YankAbroad

Perhaps if they were straight. However, history shows that the same authorities who turn their eyes away at a boy-girl situation would pursue a girl-girl or boy-boy situation with identical ages. 19 or 20 year old people tend not to hang out in high school support groups. I suppose if you think love is all about sex, that's one view. Although I wonder how many people who are recoiling in horror and demanding a rise in the age of consent became sexually active below the age of consent they're now advocating. . . There's a surprising amount of conflict of interest there

Suppose a 15 year old is dating a 17 year old and they're intimate together on a regular basis. Should it be a crime for them to continue to be intimate when the 17 year old turns 18 a few months ahead of the 15 year old turning 16? That's what the EGALE reference there is to -- not to the idea that 45 year olds are waiting to have sex with 14 year olds at support meetings. And what about two 15 year olds who are intimate with each other, legally, today? Should they be both changed into criminals by the proposed increase in the age of consent? If so, why?

"Vocalizing" is not permitted in the House Gallery -- not even applause. And think of the inverse -- imagine if Paula Jones wore a low-cut red top with "RAPIST!" printed in bright white letters across her chest and shouted abuse at President Clinton for "sexually abusing" her during a SOTU address. Are you telling me it would be wrong for her to be escorted out before she could disrupt the State of the Union address? A violation of her free speech rights?

You've seen none because they are inconvenient to the Tweedledee Party's partisans who are seeking to nail the Tweedledum Party with charges of "censorship." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6013101521.html Unfortunately, Ms. Sheehan's demand for free speech doesn't extend to having the courtesy to not disrupt the speech of the President during an invitation-only event mandated by law: The House gallery prior to a joint session of Congress for a state of the union address isn't the time or place to rip off your jacket and start screaming slogans "vocally."

It was only a matter of time before betsy tried the old "NAMBLA is running EGALE" canard. Sometimes, I think she spends more time thinking about pedophilia than the losers at NAMBLA do.

OK. Homosexuals deserve all the rights under the law which anyone else receives, are not "perverted or sick," and are hardworking productive members of society. That opinion would be "deliberately provocative" in all of those countries and could land me in jail -- or decapitated. Just like being homosexual would also get me executed in most of those countries. I guess I'll go back into the closet, in the interests of "diversity." Not. Honestly, the upper-middle-class socialist calls for "diversity" don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the word.

Sparhawk, all that politically correct bullshit you're pushing ties the hands of free people and allows dictators to run society. Do you think that the leaders of these fanatics give two hoots that they're offending Jews, Americans, Christians, gays, Hindus, or other people in their periodicals? When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks which explain to students that it's OK to kill or injure non-Muslims, is that OK? When Iran decapitates gay men in the public square (even as Europe and North America continue to work to deny them asylum), is that OK? When the Egyptian government invests in publishing houses which reproduce copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (one of the Mid East's perennial best sellers), is that OK? What if the USA "took offence" and boycotted them, or surrounded their embassies with armed militiamen? Would such activities get the excuses which are tossed out today? Of course not. This whole issue of "hypocrisy" and "not offending people" is ridiculous, stupid and offensive in and of itself. As a free person in a free society, I refuse to have the content of my speech or writing dictated by hypocrites, especially religious fundamentalists who are attempting to shove their mystical beliefs into the limelight and refuse to have them critically evaluated or panned.

They get nastier treatment from society today, from people such as yourself for instance. Not really, and certainly not universally. And that's the thing. Protecting children is all well and good, but right-leaning people and left-leaning people who blather on about protecting children only want to protect CERTAIN children, and leave other children to be "punished" for their "wrong" beliefs, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political opinions, economic backgrounds, career goals, etc. You're the one who has been advancing the theory that all gays are pedophiles and that the gay rights movement is a giant cover for it, not me. It's interesting how you insist you aren't when confronted with it, but keep "accidentally" revisiting this allegation. It tells me you're far less interested in "protecting children" than you are in using the lives and welfare of kids as pieces on your political chessboard. Pretty despicable.

Why not raise it to age 30 then? You've got to be reasonable. Raising it to an unusually high age just ensures that a bunch of high school kids are going to go out and try and discover this mystical forbidden thing you're trying to keep them from. Maturity is developed by education and other activities as well. If you educate teens to have a mature outlook about sex, they'll be more sensible AND be more likely to resist inappropriate situations -- which is always a better outcome than after-the-fact prosecution. EDIT: By the by, for gay kids, I'd love to see a pattern of education which offers them a vision of sex as something which is part of a relationship with a fellow adult in a committed relationship. But presuming that your opposition to sex education, relationship education and equality under the marriage laws is bona fide, such an outcome would also be impossible under your scenario. That's the danger of embracing extremes. You're going to be waiting a while for that one (well, at least a meaningful response).

With that standard, anyone who doesn't like any content or point of view can censor it and shut it down by clutching her pearls and claiming "offence."

