Liberal family values for our children

[Argus]

Great post.

Also may I remind all of you reactionaries that the law concering the right of 14 yr olds to have sex is nothing NEW.  It is only in the past couple of generations that people have started to get married at a later age. 

In 1890, a 14 year old would have been working hard around the house for about ten years. He or she would have learned responsibility and duties and how to cope with numerous hardships. They would have been exposed to every manner of problem the household experienced - which were many. They were mature beyond their years. As well, life expectance was much lower in the past. People had to get married at a young age to ensure that their children were old enough to look after themselves by the time they died. It is said the history of the middle ages is the history of children, because life expectancy was so low.

Today's 14 year olds have, for the most part, been sheltered to the point where they are incapable, for the most part, of looking after themselves, much less children they might have. They have no responsibilities. They have no duties. They are expected to do little more than play, and they know very little about life. It is absurd to expect a child of 14 to be able to have any kind of equal relationship with an adult. Any sexual relationship between a 14 year old and a 20 or 30 year old is, with extremely rare exceptions, going to be highly exploitive, and quite probably damaging to the child.

It is utterly ludicrous that the same idiots who sweep away suggestions that adult predators would be out there trying to talk comparatively innocent 14 year olds into harmful relationships also go buggy eyed at the thought of kiddy porn or internet sex talk. They fully support locking up some poor, schmuch who downloaded some 25 year old pictures of child nudity while at the same time defending the idea of a 40 year old man seducing his neighbour's 14 year old kid!

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone can defend voting in favour of adults having sex with children, and then get indignant about the idea of child porn. What? It's horrible to have a picture of a naked 17 year old but it's okay to seduce a classroom full of 14 year old virgins and involve them in every manner of sexual perversion under the sun?

The CPC certainly does NOT reflect my family values.  I am not prepared to have yet Another debate about same sex marriage, abortion or any of the issues where Canada has entered into the 21 century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If your family values include having sex with children, then pardon me for opting out.

[Guest eureka]

So when the Conservatives appointed judges, that was OK and did not bring the system into disrepute?

You have a lot to learn about parliamentary democracy.

[Argus]

So when the Conservatives appointed judges, that was OK and did not bring the system into disrepute?

You have a lot to learn about parliamentary democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you have any information that the Conservatives sold judgeships as the Liberals did?

[normanchateau]

A couple of points. First, Bill C-250, as I've said earlier, had NOTHING to do with commiting violence against gays. It had to do with criminalizing unflattering opinions about homosexuals. I have steadfastly opposed all limits on freedom of speech. I find "hate speech" laws to be a dangerous infringement on freedom of speech. They are all the more dangerous because of being pointless. We risk our freedom of speech - perhaps our most important freedom - for the sake of preventing people from being offended by opinions they don't like.

Then you or Harper or CPC should be campaigning against hate crime legislation. Harper's problem, among many, is that he has no problem with hate crime legislation per se. He's in favour of hate crime legislation where disability, gender, ethnicity, race or religion is concerned but not where gays and lesbians are concerned. He'd have more credibility if he opposed all hate crimes legislation rather than ONLY legislation as it applies to gays and lesbians.

[Guest eureka]

Argus, you are the biggest puzzle on the forums. You often write intelligently, and gracefully, and you ruin your contributions with thing like the last.

The Liberals "sold" judgeships!

That is pretty low for anyone. I don't think even Harper would try that one; in the House or out of it.

[Argus]

Argus, you are the biggest puzzle on the forums. You often write intelligently, and gracefully, and you ruin your contributions with thing like the last.

The Liberals "sold" judgeships!

That is pretty low for anyone. I don't think even Harper would try that one; in the House or out of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? Their own Quebec campaign chief stated that almost all the lawyers who offered free services to the party during elections got judgeships over the following months. You think that's coincidence? I mean, that testimony was enough to even get Liberals talking about reforming the process for judicial appointments.

[Argus]

Then you or Harper or CPC should be campaigning against hate crime legislation.  Harper's problem, among many, is that he has no problem with hate crime legislation per se.  He's in favour of hate crime legislation where disability, gender, ethnicity, race or religion is concerned but not where gays and lesbians are concerned.  He'd have more credibility if he opposed all hate crimes legislation rather than ONLY legislation as it applies to gays and lesbians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet again, you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between hate crime legislation and hate speech legislation.

I am opposed to both. I suspect that Harper, being a logical man, is likewise opposed to both. Neither serves any useful purpose or makes any sense. Then again, neither does the kiddy porn legislation, and he appears to actually support that for some reason, so who knows.

In any event, it is not politically possible for the Tories to oppose hate crime legislation at this time, not given the smears which have been heaped upon them over the past decade.