Larry Spencer, "make It A Crime To Be Gay"

[Morgan]

Here's Colby Nash's article in the National Post today re: Spencer's gay comments, which I'm citing because Nash states in a more eloquent fashion similar viewpoints that Slavik 44 and I expressed earlier on this discussion thread:

Colby Nash's forgiving view of Spencer's gay comments

If your grandfather had mumbled the same dozy monologue about homosexuality that Larry Spencer did on Wednesday, you'd probably just say, "Well, that's Gramps for you. He grew up in a different time." Larry Spencer was the Loyal Opposition critic for family issues: He had to be held to a higher standard. At this point in the CA/PC merger process, Mr. Harper had no choice but to give Mr. Spencer a swift, hard kick. But can we exercise a little sympathy for older people who are trying to keep up with frenzied social change? Someday we are, no doubt, going to need it ourselves. 

In my occidentalist paranoia, I can already imagine Torontonians gesticulating at the newspaper and saying "That's all you can expect from these Alliance people, these Westerners. They'd burn gays at the stake given the chance." When Elsie Wayne goes on a tirade against gay pride parades, nobody suggests that her attitude is a pervasive problem within the Progressive Conservative party, or that it is a sign of cultural backwardness in the Maritimes. We're stuck with this double standard, but we should be at least a little embarrassed that it exists.

He said he'd be happy to sit in a merged CA/PC caucus with gay Scott Brison: "He's a great guy, and he's got a lot of great ideas. If he can live with us we can live with him." If Mr. Spencer is a bigot, he's a mighty lukewarm one.

He said much else that got him into trouble -- but little that was not accepted wisdom in Canada 20 or 30 years ago. And, as I say, I'm a bit nervous about the implications of consigning our older citizens to the dungheap because their beliefs are inevitably a bit retrograde. If gays and lesbians stopped to consider how much they have gained since 1969, and how firmly Canadian society is now on their side in so many respects, they could entertain more tolerance for reflexive "intolerance" like Mr. Spencer's.

...arguably the one thing he said for which there is some empirical warrant. In 1997, a Canadian demographer and HIV expert estimated that the life expectancy of gay men and bisexuals in Vancouver was between eight and 21 years less than for men in general. Retroviral therapy for AIDS will have closed the gap, but gay men still have to beware hepatitis and the cancerous effects of human papillomavirus.

Mr. Spencer's less excusable conspiracist blather -- a stream of weird, unsourced nonsense about gay recruitment -- should not be denounced without an effort to understand how someone who has witnessed 30 years of "gay liberation" (as it was once known) might reach those conclusions. We, as a society, have redefined one of the most revolting sins in the Christian cosmogony as a lifestyle choice. Those of us who haven't witnessed the whole process rarely stop to think how amazing this is, and how unsettling it might be to us if our birth date were different...

[SirRiff]

Morgan;

What I said was that Spencer's personal opinions, opinions [likely shared by many in his constituency]

yes you are right he was elected legite and stuff, but come on now, he says that there is a gay conspiracy that started in the 60s recruting boys in lockerrooms???? that is half a brain cell from teh arabs claiming the israelis did 9/11 because all the jews left teh WTC first. i doubt he talked this stupidly while he was campaigning, because i doubt people is sask would be that dumb who rants about make believe conspiracies and stuff. wanted to preserve traditional marraige is one thing, you can make an argument simply on tradition and the male female parent system. being anti-gay, claiming conspiracies of gay people, claiming they are defective or whatever else people say on the matter is in fact hate speech.

While I don't agree with everything Spencer said nor do I agree with the way he presented his arguments, I don't see his comments as "hate" speech

its hate because you are not just trying to maintain a tradition, its because you attack the very nature and equality of gays to do it. i believe the supreme court of canada often cites dehumanizing people with speech that can lead to a hostility or a crime being commmited as hate speech. the obvious question is why do all these supposed defenders of marraige attack gays for everything and rarely argu for maintaining marriage because of tradition? its obvious its far easier to attack gays and turn them into boogy men then just speak for the boring tradition of marraige. its the whole "us" vs "them" mentality that all the race groups use as well.

i dont think its criminal hate speech or whatever, certainly he should be allowed not to like gays. but its definately political and social hate speech, and all reasonable canadians regardless of what they think about gay marriage should make sure they drown him out with words of equality and tolerance.

