Political Crossfire Forums

[Drake]

aLienaTeD wrote: What makes you think that gays coming out against NAMBLA will further their cause anymore than 5% of the most intelligent people telling the other 95% why they are smarter? The majority is always going to force themselves on the minority because there is no way for the minority to stop it.

I think it would help in the course of public debate. Right now, the gay rights movement's public position is "We're not pedophiles, in fact, we abhor pedophilia". Wouldn't it carry more weight and credibility if it were backed by vehement, proactive opposition to NAMBLA?

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

I simply do not know. However, ILGA supporting something does not mean other homosexual people necessarily support it. I am not a member of ILGA and I do not know how their membership system works, so that's a question you have to pose to that organization NOT the entire gay community.

If the gay community as a whole doesn't support NAMBLA, shouldn't they have been asking this question? ILGA was designed, after all, to represent them. Wouldn't you think that ILGA's association with NAMBLA makes all homosexuals look bad?

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
In my opinion, the lowest it could go is 15. Anything under that is not acceptable. I personally support anything between 16-18.

So you contend that any person or group that advocates lowering the age of consent below 15 years is attempting to normalize child exploitation. Is that fair to say?

[StrangerWitCandy]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

I simply do not know. However, ILGA supporting something does not mean other homosexual people necessarily support it. I am not a member of ILGA and I do not know how their membership system works, so that's a question you have to pose to that organization NOT the entire gay community.

If the gay community as a whole doesn't support NAMBLA, shouldn't they have been asking this question? ILGA was designed, after all, to represent them. Wouldn't you think that ILGA's association with NAMBLA makes all homosexuals look bad?

I would say that it probably did but thats over now. They don't have an association. Do you think white people should continue apologizing to blacks because of slavery and segregation? Doesn't there come a point where the lack of continued behavior speaks for itself? Are you really looking for something like this:

"We do not support NAMBLA. We also do not like rapists, murderers and people who cut in line. Thank you, that is all." - Gay People of the World

Its impossible and rediculous to expect something like this.

[George W Bush]

I can see the point of condemning a group that tries to associate itself with another group especially since that group is prolific and whose values are fundamentally ILLEGAL.

However, there is not this central entity within the GAY movement where you can say, "denounce this group because you are the spokespersons".

What happens is you end up with a perception that a class represents a whole despite the broad attribution of that class. In other words, what exactly does it mean to be a 'gay movement' or 'the gay movement' and who handles the bylaws and policies, etc?

The end result is the perception by the public, who think of gays as an assembly of brothers/sisters with some esoteric agenda, and the false perception that such characteristics, as being gay, require a central figure that answers to criticism.

NAMBLA apparently jumped on a boat whose base largely had little to do with them. That is, the statistics indicate most people who have sex with children are heterosexual middle aged white men. NAMBLA has little in common beside gender characteristics, and little room stand on where sex with children is illegal.

[Drake]

StrangerWitCandy wrote:
I would say that it probably did but thats over now. They don't have an association.

True or not, the impression that gays are more prone to pedophilia still exists. People still point to their past alignment with NAMBLA to support that opinion. It's not over at all.

StrangerWitCandy wrote:
Do you think white people should continue apologizing to blacks because of slavery and segregation? Doesn't there come a point where the lack of continued behavior speaks for itself?

It was whites who ended slavery and segregation. Without white support, it wouldn't have ended at all. ILGA, on the other hand, shared the aims of NAMBLA until 1994 and were essentially forced to remove them. Moreover, this wasn't that long ago. You don't see a difference here?

StrangerWitCandy wrote:
Are you really looking for something like this:

"We do not support NAMBLA. We also do not like rapists, murderers and people who cut in line. Thank you, that is all." - Gay People of the World

Its impossible and rediculous to expect something like this.

I'l repeat myself again. I'm not looking for a statement at all. I'm saying I think it would make sense for gay rights organizations to acknowledge that their decades of support for NAMBLA and it's aims were a mistake and reinforce that with proactive opposition to them. Why you mention murderers, rapists and others I'm not sure. Did ILGA support their goals in the past as well?

[Drake]

George W Bush wrote: I can see the point of condemning a group that tries to associate itself with another group especially since that group is prolific and whose values are fundamentally ILLEGAL.

