MPs vote against raising age of sexual consent
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:51 am
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
There is nothing in the bill saying they can. It raises the age of consent to sixteen, which does prohibit them from having sex. You are now relying on the law not being enforced as written, which is just an admission that the law is flawed.
Yes....Age of consent for a child to have sex with an adult.[/size]
avro201 @ Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:59 pm
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
There is nothing in the bill saying they can. It raises the age of consent to sixteen, which does prohibit them from having sex. You are now relying on the law not being enforced as written, which is just an admission that the law is flawed.
I think your missing the point.
I don't know if it was in the purposed law but this was brought up as some kind of counter arguement.
Supporters then said to put in a near in age consent which solves that.
Lawmakers can do this. So whats the problem?
devioustrevor @ Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:25 am
When my sister was 14 she had a 25 year old boyfriend. Needless to say I showed him the error of his ways. By the way, he cried like a 7 year old. 
Thematic-Device @ Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:54 am
avro201 avro201:
Criminalizing puppy love? Sorry that doesn't wash. Heres why.
The government is making the law. They can put clauses, exemptions or amendmets into that law.
All you have to do is put a "near in age" clause in the law which does not make it illegall for a 14 year old to have sex witha 16 or 17 year old. (2-3 years) Problem averted.
The government is making the law. They can put clauses, exemptions or amendmets into that law.
All you have to do is put a "near in age" clause in the law which does not make it illegall for a 14 year old to have sex witha 16 or 17 year old. (2-3 years) Problem averted.
But they didn't put the amendments in therefore it should be voted down until someone has the sense to put the amendments in.