EGALE

geoffrey · February 3, 2006

Well Egale is stating that 14 year olds need to have have sex with older people at support meetings.

LGBT youth groups provide vital support to young people struggling with their sexuality. Many LGBT youth come out at LGBT youth groups or other places where LGBT people meet. Even at a youth group they are likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them, beyond the current “close-in-age” exception. To criminalize the primarily healthy sexual relations that ensue seems perverse, furthering the marginalization of LGBT youth.

There ya go, Egale think the age needs to be younger for gays because they need older sex to feel wanted in society.

It freaks me out that an organization can promote sex and support to minors in the same sentenance and no be considered criminal.

YankAbroad · February 3, 2006

Even at a youth group they are likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them, beyond the current “close-in-age” exception

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?

geoffrey · February 3, 2006

Even at a youth group they are likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them, beyond the current “close-in-age” exception

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?

Thats the only specific situation where that is ok in your opinion. I don't think that would ever be prosecuted anyways. The age needs to be made 16 for everyone though to prevent these 15 year olds being exploited at their "support groups" by some 19 or 20 year old hooligan.

EDIT: I also don't like the idea that gay people tend to meet lovers at 'support groups', these young kids are going to start associating support with sex. People in a position of authority should never be allowed to have sex with a minor, and these people in a support group, full of strangers to this young and scared kid, are all in positions of authority.

YankAbroad · February 3, 2006

Thats the only specific situation where that is ok in your opinion. I don't think that would ever be prosecuted anyways.

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.

The age needs to be made 16 for everyone though to prevent these 15 year olds being exploited at their "support groups" by some 19 or 20 year old hooligan

19 or 20 year old people tend not to hang out in high school support groups.

I also don't like the idea that gay people tend to meet lovers at 'support groups', these young kids are going to start associating support with sex.

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

betsy · February 4, 2006

Of course it does. MATURITY.

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.

Oh don't be silly now. You know that no one is trying to raise it at an "unusually high age".

There were two suggested ages...16 and 18.

" For example, in its submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during consideration of Bill C-27,(9) the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police urged the federal government "to define 18 years and over as the age of consent for sexual encounters with adults." Similarly, during the four-year review of Bill C-15, Citizens Against Child Exploitation argued that the age of consent for sexual activity should be raised to 16, with three years being the permissible age difference between consenting adolescents.(10)"

http://doxology.blogspot.com/2005/09/age-of-consent.html

I think 16 would be okay. Don't you?

betsy · February 4, 2006

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.

Not necessarily.

Didn't we educate and keep educating kids about unwanted pregnancy?

Didn't we educate and keep educating kids about the dangers of drugs?

Didn't we educate and keep educating kids about drunk driving?

It's good to have those education but let's not kid ourselves.

Let's face it.....that age group, they think they're invincible! And they're highly impressionable.

They're easy to exploit by perverts that had mastered the art of luring and ensnaring their prey.

betsy · February 4, 2006

"CONCERN #3: INABILITY TO DATE PEERS

LGBT youth groups provide vital support to young people struggling with their sexuality. Many LGBT youth come out at LGBT youth groups or other places where LGBT people meet. Even at a youth group they are likely to encounter people who are more than two years older than them, beyond the current “close-in-age” exception. To criminalize the primarily healthy sexual relations that ensue seems perverse, furthering the marginalization of LGBT youth. It is also possible that the youth groups themselves will fear being open to those under 16, causing them to make rules to exclude them. The harm done in cutting off access to this vital resource would be substantial.

Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception."

-----------------------------

I have difficulty swallowing that statement. When EGALE talks of LGBT youth, we're talking what age here? 12...13...14...?

And they're likely to encounter people more than two years older than them, beyond the current "close-in-age" exception.

How old are these people that are two years older and "beyond the current close-in age exception?"

30, 40, 50, 60 years old?

EGALE says, "LGBT youth groups provide vital support to young people struggling with their sexuality."

STRUGGLING WITH THEIR SEXUALITY. In other words, we're talking about confused youth here....confused about their sexuality.

In that state of mind, they're more vulnerable to be manipulated...to be exploited....to be corrupted.

I am outraged that this is happening right under our very noses. LGBT or not...these are youths!

I can't believe you guys who spout concern and disdain for un-regulated daycares...and yet you turn a blind eye on this!

betsy · February 4, 2006

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.

"EGALE says it flat out:"Whatever the age of consent is, the Government may wish to consider increasing the window for the “close-in-age” exception.” In other words, worry less and less about that darn age gap. And we ain’t talking Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher here. Get offa that!