However, there is not this central entity within the GAY movement where you can say, "denounce this group because you are the spokespersons".

What happens is you end up with a perception that a class represents a whole despite the broad attribution of that class. In other words, what exactly does it mean to be a 'gay movement' or 'the gay movement' and who handles the bylaws and policies, etc?

The end result is the perception by the public, who think of gays as an assembly of brothers/sisters with some esoteric agenda, and the false perception that such characteristics, as being gay, require a central figure that answers to criticism.

You're right, that perception does exist, and that's my point. Whether gays like it or not, the major gay rights organizations are speaking for gays as a whole.

George W Bush wrote:
NAMBLA apparently jumped on a boat whose base largely had little to do with them.

Not necessarily so. Eliminating age of consent laws was a goal shared by ILGA and others for years, even into the 90s.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: True or not, the impression that gays are more prone to pedophilia still exists. People still point to their past alignment with NAMBLA to support that opinion. It's not over at all.

Yes, there is also the impression that all gays are promiscuous Satanists who are trying to take over the world to be able to screw any man they like! :roll:

Other people's impressions don't mean that something is true. I am tired of the effort to demonize homosexuals.

Drake wrote: It was whites who ended slavery and segregation. Without white support, it wouldn't have ended at all. ILGA, on the other hand, shared the aims of NAMBLA until 1994 and were essentially forced to remove them. Moreover, this wasn't that long ago. You don't see a difference here?

There is a difference to be sure, but AGAIN, ILGA is NOT associated with NAMBLA anymore. That means they are NOT associated, so NAMBLA is something independent and any issue that people have with them should be taken up with them, not with ILGA.

Drake wrote: I'l repeat myself again. I'm not looking for a statement at all. I'm saying I think it would make sense for gay rights organizations to acknowledge that their decades of support for NAMBLA and it's aims were a mistake and reinforce that with proactive opposition to them. Why you mention murderers, rapists and others I'm not sure. Did ILGA support their goals in the past as well?

Ok, do you really think that is going to help us? If some homosexual group comes out with that statement, that would invite negative publicity. And the media (FOX News especially and the CBN) will probably turn the message around as if the homosexual community is just making a statement to normalize adult-child relationship.

Come on, do you really think that is going to help us?

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Ok, do you really think that is going to help us? If some homosexual group comes out with that statement, that would invite negative publicity. And the media (FOX News especially and the CBN) will probably turn the message around as if the homosexual community is just making a statement to normalize adult-child relationship.

Come on, do you really think that is going to help us?

I think it would have helped had you been doing this for the last several years. At this point, it may very well be too little, too late, and would lead people to question your motive. Can you at least agree that it's been a missed opportunity?

Also, I'd like you to clarify your earlier answer.
Drake wrote: So you contend that any person or group that advocates lowering the age of consent below 15 years is attempting to normalize child exploitation. Is that fair to say?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: I think it would have helped had you been doing this for the last several years. At this point, it may very well be too little, too late, and would lead people to question your motive. Can you at least agree that it's been a missed opportunity?

No, it wasn't a missed opportunity at all because homosexuals have nothing to do with adult-child relationships. Even if they had come out to condemn it at that time, homophobes within the US would have used it to attack homosexuals. So no matter what we do, the anti-homosexual crowd will not be pleased because they BELIEVE that we are evil to begin with. They are not going to listen to anything rational that we have to say because their position on homosexuality is not rational to begin with.

Drake wrote: If the gay community as a whole doesn't support NAMBLA, shouldn't they have been asking this question? ILGA was designed, after all, to represent them. Wouldn't you think that ILGA's association with NAMBLA makes all homosexuals look bad?

Clearly, some people asked questions because right now ILGA is not associated with NAMBLA.

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
In my opinion, the lowest it could go is 15. Anything under that is not acceptable. I personally support anything between 16-18.

So you contend that any person or group that advocates lowering the age of consent below 15 years is attempting to normalize child exploitation. Is that fair to say?

It depends on the context. I don't want to criminalize sexual relationships between the youth (for instance someone who is 15 having sex with someone who is 14). So it depends on the age difference.
And I think cultural values play a role in this as well. For example, in Mexico, the age of consent is 12 apparently! So, I am trying to be careful not to paint everyone with one brush because the context is important.

