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 > Age of consent laws: Puritan notions of right and wrong > Comments

Age of consent laws: Puritan notions of right and wrong : Comments

By Melissa Kang, published 21/3/2005

Melissa Kang argues we need to nurture the safe and healthy development of sexuality, in all its variety.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
Where do I start?

Kang says concerns about "adolescent sexuality are predominantly moralistic and a legacy of Christian, particularly puritan, notions of right and wrong." Quite true.

She asks: "what informs our moral position on adolescent sexuality? Should there be an “age of consent”? And if so, does it serve a moral, or some other, purpose?"

Christians don't have a problem answering this question, but I wonder what Kang's answer is...

Kang asks: "How well do these laws reflect our current understanding of adolescent sexuality?" Who's understanding are we talking about? No doubt they reflect the understanding of the materialists and secular humanists, but why should we accept their understanding as correct - especially because, since they had the laws changed to reflect their worldview we have a huge increase in child abuse and sexual crime, teenage pregnancy, AIDS and other STIs.

Why do we have age of consent laws? Because children and adolescents - despite their claims to knowing everything - are not mature enough to consider the broad range of possible consequences, and because they are far too easily manipulated by adults.

She says: "In countries where there is an openness towards addressing sexuality and easier access to health information and services, adolescent pregnancy rates are lower."

Countries like Australia, England, New Zealand, USA, Canada? Then why has teenage pregnancy risen dramatically in all these countries since the sexual revolution? Wake up and smell the coffee Melissa!

She says re homosexual sex "it’s time that all sexualities are acknowledged and accepted, with laws designed to protect and promote wellbeing of all, rather than punishing a completely normal minority."

Why should homosexuality be accepted? Especially since it is an extremely unhealthy practice and can hardly be called normal given that less than 3% of the population engage in it.

And Melissa, Romeo and Juliet allowed their passionate desires to consume them - so much so that they committed suicide...
Posted by Aslan, Thursday, 31 March 2005 7:47:08 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
Kenny,

You said: "don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes."

Really? I cannot think of any legislation whatsoever that does not involve morality! Even something as innocuous as the budget has a moral dimension eg. should we put more money into defence or health?

Kenny contimues: "That is the whole point of the separation of church and state."

The "separation of church and state" is actually an American concept at it does not mean what you think it does anyway. It means that the government may not force anyone to be a member of a state owned/run church (eg. Church of England, Vatican etc).

s 116 of the Constitution says:
"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

There is nothing here about not legislating morality.

Kenny adds: "you should not expect to be able to force your moral codes on other people."

Just listen to yourself Kenny! "You should not"...
You are forcing YOUR moral code on me by saying that I should not force my moral code on others.

Again, like all moral relativists, you end up contradicting yourself and start speaking nonsense.

I ask: Why shouldn't I be allowed to force my moral code on others?
Posted by Aslan, Friday, 1 April 2005 10:31:33 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
Kenny,

You said: "don't you understand that the government should not be in the business of enforcing moral codes."

Really? I cannot think of any legislation whatsoever that does not involve morality! Even something as innocuous as the budget has a moral dimension eg. should we put more money into defence or health?

Kenny contimues: "That is the whole point of the separation of church and state."

The "separation of church and state" is actually an American concept at it does not mean what you think it does anyway. It means that the government may not force anyone to be a member of a state owned/run church (eg. Church of England, Vatican etc).

s 116 of the Constitution says:
"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

There is nothing here about not legislating morality.

Kenny adds: "you should not expect to be able to force your moral codes on other people."

Just listen to yourself Kenny! "You should not"...
You are forcing YOUR moral code on me by saying that I should not force my moral code on others.

Again, like all moral relativists, you end up contradicting yourself and start speaking nonsense.

I ask: Why shouldn't I be allowed to force my moral code on others?

In any case, there is a much better article on this topic by Alison Campbell Rate at:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3099
Given that she actually cousels young people in such predicaments, she actually knows what she is talking about.
Posted by Aslan, Friday, 1 April 2005 10:35:22 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
To Kenny:

You are correct to say that "separation of church and state" is an American concept. However, it means much more than the government may not force anyone to be a member of a state owned/run church like the Church of England.

There were two interpetations of the First Amendment's establishment clause which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the Republican-Democrat Party interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit all government authority, including advisory authority, over the duty which we owe to the Creator.

Timothy Pitkin, Laban Wheaton and the Federalist Party held that the establishment clause was intended merely to prevent the establishment by law of a National Church, such as the Church of England.

During the Early Years of the American Republic (1788 to 1861) it was James Madison's interpretation that prevailed in every dispute over the meaning of the establishment clause. In 1878, in the first case, governed by the two religion clauses of the First Amendment, to reach the U. S. Supreme Court, it adopted James Madison's view that religion was the duty which we owe to the Creator and is totaly exempt from the cognizance of the government.

Fred
Posted by FredFlash, Thursday, 23 February 2006 12:45:48 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
What does the word "religion" mean in Section 116 of Chapter V. of the Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act?

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Fred
Dallas Texas USA
Posted by FredFlash, Thursday, 23 February 2006 1:07:42 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 Fred

your historical insights on the background to the constitution and accuracy make you a well suited candidate for OLO participation :)

WELCOME.

Join in more discussions please, and your valuable information on such things as the constitution will be helpful in clarifying some very muddy waters on that score.

Cheers
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 23 February 2006 9:26:32 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

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