So-called right-wing bias is a buffer, it turns out, between kids and EGALE’s liberal Namblarism. If any kid needs to be protected from older associates, by age gap limits, surely it would be the kid who would be the most ashamed or afraid to complain to the police in the first place. "

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/columnists...nd_a_bc_pervert

Hey, you can call me right-leaning anytime! Damn proud of it!

betsy · February 4, 2006

So what does a hapless LGBT kid who got victimized in this LGBT Youth Support Group by a predator do?

To whom will he/she complain? EGALE and other well-meaning gungho EGALE supporters had already warned this kid that the police is going to beat the daylights out of him/her just because he/she's an LGBT!

The source of protection was conveniently cut off.

Brilliant.

betsy · February 4, 2006

And what about AIDS?

We know that AIDS is a soaring problem.

betsy · February 4, 2006

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 have a responsibility as a civic minded citizen to try to protect all youths.

Why are you deliberately turning a blind eye on something serious as the concern we're stating about the premise of the LGBT YOUTH SUPPORT GROUP?

Worse, you're trying to twist our concern...you're trying to distract. In other words, should there be anything seriously harmful happening to any kid in that group, you are in a way abetting and encouraging it.

You are, in a way, an accomplice since you are trying your damndest to dissuade us from pursuing this.

I do not understand. Since obviously you're not concerned, why go to all this trouble? What's in it for you?

geoffrey · February 4, 2006

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 have a responsibility as a civic minded citizen to try to protect all youths.

Why are you deliberately turning a blind eye on something serious as the concern we're stating about the premise of the LGBT YOUTH SUPPORT GROUP?

Worse, you're trying to twist our concern...you're trying to distract. In other words, should there be anything seriously harmful happening to any kid in that group, you are in a way abetting and encouraging it.

You are, in a way, an accomplice since you are trying your damndest to dissuade us from pursuing this.

I do not understand. Since obviously you're not concerned, why go to all this trouble? What's in it for you?

Yank, you make no sense sometimes.

betsy · February 4, 2006

"CONCERN #2: EFFECTIVENESS IN PREVENTING HARM

As mentioned above, setting the age of consent is a line drawing exercise in which the goal should be to minimize harmful sex that could be prevented while avoiding the criminalization of healthy sex. EGALE would like to see evidence of the harm prevented from raising the age of consent. Has this been done in other jurisdictions, and if so, what was the impact on preventing harm?

A great many 14 and 15 year olds today are having sex. It is reasonable to believe that many of them are quite capable of giving or withholding consent. Thus increasing the age from 14 to 16 will outlaw some sexual activity that is not harmful. The cost of such a constraint on sexual behaviour is not trivial. While youth must be protected, as a starting point society must accept that they are sexual beings. Denial of this fact may do more harm than good."

http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=37&item=348

EGALE would like to see evidence of the harm prevented from raising the age of consent.

Well I would like to see evidence of the harm done now, at this current age of consent.

From prostitution and exploitation by pimps to child-sex tourism!

Well at least, Canada being one of those few countries that have age of consent as low as 14, it can boast of the booming business that caters to a niche market ...what was that word again...."ebophilia?" Just imagine what this will do to boost tourism! Just like SSM had em all running to get married in Canada, connoisseurs of young meat will surely be considering our nation in their vacation plan. Good for the economy!

But of course, we've got to compete with some third world countries that offers even younger and tender products!

EGALE, gimme a break!

betsy · February 4, 2006

"CONCERN #2: EFFECTIVENESS IN PREVENTING HARM
As mentioned above, setting the age of consent is a line drawing exercise in which the goal should be to minimize harmful sex that could be prevented while avoiding the criminalization of healthy sex. EGALE would like to see evidence of the harm prevented from raising the age of consent. Has this been done in other jurisdictions, and if so, what was the impact on preventing harm?

A great many 14 and 15 year olds today are having sex. It is reasonable to believe that many of them are quite capable of giving or withholding consent. Thus increasing the age from 14 to 16 will outlaw some sexual activity that is not harmful. The cost of such a constraint on sexual behaviour is not trivial. While youth must be protected, as a starting point society must accept that they are sexual beings. Denial of this fact may do more harm than good."

http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=37&item=348

EGALE would like to see evidence of the harm prevented from raising the age of consent.

Well I would like to see evidence of the harm done now, at this current age of consent.

From prostitution and exploitation by pimps to child-sex tourism!

Well at least, Canada being one of those few countries that have age of consent as low as 14, it can boast of the booming business that caters to a niche market ...what was that word again...."ebophilia?" Just imagine what this will do to boost tourism! Just like SSM had em all running to get married in Canada, connoisseurs of young meat will surely be considering our nation in their vacation plan. Good for the economy!

But of course, we've got to compete with some third world countries that offers even younger and tender products!

EGALE, gimme a break!

