Thank You Liberals for 14 vs a vis 16 years of age

[Iknowbest]

The stupid Liberals continue to make life miserable for all Canadians and some time ago they passed a law that says:

Parents have no choice but to ensure that their children go to school up to the age of 16 BUT

once a kid reaches 14 the parents do NOT have the legal right to stop their kids from having consensual sex with anyone.

There is an example in this city where both parents of this 14 year old girl are going crazy. Why? Because after school she goes to her boyfriends house and he is 34 years of age and they have sex then she goes home for dinner.

The parents have no legal say whatsoever thanks to the idiot Liberals for passing such a wonderful law. Now those same idiots want to reduce the age of sodomy to 14 from 18, so what it means is a 14 year old boy or girl can have anal sex and once again the parents can't do a damn thing about it.

Supreme Court Judges in Quebec and Ontario , all of whom were appointed by the Liberals have rejected parents appeals to put a stop to this. No Freakin way says the Liberal appointed judges.

Cripes almighty cockroaches have more intelligence than these jerks.

Yesterday another example: a 36 year old man from Texas came to our city and was found in a hotel room with a 14 year old boy having sex. The police tried to lay charges and found out that they couldn't. The parents are going nuts.

So for those of you who vote and/or support Liberals in this country then you support this law about 14 year olds.

Sickening and disgusting !!

:angry:

[Black Dog]

The age of consent was set at 14 in 1890. There are many other prohibitons since, but a complete ban on sexual intercourse never did apply to anyone over 14.

There is an example in this city where both parents of this 14 year old girl are going crazy. Why? Because after school she goes to her boyfriends house and he is 34 years of age and they have sex then she goes home for dinner.

The parents have no legal say whatsoever thanks to the idiot Liberals for passing such a wonderful law. Now those same idiots want to reduce the age of sodomy to 14 from 18, so what it means is a 14 year old boy or girl can have anal sex and once again the parents can't do a damn thing about it.

What happened to discipline and parental control?

[Iknowbest]

discipline and parental control is totally non-existent not only for sex but if your son or daughter say has diabetes and the recommended aid is say a prescription drug. Well if the 14 year old says I will not take it, the parent has no legal right to force that kid to do it. Same thing for having sex, the parents have no LEGAL RIGHT whatsoever.

The Liberals are strong believers in that!!

[Shakeyhands]

Iknowbest.. I think you may be reaching a little now... Why so much hate?

[Black Dog]

There's no law compelling kids to eat their vegetables either. Do parents need the corecive power of the state behind their every action? Or is all this talk of them evil Liberals an excuse for poor parenting?

[Iknowbest]

There is no excuse re parenthood it is all about stupidity from the Liberals in ruining families with idiotic laws. Don't compare vegetables with anal sex because there is a significant difference.

Liberals have allowed 14 year olds to tell their parents to get lost, if I want to get laid by a 43 year old I will do that and you can't stop me.

Now idiot boy Ken Dryden is going to spend billions of our tax dollars on a National Day Care Program. HUH !

If any parent wants to use a day care facility then they should pay for it themselves. On the other hand if a parent wants to stay home and raise their children then they should be compensated for it. Ken Dryden and the Liberals say uh uh, The Liberal Party and Day Care knows better than you do to raise your children so we will pay them big bucks aka support unionist to raise someones child in a socialistic manner.

:angry:

[The Terrible Sweal]

Link

The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant.

In my personal opinion the age should be raised to maybe as high as 18, with the italisized scaling measure above amended to reflect the same concept as now. I.e. We should not criminalize the hormone-driven experimentation of young people.

Remember the rule: divide by two, add seven.

[Argus]

There is no excuse re parenthood it is all about stupidity from the Liberals in ruining families with idiotic laws. Don't compare vegetables with anal sex because there is a significant difference.

Liberals have allowed 14 year olds to tell their parents to get lost, if I want to get laid by a 43 year old I will do that and you can't stop me.

Uhm, realistically, no law is going to stop that kind of thing. If a girl wants to get laid she's going to get laid. So what if the law is 18. You think that's really going to matter in most cases? The parents rarely know who their kid is sleeping with anyway, or even that they are sleeping with someone.