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
No, it wasn't a missed opportunity at all because homosexuals have nothing to do with adult-child relationships.

Toon, how many times do I have to repeat the points already made in this thread?

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Even if they had come out to condemn it at that time, homophobes within the US would have used it to attack homosexuals. So no matter what we do, the anti-homosexual crowd will not be pleased because they BELIEVE that we are evil to begin with. They are not going to listen to anything rational that we have to say because their position on homosexuality is not rational to begin with.

We're not talking about trying to convince the "anti-homosexual crowd". We're talking about the mainstream. Wasn't it a missed opportunity?

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Clearly, some people asked questions because right now ILGA is not associated with NAMBLA.

Did you miss the point I made about ILGA being essentially forced to expel NAMBLA? This after years of inclusion.

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
It depends on the context. I don't want to criminalize sexual relationships between the youth (for instance someone who is 15 having sex with someone who is 14). So it depends on the age difference.
And I think cultural values play a role in this as well. For example, in Mexico, the age of consent is 12 apparently! So, I am trying to be careful not to paint everyone with one brush because the context is important.

Well then let's narrow our focus. At what age should someone be free to consent with someone of any age older than they? And do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
No, it wasn't a missed opportunity at all because homosexuals have nothing to do with adult-child relationships.

Toon, how many times do I have to repeat the points already made in this thread?

Well, my problem is this: why does a man-boy relationship causes more outrage than a man-girl relationship or a woman-boy or a woman-girl relationship?

To me that says, "masculanity" is somehow more worthy to protect than in all other cases! :roll:

And to be sure, gays and lesbians haven't been silent:

http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=278

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Even if they had come out to condemn it at that time, homophobes within the US would have used it to attack homosexuals. So no matter what we do, the anti-homosexual crowd will not be pleased because they BELIEVE that we are evil to begin with. They are not going to listen to anything rational that we have to say because their position on homosexuality is not rational to begin with.

We're not talking about trying to convince the "anti-homosexual crowd". We're talking about the mainstream. Wasn't it a missed opportunity?

No, because a lot of "mainstream" people are irrational when it comes to gays. Many think of gays as people who "recruit their children". A homosexual merely mentioning the name NAMBLA (even when condemning it) will just trigger a fearful response from the public. I think it's best if homosexuals stay out of anything related to NAMBLA.

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Clearly, some people asked questions because right now ILGA is not associated with NAMBLA.

Did you miss the point I made about ILGA being essentially forced to expel NAMBLA? This after years of inclusion.

Well, they are not associated anymore and I hope they will NEVER be associated. But the fact remains that the religious right will continue trying to associate homosexuals and pedophiles and discredit homosexuals any way they can. For example, here the US aligns itself with Iran, where homosexuals are executed to prevent homosexuals from attaining rights around the world:

"the Bush administration used ILGA’s past affiliation with NAMBLA as a pretext for opposing U.N. consultative status for gay groups to appease conservative organizations that oppose gay rights."

http://www.washblade.com/2006/2-3/news/national/nambla.cfm

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
It depends on the context. I don't want to criminalize sexual relationships between the youth (for instance someone who is 15 having sex with someone who is 14). So it depends on the age difference.
And I think cultural values play a role in this as well. For example, in Mexico, the age of consent is 12 apparently! So, I am trying to be careful not to paint everyone with one brush because the context is important.

Well then let's narrow our focus. At what age should someone be free to consent with someone of any age older than they?

As I stated earlier, in MY view, 15 should be the age of consent.

However, if the person is under 15, I would say they can consent to someone who is around 2 years older than them. For instance, 13 with 15, 14 with 16, 14 with 15, etc should NOT be criminalized.

Drake wrote: And do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I will NEVER support attempts to normalize relationships between someone who is 13 for example and someone who is 40. The age difference causes a huge power difference between the two parties, which could be detrimental to the child.

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
And to be sure, gays and lesbians haven't been silent:

http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=278

Nor have I said they've been silent. From page 3 of this thread: Drake wrote:
I don't doubt that they've spoken out. I just question how vehemently. If I go look up the websites of gay rights organization, I'll probably find statements condemning NAMBLA. But if I were part of a group trying to gain mainstream acceptance knowing this impression exists, I would speak out at every opportunity.

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
No, because a lot of "mainstream" people are irrational when it comes to gays. Many think of gays as people who "recruit their children".