BTW, does LGBT Youth Support Group have a world-wide gathering or sort of convention?

You know, so these confused LGBT kids will have all the positive benefits of mingling with caring adults from all over the world? Gross, I keep thinking of the word dinner "buffet."

betsy · February 4, 2006

CONCERN #4: EMPOWERING YOUTH

EGALE believes that it is a good thing to increase a person’s ability to consent, and to maximise young people’s confidence and ability to withhold consent. Doing so empowers youth, increases their autonomy and affirms their sexuality and sense of self.

If this government is serious about protecting youth, then regardless of whether the age of consent is raised, it will empower youth by giving them the tools they need to make informed choices. We should help youth to develop confidence, communication skills, to negotiate their sexual lives and prevent abuses of power. Such youth are not only more able to make informed choices about whether to have sex, but, if they do choose to have sex, they are more likely to be safe.

Education regarding safe sex must be supported, to minimize health risks for those youth that do engage in sexual activity. In addition, sex education should include real life information about how to decide whether, when and how to have sex, as well as how to be assertive in standing by those choices.

EGALE is concerned that raising the age of consent will have the opposite impact on education, and that school boards will discourage discussions of sexual relations which the law deems criminal. As the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized in the context of the higher age of consent for anal intercourse in R v. M ©, (1995) 23 O.R. (3d) 629, per Abella J. at 638:

“Health risks ought to be dealt with by the health care system. Ironically, one of the bizarre effects of a provision criminalizing consensual anal intercourse for adolescents is that the health education they should be receiving to protect them from avoidable harm may be curtailed, since it may be interpreted as counselling young people about a form of sexual conduct the law prohibits them from participating in. Hence, the Criminal Code provision ostensibly crafted to prevent adolescents from harm may itself, by inhibiting education about health risks associated with that behaviour, contribute to the harm it seeks to reduce.”

http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=37&item=348

---------------------------

You gotta love this.

"If this government is serious about protecting youth, then regardless of whether the age of consent is raised, it will empower youth by giving them the tools they need to make informed choices. We should help youth to develop confidence, communication skills, to negotiate their sexual lives and prevent abuses of power. Such youth are not only more able to make informed choices about whether to have sex, but, if they do choose to have sex, they are more likely to be safe.

Education regarding safe sex must be supported, to minimize health risks for those youth that do engage in sexual activity. In addition, sex education should include real life information about how to decide whether, when and how to have sex, as well as how to be assertive in standing by those choices."

I mean, doesn't this make you feel so good and fuzzy? Well, I'll buy that! And Liberal-thinkers will surely lap that up!

As caring individuals, especially those focused on the welfare of the young, this kind of message is what we all want to hear.

Then EGALE softly throws this:

"EGALE is concerned that raising the age of consent will have the opposite impact on education, and that school boards will discourage discussions of sexual relations which the law deems criminal."

betsy · February 4, 2006

"CONCERN #4: EMPOWERING YOUTH

EGALE believes that it is a good thing to increase a person’s ability to consent, and to maximise young people’s confidence and ability to withhold consent. Doing so empowers youth, increases their autonomy and affirms their sexuality and sense of self.

Education regarding safe sex must be supported, to minimize health risks for those youth that do engage in sexual activity. In addition, sex education should include real life information about how to decide whether, when and how to have sex, as well as how to be assertive in standing by those choices."

-----------------------

It's well and good to have these positive wishful thoughts....but realistically, EGALE is just full of b.s.!

How can EGALE talk about this with a straight face when they know that there is evidence in their OWN TURF that education is not enough!

Have we not spent so much $$ educating people about safe sex?

Have we not spent so much $$ promoting safe sex?

Have we not spent so much $$ providing tools for safe sex?

Well?

Then I'd like to hear from EGALE why do we have this?

HIV on the rise in Ontario immigrants, gay men

Updated Tue. Jan. 31 2006 6:27 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Despite education campaigns and increasing collective knowledge of the causes and effects of HIV, it continues to spread, and in Ontario the rise is especially alarming.

Over the past five years the incidence of HIV in Ontario has increased by 37 per cent, with an average annual increase of about six per cent, according to new figures by Dr. Robert Remis, a University of Toronto professor who heads up the Ontario HIV Epidemiologic Monitoring Unit.

The incidence of HIV among gay men is also alarming, said Remis. His findings indicate there have been 3,800 new cases of HIV among gay men in the past five years, representing a 28 per cent increase.

Remis attributes this increase to several factors. A chief cause, he believes, is that many gay men are experiencing "safe-sex fatigue," and they're simply tired of being bombarded with the safe-sex message.

"Gay men have been hearing this message now for going on 25 years, and it's very difficult to maintain these kinds of behaviours," Remis said.