Whereas I believe the same cannot be said about either Svend or Parrish. Both MP's have behaved despicably on a number of occasions/issues and neither the NDP or the LPOC leadership have done much to discipline them. Even you pointedly choose to ignore criticising them for the examples I posted of their egregious actions.

well you cannot distract this moron with another moron. i am sure there are stupid people on both sides, but we were focused on spencer for the moment. also i doubt no matter how stupid lthe other comments, they dont reach to the stupidy of this guy right now. spencer went way over the line and into the land of make believe fairy tales.

you gotta look at teh parties too. one is far more accepting of gay marriage then the other. thus one has more crediability on the issue. i would be far more likely to believe 1 stupid statement by a liberal is just a stupid statement (like we all do sometimes) over a CA. why? because liberals have some credability on the issue. still there can obviously be liberals who need to be fired as well, i dont really care who we have to fire to get right of this backwards thinking.

Spencer's view is not an example of bigotry. I didn't read Spencer condemning gays for immoral behaviour.

uh he said that gays were involved in a conspiracy to "seduce" "young boys" in "playgrounds".

i would say its bigoted to smear gays with this image of lurking after young boys. when little girl gets kidnapped and chopped up in little bits, its usually a heterosexual man who does it. this idea that sexual criminals need to be gay is propaganda. hell most women are raped by men they know and many child molesters have familes of their own. its definately bigoted to invent this crazy talk against gays.

he also said he would support a bill to make it illegal for who consenting tax paying canadian citizens to engage in private activities in thier own bedroom. which i dont even have to explain the stupidy of.

He criticized gay activists for consciously promoting a deadly sex behaviour to the public as a benign sexual preference.

being gay is not a deadly sex behavior. you can have sex with a man or women all your life without being killed by it. the only way sex is deadly for any gender or identity is if you do it with a diseased partner. being gay has nothing to do with it.

just like driving is not a deadly behavior. you can drive all your life if you are lucky and driving will not cause your death. if you drink and drive your are far more likely to die however. thus driving is not deadly. the negligence of others can kill you, or your own negligence by driving drunk can kill you. but obviously if everyone took care of themselves driving would be completely safe. the fact that people arent absolutely safe has nothing to do with driving, but with the nature of people to make unsafe and irrational decisions sometimes. that much should be obvious.

Actually, IMHO, the motives of gay activists are more suspect than Spencer's. The activists were the ones who did not care about homosexual individuals' health, but rather were looking out for their own self-serving political image. eg. keeping bath houses open inspite of the obvious health risks; tolerating the insidious practice of "bug chasers' and "bug givers" in the gay sub-culture

you are confusing the activism to get equality with irresponsible behavior of some individuals. is it the gun lobbies fault if a gun owner kills his family? no, some people will always act stupid, it does not lessen the morality for fighting for equality. its a smokescreen argument with no basis.

as for that bug chasers thing, the article you cited is so vauge and non scientific it has no bearing as to what the entire gay subpopulation does. it has no staticstics or raw numbers and doesnt describe its methods. so while there are most likely some gays that are so addicted to sex they actually want to get AIDS, there are many many men who rape women, kill thier wives, share dirty needles drugs, and molest girls. that is the reality of humans. i doubt the sick hetero men reflect on the true nature of hetero men as more then teh sick homo men reflect on the nature of all homo men. there are plenty of sickos on each side, but they are exceptions and obviously do not reflect the median group behavior.

Spencer sincerely believes that homosexuality is a high risk life style, and rightly so, and that politicians have been co-opted by gay activists to help make a deadly life style seem attractive which has enabled the spread of AIDS. What's the bigotry in that observation?

once again, sex of any kind is not dangerous if you do it right. both heteros and homos choose to do it dangerously. that is an individual choice in both cases. in canada there are 2000+ deaths EVERY YEAR on the highways. but obviously the activities of drunks and speeders do not mean that any driver is dangerous. there are plenty of people engaging in plenty of risky behaviors. you cannot judge the entire behavior to be immoral because of individual actions. else driving, owning weapons, and drinking alcohol would all be illegal.