EXACTLY!
And why is that? Could part of it be because of the past support for NAMBLA and the unwillingness to ever proactively oppose them? Do you honestly think that the mainstream doesn't consider this? Do you honestly think the mainstream believes that after years of support, gay rights organizations just woke up one day and said "This is wrong, we shouldn't support NAMBLA."? And you call it irrational?


ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
I will NEVER support attempts to normalize relationships between someone who is 13 for example and someone who is 40. The age difference causes a huge power difference between the two parties, which could be detrimental to the child.

But one between a girl who is 15 and a man who is 40 is acceptable?

And you still haven't answered the question.
Do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age (15) would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
No, because a lot of "mainstream" people are irrational when it comes to gays. Many think of gays as people who "recruit their children".

EXACTLY!
And why is that? Could part of it be because of the past support for NAMBLA and the unwillingness to ever proactively oppose them? Do you honestly think that the mainstream doesn't consider this? Do you honestly think the mainstream believes that after years of support, gay rights organizations just woke up one day and said "This is wrong, we shouldn't support NAMBLA."? And you call it irrational?

I call it irrational because sociology, science, psychology, and many other fields of study have offered various explanations for homosexuality, which render "recruiting children" mentality illogical and irrational.

The "mainstream" society, however, wants to believe the stereotypes and continue hiding behind their fears and one of the best ways to mobalize people to hate something is by using the "save our children" slogan where an entire group of people are demonized.

Besides, you haven't taken into consideration that homosexuals making a statement is not going to change anyone's views anyhow.

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
I will NEVER support attempts to normalize relationships between someone who is 13 for example and someone who is 40. The age difference causes a huge power difference between the two parties, which could be detrimental to the child.

But one between a girl who is 15 and a man who is 40 is acceptable?

15 and 40 is somewhat the same as 13 and 40 because of the huge age difference, there is a great difference in the power each of the two parties exert in this relaitonship. Though, I think once past 15, it becomes a matter of personal choice. I mean a person who is 16 or 17 is old enough to decide on whom they want to be in relaitonship with. Though for things like prostitution, pornography, etc, the age should be 18 and above just to be on the safe side.

Drake wrote: And you still haven't answered the question.
Do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age (15) would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I can't answer that with a simple yes/no answer as it depends on the context (age difference between the two partners for instance) and I think I've already answered that with all the debate on various things.

But if you mean for example someone who is 40 wanting to be in a relationship with a 12 year old, then obviously that IS exploitation.

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
No, because a lot of "mainstream" people are irrational when it comes to gays. Many think of gays as people who "recruit their children".

EXACTLY!
And why is that? Could part of it be because of the past support for NAMBLA and the unwillingness to ever proactively oppose them? Do you honestly think that the mainstream doesn't consider this? Do you honestly think the mainstream believes that after years of support, gay rights organizations just woke up one day and said "This is wrong, we shouldn't support NAMBLA."? And you call it irrational?

I call it irrational because sociology, science, psychology, and many other fields of study have offered various explanations for homosexuality, which render "recruiting children" mentality illogical and irrational.

The "mainstream" society, however, wants to believe the stereotypes and continue hiding behind their fears and one of the best ways to mobalize people to hate something is by using the "save our children" slogan where an entire group of people are demonized.

Besides, you haven't taken into consideration that homosexuals making a statement is not going to change anyone's views anyhow.

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
I will NEVER support attempts to normalize relationships between someone who is 13 for example and someone who is 40. The age difference causes a huge power difference between the two parties, which could be detrimental to the child.

But one between a girl who is 15 and a man who is 40 is acceptable?

15 and 40 is somewhat the same as 13 and 40 because of the huge age difference, there is a great difference in the power each of the two parties exert in this relaitonship. Though, I think once past 15, it becomes a matter of personal choice. I mean a person who is 16 or 17 is old enough to decide on whom they want to be in relaitonship with. Though for things like prostitution, pornography, etc, the age should be 18 and above just to be on the safe side.

Drake wrote: And you still haven't answered the question.
Do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age (15) would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I can't answer that with a simple yes/no answer as it depends on the context (age difference between the two partners for instance) and I think I've already answered that with all the debate on various things.

But if you mean for example someone who is 40 wanting to be in a relationship with a 12 year old, then obviously that IS exploitation.

