Consent and new refusals to condemn pedophilia

Canada Free Press ^ | Wednesday, March 1, 2006 | Anthon Oluwatoyin

[Anne_Conn]

War is brewing. And not just in Iraq. Culture wars. And, did I say, not just in Iraq? Conservatives are set to fulfill a pre-election pursuit. To raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. And liberals are more determined than ever to expose themselves like something that is the very reason for wanting to raise the age of consent in the first place.

[Antoninus]

Well, liberal-tarian Freepers? Is Harper's government right to do this? Or is Age of Consent the type of "moral law" that governments shouldn't have purview over?

Well?

[ferri]

ping

[ThinkDifferent]

As usual, South Park shows us the way:

Lead Agent [to NAMBLA Leader]: We've been after you for a long time, buddy! Do you know your rights?

NAMBLA Leader: Rights? Does anybody know their rights? You see, I've learned something today. Our forefathers came to this country because… they believed in an idea. An idea called "freedom." They wanted to live in a place where a group couldn't be prosecuted for their beliefs. Where a person can live the way he chooses to live. You see us as being perverted because we're different from you. People are afraid of us, because they don't understand. And sometimes it's easier to persecute than to understand.

Kyle: Dude, you have sex with children!

NAMBLA Leader: We are human. Most of us didn't even choose to be attracted to young boys. We were born that way. We can't help the way we are, and if you all can't understand that, well, then, I guess you'll just have to put us away.

Kyle [slowly, for emphasis]: Dude. You have sex with children!

Stan: Yeah. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, f*** you.

Kyle: Seriously.

Yes, there should be a bright line drawn. Whether that line should be at 15 or 18 I'm not qualified to say.

[fanfan]

Canada Ping!

Please FReepmail me to get on or off this Canada ping list.

[Antoninus]

Yes, there should be a bright line drawn. Whether that line should be at 15 or 18 I'm not qualified to say.

South Park adds nothing to the discussion.

You say you're not qualified to say. Well then, WHO IS?

[timsbella]

16 simply makes a lot more sense. Jeepers, I was in College before I clued in and that was in the 80's. Kids should just be allowed to be kids. Puberty is rife with questions, introducing consent before age 16 is nuts. We don't let them drive, why should we assume the most important decisions, i.e. about their morality and their bodies be less important?

[UncleDick]

You say you're not qualified to say. Well then, WHO IS?

The Church. Natural Law. Tradition. The federally mandated Age of Consent was an invention of Progressive do-gooders who wanted everyone else to conform to their mores. There's no rhyme or reason to the arbitrary age values of 16 or 18 (aside from a rough correspondence to the attainment of full adult height).

As such, I would set the age of consent at the most logical threshold, traditionally and biologically: post-pubescence.

[ThinkDifferent]

South Park adds nothing to the discussion.

Your implied strawman is that "liberaltarians" would defend pedophilia on the grounds of "freedom". This is of course not true.

You say you're not qualified to say. Well then, WHO IS?

Doctors and psychologists would be better qualified. But the point is that moving the age of consent up or down a year isn't a gigantic moral issue. Your question is whether government should be able to punish adults who have sexual relations with children, and just about anybody who isn't an anarchist or a pedophile himself will say "yes".

[darkangel82]

"Sexual relations" are what two people of legal age have with each other. What these perverts do to children is abuse.

[ThinkDifferent]

"Sexual relations" are what two people of legal age have with each other. What these perverts do to children is abuse.

Mostly agreed, with the caveat that no law can perfectly match morality. When you have to pick a specific number for the age of consent there are going to be gray areas around it, and I'll agree it's better to err on the side of protecting children.

[Antoninus]

Your implied strawman is that "liberaltarians" would defend pedophilia on the grounds of "freedom". This is of course not true.

Sure it isn't. It only flows logically from the position that any act should be legal as long as no one is physically hurt.

Doctors and psychologists would be better qualified. But the point is that moving the age of consent up or down a year isn't a gigantic moral issue. Your question is whether government should be able to punish adults who have sexual relations with children, and just about anybody who isn't an anarchist or a pedophile himself will say "yes".

Please. It is a gigantic moral issue and becoming a bigger one. You say that the government should be able to punish adults who have sex with children. But I ask again--who has the right to determine who is or is not a child according to the law? Who sets the line, if not the government?

By claiming this isn't 'a gigantic moral issue' you're just attempting to use sophistry to get around the fact that you believe that the government should decide some moral issues, but not others.

[Antoninus]

The Church. Natural Law. Tradition. The federally mandated Age of Consent was an invention of Progressive do-gooders who wanted everyone else to conform to their mores. There's no rhyme or reason to the arbitrary age values of 16 or 18 (aside from a rough correspondence to the attainment of full adult height).

Nice attempt to sidestep the question. Here it is again: Does a government--federal, state, or local--have the right to set an age of consent below which an individual may not engage in sexual relations?

As such, I would set the age of consent at the most logical threshold, traditionally and biologically: post-pubescence.

OK, so if a girl hits puberty at age 12, she's fair game then?