Living standards won't lower in the west for those who are innovative and hard working -- only for those who expect government to maintain their standard of living by screwing other people out of theirs. And there are far too many visa laws in place to allow a true mobile economy of that nature. . .

The gallery of Congress in an invitation-only event is not an appropriate protest venue, sorry. Especially when Ms. Sheehan screamed several times and attempted to interrupt the speech.

An article from Australia on a right-wing American web site is evidence that the law isn't applied equally to Muslim communities in Canada and the USA? Allllllrighty. . .

Exactly, and rigid age laws do tend to hit these folks the hardest. You could be in a situation where a relationship was legal and then a date is hit and the relationship becomes illegal for the older person for a period of time, which makes no sense either. I disagree with the notion that there shouldn't be limits to the age of consent. I don't believe 25 year olds should be sleeping with 14 year olds. Perhaps, but raising the age does nothing to accomplish any of the other goals you've listed -- STD prevention, etc. Of course not, except that the 14 year old gay kid can expect to get nastier treatment from society and even from folks like you who argue he's going to try and be a pedophile when he grows up.

OK, I'll post it since it's 4 in the morning and I work at my home office in 4 hours' time. The biggest polluters, by far, in both Canada and the USA, are. . . the governments of Canada and the USA. That's why, when politicians talk about "cleaning up our air and water," I just want to laugh my butt off. They're doing more to foul it up than any other organisation in the country!

I think a free-market approach to the environment is the best way to go. Sue polluters. Of course, the biggest polluter in the United States and Canada alike is. . . (can you guess)?

Yes, FOX News is broadcast here. But don't rejoice just yet -- the UK OfCom (Office of Communications) regularly fines them for being biased. Now of course they're biased. And I think they have a right to be. What's laughable is when the BBC claims it's not biased and then runs documentaries on the "Israel-Palestine conflict" which were filmed by members of "Israeli Out of Palestine." And let's not forget the BBC is supported by tax dollars AND TV licence dollars -- you cannot refuse to view it or buy it (unlike FOX). *sighs* I wish there was a truly free country. I'd move there in a heartbeat. You got it. And when Hannity gets mad, he starts to jiggle like slightly ripe jell-o. It's scary.

Bill Clinton is "everyone?" How do you know where Clinton stands on it? Perhaps he spoke out against it and it got bumped off the pages by the latest story about Britney Spears' new line of push-up bras. Rather than trying to establish how nasty the Tweedledees are compared to your Tweedledum, why not just do the right thing and stand up for free speech and expression? If we all worry about standing up for that, rather than worrying about where our political enemies are sending their press releases -- and if they're using a bold enough font -- then we'll make a real impact on the situation we're decrying (such as the present diplomatic row). I'm a libertarian. I believe the papers have the right to print whatever they want, and the Muslims have the right to say whatever they want about what they print. I don't believe the Muslims have a right to demand jail time for the editors. All the political theatre around condemnations I couldn't care less about, since 2/3 of those condemnations are driven by polls, whether it's Hillary or Tom DeLay. Nope, that airport "security" stuff is all bipartisan. To whom it's applied might vary, but the idea that by getting on a plane, I'm submitting to an anal probe if they decide that's what they want, is very much an idea supported by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

I don't watch FOX "News" very often, but the few times I've seen that show, I expected Hannity to more-or-less make Colmes lick his boots.

Colmes is centre-left? Wow. I thought one had to breathe in order to take political positions?

Putin plays Bush like a fiddle. Remember when Bush said "I looked into Putin's eyes and saw he had a good soul," or some other such nonsense? Sometimes I just want to hand Dubya a graham cracker and a bottle of juice and let him play in the corner. He'd not do as much damage that way (well, maybe to the walls if he got access to some crayons!)

Think about it, rather than "feel" about it. If Hamas gains power, and exercises the theocratic tendencies they're likely to, they are going to oppress the shit out of big groups of their own people. Are you going to support asylum in Canada or the USA for those people? Or are you just going to say "tough, sucks to be you?" If it's the latter, I hope you're not planning on campaigning against Hamas based on human rights -- that would be chutzpah even by Karl Rove's standards.

Yep. Hopefully one day we'll live to see it. Imagine how much less smug idiotic nationalists of all stripes will be when countries transform from economic gulags into places where people choose to live because that's where the opportunity is. . .

The other thing is that Canada most certainly would have the US by the balls, as the US would have Canada by the balls. Squeeze the US, and you squeeze Canada too, since we're the people who buy all the cars, movies, music, machinery, airplanes, etc. produced in Canada. Slow down our economy and we buy less stuff, meaning your economy slows down too. The gains in oil profits would not make up for the losses in numerous other industries.

But the Chinese don't, because they don't have the planes. They're still a weapon with some uses, which is why they're maintained in the arsenal. It's not just because George Bush hates treaties -- Bill Clinton kicked off US opposition to the treaty.