NZ labour party and the child protection movement could hope for nothing.

When pro-protection lobbyists tried to outlaw the use of children in lap-dancing clubs as part of the prostitution reform legislation, they were advised that the NZ Govt. would resist them to the bitter end.

Which is what they did. Lap-dancing was to be excluded because of various 'added value' activities to be promoted at brothels.

That amounted to everything from the sale of human breast milk to the use of Asian girls in pseudo child sex performances etc.

It was thought too difficult to address the one without limiting the commercial aspects of the other.

The NZ govt. were aware that children were being used in sex clubs. The Govt. priority was to keep those events secret in order to get the legislation on the books.

Kenny, where u are 'coming from' is becoming clearer by the day .. or am I misreading you ? Your repeated vitriolic attacks on the 'moralisic christians' and your lavish unbounded praise on the author of this article, are quite revealing.
I'm reminded of the words of one of the Huxleys who promoted Darwinian evolution "I dont WANT to believe in God, I have my own moral agenda" (words to that effect)

If Melissa was a man I'm sure she would be at the coal face of the Nambla apologist team, perhaps her work will be seen by them anyway as 'cutting edge breakthrough and timely academic honesty'.

Melissa seems to have swallowed hook line and sinker the Western concept of 'total individuality' which is surprising for a Chinese girl who theoretically should have a VERY strong sense of kinship bond and cultural connection based on her own heritage.

She touched on a couple of important issues, that of unforseen pregnancy raising inheritance and succession problems. All this is saying is that we are NOT isolated individuals ! We are intimately connected to others in many important ways. So perhaps the focus on individual sexual freedom is in error ?

Cadiz, you showed the 'dirty' side of this coin, by illustrating how commercial interests will take up any perceived opportunity to turn sexual permisiveness into dollars and cents, and how governments will manipulate information for this purpose as well. The legalilzation of brothels was PORTRAYED to us as 'bringing an unenforcable illegal practice under government regulation' and taming it. Yet statistics and reports I've seen show MORE illegal brothels now than prior to their legalization. As soon as u have an age of consent, it will be the 'rule which was meant to be broken' by the forces of darkness. So its better to make an age which we feel is socially sensible, and that will only happen thru democratic action.

Call my view 'puritan' or 'religious wowserism', but I'll call the pressure to become more permissive 'abject degeneracy' if the shoe fits, wear it.

I think that sex should be illegal for all people, except for married Christian heterosexuals over the age of 21, who only use the missionary position and for the purposes of reproduction. Sex for pleasure should be banned completely, as should any form of eroticism.

Transgressors should be locked up in gaols, where they can happily engage in homosexual acts with older prisoners until they are released back into society - oh hang on, that's what we do to young offenders now anyway... but at least we could ensure they'd be over 21 by the time they got out.

There, that would solve all of our problems, wouldn't it?