[Iknowbest]

Ok then remove the law that forces parents to send their children to school until they are 16. Once a kid turns 14 and they misbehave then throw them out of the house for good, Problem solved. The parents will save a ton of money and remove the tension and hurt.

Once that happens then the government better build quickly a load of peneteniarys for the new breed of criminals surfacing. Don't worry even murderers will not spend more than 3 years behind bars so we can rotate the crooks through rather quickly because the parole boards another liberal appointed piece of garbage will make sure no one spends more than 3 years in jail.

[Black Dog]

There is no excuse re parenthood it is all about stupidity from the Liberals in ruining families with idiotic laws. Don't compare vegetables with anal sex because there is a significant difference.

No kidding? However, the point stands: society and the state cannot be responsible for each individual's behavior. If that individual is a minor, that responsibility falls on the parents or guardians.

The Liberal Party and Day Care knows better than you do to raise your children so we will pay them big bucks aka support unionist to raise someones child in a socialistic manner.

So on the one hand the Liberals are evil becaus ethey don't interfere enough (through increased ages of consent), while on the other, they ar eevil becaus ethey are interfering too much. With such mixed meassages, no wonder they dither!

Uhm, realistically, no law is going to stop that kind of thing. If a girl wants to get laid she's going to get laid. So what if the law is 18. You think that's really going to matter in most cases? The parents rarely know who their kid is sleeping with anyway, or even that they are sleeping with someone.

Preciesly. Laws need to be enforable to be any good. Raising the age of consent wouldn't change any behaviours. Besides, it's not as though the government is forcing kids to have sex at the age of 14. They are making the choice to do so.

[PocketRocket]

Parents no longer have any say

Bollocks. Parents always have say.

If they have raised the kid well, then only in the rarest of cases will the kid turn into the kind of rabid freak that you seem to think society will degenerate into.

Kids have been having intercourse at 14 and younger for millenia untold.

Just a couple hundred years back, a girl of fifteen would be considered an "older" bride.

Back in those days, a single woman of 20 would have slim hope of ever finding a husband. She'd be looked upon as a spinster.

When the biological clock clicks on, then the sexual urges take over, and the hormones start singing.

Legislating laws on sex, excepting rape laws, are as stupid a thing as man has ever considered.

Do a Google search on sex laws, and you'll see what I mean.

[Slavik44]

One thing that troubles me is that you ahve raised generalisations of 14 year olds with very old people, somethign I would wager only happens in extroadinary cases not many 14 year olds are attracted to gray haired men, as well I recent survey of Canadian teens, indicted that only 11% of those aged 13-15 had had sexual intercourse, and only 33% of those aged 13-18 had (statistics taken from readers digest). So one it is probabley not as rampant as you make it sound, further more for people aged 18 that is probabley one of the lowest points of that number considering up untill a few generations ago almost everyone was married off by 18, unless you didn't have sex in marrige until you were 20?

As well most media reports have indicated that kids want to act like what they see on television, which I don't think is something we can blame on the liberal party, we have a bunch of pissed off right wingers because Fox news is not in Canada (even though the CRTC never banned it) How many pissed off Canadian do you think we would have if Survivor (most watched show in Canada) or the O.C was banned? And is that a role the government should be playing.

Which leads me to parenting, it sounds to me like there may be some problems with it, in those extreme cases you have pointed out. It sounds to me, although niether I nor you ahve complete information, that the kid is in charge of the family and not the parents. That does not happen once a kid can consent to sex, no it stems for poor parenting from birth up, parents who were controlled by a kid at age two and don;t change will be controlled by those same kids at age 14. Unfortunantley the television makes an excellent baby sitter which expouses these kids to the very influences that will cause this so called "rebellion" later in life, although I am not convinced it is a rampant problem.

It seems to me, blame the liberals has become a discussion board cliche, it is easy to blame the liberals but it is even harder to dig down to the problem, and as hard as it may be, blame the real culprits. I don't know who the real culprits are nor do I know if the real culprits are always the same, but I do know the government does not raise little billy, and if the parents fail to do so, that is not the Liberals responsibility. The liberals do not force kids to have sex at age 14. I will however agree that the liberals priorities are way off, I mean you can be in parliment voting on how to spend billions of dollars, but you still cannot purchase alcohol.