Toon, I just can't continue this with you. You seem to lack the basic ability to comprehend what you are reading. I've had to repeat myself numerous times, you answer clear questions with ambiguity, and you continue on points that have already been determined. It's O.K. that you disagree, but your inability to understand what's being said and articulate a reasonable response is simply too frustrating. It's futile.

[Enoch]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
No, because a lot of "mainstream" people are irrational when it comes to gays. Many think of gays as people who "recruit their children".

EXACTLY!
And why is that? Could part of it be because of the past support for NAMBLA and the unwillingness to ever proactively oppose them? Do you honestly think that the mainstream doesn't consider this? Do you honestly think the mainstream believes that after years of support, gay rights organizations just woke up one day and said "This is wrong, we shouldn't support NAMBLA."? And you call it irrational?

I call it irrational because sociology, science, psychology, and many other fields of study have offered various explanations for homosexuality, which render "recruiting children" mentality illogical and irrational.

The "mainstream" society, however, wants to believe the stereotypes and continue hiding behind their fears and one of the best ways to mobalize people to hate something is by using the "save our children" slogan where an entire group of people are demonized.

Besides, you haven't taken into consideration that homosexuals making a statement is not going to change anyone's views anyhow.

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
I will NEVER support attempts to normalize relationships between someone who is 13 for example and someone who is 40. The age difference causes a huge power difference between the two parties, which could be detrimental to the child.

But one between a girl who is 15 and a man who is 40 is acceptable?

15 and 40 is somewhat the same as 13 and 40 because of the huge age difference, there is a great difference in the power each of the two parties exert in this relaitonship. Though, I think once past 15, it becomes a matter of personal choice. I mean a person who is 16 or 17 is old enough to decide on whom they want to be in relaitonship with. Though for things like prostitution, pornography, etc, the age should be 18 and above just to be on the safe side.

Drake wrote: And you still haven't answered the question.
Do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age (15) would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?

I can't answer that with a simple yes/no answer as it depends on the context (age difference between the two partners for instance) and I think I've already answered that with all the debate on various things.

But if you mean for example someone who is 40 wanting to be in a relationship with a 12 year old, then obviously that IS exploitation.

Toon, I just can't continue this with you. You seem to lack the basic ability to comprehend what you are reading. I've had to repeat myself numerous times, you answer clear questions with ambiguity, and you continue on points that have already been determined. It's O.K. that you disagree, but your inability to understand what's being said and articulate a reasonable response is simply too frustrating. It's futile. There have been several people who have answered your questions, many times. And, just as many times, you accuse said people of not reading the thread. It appears that your frustrations are stemming from the fact that we are not answering as you think we should.

[Drake]

UrielsFyre wrote: There have been several people who have answered your questions, many times. And, just as many times, you accuse said people of not reading the thread. It appears that your frustrations are stemming from the fact that we are not answering as you think we should.

UF, that is simply not true. If there's disagreement, so be it. But it needs to be backed by rational thinking. I urge you to read through the thread. You will see several instances of what I'm talking about.

Here's but one example:
Drake wrote:
And let's be very clear up front. Do you believe that supporting the lowering of the age of consent is an attempt to normalize child exploitation?
ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Now, as for lowering the age of consent, it really depends. In my opinion, the lowest it could go is 15. Anything under that is not acceptable. I personally support anything between 16-18.
Drake wrote:
So you contend that any person or group that advocates lowering the age of consent below 15 years is attempting to normalize child exploitation. Is that fair to say?
Drake wrote:
Also, I'd like you to clarify your earlier answer. So you contend that any person or group that advocates lowering the age of consent below 15 years is attempting to normalize child exploitation. Is that fair to say?

