SCOTTY, whats the issue for you? A dislike for homosexual sex or a dislike of children being taken advantage of by adults?

I'm hoping that most decent people are disgusted by any adult involved in sexual activity with children (hetro or homo).

R0bert

Scotty
"Homosexual sex with a child of 16 should rightly be aggravated rape with mandatory sentences of 10-15yrs in general population."

The age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual partners is already legally equal in all states except in Queensland. (I only found that out today).
If you re-read the posts and article, you can figure that Bob Brown is just about taking away discrimination against homosexuals particularly in Queensland (as far as I understand it).
There is no need to bash Bob Brown for wanting to set this right.

I'd more concerned about our minister not bothering to investigate sexual activity of 14 and 15 year old kids. This is what this thread basically is about (or should be).

>Age of consent
(Source: http://www.afao.org.au/view_articles.asp?pxa=ve&pxs=170&pxsc=177&pxsgc=&id=579 )
This briefing paper provides a comparison of State and Territory laws relating to age of consent.
The age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex is 16 years of age in the ACT, NSW, NT, Victoria and WA, and 17 years of age in South Australia and Tasmania. Of all the Australian states and territories, only Queensland retains a discriminatory age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.<

RObert,
your initial proposal looks fair enough and seems very natural.
It's probably only a minority of teenagers who would go outside these sensible guidelines.
But that's from my own observations, not from statistics. If I look at my own kids and their friends, I am pleased to see that there are a lot of sensible teenagers around.

Hi Robert,

Your outlines seem reasonable, but I'm unsure that the 17 - 20 year old one would work. 17 is traditionally the age most teenagers leave school and start working or start university. As they're being placed in an adult environment and being asked to make adult decisions, it's not realistic to suggest they might not form adult relationships.

I fail to see the problem with equalising the age of consent for hetero and homosexual sexual intercourse. To suggest that there should be a difference plays into the patronising idea that children are somehow swayed into homosexuality rather than able to identify with it from a young age. Having the same age of consent is one of the basic measures you can take to demonstrate that homosexuality is recognised as a legitimate sexual preference in Australia - both legally and morally. Obviously there are some that don't agree with the morality of it, but from a legal standpoint you cannot have rules for one and rules for the other.

As for Scotty's ridiculous suggestion of encouraging those nasty gay pedophiles, it's a basic fact that the majority of sexual assaults on children occur in the home and from adult male to girl child. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexual males are naturally inclined towards sex with children, and to suggest as such is both incorrect and offensive.

As for Boaz, the connection between the Greens' stance on pornography and NAMBLA isn't even spurious, it's entirely non-existant. There is no way that children can be involved in pornography without exploitation - as the Greens stand against this, it follows that they are against child pornography. What they are not against is the invasion of consenting adults homes by the moral watchdogs that would seek to dictate to them what legally produced products it is they can and cannot access. Do try to leave your extreme moralising at the door when dealing with legal facts and potential defamation.

Porn and drugs....I love the Greens for exactly the same reasons that Boaz dislikes them...

Boaz: here's a simple solution - if you're not a fan of porn and drugs, may I recommend you pay no attention to it? I'm not a fan of today tonight, my way of dealing with that is...not watching it! I mean, its not like, if hypothetically, the Greens were in power, you would be forced to engage in activities you don't like.

You bang on about how freedom is under threat, do you honestly fail to see the double standard?

...stupid question, really.

Audrey, thanks for the feedback. My proposal was intended as a staring point for discussion - a different starting place for thinking about the idea of "age of consent". I've not had a great do to do with 17 year olds recently, the point you make is worth hearing.

Any thoughts on the general idea of treating sexual activity between peers differently to sexual activity between youth and older adults?

Do other have ideas on how we can better protect kids from predators as they go through the difficult stages of understanding their own sexuality and identity?

Encouraging abstenance is clearly an often tried approach with limited success. Would encouraging abstenance work better combined with a more realistic acceptance that some will choose otherwise (and providing help for them to protect themselves as much as possible - contraception, disease minimisation, counselling etc) and free of the attempts of some to label it as sin?

Does abstenance provide better long term outcomes than exploration free of judgement and attempts to to impose guilt or visa versa?

R0bert