[Shakeyhands]

Great Post Slavik.

... as I understand it, the Conservatyive or right wing followers want less Government meddling in their lives anyway, so why blame poor parenting choices on the current Government?

Seems to me as well that 14 years ago when that girls parents had her that the Government was formed by the PC's led by one Martin Brian Mulroney... shall we lay some blame on them as well? or is it whoever is currently in power and whom you do not like?

The choices kids make can be squarely be determined by their upbringing and enviroment at home, not the Government, not who forms the govermnet.

[waynej625]

In New Brunswick the Provincial Government is studying a complaint about the sex-ed program that the DEpartment of Education has implemented. They are studying it because of wide spread complaints about it's contents. Apparently the course includes teaching children in Garde 5 about not only masturbation, but teaching them that mutual masturbation between friend's is okay. Children in grage 5 are only 10 year's old, and far too young to be experimenting anything sexual, let alone mutual masturbation. This course was apparently written by some social engineers carrying Degrees is Psychology, Sociology, and Social Work, and these nut-cases think that this is somehow age-appropriate material.

If I caught my 14 year old male or female child engaging in sex of any kind with an adult, as someone in this thread has mentioned, that adult had better hope that the police find's them before I do. I would guarantee you one thing, they would never be in any condition to perform another sex act again with anyone, and that's providing they lived.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Children in grage 5 are only 10 year's old, and far too young to be experimenting anything sexual, let alone mutual masturbation. This course was apparently written by some social engineers carrying Degrees is Psychology, Sociology, and Social Work, and these nut-cases think that this is somehow age-appropriate material.

Actually, the age of 10 is probably a little late to begin teaching sexual education.

Link

[Charmingly Straight]

Plain&Simple: Government should not be involved in the personal lives of the citizens, but should stick to their own job, being ensuring our freedoms not be taken away, and that our lives be protected.

These social programs, which are "government" funded are breaking all our backs, and thank God for people like George W. Bush, who is trying to get nearly 200 government social programs cancelled.

-Charmingly Straight

[I Miss Trudeau]

Plain&Simple: Government should not be involved in the personal lives of the citizens, but should stick to their own job, being ensuring our freedoms not be taken away, and that our lives be protected.

These social programs, which are "government" funded are breaking all our backs, and thank God for people like George W. Bush, who is trying to get nearly 200 government social programs cancelled.

-Charmingly Straight

Uhm...what?

[Charmingly Straight]

Plain&Simple: Government should not be involved in the personal lives of the citizens, but should stick to their own job, being ensuring our freedoms not be taken away, and that our lives be protected.

These social programs, which are "government" funded are breaking all our backs, and thank God for people like George W. Bush, who is trying to get nearly 200 government social programs cancelled.

-Charmingly Straight

Uhm...what?

I could repeat it, but I'm sure that's not what you want to be reading. Is there a problem, or do you need somthing clarafied?

[Black Dog]

I could repeat it, but I'm sure that's not what you want to be reading. Is there a problem, or do you need somthing clarafied? 

Here: I'll giveyou a hint:

Political Forums ->Canadian Politics ->Federal Politics

[CAGERATTLER]

once a kid reaches 14 the parents do NOT have the legal right to stop their kids from having consensual sex with anyone.

It was the Mulroney government back in 1987 that lowered the age of consent down from 18 to 14!

Unbelieveable how mis-informed some people are!

[CAGERATTLER]

Gee what's the matter my last post got you Conservatives in shock?

Truth hurts does it?

Why are you so quiet?

[Fortunata]

They can't take the truth!!

If I had time I'd go back and pull out all the mis=deeds that the Mulroney conservatives did, well, some of them anyways. It seems to me that a lot of what went on in adscam also went on in the Mulroney era.

That'd get'em good.

[Slavik44]

Gee what's the matter my last post got you Conservatives in shock?

Truth hurts does it?

Why are you so quiet?

well many of us had previously pointed that fact out, the topic was pretty well dead, all you did was rehash an old thread and point out something that had already been made very clear.