When was the last time you heard a politician say that the homosexual life style is a high risk behaviour and that gays' life spans are considerably shortened due to AIDS? But politicians regularly speak out about the evils of guns, tobacco, and alcohol. In fact, the Liberals use alcohol as their bad guy, arguing that pot seems less malevolent by comparison.

i think HUGO and i discussed the relative life spans of gays vs straights on another thread. once again, if you want to start going after gays for risky sex, you will need to go after young men for getting girls pregnant, young men for driving drunk, and men for rape and child molesting. obviously all men dont do these things just a small group of individuals who show bad judgement. you cannot punish all men for these few.

It's because of white guys like Spencer that the USA and Canada were built into the great democratic nations they are, whose freedoms you and others take for granted.

i do recall slaves and natives in teh picture somewhere. adn it wasnt guys like spencer, it was the men who fought all the limitiations of their societies to free the slaves, liberate women, and bring equality to all citizens. NOT the backwards men like spencer, truely great men of the last 200 years.

If you think "gays don't anybody," you are nuts. Gays hurt each other. Duh...why do you think gays die from AIDS? Maybe you think they pick up the virus from toilet seats? Get a clue before you start calling Spencer and white men like him "pathetic."

just because gays can get aids from risky behavior doesn mean you treat them different from a hetero white man who rapes a little girl. each is treated as an individual not part of a sexual group. if you treat all gays like some gays then you would have to treat all men like some men, adn we all know that some men commit a massive number of sexual crimes in society. 1 in 5 women will be sexually abused in their lives and it isnt gay men doing it. by your own logic all hetero men should be punished as a class for the actions of some. doesnt make sense. its just another cover to bash gays.

there is no reasonable and logical argument that can be made against gays rights that cannot similiarly be made against numberous other groups but arent. this along with outdated religous teachings (most of which is ignored because its laughably untrue and was obviously made up by the primative society at the time) clearly show all this anti gay rhetoric is without basis. there are equally powerfull arguments that could be made against several other behaviors but arent. thus proving that its only for the philosophical unease with gays and not for any concrete safety or practical society value.

sirriff

[Alliance Fanatic]

Say Siriff, have you ever had anal penetration done to you. And homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, and it is harmful to society. Whenever I see the gay pride parade on TV, I am completely sickened, that that is one of the largest parades in the world, with people mocking the catholic church, naked gays, and men walking arounds, and leather clad people. It just seems to me that we as a society should not support this behavior which is harmful to the society, and has been proven to spread STD's. Siriff has also stated that homosexuality, is much like black rights, and womens rights, no it has nothing to do with it. To say that having anal sex with another man is a lifestyle choice is sickening. Why dont I describe some of the sex acts which are part of the homosexual community.

Oral Sex

Anal Sex

- Here is the most disturbing aspect of homosexuality, is where the partner like the anus of another person in order to attain sexual pleasure, this can also lead to one partner eating the others feces.

- fisting, where the partner sticks his entire fist up the anus of his partner

- At bathhouses gays can clean out their anus, so that they can have anal sex, and it will be clean for their enjoyment

I find that this country has turned into a moral sewer, if gays want to do what they want behind clothes doors, then go ahead and do, but the should SHUT UP about it, and they should not tell kids that it is a GREAT LIFESTYLE to take part in.

To show how bad are society has become, we have banned prayer from school, and replaced it with gay positive classes, and put magazines which talk about the joys of anal sex and bondage.

Most left wingers proudly proclaim that the older generation, which fought in world war 2, and suffered through the great depression will die off, and so will their "INTOLERANT" views. This shows how morally corrupt are society has become when we hope that the older generation will die off, so that we can completely wipe out every single value they fought for.

Why is it that Canadian's want to destory, and corrupt all of the values which Canadian's spilled blood for, so that other people can say that having sex with another man is alright. We as a society put pleasure, above community, quality of life, over sanctity of life.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Here is that qoute which he was saying

"His quote went something like this," said Mr. Spencer. "'We will seduce your sons in the locker rooms, in the gymnasiums, in the hallways, in the playgrounds, and on and on, in this land.'"

In fact, the quote sounds like an excerpt from a satirical essay that ran on the op-ed page in Boston's Gay Community News, and not in the 1960s, but in 1987. "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies.

"We shall seduce then in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theatrebathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."

[Michael Hardner]

What reason do you have for reaching that conclusion?

Morgan:

Because a member of the caucus said something so off-the-scale stupid, politically, while speaking to a reporter.

I don't like politician to be too slick, as the Liberals are. But Spencer is obviously a dull-witted man, whatever his age. The fact that he's a member of caucus must mean there are slim pickings in the CA, intelligence-wise.