"I think the bottom line is this is a big epidemic. It's a major public health challenge for Ontario and for Canada as a whole," Remis said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0131?hub=Health

gerryhatrick · February 4, 2006

Good grief.

Fags are coming to carry away your kids betsy, watch out!

gerryhatrick · February 4, 2006

What was the name of that Conservative MP who was kicked out of caucus by Stephen Harper after claiming there was was proof of a secret gay agenda to target kids in school for conversion to homosexuality?

The "proof" was a parody written back in the 60's. That kind of stupidity and ignorance is truely frightening.

Good for Harper for kicking him out, but it makes you wonder how many others are just smart enough to keep thier mouths shut.

Ah well, it doesn't matter anyway. Canadians will never let minority rights be trampled by that kind of ignorance. People like that should move to Kansas or Utah.

gerryhatrick · February 4, 2006

However, their introductions stating their position also seem to mirror the posted positions of ILGA and NAMBLA. Right now, I am reacting towards the particular introduction line.

And there it is folks! I knew it wouldn't take long for the obligatory allignment of homosexuals to a pedophile organization!

Betsy has found some similarities in introductions! RUN!!!

Try reacting without fear or bias to the entire article betsy, not just some "introduction", and don't go running over to NAMBLA to seek out similarities. It's a pointless exercise that only demonstrates your anti-gay stripes.

YankAbroad · February 4, 2006

Let's face it.....that age group, they think they're invincible! And they're highly impressionable.

I don't know how good your parenting was, or how good a parent you are if you have kids.

I know I wasn't "highly impressionable" at that age because my parents actually did their jobs, rather than running to government and the law all the time demanding "protection" for me.

They taught me about right and wrong, taught me about people out there who didn't have my best interests at heart, etc. That was far more valuable to my healthy and successful development than laws which are implemented by breathless and idiotic moonbats who want to "save the children" from some nameless, faceless, baseless evil-which-has-no-form-but-must-exist-because-I-fear-it-does.

Try reacting without fear or bias to the entire article betsy

I wouldn't hold my breath.

betsy · February 4, 2006

Ah well, it doesn't matter anyway. Canadians will never let minority rights be trampled by that kind of ignorance.

You got that right. Starting with LGBT youths' rights from being manipulated, exploited and corrupted!

betsy · February 4, 2006

Try reacting without fear or bias to the entire article betsy, not just some "introduction",

Haven't you noticed? We're way past the "introduction" line, Gerryhatrick!

Kindly read. It's like jumping into the fray kicking and swinging away without knowing what the fray is all about.

betsy · February 4, 2006

I know I wasn't "highly impressionable" at that age because my parents actually did their jobs, rather than running to government and the law all the time demanding "protection" for me.
They taught me about right and wrong, taught me about people out there who didn't have my best interests at heart, etc. That was far more valuable to my healthy and successful development than laws which are implemented by breathless and idiotic moonbats who want to "save the children" from some nameless, faceless, baseless evil-which-has-no-form-but-must-exist-because-I-fear-it-does.

Be thankful for having nice parents YankAbroad.

But we're not talking about you. We are talking about others. Others who may not have been as lucky as you. Others who are confused....just like the LGBT youth members that EGALE had been talking about.

Especially the LGBT youth members. Just think....if they are confused and struggling with their sexuality, chances are these youth members are not the kind who are most likely to open up to their parents to talk about it. That alone leaves them much more vulnerable than others. And in the state of mind they're in, they'll be putty in the hands of anyone who'd take the notion to exploit, abuse and corrupt them.

betsy · February 4, 2006

However, their introductions stating their position also seem to mirror the posted positions of ILGA and NAMBLA. Right now, I am reacting towards the particular introduction line.

And there it is folks! I knew it wouldn't take long for the obligatory allignment of homosexuals to a pedophile organization!

Betsy has found some similarities in introductions! RUN!!!

Try reacting without fear or bias to the entire article betsy, not just some "introduction", and don't go running over to NAMBLA to seek out similarities. It's a pointless exercise that only demonstrates your anti-gay stripes.

Can't you add anything sensibly informative other than say I'm anti-gay?

betsy · February 4, 2006

[Try reacting without fear or bias to the entire article betsy, ....
It's a pointless exercise that only demonstrates your anti-gay stripes.

Try reacting without fear and bias to the entire topic, Gerryhatrick.

Your entire rebutt consists only of lame accusations that I'm anti-gay and a bigot....which, as you all probably notice I don't care a hoot about coming from the outraged supporter of EGALE and company. It's a pointless exercise that only demonstrates that either...

you're terribly naive.....

or

.......you absolutely endorse the disgusting scenario EGALE wants us to accept.