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
It depends on the context. I don't want to criminalize sexual relationships between the youth (for instance someone who is 15 having sex with someone who is 14). So it depends on the age difference.
Drake wrote:
Well then let's narrow our focus. At what age should someone be free to consent with someone of any age older than they? And do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?
ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
As I stated earlier, in MY view, 15 should be the age of consent.
However, if the person is under 15, I would say they can consent to someone who is around 2 years older than them. For instance, 13 with 15, 14 with 16, 14 with 15, etc should NOT be criminalized. I will NEVER support attempts to normalize relationships between someone who is 13 for example and someone who is 40. The age difference causes a huge power difference between the two parties, which could be detrimental to the child.
Drake wrote:
But one between a girl who is 15 and a man who is 40 is acceptable?
ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
15 and 40 is somewhat the same as 13 and 40 because of the huge age difference, there is a great difference in the power each of the two parties exert in this relaitonship. Though, I think once past 15, it becomes a matter of personal choice. I mean a person who is 16 or 17 is old enough to decide on whom they want to be in relaitonship with. Though for things like prostitution, pornography, etc, the age should be 18 and above just to be on the safe side.
Drake wrote:
And you still haven't answered the question.
Do you contend that to advocate lowering the age of consent below that age (15) would be attempting to normalize child exploitation?
ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
I can't answer that with a simple yes/no answer as it depends on the context (age difference between the two partners for instance) and I think I've already answered that with all the debate on various things.
But if you mean for example someone who is 40 wanting to be in a relationship with a 12 year old, then obviously that IS exploitation.

WTF???!!! First, he says 15 is the lowest, but supports anything between 16-18. Then, he says it depends on the context. Fine, so I say let's narrow our focus and eliminate the context. He again says 15 but then says 15 and 40 is the same as 13 and 40. Then he says that once past 15, it's a personal choice. I again repeat the original question, and he goes back to "it depends on the context" and he honestly believes he's answered the question. It still is not clear whether he's saying 15 or 16. And he still hasn't answered the original question of whether advocating of the lowering the age of consent below his stated age (either 15 or 16) would constitute an attempt to normalize child exploitation.

Again, this is just one of several examples. Do you not see this? You can't understand my frustration?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: UF, that is simply not true. If there's disagreement, so be it. But it needs to be backed by rational thinking. I urge you to read through the thread. You will see several instances of what I'm talking about.

WTF???!!! First, he says 15 is the lowest, but supports anything between 16-18. Then, he says it depends on the context. Fine, so I say let's narrow our focus and eliminate the context. He again says 15 but then says 15 and 40 is the same as 13 and 40. Then he says that once past 15, it's a personal choice. I again repeat the original question, and he goes back to "it depends on the context" and he honestly believes he's answered the question. It still is not clear whether he's saying 15 or 16. And he still hasn't answered the original question of whether advocating of the lowering the age of consent below his stated age (either 15 or 16) would constitute an attempt to normalize child exploitation.

Again, this is just one of several examples. Do you not see this? You can't understand my frustration?

Oh dear, I feel like I am on trial here, but anyhow:

Drake, as I mentioned earlier, you were looking for a yes/no answer and I pointed out that I am NOT going to give a yes/no answer because the context is very important for me.

So, I am unable to answer your question with a simple yes/no. I thought I made that clear in my posts. :-|

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Oh dear, I feel like I am on trial here, but anyhow:

Drake, as I mentioned earlier, you were looking for a yes/no answer and I pointed out that I am NOT going to give a yes/no answer because the context is very important for me.

So, I am unable to answer your question with a simple yes/no. I thought I made that clear in my posts. :-|

I clarified the question to eliminate context! It is very simple! Ignor every other implication. At what age should someone be able to consent to have sex with a 40 year old? You can't answer that?

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:
Oh dear, I feel like I am on trial here, but anyhow:

Drake, as I mentioned earlier, you were looking for a yes/no answer and I pointed out that I am NOT going to give a yes/no answer because the context is very important for me.

So, I am unable to answer your question with a simple yes/no. I thought I made that clear in my posts. :-|

I clarified the question to eliminate context! It is very simple! Ignor every other implication. At what age should someone be able to consent to have sex with a 40 year old? You can't answer that?

The age of consent should be 15 in general and 18 for activity that involves money or other activities such as prostitution and pornography.

However, I am not going to protest if others wanted the age of consent to be 16, 17, or 18.

Is that a good answer in your view?

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

The age of consent should be 15 in general and 18 for activity that involves money or other activities such as prostitution and pornography.

However, I am not going to protest if others wanted the age of consent to be 16, 17, or 18.

Is that a good answer in your view?

That is a sufficient answer. Easy, wasn't it? Now, part 2.

Again ignoring all other implications, do you contend that any person or group who advocates lowering that general age of 15 is attempting to normalize child exploitation?