In Australia we’re in the process of passing a bill allowing the legal age of consent for homosexual sex to be lowered from 18 to 16 in New South Wales.
Of course its being met with a hell of alot of opposition but what I’m wondering is, and feel to correct me if I’m wrong, if the legal age for hetrosexual sex 16 then why shouldnt homosexuals be given the same rights?
I can see that some opposition could be given because of the fact that young people who are coming to terms with thier sexuality may in fact perhaps ‘rush into it’ a little quicker, but ultimately I think that everyone should be given the same rights.
I was just wondering what other people think about the subject.
I’m thinking this probably belongs in Great Debates but I’m bewildered as to why this would be a BFD. I cannot see the logic behind it being OK for a heterosexual 16 yo to bang like a dunny door yet a homosexual needs to wait that extra 2 years.
My children of course will be abstaining until they’re at least 35 so I don’t have to think about it
It should obviously be the same limit for both hetero- and homosexual sex. Not that it matters much anyway; youngsters will fuck whenever and whoever they wish.
As for whether 16 is too young… hard to say. It’s 15 for heterosexual sex in Sweden, and that’s definitely too young for some people, while I’m sure others can handle it at a younger age.
A recent survey in Sweden revealed that most women who lost their virginities at an early age (prior to 15) regrets it today.
It’s ridiculous that a bisexual person could have sex with a opposite sex partner legally, but it remain illegal to have sex with a same sex partner for two more years. Just doesn’t make sense to me and I’ve never heard an argument why the ages should be different for different orientations.
I find laws like this a little embarrassing, as if we’re still stuck in the dark ages, down here. Whether the age is 14, 16, 18 or 35 (yeah right Flora!) it won’t really change what ages it happens at, but it’s the principle of the thing, to my mind.
I would point out that New South Wales is the ONLY Australian State yet to change their legislation governing the age of consent for homosexual intercourse.
**
**The standard reply is that there’s no more need to prevent questioning kids from “rushing into” homosexual sex than it there is to stop them from “rushing into” heterosexual sex.
Because who’s to say the harm it could cause, all those gay or bi 16 year old kids getting rushed into having sex with members of the opposite sex? Eww!
Like South Australia, the age of consent in Tasmania is 17 years. This applies equally to homosexual sex and heterosexual sex.
I said earlier that NSW is the last state to change its laws, but that was a little disingenuous.
Queensland has age of consent laws that apply equally to men and women, but they still arguably have a discriminatory effect. The age of consent is 16 for both men and women, but it rises to 18 years for anal sex. Since homosexual men are more likely to engage in anal sex, this law has an unequal effect on them.
Further, the age of consent for gay men in the Northern Territory is 18. (I’ll weasel out of that one by pointing out the NT isn’t a state of Australia. ;))
In my state, Western Australia, the age of consent for homosexual men was lowered to 16 late last year as part of a raft of legislation designed at reducing discrimination against gay people (most critically, the Equal Opportunity Act was amended to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.)
–
FTR, the NSW legislation has passed the Lower House of Parliament. The Government doesn’t have a majority in the Upper House, however. Then again, the pollies have largely been allowed to vote with their consciences, not along party lines.
I think homosexual sex is the same as hetero sex, some people are going to be ready at diffrent ages, diffrent times, with different people. I think you should just make sure that you are ready to make that step with that person. As for there being diffrent ages “legally” I think that is just weird, why would there be a diffrence, and to echo what another doper said, what if you are bi??
Hehehe…*Not to mention that homosexuals are generally better looking, treat people better, and are more interesting to women… I’m glad that they are out of the running (keeps us disgusting rude slobs in the running)…
I say 16 is good for both heteros and homos. I’d prefer 17-18 so that the two would be out of highschool though.
(*j/k, I do know that homosexuals are just like any other group, so my stereotypes aren’t meant to represent reality).
I support the bill, and I think what’s really interesting is the hardcore conservative from the National party voting in favour of it because his son is gay. More gay sons for conservatives, I say. Hmm… how can we achieve this?
The arguments against are ridiculous. They’re all along the lines of “the legislation is a total sham. I have no doubt that paedophiles will rejoice today because if the bill is passed tomorrow they will not be charged for any wrongdoing.” (ALP member for Liverpool, Paul Gibson.)
If paedophiles will be benefited by legislation allowing them to have sex with boys between 16 and 18, then they will benefit from laws allowing them to have sex with girls between 16 and 18. If you’re concerned about this, argue for the heterosexual age of consent to be eighteen (I disagree with this, but that’s a different debate). This is about equality, not paedophilia.
What has occured to me over the past week is that Bob Carr can be quite progressive when he’s not playing politics. It’s a very different man from the “law-and-order” demon we saw during the election, and it has almost endeared him to me. Unfortunately, I don’t see it lasting. Shame, that.
I find it rediculous that the age of consent would be different for heterosexual and homosexual sex. I suppose this bill probably deals with male/male sex, since people tend to not consider what two girls do together sex, but I think that gay sex might actually be less of a danger. Especially between two virgins, who wouldn’t have been exposed to STDs. Two guys aren’t going to get pregnant, and neither are two girls.
I think 16 is probably a good age for consent, although I might be more comfortable with 17 since most 16 year olds I know should not be having sex. But. That makes me a bit of a hypocrite, since I lost mine at 16.
Oh yes because paedophiles are sooo interested in people with bodies well on the road to adulthood. Because thats what the word means, dontchaknow. It doesn’t mean anything like “sexually interested in children”.
I also read a statistic indicating that the vast majority of teenage homosexual relationships are between peers, not with an “adult”.
PS: this post was not directed at you, gex gex, just the ridiculous fellow you quoted/
I can’t imagine why people should have to wait longer to have certain kinds of sex. Is the idea “once you have gay sex, it’s permanent, so choose carefully?” Anyway, sounds like a reasonable law to me.
Speaking of the Dark Ages, how do you think I feel here in the USA, where gay sex isn’t even LEGAL in some places?