Just my impression.

[Morgan]

Dear Michael Hardner,

Your comments don't make alot of sense to me.

You claim Spencer is dull-witted and as a member of the Alliance caucus, it shows Alliance has slim pickings intelligence wise? But Liberals are too slick?

Guess you haven't read about David Kilgour's gaffes as reported in the Edmonton Journal when he linked same sex marriage to incest and polygamy and when he admitted he was too chicken to vote against same sex marriage like the majority of his constituents wanted him to do, because afterall he was a big important cabinet minister and all and he didn't want to suffer Pappa John's wrath so he abstained from voting like a smooth, mental giant MP should do.

Does Kilgour's comments compute with slick and intelligent in your brain? Kilgour is a cabinet minister for gosh sakes, talk about slim pickings in the LPOC.

But heck, you probably favour the ongoing genius and statesmanlike conduct so often shown by NDP'ers like Svend, who called Israelis "murderers and torturers" after a trip to the ME to press the flesh of Arafat. Not to forget other evidence of raw smarts like when Svend, gay advocate extraordinaire, for years functioned as Saddam's best PR man in Canada:

and even claimed the country was a veritable Eden with "an extensive health care system, clean and abundant drinking water, sewage-treatment plants ... free education at all levels, and a comprehensive network of social services." Such propaganda, we now know, masked the hideous truth that Saddam's Iraq was a hell-hole in which secret police murdered and tortured citizens at will. Homosexuals, a group whose rights he stridently champions in Canada, got the death penalty

National Post Oct. 06/03

"Impressions" like yours work better in a creative writing class, then in serious political debate.

[Michael Hardner]

Does Kilgour's comments compute with slick and intelligent in your brain? Kilgour is a cabinet minister for gosh sakes, talk about slim pickings in the LPOC.

LOL. No, I hadn't read about Kilgour's comments. I guess the Liberals are more out to lunch than even I imagined.

Impressions matter. The CA should start caring more about the impression they're leaving if they want to make inroads.

[SirRiff]

Say Siriff, have you ever had anal penetration done to you. And homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, and it is harmful to society.

ok Alliance Fanatic, i make some pretty bad typos and spelling mistakes, but that is the most garbled start to a post i have ever seen. and i think you may be getting fresh too....

Guess you haven't read about David Kilgour's gaffes as reported in the Edmonton Journal when he linked same sex marriage to incest and polygamy and when he admitted he was too chicken to vote against same sex marriage like the majority of his constituents wanted him to do, because afterall he was a big important cabinet minister and all and he didn't want to suffer Pappa John's wrath so he abstained from voting like a smooth, mental giant MP should do.

why do you always have to compare this kind of things to someone else? its a sure sign of having no real conviction if you cant claim you are right or wrong or whatever without having to bring others into your problem.

if someone says they believe the only true "marriage" in the traditional religous sense is between a man and a women, thats one thing.

if you have to complain and point at others and how the big bad liberals and Will and Grace made you do it, it just becomes pathetic.

spencer is a moron. anybody who wants to make being gay illegal in a free nation is an idiot. anybody who blames the advance of an open and tolerant society for hetero men and hetero women failing to stay married is dumb. anybody who claims they speak against gays becuase of 'health issues" is fooling themselves and not very convincing either. and anybody who thinks that marriage is anything other then a man made social custom that sprung from primative human society is smoking pot.

if you just dont think its right, thats fine. lets just not try to invent rational reasonable reasons.

sirriff

[Morgan]

1. Michael Hardner,

Policies should matter in politics. The best qualified candidates should matter, too. And if impressions mattered, then Harper would win hands down because he's clearly the smartest and most articulate candidate, and far more impressive than the Three Stooges, Martin, Layton, and McKay.

But people will vote out of self interest, so Martin will win next year because he has a significant voting block in minority groups, special interest groups, and unions though the NDP might be the spoiler. That's the Alliance's best hope, IMHO, that the NDP splits the socialist vote with the Liberals.

I think Canada is going down the road of other socialist countries, per what Alexander Tyler predicted in his 1770 book, entitled, Cycle of Democracy:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

2. Sir Riff,

Comparisons of politicians/political parties are very valid in this discussion. Your criticism of Spencer and the Alliance has been spun along the lines that intolerance, backwardness, hypocracy are the hallmarks of the aforementioned and only them.