Anyway, I don't care where you would set it. The question is, does the government have the right to set it? Can you answer this yes or no question clearly?

[ThinkDifferent]

It only flows logically from the position that any act should be legal as long as no one is physically hurt.

Perhaps, but that position has nothing to do with libertarianism. I can steal your property without "physically hurting" you.

Please. It is a gigantic moral issue and becoming a bigger one. You say that the government should be able to punish adults who have sex with children. But I ask again--who has the right to determine who is or is not a child according to the law? Who sets the line, if not the government?

You are valiantly trying to manufacture a controversy where none exists. Of course the government should set the line.

By claiming this isn't 'a gigantic moral issue' you're just attempting to use sophistry to get around the fact that you believe that the government should decide some moral issues, but not others.

Of course I believe that. Who doesn't? Do you believe government should decide *every* moral issue? Government should become involved when there is actual harm to actual victims. As children cannot meaningfully consent to sex with adults, any such acts inherently harm them.

[Antoninus]

Perhaps, but that position has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Have you ever actually spoken to any libertarians? It's one of their defining "principles."

Of course the government should set the line.

Glad to hear it.

Of course I believe that. Who doesn't?

Oh, only about 80% of the libertarians I've ever debated. Some might even call you the Taliban for suggesting that the government should impose and enforce any moral law. Usually, they run from the debate screaming when someone brings up AoC laws. I commend you for at least having the stones to take on the topic.

Do you believe government should decide *every* moral issue?

Of course not. I'm asking for consistency here. Government, particularly on the state and local levels, has the right to legislate and enforce moral laws that are in keeping with the prevailing morality of the people who elected them and which do not violate Natural Law. That's my position. That's not the position of 95% of libertarians.

[ThinkDifferent]

Have you ever actually spoken to any libertarians? It's one of their defining "principles."

I am one (with a lower case 'l'), and it is not. You're arguing against a cartoon version of libertarianism.

Oh, only about 80% of the libertarians I've ever debated. Some might even call you the Taliban for suggesting that the government should impose and enforce any moral law.

Entirely wrong. Laws against murder are moral laws, and you won't find many libertarians opposing them. Of course, the reason libertarians support them is not "God says murder is wrong" but "murder violates the victim's right to life". (And yes, many libertarians oppose abortion using the same reasoning).

Government, particularly on the state and local levels, has the right to legislate and enforce moral laws that are in keeping with the prevailing morality of the people who elected them and which do not violate Natural Law. That's my position. That's not the position of 95% of libertarians.

And it's not my position either. I don't believe victimless vices should be illegal, but pedophilic acts are not victimless. Despite your anti-libertarian beliefs and apparent desire to pick a fight, you've managed to find an issue where we're in agreement. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Galveston Grl]

Age of consent has more to do with one's mental maturity than it does with the size of one's body. But you knew that...

Having raised kids, I know that fourteen year olds are easy to trick and manipulate. They are not old enough to hold their own mentally with an adult.

Besides, adults interested in children sexually are generally losers and perverts and no normal adult wants a kid in their family being sexually involved with a pervert.

[doc30]

In Canada, the age of consent for sodomy is 18. The 'progressives' in the Liberal party want it lowered to 16, to match the new age of consent proposed by Harper. Before that, they wanted it dropped to 14! They say it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals based on age of dissent. How can these people live with themselves? Maybe that's why they want to decriminalize pot - they need it to pacify their ruined conciousess.

[Antoninus]

I am one (with a lower case 'l'), and it is not. You're arguing against a cartoon version of libertarianism.

No, based on your responses, I'd say your not the libertarian you thought you were. It's not surprising, though, that your true-believer brethren have avoided this thread like the plague. This issue gives them absolute fits.

Entirely wrong. Laws against murder are moral laws, and you won't find many libertarians opposing them. I agree! But almost all the libertarians I've debated with would say that because murder is physical harm, it's not a "victimless crime"--that's the justification they use for supporting laws against murder. A similar justification would not work for AoC laws.

And it's not my position either. I don't believe victimless vices should be illegal, but pedophilic acts are not victimless.

Fine. I don't believe that prostitution, drug-dealing, or sodomy are victimless either. Neither do a majority of other folks in my town. Thus, it's fine if we make such actions illegal, right?

[Antoninus]

Sorry, my last post was incoherently formatted. Here it is again:

I am one (with a lower case 'l'), and it is not. You're arguing against a cartoon version of libertarianism.

No, based on your responses, I'd say your not the libertarian you thought you were. It's not surprising, though, that your true-believer brethren have avoided this thread like the plague. This issue gives them absolute fits.

Entirely wrong. Laws against murder are moral laws, and you won't find many libertarians opposing them.

I agree! But almost all the libertarians I've debated with would say that because murder is physical harm, it's not a "victimless crime"--that's the justification they use for supporting laws against murder. A similar justification would not work for AoC laws.

And it's not my position either. I don't believe victimless vices should be illegal, but pedophilic acts are not victimless.

Fine. I don't believe that prostitution, drug-dealing, or sodomy are victimless either. Neither do a majority of other folks in my town. Thus, it's fine if we make such actions illegal, right?