|
|
|
|
I would like to know if anyone has any thoughts about the fact that the age of consent differs between gay and homosexual couples in a large minority of countries. (I am not shure about the UK or US)
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yup........ in some countrys it varies.....
That is the fact......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Hmm! Obviously it varies, but equally obviously Moogle's question was: should it?
OK, I acknowledge that the intelligent answer is equally obvious - of course it shouldn't! The problem is, the differences aren't going to disappear any time soon.
I'm guessing - but with some confidence - that, where it exists, the difference is founded (directly or indirectly) on religious taboos, and until we have worldwide and total separation between Church and State, that difference won't go away. Even in the United States, where such separation is an integral element of the Constitution, it's abundantly clear that religious zeal lies behind the actions of many of the States.
It's particularly offensive - at least to me - when countries impose a blanket condemnation of same-sex sexual activity and proceed to ignore what is happening under their noses. For example, some of the North African states purporting to prohibit such activity were in the relatively recent past notorious for male child dockside prostitution.
In any event, ignoring any religious input, from the humanist standpoint there cannot be any justification for such differences, and where they exist we have, I think, a moral obligation to argue against them. Ultimately, civil law is an expression of the will of the people, not a manifestation of the will of God.
If we sit back and accept a bad law without protest, we share in the guilt of those who enacted it.
Good one, Moogle - it's a valid and interesting topic.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Oh ...... OK
Then YES it should.....
Because each country has the RIGHT to set their own standards of conduct.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As cossie has stated, I have to unfortunitely agree with him about this marc. I agree that each country can (and probably will into the far future) "set their own standards of conduct", but the point is, even though they may, i still see it as incorect in human-rights standards.
The South African constitution and bill of rights clearly states that there shall be "no law that dictates discrimination of any kind or form, due to age, health, sex, skin colour, orientation or assosiation" And a difference in Same-Sex age of consent to hetrosexual age of consent is absolutely illegal if one were to take the above quoted statement at face value.
This, I'm shure is not a problem limited to one or even ten countries, but is a breech of legality on a global scale.
Unfortunitley this is still so, but i think it should be changed in some way [insert can of open worms Here].
Furthermore there is a statement, in our constitution that is, I beleive in most free countries some form of other of, it states that
"to heal the errors of the past, and set them right" (written just before Nelson Mandela was arested, and in the house with several other leaders of the underground ANC movement). I have gone off topic, in anyway, what i was trying to say with that quote, was that "the errors of the past" is not yet healed, and therefore, Must still be set to right
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
If, the Bill of Rights for South Africa are worded as you state, it would be up to your higest court to determine the constitutionality of your AOC laws differing as to gender. Our high court in the US overturned a sodomy law that had been on the books for many years, but someone has to be brave enought to bring up a case and hope it will be heard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... what's all this about 'unfortunately' having to agree with me? Prick me, I bleed, y'know!
To respond to Marc's point, no-one could deny that a sovereign state has the legal right to adopt whatever laws it may see fit - and that would include Nazi Germany and pre-invasion Iraq. But legal does not equate with moral, and when a law is morally wrong it is surely the duty of every moral individual to argue against it. I'm not suggesting that a legally-enacted law should be ignored - although history makes it clear that this is sometimes necessary - but if it is contrary to the moral beliefs of an individual, he is entirely justified in opposing it.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, hmmm, cossie. I said "unfortunitely" because i really don't like to make trouble and some people become threatening and even violent when one disagrees with them (though i havent seen it on this site). So I simply said it to be polite and to try not to get a negative responce or acusation from any side of a disagreement between two people.
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but I understand your hesitation, though I don't really agree with it. It seems to me to be perfectly legitimate to argue that another's point of view is wrong, provided that you back up your opposition with reasoned argument. That, after all, is the foundation of parliamentary democracy, and of the consultation process which is at the heart of good business management. What is NOT legitimate is to attack the individual rather than his opinions; I've already referred in another thread to the quotation attributed to Voltaire: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
It seems to me that if you stick to that principle, any reaction attacking yourself rather than your opinions will reveal more about the attacker than it does about you - and the revelation will certainly not be complimentary!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