My point in comparing Spencer to Kilgour and Svend has been to demonstrate that the Left's favoured parties are no better, indeed, in the case of Svend, even worse, for its members making bigoted/racist/insulting remarks.

Your visceral outrage at Spencer and the Alliance are out of proportion to the "crime." Kilgour's stupidity and high handedness and Martin's limp-wristed response as well as Svend's outrageous racism/anti-Semitism/anti-gay pro Saddam cheerleading with negligible penalities meted out by the NDP shows me just how biased and unreasonable your comments are.

Would that gays and do-gooder Lefties practice what they preach to others about tolerance, enlightenment, and rights and freedoms. It's clear to me who the morons are in this picture, ironically a label you so glibbly pin on conservatives.

[KrustyKidd]

You're absolutely right Morgan. The nature of government in this day and age is pure self propagation, not what is right and wrong. Hence we have all these screwed up alliances happening with gays, dope smokers and such. Witness Cretien not allowing his ministers to vote what their constituents will, that is not democracy and power to the fitest but rather fear of reality. The reality that the Liberals and all those seeking simple votes are pure crap that on an open market would sell in a dollar store at half price. This also includes the Republican party in the US who just slamed that drub bill through against all common sense.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I think that it is unbelievable that some people are horrified by Spencers comments, yet when Svend Robinson make's comments which may be anti-semitic everyones silent. I am also worried about the lack of attention which is paid to the link between pedophile sympathizers, and gay rights activists. Here is a column by Judith Levine, who believes that sexual abuse is good for children.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0330/levine.php

[Moderate Centrist]

"Here is a column by Judith Levine, who believes that sexual abuse is good for children."

Alliance Fanatic

I must challenge you on this. I have read the article and while I thought it was crap I must protest the above claim.

No where in the article was it suggested that Judith Levine endorses or in anyway suggest child abuse is good for children.

Alliance - as a bit of friendly advice I'd seriously consider rephrasing that claim.

[Michael Hardner]

Morgan said:

Martin will win next year because he has a significant voting block in minority groups, special interest groups, and unions ...

And these groups gave the Liberals almost 100% of the seats in Ontario ?

The Liberals are the party of choice for mainstream Canadians. I'm not sure why you don't see the obvious there.

[SirRiff]

Your visceral outrage at Spencer and the Alliance are out of proportion to the "crime." Kilgour's stupidity and high handedness and Martin's limp-wristed response as well as Svend's outrageous racism/anti-Semitism/anti-gay pro Saddam cheerleading with negligible penalities meted out by the NDP shows me just how biased and unreasonable your comments are.

i get to decide what is proportion to bigoted backwards fear inducing idiots who claim vast gay conspiracies. if he wants to be treated nicely he can go to the sourthern US states or somewhere else where its more tolerated. this is canada. the vast majority of canadians want a tolerant and open soceity accepting of all cultures. so its every proportionate to call a moron and moron, because we take equality seriously.

Would that gays and do-gooder Lefties practice what they preach to others about tolerance, enlightenment, and rights and freedoms. It's clear to me who the morons are in this picture, ironically a label you so glibbly pin on conservatives.

how exactly would you know what gays and liberals do? i am neither gay nor a Liberal member and i dont really care what people who call themselves conservatives do. i care about the elected mp who makes up scare stories in order to incite fear and hate of canadians citizens who just happen to be gay. when you start spreading lies about gays, when you start claiming they should be considered criminals for no reason, when you are a part of the canadians government, then for all the above reasons you are subject to any reaction canadians deem if.

if you want to bash gays names in your house, or with your friends, or with like minded people, that is your right. our country chooses however not to let that individual right infringe on the quality of our nation by allowing hatefull individuals to spread fear and hate reducing the qualify of lives of all canadians.

this same sort of hate and fear seem only to stem from people who claim to be "Traditional" or "religous", whatever that means these days. you dont see the Canadian Civil Liberties Association saying that it should be illegal to be religous. believe whatever you want. but as their own philosohpy says, "The Freedom of no one is safe unless the freedom of everyone is safe".

gay bashing is really just a way to get attention and further your own goals these days. some people can shift blame onto gays and feel empowered. and some people use it to get elected and make $$ i guess.

sirriff

[Alliance Fanatic]

Mod, Judith Levine wrote a book called harmful to minor's, which claimed that sexual abuse against children is "okay". The fact that the gay rights movement has not acted to condemn people Levine, and others who claim sexaul abuse against children is good. The gay rights movement should have to answer to people why they do not outright condemn those people.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Actually Mod, the question that I would pose to homosexual activists, is why do they not condemn people like Judith Levine, and others, who openly support sexual abuse against children, and believe that 10 and 12 year olds having sex with children is good.

