RObert
. “My concern on that issue is that he seems to think that a sexual interest in them is natural and normal.”
Thanks for being clear just in case I got the wrong impression about BD. I must admit that I am concerned about that too but I also had the impression, because of his comments about the nine-year-old girls that he would be, in a way, a pedophile-apologetic but didn’t think he would commit such crime himself or support pedophilia.

I realise that I might have given the wrong impression by using ‘glorify’ that I thought BD was supportive of pedophilia.

So my excuses to BD if he feels I accused him wrongly. I didn’t think you actually support pedophilia.
But, BD, it is quite dangerous to make such comments; people would think that you make excuses for pedophiles.

RObert
About the Open Brethren- I did some reading and I believe that you are right; I found this information I was looking for:
“ ‘Exclusive Brethren’: They believe in a universal worldwide network of fellowships, with strong central leadership and a tight control of members.

‘Open Brethren’. For them, each local assembly is independent. The fellowship enjoyed between assemblies is spontaneous and spiritual, without impinging on the autonomy of the local assembly. The believers locally are themselves directly responsible to the Lord, not a human leader. This represents a major difference between the two sections of the Brethren movement.”


BD,
I am not sure whether you understand that Bob Brown is not saying that the age of consent should be lowered generally- as far as I have figured out he wants this age to remain at 16; all he is saying is that the age of consent for homosexuals should be the same as the age for heterosexuals to equal things up. In the article that Gadget put up it says that the minister told the government that he won’t bother investigate sexual activity in children over the age of 14.
This is wrong- any act with children under 16 should be regarded as crime.

continued below

BD
I assumed that Gadget is talking about this: children under 16 should be protected and sex crimes should not be ignored because ‘it’s too much trouble to follow up.’ And which minister doesn’t bother to look into this? The author of this article is not talking about Bob Brown. Or am I missing something?
May I repeat my question: What is actually wrong with equalizing the consent age for homosexuals and heterosexuals? I truly do not understand- removing discrimination is good, not?


About easier access to drugs:
I believe that legalising soft drugs will make things safer. If you look at The Netherlands- you buy soft drugs such as marijuana in smart shops and they come with health warnings, age restrictions, instructions, you get informed about the right dose- above all, people buying soft drugs do not come in contact with dodgy hard-drugs dealers who sell soft and hard drugs so the chance that people are being pushed for hard drugs is mininised.

Also, the drugs sold do have to be of a certain standard, can be, just like other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, inspected on hygiene, weight, strength etc.
Drugs, being manufactured in clean, hygienic, inspected laboratories or factories are, in my opinion, safer than drugs being messed with in anyone’s dirty kitchen sink.

About porn:
I strongly oppose involving children in pornography; they should not be allowed to participate in pornography- ever.
Involving kids in pornography is an act of pedophilia/pedosexuality.
For adults, they can make their own decisions whereas to watch porn or not. Some people might want it in their lives; if they watch it in their own private homes and don’t push it onto others, what’s the harm?

Again: children should be shielded and protected from porn, sex and drugs.
Adults should be able to make up their own mind.

Boaz: "C.J. would you like to withdraw your LIAR comment now ?"

Given your belated and weaselly response to being caught out yet again, no. You haven't substantiated your original outrageous claims about Bob Brown at all - rather, you've qualified them by reference to an unsourced video, a spurious comparison between the NSW Greens' policy on pornography and NAMBLA, distorting Greens policy of regulating the supply of recreational drugs, and a deliberate conflation of removing discrimination against homosexuals and the lowering of the general age of consent.

Further, this is a pattern of consistently dishonest discourse in which you have been engaged in this forum for some years now, e.g. :

29/11/2005 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3876#21640

22/05/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4488#42334

13/10/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=141#2562

22/11/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5187#62754

7/12/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=280#5108

11/12/2006 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=304#5308

There's plenty more, but I really couldn't be bothered wading through more of Boaz's tripe. Whether or not his consistent mendacity is intentional or pathological may perhaps be relevant, but it's obvious that Boaz has little compunction in posting bulldust and half-truths to further his agendas.

Speaking of dishonesty - do tell us about your association with the Open Brethren, and the congruence of many of your anti-Green porkies
with those of the Exclusive Brethren. Why do you conceal your Open Brethren membership?

C.J. thanx for all that. I'm uplifted that you would take me seriously enough to wade through so many posts.

Speaking of half truths, you neglected to refer to Kalwebs post after one of my apologies complementing my sincerity.

I always learn from negative feedback, and yours is appreciated.

Open Brethren ? what on earth are you on about ? I've said clearly I worship in that tradition, its not set in concrete, I'm happy worshipping in a variety of protestant traditions. My views are my views, and probably not reflective of many in my own tradition.
But...I'm working on it.
Hopefully with your obviously well intentioned continued criticism I should be finely honed by the time I do have to encounter bigger fish than you :)

And now for something completely different! Back to the topic.

I'm working on the assumption that the rational behind having an "age on consent" is to provide some protection for children because of the significant impacts which sexual acts can have on us.

The second assumption is that some kids will experiment regardless of any age on consent, our goal should be to get them through that with a mimimum of long term consequences.

The other assumption is that there are two main issues
- Protecting kids from themselves. Sexual experimentation even with "consent" can be a roller coaster ride especially if you are dealing with issues of identity and the like. Society recommends that kids leave certain sexual acts until they are a through that stage.
- Protecting kids from predators. Older people who for a variety of reasons prey on younger people as sexual partners.

I suspect that we need both an age of consent and then an incrementing scale of how large an age difference there can be between partners.

What helpful options can we use when underage sexual activity occurs? Maybe a few sessions with a child psychologist to ensure the kids are dealing with the issues OK and know how to protect themselves against the physical risks.

As an initial proposal
Assuming that the age on consent stays a 16
- Under 16 - advised against sexual activity and support services to minimise the harm. Some official sanctions against partners more than 2 years older than the other, keeping in mind that the goal is helping the kids not harming them.
- Age 16 - partners between 16 and 18. Support available if required. Partners older than 18 refered to police.
- Age 17 - partners between 16 and 20. Support available if required. Partners older than 20 refered to the police.
- Age 18 and up - old enough to vote, go to adult jails etc so the rest of us butt out.

R0bert

Lowering the age of consent comes down to one solemn and disgusting ideal that no one can honestly say isnt in the back of thier mind. Some homosexuals are only interested in boys and that is what its all about, Bob Brown should swing, the thought of homosexual sex with a child under 18 repulses me and so it should to any decent human. Homosexual sex with a child of 16 should rightly be aggravated rape with mandatory sentences of 10-15yrs in general population.

Just more of the moral corruption by the left for its woolly agenda on ding dong land.

WHY ARE THEY INTENT ON RUINING AUSTRALIA?
WHERE DID IT ALL GO SO WRONG?
HOW DO WE STOP THEM?