- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,114
- Reactions
- 12,738
So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?
I doubt they will care what the law says either way, but it has been shown that abstinence only education doesn't work, and increases the rate of teenage pregnancy.
Maybe in little rumpoles world its not, but according to the united nations universal charter of human rights, which Australia assisted in writing, it is a basic human right.
So you can deny it all you want, but its right there in the charter which Australia is a signatory to.
I know a few of you will laugh, but it is a part of the Fabian Society tactic to lower the morals of our youth and it has been going on since the 60's...This Safe Schools program in Victoria will become compulsory in all schools shortly but it has a hidden agenda as many of you now realize or are about to find out.....Daniel Andrews is behind it all and I am told it is a dangerous piece of legislation which will have a dramatic affect on all school kids from a very young age.
Through from the 50's and 60's Communism has set out to destroy the economy of Western Countries and to lower the morals of youth by exposing them to pornography as much as possible at an early age
I once posted under, "COMMUNISM IS NOT DEAD AND BURIED", How to skin a country, I will see if I can reproduce it for you.
So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?
The age of consent laws protect adults from preying on children.
The age of consent laws protect children from older people preying on them.
So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?
I recall when I was 13 and my older brother 15, we were at my dad's house (parents had just split up) and my dad gave my brother condoms because he had a girlfriend at the time. He didn't know if they were having sex but wanted to be safe in case they were.
So why have an age of consent law at all if it does no good ? You would be in favour of abolishing it completely ?
Stuff the UN, they have really improved the life of the world's citizens haven't they ?
Nuclear weapons, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, they are the most useless organisation in the world.
They can say what they like about human rights, lets see them go into Saudi Arabia and throw out the Wahhabis if they want to improve the lives of gays.
So it should , so should we legalise all under age sex ? What age should be the cutoff point ? Two years, 5 years ? Is sex between a 15 year old and a 13 year old ok ?
So you see no value in the charter of human rights? Or is it just that on item in particular?
I think the UN charter is vague regarding Same sex marriage. The intent seems to be more on preventing forced marriages rather than explicitly endorsing SSM. SSM is certainly not mentioned directly.
It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.
Not just preventing forced marriages, it clears says it is a persons right to marry, other parts of the charter also say it's a human right to not be descriminated against because of your gender or sexuality.
Interracial marriage is not mentioned directly either, but given that descrimination based on race is against human rights, you can easily see interracial marriages shouldn't be banned, the same logic follows that Ssm shouldn't be banned, because freedom from descrimination based on sex/gender is a human right.
Eg. Allowing Emma to marry Tom because she is female, but banning Peter from marrying Tom because he is male, is descrimination based on sex, and would be a violation of the charter.
It doesn't define marriage as being between 1 man and 1 women either.
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
No, but it limits the scope of that right.
No laws regarding marriage that are due to race, religion or nationality. Everything else is fair game.
To control the definition of a thing is to control the thing itself. This was the great insight of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's fantasy, Alice in Wonderland. Recall the dialogue: After he defines “glory” as “a nice knock-down argument,” Humpty-Dumpty explains the point to a doubting Alice: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean ”” neither more nor less.” When Alice responds that the real issue is whether you can change the meaning of a word to make it mean what you want it to mean, Humpty Dumpty demurs: “The question is which is to be master that's a
Humpty Dumpty .... nice.
Won't have any effect on those X gens who have been victims of the great social experiment gone wrong, but a good article and interesting narrative none the less.
https://www.pop.org/content/whats-wrong-united-nations-definition-family
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?