[Brainiac]

Fanatic,

Why exactly should the 'gay movement' have to condemn this Levine woman for saying that sexual abuse against children is okay? That is if she even said it. So far you have not convinced me that she takes this stand. I would be interested to see where this woman says that sexual abuse towards children is okay. The article from the Village Voice was retarded to say the least, but it didn't mention that it was okay to screw kids. Is it okay for straight people not to condemn this woman? What do gay activists have to do with the child abuse issue? Should they also make a stand on pollution and other causes that are unrelated to their cause?

[Brainiac]

Here is a Q and A with Judith Levine about her book "Harmful to Minors". Tell me where she says that it is alright to screw kids. Q and A with Judith Levine

Hear is another link to an article that addresses the misconceptions about her book.

What Judith Levine is really saying

I can't say I agree with Ms. Levine on most of what she says, but I can see what she is trying to say, and it is not that it is okay to be a pedophile. I have never heard of this woman until I read your posts but I would have to say that your claims are out to lunch.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hello Alliance,

I've never heard of this woman until you mentioned her. From what I've seen she comes across like another pop psychologist to me.

I was unable to find anything about her which suggest child abuse is OK.

Your claim sounds a bit far fetched to me but I don't know enough about the woman to dispute it accurately.

Perhaps it would be easier if you could provide us some quotes from her book to back up your claim.

[SirRiff]

as far as i know, kids these days are taking it on themselves to have sex around 15-16 yrs old anyways. so you could argu that very young children are already having sex at very young ages and thus we should accept that in society. seems way too risky to me for a 16yr old girl to have sex, but look at where the trend is going and in 10 years it may be perfectly normal. who knows.

i suspect she would argu they are capable of making the decisions themselves. the response on this board is that she is advocating sexual exploitation. i doubt she is. you can argue exploitation would result from her proposal, but that still isnt what someone who makes this argument is proposing.

sirriff

[Slavik44]

as far as i know, kids these days are taking it on themselves to have sex around 15-16 yrs old anyways. so you could argu that very young children are already having sex at very young ages and thus we should accept that in society. seems way too risky to me for a 16yr old girl to have sex, but look at where the trend is going and in 10 years it may be perfectly normal. who knows.

i suspect she would argu they are capable of making the decisions themselves. the response on this board is that she is advocating sexual exploitation. i doubt she is. you can argue exploitation would result from her proposal, but that still isnt what someone who makes this argument is proposing.

sirriff

unless i am misunderstandng some one,

i think you are mixing things up here SirRiff,

pedophile:

An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children

If a 16 year old has sex with a 16 year old, which one is the pedophile here?

so there is definentley a difference between

16-16

and

32-16

So yes while there is teens have sex with teens, Adults having sex with little kids is slightly different.

[Brainiac]

The age of consent in Canada is 14 years of age. This means that so long as the sex is consensual, it is okay for an adult to sleep with someone as young as 14. However untasteful someone might find that, it is legal.

[SirRiff]

so there is definentley a difference between

16-16

and

32-16

is someone advocating 16 yr old having sex with 80 yr olds?

can a 16 year old girl have sex with a 16 yr old boy?

can a 16 year old girl have sex with an 18 yr old boy?

can a 16 year old girl have sex with a 20 yr old boy?

can a 16 year old girl have sex with a 22 yr old boy?

do we treat girls different because they will be exploited more?

why is it the age of the older person that matters and not the younger person. i would argue that once you consider someone informed enough to have sex, their choice of partners is meaningless isnt it? we cant go around doing personality tests of young girls to see if they have been influenced by 19 yr old boys.

i would say its more reasonable to expect parents to protect their children up to some generally accepted age that society grants adult status at, like 18 or 19, and parents that dont do that nad let their daughters get knocked up at 15 should GO TO JAIL.

hell you should have to write a government test in the first place titled - why in the hell do you want to have children?

1) to love and protect for life

2) to forget about and let society care for

3) cause he/she wants me to

4) what was teh question?

sirriff